Книга тринадцатая

In this book bl. Augustine teaches that death in relation to people has the meaning of punishment, and that it came from Adam's sin. Chapter 1. About the fall of the first man, which produced mortality Since we have already resolved very difficult questions about the origin of the present world and the beginning of the human race, the order of presentation now requires the discussion we have proposed about the fall of the first man, or rather the first people, and about the origin and spread of death between people. For God created people not like angels, not in such a way that even having sinned they could not die, but in such a way that, if they had fulfilled the duty of obedience, they would have received angelic immortality and blissful eternity without the mediation of death, and if they had not fulfilled this duty, death would have served as a just punishment for them. However, we have already said a few words about this in the previous book. Chapter II. About the death that the soul, which has to live forever, can undergo, and about the death that the body is subject to But I consider it necessary to dwell in a little more detail on the type of death itself. Although the human soul is rightly recognized as immortal, there is, however, a certain kind of death for it. She is called immortal because she does not cease to live and feel in a certain form and to some extent; the body is called mortal because it can completely lose life and is completely unable to live on its own. But the death of the soul occurs when God leaves it; just as the death of the body occurs when the soul leaves it. Consequently, the death of soul and body, that is, the death of the whole person, occurs when the soul, abandoned by God, leaves the body. For in this case neither it lives by God, nor the body lives by it. This kind of death of the whole person is followed by what the authority of the Divine Scriptures called the second death (Apoc. XXI, 8). The Savior also pointed to it when he said: “Fear more than him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matthew X, 28). Since this will not happen until after such a union of the soul with the body that they can no longer be separated from each other in any way, it may seem strange that they are talking about killing the body with such a death in which it is not abandoned by the soul, but is subjected to torment, being animated and sentient. For that final and eternal punishment, about which we will speak in more detail in its place, is rightly called the death of the soul, because it does not live by God; but how can one call it the death of the body when it lives by the soul? After all, otherwise it could not feel those same bodily torments that will happen after the resurrection. Is it possible that since every kind of life constitutes some good, and suffering is evil, then one should not call the body living if the soul exists in it not for the sake of life, but for the sake of suffering? So, the soul lives by God when it lives well, for it cannot live well if God does not contribute to what is good in it; the body lives by the soul, when the soul lives in the body, whether it lives at the same time or does not live by God. For life in the bodies of the wicked is not the life of the soul, but of the body. Such a life can be imparted to them even by those who have died, that is, souls abandoned by God, by their own, whatever life may be, as a result of which they are immortal. But at the last condemnation, although a person will not stop feeling, however, since the feeling itself will not bring pleasant pleasure and beneficial peace, but will be painful due to suffering, then this life should rightly be called death rather than life. It is called the second death because it happens after the first, as a result of which the separation of united natures occurs: God and soul or soul and body. Thus, the first bodily death can be said to be good for the good and evil for the wicked. The second is not good for anyone, since none of the good is subjected to it. Chapter III. Death, which passed through the sin of the first people to all people, does it also serve as a punishment for sin for the saints? But a question arises that should not be avoided: is death, by which soul and body are separated, really a good thing for the good? After all, if so, then how can one claim that it is a punishment for sin? For the first people, of course, would not have been subjected to it if they had not sinned. How could it be good for the good if only the evil could be exposed to it? Moreover, if only the evil could be subjected to it, then for the good there should not have been not only a good death, but no death at all. Why punish in any way those in whom there is nothing worthy of punishment? Therefore, it must be admitted that although the first people were created in such a way that if they had not sinned, they would not have experienced any kind of death: nevertheless, having become the first sinners, they were punished by death in such a way that all the descendants that came from them were subjected to the same punishment. But something else could have been born from them than they themselves were. For, in accordance with the importance of this guilt, condemnation changed nature for the worse, so that what was previously a punishment in the first people who sinned began to appear in other people, at their birth, as a natural consequence. Man does not come from man in the same way as man came from dust. Dust was the substance for the creation of man, and man, when he gives birth, becomes a father to man. The body is not the same as the earth, although the body is created from earth; and man, just as he is the father of man, so he is also the descendant of man. Since the entire human race was supposed to descend from the first man through a woman after this married couple had already received the divine sentence of their condemnation, then what man became - not at his creation, but when he sinned and was punished - is what he gave birth to, as far as the origin of sin and death is concerned. For sin or as punishment, a person was reduced to infantile dementia or to such mental and physical weakness that we see in children. God wanted this to be the initial state of those children whose parents He reduced to animal life and death, as it is written: “Man will not remain in honor, he will become like the animals that perish” (Ps. 48:13). The only difference is that we see babies even weaker, both in bodily strength and in the strength of desires, than the weakest young animals; because human strength shows superiority over other animals the more it restrains its desire, like an arrow pulled in the opposite direction when a bow is drawn. So, for impermissible arrogance and just condemnation, the first man did not fall or was not reduced to this original infantile state; but his human nature was so damaged and changed that he began to experience an opposing and disobedient lust in his limbs and was subject to inevitable death; and then to give birth to what one has become as a result of vice and punishment, that is, subject to sin and death. If, by the grace of the Intercessor, children are freed from these bonds of sin, then they can only undergo that one death which separates the