Tertullian: de Resurrectione Carnis

[1] Si vero et apud deum aliqua secta est Epicureis magis adfinis quam prophetis, sciemus quid audiant a Christo Sadducaei. Christo enim servabatur omnia retro occulta nudare, dubitata dirigere, praelibata supplere, praedicata repraesentare, mortuorum certe resurrectionem non modo per semetipsum verum etiam in semetipso probare.

[1] If indeed even with God there is some sect more affined to the Epicureans than to the prophets, we shall know what the Sadducees hear from Christ. For Christ was reserved to lay bare all things previously hidden, to direct the things doubted, to supply the prelibated, to re-present the things proclaimed, to prove the resurrection of the dead certainly not only through himself but also in himself.

[2] Nunc autem ad alios Sadducaeos praeparamur, partiarios sententiae illorum: dimidiam agnoscunt resurrectionem, solius scilicet animae, ita aspernati carnem sicut et ipsum dominum carnis. Nulli denique alii salutem corporali substantiae invident quam alterius divinitatis haeretici.

[2] Now, however, we are prepared for other Sadducees, partisans of their opinion: they acknowledge a half resurrection, namely of the soul alone, thus having spurned the flesh just as also the very lord of the flesh. In fine, no others begrudge salvation to bodily substance than the heretics of another divinity.

[3] Ideoque et Christum aliter disponere coacti, ne creatoris habeatur, in ipsa prius carne eius erraverunt, aut nullius veritatis contendentes eam secundum Marcionem et Basiliden, aut propriae qualitatis secundum heredes Valentini et Apellen.

[3] And therefore, being forced to dispose Christ otherwise, lest he be held to belong to the Creator, they erred first in his very flesh, either contending it to be of no verity according to Marcion and Basilides, or of its own proper quality according to the heirs of Valentinus and Apelles.

[4] Atque ita sequitur ut salutem eius substantiae excludant cuius Christum consortem negant, certi illam summo praeiudicio resurrectionis instructam si iam in Christo resurrexerit caro.

[4] And thus it follows that they exclude the salvation of that substance of which they deny Christ to be a consort, being certain that it is equipped with the highest prejudgment of the resurrection if already in Christ the flesh has risen.

[5] Propterea et nos volumen praemisimus de carne Christi, quo eam et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis vanitatem et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprietatem, cuius condicio Christum et hominem et filium hominis inscripserit.

[5] Therefore we too have sent ahead a volume on the flesh of Christ, in which we both prove it solid against the vanity of a phantasm and vindicate it as human against the propriety of quality proprietorship, by whose condition Christ has been entitled both Christ and a man and the son of man.

[6] Carneum enim atque corporeum probantes eum, proinde et obducimus praescribendo nullum alium credendum deum praeter creatorem, dum talem ostendimus Christum in quo dinoscitur deus, qualis promittitur a creatore. Obducti dehinc de deo carnis auctore et de Christo carnis redemptore, iam et de resurrectione carnis revincentur, congruente scilicet et deo carnis auctori et Christo carnis redemptori.

[6] For, proving him fleshy and corporeal, accordingly we also draw a bar by prescription that no other god is to be believed except the Creator, while we show such a Christ in whom God is discerned, such as is promised by the Creator. And when thereafter a bar has been drawn about God the author of the flesh and about Christ the redeemer of the flesh, they will now also be refuted about the resurrection of the flesh, since it is congruent both to God the author of the flesh and to Christ the redeemer of the flesh.

[7] Hoc ferme modo dicimus ineundam cum haereticis disceptationem: nam et ordo semper a principalibus deduci exposcit, ut de ipso prius constet a quo dicatur dispositum esse quod quaeritur.

[7] In nearly this way we say a disputation is to be entered upon with heretics: for order always demands to be deduced from the principal matters, so that it may first be established concerning the very one by whom that which is being inquired about is said to have been disposed.

[8] Atque adeo et haeretici ex conscientia infirmitatis nunquam ordinarie tractant. Certi enim quam laborent in alterius divinitatis insinuatione adversum deum mundi omnibus naturaliter notum de testimoniis operum, certe et in sacramentis priorem et in praedicationibus manifestatiorem, sub obtentu quasi urgentioris causae, id est ipsius humanae salutis ante omnia requirendae, a quaestionibus resurrectionis incipiunt, quia durius creditur resurrectio carnis quam una divinitas.

[8] And indeed, even the heretics, from conscience of weakness, never handle matters in an orderly way. For, being sure how much they labor in the insinuation of another divinity against the God of the world known naturally to all from the testimonies of works, certainly both prior in the sacraments and more manifest in the preachings, under the pretext of a supposedly more urgent cause, that is, that human salvation itself must before all be sought, they begin from questions of the resurrection, because the resurrection of the flesh is believed more hardly than a single divinity.

[9] Atque ita tractatum viribus ordinis sui destitutum et scrupulis potius oneratum depretiantibus carnem paulatim ad alterius divinitatis temperant sensum ex ipsa spei concussione et demutatione.

[9] And thus a discussion, deprived of the strength of its own order and rather burdened with scruples, as they deprice/devalue the flesh, they gradually temper the sense toward another divinity from the very concussion and demutation of hope.

[10] Deiectus enim unusquisque vel motus de gradu eius spei quam susceperat apud creatorem, facile iam declinatur ad alterius spei auctorem etiam ultro suspicandum: per diversitatem enim promissionum diversitas insinuatur deorum. Sic multos inretitos videmus, dum ante de resurrectione carnis eliduntur quam de unione divinitatis elidunt.

[10] Cast down indeed, each person, or moved from the grade of that hope which he had undertaken with the Creator, is now easily turned aside to the author of another hope, even to be suspected unprompted: for through the diversity of promises a diversity of gods is insinuated. Thus we see many enmeshed, while they are dashed concerning the resurrection of the flesh before they are dashed concerning the union of divinity.

[11] Igitur quantum ad haereticos demonstravimus quo cuneo currendum sit a nobis. Et occursum est iam suo quoque titulo: de deo quidem unico et Christo eius adversus Marcionem: de carne vero domini adversus quattuor haereses ad hanc maxime quaestionem praestruendam: uti nunc de sola carnis resurrectione ita et digerendum sit tanquam penes nos quoque incerta, id est penes creatorem----nam et multi rudes, et plerique sua fide dubii, et simplices plures, quos instrui dirigi muniri oportebit----quia ex hoc latere unio divinitatis defenditur: sicut enim negata carnis resurrectione concutitur, ita vindicata constabilitur.

[11] Therefore, so far as concerns the heretics, we have shown with what wedge we ought tomake our encounter from our side. And an encounter has already been made under its own title as well: on the one God and his Christ against Marcion; and on the Lord’s flesh against four heresies, to lay the groundwork especially for this question, so that now, on the resurrection of the flesh alone, it should likewise be set in order, as though the matter were uncertain with us also—that is, with the Creator— for many are untrained, and very many are doubtful about their own faith, and more are simple, whom it will be necessary to instruct, direct, and fortify—because from this flank the union of divinity is defended: for just as, with the resurrection of the flesh denied, it is shaken, so, when vindicated, it is made steadfast.

[12] Animae autem salutem credo retractatu carere: omnes enim fere haeretici eam, quoquo modo volunt, tamen non negant. Viderit unus aliqui Lucanus ne huic quidem substantiae parcens, quam secundum Aristotelem dissolvens aliud quid pro ea subicit, tertium quiddam resurrecturus, neque anima neque caro, id est non homo, sed ursus forsitan qua Lucanus.

[12] But as for the soul’s salvation, I think it lacks reconsideration: for almost all heretics, in whatever way they will, yet do not deny it. Let some one or other Lucanian look to it—one who, sparing not even this substance, dissolving it according to Aristotle, puts something else in its place, a certain third thing resurrecting, neither soul nor flesh, that is, not a man, but a bear perhaps, inasmuch as he is a Lucanian.

[13] Habet et iste a nobis plenissimum de omni statu animae stilum: quam imprimis immortalem tuentes, solius carnis et defectionem agnoscimus et refectionem cum maxime adserimus, redactis in ordinarium materiae corpus si quae et alibi pro causarum incursione praestricta distulimus.

[13] This too has from us a most full treatment concerning every status of the soul: which, as we chiefly uphold it to be immortal, we acknowledge only the defection of the flesh and we most emphatically assert its refection, with the body reduced back into the ordinary condition of matter, if any things also elsewhere, on account of the incursion of causes, we have pre-noted and deferred.

[14] Nam ut quaedam praelibari sollemne est, ita et differri necesse est, dummodo et praelibata suppleantur suo corpore et dilata reddantur suo nomine.

[14] For as it is a solemn custom that certain things be prelibated, so too it is necessary that they be deferred, provided that both the prelibated be supplied with their own body and the deferred be rendered under their own name.

III.

[1] Est quidem et de communibus sensibus sapere in dei rebus, sed in testimonium veri, non in adiutorium falsi, quod sit secundum divinam, non contra divinam dispositionem. Quaedam enim et naturaliter nota sunt, ut immortalitas animae penes plures, ut deus noster penes omnes.

[1] There is indeed also a use of common senses in the matters of God, but as a testimony of the true, not as an aid of the false, such as may be according to the divine, not against the divine disposition. For certain things also are naturally known, as the immortality of the soul with many, as our God with all.

[2] Vtar ergo et sententia Platonis alicuius pronuntiantis, 'Omnis anima immortalis': utar et conscientia populi contestantis deum deorum: utar et reliquis communibus sensibus qui deum iudicem praedicant, 'Deus videt' et 'Deo commendo'.

[2] I will use therefore also the sentence of a certain Plato pronouncing, 'Every soul is immortal': I will use also the conscience of the people attesting the god of gods: I will use also the remaining common senses which proclaim god as judge, 'God sees' and 'I commend to God'.

[3] At cum aiunt 'Mortuum quod mortuum' et 'Vive dum vivis' et 'Post mortem omnia finiuntur, etiam ipsa', tunc meminero et cor vulgi cinerem a deo deputatum et ipsam sapientiam saeculi stultitiam pronuntiatam, tunc si haereticus ad vulgi vitia vel saeculi ingenia confugerit, 'Discede dicam ab ethnico, haeretice: etsi unum estis omnes qui deum fingitis, dum tamen hoc in Christi nomine facis, dum Christianus tibi videris, alius ab ethnico es: redde illi suos sensus, quia nec ille de tuis instruitur:

[3] But when they say, 'Dead is what is dead,' and 'Live while you live,' and 'After death all things are finished, even the soul itself,' then I shall also remember that the heart of the crowd has been appointed as ash by God, and that the very wisdom of the age has been proclaimed
foolishness; then, if the heretic flees for refuge to the vices of the crowd or to the dispositions of the age, 'Depart, I shall say, from the ethnic, heretic: although you are one and the same, all you who fashion a god, yet since you do this in the name of Christ, while you seem a Christian to yourself, you are other than an ethnic: render back to him his own sentiments, because neither is he instructed by yours:

[4] quid caeco duce niteris si vides? Quid vestiris a nudo si Christum induisti? Quid alieno uteris clipeo si ab apostolo armatus es? Ille a te potius discat carnis resurrectionem confiteri quam tu ab illo diffiteri: quia si et a Christianis negari eam oporteret sufficeret illis de sua scientia non de vulgi ignorantia instrui.'

[4] Why do you strive with a blind leader if you see? Why are you clothed by a naked man if you have put on Christ? Why do you use another’s shield if you are armed by the apostle? Let him rather learn from you to confess the resurrection of the flesh than you from him to deny it: because if even by Christians it ought to be denied, it would be sufficient for them to be instructed from their own knowledge, not from the ignorance of the vulgar crowd.'

[5] Adeo non erit Christianus qui eam negabit quam confitentur Christiani, et his argumentis negabit quibus utuntur non Christiani.

[5] Therefore he will not be a Christian who denies what Christians confess, and he will deny it with those arguments which non‑Christians use.

[6] Aufer denique haereticis quae cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant, et stare non poterunt. Communes enim sensus simplicitas ipsa commendat et compassio sententiarum et familiaritas opinionum, eoque fideliores existimantur quia nuda et aperta et omnibus nota definiunt: ratio autem divina in medulla est, non in superficie, et plerumque aemula manifestis.

[6] Take away, finally, from the heretics the things which they savor together with the pagans, so that they may set their questions from the Scriptures alone, and they will not be able to stand. For simplicity itself commends the common senses, and the sympathy of sentiments and the familiarity of opinions, and for that reason they are reckoned more credible because they define things naked and open and known to all: but the divine reason is in the marrow, not on the surface, and for the most part a rival to the manifest.

IV.

[1] Itaque haeretici inde statim incipiunt et inde praestruunt, dehinc et interstruunt, unde sciunt facile capi mentes de communione favorabili sensuum.

[1] Therefore heretics at once begin from that point and from there pre-construct; thereafter they even inter-construct, from that source whence they know minds are easily seized by the favorable communion of sentiments.

[2] An aliud prius vel magis audias ab haeretico quam ab ethnico, et non protenus et non ubique convicium carnis, in originem in materiam in casum, in omnem exitum eius, immundae a primordio ex faecibus terrae, immundioris deinceps ex seminis sui limo, frivolae infirmae criminosae molestae onerosae, et post totum ignobilitatis elogium caducae in originem terrae et cadaveris nomen, et de isto quoque nomine periturae in nullum inde iam nomen, in omnis iam vocabuli mortem?

[2] Is there anything else you hear sooner or more often as much from a heretic as from a heathen, and not straightway and not everywhere the railing at the flesh, against its origin, against its matter, against its fall, against its every issue; of the flesh unclean from the beginning from the dregs of earth, more unclean thereafter from the slime of its own seed, frivolous, infirm, criminal, troublesome, onerous; and, after the whole eulogy of ignobility, falling back into the origin of earth and into the name of a cadaver, and from that very name too destined to perish into no name from there now, into the death of every word?

[3] 'Hancne ergo, vir sapiens, et visui et contactui et recordatui tuo ereptam persuadere vis quod se receptura quandoque sit in integrum de corrupto, in solidum de casso, in plenum de inanito, in aliquid omnino de nihilo, et utique redhibentibus eam ignibus et undis et alvis ferarum et rumis alitum et lactibus piscium et ipsorum temporum propria gula?

[3] 'So then, wise man, do you wish to persuade yourself that this—snatched from your sight and contact and recollection—will ever take herself back sometime into the integral from the corrupt, into the solid from the hollow, into the full from the void, into anything at all from nothing, and assuredly with fires and waves and the bellies of wild beasts and the crops of birds and the milks of fishes and the very maw of the times themselves giving her back?

[4] Adeone autem eadem sperabitur quae intercidit ut claudus et luscus et caecus et leprosus et paralyticus revertantur, ut redisse non libeat, ad pristinum: an integri, ut iterum talia pati timeant?

[4] Will, then, the same thing that has fallen away be hoped for to such a degree that the lame and the one‑eyed and the blind and the leprous and the paralytic return, so that it would not be pleasing to have returned, to the pristine condition: or whole, so that they may fear to suffer such things again?

[5] Quid tum de consequentiis carnis? rursusne omnia necessaria illi, et imprimis pabula atque potacula? Et pulmonibus natandum et intestinis aestuandum et pudendis non pudendum et omnibus membris laborandum?

[5] What then about the consequents of the flesh? again, will all things necessary to it, and especially aliments and potables? And must there be swimming for the lungs and seething for the intestines, and no shame for the pudenda, and labor for all the members?

[6] Rursus ulcera et vulnera et febris et podagra et mors redoptanda? nimirum haec erunt vota carnis recuperandae, iterum cupere de ea evadere.'

[6] Again, are ulcers and wounds and fever and podagra and death to be chosen again? Assuredly these will be the vows of the flesh to be recovered: to desire again to escape from it.'

[7] Et nos quidem haec aliquanto honestius pro stili pudore: ceterum quantum etiam spurciloquio liceat, illorum in congressibus experiri tam ethnicorum quam haereticorum.

[7] And we indeed have set forth these things somewhat more decently, out of regard for the modesty of style: but as for how much even filthy talk is permitted, it is for them to experience in the congresses both of the pagans and of the heretics.

[1] Igitur quoniam et rudes quique de communibus adhuc sensibus sapiunt, et dubii et simplices per eosdem sensus denuo inquietantur, et ubique primus iste in nos aries temperatur quo carnis condicio quassatur, necessario et a nobis carnis primum condicio munietur, vituperatione laudatione depulsa: ita nos rhetoricari quoque provocant haeretici, sicut etiam philosophari philosophi.

[1] Therefore, since even the untrained and anyone still take their wisdom from the common senses, and the doubtful and the simple are again disquieted through those same senses, and everywhere this first battering-ram is tempered against us whereby the condition of the flesh is shaken, of necessity the condition of the flesh will also by us first be fortified, with vituperation driven off by laudation: thus the heretics provoke us to rhetoricize as well, just as the philosophers (provoke us) to philosophize.

[2] Futtile et frivolum istud corpusculum, quod malum denique appellare non horrent, etsi angelorum fuisset operatio ut Menandro et Marco placet, etsi ignei alicuius extructio aeque angeli ut Apelles docet, sufficeret ad auctoritatem carnis secundae divinitatis patrocinium: angelos post deum novimus.

[2] Futile and frivolous that corpuscle, which they do not shrink at last to call “evil,” even if it had been an operation of angels, as it pleases Menander and Marcion, even if the construction of some fiery being, likewise an angel, as Apelles teaches,—the patronage of a second divinity would suffice for the authority of the flesh: we know angels as after God.

[3] Iam nunc quisquis ille summus deus haeretici cuiusque est, non immerito ab ipso quoque deducerem carnis dignitatem a quo voluntas producendae eius adfuisset: utique enim prohibuisset fieri quam fieri scisset, si fieri noluisset. Itaque et secundum illos aeque caro dei res: nihil operis non eius est qui passus est esse.

[3] Already now, whoever that highest god is of any heretic, not without reason I too would derive the dignity of the flesh from him himself, from whom the will of its being produced would have been present: for certainly he would have forbidden it to be made, since he would have known it would be made, if he had not wished it to be made. And so, even according to them, the flesh equally is a thing of God: nothing of the work is not his who has permitted it to be.

[4] Bene autem quod et plures et duriores quaeque doctrinae totam hominis figulationem deo nostro cedunt. Quantus hic sit satis nosti qui unicum credidisti. Incipiat iam tibi caro placere cuius artifex tantus est.

[4] Well moreover that both the more numerous and the more severe each of the doctrines cede the whole figuration of man to our God. How great this One is you know well enough, you who have believed the Only One. Let there now begin to please you flesh, whose artificer is so great.

[5] 'Sed et mundus iste, inquis, dei opus est, et tamen praeterit habitus mundi huius, apostolo quoque auctore, nec idcirco restitutio mundi praeiudicabitur quia dei opus est: et utique si universitas inreformabilis post decessum, quid portio?' Plane, si portio universitati adaequatur.

[5] 'But even this world, you say, is God's work, and yet the fashion of this world passes away, with the apostle also as author, nor therefore will the restitution of the world be prejudged because it is God's work: and assuredly, if the universe is irreformable after its decease, what of the portion?' Plainly, if the portion is equated to the universe.

[6] Ad distantias enim provocamus. Primo quidem, quod omnia sermone dei facta sunt et sine illo nihil, caro autem et sermone dei constitit propter formam, ne quid sine sermone----Faciamus enim hominem ante praemisit----et amplius manu propter praelationem, ne universitati compararetur----Et finxit inquit deus hominem----

[6] For to distinctions indeed we appeal. First, indeed, because all things were made by the Word of God and without him nothing; but the flesh also consisted by the Word of God on account of the form, lest anything be without the Word----For let us make man, indeed, he premised beforehand----and further by the hand on account of the prelation, lest it be compared to the universality----And he fashioned, says he, God, man----

[7] magnae sine dubio differentiae ratio, pro condicione scilicet rerum: minora enim quae fiebant eo cui fiebant, siquidem homini fiebant cui mox a deo addicta sunt. Merito igitur, ut famula, iussu et imperio et sola vocali potestate universa processerant; contra homo, ut dominus eorum, in hoc ab ipso deo extructus est ut dominus esse possit dum fit a domino.

[7] the rationale of a great difference, without doubt, according to the condition, namely, of things: the lesser things, indeed, which were being made, for the one for whom they were being made—since they were being made for man—to whom presently by God they were assigned. Deservedly therefore, as a handmaid, by command and imperium and by the sole vocal power, all things had proceeded; by contrast man, as their lord, was on this account constructed by God himself, so that he might be able to be lord while he is being made by the Lord.

[8] Hominem autem memento carnem proprie dici, quae prior vocabulum hominis occupavit. Et finxit deus hominem limum de terra: iam homo qui adhuc limus: Et insufflavit in faciem eius flatum vitae et factus est homo, id est limus, in animam vivam, et posuit deus hominem quem finxit in paradiso. Adeo homo figmentum primo, dehinc totus.

[8] But remember that “man” is properly said of flesh, which earlier occupied the appellation of “man.” And God fashioned man, clay from the earth: now a man who is still clay: And he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man, that is, the clay, became a living soul, and God placed the man whom he had fashioned in Paradise. Thus man is a figment at first, thereafter whole.

[9] Hoc eo commendarim uti quidquid omnino homini a deo prospectum atque promissum est non soli animae verum et carni scias debitum, ut si non ex consortio generis certe vel ex privilegio nominis.

[9] For this reason I would commend this, that whatever at all has been provided for and promised by God to man you should know to be owed not to the soul alone but also to the flesh, if not from the consortium of the genus, surely at least from the privilege of the name.

VI.

[1] Persequar itaque propositum, si tamen tantum possim carni vindicare quantum contulit ille qui eam fecit, iam tunc gloriantem quod illa pusillitas limus in manus dei, quaecumque sunt, pervenit, satis beatus etsi solummodo contactus.

[1] I will therefore pursue the purpose, if nevertheless I can vindicate so much for the flesh as he who made it has conferred, already then glorying that that littleness—the clay—has come into the hands of God, whatever they are, sufficiently blessed even if only by contact.

[2] Quid enim si nullo amplius opere statim figmentum de contactu dei constitisset? Adeo magna res agebatur quod ista materia extruebatur. Itaque totiens honoratur quotiens manus dei patitur, dum tangitur, dum decerpitur, dum deducitur, dum effingitur.

[2] For what indeed if with no further work the figment had at once been constituted from the contact of God? To such a degree a great matter was being transacted because that material was being constructed. Therefore it is as often honored as often as it undergoes the hand of God, while it is touched, while it is plucked, while it is drawn out, while it is fashioned.

[3] Recogita totum illi deum occupatum ac deditum, manu sensu opere consilio sapientia providentia, et ipsa imprimis adfectione quae liniamenta dictabat: quodcumque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus quod et limus, et sermo caro quod et terra tunc.

[3] Consider again the whole God occupied and devoted to him, with hand, sense, work, counsel, wisdom providence, and with that very affection especially which was dictating the lineaments: whatever the clay was being molded into, Christ was being thought of—man-to-be who was likewise clay, and the Word flesh which then likewise was earth.

[4] Sic enim praefatio patris ad filium, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: et fecit hominem deus, id utique quod finxit: ad imaginem dei fecit illum, scilicet Christi. Et sermo enim deus, qui in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit pariari deo.

[4] Thus indeed the preface of the Father to the Son, Let us make man to our image and likeness: and God made man, that indeed which he had fashioned: to the image of God he made him, namely of Christ. For even the Word is God, who, established in the effigy of God, did not deem it robbery to be made equal to God.

[5] Ita limus ille iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne non tantum dei opus erat sed et pignus. Quo nunc facit ad infuscandam originem carnis nomen terrae ventilare ut sordentis ut iacentis elementi, cum et si alia materia excudendo homini competisset artificis fastigium recogitari oporteret qui illam et eligendo dignam iudicasset et tractando fecisset?

[5] Thus that clay, already then putting on the image of Christ to come in the flesh, was not only a work of God but also a pledge. Why now does he make it his business, in order to darken the origin of the flesh, to bandy about the name “earth” as of a sordid, as of an abject element, since even if some other material had been suitable for hammering out man, the preeminence of the Artificer ought to be called to mind, who both by choosing would have judged it worthy and by handling would have made it so?

[6] Phidiae manus Iovem. Olympium ex ebore molitae adorantur: nec iam bestiae et quidem insulsissimae dens est sed summum saeculi numen, non quia elephantus sed quia Phidias tantus: deus vivus et deus verus quamcunque materiae vilitatem nonne de sua operatione purgasset et ab omni infirmitate sanasset? An hoc supererit, ut honestius homo deum quam hominem deus finxerit?

[6] The hands of Phidias, having wrought the Olympian Jupiter out of ivory, are adored: nor now is it the tooth of a beast and indeed of a most witless one, but the highest divinity of the age, not because it is an elephant but because Phidias is so great: the living God and the true God—would he not have purged whatever material vileness by his own operation and have healed it from every infirmity? Or will this remain, that man has fashioned God more honorably than God has fashioned man?

[7] Nunc et si scandalum limus, alia iam res est. Carnem iam teneo, non terram: licet et caro audiat, Terra es et in terram redibis, origo recensetur, non substantia revocatur.

[7] Now, even if mud is a scandal, it is already another matter. I now grasp flesh, not earth: though even the flesh may hear, You are Earth and to earth you shall return, the origin is reckoned, not the substance is recalled.

[8] Datum est esse aliquid origine generosius et demutatione felicius: nam et aurum terra quia de terra, hactenus tamen terra est ex quo aurum, longe alia materia, splendidior atque nobilior, de obsoletiore matrice. Ita et deo licuit carnis aurum de limi quibus putas sordibus excusato censu eliquasse.

[8] It has been granted that something be more generous in origin and more fortunate by transmutation: for even gold is earth because it is from earth; yet it is earth only up to the point from which gold [comes], a matter far different, more splendid and more noble, from a more time-worn matrix. Thus also it was permitted to God to have refined the gold of flesh from the mud— from the filths which you suppose—its valuation excused.

VII.

[1] Sed ne dilutior videatur auctoritas carnis quia non et ipsam proprie manus divina tractavit sicut limum, quando in hoc tractaverit limum ut postmodum caro fieret ex limo carni utique negotium gessit.

[1] But lest the authority of the flesh seem more diluted because the divine hand did not also itself directly handle it as it did the clay, since He handled the clay for this—that afterwards flesh might be made from clay—He assuredly transacted business on behalf of the flesh.

[2] Sed adhuc velim discas quando et quomodo caro floruerit ex limo. Neque enim, ut quidam volunt, illae pelliciae tunicae quas Adam et Eva paradisum exuti induerunt, ipsae erunt carnis ex limo reformatio, cum aliquanto prius et Adam substantiae suae traducem in feminae iam carne recognoverit----Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex carne mea----et ipsa delibatio masculi in feminam carne suppleta sit, limo opinor supplenda si Adam adhuc limus.

[2] But still I would have you learn when and how flesh has flowered from clay. For neither, as some wish, will those tunics of skins which Adam and Eve, stripped of paradise, put on, themselves be the reformation of flesh from clay, since somewhat earlier even Adam of his substance recognized the offshoot in the woman’s already flesh----This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh----and that very delibation of the male into the female has been supplied in flesh, to be supplied, I suppose, with clay, if Adam were still clay.

[3] Obliteratus igitur et devoratus est limus in carnem. Quando? Cum factus est homo in animam vivam de dei flatu, vaporeo scilicet et idoneo torrere quodammodo limum in aliam qualitatem, quasi in testam ita et in carnem.

[3] Therefore the clay was obliterated and devoured into flesh. When? When man was made into a living soul by the breath of God—vaporous, to wit, and suitable to parch in a certain manner the clay into another quality, as into a potsherd so also into flesh.

[4] Sic et figulo licet argillam temperato ignis adflatu in materiam robustiorem recorporare et aliam ex alia stringere speciem, aptiorem pristina et sui iam generis ac nominis.

[4] Thus too it is permitted to the potter to re-incorporate argil by a tempered afflatus of fire into a more robust material and to draw out one form from another, fitter than the former and now of its own genus and name.

[5] Nam etsi scriptum est, Numquid argilla dicet figulo, id est homo deo; et si apostolus In testaceis ait vasculis: tamen et argilla homo quia limus ante, et testa caro quia ex limo per adflatus divini vaporem.

[5] For even if it is written, "Shall the clay say to the potter," that is, the man to God; and if the Apostle says, "in earthen vessels": yet both clay is man, since he was formerly mud, and potsherd is flesh, since from mud through the vapor of the divine breath.

[6] Quam postea pelliciae tunicae, id est cutes, superductae vestierunt: usque adeo, si detraxeris cutem nudaveris carnem. Ita quod hodie spolium efficitur si detrahatur, hoc fuit indumentum cum superstruebatur. Hinc et apostolus circumcisionem despoliationem carnis appellans tunicam cutem confirmavit.

[6] Which afterwards coats of skins, that is skins, drawn over, clothed them: to such an extent that, if you strip off the skin, you lay bare the flesh. Thus that which today is made a spoil if it be stripped off, this was a garment when it was overlaid. Hence also the apostle calling circumcision a despoliation of the flesh, confirmed the skin as a tunic.

[7] Haec cum ita sint, habes et limum de manu dei gloriosum, et carnem de adflatu dei gloriosiorem, quo pariter caro et limi rudimenta deposuit et animae ornamenta suscepit.

[7] Since these things are thus, you have both the clay from the hand of God glorious, and the flesh from the afflatus of God more glorious, whereby at once the flesh laid aside the rudiments of the mud and received the ornaments of the soul.

[8] Non es diligentior deo, uti tu quidem Scythicas et Indicas gemmas et rubentis maris grana candentia non plumbo non aere non ferro neque argento quoque oblaquees sed delectissimo et insuper operosissimo de scrobibus auro, vinis item et unguentis pretiosissimis quibusque vasculorum prius congruentiam cures, proinde perspectae ferruginis gladiis vaginarum adaeques dignitatem, deus vero animae suae umbram, spiritus sui auram, oris sui operam, vilissimo alicui commiserit capulo et indigne collocando utique damnaverit.

[8] You are not more diligent than God, seeing that you indeed do not overlay Scythian and Indian gems and the glowing grains of the reddening sea with lead, not with bronze, not with iron nor even with silver, but with the most choice and, moreover, the most painstakingly won gold from the pits; likewise, with wines and the most precious unguents you first take care for the congruity of the vessels, accordingly to swords of well‑proven iron you match the dignity of the scabbards, whereas God, for his part, would have entrusted the shade of his own soul, the breath of his Spirit, the work of his mouth, to some most worthless hilt and, by placing it unworthily, would of course have condemned it.

[9] Collocavit autem, an potius inseruit et inmiscuit carni? Tanta quidem concretione ut incertum haberi possit utrumne caro animam an carnem anima circumferat, utrumne animae caro an anima adpareat carni.

[9] Did he collocate it, or rather insert and intermingle it with the flesh? With so great a concretion that it can be held uncertain whether the flesh bears about the soul or the soul bears about the flesh, whether the flesh appears to the soul or the soul appears to the flesh.

[10] Sed etsi magis animam invehi atque dominari credendum est ut magis deo proximam, hoc quoque ad gloriam carnis exuberat quod proximam deo et continet et ipsius dominationis compotem praestat.

[10] But even if it is rather to be believed that the soul is brought in and dominates, as being more proximate to God, this too overflows to the glory of the flesh, because it both contains the one proximate to God and renders it a participant in that very domination.

[11] Quem enim naturae usum, quem mundi fructum, quem elementorum saporem non per carnem anima depascitur? Quidni? Per quam omni instrumento sensuum fulta est, visu auditu gustu odoratu contactu: per quam divina potestate respersa est, nihil non sermone prospiciens vel tacite praemisso.

[11] For what use of nature, what fruit of the world, what savor of the elements does the soul not feed upon through the flesh? Why not? By which it is supported by every instrument of the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch: by which it is besprinkled with divine power, providing for everything by speech, or with speech tacitly premised.

Et sermo enim de organo carnis est.

For even speech is from the organ of the flesh.

[12] Artes per carnem, studia ingenia per carnem, opera negotia officia per carnem, atque adeo vivere totum animae carnis est ut non vivere aliud non sit animae quam a carne divertere. Sic etiam ipsum mori carnis est, cuius et vivere.

[12] Arts through the flesh, studies and ingenuities through the flesh, works, businesses, offices through the flesh, and indeed the soul’s whole living is of the flesh, so that for the soul not to live is nothing else than to turn away from the flesh. Thus even dying itself is of the flesh, whose is also living.

[13] Porro si universa per carnem subiacent animae, carni quoque subiacent: per quod utaris, cum eo utaris necesse est. Ita caro, dum ministra et famula animae deputatur, consors et coheres invenitur: si temporalium, cur non et aeternorum?

[13] Moreover, if all things through the flesh lie subject to the soul, they lie subject to the flesh as well: by that by means of which you use something, together with that you must use it. Thus the flesh, while it is deputed as minister and handmaid to the soul, is found to be co-participant and coheir: if of temporal things, why not also of eternal things?

VIII.

[1] Et haec quidem velut de publica forma humanae condicionis in suffragium carnis procuraverim. Videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma, quanta huic substantiae frivolae ac sordidae apud deum praerogativa sit.

[1] And these things indeed I have, as it were, from the public form of the human condition, procured in suffrage for the flesh. Let us now see, from the proper form of the Christian name as well, how great a prerogative with God there is for this frivolous and sordid substance.

[2] Etsi sufficeret illi quod nulla omnino anima salutem possit adipisci nisi dum est in carne crediderit: adeo caro salutis est cardo, de qua cum anima deo alligatur ipsa est quae efficit ut anima eligi possit a deo.

[2] Even if it would have sufficed for it that no soul at all can acquire salvation unless, while it is in the flesh, it has believed: to such a degree the flesh is the hinge (cardo) of salvation, by which, when the soul is bound to God, it is itself that brings it about that the soul can be elected by God.

[3] Sed et caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur, caro unguitur ut anima consecretur, caro signatur ut et anima muniatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur, caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de deo saginetur. Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit.

[3] But also the flesh is washed so that the soul may be made immaculate, the flesh is anointed so that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed so that the soul also may be fortified, the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of the hand so that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit, the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ so that the soul also may be fattened from God. Therefore they cannot be separated in reward whom the works join together.

[4] Nam et sacrificia deo grata, conflictationes dico animae, ieiunia et seras et aridas escas et adpendices huius officii sordes, caro de proprio suo incommodo instaurat. Virginitas quoque et viduitas et modesta in occulto matrimonii dissimulatio et una notitia eius de bonis carnis deo adulantur.

[4] For also the sacrifices pleasing to God—I mean the conflictations of the soul—fastings and late and dry viands, and the sordid appendices of this office, the flesh makes good out of its own discomfort. Virginity too, and widowhood, and the modest dissimulation of marriage in secret, and the mere notice of it, from the goods of the flesh, fawn upon God.

[5] Age iam, quid de ea sentis cum pro nominis fide in medium extracta et odio publico exposita decertat, cum in carceribus maceratur taeterrimo lucis exilio penuria mundi squalore paedore contumelia victus, ne somno quidem libera, quippe ipsis etiam cubilibus vincta ipsisque stramentis lancinata, cum iam et in luce omni tormentorum machinatione laniatur, cum denique suppliciis erogatur, enisa reddere Christo vicem moriendo pro ipso, et quidem per eandem crucem saepe, nedum per atrociora quoque ingenia poenarum?

[5] Come now, what do you think about her, when, for the faith of the Name, dragged into the midst and exposed to public hatred, she fights it out, when in prisons she is macerated by a most foul exile from light, by deprivation of the world, by squalor by filth, by the contumely of victuals, not free even for sleep, since she is bound even to the very pallets and lacerated by the very straw; when already even in the light she is lacerated by every machination of torments, when at last to punishments she is expended, having striven to render to Christ a return by dying for him, and indeed often by that same cross, not to say also by more atrocious contrivances of punishments?

[6] Ne illa beatissima et gloriosissima, quae potest apud Christum dominum parere debito tanto, ut hoc solum debeat ei quod ei debere desierit, hoc magis vincta quo absoluta.

[6] Nay, that most blessed and most glorious one, who can, before Christ the Lord, pay such a debt, so that she owes to him only this, that she has ceased to owe to him, is by this the more bound than absolved.

IX.

[1] Igitur, ut retexam, quam deus manibus suis ad imaginem dei struxit, quam de suo adflatu ad similitudinem suae vivacitatis animavit, quam incolatui fructui dominatui totius suae operationis praeposuit, quam sacramentis suis disciplinisque vestivit, cuius munditias amat, cuius castigationes probat, cuius passiones sibi adpretiat, haecine non resurget, totiens dei res?

[1] Therefore, to resume: that which God with his own hands built to the image of God, which by his own afflatus he animated to the likeness of his own vitality, which he set over for inhabitation, fruitfulness, and dominion of his whole operation, which he clothed with his sacraments and disciplines, whose cleanliness he loves, whose chastisements he approves, whose sufferings he values for himself—shall this not rise again, so often a thing of God?

[2] Absit, absit, ut deus manuum suarum operam, ingenii sui curam, adflatus sui vaginam, molitionis suae reginam, liberalitatis suae heredem, religionis suae sacerdotem, testimonii sui militem, Christi sui sororem, in aeternum destituat interitum.

[2] Far be it, far be it, that God should abandon to eternal destruction the work of his hands, the care of his ingenuity, the sheath of his afflatus, the queen of his contrivance, the heir of his liberality, the priest of his religion, the soldier of his testimony, the sister of his Christ.

[3] Bonum deum novimus: solum optimum a Christo eius addiscimus. Qui dilectionem mandat post suam in proximum, facit et ipse quod praecipit: diligit carnem tot modis sibi proximam;

[3] We know the good God: we further learn from his Christ that he alone is supremely good. He who mandates love, after his own, toward the neighbor, also himself does what he prescribes: he loves the flesh, in so many ways proximate to himself;

[4] etsi infirmam, sed virtus in infirmitate perficitur; etsi imbecillam, sed medicum non desiderant nisi male habentes; etsi inhonestam, sed inhonestioribus maiorem circumdamus honorem; etsi perditam, sed Ego inquit veni ut quod periit salvum faciam; etsi peccatricem, sed Malo mihi inquit salutem peccatoris quam mortem; etsi damnatam, sed Ego inquit percutiam et sanabo.

[4] even if weak, yet virtue is perfected in infirmity; even if feeble, yet none desire a physician except those who are ill; even if dishonorable, yet upon the more dishonorable we surround with greater honor; even if lost, yet I, he says, have come that I might save what has perished; even if sinful, yet I prefer, he says, the salvation of the sinner rather than death; even if condemned, yet I, he says, will smite and will heal.

[5] Quid ea exprobras carni quae deum expectant, quae in deum sperant? Honorantur ab illo quibus subvenit. Ausim dicere, si haec carni non accidissent, benignitas gratia misericordia, omnis vis dei benefica, vacuisset.