soul from the body; being freed from the bonds of sin, they do not pass on to the second death, which serves as endless punishment. Chapter IV. Why are those who, by the grace of rebirth, freed from sin, are not freed from death, that is, from the punishment for sin? But if anyone is confused about why this death, since it serves as a punishment for sin, is suffered by those whose guilt is destroyed by grace, then this question has already been considered and resolved in our other work, which we wrote on infant baptism 129. It is said there that the soul is left with a test through separation from the body even after the destruction of the bonds of sin, because if the sacrament of rebirth were immediately followed by the immortality of the body, then faith itself would weaken, which then happens to be faith when one expects with hope that which one has not yet seen in reality. By the power of faith and the feat of faith, at least in former times, even the fear of death was overcome, which was especially evident in the holy martyrs. Such a feat would, of course, have no benefit and no glory - because there would be no feat at all - if after the font of rebirth the saints could no longer undergo bodily death. When baptizing children, who would not resort to the grace of Christ solely for the sake of renouncing the body? Not only would faith not be tested through an invisible reward, but there would not be faith itself if they received a reward for their deeds immediately after they began to seek it. Now, by the greater and more wonderful grace of the Savior, the punishment of sin was turned to the benefit of righteousness. And then it was said to the man: You will die if you sin; now it is said to the martyr: die so as not to sin. Then it was said: if you break the commandment, you will die; Now it says: if you refuse death, you will break the commandment. What then one had to fear in order not to sin, now one must accept in order not to sin. Thus, the very punishment of vices, through the ineffable mercy of God, becomes an instrument of virtue, and even the punishment of a sinner becomes the merit of the righteous. For then death was acquired through sin, but now righteousness is achieved through death. But the last thing is in the holy martyrs, to whom the torturers offered one of two things: either to leave the faith or to suffer death. For the righteous prefer to undergo for faith what the first sinners suffered for unbelief. If they had not sinned, they would not have died; but these will sin if they do not die. So, those died because they sinned: these do not sin because they die. Due to the guilt of the former, this turned into punishment; and due to the fact that this was a punishment for them, it does not turn into guilt, this is not because death, which was previously evil, became some kind of good, but because God gave faith such grace that death, which, as we know, is the opposite of life, became a means to achieve life. Chapter V. That just as sinners use the law, which is good, for evil, so the righteous use death, which is evil, for good. When the apostle wanted to show how much harm sin can bring in the absence of divine grace, he did not even hesitate to call the law by which sin is prohibited the power of sin. “The sting of death,” he says, “is sin; and the power of sin is the law” (1 Cor. XV, 56). And this is absolutely fair. For through prohibition, the desire for illicit action increases, when they do not love the truth so much that the desire to sin is overcome by love for it. And in order for the true truth to be loved and attracted to itself, this requires the assistance of divine grace. But so that the law, called the power of sin, would not be recognized as evil as a result, then in another place, considering the same kind of question, he says: “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. So, has what is good become deadly to me? No way: but sin, which turns out to be sin because through good it causes death to me, so that sin becomes extremely sinful through the commandment” (Rom. VII, 12-13). “Extremely,” he said because stubbornness is also added when, with the intensification of the desire for sin, the law itself is despised. Why did we decide to stop here? Because just as the law is not evil, although it increases the lust of those who sin, so death is not good, although it increases the glory of those who endure it; when either one is violated as a result of dishonor and makes one stubborn, or when one suffers for the truth and makes one martyrs. Therefore, although the law is good because it is the prohibition of sin, and death is evil because it is retribution for sin; but just as the unjustly evil use not only evil, but also good, so the righteous use not only good, but also evil for good. And it turns out that the evil use the law for evil, although it is good, and the good die for good, although death is evil. Chapter VI. About the evil of universal death, which destroys the union of soul and body Therefore, as for bodily death, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, it is not good for anyone when the so-called dying are subjected to it. For this very force, by which both things that were connected and united in a living person are torn apart, while it continues its action and until all feeling arising from the very union of soul and body is taken away, it produces a heavy and unnatural sensation. Sometimes one blow inflicted on the body, or a murder, prevents this torment and does not allow one to experience it, warning with its speed. However, whatever it is in the dying that, not without a heavy feeling, deprives them of sensitivity, it, if endured with piety and faith, increases the merit of patience, although it does not destroy the essence of punishment. So, although death is a punishment for the first person born into the continuously continuing offspring, however, if it is endured for piety and truth, it serves the glory of the reborn; and although death is retribution for sin, thanks to it sometimes it is achieved that no retribution for sin follows it. Chapter VII. Of the death which the unregenerate suffer for confessing Christ For those who die for the confession of Christ without having yet received the font of regeneration, it has the same power of remission of sins as washing in the holy source of baptism. For he who said: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John III, 5), excludes them with another of His sayings, in which he says with the same universality: “Whoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven” (Matthew X, 32). And in another place: “Whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew XVI: 25). Therefore it is written: “The death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord!” (Ps. 65:6). For what is more honorable than death, through which all sins are forgiven and merits are increased? After all, the merit of those who were baptized, unable to avoid death, and moved from this life, having made amends for all their sins, is not as great as those who, having the opportunity to die, died because they preferred to end their lives by confessing Christ rather than by denying Him and being baptized. If they had done this, in this font they would have been forgiven for having renounced Christ for fear