[5] Why do you reproach to the flesh those things which await God, which hope in God? Those whom He succors are honored by Him. I would dare to say, if these things had not befallen the flesh, benignity, grace, mercy, all the beneficent might of God, would have stood idle.

10.

[1] Tenes scripturas quibus caro infuscatur: tene etiam quibus illustratur. Legis cum quando deprimitur: adige oculos et cum quando relevatur.

[1] You hold the scriptures by which the flesh is darkened: hold also those by which it is illuminated. You read when at times it is pressed down: direct your eyes also when at times it is raised up.

[2] Omnis caro foenum: non hoc solum pronuntiavit Esaias, sed et Omnis caro videbit salutare dei. Notatur in Genesi dicens dominus, Non manebit spiritus meus super ipsos homines, quia caro sunt: sed et auditur per Ioelem, Effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem.

[2] All flesh is hay: not this alone he pronounced Esaias, but also All flesh will see the salvation of God. It is noted in Genesis, the Lord saying, My Spirit will not remain upon those men, because they are flesh: but it is also heard through Joel, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh.

[3] Apostolum quoque ne de uno stilo noris quo carnem plerumque compungit: nam etsi negat habitare quidquam boni in carne sua, etsi adfirmat eos qui in carne sint deo placere non posse, quia caro concupiscat adversum spiritum, et si qua alia ita ponit ut carnis non tamen substantia sed actus oneretur, dicemus quidem alibi nihil proprie carni exprobari oportere nisi in animae suggillationem quae carnem ministerio sibi subigit.

[3] Do not know the Apostle by one style, with which he for the most part punctures the flesh: for although he denies that anything good dwells in his flesh, although he affirms that those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because the flesh concupisces against the spirit, and if he sets any other things thus, that the flesh be burdened, not however in its substance but in its acts oneretur, we shall indeed say elsewhere that nothing ought properly to be reproached to the flesh except save as a suggillation of the soul, which subjugates the flesh into service to itself.

[4] Verum interim et in illis litteris Paulus est cum stigmata Christi in corpore suo portat, cum corpus nostrum ut dei templum vitiari vetat, cum corpora nostra membra Christi facit, cum monet tollere et magnificare deum in corpore nostro.

[4] But meanwhile even in those letters Paul is there, when he carries the stigmata of Christ in his body, when he forbids our body to be defiled as the temple of god, when he makes our bodies members of Christ, when he admonishes to lift up and magnify god in our body.

[5] Itaque si ignominiae carnis resurrectionem eius expellunt, cur non dignitates potius inducent? Quoniam deo magis congruit in salutem redigere quod reprobarit interdum, quam in perditionem dedere quod etiam probavit.

[5] Therefore, if the ignominies of the flesh expel its resurrection, why will not rather the dignities bring it in? Since it more befits God to bring back into salvation what he has sometimes rejected, than to give over into perdition what he has even approved.

XI.

11.

[1] Hucusque de praeconio carnis adversus inimicos et nihilominus amicissimos eius. Nemo enim tam carnaliter vivit quam qui negant carnis resurrectionem: negantes enim et poenam despiciunt et disciplinam.

[1] Thus far about the encomium of the flesh against its enemies and nonetheless its very dearest friends. For no one lives so carnally as those who deny the resurrection of the flesh: for, in denying, they despise both punishment and discipline.

[2] De quibus luculenter et paracletus per prophetidem Priscam 'Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt'.

[2] Concerning whom the Paraclete speaks luculently through the prophetess Prisca: 'They are flesh and they hate flesh'.

[3] Quam si tanta auctoritas munit quanta illi ad meritum salutis patrocinari possit, numquid etiam dei ipsius potentiam et potestatem et licentiam recensere debemus, an tantus sit qui valeat dilapsum et devoratum et quibuscumque modis ereptum tabernaculum carnis reaedificare atque restituere?

[3] Which, if so great an authority fortifies it as could act as a patron for it unto the merit of salvation, must we even recount God’s own potency and power and license, whether he be so great as to be able to re‑edify and restore the tabernacle of the flesh, fallen to pieces and devoured and by whatever ways snatched away?

[4] An et aliqua nobis exempla huiusmodi sui iuris in publico naturae promulgavit, ne qui forte adhuc sitiant deum nosse, qui non alia lege credendus est quam ut omnia posse credatur?

[4] Or has He also promulgated for us some examples of this sort of His sui iuris in the public sphere of nature, lest anyone perhaps who still thirsts to know God—who is to be believed under no other law than that He be believed able to do all things?

[5] Plane apud philosophos habes qui mundum hunc innatum infectumque defendant. Sed multo melius quod omnes fere haereses natum et factum mundum adnuentes conditionem deo nostro adscribunt.

[5] Plainly among the philosophers you have those who defend this world unbegotten and unmade. But much better is that almost all heresies, assenting that the world is born and made, ascribe the creation to our God.

[6] Igitur confide illum totum hoc ex nihilo protulisse, et deum nosti fidendo quod tantum deus valeat. Nam et quidam, infirmiores hoc prius credere, de materia potius subiacenti volunt ab illo universitatem dedicatam secundum philosophos.

[6] Therefore have confidence that he brought forth all this out of nothing, and you know God by trusting that God has such power. For even some, being too weak to believe this first, from rather underlying matter wish the universe to have been dedicated (established) by him, according to the philosophers.

[7] Porro et si ita in vero haberetur, cum tamen longe alias substantias longeque alias species ex reformatione materiae diceretur protulisse quam fuisset ipsa materia, non minus defenderem ex nihilo eum protulisse si ea protulerat quae omnino non fuerant.

[7] Moreover, even if thus in truth it were held, since nevertheless far other substances and far other species from the reformation of matter he was said to have brought forth than the matter itself had been, no less I would defend that he brought it forth out of nothing, if he had brought forth things which altogether had not been.

[8] Quo enim interest ex nihilo quid proferri an ex aliquo dum quod non fuit fiat, quando etiam non fuisse nihil sit fuisse? sic et fuisse e contrario nonnihil est fuisse.

[8] For wherein is there a difference whether anything be proffered out of nothing or out of something provided that what was not comes to be, since even not to have been is nothing as regards having been? thus also, on the contrary, to have been is not‑nothing as regards having been.

[9] Nunc etsi interest tamen utrumque mihi adplaudit. Sive enim ex nihilo deus molitus est cuncta, poterit et carnem in nihilum prodactam exprimere de nihilo: sive de materia modulatus est alia, poterit et carnem quocumque dehaustam evocare de alio.

[9] Now, although it makes a difference, yet each applauds me. For whether God has wrought all things ex nihilo, he will also be able to express flesh reduced into nothing out of nothing: or whether he has modulated them from other matter, he will also be able to evoke flesh, drained away whithersoever, dehaustam from another.

[10] Et utique idoneus est reficere qui fecit, quanto plus est fecisse quam refecisse, initium dedisse quam reddidisse. Ita restitutionem carnis faciliorem credas institutione.

[10] And surely he who made it is apt to refashion who made it, since it is more to have made than to have remade, to have given a beginning than to have given back. Thus you may believe the restitution of the flesh easier than its institution.

XII.

12.

[1] Aspice nunc ad ipsa quoque exempla divinae potestatis. Dies moritur in noctem et tenebris usquequaque sepelitur; funestatur mundi honor, omnis substantia denigratur: sordent silent stupent cuncta: ubique iustitium est, quies rerum: ita lux amissa lugetur.

[1] Look now also to the very examples of divine power. Day dies into night and is everywhere buried in darkness; the honor of the world is made funereal, all substance is blackened: all things grow sordid, are silent, are stupefied: everywhere there is a justitium, a rest of affairs: thus the lost light is mourned.

[2] Et tamen rursus cum suo cultu cum dote cum sole eadem et integra et tota universo orbi revivescit, interficiens mortem suam noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam tenebras, heres sibimet existens, donec et nox revivescat cum suo et illa suggestu.

[2] And yet again, with its own adornment, with dowry, with the sun, the same and intact and whole to the universal orb revives, slaying its own death, the night, rescinding its own sepulture, the darkness, being heir to itself, until even night revives with its own and that dais.

[3] Redaccenduntur enim et stellarum radii quos matutina succensio extinxerat, reducuntur et siderum absentiae quas temporalis distinctio exemerat, redornantur et specula lunae quae menstruus numerus adtriverat.

[3] They are rekindled indeed, even the rays of the stars which the morning kindling had extinguished, are brought back also the absences of the constellations which the temporal distinction had removed, and the phases of the moon, which the monthly number had worn away, are re-adorned.

[4] Revolvuntur hiemes et aestates, verna et autumna, cum suis viribus moribus fructibus. Quippe etiam terrae de caelo disciplina est, arbores vestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem quae absumpta sunt semina, nec prius exhibere quam absumpta.

[4] Winters and summers, springs and autumns, revolve, with their own forces, manners, fruits. Indeed even the earth has from heaven a discipline: to clothe the trees after the despoilings, to color the flowers anew, to set the grasses on again, to exhibit the same seeds which have been consumed, and not to exhibit them before they have been consumed.

[5] Mira ratio: de fraudatrice servatrix, ut reddat intercipit, ut custodiat perdit, interficit ut vivificet, ut integret vitiat, ut etiam ampliet prius decoquit, siquidem et uberiora et cultiora restituit quam exterminavit, re vera fenore interitu et iniuria usura et lucro damno.

[5] A wondrous reason: from a defrauder, a preservatrix; she intercepts in order to render back, she loses in order to guard, she kills so that she may vivify, she vitiates so that she may integrate, she even decocts beforehand in order to amplify, since she restores both more abundant and more cultivated things than she exterminated, in very truth with interest by destruction and with usury by injury and with lucre by loss.

[6] Semel dixerim, universa conditio recidiva est: quodcumque conveneris fuit, quodcumque amiseris erit: nihil non iterum est: omnia in statum redeunt cum abscesserint, omnia incipiunt cum desierint: ideo finiuntur ut fiant: nihil deperit nisi in salutem.

[6] Once let me say, the entire condition is recurrent: whatever you may meet has been, whatever you may lose will be: nothing is not again: all things return to their state when they have withdrawn, all things begin when they have ceased: therefore they are finished in order that they may come to be: nothing perishes except into salvation.

[7] Totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum: operibus eam praescripsit deus ante quam litteris, viribus praedicavit ante quam vocibus.

[7] Thus the whole revolving order of things is a testimony of the resurrection of the dead: by works God prescribed it before by letters, by powers he proclaimed it before by voices.

[8] Praemisit tibi naturam magistram, submissurus et prophetiam, quo facilius credas prophetiae discipulus ante naturae, quo statim admittas cum audieris quod ubique iam videris, nec dubites deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem quem omnium noveris restitutorem.

[8] He has sent ahead to you nature as a teacher, about to submit also prophecy, in order that you may more easily believe the prophecy, a disciple first of nature, so that you may straightway admit, when you have heard, what you have already seen everywhere, nor doubt God to be even the resuscitator of the flesh, whom you have known as the restorer of all.

[9] Et utique si omnia homini resurgunt cui procurata sunt, porro non homini nisi et carni, quale est ut ipsa depereat in totum propter quam et cui nihil deperit?

[9] And assuredly, if all things rise again for man, for whom they were procured, moreover not for man unless also for flesh, what sort is it that the flesh itself should perish altogether, for the sake of which and to which nothing perishes?

XIII.

13.

[1] Si parum universitas resurrectionem figurat, si nihil tale conditio signat, quia singula eius non tam mori quam desinere dicantur, nec redanimari sed reformari existimentur, accipe plenissimum atque firmissimum huius spei specimen, siquidem animalis est res, et vitae obnoxia et morti.

[1] If the universality too little prefigures the resurrection, if the condition marks nothing of the kind, because its individual elements are said not so much to die as to cease, and are thought not to be re-animated but to be re-formed, receive the most complete and most firm specimen of this hope, since it is an animate thing, and subject to life and to death.

[2] Illum dico alitem orientis peculiarem, de singularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum, qui semetipsum libenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens atque succedens, iterum phoenix ubi nemo iam, iterum ipse qui non iam, alius idem.

[2] I mean that winged creature peculiar to the East, famous for singularity, monstrous in respect to posterity, which, gladly burying itself, renews itself, departing and succeeding at a natal end, again a phoenix where now no one is, again the self who now is not, another the same.

[3] Quid expressius atques signatius in hanc causam, aut cui alii rei tale documentum? Deus etiam in scripturis suis, Et florebis enim inquit velut phoenix, id est de morte, de funere, uti credas de ignibus quoque substantiam corporis exigi posse.

[3] What more express and more significant for this cause, or to what other matter such a document? God also in his Scriptures, “For you will flourish, indeed, he says, like a phoenix,” that is from death, from funeral, so that you may believe that from fires as well the substance of the body can be exacted.

[4] Multis passeribus antestare nos dominus pronuntiavit: si non et phoenicibus, nihil magnum. Sed homines semel interibunt, avibus Arabiae de resurrectione securis?

[4] Our Lord proclaimed that we surpass many sparrows: if not also phoenixes, nothing great. But will men perish once, while the birds of Arabia are secure about the resurrection?

XIV.

14.

[1] Talia interim divinarum virium liniamenta non minus parabolis operato deo quam locuto, veniamus et ad ipsa edicta atque decreta eius, quo cum maxime divisionem istam materiae ordinamus.

[1] Such, meanwhile, are the lineaments of the divine powers, with God working by parables no less than by speaking; let us come also to his very edicts and decrees, whereby most especially we order this division of the material.

[2] Exorsi enim ab auctoritate carnis, an ea sit cui dilapsae salus competat, dehinc prosecuti de potentia dei, an tanta sit quae salutem conferre dilapsae rei soleat,

[2] For, having begun from the authority of the flesh, whether it be that to which the salvation of the lapsed is competent, then having pursued concerning the power of God, whether it be so great as is wont to confer salvation upon the lapsed thing,

[3] nunc si probavimus utrumque velim etiam de causa requiras, an sit aliqua tatn digna quae resurrectionem carnis necessariam et rationi certe omni modo debitam vindicet: quia subest dicere, etsi caro capax restitui, etsi divinitas idonea restituendi, sed causa restitutionis praeesse debebit.

[3] now if we have proved both I would also wish you to inquire about the cause, whether there be any so worthy as to vindicate the resurrection of the flesh as necessary and in every way surely owed to reason: for there is ground to say, even if the flesh is capable of being restored, even if the divinity is adequate for restoring, yet the cause of the restoration ought to be present.

[4] Accipe igitur et causam, qui apud deum discis tam optimum quam et iustum, de suo optimum, de nostro iustum. Nisi enim homo deliquisset, optimum solummodo deum nosset ex naturae proprietate: at nunc etiam iustum eum patitur ex causae suae necessitate, tamen et hoc ipso optimum dum et iustum.

[4] Accept therefore also the cause, you who learn with God both the best and the just, on his part the best, on ours the just. Unless indeed man had transgressed, he would have known God only as the best from the property of nature: but now he also experiences him as just from the necessity of his own cause, yet even in this very thing the best while also just.

[5] Et bono enim iuvando et malo puniendo iustitiam exhibens utramque sententiam bono praestat, hinc vindicans istud inde remunerans illud.

[5] And indeed, by helping the good and punishing the evil, exhibiting justice, he renders both judgments for the good, here vindicating this, there remunerating that.

[6] Sed cum Marcione plenius disces an hoc sit dei totum. Interim talis est noster, merito iudex quia dominus, merito dominus quia auctor, merito auctor quia deus.

[6] But with Marcion you will learn more fully whether this is the whole of god. Meanwhile such is ours, deservedly judge because lord, deservedly lord because author, deservedly author because god.

[7] Hinc et ille nescio quis haereticorum merito non iudex, non enimdominus: merito non dominus, non enim auctor: nescio iam si deus, qui nec auctor quod deus, nec dominus quod auctor.

[7] Hence also that I-know-not-who among the heretics rightly not judge, for he is notlord: rightly not lord, for he is not author: I do not now know whether he is a god, who is neither author as befits a god, nor lord as befits an author.

[8] Igitur si deo et domino et auctori congruentissimum est iudicium in hominem destinare de hoc ipso an dominum et auctorem suum agnoscere et observare curarit an non, idque iudicium resurrectio expunget, haec erit tota causa immo necessitas resurrectionis, congruentissima scilicet deo destinatio iudicii.

[8] Therefore, if for God and Lord and Author it is most congruent to destine judgment upon man concerning this very point—whether he has taken care to recognize and observe his Lord and Author or not—and that judgment the resurrection will expunge, this will be the whole cause, nay the necessity, of the resurrection, namely the most congruent destination of judgment by God.

[9] De cuius dispositione dispicias an utrique substantiae humanae diiudicandae censura divina praesideat, tam animae quam et carni: quod enim congruet iudicari, hoc competet etiam resuscitari.

[9] Concerning whose disposition you may discern whether the divine censure presides over each substance of the human being to be judged, both of the soul and and of the flesh: for what will be congruent to be judged, this will also be competent to be resurrected.

[10] Dicimus plenum primo perfectumque credendum iudicium dei, ut ultimum iam atque exinde perpetuum, ut sic quoque iustum dum non in aliquo minus, ut sic quoque deo dignum dum pro tanta eius patientia plenum atque perfectum: itaque plenitudinem perfectionemque iudicii nonnisi de totius hominis repraesentatione constare:

[10] We say that the judgment of God is to be believed as full in the first place and perfect, as already ultimate and thereafter perpetual, as thus also just, since it is in no respect less, as thus also worthy of God, since, on account of His so great patience, it is full and perfect: accordingly, the fullness and perfection of the judgment consist in nothing except from the re-presentation of the whole man:

[11] totum porro hominem ex utriusque substantiae congregatione parere, idcircoque in utraque exhibendum quem totum oporteat iudicari, qui nisi totus non vixerit: qualis ergo vixerit talem iudicatum iri, quia de eo quod vixerit habeat iudicari. Vita est enim causa iudicii, per tot substantias dispungenda per quot et functa est.

[11] the whole man, moreover, comes into being from the gathering of both substances, and therefore in both must be presented him who as a whole ought to be judged, since he has not lived except as a whole: accordingly, such as he has lived, such he is going to be judged , because he must be judged concerning that in which he has lived. For life is the cause of judgment, to be reckoned through as many substances as through how many it has also functioned.

XV.

15.

[1] Age iam scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione: negent operarum societatem, ut merito possint etiam mercedum negare.

[1] Come now, let our adversaries tear asunder the contexture of flesh and soul
first in the administration of life, so that thus they may dare to tear that also in the remuneration of life: let them deny the society of works, so that with merit they may also be able to deny the rewards.

[2] Non sit particeps in sententia caro si non fuerat et in causa: sola anima revocetur si sola decedit. At enim non magis sola decedit quam sola decucurrit illud unde decedit, vitam hanc dico.

[2] Let not the flesh be a participant in the sentence if it had not also been in the cause: let the soul alone be recalled if it alone departs. But indeed it no more departs alone than it alone ran its course through that from which it departs—I mean this life.

[3] Adeo autem non sola anima transigit vitam ut nec cogitatus, licet solos, licet non ad effectum per carnem deductos, auferamus a collegio carnis, siquidem in carne et cum carne et per carnem agitur ab anima quod agitur in corde.

[3] So far, however, is it from being the case that the soul alone transacts life, that we should not even remove thoughts—albeit solitary, albeit not brought to effect through the flesh—from the society of the flesh, since in the flesh and with the flesh and through the flesh there is acted by the soul what is acted in the heart.

[4] Hanc denique carnis speciem, arcem animae, etiam dominus in suggillatione cogitatuum taxat: Quid cogitatis in cordibus vestris nequam? et, Qui conspexerit ad concupiscendum iam adulteravit in corde: adeo et sine opere et sine effectu cogitatus carnis est actus.

[4] This very form of the flesh, the citadel of the soul, the Lord also censures in the reproach of thoughts: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?" and, "Whoever has looked to concupiscence has already committed adultery in the heart": to such a degree that even without deed and without effect, a thought of the flesh is an act.

[5] Sed etsi in cerebro vel in medio superciliorum discrimine vel ubiubi philosophis placet principalitas sensuum consecrata est, quodh(gemoniko&n appellatur, caro erit omne animae cogitatorium. Nunquam anima sine carne est quamdiu in carne est: nihil non cum illa agit sine qua non est.

[5] But even if in the brain, or in the division in the middle of the eyebrows, or wherever it pleases the philosophers that the principality of the senses has been consecrated, what is calledh(gemoniko&n, flesh will be the entire cogitative faculty of the soul. Never is the soul without flesh so long as it is in flesh: it does nothing except with that without which it is not.

[6] Quaere adhuc an cogitatus quoque per carnem administrantur qui per carnem dinoscuntur extrinsecus: volutet aliquid anima, vultus operatur indicium; facies intentionum omnium speculum est. Negent factorum societatem cui negare non possunt cogitatorum.

[6] Inquire still whether thoughts also are administered through the flesh, since they are discerned through the flesh from without: let the soul revolve something, the visage produces an indication; the face is the mirror of intentions all. Let them deny to the flesh the fellowship of deeds, to which they cannot deny the fellowship of thoughts.

[7] Et illi quidem delinquentias carnis enumerant: ergo peccatrix tenebitur supplicio: nos vero etiam virtutes carnis opponimus: ergo et bene operata tenebitur praemio. Et si anima est quae agit et impellit in omnia, carnis obsequium est.

[7] And they indeed enumerate the delinquencies of the flesh: therefore the sinner will be held to punishment: but we also set in opposition the virtues of the flesh: therefore that which has wrought well will likewise be held to a reward. And if it is the soul which acts and impels to everything, it is the flesh’s service.

[8] Sed deum non licet aut iniustum iudicem credi aut inertem----iniustum si sociam bonorum operum a praemiis arceat, inertem si sociam malorum a suppliciis secernat----cum humana censura eo perfectior habeatur quo etiam ministros facti cuiusque deposcit, nec parcens nec invidens illis quominus cum auctoribus aut poenae aut gratiae communicent fructum.

[8] But it is not permitted that God be believed either an unjust judge or inert----unjust if he should keep the associate of good works away from rewards, inert if he should separate the associate of evils from punishments----since human censure is held the more perfect in that it even demands the ministers of each deed, neither sparing nor begrudging them that they share the fruit with the authors either of penalty or of grace.

XVI.

16.

[1] Sed cum imperium animae obsequium carni distribuimus, prospiciendum est ne et hoc alia argumentatione subvertant, ut velint carnem sic in officio animae conlocare, non quasi ministram ne et sociam cogantur agnoscere.

[1] But when we distribute command to the soul and obedience to the flesh, we must take care lest they also subvert this by another argumentation, so as to wish to place the flesh thus in the office of the soul, not as a minister, lest they be compelled to acknowledge it also as an associate.

[2] Dicent enim ministros et socios habere arbitrium ministrandi atque sociandi, et potestatem suae voluntatis in utrumque, homines scilicet et ipsos: idcirco cum auctoribus merita communicare quibus operam sponte accommodarint:

[2] For they will say that ministers and associates have the discretion of ministering and of associating, and the power of their own will in either, namely that they themselves too are human: therefore with the authors share merits, to whom they have of their own accord accommodated their effort:

[3] carnem autem nihil sapientem nihil sentientem per semetipsam, non velle non nolle de suo habentem, vice potius vasculi adparere animae, ut instrumentum non ut ministerium:

[3] the flesh, however, understanding nothing, sensing nothing by itself, having neither willing nor unwillingness of its own, to appear rather as a small vessel to the soul, as an instrument, not as a ministry:

[4] itaque animae solius iudicium praesidere, qualiter usa sit vasculo carnis, vasculum vero ipsum non esse sententiae obnoxium: quia nec calicem damnari si quis eum veneno temperarit, nec gladium ad bestias pronuntiari si quis eo latrocinium fuerit operatus.

[4] thus the judgment of the soul alone presides, as to how it has used the little vessel of the flesh, but the vessel itself is not liable to sentence: because neither is the cup to be condemned if someone has tempered it with venom, nor is the sword to be adjudged to the beasts if someone has perpetrated brigandage with it.

[5] Iam ergo innocens caro ex ea parte qua non reputabuntur illi operae malae, et nihil prohibet innocentiae nomine salvam eam fieri. Licet enim nec bona opera deputentur illi sicut nec mala, divinae tamen benignitati magis competit innocentes liberare: beneficos enim debet: optimi est autem etiam quod non debetur offerre.

[5] Now therefore the flesh is innocent in that respect in which evil works will not be reckoned to it, and nothing hinders it from being made safe under the name of innocence. For although neither good works are imputed to it, just as neither evil ones, yet it more befits divine benignity to liberate the innocents: for it owes beneficence: moreover, it is of the best to offer even what is not owed.

[6] Et tamen calicem, non dico venenarium in quem mors aliqua ructuarit, sed frictricis vel archigalli vel gladiatoris aut carnificis spiritu infectum, quaero an minus damnes quam oscula ipsorum. Nostris quoque sordibus nubilum vel non pro animo temperatum elidere solemus quo magis puero irascamur:

[6] And yet a cup, I do not say a venomous one into which some death has belched, but one infected by the breath of a frictrix or an archigallus or a gladiator or an executioner, I ask whether you damn it less than their kisses. We too are wont to dash aside one clouded by our own filths, or not tempered to our liking, in order that we may be the more angry with the boy:

[7] gladium vero latrociniis ebrium quis non a domo tota, nedum a cubiculo, nedum a capitis sui officio relegabit, praesumens scilicet nihil aliud se quam invidiam animarum somniaturum urguentium et inquietantium sanguinis sui concubinum?

[7] a sword indeed drunk with latrociny, who will not banish from the whole house, not to say from the bedchamber, not to say from attendance upon his own head, presuming, namely, that he will dream nothing else than the ill-will of souls pressing and disquieting, the concubine of his own blood?

[8] At enim et calix bene sibi conscius et de diligentia ministri commendatus de coronis quoque potatoris sui inornabitur aut aspergine florum honorabitur, et gladius bene de bello cruentus et melior homicida laudem suam consecratione pensabit.

[8] But indeed even the chalice, well self-conscious and commended on account of the diligence of the minister, with the crowns too of its drinker will be adorned, or will be honored with an aspersion of flowers; and the sword, well blood-stained from war, and the better homicide, will compensate its own laud by consecration.

[9] 'Estne ergo et in vascula et in instrumenta sententiam figere, ut dominorum et auctorum meritis et ipsa communicent?'

[9] 'Is there, then, also to fix a judgment upon the little vessels and upon the instruments, so that by the merits of their lords and authors they themselves also may communicate?'

[10] Et huic quoque argumentationi satisfecerim, licet ab exemplo vacet diversitas rerum. Omne enim vas vel instrumentum aliunde in usus venit, extranea omnino materia a substantia hominis: caro autem, ab exordio uteri consata conformata congenita animae, etiam in omni operatione miscetur illi.

[10] And I would also have satisfied this argumentation, although from the example the diversity of the things is vacant. diversitas rerum. For every vessel or instrument comes from elsewhere into use, being of material wholly extraneous to the substance of man: but the flesh, from the beginning of the womb stitched together, shaped, born-together with the soul, is also in every operation mingled with it.

[11] Nam etsi vas vocatur apud apostolum, quod iubet in honore tractari, eadem tamen ab eodem homo exterior appellatur, ille scilicet limus qui prior titulo hominis incisus est, non calicis aut gladii aut vasculi ullius.

[11] For although it is called a vessel with the Apostle, which he bids to be handled in honor, yet the same is by the same called the outer man, that, namely, clay which earlier was incised with the title of “man,” not of a chalice or of a sword or of any little vessel.

[12] Vas enim capacitatis nomine dicta est qua animam capit et continet, homo vero de communione naturae quae eam non instrumentum in operationibus praestat sed ministerium. Ita et ministerium tenebitur iudicio, etsi de suo nihil sapiat, quia portio est eius quae sapit, non supellex.

[12] For a vessel was so called under the name of capacity, by which it takes and contains the soul, but man from the communion of nature, which affords to it not an instrument in operations but a ministry. Thus also the ministry will be held to judgment, even if it knows nothing of its own, because it is a portion of that which knows, not furniture.

[13] Hoc et apostolus sciens, nihil carnem agere per semetipsam quod non animae deputetur, nihilominus peccatricem iudicat carnem, ne eo quod ab anima videatur impelli, iudicio liberata credatur.

[13] Knowing this as well, the apostle, that the flesh does nothing by itself which is not attributed to the soul, nonetheless judges the flesh sinful, lest, because it seems to be impelled by the soul, it be believed to be freed from judgment.

[14] Sic et cum aliquas laudis operas carni indicit---- Glorificate, tollite deum in corpore vestro----certus et hos conatus ab anima agi, idcirco tamen et carni eos mandat quia et illi fructum repromittit.

[14] Thus also when he enjoins some works of praise to the flesh---- Glorify, lift up God in your body----assured that these efforts too are done by the soul, for that reason nevertheless he also commands them to the flesh because to it also he promises a fruit.

[15] Alioquin nec exprobratio competisset in alienam culpae nec adhortatio in extraneam gloriae: et exprobratio enim et exhortatio vacarent erga carnem si vacaret et merces quae in resurrectione captatur.

[15] Otherwise neither would reproach have been fitting to another’s blame nor exhortation to another’s glory: for both reproach and exhortation would be empty toward the flesh if the reward also were empty which is resurrection won.

XVII.

CHAPTER 17.

[1] Simplicior quisque fautor sententiae nostrae putabit carnem etiam idcirco repraesentandam esse iudicio quia aliter anima non capiat passionem tormenti seu refrigerii, utpote incorporalis: hoc enim vulgus existimat.

[1] Each simpler supporter of our opinion will think that the flesh must also for this reason be presented to the judgment, because otherwise the soul does not take the passion of torment or of refreshment, as being incorporeal: for this the vulgar crowd supposes.

[2] Nos autem animam corporalem et hic profitemur et in suo volumine probavimus, habentem proprium genus substantiae soliditatis per quam quid et sentire et pati possit: nam et nunc animas torqueri foverique penes inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc exules carnis, probabit Lazari exemplum.

[2] We, however, both here we profess the soul to be corporeal and have proved it in its own volume, having its own kind of substance solidity through which it can both sense and suffer something: for even now the example of Lazarus will prove that souls are tortured and cherished among the infernal regions, although naked, although as yet exiles from the flesh.

[3] Dedi igitur adversario dicere, 'Ergo, quae habet corpulentiam propriam, de suo sufficiet ad facultatem passionis et sensus, ut non egeat repraesentatione carnis'. Immo et eatenus egebit, non qua sentire quid sine carne non possit sed qua necesse est illam etiam cum carne sentire:

[3] I have therefore granted to the adversary to say, 'Therefore, that which has its own corpulence, from its own resources will suffice for the faculty of passion and of sense, so that it has no need of the representation of the flesh'. Rather, even to that extent it will need it, not in that it cannot feel anything without flesh, but in that it is necessary for it also to feel even with flesh:

[4] quantum enim ad agendum de suo sufficit, tantum et ad patiendum. Ad agendum autem minus de suo sufficit: habet enim de suo solummodo cogitare velle cupere disponere, ad perficiendum autem operam carnis expectat.

[4] insofar as it suffices from its own for acting, so much also for suffering. But for acting it suffices less from its own: for it has from its own only to think, to will, to desire, to dispose, but for perfecting however it awaits the service of the flesh.

[5] Sic itaque ad patiendum societatem carnis expostulat, ut tam plene per eam pati possit quam sine ea plene agere non potuit. Et ideo in quae de suo sufficit, eorum interim sententiam pendit, concupiscentiae et cogitatus et voluntatis.

[5] Thus therefore for suffering it demands the fellowship of the flesh, so that through it it may be able to suffer as fully as without it it was not able to act fully. And therefore in the things for which it suffices of its own, it meanwhile depends upon the decision of these: of concupiscence and of cogitation and of volition.

[6] Porro si haec satis essent ad plenitudinem meritorum, ut non requirerentur et facta, sufficeret anima ad perfectionem iudicii, de istis iudicanda in quae agenda sola suffecerat.

[6] Furthermore, if these were sufficient for the plenitude of merits, so that deeds too would not be required, the soul would suffice for the perfection of judgment, to be judged concerning those things in the doing of which it alone had sufficed.

[7] Cum vero etiam facta devincta sint meritis, facta autem per carnem administrentur, iam non sufficit animam sine carne foveri sive cruciari pro operibus etiam carnis, etsi habet corpus, etsi habet membra, quae proinde illi non sufficiunt ad sentiendum plene quemadmodum nec ad agendum perfecte.

[7] Since indeed even deeds are bound by merits, and deeds are administered through the flesh, now it does not suffice that the soul be cherished or tormented without flesh for the works also of the flesh, although it has a body, although it has members, which accordingly do not suffice for it to feel fully just as neither to act perfectly.

[8] Idcirco pro quo modo egit, pro eo et patitur apud inferos, prior degustans iudicium sicut prior induxit admissum, expectans tamen et carnem ut per illam etiam facta compenset cui cogitata mandavit.

[8] Therefore, according to the manner in which he acted, for that he also suffers among the infernal regions, first tasting judgment just as earlier he introduced the admitted offense, yet awaiting also the flesh, that through it likewise he may compensate the deeds, to which he had consigned the cogitations.

[9] Denique haec erit ratio in ultimum finem destinati iudicii, ut exhibitione carnis omnis divina censura perfici possit: alioquin non sustineretur in finem quod et nunc animae decerpunt apud inferos, si solis animabus destinaretur.

[9] Finally, this will be the rationale in the ultimate end of the destined judgment, that by the exhibition of the flesh every divine censure might be perfected: otherwise there would not be a sustaining unto the end of that which even now the souls take in portions in the underworld, if it were destined for souls alone.

XVIII.

18.

[1] Hucusque praestructionibus egerim ad muniendos sensus omnium scripturarum quae carnis recidivatum pollicentur. Cui cum tot auctoritates iustorum patrociniorum procurent----honores dico substantiae ipsius, tum vires dei, tum exempla earum, tum rationes iudicii et necessitates ipsius----utique secundum praeiudicia tot auctoritatum scripturas intellegi oportebit, non secundum ingenia haereticorum de sola incredulitate venientia, quia incredibile habeatur restitui substantiam interitu subductam, non quia aut substantiae ipsi inemeribile sit aut deo impossibile aut iudicio inhabile.

[1] Thus far I have carried on with pre-structurings to fortify the senses of all the scriptures which promise the recidivation of the flesh. Since for this so many authorities of righteous advocacies procure support----I mean the honors of the substance itself, then the powers of God, then their examples, then the reasons of the judgment and its necessities----of course the scriptures ought to be understood according to the prejudgments of so many authorities, not according to the wits of heretics coming from sole incredulity, because it is held incredible that a substance withdrawn by destruction be restituted, not because either it be undeservable to the substance itself or impossible to God or unfit for judgment.

[2] Plane incredibile, si nec praedicatum divinitus fuerit: nisi quod etsi praedicatum id a deo non fuisset ultro praesumi debuisset, ut propterea non praedicatum quia tot auctoritatibus praeiudicatum.

[2] Plainly unbelievable, if it had not been proclaimed divinely: except that even if this had not been proclaimed by God, it ought to have been presumed unbidden, so that for that very reason it was not proclaimed, because it had been prejudged by so many authorities.

[3] At cum divinis quoque vocibus personat, tanto abest ut aliter intellegatur quam desiderant illa a quibus etiam sine divinis vocibus persuadetur.

[3] But when it also resounds with divine voices, it is so far from being understood otherwise than as those desire by whom, even without divine voices, it is persuaded.

[4] Videamus igitur hoc primum, quonam titulo spes ista proscripta sit. Unum opinor apud omnes edictum dei pendet, RESURRECTIO MORTUORUM: duo verba expedita decisa detersa. Ipsa conveniam, ipsa discutiam, cui se substantiae addicant.

[4] Let us therefore see this first, under what title that hope has been posted. I suppose one edict of God hangs before all, RESURRECTIO MORTUORUM: two words, unencumbered, concise, polished. I will meet the thing itself, I will examine the thing itself, to what substances they commit themselves.

[5] Cum audio resurrectionem homini imminere, quaeram necesse est quid eius cadere sortitum sit, siquidem nihil resurgere expectabit nisi quod ante succiderit. Qui ignorat carnem cadere per mortem potest eam nec stantem nosse per vitam.

[5] When I hear resurrection to be imminent for man, I must inquire it is necessary what of him it has been allotted to fall, since nothing will expect to rise again except what has previously subsided. He who does not know the flesh to fall through death cannot know it as standing through life.

[6] Sententiam dei natura pronuntiat, Terra es et in terram ibis: et qui non audit videt: nulla mors non ruina membrorum est. Hanc corporis sortem dominus quoque expressit cum ipsa substantia indutus, Diruite inquit templum istud et ego illud triduo resuscitabo:

[6] Nature pronounces the sentence of God, You are earth and into earth you shall go: and he who does not hear sees: no death is not a ruin of the members. This lot of the body the Lord also expressed, when clothed with the very substance itself, Destroy, he says, this temple, and I will resuscitate it in three days:

[7] ostendit enim cuius sit dirui, cuius elidi, cuius et relevari et resuscitari---- quanquam et animam circumferret trepidantem usque ad mortem sed non cadentem per mortem----quia et scriptura, De corpore inquit suo dixerat.

[7] for he shows whose it is to be demolished, whose to be crushed, and whose to be raised up and resuscitated---- although he also bore about a soul trembling up to death but not falling through death----because even Scripture had said, "Of the body," he said, "his own."

[8] Atque adeo caro est quae morte subruitur, ut exinde a cadendo cadaver enuntietur. Anima porro nec vocabulo cadit, quia nec habitu ruit: atquin ipsa est quae ruinam corpori infert cum efflata est, sicut ipsa est quae illud de terra suscitavit cum inflata est. Non potest cadere quae suscitavit ingressa: non potest ruere quae elidit egressa.

[8] And indeed it is the flesh which is undermined by death, so that from “falling” a corpse is designated.
The soul, moreover, neither “falls” in vocabulary, because neither does it collapse in condition; rather it is itself that inflicts ruin upon the body when it is breathed out, just as it is itself that raised it from the earth when it was breathed in.
She who, having entered, resuscitated it cannot fall; she who, having egressed, dashes it down cannot collapse.

[9] Artius dicam: ne in somnum quidem cadit anima cum corpore, ne tum quidem sternitur cum carne, sedenim agitatur in somnis et iactitatur: quiesceret autem si iaceret, et iaceret si caderet: ita nec in veritate mortis cadit quae nec in imagine eius ruit.

[9] More strictly I will say: not even into sleep does the soul fall with the body, not then either is it laid low with the flesh, but rather it is agitated in dreams and is tossed about: it would rest, however, if it were lying, and it would be lying if it had fallen: thus it does not fall in the verity of death which does not collapse even in its image.

[10] Sequens nunc vocabulum 'mortuorum' aeque dispice cui substantiae insideat. Quanquam in hac materia admittamus interdum mortalitatem animae adsignari ab haereticis, ut si anima mortalis resurrectionem consecutura est praeiudicium sit et carni non minus mortali resurrectionem communicaturae, sed nunc proprietas vocabuli vindicanda est suae sorti.

[10] Following now the vocable 'of the dead,' likewise examine to what substance it may inhere. Although in this matter let us sometimes admit the mortality of the soul to be assigned by heretics, so that, if a mortal soul is going to obtain the resurrection, there may be a prejudgment also for the flesh, no less mortal, that is going to share in the resurrection; but now the propriety of the vocable must be vindicated for its own lot.

[11] Iam quidem eo ipso quod resurrectio caducae rei est, id est carnis, eadem erit et in nomine mortui: quia caducae rei est resurrectio quae dicitur mortuorum.

[11] Now indeed from this very fact that resurrection is of a caducous thing, that is, of flesh, it will likewise be so in the name “dead”: because it is the resurrection of a caducous thing which is called “of the dead.”

[12] Sic et per Abraham patrem fidei, divinae familiaritatis virum, discimus: postulans enim Sarrae humandae locum de filiis Heth, Date ergo inquit mihi possessionem sepulchri vobiscum et humabo mortuum meum, carnem scilicet: neque enim animae humandae spatium desiderasset, etsi anima mortalis crederetur, etsi 'mortuus' dici mereretur. Quodsi 'mortuus' corpus est, corporum erit proprie resurrectio, cum dicitur 'mortuorum'.

[12] Thus also through Abraham, the father of faith, a man of divine familiarity, we learn: for, requesting for Sarah to be interred a place from the sons of Heth, 'Give, therefore,' he says, 'to me a possession of a sepulcher among you,' and I will bury my dead—namely, flesh; for he would not have desired a space for a soul to be buried, even if the soul were believed mortal, even if it deserved to be called 'dead.' But if 'dead' is the body, the resurrection will properly be of bodies, when 'of the dead' is said.

XIX.

19.

[1] Et haec itaque dispectio tituli et praeconii ipsius, fidem utique defendens vocabulorum, illuc proficere debebit ut si quid diversa pars turbat obtentu figurarum et aenigmatum manifestiora quaeque praevaleant et de incertis certiora praescribant.

[1] And so this inspection of the title and of the proclamation itself, surely defending the fidelity of the vocabulary, ought to make progress to this point: that, if the opposing party disturbs anything under the pretext of figures and enigmas, the more manifest things may prevail and prescribe more certain things concerning the uncertain.

[2] Nacti enim quidam sollemnissimam eloquii prophetici formam, allegorici et figurati plerumque, non tamen semper, resurrectionem quoque mortuorum, manifeste adnuntiatam, in imaginariam significationem distorquent, adserentes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intellegendam:

[2] For indeed certain persons, having seized upon the most solemn form of prophetic speech, allegorical and figurative for the most part, though not always, also the resurrection of the dead, manifestly announced, into an imaginary signification they distort, asserting that death itself too is to be understood spiritually:

[3] non enim hanc esse in vero quae sit in medio, discidium carnis atque animae, sed ignorantiam dei per quam homo mortuus deo non minus in errore iacuerit quam in sepulchro:

[3] for in verity that which is in the middle is not this, the scission of flesh and soul, but the ignorance of God, through which a man, dead to God, has lain no less in error than in the sepulcher:

[4] itaque et resurrectionem eam vindicandam qua quis adita veritate redanimatus et revivificatus deo, ignorantiae morte discussa, velut de sepulchro veteris hominis eruperit, quia et dominus scribas et pharisaeos sepulchris dealbatis adaequaverit:

[4] and so the resurrection too must be vindicated as that by which one, having approached the truth, reanimated and revivified to God, the death of ignorance shaken off, as if from the sepulcher of the old man has burst forth, since also the Lord likened the scribes and the Pharisees to whitewashed sepulchers:

[5] exinde ergo, resurrectionem fide consecutos, cum domino esse quem in baptismate induerint.

[5] from then on, therefore, those who have attained the resurrection by faith, are with the Lord whom they have put on in baptism.

[6] Hoc denique ingenio etiam in colloquiis saepe nostros decipere consueverunt quasi et ipsi resurrectionem carnis admittant: 'Vae, inquiunt, qui non in hac carne resurrexerit', ne statim illos percutiant si resurrectionem statim abnuerint. Tacite autem secundum conscientiam suam hoc sentiunt, 'Vae qui non, dum in hac carne est, cognoverit arcana haeretica': hoc est enim apud illos resurrectio.

[6] By this device, finally, even in colloquies they have been accustomed often to deceive our people, as if they themselves also resurrection of the flesh admit: 'Woe,' they say, 'to him who in this flesh has not risen', lest at once they be struck if they have at once abnegated the resurrection. Tacitly, however, according to their conscience, they sense this, 'Woe to him who, while he is in this flesh, has not recognized the heretical arcana': for this is, among them, resurrection.

[7] Sed et plerique, ab excessu animae resurrectionem vindicantes, de sepulchro exire de saeculo evadere interpretantur, quia et saeculum mortuorum sit habitaculum, id est ignorantium deum, vel etiam de ipso corpore, quia et corpus vice sepulchri conclusam animam in saecularis vitae morte detineat.

[7] Yet also many, claiming a resurrection from the departure of the soul, interpret going out of the sepulcher as to escape from the world they interpret it as to escape, because the world too is the habitation of the dead, that is, of those ignorant of God, or even of the body itself, because the body also, in the stead of a sepulcher, detains the enclosed soul in the death of secular life.

XX.

20.

[1] Ob huiusmodi igitur coniecturas primam praestructionem eorum depellam, qua volunt omnia prophetas per imagines contionatos: quando, si ita esset, ne ipsae quidem imagines distingui potuissent, si non et veritates praedicatae fuissent ex quibus imagines deliniarentur.

[1] On account of conjectures of this kind, therefore, I will dispel their first preconstruction, by which they wish that all the prophets harangued through images: since, if it were so, not even the images themselves could have been distinguished, if the truths also had not been proclaimed from which the images would be delineated.

[2] Atque adeo si omnia figurae, quid erit illud cuius figurae? Quomodo speculum obtendes si nusquam est facies? Adeo autem non omnia imagines sed et veritates, nec omnia umbrae sed et corpora, ut in ipsum quoque dominum insigniora quaeque luce clarius praedicarentur.

[2] And indeed, if all things are figures, what will that be, of which it is a figure? How will you hold forth a mirror if nowhere there is a face? So far, however, are not all things images but also verities, nor all shadows but also bodies, that even concerning the Lord himself the more outstanding each things were proclaimed more clearly than light.

[3] Nam et virgo concepit in utero non figurate, et peperit Emmanuelem, nobiscum deum [Iesum], non oblique: etsi oblique accepturam virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae, sed manifeste venturum in iudicium cum presbyteris et archontibus populi.

[3] For even a virgin conceived in utero not figuratively, and bore Emmanuel, God-with-us [Jesus], not obliquely; although, obliquely, she was to receive the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, yet manifestly he will come into judgment with the presbyters and archons of the people.

[4] Nam et tumultuatae sunt gentes in persona Pilati, et populi meditati sunt inania in persona Israelis: adstiterunt reges terrae, Herodes, et archontes congregati sunt in unum, Annas et Caiaphas, adversus dominum et adversus Christum eius:

[4] For both the nations were in tumult in the person of Pilate, and the peoples meditated inane things in the person of Israel; the kings of the earth stood, Herod, and the archons were gathered together as one, Annas and Caiaphas, against the lord and against his Christ:

[5] qui et tanquam ovis ad iugulationem adductus est, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem, scilicet Herodem, sine voce, sic non aperuit os suum, dorsum suum ponens ad flagella et maxillas ad palmas, et faciem non avertens a sputaminum iaculis: deputatus etiam inter iniquos, perfossus manus et pedes, sortem passus in vestimento et potus amaros et capitum inridentium nutus, triginta argenteis adpretiatus a proditore.

[5] who also was led like a sheep to slaughter, and like a lamb before the shearer, namely Herod, without a voice, thus he did not open his mouth, giving his back to the scourges and his cheeks to the palms, and not turning his face away from the darts of spittings: reckoned also among the iniquitous, his hands and feet pierced, he endured a lot cast in his garment and bitter drinks and the nods of mocking heads, appraised at thirty silver-pieces by the betrayer.

[6] Quae hic figurae apud Esaiam, quae imagines apud David, quae aenigmata apud Hieremiam, ne virtutes quidem eius per parabolas profatos? Aut numquid nec oculi patefacti sunt caecorum, nec inclaruit lingua mutorum, nec manus aridae et genua dissoluta revaluerunt, nec claudi salierunt ut cervus?

[6] What figures here with Isaiah, what images with David, what enigmas with Jeremiah, were not even his virtues spoken forth through parables? Or was it that neither were the eyes of the blind opened, nor did the tongue of the mute become clear, nor did the withered hand and the loosened knees recover strength, nor did the lame leap like a stag?

[7] Quae etsi spiritaliter quoque interpretari solemus secundum comparationem animalium vitiorum a domino remediatorum, cum tamen et carnaliter adimpleta sunt ostendunt prophetas in utramque speciem praedicasse, salvo eo quod plures voces eorum nudae et simplices et ab omni allegoriae nubilo purae defendi possunt:

[7] Which things, although we are also accustomed spiritually to interpret according to the comparison of the vices of animals remedied by the Lord, nevertheless, since they have also been fulfilled carnally, they show that the prophets preached in both species, with this reserved, that many of their voices, naked and simple and pure from every cloud of allegory, can be defended:

[8] ut cum exitus gentium et urbium resonant, Tyri et Aegypti et Babylonis et Idumaeae et Carthaginensium navium, et cum ipsius Israelis plagas aut venias, captivitates restitutiones, ultimaeque dispersionis exitum perorant.

[8] so that when the outcomes of nations and cities resound, of Tyre and of Egypt and of Babylon and of Idumaea and of the ships of the Carthaginians, and when they perorate the plagues or pardons of Israel itself, the captivities, the restitutions, and the outcome of the final dispersion.

[9] Quis haec interpretabitur magis quam recognoscet? res in litteris tenentur, litterae in rebus leguntur. Ita non semper nec in omnibus allegorica forma est prophetici eloquii, sed interdum et in quibusdam.

[9] Who will interpret these things rather than will recognize them? things are held in letters, letters are read in things. Thus not always nor in all is the allegorical form of prophetic eloquence, but sometimes and in certain cases.

XXI.

21.

[1] Si ergo interdum et in quibusdam, inquies, cur non et in edicto resurrectionis spiritaliter intellegendae? Quoniam quidem plurima ratio intercedit. Primo enim quid facient tot alia instrumenta divina, ita aperte corporalem contestantia resurrectionem ut nullam admittant figuratae significantiae suspicionem?

[1] If therefore at times and in certain cases, you will say, why not also in the edict of the resurrection to be understood spiritually? Since indeed very many reasons intervene. For first, what will so many other instruments divine, so openly attesting a bodily resurrection, do, that they admit no suspicion of a figurative signification?

[2] Et utique aequum sit, quod et supra demandavimus, incerta de certis et obscura de manifestis praeiudicari, vel ne inter discordiam certorum et incertorum, manifestorum et obscurorum, fides dissipetur, veritas periclitetur, ipsa divinitas ut inconstans denotetur.

[2] And surely it is equitable, as we also enjoined above, that the uncertain be prejudged from the certain and the obscure from the manifest, or, lest amid the discord of the certain and the uncertain, the manifest and the obscure, faith be scattered, truth be imperiled, and divinity itself be denoted as inconstant.

[3] Tunc quod verisimile non est ut ea species sacramenti in quam fides tota committitur, in quam disciplina tota conititur, ambigue adnuntiata et obscure proposita videatur, quando spes resurrectionis, nisi manifesta de periculo et praemio, neminem ad huiusmodi praesertim religionem publico odio et hostili elogio obnoxiam persuaderet.

[3] Then—which is not plausible—that that species of the sacrament, into which the whole faith is committed, into which the whole discipline rests, should seem to have been announced ambiguously and set forth obscurely, when the hope of resurrection, unless made manifest concerning danger and reward, would persuade no one to a religion of this kind especially a religion liable to public hatred and a hostile edict subject.

[4] Nullum opus certum est mercedis incertae, nullus timor iustus est periculi dubii: et merces autem et periculum in resurrectionis pendet eventu.

[4] No work is certain for an uncertain reward, no fear is just of a doubtful peril: and both the reward and the peril depend on the event of the resurrection.

[5] Sed et si temporalia et localia et personalia dei decreta atque iudicia in urbes et gentes et reges tam aperta prophetia iaculata est, quale est ut aeternae dispositiones eius et universales in omne hominum genus lucem sui fugerint? Quae quanto maiora, tanto clariora esse deberent, ut maiora crederentur.

[5] But even if the temporal and local and personal decrees and judgments of God have been hurled by so open a prophecy upon cities and nations and kings, how is it that his eternal and universal dispositions toward the whole race of men have fled their own light? Which, the greater they are, the more they ought to be clearer, so that greater things might be believed.

[6] Et puto deo nec livorem nec dolum nec inconstantiam nec lenocinium adscribi posse, per quae fere promulgatio maiorum cavillatur.

[6] And I think that to God neither envy nor deceit nor inconstancy nor pandering can be ascribed, through which for the most part the promulgation of greater matters is cavilled at.

XXII.

22.

[1] Post haec ad illas etiam scripturas respiciendum esse dicemus quae non sinunt resurrectionem, secundum animales istos, ne dixerim spiritales, aut hic iam in veritatis agnitione praesumi aut ab excessu statim vitae vindicari.

[1] After these things we shall say that those scriptures also must be looked to, which do not allow the resurrection, according to these animal— not to say spiritual—people, either to be presumed here already in the recognition of truth, or, upon departure, to be immediately vindicated into life.

[2] Cum enim et tempora totius spei fixa sint sacrosancto stilo, nec liceat eam ante constitui, aeque non licebit ita scripturas interpretari super illam ut possit ante constitui. In adventum opinor Christi vota nostra suspirant, in saeculi huius occasum, ad diem domini magnum, diem irae et retributionis, diem ultimum et occultum nec ulli praeter patri notum, et tamen signis atque portentis et concussionibus elementorum et conflictationibus nationum praenotatum.

[2] For since even the times of the whole hope have been fixed by the sacrosanct stylus, nor is it permitted to establish it beforehand, likewise it will not be permitted thus to interpret the scriptures about it that it can be set up before to be established. Toward the advent, I suppose, of Christ, our vows sigh, toward the setting of this age, to the day of the Lord great, the day of wrath and retribution, the last and hidden day, known to none except the Father, and yet pre-noted by signs and portents and the shakings of the elements and the conflicts of nations.

[3] Evolverem prophetias si dominus ipse tacuisset----nisi quod et prophetiae vox erant domini----sed plus est quod illas suo ore consignat. Interrogatus a discipulis quando eventura essent quae interim de templi exitu eruperat, ordinem temporum primo Iudaicorum usque ad excidium Hierusalem, dehinc communium usque ad conclusionem saeculi dirigit.

[3] I would unroll the prophecies if the Lord himself had kept silence----except that even the voices of the prophecies were the Lord’s----but it is more that he seals them with his own mouth. Asked by the disciples when the things would be about to happen which in the meantime about the destruction of the temple had burst forth, he directs the order of the times: first of the Jewish ones up to the destruction of Jerusalem, then of the common ones up to the conclusion of the age.

[4] Nam posteaquam edixit, Et tunc erit Hierusalem conculcata in nationibus donec adimpleantur tempora nationum---- adlegendarum scilicet a deo et congregandarum cum reliquiis Israelis----

[4] For after he declared, And then Jerusalem will be trampled among the nations until the times of the nations are fulfilled---- namely of those to be adlected by God and to be congregated with the remnants of Israel----

[5] inde iam in orbem et in saeculum praedicat secundum Ioelem et Danielem et universum concilium prophetarum futura signa in sole et luna et in stellis, conclusionem nationum cum stupore sonitus maris, et motus refrigescentium hominum prae metu et expectatione eorum quae immineant orbi terrae.

[5] thence now concerning the orb and the age he preaches, according to Joel and Daniel and the universal council of the prophets, the future signs in the sun and the moon and in the stars, the conclusion of the nations with the stupefaction at the sound of the sea, and the motions of men growing cold from fear and expectation of the things which are impending over the orb of the earth.

[6] Virtutes enim inquit caelorum commovebuntur, et tunc videbunt filium hominis venientem in nubibus caeli cum plurimo potentatu et gloria: ubi autem coeperint ista fieri emergetis et elevabitis capita vestra, quod redemptio vestra adpropinquaverit.

[6] The powers for, he says, of the heavens will be moved, and then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with very great power and glory: but when these things begin to come to pass you will rise up and lift your heads because your redemption has drawn near.

[7] Et tamen adpropinquare eam dixit, non adesse iam, et 'cum coeperint ista fieri', non 'cum facta fuerint', quia cum facta fuerint tunc aderit redemptio nostra, quae eousque adpropinquare dicetur, erigens interim et excitans animos ad proximum iam spei fructum.

[7] And yet he said that it was approaching, not that it was already present, and 'when these things begin to come to pass,' not 'when they have been done,' because when they have been done then our redemption will be present, our redemption, which up to that point will be said to be approaching, raising up meanwhile and exciting minds to the now-near fruit of hope.

[8] Cuius etiam parabola subtexitur tenerescentium arborum in caulem, floris et dehinc frugis antecursorem. Ita et vos, cum videritis omnia ista fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei: vigilate ergo omni in tempore, ut digni sitis effugere omnia ista, et stetis ante filium hominis----utique per resurrectionem, omnibus ante transactis. Ita etsi in agnitione sacramenti fruticat, sed in domini repraesentatione florescit atque frugescit.

[8] Of which parable there is even a subtext subjoined, of trees growing tender in the stem, a precursor of flower and thereafter of fruit. So also you, when you shall have seen omnia ista fieri, know that the kingdom of god is near at hand: keep vigil therefore at every time, that you may be worthy to escape all these things, and to stand before the son of man----assuredly through the resurrection, with all things previously transacted. Thus, even if in the recognition of the sacrament it puts forth shoots, yet in the lord’s representation it blossoms and bears fruit.

[9] Quis ergo dominum tam intempestive tam acerbe excitavit iam a dextera dei ad confringendam terram secundum Esaiam, quae puto adhuc integra est? Quis inimicos Christi iam subiecit pedibus eius secundum David, qua velocior patre, omni adhuc popularium coetu reclamante Christianos ad leonem? Quis caelo descendentem Iesum talem conspexit qualem ascendentem apostoli viderunt, secundum angelorum constitutum?

[9] Who then has so untimely, so bitterly roused the Lord already from the right hand of God, to shatter the earth according to Isaiah, which I suppose is still intact? Who has already subjected the enemies of Christ beneath his feet according to David, in what way is he swifter than the Father, while the whole gathering of the commons is still clamoring Christians to the lion? Who has beheld Jesus descending from heaven such as the apostles saw him ascending, according to the angels’ pronouncement?

[10] Nulla ad hodiernum tribus ad tribum pectora ceciderunt agnoscentes quem pupugerunt, nemo adhuc excepit Heliam, nemo adhuc fugit antichristum, nemo adhuc Babylonis exitum flevit:

[10] To this day no breasts, tribe to tribe, have been beaten, recognizing him whom they pierced; no one yet has received Elijah, no one yet has fled the Antichrist, no one yet has wept over the exit/downfall of Babylon:

[11] et est iam qui resurrexit, nisi haereticus? exiit plane iam de corporis sepulchro etiam nunc febribus et ulceribus obnoxius, et conculcavit iam inimicos etiam nunc luctari habens cum mundi potentibus, et utique iam regnat etiam nunc Caesari quae sunt Caesaris debens.

[11] and is there already one who has risen again, unless a heretic? has plainly already gone forth from the sepulcher of the body, even now liable to fevers and ulcers, and has already trampled enemies, even now having to wrestle with the potentates of the world, and of course already reigns, even now owing to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

XXIII.

23.

[1] Docet quidem apostolus Colossensibus scribens mortuos fuisse nos aliquando, alienatos et inimicos sensus domini, cum in operibus pessimis agebamus, dehinc consepultos Christo in baptismate, et conresuscitatos in eo per fidem efficaciae dei qui illum suscitavit a mortuis:

[1] The apostle indeed teaches, writing to the Colossians, that we once were dead, alienated and enemies in mind toward the Lord, when in works most evil we were acting, thereafter co-buried with Christ in baptism, and co-resuscitated in him through faith in the efficacy of God who raised him from the dead:

[2] Et vos, cum mortui essetis in delictis et praeputiatione carnis vestrae, vivificavit cum eo, donatis vobis omnibus delictis: et rursus, Si cum Christo mortui essetis ab elementis mundi, quomodo quidam quasi viventes in mundo sententiam fertis?

[2] And you, when you were dead in offenses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made alive with him, having forgiven you all offenses; and again, If with Christ you died away from the elements of the world, why do you, as if living in the world, submit to decrees?

[3] Sed cum ita nos mortuos faciat spiritaliter ut tamen et corporaliter quandoque morituros agnoscat, utique et resuscitatos proinde spiritaliter deputans aeque non negat etiam corporaliter resurrecturos.

[3] But since he thus makes us dead spiritually, while nevertheless he acknowledges that at some time we will also die corporally, surely also accounting us as resuscitated accordingly spiritually, equally he does not deny that also corporally we will resurrect.

[4] Denique, Si conresurrexistis, inquit, cum Christo, ea quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est in dextera dei residens: ea quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae deorsum. Ita animo ostendit resurgere, quo solo adhuc possumus caelestia adtingere, quae non quaereremus nec saperemus si possideremus.

[4] Finally, “If you have co-risen,” he says, “with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is residing at the right hand of God: savor the things that are above, not the things below. Thus he shows that we rise again in mind, by which alone we can as yet attain the celestial things, which we would not seek nor savor if we possessed them.

[5] Subicit etiam, Mortui enim estis----scilicet delictis, non vobis----et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in deo. Nondum ergo adprehensa est quae abscondita est:

[5] He also subjoins, For you are dead----namely to delicts, not to yourselves----and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Not yet, therefore, has been apprehended that which hidden is:

[6] sic et Iohannes, Et nondum, ait, manifestatum est quid futuri sumus: scimus quia si manifestatus erit similes ei erimus. Tanto abest ut simus iam quod nescimus, utique scituri si iam essemus.

[6] so also John, “And not yet,” he says, “has it been manifested what we shall be: we know that if he shall be manifested we shall be like him.” So far is it that we already are what we do not know, of course we would know it if we already were.

[7] Adeo contemplatio est spei in hoc spatio per fidem, non repraesentatio, nec possessio sed expectatio. De qua spe et expectatione Paulus ad Galatas, Nos enim spiritu ex fide spem iustitiae expectamus: non ait 'tenemus': iustitiam autem dei dicit ex iudicio quo iudicabimur de mercede.

[7] So much so that contemplation is of hope in this interval through faith, not representation, nor possession but expectation. Of which hope and expectation Paul to the Galatians [writes], For we by the Spirit from faith await the hope of righteousness: he does not say 'we hold': and he calls the righteousness of God, from the judgment by which we shall be judged concerning the reward.

[8] Ad quam pendens et ipse, cum Philippensibus scribit, Si qua inquit concurram in resurrectionem quae est a mortuis, non quia iam accepi aut consummatus sum. Et utique crediderat, et omnia sacramenta cognoverat, vas electionis, doctor nationum: et tamen adicit, Persequor autem, si adprehendam in quo sum adprehensus a Christo.

[8] Hanging upon which even he himself, when he writes to the Philippians, says, If by any means, he says, I might run together into the resurrection which is from the dead, not because I have already received or have been consummated. And yet he had believed, and had known all the sacraments, a vessel of election, a teacher of the nations: and nevertheless he adds, I pursue, however, if I may apprehend that for which I was apprehended by Christ.

[9] Eo amplius, Ego me, fratres, nondum puto adprehendisse: unum tamen, oblitus posteriorum in priora me extendens secundum scopum persequor ad palmam incriminationis per quam concurrerem----utique in resurrectionem a mortuis, suo tamen tempore:

[9] All the more, I, brothers, do not yet think that I have apprehended: one thing, however—forgetting the posterior things and stretching myself toward the prior things—I pursue according to the mark toward the palm of incrimination through which I might compete----surely into the resurrection from the dead, yet in its own time:

[10] sicut ad Galatas, Bene autem facientes ne taedeat, tempore enim suo metemus: sicut et ad Timotheum de Onesiphoro, Det illi dominus invenire misericordiam in illo die.

[10] as to the Galatians, But while doing good let us not grow weary, for in its own time we shall reap: as also to Timothy about Onesiphorus, May the Lord grant him to find mercy on that day.

[11] In quem diem ac tempus et ipsi praecipit custodire mandatum immaculatum inreprehensibile in adparentiam domini Iesu Christi, quam suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potentator et rex regnantium, de deo dicens.

[11] Into which day and time he also commands to keep the commandment immaculate, irreprehensible unto the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, which in his own times the blessed and only Potentate and King of kings will show, speaking about God.

[12] De quibus temporibus et Petrus in Actis, Paeniteat itaque vos et respicite, ad abolenda delicta vestra, uti tempora vobis superveniant refrigerii ex persona dei, et mittat praedesignatum vobis Christum, quem oportet accipere caelos adusque tempora exhibitionis omnium quae locutus est deus de ore sanctorum prophetarum.

[12] Concerning which times Peter also [speaks] in the Acts, Repent therefore and turn back, for the abolishing of your offenses, that times of refreshment may come upon you from the presence of God, and that he may send to you the Christ fore-appointed, whom the heavens must receive until the times of the showing-forth of all things which God has spoken from the mouth of the holy prophets.

XXIV.

24.

[1] Quae haec tempora, cum Thessalonicensibus disce. Legimus enim, Qualiter conversi sitis ab idolis ad serviendum vivo et vero deo et ad expectandum a caelis filium eius, quem suscitavit a mortuis Iesum:

[1] What these times are, learn with the Thessalonians. We read indeed, How you were converted from idols to serve the living and true God and to await from the heavens his Son, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus:

[2] et rursus, Quae enim spes nostra vel gaudium vel exultationis corona quam ut et vos coram domino nostro Iesu Christo in adventu ipsius? Item, Coram deo et patre nostro in adventu domini nostri Iesu Christi cum universis sanctis eius.

[2] and again, For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation but that you also should be before our Lord Jesus Christ at his advent? Likewise, Before God and our Father at the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

[3] De quorum dormitione minus maerenda docens, simul et tempora resurrectionis exponit: Si enim credimus quod Iesus mortuus sit et resurrexerit, sic et deus eos qui dormierunt per Iesum adducet cum ipso:

[3] Concerning whose dormition he teaches that it is less to be mourned, and at the same time he sets forth the times of the resurrection: For if we believe that Jesus has died and has risen again, so also God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus with him:

[4] hoc enim dicimus vobis in sermone dei, quod nos qui vivimus, qui remanemus in adventum domini nostri, non praeveniemus eos qui dormierunt:

[4] for this we say to you by the word of God, that we who live, who remain until the advent of our Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep:

[5] quoniam ipse dominus in iussu et in voce archangeli et in tuba dei descendet de caelo, et mortui in Christo primi resurgent:

[5] because the Lord himself, at a command and at the voice of an archangel and at the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first:

[6] deinde nos qui vivimus, qui simul cum illis tollemur in nubibus obviam domino Christo in aerem, et ita semper cum domino erimus.

[6] then we who live, who together with them shall be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord Christ into the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

[7] Quae vox archangeli, quae tuba dei audita iam, nisi forte in cubiculis haereticorum? nam etsi tuba dei evangelicus sermo dici potest qui illos iam vocarit, sed aut mortui erunt iam corporaliter ut resurrexerint, et quomodo vivunt? aut in nubibus erepti, et quomodo hic sunt?

[7] What voice of the archangel, what trumpet of God has now been heard, unless perhaps in the chambers of the heretics? For even if the trumpet of God can be called the evangelical sermon which has already called them, but either they have already been bodily dead so that they have risen, and how do they live? or snatched up into the clouds, and how are they here?

[8] Miserrimi revera, ut apostolus pronuntiavit, qui in ista tantum vita sperantes habebuntur, excludendo, dum praeripiunt, quod post illam repromittitur, frustrati circa veritatem non minus quam Phygellus et Hermogenes.

[8] Most wretched indeed, as the apostle has proclaimed, are those who will be held as hoping in this life only, by excluding, while they snatch beforehand, what after that life is re-promised, frustrated with respect to the truth no less than Phygelus and Hermogenes.

[9] Et ideo maiestas spiritus sancti, perspicax eiusmodi sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessalonicenses epistula suggerit, De temporibus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis:

[9] And therefore the majesty of the Holy Spirit, perspicacious of such senses, and in the very epistle to the Thessalonians suggests, “But concerning the times and the spans of the times, brothers, there is no necessity of writing to you:”

[10] ipsi enim certissime scitis quod dies domini sicut fur in nocte ita adveniat:

[10] for you yourselves most certainly know that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night:

[11] cum dicent 'Pax' et 'Tuta sunt omnia', tunc et illis repentinus insistet interitus.

[11] when they say 'Peace' and 'All things are secure,' then sudden destruction will press upon them as well.

[12] Et in secunda pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem, Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per adventum domini nostri Iesu Christi et congregationem nostram ad illum,

[12] And in the second, with fuller solicitude to the same, But I beseech you, brothers, by the advent of our lord Jesus Christ and our congregation to him,

[13] ne cito commoveamini animo neque turbemini neque per spiritum neque per sermonem----scilicet pseudoprophetarum---- neque per epistulam----scilicet pseudoapostolorum----acsi per nostram, quasi insistat dies domini:

[13] that you not be quickly shaken in mind nor be troubled, neither by a spirit nor by a word----namely, of the pseudoprophets---- nor by a letter----namely, of the pseudoapostles----as if by ours, as though the day of the lord were at hand:

[14] ne quis vos seducat ullo modo, quoniam nisi veniat abscessio primum----huius utique regni----et reveletur delinquentiae homo----id est antichristus----filius perditionis,

[14] let no one seduce you in any way, since unless the secession come first----of this very kingdom----and the man of delinquency be revealed----that is, Antichrist----the son of perdition,

[15] qui adversatur et superextollitur in omne quod dicitur deus vel religio, uti sedeat in templo dei adfirmans deum se:

[15] who opposes and is super-exalted above everything that is called god or religion, so that he may sit in the temple of God, affirming himself to be God:

[16] nonne meministis quod cum apud vos essem haec dicebam vobis?

[16] do you not remember that, when I was with you, I was saying these things to you?

[17] Et nunc quid teneat scitis, ad revelandum eum in suo tempore:

[17] And now you know what restrains, for the revealing of him in his own time:

[18] iam enim arcanum iniquitatis agitatur: tantum qui nunc tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat----quis, nisi Romanus status, cuius abscessio in decem reges dispersa antichristum superducet?----

[18] already for the arcane of iniquity is at work: only let him who now restrains restrain, until he be removed from the midst----who, unless the Roman State, whose secession, dispersed into ten kings, will bring on the Antichrist?----

[19] et tunc revelabitur iniquus, quem dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui et evacuabit apparentia adventus sui:

[19] and then will be revealed the iniquitous one, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will invalidate by the appearance of his advent:

[20] cuius est adventus secundum operationem satanae in omni virtute et signis atque portentis mendacii et in omni seductione iniustitiae his qui pereunt.

[20] whose advent is according to the operation of Satan in all power and signs and portents of mendacity and in all seduction of injustice for those who are perishing.

XXV.

25.

[1] Etiam in Apocalypsi Iohannis ordo temporum sternitur, quem martyrum quoque animae sub altari ultionem et iudicium flagitantes sustinere didicerunt, ut prius et orbis de pateris angelorum plagas suas ebibat, et prostituta illa civitas a decem regibus dignos exitus referat, et bestia antichristus cum suo pseudopropheta certamen ecclesiae inferat,

[1] Also in the Apocalypse of John the order of times is laid down, which the souls of the martyrs too under the altar, demanding vengeance and judgment demanding have learned to endure, so that first the world also might drink down its plagues from the bowls of the angels, and that that prostituted city may render back worthy outcomes from ten kings, and that the beast Antichrist with his pseudo-prophet may bring a contest upon the church,

[2] atque ita diabolo in abyssum interim religato primae resurrectionis praerogativa de soliis ordinetur, dehinc et igni dato universalis resurrectionis censura de libris iudicetur.

[2] and thus, with the devil meanwhile bound into the abyss, let the prerogative of the first resurrection be ordained from the thrones, then also, when fire is given, let the censure of the universal resurrection from the books be judged.

[3] Cum igitur et status temporum ultimorum scripturae notent et totam Christianae spei frugem in exodio saeculi collocent, adparet aut tunc adimpleri totum quodcunque nobis a deo repromittitur, et vacat quod hic iam ab haereticis vindicatur, aut, si et agnitio sacramenti resurrectio est, salva utique illa creditur quae in ultimo praedicatur:

[3] Since therefore both the statuses of the ultimate times the Scriptures mark and place the whole fruit of Christian hope in the exodus of the age, it appears either that then the whole of whatever is re-promised to us by God is fulfilled, and void is that which is here already claimed by the heretics, or, if even the recognition of the sacrament is a resurrection, assuredly that which is proclaimed for the end is believed to stand safe:

[4] et sequitur ut eo ipso quod haec spiritalis vindicetur, illa corporalis praeiudicetur: quia, si nulla tunc adnuntiaretur, merito sola haec et tantummodo spiritalis vindicaretur: cum vero et in ultimum tempus edicitur corporalis agnoscitur, quia non et tunc spiritalis

[4] and it follows that by this very fact, that this is vindicated as spiritual, that bodily one is prejudged: because, if none were then announced, deservedly this one alone, and only a spiritual one, would be vindicated: but since a bodily one too is promulgated for the ultimate time, it is recognized, because not even then is a spiritual one

[5] Cur enim iterum> adnuntiaretur resurrectio eiusdem condicionis, id est spiritalis, cum aut nunc eam deceret expungi sine ulla differentia temporum aut tunc sub omni clausula temporum?

[5] For why again> would the resurrection of the same condition, that is, spiritual, be announced, when either now it ought to be expunged without any difference of times, or then under the complete closure of times?

[6] Ita nobis magis competit etiam spiritalem defendere resurrectionem ab ingressu fidei qui plenitudinem eius agnoscimus in exitu saeculi.

[6] Thus it more befits us even to defend the spiritual resurrection from the ingress of faith, we who recognize its plenitude at the exit of the age.

XXVI.

26.

[1] Unum adhuc respondebo ad propositionem priorem allegoricarum scripturarum, licere et nobis corporalem resurrectionem de patrocinio figurati proinde eloquii prophetici vindicare.

[1] One thing further I will answer to the former proposition of allegorical Scriptures, that it is permitted to us also to vindicate the corporal resurrection on the patronage of the figurative, accordingly, prophetic eloquence.

[2] Ecce enim divina in primordio sententia terram hominem pronuntiando ----Terra es et in terram ibis, secundum substantiam scilicet carnis quae de terra erat sumpta et quae prior homo fuerat appellata, sicut ostendimus----dat mihi disciplinam in carnem quoque interpretandi si quid irae vel gratiae in terram deus statuit, quia nec proprie terra iudicio eius obnoxia est, quae nihil boni seu mali admisit, maledicta quidem quod hauserit sanguinem, sed et hoc ipsum in figuram carnis homicidae.

[2] Behold indeed, the divine primordial sentence, by pronouncing man as earth ----Earth you are and into earth you will go, according to the substance, namely, of the flesh which was taken from the earth and which had been called the earlier man, as we have shown----gives me a discipline for interpreting into the flesh also, if God has set anything of wrath or of grace upon the earth, since the earth is not properly liable to his judgment, which has admitted nothing of good or of ill, accursed indeed because it has drunk in blood, but this very thing too as a figure of homicidal flesh.

[3] Nam et si iuvari seu laedi habet terra, id quoque propter hominem, uti ille iuvetur sive laedatur per consistorii sui exitus, quo magis ipse pensabit quae propter illum etiam terra patietur.

[3] For even if the earth has to be aided or to be injured, that too is on account of man, so that he may be aided or injured through the outcomes of its standing, whereby he himself will the more weigh what, on his account, even the earth will suffer.

[4] Itaque et cum comminatur terrae deus carni potius comminari eum dicam, et cum quid terrae pollicetur carni potius polliceri eum intellegam, ut apud David, Dominus regnavit, exultabit terra----id est caro sanctorum, ad quam pertinet regni divini fructus----:

[4] Thus also, when God threatens the earth, I would say that he rather threatens the flesh, and when he promises something to the earth I understand that he rather promises it to the flesh, as with David, "The Lord has reigned, the earth will exult"----that is, the flesh of the saints, to which pertains the fruit of the divine kingdom----:

[5] dehinc subiungit, Vidit et concussa est terra, montes velut cera liquefacti sunt a facie domini----caro scilicet profanorum----: Et videbunt enim eum qui confixerunt.

[5] then he subjoins, “He looked and the earth was shaken, the mountains, as if wax, were liquefied from the face of the Lord”----namely, the flesh of the profane----: “And indeed they shall see him whom they pierced.”

[6] Atque adeo, si simpliciter de terrae elemento utrumque existimabitur pronuntiatum, quomodo congruet et concuti et liquefieri eam a facie domini, quo supra regnante exultavit?

[6] And indeed, if both be considered to have been pronounced simply concerning the element of earth, how will it be congruent that it both be shaken and be liquefied from the face of the Lord, under whose reigning above it exulted?

[7] Sic et apud Esaiam, Bona terrae edetis, bona carnis intellegentur, quae illam manent in regno dei reformatam et angelificatam et consecuturam quae nec oculus vidit nec auris audivit nec in cor hominis ascenderunt.

[7] Thus also in Isaiah, "You shall eat the good things of the land," the good things of the flesh will be understood, which await it in the kingdom of God reformed and angelified, and destined to attain the things which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard nor have ascended into the heart of man.

[8] Alioquin satis vanum ut ad obsequium deus fructibus agri et cibariis vitae huius invitet, quae etiam inreligiosis et blasphemis semel homini addicta conditione communicat, pluens super bonos et malos et solem suum emittens super iustos et iniustos.

[8] Otherwise, it is quite vain that God should invite to obedience by the fruits of the field and the provisions of this life, which he even communicates to the irreligious and the blasphemers by the condition once assigned to man, raining upon the good and the bad and emitting his sun upon the just and the unjust.

[9] Felix nimirum fides, si ea consecutura est quibus hostes dei et Christi non modo utuntur verum etiam abutuntur, ipsam conditionem colentes adversus conditorem. Bulbos et tubera in terrae bonis deputabis, domino pronuntiante ne in pane quidem victurum hominem?

[9] Happy indeed the faith, if it is going to obtain those things which the enemies of God and of Christ not only use but even abuse, worshipping the very creation against the Creator. Bulbs and tubers you will reckon among the goods of the earth, with the Lord pronouncing that man shall not live even on bread?