of death; The immeasurable crime of those who killed Christ is washed in this font! But without the abundance of grace of that Spirit who “breathes where he will” (John III, 8), could they ever have loved Christ so much that, with such a danger to life and with such hope of forgiveness, they would not renounce Him? So, the honest death of the saints, to whom the death of Christ was predestined and asked for with such grace that in order to acquire Him they themselves did not hesitate to die, showed that what was previously intended for the punishment of sin was turned to their benefit, so that from here the most abundant fruit of righteousness would grow. But still, death should not be considered good, because not by its own power, but as a result of divine help, it has turned into such a great benefit, so that what was previously intended to serve as a threat against the commission of sin is now offered for acceptance, so that the sin is not committed, and the one already committed is atoned for, and the due palm of righteousness is given to the great victory. Chapter VIII. That for saints accepting the first death as truth serves as liberation from the second death After all, if you look closely, death is a matter of fear even when someone dies for the truth with faith and in the most praiseworthy manner. For this reason, they are subjected to some part of it, so as not to be subjected to the whole, so that a second one, which will never have an end, is added to this one. For this reason, the soul is separated from the body, so that the soul is not separated from the body in a state of separation from God, and so that the first death of a person is not followed by a second, eternal one. That is why death, as I said above, is not good for anyone who dies, but is endured in a praiseworthy manner for the sake of preserving or acquiring goodness. When those who are called already dead abide in it, it is quite appropriately called evil for the evil and good for the good. For the souls of the pious, separated from the body, are at rest, but the souls of the wicked suffer punishment until the bodies of the former come to life again for eternal life, and the bodies of the latter for eternal death, called the second. Chapter IX. Whether the dying or the dead should include that moment of death at which the feeling of life ceases But the moment at which souls, separated from bodies, are in a happy or unhappy state, should it be attributed to the time after death, or to the time of death itself? If after, then this is no longer death, which has ended and passed, but the life of the soul after death, good or bad. Death was then evil for them when it existed, that is, when they endured it, when they died; because they then experienced a heavy and painful feeling, evil, which the good use for good. And when death has already occurred, how can it be good or evil when it is no longer there? Then, if you delve deeper, it turns out that this is not death, which, as we said, causes a heavy and painful feeling in the dying. For as long as they feel, as long as they still live; and if they still live, they should rather be considered to be on the verge of death than in death itself, for when it comes, it destroys every bodily feeling, which, due to its approach, becomes heavy. Therefore, it is difficult to explain how we call dying those who have not yet died, but due to the death that threatens them, are already undergoing the last mortal torments; although, on the other hand, they are rightly called dying, because after death they will no longer be dying, but dead. So, only one who is living can be dying, for whoever has not lost his soul still lives, even if his life is in such danger as those exposed to which we call those who are at their last gasp. Thus, one and the same person is both dying and living; approaching death and moving away from life; nevertheless, still in life, because the soul remains in the body, and not in death, since it has not yet left the body. But since even after leaving the body she will not be in death, but after death, who can say when a person is not before or after, but in death itself? For there will be no dying unless there are both dying and living at the same time. If the one in whose body the process takes place, the consequence of which is death, is more correctly called dying, and if no one can be both dying and living, then I don’t know when in such a case a person can be alive! Chapter X. About human life, which should rather be called death than life For from the moment someone begins to be in this body subject to death, for him it is always about the approach of death. His changeability at all times of this life (if, however, we should call it life) leads him precisely to death. For there is no one who would not be closer to her in a year than a year earlier, and tomorrow than today, and a little later than now, and now than a little earlier. The time lived is subtracted from the time of life, and every day there is less and less of it left, so that the time of this life is generally nothing more than the path to death, on which no one is allowed to stop for a while or go a little more slowly - but everyone is forced, of necessity, to advance equally and evenly approach (to death). For he who had a short life did not pass his time faster than he who lived a long time; but in the same way and the same amounts of time were taken from both: one was simply closer, and the other was further from what they were both moving towards at the same speed. It’s one thing to go further, and quite another to go slower. Whoever lives a longer time before death does not walk slower, but covers a longer distance. Then, if from that moment everyone begins to die, that is, to be in death, from which death itself begins to act in him, that is, the reduction of life - because at the end of it by reduction he will be after death, and not in death - then he is in death, without a doubt, from the very beginning of his existence in this body. For it is precisely this, and not anything else, that happens every day, hour, minute, until the death that was experienced completely comes, and the time after death begins, which, with the decrease in life, was the time of death. So, a person is never in life from the moment he has a body that dies rather than lives, unless he can be in both life and death at the same time. Indeed, is he not rather simultaneously in life and in death - in the life that he lives until it is all taken away - in the death that he already dies when life diminishes? For if he is not in life, then what will decrease until complete loss occurs? And if he is not in death, then what does the diminution of life itself consist of? For when life is completely lost from the body, this is called the state after death, because death occurred when life diminished. If, when it is lost, a person is not in death, but after death, then when will he be in death, if not when this decrease in life occurs? Chapter XI. Can someone be both living and dying at the same time? If it would be absurd to say that a person is already in death before he has reached death (for what would he be approaching when living through the time of his life if he were already in it?); or if it were too strange to call him both living and dying, when