[10] Sic Iudaei terrena solummodo sperando caelestia amittunt, ignorantes et panem de caelesti repromissum et oleum divinae unctionis et aquam spiritus et vinum animae vigorantis ex vite Christo:

[10] Thus the Jews, by hoping for terrestrial things only, they lose the celestial, ignorant of both the bread promised from heaven and of the oil of divine unction and of the water of the Spirit and of the wine of the soul growing vigorous from the vine, Christ:

[11] sicut et ipsam terram sanctam Iudaicum proprie solum reputant, carnem potius domini interpretandam quae exinde et in omnibus Christum indutis sancta sit terra, vere sancta per incolatum spiritus sancti, vere lac et mel manans per suavitatem spei ipsius, vere Iudaea per dei familiaritatem: Non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus, sed qui in occulto:

[11] just as they reckon the holy land itself to be properly Jewish soil, rather the flesh of the Lord ought to be interpreted, which from then on, and in all who have put on Christ, is holy land, truly holy through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, truly flowing with milk and honey through the sweetness of that hope itself, truly Judaea through familiarity with God: For not he who is a Jew in what is manifest, but he who is in what is hidden:

[12] ut et templum dei eadem sit, et Hierusalem, audiens ab Esaia, Exsurge, exsurge, Hierusalem, indue fortitudinem brachii tui, exsurge sicut in primordio diei, scilicet in illa integritate qua fuerat ante delictum transgressionis.

[12] so that the same may be the temple of God, and Jerusalem, hearing from Isaiah, “Arise, arise, Jerusalem, put on the strength of your arm; arise as in the beginning of the day,” namely, in that integrity in which it had been before the offense of transgression.

[13] Qui enim in eam Hierusalem voces eiusmodi competent exhortationis et advocationis, quae occidit prophetas et lapidavit missos ad se et ipsum postremo dominum suum confecit? Sed nec ulli omnino terrae salus repromittitur, quam oportet cum totius mundi habitu praeterire.

[13] For what voices of such exhortation and advocation would be competent exhortation and advocation, which killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her and in the end finished off her very own Lord himself? Nor to any land at all is salvation re-promised, which ought to pass away with the whole world fashion.

[14] Etiam si quis audebit terram sanctam paradisum potius argumentari, quam et patrum dici capiat, Adae scilicet et Evae, proinde et in paradisum restitutio carni videbitur repromissa, quae eum incolare et custodire sortita est, ut talis illuc homo revocetur qualis inde depulsus est.

[14] Even if someone will dare to argue that the Holy Land is rather Paradise, which may also be called that of the parents, namely Adam and Eve, accordingly even a restoration to Paradise will seem to have been promised to the flesh, which was allotted to dwell in it and to keep it, so that such a man be called back thither as the sort who was driven out from there.

XXVII.

27.

[1] Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare, quia et Apocalypsis Iohannis, Hi sunt, ait, qui vestimenta sua non coinquinaverunt cum mulieribus, virgines scilicet significans et qui semetipsos castraverunt propter regna caelorum.

[1] We have also mention of garments in the scriptures to allegorize the hope of the flesh, since even the Apocalypse of John says, "These are they who have not defiled their garments with women," clearly signifying virgins and those who have castrated themselves for the kingdoms of the heavens.

[2] Itaque in albis erunt vestibus, id est in claritate innubae carnis. Et in evangelio indumentum nuptiale sanctitas carnis agnosci potest.

[2] And so they will be in white garments, that is, in the clarity of unwed flesh. And in the Gospel the nuptial garment can be recognized as the sanctity of the flesh.

[3] Itaque Esaias, docens quale ieiunium dominus elegerit, cum subicit de mercede bonitatis, Tunc, inquit, lumen tuum temporaneum erumpet et vestimenta tua citius orientur: non subsericam utique nec pallium sed carnem volens accipi, ortum carnis resurrecturae de mortis occasu praedicavit.

[3] Therefore Isaiah, teaching what kind of fast the Lord has chosen, when he subjoins about the reward of goodness, “Then,” he says, “your timely light will erupt and your garments will arise more swiftly:” not of silk, to be sure, nor a pallium, but wishing ‘garments’ to be taken as flesh, he proclaimed the rising of flesh destined to resurrect from the setting of death.

[4] Adec nobis quoque suppetit allegorice defensio corporalis resurrectionis. Nam et cum legimus, Populus meus, introite in cellas promas quantulum donec ira mea praetereat, sepulchra erunt cellae promae, in quibus paulisper requiescere habebunt qui in finibus saeculi sub ultima ira per antichristi vim excesserint.

[4] Likewise there comes to hand for us also, allegorically, a defense of the corporeal resurrection. For even when we read, My people, enter into the store-chambers for a little while until my wrath passes by, the tombs will be the store chambers, in which for a short while they will have to rest who at the ends of the age, under the ultimate wrath, will have departed through the force of Antichrist.

[5] Aut cur cellarum promarum potius vocabulo usus est et non alicuius loci receptorii, nisi quia in cellis promis caro salita et usui reposita servatur, depromenda illinc suo tempore? Proinde enim et corpora medicata condimentis sepulturae mausoleis et monumentis sequestrantur, processura inde cum iusserit dominus.

[5] Or why did he rather use the term of store-cells and not of some receiving place, unless because in pantry-cells flesh salted and laid away for use is preserved, to be brought out from there in its proper time? For in like manner also bodies medicated with the condiments of burial are sequestered in mausolea and monuments to proceed from there when the Lord shall have commanded.

[6] Quod cum ita intellegi congruat----ecquae enim ab ira dei cellariorum nos refugia servabunt?----hoc ipso quod ait, Donec ira praetereat, quae extinguet antichristum, post iram ostendit processuram carnem de sepulchro in quo ante iram fuerit inlata: nam et de cellariis non aliud effertur quam quod infertur, et post antichristi eradicationem agitabitur resurrectio.

[6] Since it fits to be understood thus----for what refuges of cellars, pray, will shield us from the wrath of God?----by this very thing that he says, Until the wrath pass by, which will extinguish the Antichrist, he shows that after the wrath the flesh will come forth from the sepulcher into which it had been borne before the wrath: for from cellars nothing else is carried out than what is carried in, and after the eradication of the Antichrist the resurrection will be set in motion.

XXVIII.

28.

[1] Scimus autem sicut et vocibus ita et rebus prophetatum: tam dictis quam et factis praedicatur resurrectio. Cum Moyses manum in sinum condit et emortuam profert, et rursus insinuat et vividam explicat, nonne hoc de toto homine portendit?

[1] We know, moreover, that it has been prophesied both by voices and by things: the resurrection is proclaimed both by sayings and also by deeds. When Moses puts his hand into his bosom and brings it forth dead, and again inserts it and brings it out living, does not this portend of the whole man?

[2] Siquidem trina virtus dei per illa trina signa denotabatur cum suo ordine, primo diabolum serpentem quanquam formidabilem subactura homini, dehinc carnem de sinu mortis retractura, atque ita omnem sanguinem exsecutura iudicio.

[2] For indeed the threefold power of God was denoted by those three signs with its own order: first, about to subdue for man the devil, the serpent, although formidable; then about to draw the flesh back from the bosom of death; and thus all bloodshed to execute in judgment.

[3] De quo apud eundem propheten, Quoniam et vestrum, inquit deus, sanguinem exquiram de omnibus bestiis, et de mahu hominis et de manu fratris exquiram eum.

[3] Concerning which, in the same prophet, Since and your blood, says God, I will require from all beasts, and from the hand of man and from the hand of a brother I will require it.

[4] Porro nihil exquiritur nisi quod reposcitur, nihil reposcitur nisi quod et reddetur, et utique reddetur quod ultionis nomine reposcetur et exquiretur. Neque enim vindicari poterit quod omnino non fuerit: erit autem dum restituitur, uti vindicetur. In carnem itaque dirigitur quicquid in sanguinem praedicatur, sine qua non erit sanguis.

[4] Furthermore, nothing is exacted except what is demanded back, nothing is demanded back except what also will be rendered, and surely there will be a rendering of that which, under the name of vengeance, will be demanded back and exacted. For neither can that be avenged which has not been at all: but it will be, when it is restored, so that it may be avenged. Into the flesh therefore is directed whatever is predicated of the blood, without which there will not be blood.

Caro suscitabitur, ut sanguis vindicetur.

Flesh will be raised, that blood may be avenged.

[5] Sunt et quaedam ita pronuntiata ut allegoriae quidem nubilo careant, nihilominus tamen ipsius simplicitatis suae sitiant interpretationem, quale est apud Esaiam, Ego occidam et vivificabo. Certe postea quam occiderit vivificabit: ergo per mortem occidens per resurrectionem vivificabit.

[5] There are also certain things pronounced in such a way that they indeed lack the cloud of allegory, nevertheless they thirst for an interpretation of their very simplicity, such as is in Isaiah, I will kill and I will make alive. Certainly after he has killed he will make alive: therefore by death killing, by resurrection he will make alive.

[6] Caro est autem quae occiditur per mortem: caro itaque et vivificabitur per resurrectionem.

[6] But it is the flesh which is slain through death: therefore the flesh also will be vivified through the resurrection.

[7] Certe si occidere carni animam eripere est, vivificare, contrarium eius, carni animam referre est, caro resurgat necesse est, cui anima per occisionem erepta referenda est per vivificationem.

[7] Certainly, if to kill is to snatch the soul from the flesh, to vivify, its contrary, is to bring back the soul to the flesh; it is necessary that the flesh rise again, to which the soul, through occision snatched away, must be returned through vivification.

XXIX.

29.

[1] Igitur si et allegoricae scripturae et argumenta rerum et simplices voces resurrectionem carnis quanquam sine nominatione ipsius substantiae obradiant, quanto magis quae hanc spem in ipsas substantias corporales speciali mentione determinant non erunt ducendae in quaestionem?

[1] Therefore, if both the allegorical scriptures and the arguments of things and the simple voices irradiate the resurrection of the flesh, although without the naming of that very substance, how much more should those which determine this hope, by special mention, in the very bodily substances not be brought into question?

[2] Accipe Ezechielem: Et facta est, inquit, super me manus domini et extulit me in spiritu dominus et posuit me in medio campi: is erat ossibus refertus.

[2] Take Ezekiel: “And the hand of the Lord came upon me,” he says, “and the Lord lifted me up in spirit and set me in the midst of a plain: which was filled with bones.”

[3] Et circumduxit me super ea per circuitum et ecce multa super faciem campi et ecce arida satis. Et ait ad me, Fili hominis, si vivent ossa ista?

[3] And he led me around over them in a circuit, and behold many upon the face of the plain, and behold very dry. And he said to me, Son of man, will these bones live?

[4] Et dixi, Adonai domine tu scis.

[4] And I said, Lord Adonai, you know.

[5] Et ait ad me, Propheta in ossa haec et dices, Ossa arida audite sermonem domini:

[5] And he said to me, Prophesy upon these bones and you shall say, Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord:

[6] haec dicit dominus Adonai ossibus istis, Ecce ego adfero in vos spiritum et vivetis,

[6] thus says the Lord Adonai to these bones, Behold, I bring into you spirit and you shall live,

[7] et dabo in vosnervos et reducam in vos carnes et circumdabo in vobis cutem et dabo in vobis spiritum, et vivetis et cognoscetis quod ego dominus.

[7] and I will put into younerves and I will bring back upon you flesh and I will surround you with skin and I will put within you a spirit, and you will live and you will recognize that I am lord.

[8] Et prophetavi secundum praeceptum, et ecce vox dum propheto et ecce motus, et accedebant ossa ad ossa:

[8] And I prophesied according to the precept, and behold a voice while I prophesy, and behold a movement, and the bones were approaching bone to bone:

[9] et vidi et ecce super ossa nervi et caro ascendit et circumpositae sunt eis carnes, et spiritus in eis non erat.

[9] and I saw, and behold, upon the bones sinews and flesh ascended, and flesh was placed around them, and there was no spirit in them.

[10] Et ait ad me, Propheta ad spiritum, fili hominis, propheta et dices ad spiritum, Haec dicit dominus Adonai, A quattuor ventis veni, spiritus, et spira in istis interemptis et vivant.

[10] And he said to me, Prophesy to the spirit, son of man, prophesy and you shall say to the spirit, Thus says the Lord Adonai, From the four winds come, spirit, and breathe into these slain, and let them live.

[11] Et prophetavi ad spiritum sicut praecepit mihi, et introivit in ea spiritus et vixerunt et constiterunt super pedes suos, valentia magna satis.

[11] And I prophesied to the spirit as he commanded me, and the spirit entered into them and they lived and stood upon their feet, a force exceedingly great.

[12] Et ait ad me, Fili hominis, ossa ista omnis domus Israelis est: ipsi dicunt, Exaruerunt ossa nostra et periit spes nostra, avulsi sumus in eis:

[12] And he said to me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: they themselves say, Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished, we are cut off in them:

[13] propterea propheta ad eos, Ecce ego patefacio sepulchra vestra et eveham vos de sepulchris vestris, populus meus, et inducam vos in terram Israelis,

[13] therefore prophesy to them, Behold, I open your sepulchers and I will bring you up out of your sepulchers, my people, and I will bring you into the land of Israel,

[14] et cognoscetis quod ego dominus aperuerim sepulchra vestra et eduxerim vos de sepulchris vestris, populus meus,

[14] and you shall know that I, the Lord, have opened your graves and have led you out of your graves, my people,

[15] et dabo in vobis spiritum et vivetis et requiescetis in terra vestra, et cognoscetis quod ego dominus locutus sum et fecerim, dicit dominus.

[15] and I will put spirit within you and you will live, and you will rest in your land, and you will know that I, the lord, have spoken and have done it, says the lord.

XXX.

30.

[1] Hanc quoque praedicationem scio qualiter concutiant in allegoriae argumentationem, quia dicendo, Ossa ista omnis domus Israel est, imaginem ea fecerit Israelis et a propria condicione transtulit, atque ita figuratam esse, non veram, resurrectionis praedicationem: statum enim Iudaeorum deformari quodammodo emortuum et exaridum et dispersum in campo orbis:

[1] I also know how they shake this proclamation into an argument of allegory, because by saying, “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” he made them an image of Israel and transferred them from their proper condition, and thus that the preaching of the resurrection is figurative, not true: for the status of the Jews is in a certain way deformed as dead and dried up and scattered in the field of the world:

[2] itaque et imaginem resurrectionis in illum allegorizari, quia recolligi habeat et recompingi os ad os, id est tribus ad tribum et populus ad populum, et recorporari carnibus facultatum et nervis regni, atque ita de sepulchris, id est de habitaculis captivitatis tristissimis atque teterrimis, educi et refrigerii nomine respirari et vivere exinde in terra sua Iudaea. Et quid post haec?

[2] thus also the image of the resurrection is allegorized onto that, because it is to be re-collected and re-fastened bone to bone, that is tribe to tribe and people to people, and to be re-bodied with the flesh of resources and the sinews of kingship, and thus from the sepulchers, that is from the most sad and most foul habitations of captivity, to be led out and, under the name of refreshment, to breathe again and to live thenceforth in its own land, Judaea. And what after these things?

[3] Morientur sine dubio. Et quid post mortem? Nulla opinor resurrectio si non haec erit ipsa quae Ezechieli revelatur.

[3] They will die without doubt. And what after death? There is, I suppose, no resurrection if this will not be the very one which is revealed to Ezekiel.

Sed enim et alias praedicatur resurrectio: ergo et haec erit, et temere eam in statum Iudaicarum rerum convertunt: aut si alia est illa quam defendimus, nihil mea interest dum sit et corporum resurrectio sicut et rerum Iudaicarum.

But indeed elsewhere too is preached a resurrection: therefore this too will be, and they rashly convert it into the state of Jewish affairs: or if that is other than the one which we defend, nothing is my concern so long as there be also a resurrection of bodies just as also of Jewish affairs.

[4] Denique hoc ipso quod recidivatus Iudaici status de recorporatione et redanimatione ossuum figuratur, id quoque eventurum ossibus probatur: non enim posset de ossibus figura componi si non id ipsum ossibus eventurum esset.

[4] Finally, by this very thing—that the recurrence of the Judaic state is figured from the re-corporation and re-animation of bones—it is proved that this too will befall the bones: for a figure could not be composed from bones if that very same thing were not going to befall the bones.

[5] Nam etsi figmentum veritatis in imagine est, imago ipsa in veritate est sui: necesse est esse prius sibi id quod alii configuretur. De vacuo similitudo non competit: de nullo parabola non convenit.

[5] For even if the figment of truth is in the image, the image itself is in the truth of itself: it is necessary that what is to be configured to another exist first for itself. From a vacuum a similitude does not befit: from nothing a parable does not agree.

[6] Ita oportebit ossuum quoque credi reviscerationem et respirationem qualis et dicitur, de qua possit exprimi Iudaicarum rerum reformatio qualis adfingitur.

[6] Thus it ought to be believed also, for the bones, that there will be a re‑visceration and a re‑spiration such as is also said, from which the reformation of Judaic affairs, such as is fashioned, can be expressed.

[7] Sed magis religiosum est veritatem de sua auctoritate et simplicitate defendi, quam sensus divinae propositionis expostulat. Si enim ad res Iudaicas spectaret haec visio, statim revelato situ ossuum subiecisset, Ossa ista omnis domus Israelis est, et cetera deinceps.

[7] But it is more religious that the truth be defended by its own authority and simplicity, as the sense of the divine proposition requires. If indeed toward matters Judaic this vision were looking, immediately, with the site of the bones revealed, it would have subjoined, These bones are the whole house of Israel, and so on thereafter.

[8] At cum ostensis ossibus de propria spe eorum quid obloquitur, nondum nominato Israele, et fidem temptat prophetae, Fili hominis si vivent ossa haec?, ut et ille responderet, Domine tu scis, non utique deus prophetae fidem de ea re temptasset quae futura non esset, quam nunquam Israel audisset, quam credi non oporteret.

[8] But when the bones having been shown, he speaks against something concerning their own hope, with Israel not yet named, and he tests the prophet’s faith, Son of man, will these bones live?, so that he too might answer, Lord, you know, surely God would not have tested the prophet’s faith about a matter which would not be, which Israel would never have heard, which ought not to be believed.

[9] Sed quoniam praedicabatur quidem resurrectio mortuorum, Israel vero pro sua incredulitate diffidens scandalizabatur, et aspiciens habitum senescentis sepulturae desperabat resurrectionem, vel non in eam potius animum dirigebat sed in circumstantias suas, idcirco deus et prophetam qua et ipsum dubium praestruxit ad constantiam praedicationis revelato ordine resurrectionis, et populo id credendum mandavit quod prophetae revelavit, ipsos dicens esse ossa quae erant resurrectura qui non credebant resurrectura.

[9] But since the resurrection of the dead was indeed being preached, Israel, however, mistrusting on account of its own incredulity, was scandalized, and, looking upon the condition of a senescent sepulture, was despairing of the resurrection, or not rather directing its mind to it but to its own circumstances its own, therefore God both pre-armed the prophet—who was himself also doubtful— for constancy of preaching by revealing the order of the resurrection, and mandated to the people to believe that which he revealed to the prophet, saying that they themselves were the bones which were going to be resurrected—those who did not believe they would be resurrected.

[10] Denique in clausula, Et cognoscetis, inquit, quod ego dominus locutus sum et fecerim, id utique facturus quod fuerat locutus, ceterum non id facturus quod locutus si aliter facturus quam locutus.

[10] Finally, in the clausula, “And you shall know,” he says, that I, the Lord, have spoken and have done, assuredly being about to do what he had spoken; otherwise, he would not be about to do what he had spoken, if he were about to do otherwise than he had spoken.

XXXI.

31.

[1] Plane si et populus allegorice mussitaret ossa sua arefacta et spem suam perditam, dispersionis exitum querulus, merito videretur et deus figuratam desperationem figurata promissione consolatus.

[1] Plainly, if even the people were to mutter allegorically that their bones were dried up and their hope lost, complaining of the outcome of dispersion, then God too would rightly seem to have consoled the figured desperation with a figured promise.

[2] Sed cum dispersionis quidem iniuria nondum populo accidisset, resurrectionis vero spes apud illum saepissime cecidisset, manifestus est de corporum interitu labefactans fiduciam resurrectionis: ita et deus eam restruebat fidem quam populus destruebat.

[2] But since the injury of dispersion had not yet happened to the people, whereas the hope of resurrection had very often collapsed among that people, it is manifest that he is speaking about the destruction of bodies, undermining the confidence of the resurrection: thus also God was rebuilding that faith which the people was destroying.

[3] Quanquam etsi aliqua praesentium rerum tunc conflictatione maerebat Israel, non idcirco in parabola accipienda esset revelationis intentio sed in testationem resurrectionis, ut in illam spem erigeret illos, aeternae scilicet salutis et necessarioris restitutionis, et averteret a respectu praesentium rerum.

[3] Although, even if Israel was then grieving with some conflict of present things , not on that account should the intention be received in parable but as a testimony of the resurrection, so that it might raise them to that hope, namely of eternal salvation and a more necessary restitution, and turn them away from a regard to present things. of the revelation intention but as a testimony of the resurrection, so that it might raise them to that hope, namely of eternal salvation and a more necessary restitution, and turn them away from a regard to present things.

[4] Ad hoc enim et alibi prophetes, Exibitis----de sepulchris----velut vituli de vinculis soluti et conculcabitis inimicos: et rursus, Gaudebit cor vestrum et ossa vestra velut herba orientur----quia et herba de dissolutione et corruptela seminis reformatur.

[4] For to this end also elsewhere the prophet, You shall go forth----from the sepulchres----like calves loosed from bonds, and you shall trample the enemies: and again, Your heart will rejoice and bones yours like grass will spring up----for even the grass is reformed from the dissolution and corruption of the seed.

[5] in summa, si proprie in Israelis statum resurgentium ossuum imago contenditur, cur etiam non Israeli tantummodo verum et omnibus gentibus eadem spes adnuntiatur et recorporandarum et redanimandarum reliquiarum et de sepulchris exsuscitandorum mortuorum?

[5] in sum, if the image of the resurrecting bones is properly contended for the state of Israel, why is the same hope announced not to Israel only but also to all the nations, both of re-corporealizing and re-animating the relics, and of the dead to be resuscitated out of the sepulchers?

[6] De omnibus enim dictum est, Vivent mortui et exsurgent de sepulchris: ros enim qui a te, medela est ossibus eorum.

[6] For concerning all it has been said, The dead shall live and shall rise from the sepulchres: for the dew that is from you is a remedy for their bones.

[7] Item alibi, Veniet adorare omnis caro in conspectu meo, dicit dominus. Quando? Cum praeterire coeperit habitus mundi huius:

[7] Likewise elsewhere, All flesh will come to adore in my sight, says the lord. When? When the fashion of this world begins to pass away:

[8] supra enim, Quemadmodum caelum novum et terra nova quae ego facio, in conspectu meo, dicit dominus, ita stabit semen vestrum.

[8] for above, Just as the new heaven and the new earth which I am making, in my sight, says the Lord, so shall your seed stand.

[9] Tunc ergo et quod subiecit implebitur, Et exibunt----utique de sepulchris----et videbunt artus eorum qui impie egerunt, quoniam vermis eorum non decidet et ignis eorum non extinguetur, et erit satis conspectui omni carni----scilicet quae resuscitata et egressa de sepulchris dominum pro hac gratia adorabit.

[9] Then therefore even what he subjoined will be fulfilled, And they will go out----indeed from the graves----and will see the limbs of those who have acted impiously, because their worm will not fall away and their fire will not be extinguished, and it will be sufficient for the sight of all flesh----namely, which, resurrected and gone forth from the graves, will adore the Lord for this grace.

XXXII.

32.

[1] Sed ne solummodo eorum corporum resurrectio videatur praedicari quae sepulchris demandantur, habes scriptum, Et mandabo piscibus maris et eructuabunt ossa quae sunt comesta, et faciam compaginem ad compaginem et os ad os.

[1] But lest the resurrection of only those bodies seem to be proclaimed which are consigned to sepulchers, you have it written, And I will command the fishes of the sea, and they will eructate the bones that have been eaten, and I will make joint to joint and bone to bone.

[2] Ergo, inquis, et pisces resuscitabuntur et ceterae bestiae et alites carnivorae ut revomant quos comederunt, quia et apud Moysen legis exquiri sanguinem de omnibus bestiis? Non utique: sed idcirco nominantur bestiae et pisces in redhibitionem carnis et sanguinis quo magis exprimatur resurrectio etiam devoratorum corporum cum de ipsis devoratoribus exactio edicitur----

[2] Therefore, you ask, even the fishes will be resurrected, and the other beasts and carnivorous birds, so that they may vomit back those whom they have eaten, because even with Moses you read that blood is to be required from all beasts? Not at all: but for this reason beasts and fishes are named for the redhibition of flesh and blood, in order that the resurrection even of devoured bodies may be the more expressed, when from the very devourers an exaction is decreed----

[3] puto autem huius quoque divinae potestatis documentum idoneum Ionam, cum incorruptus utramque substantiam, carnem atque animam, de alvo bestiae piscis evolvitur, et utique triduum concoquendae carni viscera ceti suffecissent quam capulum quam sepulchrum quam senium requietae atque conditae alicuius sepulturae----

[3] I think, moreover, that Jonah too is a suitable proof of this divine power, since, incorrupt, with both substances, flesh and soul, he is disgorged from the belly of the beast, the fish; and assuredly the entrails of the whale would in three days have sufficed for the digestion of flesh rather than a coffin, rather than a sepulcher, rather than the decay of some burial at rest and laid away----

[4] salvo eo quod et bestia feros in Christianum vel maxime nomen homines vel ipsos etiam iniquitatis angelos figuravit, de quibus sanguis exigetur per ultionem pensandam.

[4] saving this, that the beast also has figured the fierce men against the Christian name most especially, and even the very angels of iniquity, from whom blood will be exacted through a vengeance to be weighed out.

[5] Quis ergo discendi magis adfinis quam praesumendi, et credendi diligentior quam contendendi, et divinae potius sapientiae religiosus quam suae libidinosus, audiens aliquid a deo destinatum et in carnes et cutes et nervos et ossa, aliud quid haec commentabitur, quasi non in hominem destinetur quod in istas substantias praedicatur? Aut enim nihil in hominem destinatur, non liberalitas regni, non severitas iudicii, non quodcunque est resurrectio, aut, si in hominem destinatur, necesse est in eas substantias destinetur ex quibus homo instructus est in quem destinatur. Illud etiam de argutissimis istis demutatoribus ossuum et carnium et nervorum et sepulchrorum requiro, cur si quando in animam quid pronuntiatur nihil aliud animam interpretantur nec transfingunt eam in alterius rei argumentum, cum vero in aliquam speciem corporalem quid edicitur omnia potius adseverant quam quod nominatur.

[5] Who, then, is more allied to learning than to presuming, more diligent in believing than in contending, and more religious toward divine wisdom rather than libidinous toward his own, hearing something destined by God for flesh and skins and sinews and bones—will he contrive some other construction for these, as though what is predicated of those substances were not destined for the human being? For either nothing is destined for man—not the liberality of the kingdom, not the severity of the judgment, not whatever the resurrection is—or else, if it is destined for man, it is necessary that it be destined for those substances out of which the man is constructed, for whom it is destined. This, moreover, I inquire of those most subtle changers of bones and flesh and sinews and sepulchers: why, if ever something is pronounced concerning the soul, they interpret “soul” as nothing else and do not refashion it into the argument of some other thing; whereas when something is decreed in some bodily species, they asseverate everything rather than what is named.

[6] Si corporalia parabolae, ergo et animalia: si non et animalia, ergo nec corporalia. Tam enim corpus homo quam et anima, ut non possit altera species admittere aenigmata, altera excludere.

[6] If the parables are corporeal, then also animal; if not even animal, then neither corporeal. For man is as much body as also soul, so that the one species cannot admit enigmas, the other exclude them.

XXXIII.

33.

[1] Satis haec de prophetico instrumento. Ad evangelicum nunc provoco, hic quoque occursurus prius eidem astutiae eorum qui proinde et dominum omnia in parabolis pronuntiasse contendunt quia scriptum sit, Haec omnia locutus est Iesus in parabolis et sine parabola non loquebatur ad illos, scilicet ad Iudaeos:

[1] Enough of these things concerning the prophetic instrument. To the evangelic now I appeal, here too intending first to meet that same cunning of those who accordingly also contend that the Lord pronounced all things in parables because it is written, “All these things Jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable he was not speaking to them,” namely to the Jews:

[2] nam et discipuli, Quare aiunt in parabolis loqueris illis?, et dominus, Propterea in parabolis loquor ad eos ut videntes non videant et audientes non audiant, secundum Esaiam.

[2] for also the disciples, 'Why,' they say, 'do you speak to them in parables?'; and the Lord, 'Therefore I speak to them in parables, that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear,' according to Isaiah.

[3] Quodsi ad Iudaeos in parabolis, iam non ad omnes: si ad omnes in parabolis, iam non semper nec omnia parabolae, sed quaedam cum ad quosdam, ad quosdam autem dum ad Iudaeos: nonnunquam plane et ad discipulos.

[3] But if to the Jews in parables, then not to all: if to all in parables, then not always nor were all things parables, but certain things when to certain persons, to certain persons, however, when to the Jews; sometimes, plainly, even to the disciples.

[4] Sed quomodo referat scriptura considera: Dicebat autem et parabolam ad eos. Ergo et non parabolam dicebat: quia non notaretur cum parabolam loquebatur si ita semper loquebatur.

[4] But consider how Scripture reports: He was moreover speaking a parable to them. Therefore he was also not speaking a parable: because it would not be noted when he was speaking a parable if he spoke thus always.

[5] Etiam et nullam parabolam non aut ab ipso invenies edissertatam, ut de seminatore in verbi administrationem, aut a commentatore evangelii praeluminatam, ut iudicis superbi et viduae instantis ad perseverantiam orationis, aut ultra coniectandam, ut arboris fici dilatae in spem ad instar Iudaicae infructuositatis.

[5] Indeed, you will find no parable not either expounded by himself, as that of the sower into the administration of the word, or pre-illuminated by the commentator of the Gospel, as that of the haughty judge and the insistent widow unto the perseverance of prayer, or further to be conjectured, as that of the fig tree deferred into hope after the likeness of Judaic unfruitfulness.

[6] Quodsi nec parabolae obumbrant evangelii lucem, tanto abest ut sententiae et definitiones, quarum aperta natura est, aliter quam sonant sapiant. Definitionibus autem et sententiis dominus edicit sive iudicium sive regnum dei sive resurrectionem.

[6] But if not even the parables overshadow the light of the gospel, so far is it from the case that the sentences and definitions, whose nature is open, should have a sense other than as they sound. By definitions moreover and sentences the Lord decrees either judgment or the kingdom of God or the resurrection.

[7] Tolerabilius erit, inquit, Tyro et Sidoni in die iudicii: et, Dicite illis quod adpropinquaverit regnum dei: et, Retribuetur tibi in resurrectione iustorum.

[7] "It will be more tolerable," he says, "for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment": and, "Say to them that the kingdom of God has drawn near": and, "It will be repaid to you in the resurrection of the just."

[8] Si nomina absoluta sunt rerum, id est iudicii et regni dei et resurrectionis, ut nihil eorum in parabolam comprimi possit, nec ea in parabolas compellentur quae ad dispositionem et transactionem et passionem regni Iudaici et resurrectionem praedicantur, atque ita corporalia defendentur ut corporalibus destinata, id est non spiritalia quia non figurata.

[8] If the names of things are absolute, that is, of the judgment and of the kingdom of God and of the resurrection, so that none of these can be compressed into a parable, neither will those things be compelled into parables which are proclaimed concerning the disposition and transaction and passion of the Judaic kingdom and the resurrection, and thus the corporeal things will be defended as destined for corporeal things, that is, not spiritual because not figurative.

[9] Nam et ideo praestruximus tam corpus animae quam et carnis obnoxium esse mercedibus pro communi operatione pensandis, ne corporalitas animae occasionem subministrans figurarum corporalitatem carnis excludat, cum utramque participem et regni et iudicii et resurrectionis oporteat credi.

[9] For this reason also we have previously established that both the body of the soul and also the flesh are subject to wages to be weighed for the common operation to be weighed, lest the corporality of the soul, subministering occasion for figures, should exclude the corporality of the flesh, since each is to be believed a participant both of the kingdom and of the judgment and of the resurrection.

[10] Et nunc eo pergimus uti corporalitatem carnalem proprie demonstremus a domino significari in omni resurrectionis mentione, salva animali quam et ipsam pauci receperunt.

[10] And now thereto we proceed, that we may demonstrate that carnal corporality is properly signified by the Lord in every mention of the resurrection, the animal (psychic) one being safeguarded as well, which very thing too few have received.

XXXIV.

34.

[1] In primis cum ad hoc venisse se dicit ut quod periit salvum faciat, quid dicis perisse? Hominem sine dubio. Totumne an ex parte?

[1] In the first place, since he says that he has come for this, that he may make safe what has perished, what do you say has perished? A man, without doubt. The whole, or in part?

Utique totum, siquidem transgressio, quae perditionis humanae causa est, tam animae instinctu ex concupiscentia quam et carnis actu ex degustatione commissa, totum hominem elogio transgressionis inscripsit atque exinde merito perditionis implevit.

Indeed the whole, since the transgression, which is the cause of human perdition, having been committed as much by the soul’s instinct from concupiscence as by the flesh’s act from tasting, has inscribed the whole man with the inscription of transgression, and thereafter has duly fulfilled the desert of perdition.

[2] Totus itaque salvus fiet qui periit totus delinquendo, nisi si et ovis illa sine corpore amittitur et sine corpore revocatur. Nam si caro quoque eius cum anima, quod pecus totum est, humeris boni pastoris advehitur, ex utraque utique substantia restituendi hominis exemplum est.

[2] Therefore, he who perished wholly by delinquency will be made wholly safe, unless even that sheep is lost without the body and is called back without the body. For if his flesh also with the soul—which is the whole beast—is borne on the shoulders of the good shepherd, from both substances assuredly there is an example of the man to be restored.

[3] Aut quam indignum deo dimidium hominem redigere in salutem, paene minus facere , cum etiam saecularium principum plena semper indulgentia vindicetur. Diabolus validior in hominis iniuriam intellegetur totum eum elidens, deus infirmior renuntiabitur non totum eum relevans? Atquin et apostolus suggerit, ubi delictum abundaverit illic gratiam superabundasse.

[3] Or how unworthy for God to restore a half-man into salvation, to do almost less , when even by the full indulgence of secular princes redress is always obtained. Will the Devil be understood as stronger for the injury of man, crushing him whole, will God be declared weaker, not lifting him up whole? And yet the apostle also suggests that where the offense has abounded, there grace has superabounded.

[4] Quomodo denique salvus habebitur qui poterit et perditus dici? carne scilicet perditus, anima vero salvus, nisi quod iam et anima in perdito constituatur necesse est ut salva effici possit: id enim salvum effici oportebit quod perditum fuerit.

[4] How, finally, will he be held to be saved who can also be called lost? lost, namely, in the flesh, but saved in the soul, unless that even the soul must already be constituted among the lost, so that it may be able to be made saved: for it will be necessary that that be made saved which shall have been lost.

[5] Porro aut recipimus animae immortalitatem, ut perdita non in interitum credatur sed in supplicium, id est in gehennam: et si ita est, iam non animam spectabit salus, salvam scilicet suapte natura per immortalitatem, sed carnem potius quam interibilem constat apud omnes:

[5] Furthermore, either we receive the soul’s immortality, so that, though lost, it is believed not into destruction but into punishment, that is, into Gehenna: and if it is so, now salvation will not look to the soul, saved namely by its own nature through immortality, but rather to the flesh, which is agreed among all to be perishable:

[6] aut si et anima interibilis, id est non immortalis, quod et caro, iam et carni forma illa ex aequo proficere debebit proinde mortali et interibili qua id quod perit salvum facturus est dominus.

[6] or if the soul too is perishable, that is, not immortal, as also the flesh, then that form ought to profit the flesh equally likewise, as mortal and perishable, whereby the Lord is going to make safe that which perishes.

[7] Nolo nunc contentioso fune deducere hac an illac hominem perditio depostulet, dum utrimque eum salus destinet in ambas substantias peraequata. Ecce enim, ex quacunque substantia hominem perisse praesumpseris, ex altera non perit: salvus ergo erit iam ex qua non perit, et salvus nihilominus fiet ex qua perit.

[7] I do not wish now to draw with a contentious rope whether perdition should demand the man this way or that, while on both sides salvation destines him, equalized, in both substances. For behold, from whatever substance you have presumed the man to have perished, from the other he does not perish: therefore he will already be saved from that in which he does not perish, and nonetheless he will become saved from that from which he does perish.

[8] Habes totius hominis restitutionem, dum et quodcunque eius perit salvum facturus est dominus et quodcunque non perit utique non erit perditurus.

[8] You have the restitution of the whole man, since both whatever of him perishes, safe is the Lord going to make, and whatever does not perish he will of course not be going to destroy.

[9] Quid ultra de utriusque substantiae securitate dubitas, cum altera salutem consecutura sit, altera amissura non sit? Et tamen adhuc sensum rei exprimit dominus, Ego dicens veni non ut meam sed ut patris qui me misit faciam voluntatem. Quam?

[9] Why do you further doubt about the security of each substance, since the one will obtain salvation, the other will not lose it? And yet the Lord still expresses the sense of the matter, saying, I came not to do my will but the will of the Father who sent me. Which?

Oro te. Ut omne quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo quidquam sed resuscitem illud in novissimo die.

I pray you. That all which he has given to me, I may not lose anything of it, but may resuscitate it on the last day.

[10] Quid a patre Christus acceperat nisi quod et induerat? Hominem sine dubio, carnis animaeque texturam. Neutrum ergo eorum quae accepit perire patietur, immo nec quidquam utriusque, immo nec modicum: quodsi modicum caro, ergo nec carnem quia nec modicum, nec quidquam quia nec quidquam.

[10] What had Christ from the Father received unless what he had also put on? A human being, without doubt—the texture of flesh and soul texture. Therefore he will allow neither of the things which he received to perish, nay, not anything of either, nay, not even a smallest part: but if a smallest part be flesh, therefore not even the flesh, since not a smallest part, nor anything, since not anything.

Atquin si non et carnem resuscitabit novissima die, iam non modicum patietur perire de homine, sed pro tanta dixerim parte prope totum.

And yet, if he will not also resuscitate the flesh on the last day, then he will suffer no small portion to perish from man, but, for so great a part, I would say, almost the whole.

[11] Ingerens amplius, Hoc est patris voluntas, ut omnis qui aspicit filium et credit in eum habeat vitam aeternam, et suscitem illum novissimo die, plenitudinem exstruit resurrectionis: tribuit enim utrique substantiae per officia propriam mercedem salutis, et carni per quam filius aspiciebatur, et animae per quam credebatur.

[11] Adding further, 'This is the Father's will, that everyone who looks upon the Son and believes in him may have life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day,' he constructs the plenitude of the resurrection: for he grants to each substance, according to its offices, its proper reward of salvation, both to the flesh through which the Son was being looked upon, and to the soul through which he was being believed.

[12] Ergo, dices, illis erit promissa res a quibus Christus videbatur. Sit plane ita, ut et ad nos eadem spes inde manaverit: nam si videntibus et idcirco credentibus fructuosa tunc fuerunt opera carnis atque animae, multo magis nobis: feliciores enim qui non vident et credent: quando et si illis negaretur carnis resurrectio, certe felicioribus competisset: quomodo enim felices si ex parte perituri?

[12] Therefore, you will say, the promised thing will belong to those by whom Christ was seen. Let it be plainly so, so that the same hope has flowed from there even to us: for if to those seeing and therefore believing the works of the flesh and of the soul were then fruitful much more for us: for more felicitous are they who do not see and believe: since even if to them the resurrection of the flesh were denied, it would certainly have accrued to the more felicitous: for how indeed would they be felicitous if destined to perish in part?

XXXV.

35.

[1] Sed et praecipit eum potius timendum qui et corpus et animam occidat in gehennam, id est dominum solum, non qui corpus occidant animae autem nihil nocere possint, id est humanas potestates.

[1] But he also enjoins that he is rather to be feared who kills both body and soul into Gehenna—that is, the Lord alone— not those who kill the body but can do nothing to the soul, that is, human powers.

[2] Adeo hic et anima immortalis natura recognoscitur, quae non possit occidi ab hominibus, et carnis esse mortalitatem, cuius sit occisio, atque ita resurrectionem quoque mortuorum carnis esse, quae in gehennam nisi resuscitata non poterit occidi.

[2] Thus here also the immortal nature of the soul is recognized, which cannot be slain by men, and that there is mortality of the flesh, of which there is occision; and thus the resurrection also of the dead is of the flesh, which into Gehenna will not be able to be slain unless resuscitated.

[3] Sed quoniam et hic de interpretatione corporis quaestio cavillatur, ego corpus humanum non aliud intellegam quam omnem istam struem carnis, quoquo genere materiarum concinnatur atque variatur, quod videtur, quod tenetur, quod denique ab hominibus occiditur.

[3] But since even here the question about the interpretation of “body” cavils, I, for my part, understand the human body as nothing other than all that mass of flesh, by whatever kind of materials it is composed and varied, that which is seen, that which is held, that which, finally, is slain by human beings.

[4] Sic et parietis corpus non aliud admittam quam caementa, quam saxa, quam lateres. Si quis arcanum aliquod corpus inducit, ostendat revelet probet ipsum etiam esse quod occidatur ab homine, et de illo erit dictum.

[4] Thus also I will admit the body of a wall to be nothing other than the cement, the stones, the bricks. If anyone introduces some arcane body, let him show, reveal, prove that it too is that which is slain by a human being, and it will be that about which the statement was made.

[5] Item si animae corpus opponitur vacabit astutia: cum enim utrumque proponitur, corpus atque animam, occidi in gehennam, distinguitur corpus ab anima, et relinquitur intellegi corpus id quod in promptu est, caro scilicet, quae sicut occidetur in gehennam si non magis a deo timuerit occidi, ita et vivificabitur in vitam aeternam si maluerit ab hominibus potius interfici.

[5] Likewise, if a body is set in opposition to the soul, the stratagem will be void: since indeed both are put forward, the body and the soul, to be killed in Gehenna, the body is distinguished from the soul, and it is left to be understood that the body is that which is at hand, to wit, the flesh, which, just as it will be killed into Gehenna if it has not more feared to be killed by God, so also it will be vivified into eternal life if it has preferred rather to be put to death by men.

[6] Proinde si quis occisionem carnis atque animae in gehennam ad interitum et finem utriusque substantiae adripiet et non ad supplicium, quasi consumendarum non quasi puniendarum, recordetur ignem gehennae aeternum praedicari in poenam aeternam, et inde aeternitatem occisionis propterea humanae ut temporali praetimendam:

[6] Accordingly, if anyone will seize upon the killing of the flesh and of the soul in Gehenna as unto the destruction and end of both substances and not unto punishment, as of things to be consumed rather than to be punished, let him remember that the fire of Gehenna is proclaimed eternal for eternal punishment, and from that [let him reckon] the eternity of the killing, therefore of the human being, as to be feared rather than the temporal:

[7] tunc et aeternas substantias credet quarum aeterna sit occisio in poenam. Certe cum post resurrectionem corpus cum anima occidi habeat a deo in gehennam, satis de utroque constabit, et de carnali resurrectione et de aeterna occisione.

[7] then also he will believe in eternal substances, of which the occision into punishment is eternal. Certainly, since after the resurrection the body together with the soul has to be slain by God in Gehenna, enough will be established concerning both, both concerning the carnal resurrection and concerning the eternal occision.

[8] Absurdissimum alioquin si idcirco resuscitata caro occidetur in gehennam ut finiatur, quod et non resuscitata pateretur: in hoc scilicet reficietur ne sit, cui non esse iam evenit.

[8] Most absurd otherwise, if therefore the resuscitated flesh will be slain in Gehenna so that it may be brought to an end, which even the unresuscitated would suffer: namely, it will be restored for this, that it may not be, to which non-being has already befallen.

[9] Eidem nos spei fulciens passerum quoque subiungit exemplum, quod ex duobus non cadat alter in terram sine dei voluntate, ut et carnem quae ceciderit in terram proinde credas resurgere posse per eiusdem dei voluntatem.

[9] Buttressing us in the same hope, he also subjoins the example of the sparrows, that of two not a single one falls to the earth without the will of God, so that you may likewise believe that the flesh which has fallen to the earth is able to rise again through the will of the same God.

[10] Nam et si passeribus hoc non licet, sed nos multis passeribus antistamus eo quod cadentes resurgamus, quorum denique capillos capitis omnes numeratos adfirmans salvos utique repromittit.

[10] For even if this is not permitted to sparrows, yet we surpass many sparrows in that, as we fall, we rise again, of whom, moreover, affirming that all the hairs of the head are numbered, he assuredly promises them safe.

[11] Perituros enim quae ratio in numerum redegisset? Nisi quia hoc est, Ut omne quod pater mihi dedit non perdam ex eo quidquam, id est nec capillum, sicut nec oculum nec deptem.

[11] For indeed, what reasoning would have reduced into number those destined to perish? Unless because this is it: That I should not lose anything from all that the Father has given me, that is, not a hair, just as neither an eye nor a tooth.

[12] Ceterum unde erit fletus et dentium frendor nisi ex oculis et ex dentibus, occiso scilicet etiam corpore in gehennam et detruso in tenebras exteriores, quae oculorum propria tormenta sunt?----si quis in nuptiis minus dignis operibus fuerit indutus, constringendus statim manibus et pedibus, utpote qui cum corpore resurrexerit.

[12] Moreover, whence will there be weeping and the gnashing of teeth unless from the eyes and from the teeth, with the body, to be sure, also slain in Gehenna and thrust down into the outer darkness, which are torments proper to the eyes?----if anyone at the nuptials shall have been clothed with less-worthy works, he must immediately be bound hand and foot, as being one who has risen again with the body.

[13] Sic ergo et recumbere ipsum in dei regno et sedere in thronis duodecim et adsistere ad dexteram tunc vel sinistram et edere de ligno vitae corporalis dispositionis fidelissima indicia sunt.

[13] Thus therefore both the very reclining in the kingdom of God and the sitting on twelve thrones and the standing at the right then or the left and the eating from the tree of life are the most faithful indications of a corporeal disposition.

XXXVI.

36.

[1] Videamus nunc an et Sadducaeorum versutiam elidens nostram magis sententiam erexerit. Causa opinor quaestionis fuit destructio resurrectionis, siquidem Sadducaei neque animae neque carnis admittunt salutem et ideo, ex qua vel maxime specie resurrectionis fides labefactatur, ex ea argumentum problemati suo accommodaverunt, de carnis scilicet obtentu nupturae necne post resurrectionem, sub eius mulieris persona quae septem fratribus nupta in dubio habebatur cui eorum restitueretur.

[1] Let us now see whether, in crushing the craftiness of the Sadducees, he has rather strengthened our opinion. The cause, I think, of the question was the destruction of the resurrection, since the Sadducees admit salvation neither of soul nor of flesh, and therefore, from that form by which most of all the faith of the resurrection is made to totter, from that they accommodated an argument to their problem, namely, about the obtaining by the flesh of marrying or not after the resurrection, under the persona of that woman who, married to seven brothers, was held in doubt as to which of them she would be restored.

[2] Porro serventur sensus tam quaestionis quam responsionis, et controversiae occursum est. Si enim Sadducaei quidem respuebant resurrectionem, dominus autem eam confirmabat, et scripturarum ignaros increpans, earum scilicet quae resurrectionem praedicassent, et virtutis dei incredulos, idoneae utique mortuis resuscitandis,

[2] Furthermore let the senses both of the question and of the response be preserved, and the controversy has been met. For if the Sadducees indeed were rejecting the resurrection, but the Lord was confirming it, and rebuking those ignorant of the Scriptures, namely of those which had proclaimed the resurrection, and those incredulous of the power of God, surely apt for raising the dead,

[3] postremo subiciens Quoniam autem mortui resurgunt, sine dubio et confirmando esse quod negabatur, id est resurrectionem mortuorum apud deum vivorum, talem quoque eam confirmabat esse qualis negabatur, utriusque scilicet substantiae humanae.

[3] finally subjoining, Since moreover the dead rise again, without doubt both confirming that what was denied is so, that is, the resurrection of the dead with God of the living, he was also confirming it to be such as it was denied to be, namely, of both substances of the human being.

[4] Neque enim si nupturos tunc negavit ideo nec resurrecturos demonstravit: atquin filios resurrectionis appellavit, per eam quodammodo nasci habentes post quam non nubent sed resuscitati

[4] For neither, if he denied that they would marry then, did he thereby show that they would not rise again: but rather he called them sons of the resurrection, having, as it were, to be born after which they will not marry but as resurrected

[5] similes [enim] erunt angelis, qua non nupturi quia nec morituri sed qua transituri in statum angelicum per indumentum illud incorruptibilitatis per substantiae, resuscitatae tamen, demutationem.

[5] similar [indeed] they will be to the angels, in which respect not going to marry because neither going to die, but in which respect going to transit into an angelic state through that indument of incorruptibility, through the demutation of substance, resuscitated, however.

[6] Ceterum nec quaereretur nupturi sive morituri necne rursus essemus si non eius vel maxime substantiae restitutio in dubium vocaretur quae proprie et morte et nuptiis fungitur, id est carnis.

[6] Moreover, nor would it be asked whether we would again be about to marry or to die, or not, if the restoration of that substance, especially, were not being called into question,
which properly undergoes both death and nuptials, that is, the flesh.

[7] Habes igitur dominum confirmantem adversus haereticos Iudaeorum quod et nunc negatur apud Sadducaeos Christianorum, solidam resurrectionem.

[7] You have, therefore, the Lord confirming against the heretics of the Jews what even now is denied among the Sadducees of the Christians, the solid resurrection.

XXXVII.

CHAPTER 37.

[1] Sic et si carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus. Nam quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem eius, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, et ut in spiritum disponeret statum salutis, praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat, atque ita subiunxit, Caro nihil prodest, sed ad vivificandum scilicet.

[1] Thus also, if he says the flesh profits nothing, the sense is to be directed from the subject-matter of the saying. For because they judged his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he had determined that his flesh truly be given to them to be eaten, and in order that he might dispose the state of salvation into spirit, he prefaced, "It is the Spirit who vivifies," and thus he subjoined, "The flesh profits nothing," namely as regards vivifying.

[2] Exsequitur etiam quid velit intellegi spiritum, Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus sunt, vita sunt: sicut et supra, Qui audit sermones meos et credit in eum qui me misit habet vitam aeternam et in iudicium non veniet sed transiet de morte in vitam.

[2] He also follows out what he wishes to be understood as “spirit,” The words which I have spoken to you are spirit, are life: just as also above, He who hears my sermons and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and will not come into judgment but will pass from death into life.

[3] Itaque sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam carnem suam dixit quia et sermo caro est factus, proinde in causam vitae adpetendus, et devorandus auditu et ruminandus intellectu et fide digerendus.

[3] Thus, establishing the discourse as vivificatory, because the discourse is spirit and life, he also said that the same was his flesh, because the Word was made flesh; accordingly, to be sought after for the cause of life, and to be devoured by hearing and ruminated by understanding and digested by faith.

[4] Nam et paulo ante carnem suam panem quoque caelestem pronuntiarat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam patrum qui panes et carnes Aegyptiorum praeverterant divinae vocationi.

[4] For even a little before he had proclaimed his flesh also as heavenly bread he had declared, urging everywhere through allegory of necessary nourishments, the remembrance of the fathers who had preferred the breads and meats of the Egyptians to the divine vocation.

[5] Igitur conversus ad recogitatus illorum, quia senserat dispargendos, Caro ait nihil prodest. Quid hoc ad destruendam carnis resurrectionem? Quasi non liceat esse aliquid, quod etsi nihil prodest aliud tamen ei prodesse possit.

[5] Therefore, having turned to their re-cogitations, because he had sensed they were to be dispersed, he said, “Flesh profits nothing.” What is this to demolishing the resurrection of the flesh? As if it were not permitted that there be something which, even if it profits nothing, nevertheless something else can profit it.

Spiritus prodest, vivificat enim: caro nihil prodest, mortificatur enim.

The Spirit profits, for it vivifies: the flesh profits nothing, for it is mortified.

[6] Itaque secundum nos magis conlocavit utriusque propositionem. Ostendens enim quid prosit et quid non prosit, pariter illuminavit quid cui prosit, spiritum scilicet carni, mortificatae vivificatorem:

[6] Thus, according to us, he more fittingly set in place the proposition of each statement. For by showing what profits and what does not profit, he likewise illuminated what profits what, namely the spirit to the flesh, of the mortified vivifier:

[7] Veniet enim inquit hora cum mortui audient vocem filii dei et qui audierint vivent. Quid mortuum nisi caro? Et quid vox dei nisi sermo?

[7] For, he says, the hour will come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. What is dead if not flesh? And what is the voice of God if not the sermo?

Et quid sermo nisi spiritus, merito carnem resuscitaturus quod factus est ipse, et ex morte quam passus est ipse, et ex sepulchro quo inlatus est ipse?

And what is the Word if not the Spirit, rightly about to resurrect the flesh which he himself became, and from the death which he himself suffered, and from the sepulcher into which he himself was borne?

[8] Denique cum dicit, Ne miremini, quod veniet hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient filii dei vocem, et procedent qui bona fecerunt in vitae resurrectionem, qui mala in resurrectionem iudicii, nemo iam poterit aliud mortuos interpretari qui sunt in monumentis nisi corpora et carnem, quia nec ipsa monumenta aliud quam cadaverum stabula:

[8] Finally, when he says, Do not marvel, because an hour will come in which all who are in the monuments will hear the voice of the Son of God, and they will come forth—those who have done good into the resurrection of life, those who have done evil into the resurrection of judgment—no one will now be able to interpret the dead who are in the monuments as anything other than bodies and flesh, since the monuments themselves are nothing other than stables of cadavers :

[9] siquidem et ipsi homines veteres, id est peccatores, id est mortui per ignorantiam dei, quos monumenta intellegendos argumentantur haeretici, de monumentis processuri in iudicium aperte praedicantur.

[9] for indeed even the old men themselves, that is, sinners, that is, the dead through ignorance of God, whom the heretics argue are to be understood by the monuments (tombs), are openly proclaimed as about to come forth from the monuments into judgment.

[10] Ceterum quomodo de monumentis monumenta procedent?

[10] But how will from the monuments monuments proceed?

XXXVIII.

38.

[1] Post dicta domini etiam facta eius quid sapere credamus, de capulis, de sepulchris, mortuos resuscitantis? Cui rei istud? Si ad simplicem ostentationem potestatis aut ad praesentem gratiam redanimationis, non adeo magnum aliquid illi denuo morituros suscitare.

[1] After the sayings of the Lord, what are we to believe that his deeds also signify—about coffins, about sepulchers, of one resuscitating the dead? To what end is this? If it is for a simple ostentation of power or for the present grace of reanimation, it is not so very great a thing for him to raise those who will die anew.

[2] Enimvero si ad fidem potius sequestrandam futurae resurrectionis, ergo et illa corporalis praescribitur de documenti sui forma.

[2] Indeed, if it is rather for faith to be secured for the future resurrection, therefore that too is corporeal, is prescribed by the form of its own document.

[3] Nec sustinebo dicentes idcirco tunc resurrectionem animae soli destinatam in carne quoque decucurrisse quia non potuisset aliter ostendi resurrectio animae invisibilis nisi per visibilis substantiae resuscitationem.

[3] Nor will I sustain those saying that therefore then the resurrection destined for the soul alone had also run down into the flesh, because the resurrection of the invisible soul could not have been otherwise shown except through the resuscitation of visible substance.

[4] Male deum norunt qui non putant illum posse quod non putant. Et tamen sciunt potuisse, si instrumentum Iohannis norunt: qui enim animas adhuc solas martyrum sub altari quiescentes conspectui subdidit, posset utique et resurgentes oculis exhibere sine carne.

[4] They know God ill who do not think him able to do what they do not think possible. And yet they know that he was able, if they know the document of John: for he who subjected to sight the souls of the martyrs, still alone, resting under the altar, did submit them to view, could assuredly also exhibit to the eyes those rising again without flesh.

[5] At ego deum malo decipere non posse, de fallacia solummodo infirmum, ne aliter documenta praemisisse quam rem disposuisse videatur----immo ne, si exemplum resurrectionis sine carne non valuit inducere, multo magis plenitudinem exempli sine eadem substantia exhibere non possit.

[5] But I prefer to hold that God cannot deceive, [being] infirm only in regard to fallacy, lest he seem to have sent ahead documents otherwise than he has disposed the matter----nay rather, lest, if he was not able to induce an example of resurrection without flesh, he be much more unable to exhibit the plenitude of the example without the same substance.

[6] Nullum vero exemplum maius est eo cuius exemplum est. Maius est autem si animae cum corporibus resuscitabuntur in documentum sine corpore resurgendi, ut tota hominis salus dimidiae patrocinaretur, quando exemplorum condicio illud potius expeteret quod minus haberetur, animae dico solius resurrectionem, velut gustum carnis etiam resurrecturae suo in tempore.

[6] No example indeed is greater than that of which it is the example. It is greater, however, if
souls together with bodies shall be resuscitated as a document for rising without the body, so that the whole salvation of man would advocate for a half one, when the condition of examples would rather seek that which less would be had, I mean the resurrection of the soul alone, as a taste of the flesh also to rise in its own time.

[7] Atque adeo, secundum nostram veritatem, exempla illa mortuorum a domino suscitatorum commendabant quidem et carnis et animae resuscitationem, ne cui substantiae negaretur hoc donum. Qua tamen exempla, eo minus aliquid edebant: non enim in gloriam nec in incorruptibilitatem sed in mortem aliam suscitabantur.

[7] And indeed, according to our truth, those examples of the dead raised by the Lord did indeed commend both the resurrection of the flesh and of the soul, lest this gift be denied to any substance. What examples, however, for that very reason, exhibited the less: for they were raised not into glory nor into incorruptibility but into another death.

XXXIX.

39.

[1] Quam Christus ediderit resurrectionem apostolica quoque instrumenta testantur: nam et apostolis nullum aliud negotium fuit, dumtaxat apud Israelem, quam veteris testamenti resignandi et novi consignandi et potius iam dei in Christo contionandi.

[1] What resurrection Christ brought forth the apostolic instruments also testify: for the apostles had no other business, at least among Israel, than of unsealing the Old Testament and sealing the New, and rather now of proclaiming God in Christ.

[2] Ita et de resurrectione nihil novi intulerant, nisi quod et ipsam in gloriam Christi adnuntiabant, de cetero simplici et nota iam fide receptam sine ulla qualitatis quaestione, solis refragantibus Sadducaeis: adeo facilius fuit negari in totum mortuorum resurrectionem quam aliter intellegi.

[2] Thus also concerning the resurrection they introduced nothing new, except that they too were announcing it into the glory of Christ, otherwise received by a simple and already known faith without any question of quality, with only the Sadducees gainsaying: so much easier was it that the resurrection of the dead be denied altogether than understood otherwise.

[3] Habes Paulum apud summos sacerdotes sub tribuno inter Sadducaeos et Pharisaeos fidei suae professorem: Viri, inquit, fratres ego Pharisaeus sum, filius Pharisaeorum, de spe nunc et de resurrectione iudicor apud vos----utique communi, ne, quia iam transgressor legis videbatur, de praecipuo fidei totius articulo, id est de resurrectione, ad Sadducaeos sapere existimaretur. Ita quam nolebat videri rescindere fidem resurrectionis utique confirmabat secundum Pharisaeos, respuens negatores eius Sadducaeos.

[3] You have Paul before the highest priests, under the tribune, among Sadducees and Pharisees, a professor of his faith: “Men, brothers,” he says, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; about hope now and about the resurrection I am being judged before you”----assuredly as a common one, lest, because he already seemed a transgressor of the law, he should be thought to be of the mind with the Sadducees on the chief article of the whole faith, that is, concerning the resurrection. Thus, in that he did not wish to seem to rescind the faith of the resurrection, he assuredly was confirming it according to the Pharisees, spurning its deniers, the Sadducees.

[4] Proinde et apud Agrippam nihil se ait proferre citra quam prophetae adnuntiassent. Ergo servabat resurrectionem quoque qualem prophetae adnuntiaverant.

[4] Accordingly, even before Agrippa he says he puts forward nothing other than what the prophets had announced. Therefore he was maintaining the resurrection as well such as the prophets had announced.

[5] Nam et de resurrectione mortuorum apud Moysen scriptum commemorans corporalem eam norat, in qua scilicet sanguis hominis exquiri habebit.

[5] For also, recalling what is written in Moses about the resurrection of the dead he knew it to be corporal, in which, namely, the blood of man will have to be required.

[6] Itaque talem praedicabat qualem et Pharisaei susceperant et dominus ipse defenderat et Sadducaei, ne talem quoque crederent, in totum esse noluerant.

[6] And so he preached such a kind as both the Pharisees had received and the Lord himself had defended, and the Sadducees, lest they also believe such a kind, had been unwilling that it exist at all.

[7] Sed nec Atheninses aliam intellexerant a Paulo portendi: denique inriserant, non inrisuri omnino si animae solius restitutionem ab eo audissent: suscepissent enim vernaculae suae philosophiae frequentiorem praesumptionem.

[7] But neither the Athenians had understood that anything else was being portended by Paul: indeed they had derided, not at all would they have derided if they had heard from him a restitution of the soul alone: for they would have accepted a more frequent presumption of their vernacular philosophy.

[8] At ubi iam nationes praeconium resurrectionis inauditae retro ipsa novitate concussit, et digna incredulitas rei tantae quaestionibus fidem torquere coepit, tunc et apostolus per totum paene instrumentum fidem huius spei corroborare curavit, et esse eam ostendens et nondum transactam et, de quo magis quaerebatur, corporalem et, quod insuper dubitabatur, non aliter corporalem.

[8] But when now the nations were shaken by the proclamation of a resurrection unheard-of before by the very novelty itself, and a disbelief worthy of so great a matter began to rack faith with questions, then also the apostle took care to corroborate the faith of this hope through almost the whole instrument, showing it both to exist and not yet to have been accomplished, and—of that about which inquiry was rather made—to be corporal, and—what moreover was doubted—not otherwise than corporal.

XL.

40.

[1] Nihil autem mirum si et ex ipsius instrumento argumenta captantur, cum oporteat haereses esse: quae esse non possent si non et perperam scripturae intellegi possent.

[1] Nothing, however, is anything to wonder at if even from the instrument itself arguments are captured, since it must needs be that heresies exist: which could not exist if the Scriptures could not also be understood wrongly.

[2] Nactae denique haereses duos homines ab apostolo editos, interiorem, id est animam, et exteriorem, id est carnem, salutem quidem animae, id est interiori homini, exitium vero carni, id est exteriori, adiudicaverunt, quia scriptum est Corinthiis, Nam etsi homo noster exterior corrumpitur, sed interior renovatur die et die.

[2] Finally, the heresies, having seized upon the two men set forth by the Apostle—the interior, that is, the soul, and the exterior, that is, the flesh—adjudged salvation indeed to the soul, that is, to the interior man, but destruction to the flesh, that is, to the exterior, because it is written to the Corinthians, For even if our exterior man is being corrupted, but the interior is renewed day by day.

[3] Porro nec anima per semetipsam homo, quae figmento iam homini appellato postea inserta est, nec caro sine anima homo, quae post exilium animae cadaver inscribitur. Ita vocabulum homo consertarum substantiarum duarum quodammodo fibula est, sub quo vocabulo non possunt esse nisi cohaerentes.

[3] Moreover, neither is the soul by
herself
a man, which was afterwards inserted into the figment already appellated man,
nor is the flesh without the soul a man, which, after the soul’s exile, is inscribed a cadaver.
Thus the vocable man is, as it were, a fibula, a clasp, of two conjoined substances, under which vocable they cannot be except as cohering together.

[4] Porro apostolus interiorem hominem non tam animam quam mentem atque animum intellegi mavult, id est non substantiam ipsam sed substantiae saporem, siquidem Ephesiis scribens in interiorem hominem habitare Christum, sensibus utique intimandum dominum significavit.

[4] Moreover the apostle prefers that the inner man be understood not so much as the soul as the mind and spirit, that is not the substance itself but the savor of the substance, since, writing to the Ephesians that Christ dwells in the inner man, he signified the Lord as to be intimated to the senses.

[5] Denique adiunxit, Per fidem, et In cordibus vestris, et In dilectione, fidem quidem et dilectionem non substantiva animae ponens sed conceptiva: In cordibus autem dicens, quae substantiva sunt carnis, iam et ipsum interiorem hominem carni deputavit quem in corde constituit.

[5] Finally he added, Through faith, and In your hearts, and In love, setting faith indeed and love not as substantives of the soul but as conceptives: In your hearts, however, saying, which are substantives of the flesh, he has now even deputed the inner man himself to the flesh, whom he has constituted in the heart.

[6] Inspice nunc quomodo exteriorem quidem hominem corrumpi allegarit, interiorem vero renovari die ac die, ne illam corruptelam carnis adfirmes quam ex die mortis in perpetuum defectura patiatur, sed quam in istius vitae spatio ante mortem vexationibus et pressuris, tormentis atque suppliciis, nominis causa experitur.

[6] Inspect now how the exterior man indeed is being corrupted, whereas the interior is being renewed day by day, lest you affirm that corruption of the flesh which, from the day of death, destined to fail forever, it suffers, but which in the span of this life before death, by vexations and pressures, torments and punishments, for the sake of the Name, he experiences.

[7] Nam et homo interior hic utique renovari habebit, per suggestum spiritus proficiens fide et disciplina die ac die, non illic, id est non post resurrectionem, ubi non utique die ac die renovari habebit sed semel ad summam.

[7] For even the inner man here will indeed have to be renewed, through the prompting of the spirit advancing by faith and discipline day by day, not there, that is, not after the resurrection, where he will certainly not have to be renewed day by day but once to the consummation.

[8] De sequentibus disce: Quod enim ad praesens est, inquit, temporale et leve pressurae nostrae, per supergressum in supergressum aeternum gloriae pondus perficit nobis, non intuentibus quae videntur----id est passiones----sed quae non videntur----id est mercedes----: quae enim videntur temporalia sunt, quae vero non videntur aeterna sunt.

[8] Learn from the following: For that which is for the present, he says, the temporal and light pressure upon us, through surpassing into surpassing perfects for us an eternal weight of glory, we not looking at the things which are seen----that is, the sufferings----but at the things which are not seen----that is, the rewards----: for the things which are seen are temporal, whereas the things which are not seen are eternal.

[9] Pressuras enim et laesuras, quibus corrumpitur homo exterior, ut leves et temporales idcirco contemnendas adfirmat, praeferens mercedum aeternarum et invisibilium et gloriae pondus in compensationem laborum quos hic caro patiendo corrumpitur.

[9] For the pressures and lesions, by which the outer man is corrupted, he affirms to be light and temporal and therefore to be contemned, preferring the rewards of things eternal and invisible and the weight of glory as compensation for the labors by which here the flesh, by suffering, is corrupted.

[10] Adeo non illa est corruptio quam in perpetuum carnis interitum ad resurrectionem expellendam exteriori homini adscribunt.

[10] Thus it is not that corruption which they ascribe to the outer man—the perpetual destruction of the flesh, to be expelled for the resurrection.

[11] Sic et alibi, Siquidem ait compatimur uti et conglorificemur: reputo enim non esse dignas passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae in nos habet revelari. Et hic minora ostendit incommoda praemiis suis.

[11] Thus also elsewhere, since indeed he says, “if we suffer together that we may also be co-glorified”: for I reckon that the passions of this time are not worthy in comparison with the future glory which is to be revealed in us. And here too he shows the lesser incommodities by comparison with his rewards.

[12] Porro si per carnem compatimur cuius est proprie passionibus corrumpi, eiusdem erit et quod pro compassione promittitur. Atque adeo carni adscripturus pressurarum proprietatem, ut et supra, dicit, Cum venissemus autem in Macedoniam nullam remissionem habuit caro nostra:

[12] Moreover, if through the flesh we suffer-with, whose it is properly to be corrupted by passions, of the same will be also that which is promised for co-suffering. And so, about to ascribe to the flesh the property of pressures, as also above, he says, When we had come, however, into Macedonia, our flesh had no remission:

[13] dehinc, ut et animae daret compassionem, In omnibus inquit compressi, extrinsecus pugnae----debellantes scilicet carnem----intrinsecus timor ----adflictans scilicet animam.

[13] then, so that he might give compassion also to the soul, In all things, he says, we were compressed, without, battles----subduing, namely, the flesh----within, fear----afflicting, namely, the soul.

[14] Adeo etsi corrumpitur homo exterior, non ut amittens resurrectionem sed ut sustinens vexationem corrumpi intellegitur, et hoc non sine interiore. Ita amborum erit etiam conglorificari sicut et compati: secundum collegia laborum consortia quoque decurrant necesse est praemiorum.

[14] So even if the exterior man is being corrupted, he is understood to be corrupted not as losing the resurrection but as sustaining vexation, and this not without the interior one. Thus it will belong to both also to be co-glorified just as to co-suffer: according to the associations of labors the consortia of rewards also must run their course.

XLI.

41.

[1] Eandem adhuc sententiam exsequitur remunerationes vexationibus praeferens: Scimus enim, inquit, quoniam etsi terrena domus nostri tabernaculi dissolvatur, habemus domum non manu factam aeternam in caelis: id est, pro hoc quod dissolvetur caro nostra per passiones, domicilium consecuturi sumus in caelis.

[1] He still pursues the same sentiment, preferring remunerations to vexations: For we know, he says, that even if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a house not made by hand, eternal in the heavens: that is, in exchange for this, that our flesh will be dissolved through sufferings, we shall obtain a domicile in the heavens.

[2] Meminerat evangelicae definitionis, Beati qui persecutionem passi fuerint propter iustitiam, quia illorum est regnum caelorum. Non tamen carnis restitutionem negavit si compensationem mercedis opposuit, cum ipsi compensatio debeatur cui dissolutio reputatur, scilicet carni:

[2] He remembered the evangelical definition, Blessed are they who shall have suffered persecution for righteousness, because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Nevertheless he did not deny the restitution of the flesh if he set the compensation of the reward in opposition, since compensation is owed to that very one to whom dissolution is reckoned, namely to the flesh:

[3] sed quia domum dixerat carnem, eleganter voluit et in mercedis comparatione vocabulo domus uti, ipsi domui quae dissolvetur per passionem meliorem domum repromittens per resurrectionem. Nam et dominus multas mansiones quasi domos apud patrem repromittit.

[3] but because he had called the flesh a house, he wished elegantly also in the comparison of reward to use the word “house,” promising to that very house which will be dissolved through suffering a better house through the resurrection. For the Lord also re-promises many mansions, as it were houses, with the Father.

[4] Quanquam et de domicilio mundi potest intellegi, quo dissoluto aeterna sedes repromittatur in caelis, quia et quae sequuntur ad carnem manifeste pertinentia ostendunt priora non ad carnem pertinere:

[4] Although it can also be understood about the domicile of the world, which, when dissolved, an eternal seat is promised in the heavens, because and the things that follow, manifestly pertaining to the flesh, show the earlier things not to pertain to the flesh:

[5] divisionem enim facit apostolus cum subicit, Nam et in hoc gemimus, domicilium nostrum quod de caelo est superinduere desiderantes, siquidem et exuti non nudi inveniemur: id est, ante volumus superinduere virtutem caelestem aeternitatis quam carne exuamur.

[5] for the apostle makes a division when he subjoins, For even in this we groan, desiring to superindue our domicile which is from heaven, since indeed, even stripped, not naked we shall be found: that is, we wish to superindue the celestial virtue of eternity before we are stripped of the flesh.

[6] Huius enim gratiae privilegium illos manet qui ab adventu domini deprehendentur in carne et propter duritias temporum antichristi merebuntur compendio mortis per demutationem expunctae concurrere cum resurgentibus, sicut Thessalonicensibus scribit:

[6] For the privilege of this grace awaits those who will be caught at the Advent of the Lord in the flesh and on account of the durities of the times of the Antichrist will merit, by the compendium of death expunged through demutation, to concur with the resurgent, as he writes to the Thessalonians:

[7] Hoc enim dicimus vobis in sermone domini, quod nos qui vivimus, qui remanemus in adventum domini, non praeveniemus eos qui dormierunt: quoniam ipse dominus in iussu et voce et tuba dei descendet de caelo: et mortui in Christo resurgent primi, dehinc nos cum ipsis simul rapiemur in nubibus obviam Christo et ita semper cum domino erimus.

[7] For this we say to you in the word of the Lord, that we who live, who remain unto the advent of the Lord, will not precede those who have slept: for the Lord himself, at a command and a voice and the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we with them together shall be rapt in the clouds to meet Christ, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

XLII.

42.

[1] Horum demutationem ad Corinthios reddit dicens, Omnes quidem resurgemus, non autem omnes demutabimur, in atomo, in momentaneo motu oculi, in novissima tuba: sed illi scilicet soli qui invenientur in carne: Et mortui, inquit, resurgent et nos demutabimur.

[1] The demutation of these he renders to the Corinthians, saying, "We shall indeed all rise again, but not all shall be changed, in an atom, in the momentary motion of an eye, at the last trumpet; but of course only those who will be found in the flesh: And the dead," he says, "shall rise, and we shall be changed."

[2] Hac ergo prius dispositione prospecta reliqua revocabis ad superiorem sensum. Nam cum adicit, Oportet etenim corruptivum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud induere immortalitatem, hoc erit illud domicilium de caelo quod gementes in hac carne superinduere desideramus, utique super carnem in qua deprehendemur, quia gravari nos ait qui simus in tabernaculo, quod nolimus exui sed potius superindui, uti devoretur mortale a vita, scilicet dum demutatur superinduendo quod est de caelis.

[2] Therefore, with this prior disposition foreseen, you will recall the rest to the higher sense. For when he adds, For it is necessary that this corruptible put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality, this will be that dwelling from heaven which, groaning in this flesh, we desire to superinvest, namely upon the flesh in which we shall be found, because he says that we who are in the tabernacle are burdened, that we do not wish to be stripped but rather to be superinvested, so that the mortal may be devoured by life, namely while it is transmuted by superinvesting what is from the heavens.

[3] Quis enim non desiderabit dum in carne est superinduere immortalitatem, et continuare vitam lucrifacta morte per vicariam demutationem, ne inferos experiatur usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos? ceterum demutationem etiam post resurrectionem consecuturus est inferos iam expertus.

[3] For who will not desire, while he is in the flesh, to superindue immortality, and to continue life, with death made gain through a vicarious demutation, lest he experience the underworld as exactors down to the very last quadrans? otherwise, he will obtain the demutation even after the resurrection, having already experienced the underworld.

[4] Abhinc enim iam definimus carnem omnimodo quidem resurrecturam, atque illam ex demutatione superventura habitum angelicum suscepturam:

[4] For from this point we now determine that the flesh will indeed in every way resurrect, and that it, from a transmutation supervening, will receive an angelic habit:

[5] aut si in his solis qui invenientur in carne demutari eam oportebit ut devoretur mortale a vita, id est caro ab illo superindumento caelesti et aeterno, ergo qui mortui deprehendentur vitam non consequentur, privati iam materia et ut ita dixerim esca vitae, id est carne: aut necesse est recipiant eam et illi, ut et in ipsis mortale devorari possit a vita, si vitam sunt consecuturi.

[5] or if in these only who will be found in the flesh it must be transmuted, in order that the mortal be devoured by life, that is, the flesh by that celestial and eternal super-garment, therefore those who shall be discovered dead will not obtain life, deprived already of the material and, so to speak, the food of life, that is, the flesh: or it is necessary that they too receive it, so that in them also the mortal may be able to be devoured by life, if they are going to obtain life.

[6] Sed in mortuis, inquis, iam devoratum erit mortale istud. Non utique in omnibus: quantos enim licebit vel pridianos inveniri, tam recentia cadavera ut nihil in illis devoratum videri possit?

[6] But in the dead, you say, already this mortal thing will have been devoured. Not, to be sure, in all: how many indeed may be found even of yesterday, cadavers so recent that nothing can seem to have been devoured in them?

[7] Utique enim devoratum non aliud existimas quam interceptum, quam abolitum, quam omni sensui ereptum, quod comparere omni genere cessaverit. Nec gigantum autem antiquissima cadavera devorata constabit quorum crates adhuc vivunt: diximus iam de isto alibi.

[7] Surely indeed you do not reckon “devoured” to be not anything other than intercepted, than abolished, than snatched away from every
sense, that which has ceased to appear in every kind. Nor will it stand that the most ancient cadavers of the giants have been devoured, whose frameworks still live: we have already spoken about this elsewhere.

[8] Sed et proxime in ista civitate cumodei fundamenta tot veterum sepulturarum sacrilega collocarentur, quingentorum fere annorum ossa adhuc succida et capillos olentes populus exhorruit. Constat non tantum ossa durare verum et dentes incorruptos perennare, quae ut semina retinentur fructificaturi corporis in resurrectione.

[8] But also quite recently in this city, when the sacrilegious foundations of theodeum were being laid amid so many ancient burials, the people shuddered at bones of nearly five hundred years still moist and at reeking hair. It is agreed that not only bones endure but also teeth, incorrupt, persist perennially, which are retained as seeds to fructify the body in the resurrection.

[9] Postremo etsi tunc devoratum invenietur mortale in omnibus mortuis, certe a morte, certe ab aevo, certe per aetatem, numquid a vita, numquid a superindumento, numquid ab immortalitatis ingestu?