he cannot, for example, be both awake and asleep; then the question arises: when will he die? For before death comes, he is not dying, but living; and when death has already occurred, he is dead and not dying. Consequently, one thing happens before death, and the other after death. When he is in death (for then he is dying), so that according to each of the three states, which we call “before death,” “in death,” and “after death,” there are: living, dying, and dead. It is very difficult to determine when a person is dying, that is, in death, and it is necessary that in this case he would be neither living, that is, before death, nor dead, that is, after death, but would be precisely dying, that is, being in death. For while the soul is in the body, especially if there is also feeling in it, then a person consisting of soul and body undoubtedly still lives, and therefore he should be called being before death, and not in death. When the soul separates and destroys all sensitivity in the body, then it is already recognized as being after death and dead. So the moment at which he appears dying or in death is lost between one and the other; because if he still lives, then he remains until death, and if he ceases to live, then he remains after death. Consequently, he is never represented as dying, that is, as being in death. In the same way, throughout time we seek the present and do not find it; because without any interval there is a transition from the future to the past. But shouldn’t we be afraid that in this way we will come to the denial of bodily death itself? For if it exists, then when does it exist—she who is in no one and in whom no one can be? After all, if a person lives, then she does not yet exist, because this happens before death, and not in death; if he stopped living, then she no longer exists, because this happens after death, and not in death. But, on the other hand, if there is no death either before or after, then what is there that is called “before” death or “after” death? After all, these are empty words if there is no death. Oh, that we could lead a virtuous life in paradise, so that in reality there would be no death! And now it not only exists, but it is also so painful that no words can express it, no way can avoid it! So, let's stick to the usual way of expression, because it shouldn't be otherwise. Let us say: “until death,” before death comes. And when it happens, we will say: “After the death of this or that, this or that happened.” We will also talk about the present tense as best we can, just as we say: “When dying, so-and-so made a will; dying, he left this and that and so and so”; although only a living person could do this, and do it, of course, before death, and not in death. Let us even speak as the Holy Scripture says, which does not hesitate to call the dead not after death, but in death. This is the well-known saying: “In death there is no remembrance of You” (Ps. VI, 6). For before the resurrection they are rightly called those who are in death, just as everyone is called being in sleep before he awakens. But although we call those who are in a dream sleeping, we cannot in the same way call those who are already dead dying. For those who do not die only now are those who, as far as bodily death is concerned, which we are talking about in this case, have already been separated from their bodies. But this is what I said, that it is impossible to explain how those who are dying are called still living, or those who have died after death are called still in death. For how will they be after death if they are still in death? This is especially true since we do not call them dying, just as we call those in sleep sleeping, those in exhaustion - exhausted, those in grief - mourning, those in life - living. The dead are called, before they are resurrected, being in death: but still they cannot be called dying. Therefore, I think that it is very opportune and quite appropriate (although, perhaps, not by human effort, but by divine will) it happened that this verb in the Latin language, i.e. moritur (dies), the grammarians themselves cannot decline 130 according to the pattern in which other similar verbs are declined. For from oritur (comes from) comes the past tense verb ortus est, and other similar verbs are declined with the help of the past participle. And when we ask about the past tense from moritur, they usually answer: mortuus est, with the letter u doubling. We use mortuus (dead) in the same way as fatuus (crazy), arduus (cool), consvicuus (prominent) and similar words, which are not past tense verbs, but are inflected without tense, because they are names. And in the above-mentioned case, as if to inflect something that cannot be inflected, a name is used instead of the past participle. Thus, it is quite fitting that just as what is denoted by this verb (i.e., death) cannot be avoided, 131 so it itself cannot be inflected in speech. But by the grace of our Redeemer it may be that we will be able to avert at least the second death. For it is more severe and constitutes the worst of all evils; because it does not consist of the separation of soul and body, but rather embraces both for eternal punishment. There will no longer be like here - people will not be before death and after death, but constantly in death; and therefore people will never be living or dead, but will be endlessly dying. And there will never be anything worse for a person in death than when death itself is immortal. Chapter XII. What kind of death did God threaten the first people if they violated His commandment? So, if they ask what death God threatened the first people with if they violated the commandment they received from Him and did not maintain obedience: the death of the soul, or the body, or the whole person, or that which is called the second, then one should answer: “All.” For the first consists of two, and the second is common to all. Just as the whole earth consists of many lands and the whole Church of many churches, so the common death consists of all deaths. For the first death consists of two: the death of the soul and the death of the body, so that the first death of the whole person occurs when the soul, abandoned by God, suffers temporary punishments without a body; the second occurs when the soul, abandoned by God, suffers eternal punishment along with the body. Therefore, when God said regarding the forbidden food to the person whom He placed in paradise: “In the day that you eat of it, you will surely die” (Gen. II, 17), then this threat embraced not only the first part of the first death, when the soul is deprived of God; and not only the second part of it, when the body is deprived of the soul; and not only the first death in its entirety, when the soul is punished by being deprived of God and the body; but all deaths until the very last, which is called the second and after which there is no other. Chapter XIII. What was the punishment for the failure of the first people to fulfill their duties? For as soon as the violation of the commandment occurred, immediately they, having lost divine grace, were ashamed of the nakedness of their bodies (Gen. III, 7). Therefore, with the leaves of the fig tree, which, perhaps, were the first to come across to them during their embarrassment, they