[9] Lastly, even if then the mortal shall be found to have been devoured in all the dead, assuredly by death, assuredly by the aeon, assuredly through age; was it by life, was it by the superindument, was it by the ingestion of immortality?

[10] Porro qui his ait devoratum iri mortale, ab aliis negavit: et utique hoc a divinis viribus, non a naturalibus legibus perfici praestarique conveniet.

[10] Moreover he who says that the mortal is going to be devoured these denied it by others: and indeed it will be fitting that this be accomplished and provided by divine powers, not by natural laws.

[11] Ergo cum a vita habeat devorari quod mortale est, id exhiberi omnifariam necesse est ut devoretur, et devorari ut demutetur: si ignem dicas accendi oportere, non potes id per quod accenditur alibi necessarium adfirmare alibi non.

[11] Therefore, since that which is mortal has to be devoured by life, it must be presented in every way so that it may be devoured, and be devoured so that it may be transmuted: if you say that fire ought to be kindled, you cannot affirm that that by which it is kindled is necessary in one place and not in another.

[12] Sic et cum infulcit, Siquidem exuti non inveniemur nudi, de eis scilicet qui non in vita nec in carne deprehendentur a die domini, non alias negavit nudos quos praedixit exutos nisi quia et revestitos voluit intellegi eadem substantia qua fuerant spoliati:

[12] Thus also when he buttresses it: Since indeed, if stripped, we shall not be found naked, concerning those, namely, who will be apprehended neither in life nor in flesh by the day of the Lord, he did not otherwise deny naked those whom he predicted as stripped, except because he also wished it to be understood as re-clothed with the same substance of which they had been despoiled:

[13] ut nudi enim invenientur carne deposita vel ex parte discissa sive detrita----et hoc enim nuditas potest dici: dehinc recipient eam, ut reinduti carne fieri possint etiam superinduti immortalitatem: superindui enim nisi vestito iam convenire non poterit.

[13] for they will be found naked, the flesh having been laid aside or in part split asunder or worn away ---- and this indeed can be called nudity: thereafter they will receive it, so that, re-clothed with flesh, they may also be over-clothed with immortality: for to be over-clothed cannot be fitting unless one is already clothed.

XLIII.

CHAPTER 43.

[1] Proinde cum dicit, Itaque confisi semper, et scientes quod cum immoramur in corpore peregrinamur a domino: per fidem enim ambulamus, non per speciem: manifestum est hoc quoque non pertinere ad offuscationem carnis quasi separantis nos a domino:

[1] Accordingly, when he says, Therefore, being always confident, and knowing that while we tarry in the body we are sojourning away from the Lord: for by faith we walk, not by appearance: it is manifest that this too does not pertain to an obscuration of the flesh as though separating us from the Lord:

[2] et hic enim exhortatio fastidiendae vitae huius obvertitur, siquidem peregrinamur a domino quamdiu vivimus, per fidem incedentes non per speciem, id est spe non re.

[2] for here too an exhortation to loathe this life is brought to bear, since we are sojourning away from the Lord as long as we live, proceeding by faith not by appearance, that is by hope not by reality.

[3] Et ideo subiungit, Fidentes autem et boni ducentes magis peregrinari a corpore et immorari ad dominum, scilicet ut per speciem magis incedamus quam per fidem, per rem potius quam per spem.

[3] And therefore he subjoins, Being confident, however, and deeming it good rather to be a pilgrim away from the body and to dwell with the Lord, namely that we may walk more by sight than by faith, by the reality rather than by hope.

[4] Vides quam et hic corporum contemptum ad martyriorum praestantiam referat: nemo enim peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes dominum nisi ex martyrii praerogativa, paradiso scilicet, non inferis, deversurus.

[4] You see how even here he refers the contempt of bodies to the preeminence of martyrdoms: for no one, having sojourned away from the body, immediately abides with the Lord unless by the prerogative of martyrdom, namely to lodge in Paradise, not in the infernal regions.

[5] Defecerant autem apostolo verba ad significandum de corpore excessum, an ratione etiam nove loquitur? Temporalem enim absentiam a corpore volens significare peregrinari nos ab eo dixit, quoniam qui peregrinatur etiam revertetur in domicilium.

[5] But had words failed the apostle to signify the departure from the body, or does he also speak in a novel way for a reason? For wishing to signify a temporal absence from the body, he said that we peregrinate from it, since he who peregrinates will also return to his domicile.

[6] Exinde iam ad omnes, Gestimus, inquit, sive peregrinantes sive immorantes placibiles esse deo: omnes enim manifestari nos oportet pro tribunali Christi Iesu. Si omnes, et totos: si omnes, et interiores et exteriores, id est tam animas quam et corpora. Ut unusquisque, inquit, reportet quae per corpus secundum quae gessit, bonum sive malum.

[6] Thereafter now to all, “We are eager,” he says, “whether peregrinating or abiding, to be pleasing to God: for we all must be manifested before the tribunal of Christ Jesus. If all, then whole; if all, then both interior and exterior, that is, both souls and bodies. So that each one,” he says, “may receive back the things through the body according to what he has done, good or evil.”

[7] Hoc iam quomodo legas quaero: quasi turbate enim per hyperbaton struxit: utrumne 'quae per corpus reportanda erunt' an 'quae per corpus gesta sunt'?

[7] Now I ask how you read this: for he has constructed it as if disordered by hyperbaton: whether 'the things which through the body are to be received back' or 'the things which through the body have been done'?

[8] Sed et si 'quae per corpus reportanda sunt', corporalis indubitate resurrectio est: et si 'quae per corpus gesta sunt', per corpus utique pensanda sunt per quod et gesta sunt.

[8] But even if 'the things which are to be brought back through the body,' it is indubitably a corporal resurrection: and if 'the things which have been done through the body,' they are of course to be weighed through the body through which they also have been done.

[9] Ita totus hic a capite tractatus apostoli, tali clausula detextus qua carnis resurrectio ostenditur, secundum haec erit intellegendus quae cum clausula consonant.

[9] Thus this whole apostolic tractate from the outset, woven off with such a clause by which the resurrection of the flesh is shown, will be to be understood according to these things which are consonant with the clause.

XLIV.

44.

[1] Si enim adhuc ad superiora respectes unde mentio hominis exterioris et interioris inducta est, nonne et dignitatem et spem carnis integram invenies?

[1] If indeed you still look back to the foregoing, whence the mention of the exterior and the interior man was introduced, will you not find both the dignity and the hope of the flesh intact?

[2] Cum enim de lumine quod illuxerit deus in cordibus nostris ad illuminationem agnitionis gloriae suae in persona Christi, dicit habere nos thesaurum istum in testaceis vasis, scilicet in carne, utrumne quia testacea est secundum originem ex limo destruetur, an quia divini thesauri conditorium est extolletur?

[2] Since, when he speaks about the light which God has shone in our hearts for the illumination of the acknowledgment of his glory in the person of Christ, he says that we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to wit, in the flesh, whether because it is earthen according to its origin from clay it will be destroyed, or because it is the repository of the divine treasure it will be exalted?

[3] Atquin si lumen ipsum dei illud verum quod est in persona Christi vitam in se continet, eaque vita committitur cum lumine in carnem, peritura est in quam vita committitur? Plane, si periturus et ipse thesaurus: perituris enim peritura creduntur, sicut veteribus utribus novum vinum.

[3] But indeed, if the very light of God, that true [light] which is in the person of Christ, contains life in itself, and that life is committed along with the light into the flesh, will that into which the life is committed perish? Clearly, if the treasure itself too is destined to perish: for things destined to perish are believed to perish with things destined to perish, just as new wine with old wineskins.

[4] Cum item subicit, Semper mortificationem Christi Iesu circumferentes in corpore nostro, qualis ista res est, quae post dei templum iam et sepulchrum Christi potest dici?

[4] When likewise he adds, Always carrying about the mortification of Christ Jesus in our body, what sort of thing is this, which, after the temple of God, can now also be called the sepulchre of Christ?

[5] Cur autem mortificationem domini circumferimus in corpore? Ut et vita, inquit, manifestetur. Ubi?

[5] But why do we carry around the mortification of the Lord in the body? So that also the life, he says, may be manifested. Where?

In corpore. In quo? In mortali.

In the body. In what? In the mortal.

Ergo in carne, plane mortali secundum culpam sed et vitali secundum gratiam----vide quantam, ut in illa vita Christi manifestetur.

Therefore in the flesh, plainly mortal according to fault but also vital according to grace----see how great, so that in that the life of Christ may be manifested.

[6] In re ergo aliena salutis, in substantia perpetuae dissolutionis, manifestabitur vita Christi aeterna iugis incorrupta, iam et dei vita? Aut cuius temporis vita domini manifestabitur in corpore nostro?

[6] Therefore, in a matter alien to salvation, in the substance of perpetual dissolution, will the life of Christ—eternal unceasing incorrupt—be manifested, now even the life of God? Or at what time will the life of the Lord be manifested in our body?

[7] Illa quidem quam vixit usque in passionem, non modo apud Iudaeos in manifesto fuit verum etiam omnibus nunc gentibus prodita est. Adeo eam significat quae portas adamantinas mortis et aeneas seras inferorum infregit, quae exinde iam nostra est.

[7] That life indeed which he lived up to the Passion, not only was manifest among the Jews but has even now been made known to all the nations. So much does it signify that life which broke the adamantine gates of death and the brazen bars of the underworld, which from then on is now ours.

[8] Denique manifestabitur in corpore. Quando? Post mortem.

[8] Finally, it will be made manifest in the body. When? After death.

Quomodo? Dum resurgimus in corpore, sicut et Christus. Ne enim quis argumentetur nunc habere manifestari vitam Iesu in corpore nostro per disciplinam sanctitatis et patientiae et iustitiae et sapientiae quibus domini vita floruit, providentissima apostoli intentio suggerit,

How? While we rise again in the body, just as also Christ. For lest anyone argue that now we have the life of Jesus manifested in our body through the discipline of sanctity and patience and justice and wisdom by which the Lord’s life flourished, the most provident intention of the apostle suggests,

[9] Si enim nos qui vivimus in mortem tradimur propter Iesum, ut et vita eius manifestetur in corpore nostro mortali: adeo defunctis nobis hoc ait futurum in corpore nostro. Quodsi tunc, quomodo nisi resuscitato eo?

[9] For if we who live are handed over into death on account of Jesus, so that his life also may be manifested in our mortal body: to such a degree he says that, with us deceased, this will be in our body. But if then, how unless, it having been resuscitated, it?

[10] Proinde et in clausula, Scientes ait quod qui suscitavit Iesum, et nos suscitabit cum ipso: quia iam resurrexit a mortuis: nisi quia 'cum ipso' 'sicut ipsum' sapit. Si vero sicut ipsum, non utique sine carne.

[10] Accordingly, even in the closing clause, he says, Knowing that he who raised Jesus, will also raise us with him: because he has already risen from the dead: except that 'with him' has the savor of 'as himself.' But if 'as himself,' surely not without flesh.

XLV.

45.

[1] Sed et rursus alia caecitate in duos homines impingunt, in veterem et in novum, monente apostolo deponere nos veterem hominem qui corrumpitur per concupiscentias seductionis, renovari autem spiritu sensus et induere novum hominem qui secundum deum conditus est in iustitia et religione veritatis, ut et hic ad duas substantias distinguendo, vetustatem ad carnem, novitatem ad animam, corruptionem perpetuam veteri defendant, id est carni.

[1] But again they stumble, with another blindness, into two men, into the old and into the new, the apostle admonishing us to put off the old man who is corrupted through the concupiscences of seduction, to be renewed however in the spirit of understanding and to put on the new man who according to God has been constituted in justice and the religion of truth, so that here too, by distinguishing to two substances, oldness to the flesh, newness to the soul, they may defend perpetual corruption for the old, that is, for the flesh.

[2] Porro si secundum substantias, nec anima novus homo quia posterior, nec caro ideo vetus quia prior: quantulum enim temporis inter manum dei et adflatum?

[2] Moreover, if according to substances, neither is the soul the new man because later, nor the flesh therefore old because prior: for how small a span of time is there between the hand of God and the afflatus?

[3] Ausim dicere, etiam si multo prior anima caro, eo ipso quod anima impleri se expectavit priorem eam fecit: omnis enim consummatio atque perfectio, etsi ordine postumat, effectu anticipat: magis illud prius est sine quo priora non possunt.

[3] I would dare to say, even if the soul is much earlier than the flesh, this very fact—that the soul awaited to be filled—made it prior; for every consummation and perfection, even if it is subsequent in order, anticipates in effect: rather, that is earlier without which the prior things cannot [be].

[4] Si caro vetus homo, quando istud? A primordio? atquin Adam novus totus, et ex novo vetus nemo. Nam et exinde a benedictione geniturae caro atque anima simul fiunt sine calculo temporis, ut quae simul in utero seminantur, quod docuimus in commentario animae:

[4] If flesh is the old man, when is that? From the beginning? and yet Adam was wholly new, and from what is new no one is old. For also from then on, from the blessing of begetting, flesh and soul come to be together without a reckoning of time, as things which are sown together in the womb, as we taught in the Commentary on the Soul:

[5] contemporant fetu, coaetant natu: duos istos homines, sane ex substantia duplici, non tamen et aetate, sic unum edunt dum prior neutra est. Citius est totos nos aut veteres aut novos esse: qua enim alterum possumus esse, nescimus.

[5] they are contemporaneous in the fetus, they are coeval in birth: those two men, indeed from a double substance, yet not also in age, thus produce one while neither is prior. It is sooner that we be wholly either old or new: for by what way we can be the one or the other, we do not know.

[6] Sed apostolus veterem hominem manifeste notat: Expone, enim inquit, secundum pristinam conversationem veterem hominem, non secundum alicuius substantiae senium. Neque enim carnem praecipit deponamus, sed quae et alibi carnalia ostendit, opera non corpora accusans.

[6] But the apostle clearly marks the old man: Put off, for, he says, according to the pristine conversation the old man, not according to the senility of any substance. For neither does he command that we put off the flesh, but those things which elsewhere he shows to be carnal, accusing works, not bodies.

[7] De quibus et hic subicit, Deponentes mendacium loquimini veritatem unusquisque ad proximum suum, quoniam membra alterutrum sumus.

[7] Concerning which he also here subjoins, "Putting aside falsehood, speak truth each to his neighbor, since we are members of one another."

[8] Irascimini autem et nolite delinquere: sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram, neque dederitis diabolo locum.

[8] Be angry, and do not sin: let not the sun set upon your anger, nor give place to the devil.

[9] Qui furabatur iam non furetur, immo potius laboret operando manibus, ut habeat impertire indigenti.

[9] He who was stealing, let him steal no longer, rather instead let him labor working with his hands, so that he may have to impart to the indigent.

[10] Omnis sermo turpis non procedat ex ore vestro, sed qui sit optimus ad aedificationem fidei, ut gratiam audientibus praestet.

[10] Let no speech base proceed from your mouth, but that which is best for the edification of faith, that it may bestow grace upon the hearers.

[11] Et nolite contristare spiritum dei sanctum, in quo signati estis in redemptionis diem.

[11] And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you have been sealed for the day of redemption.

[12] Omnis amaritudo et ira et clamor et blasphemia auferatur a vobis cum omni malitia:

[12] Let all bitterness and anger and clamor and blasphemy be taken away from you with all malice:

[13] estote autem in alterutrum benigni misericordes, donantes invicem sicut et deus vobis donavit in Christo.

[13] but be kindly toward one another, merciful, forgiving one another just as God also forgave you in Christ.

[14] Igitur, qui carnem veterem hominem existimant cur non mortem sibi properant ut vetere homine deposito praeceptis apostoli occurrant?

[14] Therefore, those who consider the flesh to be the old man, why do they not hasten death to themselves, so that, with the old man laid aside, they may meet the precepts of the apostle comply?

[15] Nos enim, qui totam fidem in carne administrandam credimus, immo et per carnem, cuius est et os ad proferendum optimum quemque sermonem et lingua ad non blasphemandum et cor ad non indignandum et manus ad operandum et largiendum, tam vetustatem hominis quam novitatem ad moralem non ad substantialem differentiam defendimus.

[15] We, for our part, who believe that the whole faith is to be administered in the flesh believe, nay, even through the flesh, to which belong both the mouth for bringing forth every best sermon and the tongue for not blaspheming and the heart for not becoming indignant and the hands for working and for largessing, we defend both the oldness of the man and the newness as a moral, not a substantial, difference.

[16] Atque ita pariter agnoscimus hominem qui secundum pristinam conversationem vetus fuerit, eundem et corrumpi ita dictum secundum concupiscentias seductionis quemadmodum et veterem secundum pristinam conversationem, non secundum carnem per interitum perpetuum, ceterum salva carne tam salvum quam eundem, utpote vitiosam disciplinam, non corpulentiam, exutum.

[16] And thus likewise we recognize the man who according to his former conversation has been old, the same also to be “corrupted” thus said according to the concupiscences of seduction, just as “old” according to the former conversation, not according to the flesh through perpetual destruction, but with the flesh safe, both safe and the same, inasmuch as he has been stripped of a vicious discipline, not of corpulence.

XLVI.

46.

[1] Talem ubique apostolum recognoscas, ita carnis opera damnantem ut carnem damnare videatur, sed ne ita quis existimet ex aliorum vel cohaerentium sensuum suggestu procurantem.

[1] Such an apostle you may recognize everywhere, condemning the works of the flesh so that he may seem to condemn the flesh, but he takes care, from the suggestion of other or cohering senses, that no one suppose so.

[2] Nam et dicens eos qui in carne sunt deo placere non posse, statim de pravo intellectu ad integrum revocat adiciens, Vos autem non estis in carne sed in spiritu.

[2] For also, in saying that those who are in the flesh are not able to please God, he immediately recalls from a depraved understanding to integrity, adding, “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.”

[3] Eos enim quos in carne esse constabat negando in carne esse, in operibus carnis non esse monstrabat, atque ita illos demum deo placere non posse, non qui in carne essent sed qui carnaliter viverent, placere autem illos deo qui in carne positi secundum spiritum incederent.

[3] For those whom it was established to be in the flesh, by denying that they are in the flesh, he was showing that they are not in the works of the flesh, and thus that those indeed are unable to please God, not those who are in the flesh but those who live carnally, and that those please God who, placed in the flesh,
according to the spirit walk.

[4] Et rursus corpus quidem ait mortuum, sed propter delinquentiam, sicut spiritum vitam propter iustitiam: vitam autem morti opponens in carne constitutae, sine dubio illic et vitam repromisit ex iustitia ubi mortem determinavit ex delinquentia.

[4] And again he says the body indeed is dead, but on account of delinquency, just as the spirit is life on account of justice: but, opposing life to the death constituted in the flesh, without doubt there he also re-promised life from justice where he determined death from delinquency.

[5] Ceterum frustra opposuit vitam morti non est illic ubi est ipsa cui eam opposuit, excludendae utique de corpore. Porro si vita mortem de corpore excludit, non potest id perficere nisi illud penetret ubi est quod excludit.

[5] But he has opposed life to death in vain it is not there where that very thing is to which he opposed it, as of course to be excluded from the body. Furthermore, if life excludes death from the body, it cannot accomplish that unless it penetrates that wherein is what it excludes.

[6] Et quid ego nodosius, cum apostolus absolutius? Si enim, inquit, spiritus eius qui suscitavit Iesum habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis suscitabit et mortalia corpora vestra propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in vobis:

[6] And why should I be more knotty, when the apostle is more absolute? For if, he says, the spirit of him who resuscitated Jesus dwells in you, he who resuscitated Jesus from the dead will also resuscitate your mortal bodies on account of his spirit inhabiting in you:

[7] ut et si animam quis corpus mortale praesumpserit, cum hoc et carnem negare non possit carnis quoque resuscitationem cogatur agnoscere secundum eiusdem status communionem.

[7] so that even if someone has presumed the soul to be a mortal body, since with this he cannot deny the flesh as well, he is compelled to acknowledge the resuscitation of the flesh too, according to the communion of the same status.

[8] Ex sequentibus adhuc discas opera carnis damnari, non ipsam: Itaque, fratres, ait, debitores sumus non carni ad vivendum : si enim secundum carnem vixeritis futurum est ut moriamini, si vero spiritu carnis actus mortificaveritis vivetis.

[8] From the following you may still learn that the works of the flesh are condemned, not the flesh itself: Therefore, brothers, he says, we are debtors not to the flesh to live : for if you live according to the flesh, it will come to pass that you die, but if by the Spirit you mortify the acts of the flesh, you will live.

[9] Porro, ut ad singula quaeque respondeam, si in carne constitutis secundum spiritum tamen degentibus salus repromittitur, iam non caro adversatur saluti sed operatio carnis: operatione autem carnis exclusa, quae causa est mortis, salva iam caro ostenditur, causa carens mortis.

[9] Furthermore, so that I may respond to each particular point, if, for those constituted in the flesh yet nevertheless living according to the spirit, salvation is promised, then it is no longer the flesh opposes salvation but the operation of the flesh: but with the operation of the flesh excluded, which is the cause of death, the flesh is now shown safe, cause lacking of death.

[10] Lex enim, inquit, spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu manumisit me a lege delinquentiae et mortis----certe quam praemisit habitare in membris nostris. Ergo iam membra nostra legi mortis non tenebuntur, quia nec delinquentiae, a quibus manumissa sunt.

[10] For, he says, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has manumitted me from the law of delinquency and of death----surely the one which he previously stated to dwell in our members. Therefore now our members will not be held by the law of death because neither by delinquency, from which they have been manumitted.

[11] Quod enim invalidum erat legis, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, misso deus filio suo in simulacro carnis delinquentiae et per delinquentiam, damnavit delinquentiam in carne----non carnem in delinquentia: neque enim domus cum habitatore damnabitur: habitare enim peccatum dixit in corpore nostro.

[11] For what was invalid of the law, in which it was being weakened through flesh, God, having sent his Son in the simulacrum (likeness) of the flesh of delinquency and on account of delinquency, condemned delinquency in the flesh—not the flesh in delinquency: for neither will a house be condemned with its inhabitant: for he said that sin dwells in our body.

[12] Damnata autem delinquentia caro absoluta est, sicut indemnata ea legi mortis et delinquentiae obstricta est. Sic etsi sensum carnis mortem appellavit, dehinc et inimicitiam ad deum, sed non carnem ipsam.

[12] But with delinquency condemned, the flesh is absolved, just as, with it uncondemned, the flesh is bound to the law of death and delinquency. Thus even if he called the sense of the flesh death, then also enmity toward God, yet not the flesh itself.

[13] Cui ergo, dices, reputabitur sensus carnis si non substantiae ipsi? Plane, si probaveris aliquid carnem de suo sapere. Si vero sine anima nullius est sensus, intelleges sensum carnis ad animam esse referendum, carni interdum deputatum quia propter carnem et per carnem administratur.

[13] To whom, then, you will say, will the sense of the flesh be imputed, if not to the substance itself? Plainly, if you shall have proved that the flesh has anything of its own to know. But if indeed without the soul there is no sense, you will understand the sense of the flesh is to be referred to the soul, deputed to the flesh at times because on account of the flesh and through the flesh it is administered.

[14] Et ideo habitare ait delinquentiam in carne, quia et anima a qua delinquentia inducitur inquilina est carnis, mortificatae quidem, sed non suo verum delinquentiae nomine.

[14] And therefore he says that delinquency dwells in the flesh, because the soul by which delinquency is induced is a lodger of the flesh, indeed mortified, but not in its own name, rather in the name of delinquency.

[15] Nam et alibi, Quomodo, inquit, etiam nunc velut viventes in mundo sententiam fertis?----non ad mortuos scribens sed ad eos qui desinere deberent mundialiter vivere.

[15] For also elsewhere, How, he says, even now as if living in the world do you pass sentence?----not writing to the dead but to those who ought to cease to live in a worldly manner.

XLVII.

47.

[1] Haec enim erit vita mundialis quam veterem hominem dicit confixum esse Christo, non corporalitatem sed moralitatem. Ceterum si non ita accipimus, non est corporalitas nostra confixa, nec crucem Christi caro nostra perpessa est, sed quemadmodum adiecit, Ut evacuetur corpus delinquentiae, per emendationem vitae, non per interitum substantiae: sicut ait, Uti hactenus delinquentiae serviamus, ut et hac ratione commortui in Christo credamus quod etiam convivemus illi.

[1] For this will be the worldly life which he says the old man has been affixed to Christ—not corporeality but morality. Otherwise, if we do not take it so, our corporeality is not affixed, nor has our flesh suffered the cross of Christ; but as he added, That the body of delinquency may be evacuated, through emendation of life, not through the destruction of substance: as he says, So that hitherto we should serve delinquency, so that also in this manner, having died-together in Christ, we may believe that we shall also live-together with him.

[2] Sic, enim inquit, et vos reputate mortuos quidem vos. Cuinam? Carni?

[2] Thus, indeed, he says, even you repute yourselves indeed dead. To whom? To the flesh?

Non, sed delinquentiae. Ergo salvi erunt carni, viventes autem deo in Christo Iesu, per carnem utique cui mortui non erunt, delinquentiae scilicet mortui, non carni.

No, but to delinquency. Therefore they will be safe for the flesh, yet living to God in Christ Jesus, through the flesh indeed to which they will not be dead, to delinquency namely dead, not to the flesh.

[3] Nam et adhuc ingerit, Ne ergos regnaverit in corpore vestro mortali delinquentia ad obaudiendum illi et ad exhibendum membra vestra arma iniustitiae delinquentiae: sed exhibete vosmetipsos deo velut ex mortuis vivos----non velut vivos sed velut ex mortuis vivos----et membra vestra arma iustititae.

[3] For he also still presses, Let not, therefore, delinquency reign in your mortal body, to obey it and to exhibit your members as arms of injustice to delinquency: but exhibit your very selves to God as living from the dead----not as living but as living from the dead----and your members as arms of justice.

[4] Et rursus: Sicut exhibuistis membra vestra famula immunditiae et iniquitatis ad iniquitatem, ita et nunc exhibete membra vestra famula iustitiae in sanctificium: cum enim servi essetis delinquentiae liberi eratis iustitiae:

[4] And again: Just as you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity, so also now present your members as servants to justice unto sanctification: for when you were servants of delinquency you were free from justice:

[5] quem ergo fructum habebatis super his de quibus nunc confundimini?

[5] what fruit therefore were you having over these things of which you now are ashamed?

[6] Finis enim illorum mors. Nunc vero liberi facti a delinquentia, famulati autem deo, habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificium, finem autem vitam aeternam:

[6] For the end of those is death. Now indeed, having been made free from delinquency, but in servitude to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, but the end, eternal life:

[7] stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donativum autem dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu domino nostro.

[7] the stipends indeed of delinquency are death, but the donative of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[8] Ita per totam hanc sensuum seriem ab iniustitia et delinquentia membra nostra divellens, et iustitiae et sanctimoniae adiungens, et transferens eadem a stipendio mortis ad donativum vitae aeternae, carni utique compensationem salutis repromittit:

[8] Thus through this whole series of senses tearing our members from injustice and delinquency, and joining them to justice and sanctity, and transferring the same from the wage of death to the donative of eternal life, he indeed promises to the flesh the compensation of salvation:

[9] cui nullam omnino competisset imperari propriam sanctimoniae et iustitiae disciplinam si non ipsius esset et praemium disciplinae, sed nec ipsum baptisma committi si per regenerationem non etiam restitutioni inauguraretur,

[9] to which it would by no means have been fitting that its own discipline of sanctimony and justice be commanded if it were not itself also the reward of the discipline, nor would baptism itself be committed if through regeneration it were not also inaugurated for restitution,

[10] hoc quoque apostolo ingerente: An ignoratis quod quicunque in Iesum tincti sumus in mortem eius tincti sumus? Consepulti ergo illi sumus per baptisma in mortem, uti quemadmodum surrexit Christus a mortuis ita et nos in novitate vitae incedamus.

[10] this also the apostle urging: Do you not know that all we who were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were co-buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ rose from the dead so also we may walk in newness of life.

[11] Ac ne de ista tantum vita putes dictum quae ex fide post baptisma in novitate vivenda est, providentissime adstruit, Si enim consati sumus simulacro mortis Christi, sed et resurrectionis erimus:

[11] And lest you think that it was said only about that life which by faith is to be lived in newness after baptism, he most providently establishes: For if we have been co-planted with the simulacrum of the death of Christ, we shall also be of the resurrection:

[12] per simulacrum enim morimur in baptismate, sed per veritatem resurgimus in carne, sicut et Christus: Ut sicut regnavit in morte delictum, ita et gratia regnet per iustitiam in vitam sempiternam per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Quomodo 'ita', si non aeque in carne?

[12] for through the simulacrum we die in baptism, but through the truth we rise again in the flesh, just as also Christ: That just as sin reigned in death, so also grace may reign through righteousness into life everlasting through Jesus Christ our lord. How 'so,' if not equally in the flesh?

[13] Ubi enim mors, ibi et vita post mortem, quia et vita ibi ante ubi postea mors. Nam si regnum mortis nihil operatur quam carnis dissolutionem, proinde vitam contrariam morti contrarium oportet operari, id est carnis redintegrationem, ut sicut devoraverat mors invalescendo, ita et mortali devorato ab immortalitate audire possit, Ubi est mors aculeus tuus, ubi est mors contentio tua?

[13] Where indeed death is, there too is life after death, because life also is there before where afterward is death. For if the reign of death works nothing except the dissolution of the flesh, accordingly life, contrary to death, ought to work the contrary, that is, the redintegration of the flesh, so that, just as death had devoured by waxing strong, so also, with the mortal devoured by immortality, it may be able to hear, Where is, O death, your sting, where is, O death, your contention?

[14] Sic enim et gratia illic superabundabit ubi et iniquitas abundavit: sic et virtus in infirmitate perficietur, quod periit salvum faciens, quod mortuum est vivificans, quod percussum est sanans, quod languit medicans, quod ereptum est redimens, quod famulatum est liberans, quod seductum est revocans, quod elisum est suscitans,

[14] For thus also grace there will superabound where iniquity also abounded: thus also power will be perfected in weakness, making safe what has perished, making alive what is dead, healing what has been struck, doctoring what has languished, redeeming what has been snatched away, freeing what was enslaved, calling back what was led astray, raising up what has been dashed down,

[15] et quidem de terra in caelum, ubi nostrum municipatum Philippenses quoque ab apostolo discunt, unde et salutificatorem nostrum expectamus Iesum Christum, qui transfigurabit corpus nostrae humilitatis conformale corpori gloriae suae----sine dubio post resurrectionem, quia nec ipse Christus glorificatus est ante passionem.

[15] and indeed from earth into heaven, where the Philippians also learn from the apostle that our citizenship is, whence also we await our Saviour Jesus Christ, who will transfigure the body of our humiliation to be conformal to the body of his glory----without doubt after the resurrection, since not even Christ himself was glorified before the Passion.

[16] Haec erunt corpora nostra quae Romanos obsecrat exhibere hostiam vivam sanctam placibilem deo. Quomodo 'vivam' si peritura sunt? quomodo 'sanctam' si profana sunt?

[16] These will be our bodies which he beseeches the Romans to present as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God. How ‘living’ if they are going to perish? how ‘holy’ if they are profane?

Quomodo 'placibilem' si damnata sunt?

How 'pleasing' if they are condemned?

[17] Age nunc, quod ad Thessalonicenses ut ipsius solis radio putem scriptum, ita claret, qualiter accipient lucifugae isti scripturarum? Ipse autem deus pacis sanctificet vos totos. Non sufficit?

[17] Come now, as to the Thessalonians, since it shines so clearly that I would think it written by the sun’s ray itself, how will these lucifugal shunners of the Scriptures receive it? But may the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly. Is it not sufficient?

[18] Sed et exsequitur, Et integrum corpus vestrum et anima et spiritus sine querela conserventur in praesentia domini. Habes omnem substantiam hominis saluti destinatam, nec alio tempore quam in adventu domini qui clavis est resurrectionis.

[18] But he also follows up, "And may your entire body and soul and spirit be kept without complaint in the presence of the Lord." You have the whole substance of the human being destined for salvation, and at no other time than at the advent of the Lord, who is the key of the resurrection.

XLVIII.

48.

[1] Sed caro, inquis, et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere non possunt. Scimus hoc quoque scriptum, sed de industria distulimus hucusque, ut quod adversarii in prima statim acie obstruunt in ultima congressione prosterneremus, omnibus quaestionibus quasi auxiliis eius ante disiectis.

[1] But flesh, you say, and blood cannot possess by inheritance the kingdom of God. We know this too to have been written, but on purpose we have deferred it until now, in order that what the adversaries block straightway in the very first battle-line we might cast down in the last engagement, with all the questions, as it were his auxiliaries, previously scattered.

[2] Sed et nunc expetent praecedentia recognosci, ut et huic sensui sua origo praeiudicet. Ut opinor, apostolus disposita ad Corinthios omni distinctione ecclesiasticae disciplinae, summam et sui evangelii et fidei illorum in dominicae mortis et resurrectionis demandatione concluserat, ut et nostrae spei regulam inde deduceret unde constaret.

[2] But even now they will demand that the preceding matters be recognized, so that to this sense also its origin may prejudge. As I opine, the apostle, with every distinction of ecclesiastical discipline set in order for the Corinthians, had concluded the sum both of his gospel and of their faith in the commissioning concerning the Lord’s death and resurrection, so that he might also deduce the rule of our hope from that whence it is established.

[3] Itaque subicit: Si autem Christus praedicatur quod a mortuis resurrexit, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis resurrectionem mortuorum non esse?

[3] Therefore he subjoins: If, however, Christ is proclaimed as having risen from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

[4] Quae si non est, nec Christus resurrexit. Si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est praedicatio nostra, inanis est et fides vestra. Inveniemur etiam falsi testes dei, qui testimonium dixerimus quod resuscitaverit Christum quem non resuscitavit.

[4] And if this is not, neither has Christ resurrected. If Christ has not resurrected, our preaching is vain, and your faith is vain as well. We shall also be found false witnesses of God, we who have testified that God resuscitated Christ whom he did not resuscitate.

[5] Nam si mortui non resurgunt nec Christus resurrexit: si Christus non resurrexit vana est fides vestra, quia adhuc in delictis vestris estis, et qui in Christo dormierunt perierunt.

[5] For if the dead do not rise again neither was Christ resurrected: if Christ was not resurrected, vain is your faith, because you are still in your sins, and those who in Christ have fallen asleep have perished.

[6] Per haec cui nos rei credendae videtur extruere? Resurrectioni, inquis, mortuorum quae negabatur. Certe sub exemplo dominicae resurrectionis volens eam credi?

[6] Through these things, for what matter-to-be-believed does he seem to be building us up? to build? Resurrection, you say, of the dead which was being denied. Surely wishing it to be believed under the example of the Lord’s resurrection?

Certe, inquis. Exemplum porro ex diversitate an ex parilitate componitur?

Certainly, you say. Moreover, is an example composed from diversity or from parity?

[7] Utique, inquis, ex parilitate. Quomodo autem Christus resurrexit, in carne an non? Sine dubio si mortuum, si sepultum audis secundum scripturas, non alias quam in carne, aeque resuscitatum in carne concedis: ipsum enim quod cecidit in morte, quod iacuit in sepultura, hoc et resurrexit, non tam Christus in carne quam caro in Christo.

[7] Assuredly, you say, from parity. How, however, did Christ rise again, in flesh or not? Without doubt if dead, if buried you hear according to the scriptures, in no other way than in the flesh, you likewise concede him resuscitated in the flesh: for the very thing which fell in death, which lay in sepulture, this also rose again, not so much Christ in the flesh as the flesh in Christ.

[8] Igitur si ad exemplum Christi resurgemus qui resurrexit in carne, iam non ad exemplum Christi resurgemus si non in carne et ipsi resurgemus. Quia per hominem, inquit, mors, et per hominem resurrectio: ut separaret quidem auctores, mortis Adam Christum resurrectionis, eiusdem autem constitueret substantiae resurrectionem cuius et mortem per ipsorum auctorum in nomine hominis comparationem:

[8] Therefore if according to the exemplar of Christ we shall rise again—who rose again in flesh—then no longer according to the exemplar of Christ shall we rise again if we too do not rise in flesh. Because “through man,” he says, “death, and through man resurrection”: so that he might separate the authors indeed—Adam of death, Christ of resurrection—yet constitute the resurrection as of the same substance as the death, through the comparison, in the name “man,” of the authors themselves:

[9] si enim sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur, carne vivificabuntur in Christo sicut in Adam carne moriuntur:

[9] if indeed just as in Adam all die so also in Christ all will be vivified, in flesh they will be vivified in Christ just as in Adam they die in flesh:

[10] unusquisque autem in suo ordine, scilicet quia et in suo corpore. Ordo enim meritorum dispositorum nomine disponetur. Merita autem cum corpori quoque adscribantur, ordo quoque corporum disponatur necesse est, ut possit esse meritorum.

[10] but each in his own order, namely because also in his own body. For the order of merits, under the name of dispositions, will be disposed. But since merits are also ascribed to the body, the order of bodies likewise must be disposed, so that there may be an order of merits.

[11] Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis, videbimus an ratione. Certe illa praesumptione hoc eos instituisse portendit qua alii etiam carni ut vicarium baptisma profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis, quae nisi corporalis non alias in baptismate corporali obligaretur. Quid et ipsos baptizari ait , id est si non quae baptizantur corpora resurgent: anima enim non lavatione sed responsione sancitur.

[11] But if even some are baptized for the dead, we shall see whether with reason. Surely it portends that they to have instituted this by that presumption by which others even supposed that a vicarious baptism would be of profit for the flesh unto the hope of resurrection, which, unless it be bodily, would not otherwise be bound in a bodily baptism. What, too, of his saying that they themselves are baptized , that is, if the bodies which are baptized will not rise again: for the soul is sanctioned not by lavation but by response.

[12] Quid et nos, inquit, omni hora periclitamur?----utique per carnem. Cotidie morior----utique periculis carnis, per quam et depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiaticae pressurae de qua in secunda ad eosdem, Nolumus enim vos ignorare, fratres, de pressura nostra apud Asiam, quod super quam supra gravati sumus citra vires, uti et de vita haesitaremus.

[12] What then of us, he says, are we in peril every hour?----assuredly through the flesh. I die daily----assuredly by the dangers of the flesh, through which also he fought to the finish with beasts at Ephesus, those, namely, beasts of Asiatic pressure, about which in the second [letter] to the same: We do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, about our pressure in Asia, that beyond measure, beyond our strength, we were burdened, so that we even hesitated about life.

[13] Omnia haec, nisi fallor, eo enumerat ut nolens vanam credi carnis conflictationem indubitate velit credi carnis resurrectionem: vana enim habenda est conflictatio eius cuius nulla erit resurrectio.

[13] All these things, unless I am mistaken, he enumerates to this end: that, not wishing the conflict of the flesh to be believed vain, he wants the resurrection of the flesh to be believed indubitably: for vain must the conflict of that be held whose resurrection will be no resurrection.