covered their shameful members, which, although they had previously been the same members, were not shameful. They felt a new movement in their disobedient flesh, as if direct retribution for their disobedience. For, having found perverse pleasure in its own freedom and rejected serving God, the soul lost its former obedience from the body; and since she left the highest Lord of her own free will, she could not keep the lower servant under her will and in no way could she have the flesh in subjection to herself, as she always could have had it if she herself had remained in subjection to God. For then the flesh began to war against the spirit (Gal. V, 17). We are born with this struggle, having in ourselves the beginning of death and carrying in our members and in our corrupted nature its confrontation or victory, as a consequence of the first crime. Chapter XIV. What kind of man was created by God and what fate did he fall according to his own will? God, the Creator of natures, and not of vices, created man blameless; but, voluntarily corrupted and righteously condemned, man produced corrupted and condemned offspring. For we were all one in him, when we were all one in him, who fell into sin through the woman created from him before sin. We did not yet have a separate existence and a special form in which each of us could live separately; but there was already the nature of the seed from which we were to come; and since she was corrupted as a result of sin, bound by the bonds of death and righteously condemned, then a person with other properties could not be born from a person. Thus, as a result of the abuse of free will, this unfortunate chain arose, which, through a series of mutually interconnected disasters, brings the human race, due to the corruption of its beginning, as if due to corruption of the root, to a destructive second death, which has no end, with the exception of those who are liberated by the grace of God. Chapter XV. That Adam, committing sin, himself left God before he was left by God, and that the first death of the soul was separation from God Since it was not said “deaths,” but “you will die by death,” then in these words we can understand only one death, which happens when the soul is deprived of its life, which God serves for it. For she was not left to be abandoned; but she left herself in order to be abandoned, since in relation to her evil her will precedes, and in relation to good – the will of her Creator: either to create one who did not exist at all, or to recreate one who perished through the fall. But at least we began to understand these words spoken by God: “On the day that you eat of it, you will surely die” (Gen. II, 17), began to understand in the sense that God announced in them about this one death, as if saying: “On the day on which you leave Me through disobedience, I will leave you in justice,” nevertheless, in this death, its other types were announced, which were to follow it. In the fact that there was a disobedient movement in the flesh of the disobedient soul, as a result of which they covered their shameful members (Gen. III, 7), one death made itself felt, in which God left the soul. It was indicated in His words when He said to a man who was hiding due to irrational fear: “Where are you?” (Gen. III, 9); for He asked not out of ignorance, but denouncing and exhorting him to pay attention to where he began to be when God was no longer in him. When the soul itself left the body, damaged due to years and exhausted by old age, it had to experience another death, about which the Lord, even when determining the punishment for sin, told man: “You are dust, and to dust you will return” (Gen. III, 19); so that of these two deaths, the first, which is the death of the whole man, has been fulfilled, and the second will follow it, unless a person is freed from it through grace. For a body that is from the earth would not return to the earth except as a result of the death to which it undergoes when it is deprived of its life, that is, its soul. Therefore, as Christians who adhere to the true Catholic faith know, even bodily death itself is imposed on us not by the law of nature, according to which God did not create any death for man, but as punishment for sin; because God, punishing for sin, said to man, in whom we were all then: “You are dust, and to dust you will return.” Chapter XVI. About the philosophers who do not recognize the separation of the soul from the body as a punishment, although Plato represents the Supreme God as giving the promise to the lower gods that they will never be deprived of bodies But the philosophers, against whose slander we defend the city of God, that is, His Church, consider it wise to laugh at what we say, namely, that the separation of the soul from the body should be considered one of its punishments. In their opinion, perfect bliss occurs for her when she, having completely lost all body, returns to God simple, united and, as it were, naked. If I could not find anything in their own writings that would refute this opinion, then it would take a lot of work on my part to prove that it is not just the body, but the perishable body that serves as a burden for the soul. That is why our Scriptures say, as I mentioned in the previous book, that the corruptible body burdens the soul (Wis. XI, 15). By adding the word “corruptible,” it (Scripture) clearly showed that the soul is not burdened with any kind of body, but such as it became as a punishment for sin. Although, however, even if this had not been added, then even then we should not have understood anything else. But since Plato clearly states that the gods created by the supreme God have immortal bodies, and represents God himself, by whom they were created, promising them as a great benefit that they will forever remain with their bodies and will not be separated from them by any death, then why do they, wanting to destroy the Christian faith, pretend that they do not know what they know, or even, contradicting themselves, prefer to speak against themselves, so as not to stop speaking against us? After all, Plato owns the words translated into Latin by Cicero, in which he represents the Supreme God addressing the gods he created and saying: “You who came from the sowing of the gods, pay attention to what was born and created by Me. It will remain indestructible, for such is My will. Of course, everything that is made up of parts can be destroyed, but it is unusual for a good person to want to destroy something that is connected rationally. Although you, as having received a beginning, cannot be immortal and indestructible, you will not be destroyed in any way and no destinies will destroy you through death and will not be stronger than My decision, which constitutes a stronger bond for your eternal existence than the bonds with which you were united at birth” 132. Thus, Plato represents the gods, although mortal due to the union of soul and body, but immortal by the will and decision of the God who created them. So, if it is a punishment for the soul to be united with any body, then why does God, turning to those who are afraid of dying, that is, being separated from the body, reassure them, promising them immortality not by virtue of their nature, which is complex and not simple, but by His