[14] Sed dicet quis, quomodo resurgent mortui? Quo autem corpore venient? Iam hic de qualitatibus corporum disserit, an eadem ipsa an alia resumantur: sed cum eiusmodi quaestio posterior habeatur, sufficiet interim ex hoc quoque genere corporalem definiri resurrectionem, cum de qualitate corporum quaeritur.

[14] But someone will say, how will the dead rise again? With what body, moreover, will they come? Already here he discourses about the qualities of bodies, whether the very same or others be resumed: but since a question of this sort subsequent is held, it will suffice in the meantime that from this kind also the resurrection be defined as corporeal, since inquiry is made about the quality of bodies.

XLIX.

49.

[1] Ventum est nunc ad carnem et sanguinem, revera totius quaestionis: quas substantias quali condicione exheredaverit apostolus a dei regno aeque de antecedentibus discere est.

[1] We have now come to flesh and blood, the in truth of the whole question: by what condition the apostle has disinherited these substances from the kingdom of God is likewise to be learned from the foregoing.

[2] Primus, inquit, homo de terra choicus----id est limaceus, id est Adam: Secundus homo de caelo----id est sermo dei, id est Christus, non alias tamen homo, licet de caelo, nisi quia et ipse caro atque anima, quod homo, quod Adam.

[2] First, he says, the man from the earth, dusty----that is, limaceous, that is, Adam: The second man from heaven----that is, the Word of God, that is, Christ, not otherwise, however, a man, although from heaven, except because he too is flesh and soul, inasmuch as he is man, inasmuch as he is Adam.

[3] Nam et supra novissimus Adam dictus, de consortio substantiae commercium nominis traxit, quia nec Adam ex semine caro, quod et Christus.

[3] For also above, the Last Adam being so called, from the consortium of substance he drew a commerce of the name, since neither was Adam flesh from seed, as also Christ.

[4] Qualis ergo choicus tales et choici, et qualis caelestis tales et caelestes. Substantia tales? An primo disciplina, dehinc et dignitate quam disciplina captavit?

[4] Of what sort therefore the earthly, such also the earthly; and of what sort the celestial, such also the celestials. Such by substance? Or first by discipline, then also by the dignity which discipline has captured?

atquin substantia nullo modo separabuntur choici atque caelestes, semel ab apostolo homines dicti.

And yet, as to substance, the choic and the celestial will by no means be separated, once called men by the apostle.

[5] Si enim et Christus, solus vere caelestis, immo et supercaelestis, homo tamen qua caro atque anima, nihilo ex ista substantiarum condicione a choica qualitate discernitur, proinde et qui caelestes secundum illum non de substantia praesenti sed de futura claritate caelestes praedicati intellegentur: quia et retro, unde distinctio ista manavit, de dignitatis differentia ostensa est alia supercaelestium gloria, alia superterrenorum, et alia solis, alia lunae, alia stellarum, quia et stella a stella differt in gloria, non tamen in substantia.

[5] For if even Christ, the only truly celestial—nay, even supercelestial—yet a man as to flesh and soul, is in no way, on account of this condition of the substances, distinguished from a choic quality, then likewise those who are celestial according to him will be understood to be predicated celestial not from the present substance but from future brightness: for also earlier, whence this distinction has flowed forth, from a difference of dignity there was shown one glory of the supercelestials, another of the superterrestrials, and one of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars, since even star differs from star in glory, yet not in substance.

[6] Denique praemissa differentia dignitatis in eadem substantia et nunc sectandae et tunc capessendae, subiungit etiam exhortationem ut et hic habitum Christi sectemur ex disciplina, et illic fastigium consequamur ex gloria: Sicut portavimus imaginem choici, portemus etiam imaginem supercaelestis: portavimus enim imaginem choici per collegium transgressionis, per consortium mortis, per exilium paradisi.

[6] Finally, the difference of dignity having been premised, in the same substance—both now to be followed and then to be seized—he also subjoins an exhortation, that here we should follow the habitus of Christ by discipline, and there we may attain the pinnacle by glory: Just as we have borne the image of the choic, let us also bear the image of the supercaelestial: for we have borne the image of the choic through the collegium of transgression, through the consortium of death, through the exile of paradise.

[7] Nam si et in carnehic portatur imago Adae, sed non carnem monemur exponere: si non carnem, ergo conversationem, ut proinde et caelestis imaginem gestemus in nobis, non iam dei, nec iam in caelo constituti, sed secundum liniamenta Christi incedentes in sanctitate et iustitia et veritate.

[7] For if even in the fleshhere is carried the image of Adam, yet we are not admonished to lay aside the flesh: if not the flesh, then the conversation, so that likewise we may bear the image of the heavenly one in ourselves, not already of God, nor already established in heaven, but walking according to the lineaments of Christ in holiness and justice and truth.

[8] Atque adeo ad disciplinam totum hoc dirigit ut hic dicat portandam imaginem Christi in ista carne et in isto tempore disciplinae: 'portemus' enim praeceptivo modo dicens huic tempori loquitur in quo homo nulla alia substantia est quam caro et anima, ut etsi quam aliam, id est caelestem, substantiam haec fides spectat, huic tamen repromissa sit cui ad illam elaborare mandatur.

[8] And indeed toward discipline he directs all this, so that here he says that the image of Christ is to be borne in this flesh and in this time of discipline: 'let us bear,' for, speaking in a preceptive mode, he speaks to this time in which the human is of no other substance than flesh and soul, so that even if this faith looks toward some other, that is, celestial, substance, yet it be promised to this one, to whom it is commanded to labor toward that.

[9] Cum igitur imaginem et choici et caelestis in conversatione constituat, illam eierandam hanc vero sectandam, dehinc adiungat Hoc enim dico (id est 'propter ea quae supra dixi':----coniunctio est 'enim', sensus supplementum antecedentibus reddens) quod caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere non possunt,

[9] Since therefore he establishes the image both of the choic and the heavenly in conduct, that the former is to be abjured, but this latter to be followed, then he adds For this I say (that is, 'on account of the things which I have said above':----'for' is a conjunction, returning a supplement of sense to the antecedents) that flesh and blood cannot possess by inheritance the kingdom of God,

[10] nihil aliud intellegi mandat carnem et sanguinem quam supradictam imaginem choici: quae si in conversatione censetur vetustatis, conversatio autem vetustatis non capit dei regnum, proinde caro et sanguis non capiendo dei regnum ad conversationem rediguntur vetustatis.

[10] he enjoins that nothing else be understood by flesh and blood than the aforesaid image of the choic: which, if it is reckoned in the conversation of oldness, and the conversation of oldness does not receive the kingdom of God, accordingly flesh and blood, by not receiving the kingdom of God, are reduced to the conversation of oldness.

[11] Plane si nunquam apostolus pro operibus substantiam posuit, nec hic ita utatur: si vero in carne adhuc constitutos negavit esse in carne, in operibus carnis negans esse, formam eius subruere non debes non substantiam sed opera substantiae alienantis a dei regno.

[11] Plainly, if the apostle never posited substance in place of works, neither does he here use it thus: but if he denied those still constituted in the flesh to be in the flesh, denying them to be in the works of the flesh, you ought not to undermine its form—namely, not substance but the works of the substance that alienates from the kingdom of God.

[12] Quibus etiam ad Galatas manifestatis praedicere se et praedixisse profitetur quod qui talia agant regnum dei non sint in hereditate consecuturi, non portantes scilicet imaginem caelestis sicut portaverant choici, ideoque ex vetere conversatione nihil aliud deputandi quam caro et sanguis.

[12] To whom also, these things having been made manifest to the Galatians, he professes that he foretells and has foretold that those who do such things are not going to obtain the kingdom of God in inheritance, clearly not bearing the image of the heavenly, just as they had borne that of the choic, and therefore from the old conversation they are to be reckoned nothing else than flesh and blood.

[13] Nam et si subito in hanc definitionem erupisset apostolus eliminandi carnem et sanguinem a dei regno, sine ullius supra sensus praestructione, nonne duas istas substantias proinde veterem hominem interpretaremur carni et sanguini deditum, id est esui et potui, cuius sit dicere adversus fidem resurrectionis, Manducemus et bibamus, cras enim moriemur? Et hoc enim infulciens apostolus carnem et sanguinem de fructibus ipsorum manducandi et bibendi suggillavit.

[13] For even if the apostle had suddenly burst into this definition of eliminating flesh and blood from the kingdom of God, without any prior pre‑structuring of the sense above, would we not accordingly interpret those two substances as the old man given over to flesh and blood, that is, to eating and drinking—whose it is to say, against the faith of the resurrection, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die?’ And indeed, adding this besides, the apostle stigmatized flesh and blood from their own fruits of eating and drinking.

50.

[1] Sed et omissis huiusmodi interpretationibus carnis et sanguinis opera taxantibus, ipsas quoque substantias non aliter quam sunt intellectas licebit resurrectioni vindicare.

[1] But even with such interpretations set aside, which censure the works of flesh and blood, it will be permissible to vindicate to the resurrection the substances themselves also, understood no otherwise than as they are.

[2] Non enim resurrectio carni et sanguini directo negatur, sed dei regnum quod obvenit resurrectioni: est autem et in iudicium resurrectio. Immo et confirmatur carnis resurrectio generalis cum specialis excipitur: dum enim in quem statum non resurgat edicitur, in quem resurgat subauditur.

[2] For resurrection is not denied directly to flesh and blood, but the kingdom of God, which accrues to the resurrection: moreover there is also a resurrection into judgment. Nay rather, the general resurrection of the flesh is even confirmed when a special one is excepted: for when it is declared into what state it does not rise again, it is understood into what state it does rise again.

[3] Atque ita dum pro meritis distinctionem resurrectionis opus substantiae non genus patitur, apparet hinc quoque carnem et sanguinem nomine culpae non substantiae arceri a dei regno, nomine tamen formae resurgere in iudicium quia non resurgant in regnum.

[3] And so, while, according to merits, the distinction of the resurrection is borne by the work of the substance, not by the genus, it appears from this also that flesh and blood are shut out from the kingdom of God under the name of fault, not of substance; yet under the name of form they rise again into judgment, because they do not rise into the kingdom.

[4] Adhuc dicam, Caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere non possunt: merito sola et per semetipsa, ut ostenderet adhuc spiritum in illis necessarium. Spiritus enim est qui vivificat in regnum dei, caro nihil prodest: prodesse tamen illi aliud potest, id est spiritus, et per spiritum opera quoque spiritus.

[4] Further I will say, Flesh and blood cannot possess by inheritance the kingdom of God: deservedly, alone and by themselves, so as to show that the Spirit is still necessary in them. For it is the Spirit who vivifies unto the kingdom of God, the flesh profits nothing: yet something else can profit it, that is, the Spirit, and through the Spirit also the works of the Spirit.

[5] Resurgunt itaque ex aequo omnis caro et sanguis in qualitate sua: sed quorum est adire regnum dei induere oportebit vim incorruptibilitatis et immortalitatis, sine qua regnum dei adire non possunt, antequam consequi eam possint. Merito ergo caro et sanguis, ut diximus, sola regnum dei capere deficiunt.

[5] Therefore all flesh and blood rise again equally, in their own quality: but those whose lot it is to enter the kingdom of God it will be necessary to put on the power of incorruptibility and immortality, without which they cannot approach the kingdom of God, before they can attain it. With good reason, therefore, flesh and blood, as we said, alone fail to receive the kingdom of God.

[6] Iam vero cum devorari habeat corruptivum istud ab incorruptibilitate, id est caro, et mortale istud ab immortalitate, id est sanguis, post resurrectionem ex demutatione, merito demutata ac devorata caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere possunt, non tamen non resuscitata.

[6] Now indeed, since this corruptible thing— that is, flesh— is to be devoured by incorruptibility, and this mortal thing— that is, blood— by immortality, after the resurrection from change, rightly, the changed and devoured flesh and blood can possess the kingdom of God by inheritance, yet not without having been resurrected.

[7] Sunt qui carnem et sanguinem Iudaismum velint accipi propter circumcisionem, alienum et ipsum a dei regno, quia et ille vetustati deputetur et hoc titulo iam et alibi ab apostolo denotetur, qui post revelatum in se filium dei ad evangelizandum eum in nationibus statim non rettulerit ad carnem et sanguinem, id est ad circumcisionem, id est ad Iudaismum, sicut ad Galatas scribit.

[7] There are those who wish “flesh and blood” to be taken as Judaism on account of circumcision, and that it too is alien from the kingdom of God, because that likewise is deputed to vetustity, and under this title already and elsewhere it is denoted by the apostle, who, after the Son of God had been revealed in himself to evangelize him among the nations, immediately did not refer back to flesh and blood, that is, to circumcision, that is, to Judaism, as he writes to the Galatians.

LI.

51.

[1] Sed pro omnibus iam stabit quod in clausulam reservavimus, etiam pro apostolo ipso, revera maximae inconsiderantiae revincendo si tam abrupte, ut quidam volunt, clausis quod aiunt oculis, sine distinctione, sine condicione, omnem passim carnem et sanguinem a regno dei extrusit, utique ab ipsa regia caelorum, cum illic adhuc sedeat Iesus ad dexteram patris, homo etsi deus, Adam novissimus etsi sermo primarius, caro et sanguis etsi nostris puriora, idem tamen et substantia et forma qua ascendit, talis etiam descensurus, ut angeli adfirmant, agnoscendus scilicet et eis qui illum convulneraverunt.

[1] But for all alike there will now stand what we have reserved for the closing section, even for the apostle himself, truly refuting a very great inconsiderateness, if, so abruptly, as some wish, with, as they say, eyes shut, without distinction, without condition, he expelled indiscriminately all flesh and blood from the kingdom of God, namely from the very royal palace of the heavens, since there Jesus still sits at the right hand of the Father, man although God, the last Adam although the primal Word, flesh and blood though purer than ours, yet the same both in substance and in form with which he ascended, of such sort also to descend, as the angels affirm, to be recognized, of course, even by those who wounded him.

[2] Hic sequester dei atque hominum appellatus ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius. Quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit in caelum, pignus totius summae illuc quandoque redigendae.

[2] Here the sequester of God and of men, so called upon the deposit from either party committed to him, keeps also the deposit of the flesh in himself, an arrabon of the whole sum. For just as he left to us an arrabon of the Spirit, so also from us he received an arrabon of the flesh and carried it into heaven, a pledge of the whole sum to be rendered thither at some time.

[3] Securae estote, caro et sanguis: usurpastis et caelum et regnum dei in Christo: aut si negent vos in Christo, negent et in caelo Christum qui vobis caelum negaverunt.

[3] Be secure, flesh and blood: you have usurped both heaven and the kingdom of God in Christ: or if they deny you in Christ, let them also deny Christ in heaven, who denied heaven to you.

[4] Ita Nec corruptela, inquit, incorruptelam hereditati habebit: non ut carnem et sanguinem existimes corruptelam, quando ipsa sint potius obnoxia corruptelae, per mortem scilicet, siquidem mors est quae carnem et sanguinem non modo corrumpit verum etiam consumit:

[4] Thus, “corruption,” he says, will not inherit “incorruption”: not so that you suppose flesh and blood to be corruption, since these are rather obnoxious to corruption, namely through death, inasmuch as death is what not only corrupts flesh and blood but even consumes them:

[5] sed quoniam opera carnis et sanguinis non posse consequi regnum dei edixerat, quo magis hoc exaggeraret ipsi quoque corruptelae, id est morti cui carnis et sanguinis opera proficiunt, hereditatem incorruptelae ademit.

[5] but since he had declared that the works of flesh and blood cannot attain the kingdom of God, in order the more to amplify this he also, against corruption itself—that is, death, to which the works of flesh and blood profit— took away the inheritance of incorruption.

[6] Nam et paulo post ipsius mortis quodammodo mortem expressit, Devorata est, dicens, mors in contentione: ubi est mors aculeus tuus? ubi est mors potentia tua? Aculeus autem mortis delinquentia----haec erit corruptela: virtus autem delinquentiae lex----illa alia sine dubio quam constituit in membris suis militantem adversus legem animi sui, ipsam scilicet vim delinquendi contra voluntatem.

[6] For also a little later he expressed, in a certain manner, the death of death itself, saying, "It has been devoured, death, in contention: where, O death, is your sting? where, O death, is your potency?" Now the sting of death is delinquency----this will be corruption; the virtue however of delinquency is the law----that other one, without doubt, which he constituted in his members, militant against the law of his mind, namely the very force of delinquency against the will.

[7] Nam et si supra novissimum inimicum mortem evacuari ait, hoc modo nec corruptela hereditatem incorruptelae consequetur, id est, nec mors perseverabit.

[7] For even if above he said that the last enemy, death, is to be nullified, in this way neither corruption will obtain the inheritance of incorruption, that is, nor will death persevere.

[8] Quando et quomodo defectura? Cum in atomo, in momentaneo oculi motu, in novissima tuba, et mortui resurgent incorrupti---- qui hi nisi qui ante corrupti, id est corpora, id est caro et sanguis? Et nos demutabimur----de qua habitudine nisi in qua deprehendemur? Oportet enim corruptivum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud induere immortalitatem----quid mortale nisi caro?

[8] When and how will it be done away? When, in an atom, in the momentary motion of the eye, at the last trumpet, and the dead will rise incorrupt—who are these if not those previously corrupt, that is, bodies, that is, flesh and blood? And we shall be changed—out of what condition except that in which we shall be found? For it is necessary that this corruptible put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality—what is mortal if not flesh?

Quid corruptivum nisi sanguis?

What is corruptible if not blood?

[9] Ac ne putes aliud sentire apostolum, providentem sibi et ut de carne intellegas laborantem, cum dicit 'istud corruptivum' et 'istud mortale' cutem ipsam tenens dicit: certe 'istud' nisi de subiecto, nisi de comparenti, pronuntiasse non potuit: demonstrationis corporalis est verbum.

[9] And lest you think the apostle to mean something else, taking forethought for himself and laboring that you may understand about flesh, when he says 'this corruptible' and 'this mortal' holding the very skin he says: surely 'this' he could not have pronounced except from a subject, except from what is apparent, he could not: it is a word of bodily demonstration.

[10] Aliud autem erit corruptivum aliud corruptela, et aliud mortale aliud mortalitas: aliud enim quod patitur, aliud quod pati efficit. Ita quae patiuntur corruptelam et mortalitatem, caro scilicet et sanguis, ea necesse est patiantur et incorruptelam et immortalitatem.

[10] Another however will be the corruptive, another the corruption, and one thing mortal, another mortality: for one thing is that which suffers, another that which causes to suffer. Thus the things which undergo corruption and mortality, namely flesh and blood, it is necessary that these also undergo incorruption and immortality.

LII.

52.

[1] Videamus iam nunc quo corpore venturos mortuos disputet. Et bene quod erupit statim ostendere, quasi quis eiusmodi quaerat. Stulte, inquit, tu quod seminas non vivificatur nisi mortuum fuerit.

[1] Let us now see with what body he argues the dead will come. And it is well that he burst out at once to show it, as if someone were asking such a thing. “Fool,” he says, “what you sow is not vivified unless it has died.”

[2] Hoc ergo iam de exemplo seminis constet, non aliam vivificari carnem quam ipsam quae erit mortua, et ita sequentia relucebunt.

[2] Let it then be established from the example of the seed, that no other flesh is vivified than the very same which will have died, and thus the things that follow will shine forth.

[3] Nihil enim adversus regulam exempli licebit intellegi, ne, quia sequitur, Et quod seminas non corpus quod futurum est seminas, idcirco aliud resurrecturum corpus quam quod moriendo seminatur existimes.

[3] For nothing will be permitted to be understood against the rule of the example, lest, because it follows, "And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be," you therefore suppose another body will be resurrected than that which by dying is sown.

[4] Ceterum excidisti ab exemplo: nunquam enim frumento seminato et in terra dissoluto hordeum erumpit, et non idipsum genus grani eademque natura et qualitas et forma. Denique unde, si non idipsum? Et corruptela enim ipsum est, dum ipsius est.

[4] But you have fallen away from the example: never indeed, when wheat has been sown and dissolved in the earth, does barley burst forth, but the very selfsame kind of grain, and the same nature and quality and form. Finally, whence, if not the selfsame? For even the corruption is its own, so long as it is its.

[5] Non enim et suggerit quomodo non quod futurum est corpus seminetur, dicens Sed nudum granum, si forte frumenti vel alicuius eiusmodi: deus autem dat ei corpus prout vult----certe ei grano quod nudum seminari ait? Certe, inquis.

[5] For does he not also suggest how it is not the body that is to be that is sown, saying, “But a naked grain, perhaps of wheat or of some such kind;” however God gives to it a body as he wills----surely to that grain which he says is sown naked? Surely, you say.

[6] Ergo salvum est cui dare habet deus corpus. Quomodo autem salvum est si nusquam est, si non resurgit, si non idipsum resurgit? Si non resurgit salvum non est: si non est salvum accipere corpus a deo non potest.

[6] Therefore it is safe that to which God has to give a body. But how is it safe if it is nowhere, if it does not resurrect, if the selfsame does not resurrect? If it does not resurrect, it is not safe; if it is not safe, it cannot receive a body from God.

[7] Sed enim salvum omni modo constat. Ad quid ergo dabit illi deus prout vult corpus, habenti utique proprium corpus illud nudum, nisi ut iam nonnudum resurgat? Ergo additicium erit corpus quod corpori superstruitur, nec exterminatur illud cui superstruitur, sed augetur.

[7] But indeed it is in every way safe. For what, then, will God give to it, as he wills, a body—to that which certainly has its own proper body, that nude one—unless that it may now rise not nude? Therefore it will be an additional body which is superstructed upon the body, nor is that exterminated to which it is superstructed, but it is augmented.

[8] Salvum est autem quod augetur. Seritur enim solummodo granum, sine folliculi veste, sine fundamento spicae, sine munimento aristae, sine superbia culmi: exsurgit autem copia feneratum, compagine aedificatum, ordine structum, cultu munitum, et usquequaque vestitum.

[8] But what is augmented is saved. For only the grain is sown, without the garment of the follicle, without the foundation of the spike, without the muniment of the awn, without the pride of the stalk: but it rises up in abundance fenerated, edified with a framework, structured with order, fortified by cultivation, clothed, and clothed on every side.

[9] Haec sunt ei corpus a deo aliud, in quod non abolitione sed ampliatione mutatur: et unicuique seminum suum corpus deputavit non suum, id est non pristinum, ut tunc et illud suum sit quod extrinsecus a deo acquirit.

[9] These are for it the other body from God, into which it is changed not by abolition but by amplification; and to each of the seeds he has deputed its own body, not its own—that is, not the pristine one—so that then even that may be its own which it acquires from God from without.

[10] Servi igitur exemplo et conserva speculum eius carni, eandem credens fructificaturam quae sit seminata, ipsam etsi pleniorem, non aliam etsi aliter revertentem: accipiet enim et ipsa suggestum et ornatum qualem et illi deus voluerit superducere secundum merita.

[10] Serve therefore the example, and preserve its mirror for the flesh, believing it will fructify—the same which has been sown—the selfsame, though fuller; not another, though returning otherwise: for it too will receive a substructure and an ornament, such as God will have willed to superinduce upon it, according to merits.

[11] Sine dubio ad hoc dirigit, Non omnis caro eadem caro, non ad denegandam substantiae communionem sed praerogativae peraequationem, corpus honoris non generis in differentiam redigens.

[11] Without doubt he directs to this, "Not every flesh is the same flesh," not to denying the communion of substance but the equalization of prerogative, reducing the difference to one of honor, not of kind.

[12] In hoc et figurata subicit exempla animalium et elementorum: Alia caro hominis, id est servi dei qui vere homo est: Alia iumenti, id est ethnici de quo et propheta Adsimilatus est, inquit, homo irrationabilibus iumentis: Alia caro volatilium, id est martyrum qui ad superiora conantur: Alia piscium, id est quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit.

[12] In this also he subjoins figurative examples of animals and of elements: Another flesh of man, that is, of the servant of God who truly is man: Another of the beast of burden, that is, of the gentile, about whom also the prophet says, 'Man has been assimilated to irrational beasts of burden': Another flesh of the winged ones, that is, of the martyrs who strive toward higher things: Another of fishes, that is, for whom the water of baptism suffices.

[13] Sic et de supercaelestibus corporibus argumenta committit: Alia gloria solis, id est Christi: Et alia lunae, id est ecclesiae: Et alia stellarum, id est seminis Abrahae: et Stella enim a stella differt in gloria . . . et corpora terrena et caelestia, Iudaeos scilicet et Christianos.

[13] Thus also he brings forward arguments concerning the supercelestial bodies: One glory of the sun, that is, of Christ: And another of the moon, that is, of the Church: And another of the stars, that is, of the seed of Abraham: for Star indeed differs from star in glory . . . and the terrestrial and the celestial bodies, namely the Jews and the Christians.

[14] Ceterum si non figurate, satis vane mulorum et milvorum carnes et corpora caelestium luminum apposuit humanis, non pertinentia ad condicionis comparationem sicut nec ad resurrectionis consecutionem.

[14] But if not figuratively, he has quite vainly set the flesh of mules and kites and the bodies of the heavenly luminaries alongside human beings, not pertaining to a comparison of condition, just as neither to the attainment of the resurrection.

[15] Postremo, cum per haec differentiam gloriae non substantiae conclusisset, Sic inquit et resurrectio mortuorum. Quomodo? Non de alio aliquo sed de sola gloria differens.

[15] Finally, when through these things a difference of glory, not of substance, he had concluded, Thus, he says, also the resurrection of the dead. How? Not in some other respect but of glory alone differing.

[16] Rursus enim resurrectionem ad eandem substantiam revocans, et ad granum denuo spectans, Seminatur inquit in corruptela resurgit in incorruptela, seminatur in dedecoratione resurgit in gloria, seminatur in infirmitate resurgit in virtute, seminatur corpus animale resurgit spiritale.

[16] Again, indeed, recalling the resurrection to the same substance, and looking again to the grain, “It is sown,” he says, “in corruption, it rises in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it rises in glory; it is sown in infirmity, it rises in power; it is sown an animate body, it rises a spiritual [one].”

[17] Certe non aliud resurgit quam quod seminatur, nec aliud seminatur quam quod dissolvitur humi, nec aliud dissolvitur humi quam caro: hanc enim sententia dei elisit, Terra es et in terram ibis, quia et de terra erat sumpta.

[17] Surely not anything else resurges than what is sown, nor is anything else sown than what is dissolved in the ground, nor is anything else dissolved in the ground than flesh: this indeed the sentence of God has struck down, You are earth and into earth you will go, because it also from earth had been taken.

[18] Hinc et apostolus concepit seminari eam dicere cum redhibetur in terram, quia et seminibus sequestratorium terra est illic deponendis et inde repetendis: ideoque et reconsignat imprimens, Sic enim scriptum est, ne aliud existimes seminari quam, In terram ibis ex qua es sumptus. Sic nec alterius quam carnis: sic enim scriptum est.

[18] Hence also the apostle conceived to say that it is sown when it is returned into the earth, because the earth too is a sequestratorium for seeds, for depositing them there and for retrieving them thence: and therefore also he reconsigns, impressing, For thus it is written, lest you suppose anything other to be sown than, Into the earth you shall go from which you were taken. Thus neither of anything other than flesh: for thus it is written.

LIII.

53.

[1] Sed corpus animale animam quidam argumentantur, ut illum a carne avocent recidivatum. Porro cum constet fixumque sit illud resurrecturum corpus quod fuerit seminatum, ad ipsius rei exhibitionem provocabuntur.

[1] But some argue that the animal body is the soul, so that they may call the returned one away from the flesh. Moreover, since it is established and fixed that that body which was sown will rise again, they will be provoked to the exhibition of the matter itself provocabuntur.

[2] Aut ostendant animam seminatam post mortem, id est mortuam, id est humi elisam disiectam dissolutam, quod in illam decretum a deo non est: proponant corruptelam eius et dedecorationem, infirmitatem, ut ipsius sit etiam exsurgere in incorruptelam et in gloriam et in virtutem.

[2] Or let them show the soul as sown after death, that is, dead, that is, dashed to the ground, scattered, dissolved, which has not been decreed for it by God: let them set forth its corruption and its dishonor, its weakness, so that it too may rise into incorruption and into glory and into power.

[3] Sed enim in Lazaro, praecipuo resurrectionis exemplo, caro iacuit in infirmitate, caro paene computruit in dedecorationem, caro interim putuit in corruptionem, et tamen Lazarus caro resurrexit, cum anima quidem, sed incorrupta, quam nemo vinculis lineis strinxerat, nemo in sepulchro collocarat, nemo foetere iam senserat, nemo quadriduo viderat seminatam.

[3] But indeed in Lazarus, the preeminent example of resurrection, the flesh lay in weakness, the flesh almost rotted into dedecoration, the flesh meanwhile became putrid into corruption, and yet Lazarus as flesh rose again, with the soul indeed, but uncorrupted, which no one had bound with linen bonds, no one had placed in the sepulcher, no one had already perceived to reek, no one in four days had seen sown.

[4] Totum habitum, totum exitum Lazari omnium quoque caro hodie experitur, anima vero nullius. In qua ergo stilus apostoli comparet, de qua eum loqui constat, ea erit et corpus animale cum seminatur, et spiritale cum suscitatur.

[4] The whole appearance, the whole outcome of Lazarus the flesh of all likewise experiences today, but the soul of no one. Accordingly, in the matter wherein the apostle’s style appears, about which it is evident that he speaks, there will be both an animal body when it is sown, and a spiritual when it is raised.

[5] Nam ut ita intellegas manum adhuc porrigit, aeque de eiusdem scripturae auctoritate factum retexens primum hominem Adam in animam vivam.

[5] For, that you may understand thus, he still extends his hand, likewise, from the authority of the same Scripture, reweaving the fact: the first man Adam
into a living soul.

[6] Si Adam homo primus, caro autem homo ante animam, sine dubio caro erit facta in animam: facta porro in animam, cum esset corpus, utique animale corpus est facta.

[6] If Adam is the first man, but the flesh however the man before the soul, without a doubt the flesh will have been made into a soul: made, moreover, into a soul, since it was a body, of course it has been made an animal body.

[7] Quid eam appellari velint quam quod per animam facta est, quam quod ante animam non fuit, quam quod post animam non erit nisi cum resurgit? Recepta enim anima rursus animale corpus efficitur, ut fiat spiritale: non enim resurgit nisi quod fuit.

[7] What would they have it be called other than that which was made through the soul, than that which before the soul was not, than that which after the soul will not be except when it rises again? For, the soul having been received back, the body again is made an animal body, in order that it may become spiritual: for nothing rises again except what has been.

[8] Ita unde carni competit corpus animale dici, inde animae nullo modo competit. Caro enim ante corpus quam animale corpus: animata enim postea, facta est corpus animale.

[8] Thus, whence it befits flesh to be called an animal body, from there it in no way befits the soul. For flesh is body before it is an animal body; for, ensouled afterwards, it became an animal body.

[9] Anima vero etsi corpus, tamen quia ipsa est corpus non animatum sed animans potius, animale corpus non potest dici, nec fieri quod facit.

[9] But the soul, although a body, yet because it is itself a body not animated but rather animating, an animal body cannot be said, nor become that which it makes.

[10] Alii enim accedens facit illud animale: non accedens autem alii quomodo se facit animale? Sicut ergo ante animale corpus caro recipiens animam, ita et postea spiritale induens spiritum.

[10] For by approaching to another it makes that thing animal; but not approaching to another, how does it make itself animal? Just as, therefore, beforehand the flesh, receiving the soul, becomes an animal body; so also afterwards, putting on the spirit, it becomes spiritual.

[11] Hunc ordinem apostolus disponens, in Adam quoque et in Christo eum merito distinguit ut in capitibus distinctionis ipsius.

[11] Arranging this order, the apostle also distinguishes it rightly in Adam and in Christ, as in the heads of the distinction itself.

[12] Sed cum et Christum novissimum Adam appellat, hinc eum recognosce ad carnis, non ad animae, resurrectionem omnibus doctrinae viribus operatum. Si enim et primus homo Adam caro non anima, qui denique in animam vivam factus est, et novissimus Adam Christus ideo Adam quia homo, ideo homo quia caro non quia anima,

[12] But since he also calls Christ the last Adam, from this recognize him as having exerted all the forces of doctrine for the resurrection of the flesh, not of the soul. For if even the first man Adam is flesh, not soul—who at length was made into a living soul—and the last Adam, Christ, is therefore Adam because he is man, therefore man because he is flesh, not because he is soul,

[13] atque ita subiungit, Non primum quod spiritale sed quod animale, postea quod spiritale, secundum utrumque Adam, ecquid tibi videtur corpus animale et corpus spiritale in eadem carne distinguere, cuius distinctionem in utroque Adam, id est in utroque homine, praestruxit?

[13] and thus he subjoins, Not first what is spiritual but what is animal, afterwards what is spiritual, according to each Adam; does it seem to you that he distinguishes an animal body and a spiritual body in the same flesh, whose distinction in each Adam, that is, in each man, he has pre-structured?

[14] Ex qua enim substantia pariant inter se Christus et Adam----scilicet ex carne, licet et ex anima: sed carnis nomine homo uterque sunt: prior enim caro homo----ex illa et ordinem admittere potuerunt ut alter primus alter novissimus homo, id est Adam, deputarentur.

[14] From what substance do Christ and Adam produce between themselves----clearly from flesh, though also from soul: yet by the name of flesh each of the two are man: for first, flesh is man----and from that they could also admit an order, that the one be the first, the other the last man, that is, Adam.

[15] Ceterum diversa in ordinem disponi non possunt, de substantia dumtaxat: de loco enim aut tempore aut condicione forsitan possint. Hic autem de substantia carnis primus et novissimus dicti sunt, sicut et rursus primus homo de terra et secundus de caelo: quia etsi de caelo secundum spiritum, sed homo secundum carnem.

[15] Moreover, things diverse cannot be disposed into an order, as to substance only: as to place or time or condition perhaps they can. Here, however, with respect to the substance of flesh, first and last are said, just as also again the first man from earth and the second from heaven: because although from heaven according to the spirit, yet a man according to the flesh.

[16] Itaque cum carni conveniat ordo in utroque Adam, non animae, ut primus homo in animam vivam novissimus in spiritum vivificantem distincti sunt, aeque distinctio eorum carni distinctionem praeiudicavit, ut de carne sit dictum, Non primum quod spiritale sed quod animale, postea quod spiritale,

[16] Therefore, since the order suits the flesh in both Adam, not the soul, as the first man into a living soul, the last into a life-giving spirit they are distinguished, equally their distinction has prejudged a distinction of the flesh, so that it may be said of the flesh, Not first what is spiritual but what is animal, afterward what is spiritual,

[17] atque ita eadem sit et supra intellegenda, et quae seminetur corpus animale et quae resurgat corpus spiritale, quia non primum quod spiritale sed quod animale, quia primus Adam in animam novissimus Adam in spiritum: totum de homine, totum de carne quando de homine.

[17] and so let the same also be understood above, both that what is sown is an animal body and that what rises again is a spiritual body, because not first what is spiritual but what is animal, because the first Adam into soul, the last Adam into spirit: all about man, all about flesh when it is about man.

[18] Quid ergo dicemus? Nonne et nunc habet caro spiritum ex fide, ut quaerendum sit quomodo corpus animale dicatur seminari? Plane accepit hic spiritum caro, sed arrabonem, animae autem non arrabonem sed plenitudinem.

[18] What then shall we say? Does not even now the flesh have the Spirit from faith, so that it must be asked how the animal body is said to be sown? Clearly the flesh here has received the Spirit, but an arrabon (earnest-pledge), but for the soul not
an arrabon but fullness.

Itaque etiam propterea, substantiae nomine animale corpus nuncupata est in qua seminatur, futura proinde per plenitudinem spiritus insuper spiritale, in qua resuscitatur. Quid mirum si magis inde vocata est unde conferta est quam unde respersa est?

Itaque also for this reason, under the name of substance it has been named an animal body, in which it is sown, therefore in the plenitude of the Spirit it will further be spiritual, in which it is raised. What wonder if it is called rather from that whence it is compacted than from that whence it is re-sprinkled?

LIV.

54.

[1] Ita de vocabulorum occasionibus plurimum quaestiones subornantur, sicut et de verborum communionibus. Nam quia et illud apud apostolum positum est, Uti devoretur mortale a vita, caro scilicet, devorationem quoque ad perditionem scilicet carnis adripiunt, quasi non et bilem et dolorem devorare dicamur, id est abscondere et tegere et intra nosmetipsos continere.

[1] Thus from the occasions of words very many questions are set on foot, just as from the communions of words. For since even that is set down with the Apostle, “that the mortal may be swallowed up by life,” namely, the flesh, they also seize upon “swallowing” for perdition, namely of the flesh, as if we did not also say that bile and pain are swallowed, that is, to hide and to cover and to contain within ourselves.

[2] Denique cum et illud scriptum sit, Oportet mortale hoc induere immortalitatem, ostenditur quomodo mortale devoretur a vita, dum indutum immortalitate absconditur et tegitur et intus continetur, non dum absumitur et amittitur.

[2] Finally, since that too is written, “It is necessary that this mortal put on immortality,” it is shown how the mortal is devoured by life, while, clothed with immortality, it is hidden and covered and contained within, not while it is consumed and lost.

[3] Ergo et mors, inquis, salva erit cum fuerit devorata. Ideo discerne pro sensibus communionem verborum, et integre intelleges. Aliud enim mors et aliud mortale: aliter itaque devorabitur mors et aliter mortale.

[3] Therefore even death, you say, will be saved when it shall have been devoured. Therefore discern, according to the senses, the communion of words, and you will understand integrally. For death is one thing and the mortal another: thus death will be devoured in one way and the mortal in another.

Mors non capit immortalitatem, mortale autem capit.

Death does not take immortality, but the mortal does.

[4] Denique et scriptum est quod necesse est mortale hoc induere immortalitatem. Quomodo ergo capit? Dum devoratur a vita.

[4] Finally, it is also written that it is necessary for this mortal to put on immortality. How then does it receive it? While it is devoured by life.

Quomodo devoratur a vita? Dum recipitur et redigitur et includitur in ipsam. Ceterum mors merito in interitum devoratur quia et ipsa in hoc devorat.

How is it devoured by life? While it is received and brought back and enclosed into itself. Moreover, death is deservedly into destruction is devoured, because it too devours in this respect.

[5] Devoravit, inquit, mors invalescendo: et ideo devorata est in contentionem: Ubi est mors aculeus tuus? Ubi est mors contentio tua? Proinde et vita, mortis scilicet aemula, per contentionem devorabit in salutem quod per contentionem suam devoraverat mors in interitum.

[5] “It has devoured,” he says, death by gaining strength: and therefore it has been devoured into contention: Where is death, your sting? Where is death, your contention? Accordingly even life, the rival of death, through contention will devour into salvation what through its own contention death had devoured into destruction.

LV.

55.