irresistible will, by which He can ensure that what is born does not die and what is united is not destroyed, but remains incorruptible? Whether this opinion of Plato is correct in relation to the stars is another question. For it does not yet follow from this that one must agree with him that those spherical or circular bodies shining at night above the earth live, having their own souls of some kind, and, moreover, rational and blessed souls; that he persistently asserts regarding the entire world, which constitutes, as it were, one huge animal, in which all other animals are contained. This, as I said, is another question that we do not intend to consider now. I found it necessary only to cite these words against those who are proud of the fact that they are Platonists or are called Platonists, and, proud of this name, are ashamed to be Christians, so that, by accepting a common name with the people, they would not humiliate the society of Palliates 133, the more pompous, the smaller it is in number - against those who, looking for something to blame in the Christian teaching, rebel against the eternity of bodies, pointing to the supposed the contradiction is that we strive for the bliss of the soul and at the same time want it to always remain in the body, as if bound by heavy bonds; Meanwhile, their head and teacher Plato says that the Supreme God gave the gods he created as a kind of gift that they would never die, that is, they would never separate from the bodies with which He united them. Chapter XVII. Against those who assert that earthly bodies cannot be incorruptible and eternal They also argue that earthly bodies cannot be eternal, while they generally represent the entire earth as a member of their god, although not supreme, but still great, that is, of this entire world - a middle and eternal member. But if the supreme God created for them another 134 god, as they believe, that is, this world, which should be preferred to other gods, lower, and which they recognize as animate, that is, having a rational and intelligent soul, enclosed in such a large mass of body; and if in the form of the members of this body, arranged and distributed in their proper places. He created the four elements, the combination of which they recognize as indestructible and eternal, so that such a great god of theirs would never die, then why is the earth, which forms, as it were, the central member in the body of a large animal, eternal, but the bodies of other earthly animals cannot be eternal if God wished it like the above? But the earth, they say, must be returned to the earth from which the earthly bodies of animals were taken; therefore it is necessary for them to die and thus return to the unchanging and eternal earth from which they were taken. But if someone were to similarly begin to assert this regarding fire and said that those bodies that were taken from it for the creation of celestial beings should be returned to the world fire, then the immortality that Plato promised such gods, as if through the mouth of the Supreme God, would not turn out to be contrary to this reasoning? Or does this not happen there because God does not want it, whose will, as Plato says, cannot be overcome by any force? But in this case, what can prevent God from doing the same with respect to earthly bodies, since Plato admits that God can do so that what is born does not die, and what is united is not destroyed, and what is taken from the elements is not returned to them, and the souls in bodies never leave them, but with them enjoy immortality and eternal bliss? And why couldn’t He give immortality even to earthly creatures? Is God not as powerful as Christians believe, but as powerful as Platonists admit? Could it be that the Platonists could know the counsel of God and His power, but the prophets could not? Rather, on the contrary, His Spirit taught the prophets of God, as He pleased, to proclaim His will, and the philosophers were deceived into knowing it by human assumption. But still, they should not, not only out of ignorance, but most importantly out of stubbornness, delude themselves so much as to clearly contradict themselves: with great exaggeration, try to prove that the soul, in order to be blessed, must avoid not only earthly things, but also any body; and at the same time assert that the gods have completely blessed souls and, however, united with eternal bodies, that the souls of the heavenly gods are united with fiery bodies, and the soul of Jupiter himself, whom they consider to be this world, is contained in all general bodily elements, through which this entire mass rises from earth to heaven. For Plato believes that this soul, from the inner middle of the earth, which geometers call the center, spreads and spreads through musical numbers throughout all its parts to the highest and extreme parts of the sky: so that this world is the greatest, most blessed and eternal animal, whose soul both retains the perfect happiness of wisdom, and does not leave its own body; and the body lives by it forever, and is not able to dull and weaken it, although it is not simple, but is composed of so many and so great bodies. Assuming this in their assumptions, why do they not want to believe that by virtue of the divine will and power earthly bodies can be immortal, in which souls, not separated from them by any death, not burdened by their burden, would live forever and blissfully; when do they recognize the possibility of this for their gods in fiery bodies, and for their king himself, Jupiter, in all bodily elements? After all, if the soul, in order to be blessed, must avoid every body, then let their gods also flee from the starry balls; let Jupiter also flee from heaven and earth; and if they cannot escape, let them be considered unfortunate; but they agree with neither one nor the other. They do not dare to attribute separation from the body to their gods, lest they appear to be worshiping mortals; but they do not dare deny the bliss in them, so as not to recognize them as unhappy. So, to achieve bliss, one must avoid not all bodies, but only corruptible ones; not what the goodness of God created for the first people, but those to whom the punishment for sin brought them. Chapter XVIII. About earthly bodies, which, according to philosophers, cannot be in heaven, since everything earthly is attracted to the earth by natural gravity But it is necessary, they say, that natural gravity either hold earthly bodies on the earth or drag them towards the earth, and therefore they cannot be in heaven. Although the first people were on earth, abundant with trees and fruits, which received the name of paradise, but since this too must be answered, partly in connection with the body of Christ with which He ascended to heaven, partly in connection with the bodies of the saints who will be after the resurrection, let us consider the earthly heaviness themselves a little more carefully. If human art produces the fact that vessels made of metals, which (metals), being lowered into water, immediately sink down, when they are arranged in a certain way, can even float, then how much more probable and effective is some mysterious method of action of God - by Whose will, as Plato says, what has received a beginning does not perish, and what is united cannot be destroyed (although the connection of the incorporeal with the corporeal is much more worthy of surprise than the connection of something corporeal with the corporeal), - Which can give the earthly masses the ability not to be carried down by any weight, but for the souls themselves, in complete bliss, to place these, although earthly, but already incorruptible bodies where they want, and transfer them to wherever they want, with all possible ease and mobility? If angels do this and carry away all kinds of earthly animals from anywhere and place them anywhere, then is it really to be thought that this is impossible for them without difficulty or that they feel heaviness? So, why can’t we think that spirits who are perfect and blessed by divine gift can transfer their bodies wherever they want and place them where they want? For, although when carrying earthly bodies we usually experience greater heaviness, the greater their number, so that the larger in weight is more burdensome than the smaller, yet the soul carries the members of its body with greater ease when they are healthy and strong than when they are weak and skinny. And although for others who happen to carry the healthy and strong, he is heavier than the skinny and sickly, yet he himself moves and moves his body more easily when it has more volume in good health than when he has very little strength due to illness or hunger. What matters in relation even to earthly bodies, although still perishable and mortal, is not the weight of quantity, but the conditions of organization. And who can express in words what the difference is between present so-called health and future immortality? So let philosophers not refute our faith by referring to the weight of bodies. I will not ask them the question of why they do not believe that an earthly body can be in heaven when the whole earth hangs in emptiness. For it is possible that their argument will seem more probable in relation to the most central part of the world, since in it all the heaviest is concentrated. But I will draw their attention to the fact that if the lower gods, by whom, according to Plato, man was created among other earthly animals, could, as Plato says 135, take away from fire the property of burning and leave the property of shining, which makes it accessible to the eye, then will we not dare to admit that the supreme God can destroy corruption in the body of man, to whom He gives immortality, but leave nature, maintain the harmonious union of the figure and members and to eliminate the retarding heaviness - God, to whose will and power, in order to explain immortality, he gives such strength that what has received a beginning, even with such a difference, such a dissimilarity that exists between the corporeal and the incorporeal, mutually united, cannot be divided by anything? But we will say more about the belief in the resurrection of the dead and their immortal bodies, if God pleases, at the end of this work. Chapter XIX. Against the teaching of those who do not believe that men would be immortal if they had not sinned Now let's talk, as we suggested, about the bodies of the first people. This death, which seems good to the good and which is known not only to the few who understand or believe, but to everyone in general, as a result of which the soul is separated from the body and through which the body of a living being, obviously living, obviously dies - this death could not happen to them if they did not deserve it through sin. For although it cannot be doubted that the souls of the dead righteous and pious live in peace, nevertheless, it would be so much better for them to live together with their bodies, in their full health, that even those who recognize in all respects the most blessed incorporeal existence, refute this opinion, contradicting themselves. None of them will dare to place wise people who either must die, or have already died, that is, have either renounced their bodies, or must renounce, above the immortal gods, to whom Plato’s Supreme God promises, as a great gift, indestructible life, that is, eternal communion with their bodies. The same Plato believes that people, if only they spent this life piously and justly, are dealt with beautifully, that after separation from their bodies, they are accepted into the bosom of the gods, who never leave their bodies. Those deprived of memory see the vault of heaven again And again they begin to desire to return to their bodies 136. There are indications that Virgil borrowed this from the teachings of Plato. Indeed, he believed that the souls of the dead, on the one hand, cannot always remain in their bodies, but are separated from them due to inevitable death, and on the other hand, they cannot exist forever without bodies, but, as he thought, they continuously and alternately become alive from the dead, then dead from the living; so that the wise, apparently, differ from other people in that after death they move to the stars, so that each one rests for some time on the star corresponding to him, and then, forgetting about previous disasters and prompted by the desire to have a body, returns again to human labors and misfortunes; and those who previously led an unreasonable life return, according to their merits, into the bodies of people or animals close to their nature. Thus, he places good and wise souls in this very difficult position, because they too have not been given bodies with which they could live forever and immortally; so that they can neither remain in bodies, nor without them remain in eternal purity. In previous books we have already talked about the book. 10, ch. XXX. writing during the times of Christianity, he was ashamed of this teaching of Plato and not only removed the bodies of animals from human souls, but even believed that the souls of the wise are so freed from bodily bonds that, avoiding any body, they will forever remain blessed with the Father. Thus, so that it would not seem that he was defeated by Christ, who promises eternal life to the saints, he himself admitted that purified souls, without any return to previous disasters, will abide in eternal bliss; and in order to contradict Christ, he, denying the resurrection of incorruptible bodies, argued that they would live forever not only without earthly ones, but also completely without any bodies. And yet, due to this whatever opinion, he does not warn them with a single word so that they do not perform religious worship of gods clothed in bodies. Why is this, if not because he did not recognize them, although not connected with bodies, better than these gods? Therefore, if they do not decide - and I believe that they really will not decide - to prefer human souls to gods who are completely blessed and, however, abiding in eternal bodies, then why does it seem absurd to them what the Christian faith preaches, namely: that the first people were created in such a way that if they had not sinned, they would not have been separated from their bodies by any death, but endowed with immortality for observing obedience, would live forever with them; that the saints, after the resurrection, will have the same bodies in which they were here, that neither their flesh will experience any corruption or difficulty, nor their blessedness will be subjected to any sorrow