[1] Quanquam igitur resurrecturam carnem probantes hoc ipso non aliam resurrecturam probemus quam de qua agitur, tamen singulae quaestiones et causae earum proprios quoque flagitant congressus, licet aliunde iam caesae.

[1] Although therefore, by proving that the flesh will resurrect, by this very fact we prove that no other will resurrect than the one which is in question, nevertheless the individual questions and their causes also demand their own proper encounters, although already cut down elsewhere.

[2] Interpretabimur itaque plenius et vim et rationem demutationis, quae ferme subministrat alterius carnis resurrecturae praesumptionem, quasi demutari desinere sit in totum et de pristino perire.

[2] Therefore we will interpret more fully both the force and the reason of the demutation, which almost supplies a presumption of another flesh’s rising, as if to be changed were to cease entirely and to perish from its pristine state.

[3] Discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis: aliud enim demutatio aliud perditio. Porro non aliud, si ita demutabitur caro ut pereat. Peribit autem demutata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione.

[3] A demutation, however, must be discerned from every argument of perdition: for demutation is one thing, perdition another. Further, it is no otherwise, if the flesh shall be so demutated as to perish. But, demutated, it will perish, if it itself shall not have remained in the demutation which shall have been exhibited in the resurrection.

[4] Quemadmodum enim perit si non resurgit, ita et si resurgit quidem verum in demutatione subducitur, aeque perit: aeque enim non erit ac si non resurrexerit. Et quam ineptum si in hoc resurgit ut non sit, quae potuit non resurrexisse ne esset, quia non esse iam coeperat.

[4] For just as it perishes if it does not resurrect, so also if it does indeed resurrect but is withdrawn in a demutation, it equally perishes: for it will equally not be as if it had not resurrected. And how inept, if it resurrects for this, that it may not be, which could have not resurrected ne esset, because it had already begun not to be.

[5] Non miscebuntur omnino diversa, mutatio atque perditio, operibus utique diversa: perdit haec, illa mutat. Quomodo ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non est.

[5] They will not be mixed, things wholly different, mutation and perdition, different, to be sure, in their operations: this brings to perdition, that changes. Just as therefore what has been consigned to perdition has not been changed, so what has been changed is not in perdition.

[6] Perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit: mutatum esse aliter esse est. Porro dum aliter est, idipsum potest esse. Habet enim esse quod non omnino perit: mutationem enim passum est, non perditionem.

[6] To have perished is, in the whole, to not be what it had been: to have been changed is to be otherwise. Furthermore, while it is otherwise, that selfsame thing can be. For that which does not altogether perish has being: for it has suffered mutation, not perdition.

[7] Atque adeo potest et demutari quid et ipsum esse nihilominus, ut et totus homo in hoc aevo substantia quidem ipse sit multifariam tamen demutetur, et habitu et ipsa corpulentia et valetudine et condicione et dignitate et aetate, studio negotio artificio, facultatibus sedibus legibus moribus, nec quicquam tamen amittat hominis, nec ita alius efficiatur ut cesset idem esse, immo nec alius efficiatur sed aliud.

[7] And indeed a thing can both be altered and nonetheless be itself, just as the whole man in this age is in substance indeed himself, yet is altered in many ways, both in habit and in his very corpulence,
and in health and condition and dignity and age, in study, business, craft, resources, dwellings, laws, customs, and yet he loses nothing of the man, nor is he made other in such a way that he ceases to be the same, nay rather he is not made another but other.

[8] Hanc formam demutationis divina etiam documenta testantur. Mutatur Moysi manus, et quidem ad instar emortuae exsanguis et exalbida et frigida: sed et recepto calore et refuso colore eadem caro et sanguis est. Mutatur postea et facies eiusdem incontemplabili claritate: sed Moyses erat proinde qui non videbatur.

[8] This form of alteration even divine documents attest. Moses’s hand is changed, and indeed to the likeness of one dead: bloodless and whitened and cold; but also, with warmth received back and color poured back, it is the same flesh and blood. Is changed afterwards also the face of the same with incontemplable brightness: but it was Moses therefore who was not seen.

[9] Sic et Stephanus angelicum iam fastigium induerat: sed non alia genua in lapidatione succiderant.

[9] Thus too Stephen had already assumed an angelic eminence: but it was not other knees that had collapsed in the stoning.

[10] Dominus quoque in secessu montis etiam vestimenta luce mutaverat, sed liniamenta Petro agnoscibilia servaverat: ubi etiam Moyses et Helias, alter in imagine carnis nondum receptae, alter in veritate nondum defunctae, eandem tamen habitudinem corporis etiam in gloria perseverare docuerant.

[10] The Lord also, in the seclusion of the mountain, had transmuted even his garments by light, but he had preserved lineaments recognizable to Peter: where also Moses and Elijah— the one in the image of flesh not yet re-taken, the other in the reality of not yet having died— had taught that the same habitude of the body perseveres even in glory.

[11] De quo exemplo instructus et Paulus, Qui transfigurabit, inquit, corpus humilitatis nostrae conformale corpori gloriae suae. Quodsi et transfigurationem et conversionem in transitum substantiae cuiusque defendis, ergo et Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit,

[11] And by this example instructed and Paul: “who will transfigure,” he says, “the body of our humility, conformal to the body of his glory.” But if you defend both transfiguration and conversion as a transit of the substance of each, then Saul also, having been converted into another man, went out from his own body,

[12] et ipse Satanas, cum in angelum lucis transfiguratur, qualitatem suam amittit. Non opinor. Ita et in resurrectionis eventu mutari converti reformari licebit cum salute substantiae.

[12] and Satan himself, when he is transfigured into an angel of light, loses his quality. I do not suppose so. Thus also in the event of the resurrection it will be permitted to be changed to be converted, to be reformed, with the safety of the substance.

LVI.

56.

[1] Etenim quam absurdum, quam vero et iniquum, utrumque autem quam deo indignum, aliam substantiam operari aliam mercede dispungi, ut haec quidem caro per martyria lanietur, alia vero coronetur, item e contrario haec quidem caro in spurcitiis volutetur, alia vero damnetur.

[1] For indeed how absurd, and truly how inequitable, and both how unworthy of God, that one substance should work while another be discharged with a wage, so that this flesh indeed be torn asunder through martyrdoms, while another be crowned; likewise, conversely, that this flesh indeed wallow in filthiness, while another be condemned.

[2] Nonne praestat omnem semel fidem a spe resurrectionis abducere quam de gravitate atque iustitia dei ludere----Marcionem pro Valentino resuscitari----

[2] Is it not better to lead away all once-for-all faith from the hope of resurrection than to play with the gravity and justice of God----that Marcion be resurrected in place of Valentinus----

[3] quando neque mentem neque memoriam neque conscientiam hominis hodierni credibile sit aboleri per indumentum illud mutatorium immortalitatis et incorruptelae, vacaturo scilicet emolumento et fructu resurrectionis et statu divini utrobique iudicii?

[3] since it is not credible that the mind, nor the memory, nor the conscience of the man of today should be abolished by that mutatory vestment of immortality and incorruption, which would, of course, vacate the emolument and fruit of the resurrection and the status of the divine judgment in both respects?

[4] Si non meminerim me esse qui merui, quomodo gloriam deo dicam? Quomodo canam illi novum canticum, nesciens me esse qui gratiam debeam? Cur autem solius carnis demutatio excipitur, non et animae simul, quae in omnibus praefuit carni?

[4] If I do not remember myself to be the one who merited, how shall I give glory to God? How shall I sing to him a new canticle, not knowing myself to be the one who owes grace? But why is the change of the flesh alone singled out, and not also of the soul at the same time, which in all things has presided over the flesh?

[5] Quale est ut eadem anima quae in hac carne totum vitae ordinem decucurrit, quae in hac carne deum didicit et Christum induit et spem salutis seminavit, in alia nescioqua metat fructum? Nae illa gratiosissima caro, cui gratis vita constabit. Quodsi non et anima mutabitur, iam nec animae resurrectio est: nec ipsa enim resurrexisse credetur si non alia resurrexerit.

[5] What sort is it that the same soul which in this flesh ran through the whole order of life, which in this flesh learned God and put on Christ and sowed the hope of salvation, should reap the fruit in some other I-know-not-what? Nay, that most-gracious flesh, to which life will consist gratis. But if not even the soul will be changed, then there is no resurrection of the soul: for not even she herself will be believed to have risen again if she does not rise as other.

LVII.

57.

[1] Hinc iam illa vulgaris incredulitatis argutia est. Si, inquiunt, ipsa eademque substantia revocatur cum sua forma linea qualitate, ergo et cum insignibus suis reliquis: itaque et caeci et claudi et paralytici, et ut quis insignis excesserit ita et revertetur.

[1] Hence now comes that commonplace sophistry of incredulity. “If,” they say, “the selfsame substance is called back with its own form, line, and quality, then also with its remaining insignia: and so both the blind and the lame and the paralytics, and as each person departed marked, thus also he will return.”

[2] Quid nunc et si ita? Dedignaris tantam gratiam qualiscumque a deo consequi? Non enim et nunc animae solius admittens salutem dimidiatis hominibus eam adscribis?

[2] What now even if it be so? Do you disdain to obtain so great a grace, of whatever sort, from God? For indeed, even now, by admitting salvation of the soul alone, do you ascribe it to half-men?

Quid est credere resurrectionem, nisi integram credere? Si enim caro de dissolutione reparabitur, multo magis de vexatione revocabitur.

What is it to believe the resurrection, unless to believe it entire? For if the flesh will be repaired from dissolution, much more will it be recalled from affliction.

[3] Minoribus maiora praescribunt. Cuiuscumque membri detruncatio vel obtusio nonne mors membri est? Si universalis mors resurrectione rescinditur, quid portionalis? Si demutamur in gloriam, quanto magis in incolumitatem?

[3] They lay down the greater by the lesser. Is not the amputation or maiming of any limb the death of the limb? If universal death is rescinded by the resurrection, what of the partial? If we are transmuted into glory, how much more into incolumity?

[4] Vitiatio corporum accidens res est, integritas propria est. In hac nascimur. Etiam si in utero vitiemur, iam hominis est passio: prius est genus quam casus.

[4] The vitiation of bodies is an accidental thing, integrity is proper. In this we are born. Even if we are vitiated in the womb, it is already a passion of the human: the genus is prior to the accident.

[5] Quomodo vita confertur a deo, ita et refertur: quales eam accipimus, tales et recipimus. Naturae non iniuriae reddimur: quod nascimur, non quod laedimur, revivescimus.

[5] As life is conferred by God, so also it is returned: such as we receive it, such also we receive it back. We are rendered to Nature, not to injury: we revive as we are born, not as we are damaged.

[6] Si non integros deus suscitat, non suscitat mortuos. Quis enim mortuus integer, etsi integer moritur? Quis incolumis qui exanimis?

[6] If God does not raise the whole, he does not raise the dead. For what dead man is whole, even if he dies whole? Who is sound who is lifeless?

Quod corpus inlaesum cum interemptum, cum frigidum, cum expallidum, cum edurum, cum cadaver? Quando magis homo debilis, nisi cum totus? Quando magis paralyticus, nisi cum immobilis?

What body
uninjured when slain, when frigid, when pallid, when hard, when a cadaver? When is a man more feeble, unless when wholly so? When more paralytic, unless when immobile?

Ita nihil aliud est mortuum resuscitari quam integrum fieri, ne ex ea parte mortuus adhuc sit ex qua non resurrexerit.

Thus it is nothing else for a dead man to be resuscitated than to be made entire, lest he still be dead in that part from which he has not resurrected.

[7] Idoneus deus reficere quod fecit. Hanc suam et potestatem et liberalitatem satis iam in Christo spopondit: immo et ostendit non tantum resuscitatorem carnis verum etiam redintegratorem.

[7] God is fit to refashion what he made. This his power and liberality he has already sufficiently pledged in Christ; nay, he has also shown himself not only a resuscitator of the flesh but also a reintegrator.

[8] Atque adeo et apostolus, Et mortui, inquit, resurgent incorrupti: quomodo, nisi integri qui retro corrupti tam vitio valetudinis quam et senio sepulturae?

[8] And indeed even the apostle, “And the dead,” he says, “will rise incorrupt”: how, unless they are entire, they who formerly were corrupted as much by the defect of health as also by the senescence of burial?

[9] Nam et supra utrumque proponens, oportere et corruptivum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud immortalitatem, non iteravit sententiam sed differentiam demandavit: immortalitatem enim ad rescissionem mortis, incorruptelam ad obliterationem corruptelae dividendo, alteram ad resurrectionem alteram ad redintegrationem temperavit. Puto autem et Thessalonicensibus omnis substantiae integritatem repromisit.

[9] For even above, when setting forth both, that this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality, he did not iterate the statement but assigned a distinction: immortality, namely, to the rescission of death, incorruption to the obliteration of corruption, by dividing; he tempered the one to resurrection, the other to redintegration. I think, moreover, that to the Thessalonians he also promised the integrity of the whole substance.

[10] Itaque nec in posterum timebuntur corporum labes: nihil poterit admittere integritas vel conservata vel restituta, ex quo illi etiam si quid amiserat redditur.

[10] Therefore not even hereafter will the blemishes of bodies be feared: integrity will be able to admit nothing, whether preserved or restored, since to it even whatever it had lost is rendered back.

[11] Praescribens enim adhuc easdem passiones obituram carnem si eadem resurrectura dicatur, naturam adversus dominum suum temere defendis, legem adversus gratiam impie adseris, quasi deo minus liceat et mutare naturam et sine lege servare. Quo ergo legimus, Quae impossibilia apud homines possibilia apud deum: et, Stulta mundi elegit deus ut sapientia mundi confundat?

[11] For by prescribing that the flesh will still undergo the same passions if the same is said to be about to rise again, you rashly defend nature against its Lord, you impiously assert law against grace, as if it were less permissible to God both to change nature and to save without law. Where then do we read, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God: and, God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wisdom of the world?

[12] Oro te, si famulum tuum libertate mutaveris, quia eadem caro atque anima permanebunt quae flagellis et compedibus et stigmatibus obnoxiae retro fuerant, idcircone illas eadem pati oportebit? Non opinor: atquin et vestis albae nitore et anuli aurei honore et patroni nomine ac tribu mensaque honoratur.

[12] I beg you, if you have changed your servant by liberty, since the same flesh and soul will remain which formerly were liable to whips and fetters and stigmata, must they therefore suffer the same things? I do not think so: rather, he is honored both by the splendor of a white garment and by the honor of a golden ring and by the name of a patron and by the tribe and the table.

[13] Permitte hanc et deo potestatem per vim illius demutationis condicionem non naturam reformandi, dum et passiones auferuntur et munitiones conferuntur. Ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resurrectionem eatenus passibilis qua ipsa, qua eadem, et tamen impassibilis quia in hoc ipsum manumissa a domino ne ultra pati possit.

[13] Permit this power also to God—of re-forming by the force of that demutation the condition, not the nature—
while both the passions are taken away and the fortifications are conferred.
Thus the flesh will indeed remain even after the resurrection so far passible inasmuch as it is itself, the same, and yet impassible, because for this very thing
it has been manumitted by the Lord, that it may no longer be able to suffer.

LVIII.

58.

[1] Iocunditas, inquit Esaias, aeterna super caput eorum: nihil aeternum nisi post resurrectionem: Aufugit, inquit, dolor et maeror et gemitus ab illis.

[1] Jocundity, says Isaiah, eternal over their head: nothing eternal except after the resurrection: Has fled, he says, pain and sorrow and groaning from them.

[2] Proinde et Iohanni angelus, Et delebit deus omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum: utique ex isdem oculis qui retro fleverant quique adhuc flere potuissent si non omnem lacrimae imbrem indulgentia divina siccasset.

[2] Accordingly also to John the angel, "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes": assuredly from those same eyes which formerly had wept and which could still have wept, if the divine indulgence had not dried up the shower of tears by divine indulgence.

[3] Et rursus, Deus enim delebit omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum, et mors hactenus: igitur et corruptela hactenus, proinde per incorruptelam fugata quemadmodum mors per immortalitatem.

[3] And again, for God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death: thus far; therefore corruption too: thus far, accordingly driven away through incorruptibility, just as death through immortality.

[4] Si dolor et maeror et gemitus ipsaque mors ex laesuris et animae et carnis obveniunt, quomodo auferentur nisi cessaverint causae, scilicet laesurae carnis atque animae?

[4] If pain and mourning and groaning and death itself come upon us from the injuries both of soul and of flesh, how will they be taken away unless the causes have ceased, namely the injuries of the flesh and of the soul?

[5] Ubi casus adversi apud deum, ubi incursus infesti apud Christum? Ubi daemonici impetus apud spiritum sanctum, iam et ipso diabolo cum angelis suis ignibus merso? Ubi necessitas, aut quod dicitur fortuna vel fatum?

[5] Where are adverse events with God, where hostile incursions with Christ? Where are demonic assaults with the Holy Spirit, now that even the Devil himself with his angels has been plunged into fires? Where is necessity, or what is called fortune or fate?

Quae resuscitatis plaga post veniam, quae reconciliatis ira post gratiam? Quae infirmitas post virtutem, quae imbecillitas post salutem?

What wound to the resuscitated after pardon, what wrath to the reconciled after grace? What infirmity after virtue, what imbecility after salvation?

[6] Quod vestimenta et calciamenta filiorum Israelis quadraginta illis annis indetrita et inobsoleta manserunt, quod et in ipsis corporibus unguium et capillorum facilia crementa habilitatis et dignitatis iustitia defixit ne etiam enormitas corruptelae deputaretur,

[6] That the garments and footwear of the sons of Israel, in those forty years, remained unworn-out and unfaded, and that in their very bodies the easy growths of nails and hair justice fixed to a measure of suitability and dignity, lest even the enormity of corruption be reckoned,

[7] quod Babylonii ignes trium fratrum nec tiaras nec sarabara quanquam Iudaeis aliena laeserunt,

[7] that the Babylonian fires of the three brothers harmed neither the tiaras nor the sarabara, although alien to the Jews,

[8] quod Ionas devoratus a belua maris in cuius alvo naufragia de die digerebantur triduo post incolumis exspuitur,

[8] that Jonah, having been devoured by a sea-beast, in whose belly the shipwrecks of the day were being digested, after three days is spat out unharmed,

[9] quod hodie Enoch et Helias, nondum resurrectione dispuncti quia nec morte functi, qua tamen de orbe translati et hoc ipso iam aeternitatis candidati, ab omni vitio et ab omni damno et ab omni iniuria et contumelia immunitatem carnis ediscunt: cuinam fidei testimonium signant nisi qua credi oportet haec futurae integritatis esse documenta?

[9] that today Enoch and Elias, not yet determined by resurrection, since they have not undergone death—whereby, however, translated from the world and by this very thing already candidates of eternity—they learn by heart the immunity of the flesh from every vice and from every loss and from every injury and contumely: to what faith’s testimony do they set their seal, except to that by which it ought to be believed these to be proofs of the integrity to come?

[10] Figurae enim nostrae fuerunt, apostolo auctore, quae scripta sunt ut et deum potentiorem credamus omni corporum lege, et carnis magis utique et conservatorem cuius etiam vestimenta etiam calciamenta protexit.

[10] For they were our figures, on the Apostle’s authority, which were written so that we may believe God to be more potent than every law of bodies, and, more indeed, also the preserver of the flesh, whose garments also, even the shoes, he protected.

LIX.

59.

[1] Sed futurum inquis aevum alterius est dispositionis et aeternae: igitur huius aevi substantiam non aeternam diversa possidere non posse. Plane, si homo propter dispositionem futuram, et non dispositio propter hominem.

[1] But, you say, the future age is of another and eternal disposition; therefore the substance of this age, not eternal, cannot possess contraries. Plainly, if man is for the sake of the future disposition, and not the disposition for the sake of man.

[2] Sedenim apostolus scribens, Sive mundus sive vita sive mors sive futura sive praesentia, omnia vestra sunt, eosdem constituit heredes etiam futurorum. Nihil tibi largitur Esaias dicens Omnis caro foenum, et alibi Et videbit omnis caro salutare dei: exitus, non substantias, distinxit.

[2] But indeed the apostle writing, Whether the world or life or death or things to come or things present, all are yours, constituted the same as heirs even of the things to come. Esaias grants you nothing by saying All flesh is grass, and elsewhere And all flesh shall see the salvation of God: he distinguished outcomes, not substances.

[3] Quis enim iudicium dei non in sententia duplici statuit salutis et poenae? Omnis igitur caro foenum quae igni destinatur, et omnis caro videbit salutare domini quae saluti ordinatur. Ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse, neque nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti.

[3] For who does not establish the judgment of God in a twofold sentence of salvation and punishment? Therefore “all flesh is grass,” which is destined for fire, and “all flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord,” which is ordained for salvation. I know myself neither to have committed adulteries with a different flesh, nor now to be striving toward continence with a different flesh.

[4] Si quis est bina pudenda circumferens, potest iam et demere foenum carnis immundae et solam sibi reservare quae visura sit domini salutare.

[4] If anyone is carrying about double pudenda, he can now also remove the hay of unclean flesh and reserve for himself only that which will see the salvation of the Lord.

[5] Sed cum idem prophetes etiam nationes ostendat nunc deputatas velut pulverem et salivam, nunc speraturas et credituras in nomen et in brachium domini, numquid et de nationibus fallimur, et aliae quidem sunt crediturae aliae in pulverem deputatae, ex diversitate substantiae?

[5] But since the same prophet also shows the nations now appointed as like dust and saliva, now about to hope and to believe in the name and in the arm of the Lord, are we also mistaken about the nations, and are some indeed going to believe, others assigned to dust, from a diversity of substance?

[6] Sed et Christus intra oceanum, et de isto caelo quod nobis incubat, verum lumen nationibus obfulsit: et ipsi Valentiniani hic errare didicerunt: nec alia erit forma nationum credentium nisi quae et non credentium, de carne de anima.

[6] But also Christ within the ocean, and from this heaven which broods over us, shone forth as the true light to the nations: and the Valentinians themselves here learned to err: nor will there be another form of the nations who believe except that which is also of those who do not believe, of flesh, of soul.

[7] Sicut ergo easdem nationes non genere sed sorte distinxit, ita et carnes, quae in ipsis nationibus una substantia est, non materia sed mercede disiungit.

[7] Thus therefore, as he distinguished the same nations not by genus but by lot, so also the flesh, which in those same nations is one substance, he disjoins not by matter but by reward.

LX.

60.

[1] Ecce autem, ut adhuc controversiam exaggerent carni, maxime eidem, de officiis quoque membrorum argumentantur, aut et ipsa dicentes permanere debere cum suis operibus et fructibus, ut eidem corpulentiae adscripta, aut quia constet decessura esse officia membrorum corpulentiam quoque eradunt, cuius scilicet perseverantia credenda non sit utique sine membris, quia nec membra credenda sint sine officiis.

[1] Behold, however, that they may yet aggravate the controversy against the flesh—especially against the same—they also argue from the offices of the members, saying either that these themselves ought to remain with their operations and fruits, as being assigned to that same corpulence; or, since it is agreed that the offices of the members are going to depart, they root out the corpulence as well, whose perseverance, to be sure, is not to be believed without the members, since neither are the members to be believed without the offices.

[2] Quo enim iam, inquiunt, spelunca haec oris et dentium statio et gulae lapsus et compitum stomachi et alvei gurges et intestinorum perplexa proceritas, cum esui et potui locus non erit? Quo huiusmodi membra admittunt subigunt devolvunt dividunt digerunt egerunt, quo manus ipsae et pedes et operarii quique artus, cum victus etiam cura cessabit?

[2] For what, then, now, they say, is this cave of the mouth and the station of the teeth and the slide of the gullet and the crossing of the stomach and the whirlpool of the bowel’s channel and the intricate length of the intestines, when there will be no place for eating and drinking? For what do such members admit, work down, roll down, divide, digest, discharge; for what the hands themselves and the feet and every operative limb, when even the care for victual will cease?

[3] Quo renes conscii seminum, et reliqua genitalium utriusque sexus, et conceptuum stabula et uberum fontes, decessuro concubitu et fetu et educatu? Postremo quo totum corpus, totum scilicet vacaturum?

[3] To what end the kidneys conscious of seeds, and the rest of the genitals of either sex, and the stalls of conceptions and the fountains of the breasts, with concubinage and fetus and education destined to depart? At last, to what end the whole body, the whole, to wit, about to be vacant?

[4] Ad haec ergo praestruximus non oportere committi futurorum atque praesentium dispositiones, intercessura tunc demutatione: et nunc superstruimus officia ista membrorum necessitatibus vitae huius eo usque consistere donec et ipsa vita transferatur a temporalitate in aeternitatem, sicut animale corpus in spiritale, dum mortale istud induit immortalitatem et corruptivum istud incorruptelam.

[4] To these things, therefore, we have pre-structured that the dispositions of future and present things ought not to be committed, a demutation then about to intercede; and now we super-add that these offices of the members consist for the necessities of this life so far, until even life itself is transferred from temporality into eternity, just as the animal body into the spiritual, while this mortal puts on immortality and this corruptible puts on incorruption.

[5] Et ipsa autem liberata tunc vita a necessitatibus, liberabuntur et membra ab officiis: nec ideo non erunt necessaria: licet enim officiis liberentur, sed iudiciis detinentur ut quis referat per corpus prout gessit.

[5] And the life itself, then freed from necessities, the members also will be freed from offices: nor for that reason will they not be necessary: for although they are freed from offices, yet they are held to judgments, so that each one may receive back through the body according as he has done.

[6] Salvum enim hominem tribunal dei exigit: salvum vero sine membris non licet,etenim ex quorum non officiis sed substantiis constat, nisi forte et navem sine carina sine prora sine puppi sine compaginis totius incolumitate salvam adseverabis.

[6] For the tribunal of God requires a human being safe; but safe, indeed, without limbs is not permitted,for indeed he consists not of their functions but of their substances, unless perhaps you will aver even a ship to be safe without keel, without prow, without stern, without the integrity of the whole framework.

[7] Et tamen navem, procella dissipatam vel carie dissolutam, redactis et recuratis omnibus membris eandem saepe conspeximus etiam titulo restitutionis gloriantem: de dei artificio et arbitrio et iure torquebimur?

[7] And yet a ship, dissipated by a squall or dissolved by decay, with all its members brought back and re-cured, the same we have often beheld even glorying in the title of restitution: shall we be tormented about God’s artifice and arbitrament and right?

[8] Porro si dives dominus et liberalis, adfectui aut gloriae suae praestans solam navis restitutionem, hactenus eam voluerit operari, idcirco tu negabis necessariam illi compaginem pristinam ut exinde iam vacaturam, cum soli saluti navis sine operatione conveniat?

[8] Moreover, if a rich and liberal lord, consulting his affection or his glory, has wished to effect only the restitution of the ship, to this extent to work upon it, will you therefore deny to it the pristine framework, necessary to it, on the ground that thereafter it will be lying idle, since to the ship’s safety alone it is fitting even without operation?

[9] Igitur hoc tantummodo discere sufficit, an deus hominem saluti destinando carnem destinarit, an eandem velit denuo esse. Quam non debebis ex futura membrorum vacatione praescribere denuo esse non posse: licet enim esse quid denuo et nihilominus vacare. Nec potest autem dici vacare si non sit.

[9] Therefore this alone suffices to learn, whether God, by destining man to salvation, has destined the flesh, or whether he wills that the same be again. You ought not, from the future vacancy of the members, to prescribe that it cannot be again: for it is permitted that something be again and nonetheless be vacant. Nor, moreover, can it be said to be vacant if it is not.

Atenim si sit, poterit et non vacare: nihil enim apud deum vacabit.

For indeed, if it be, it will also be able not to be vacant: for nothing with God will be vacant.

LXI.

61.

[1] Sed accepisti, homo, os ad vorandum atque potandum: cur non potius ad eloquendum, ut a ceteris animalibus distes? Cur non potius ad praedicandum deum, et etiam hominibus antistes? Denique Adam ante nomina animalibus enuntiavit quam de arbore decerpsit, ante etiam prophetavit quam voravit.

[1] But you have received, man, a mouth for devouring and for drinking: why not rather for elocution, so that you may differ from the other animals? Why not rather for proclaiming God, and even as a presider over men? Finally, Adam enunciated the names to the animals before he plucked from the tree, and even prophesied before he devoured.

[2] Sed accepisti dentes ad macellum corrodendum: cur non potius ad omnem hiatum et rictum tuum coronandum, cur non potius ad pulsus linguae temperandos, ad vocis articulos offensione signandos? Denique et edentulos et audi et vide, ut honorem oris et organum dentium quaeras.

[2] But you received teeth for gnawing at the butcher’s market: why not rather for crowning every gape and rictus of yours, why not rather for tempering the strokes of the tongue, for marking the articulations of the voice with a check? Finally, both hear and see even the toothless, that you may seek the honor of the mouth and the organ of the teeth.

[3] Forata sunt inferna in viro et in femina, nimirum qua libidines fluitent: cur non magis qua potuum defluxus colentur? Est adhuc feminis intus quo semina congerantur: an quo sanguinis onera secedant quem pigrior sexus discutere non sufficit?

[3] The lower parts are bored-through in the man and in the woman, assuredly where libidines may flow: why not rather where the defluxion of potations is cared for?
There is still within women a place where seeds are heaped together:
an where the burdens of blood withdraw, which the lazier sex does not suffice to shake off?

[4] Dicenda enim et haec, quatenus quae volunt et quorum volunt et qualiter volunt officia membrorum ludibriose de industria suffundendae resurrectionis oblatrant, non recogitantes ipsas prius causas necessitatis tunc vacaturas, cibi famem et potus sitim et concubitus genituram et operationis victum. Sublata enim morte neque victus fulcimenta ad subsidia vitae neque generis subparatura gravis erit membris.

[4] These things too must be said, inasmuch as those who, yapping against the resurrection to be suffused with mockery on purpose, lay down what functions of the members they want, and whose they want, and how they want, not reconsidering that the very causes of necessity will then be vacated—hunger of food and thirst of drink and the begetting by intercourse and the sustenance of operation. For with death removed, neither the supports of sustenance for the subsidies of life nor the sub-preparation of the race will be burdensome to the members.

[5] Ceterum et hodie vacare intestinis et pudendis licebit: quadraginta diebus Moyses et Helias ieiunio functi solo deo alebantur: iam tunc enim dedicabatur, Non in pane vivet homo sed in dei verbo. ecce virtutis futurae liniamenta.

[5] Moreover, even today it will be permitted to be free from the intestines and the pudenda: for forty days Moses and Elias, having performed a fast, were nourished by God alone: for already then there was being established, Not on bread will man live but on the word of God. behold the lineaments of the future virtue.

[6] Nos quoque, ut possumus, os cibo excusamus, etiam sexum a congressione subducimus. Quot spadones voluntarii, quot virgines Christi maritae, quot steriles utriusque naturae infructuosis genitalibus structi!

[6] We too, as we can, excuse the mouth from food, we even withdraw sex from intercourse. How many voluntary eunuchs, how many virgins married to Christ, how many sterile of both natures, with unfruitful genitals furnished!

[7] Nam si et hic iam vacare est et officia et emolumenta membrorum temporali vacatione, ut in temporali dispositione, nec homo tamen minus salvus est, proinde homine salvo, et quidem magis tunc ut in aeterna dispositione, magis non desiderabimus quae iam hic non desiderare consuevimus.

[7] For if even here already it is to be vacant both from the duties and the emoluments of the members by a temporal vacation, as in a temporal disposition, nor is man nonetheless less saved, accordingly, with man saved, and indeed more then, as in the eternal disposition, we shall more not desire the things which we have already here become accustomed not to desire.

LXII.

62.

[1] Sed huic disceptationi finem dominica pronuntiatio imponet: Erunt, inquit, tanquam angeli: si non nubendo quia nec moriendo, utique nec ulli simili necessitati succidendo corporalis condicionis, quia et angeli aliquando tanquam homines fuerunt edendo et bibendo et pedes lavacro porrigendo: humanam enim induerant superficiem salva intus substantia propria.

[1] But to this disputation the Lord’s pronouncement will impose an end: They will be, he says, like angels: if not by marrying because neither by dying, certainly not by succumbing to any like necessity of bodily condition; for even angels at times were as men by eating and drinking and by extending their feet for a washing: for they had put on a human surface, their own proper substance within kept safe.

[2] Igitur si angeli, facti tanquam homines, in eadem substantia spiritus carnalem tractationem susceperunt, cur non et homines, facti tanquam angeli, in eadem substantia carnis spiritalem subeant dispositionem,

[2] Therefore, if angels, made as though men, in the same substance of spirit a carnal tractation accepted, why should not also men, made as though angels, in the same substance of flesh undergo a spiritual disposition,

[3] non magis sollemnibus carnis obnoxii sub angelico indumento quam angeli sollemnibus spiritus sub humano, nec ideo non permansuri in carne quia non in sollemnibus carnis, cum nec angeli ideo non et in spiritu permanserint quia non et in sollemnibus spiritus?

[3] not more subject to the solemnities of the flesh under angelic vesture than the angels to the solemnities of the spirit under human vesture, nor therefore not to remain in the flesh because they are not in the solemnities of the flesh, since neither did the angels for that reason fail also to remain in spirit because they were not also in the solemnities of the spirit?

[4] Denique non dixit, 'erunt angeli', ne homines negaret, sed 'tanquam angeli', ut homines conservaret: non abstulit substantiam, cui similitudinem attribuit.

[4] Finally he did not say, 'they will be angels,' lest he deny humans, but 'like angels,' in order to preserve humans: he did not take away the substance, to which he attributed the similitude.

LXIII.

63.

[1] Resurget igitur caro, et quidem omnis, et quidem ipsa, et quidem integra. In deposito est ubicunque apud deum per fidelissimum sequestrem dei et hominum Iesum Christum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet, carni spiritum et spiritui carnem, qui utrumque iam in semetipso foederavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsae comparavit.

[1] Therefore the flesh will rise again, and indeed all of it, indeed the very same, indeed intact. It is held in deposit with God everywhere through the most faithful sequester of God and men, Jesus Christ, who will render God to man and man to God, to the flesh the spirit and to the spirit the flesh; who has already in himself federated both, has matched the bride to the bridegroom and the bridegroom to the bride.

[2] Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro: non erit anima prostituta, ut nuda suscipiatur a sponso: habet instrumentum, habet cultum, habet mancipium suum carnem: ut collactanea comitabitur.

[2] For even if someone should claim the soul as bride, or, under the name of dowry, the flesh will follow the soul: the soul will not be prostituted, to be received naked by the bridegroom: it has its instrument, it has its adornment, it has its chattel—its flesh: as a milk-sister it will accompany.

[3] Sed caro est sponsa, quae in Christo Iesu spiritum sponsum per sanguinem passa est. Huius interitum quem putas, secessum scias esse. Non sola anima seponitur: habet et caro secessus suos interim, in aquis in ignibus in alitibus in bestiis.

[3] But the flesh is the spouse, which in Christ Jesus has endured the Spirit, the bridegroom, through blood. The destruction of this which you suppose, know to be a withdrawal. Not the soul alone is set apart: the flesh too has its own withdrawals meanwhile, in waters, in fires, in birds, in beasts.

[4] Cum in haec dissolvi videtur, velut in vasa transfunditur. Si etiam ipsa vasa defecerint, cum de illis quoque effluxerit in suam matricem terram, quasi per ambages resorbebitur, ut rursus ex illa repraesentetur Adam auditurus a domino: Ecce Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis: vere tunc compos mali quod evasit, et boni quod invasit. Quid, anima, invides carni?

[4] When into these it seems to be dissolved, it is, as it were, transfused into vessels. If even those very vessels fail, when from them it too has flowed out into its own matrix, the earth, as if by roundabout ways it will be re-sorbed, so that again from that there may be re-presented Adam, about to hear from the Lord: Behold, Adam has become as one of us: truly then in possession of the evil which he escaped, and of the good which he invaded. Why, soul, do you envy the flesh?

[5] Nemo tam proximus tibi, quem post deum diligas: nemo magis frater tuus quam quae tecum etiam in deo nascitur.

[5] No one is so near to you, whom you should love after God: no one more your brother than she who is born with you also in God.

[6] Tu potius illi exorare debueras resurrectionem: per te, si forte, deliquit. Sed nihil mirum si odisti cuius auctorem quoque respuisti, quam et in Christo aut negare aut mutare consuevisti, proinde et ipsum sermonem dei qui caro factus est vel stilo vel interpretatione corrumpens, arcana etiam apocryphorum superducens, blasphemiae fabulas.

[6] You rather ought to have entreated for her the resurrection: through you, perhaps, she sinned. But no wonder if you hate her whose author also you have spurned, the same which in Christ you have been accustomed either to deny or to change, accordingly also corrupting the very Word of God who was made flesh either by stylus or by interpretation, superinducing even the arcana of the apocrypha, fables of blasphemy.

[7] Atenim deus omnipotens, adversus haec incredulitatis et perversitatis ingenia providentissima gratia sua effundens in novissimis diebus de suo spiritu in omnem carnem, in servos suos et ancillas, et fidem laborantem resurrectionis carnalis animavit et pristina instrumenta manifestis verborum et sensuum luminibus ab omni ambiguitatis obscuritate purgavit.

[7] For indeed the omnipotent God, against these dispositions of incredulity and perversity, pouring out his most provident grace of his in the last days from his Spirit upon all flesh, upon his servants and handmaids, also animated the faith laboring for the resurrection
of the flesh and purified the former instruments by the manifest lights of words and
senses from all the obscurity of ambiguity.

[8] Nam quia haereses esse oportuerat ut probabiles quique manifestentur, hae autem sine aliquibus occasionibus scripturarum audere non poterant, idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis videntur subministrasse, et ipsas quidem isdem litteris revincibiles.

[8] For since it had been necessary that heresies exist so that those who are approved also be manifested, these, however, could not dare without some occasions of the Scriptures; therefore the former instruments seem to have supplied certain materials to them, and they themselves indeed are refutable by the same letters.

[9] Sed quoniam nec dissimulare spiritum sanctum oportebat quominus et huiusmodi eloquiis superinundaret quae nullis haereticorum versutiis semina subspargerent, immo et veteres eorum caespites vellerent, idcirco iam omnes retro ambiguitates et quantas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua totius sacramenti praedicatione discussit per novam prophetiam de paracleto inundantem.

[9] But since it was not fitting to dissemble the Holy Spirit so as to prevent him from overflowing also with utterances of this kind, which would strew no seeds for the wiles of heretics—nay rather would pluck up their old turf—therefore he has now dispelled all former ambiguities and as many parables as they please by the open and perspicuous predication of the whole sacrament, through the new prophecy overflowing from the Paraclete.

[10] Cuius si hauseris fontem, nullam poteris sitire doctrinam, nullus te ardor exuret quaestionum: resurrectionem quoque carnis usquequaque potando refrigeraberis.

[10] If you draw from its fount, you will be able to thirst for no doctrine; no ardor of questions will scorch you: resurrection also of the flesh, by drinking everywhere, you will be refrigerated.