or dishonor. Chapter XX. That the flesh of the saints, now resting in hope, will be restored with better properties than the flesh of the first people possessed before the Fall At present, for the souls of deceased saints, death, by which they are separated from their bodies, is not difficult because their flesh calms down in hope, no matter what kind of reproach it, no longer having feelings, is subjected to. They desire bodies, but not as a result of oblivion, as Plato believed; remembering what was promised to them by Him who deceives no one, Who gave them confidence even in the integrity of their hair (Luke XXI, 18), they rather await with devotion and patience the resurrection of those very bodies in which they suffered many misfortunes, but in which they will no longer experience anything like it. If they did not hate their flesh (Eph. V, 29) when, at the request of the spirit, they bridled it, which due to its weakness did not submit to reason, then how much more do they love it now that it is spiritual? For just as the spirit serving the flesh is fittingly called carnal, so the flesh serving the spirit is rightly called spiritual, not because it is turned into spirit, as some believe on the basis of what is written: “A natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. XV, 44), but because with the greatest and extraordinary ease she surrenders herself to the subordination of the spirit according to the serene desire of indestructible immortality, being freed from all sorrowful feelings, all corruption and inertia. For it will not only not be the same as it is now even in the best state of health, but even the same as it was in the first people before the Fall. Although they would not have died if they had not sinned, nevertheless, as people, they used food, because they did not yet have spiritual, but animate earthly bodies. These bodies would not have become decrepit from old age and would not have necessarily approached death (this state was supported in them by the wonderful grace of God in the form of the tree of life, which stood in the middle of paradise along with the forbidden tree); however, they also accepted other food, except for one tree, which was forbidden - forbidden not because it was evil in itself, but for the sake of instilling in them pure and sincere obedience, which constitutes a great virtue in a rational creature under the authority of the Creator and Lord. For if they touch what is forbidden where there is no evil, then sin is committed as a result of disobedience alone. So, they also had other food, which they took so that their spiritual bodies would not feel anything painful due to hunger and thirst; They ate from the tree of life so that death would not penetrate them from somewhere or so that they would not die, suppressed after a certain time by old age. The rest served as food for them, and this as a sacrament; so that the tree of life seems to have the same meaning in the physical paradise that the Wisdom of God has in the spiritual, that is, mental, paradise, about which it is written: “She is a tree of life for those who acquire it” (Prov. III, 18). Chapter XXI. That the paradise in which the first people lived can correctly be understood in a spiritual sense, without violating the truth of the historical narrative about the corporeal place In this regard, some of the entire paradise in which, according to the undoubted testimony of St. The Scriptures, inhabited by the first people, the progenitors of the human race, are classified only as mental objects and transform the mentioned plants and fruit-bearing trees into virtues of life and morals; as if it were not visible and corporeal, but was said or written to designate something that is comprehended only by the mind. But couldn’t heaven be physical, even if it could also be understood as spiritual? Did not Abraham have two wives, Hagar and Sarah, and two sons by them, one by a bondwoman, and the other by a freewoman; although, as the apostle says (Gal. 4:24), they were a type of two covenants? Or Moses, for example, didn’t he blow water out of a stone (Ex. XVII, 6; Num. XX, 11), because here in an allegorical sense one can understand Christ, according to the words of the same apostle: “The stone was Christ” (1 Cor. X, 4)? So, nothing prevents us from understanding the life of the blessed as paradise; under its four rivers are four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation and justice; under its trees are all useful teachings; under the fruits of the trees are the morals of the pious; under the tree of life is the very mother of all blessings, wisdom, and under the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the experience of breaking a commandment. For God has assigned to sinners the punishment that is due in all respects, because He has appointed it justly; only man experienced it not for his own good. One can understand the same thing in relation to the Church, perhaps taking it as a kind of preliminary prophetic indications of the future. Thus, by paradise we can understand the Church itself, as it is spoken of in the Song of Songs (IV, 13); under the four rivers of paradise - four Gospels; under fruitful trees - saints; under their fruits are their deeds; under the tree of life - the Holy of Holies, that is, Christ; under the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is personal arbitrariness of the will. For if a person has neglected the divine will, then he can dispose of himself only in a disastrous way; and in this way he learns the difference between whether he is devoted to the common good of all, or whether he finds pleasure in his own. For the self-loving is left to himself, so that, filled with fear and sorrow as a result of this, he sings in a psalm (if, however, he is aware of his misfortunes): “My soul faints within me” (Ps. 42:7); and when he corrected himself, he said: “I come running to You, for God is my intercessor” (Ps. 59:10). Let them say this or anything else, more applicable, that they can say regarding the spiritual understanding of heaven, no one forbids it; if only the faith in the historical authenticity of the most reliable narrative of what happened was preserved. Chapter XXII. About the bodies of the saints after the resurrection, which will be spiritual, but in such a way that the flesh will not turn into spirit So, the bodies of the righteous, which they will receive at the resurrection, will not need any wood and therefore will not suffer any illness or old age and will not die; They will not need any other bodily food that eliminates the unpleasant feeling of hunger and thirst, because they will undoubtedly and completely be clothed in the inviolable gift of immortality, so that if they want, they will eat food as a result of opportunity, and not because of necessity. Angels also did this when they appeared in a visible and tangible way to people - not because they were in need, but because they wanted and could, in order to become closer to people based on a sense of philanthropy in the performance of their ministry. For one should not think that the angels consumed food ghostly when people showed them hospitality (Gen. XVIII); although, not knowing that they were angels, it seemed that they ate due to the same need that we have. Therefore, the angel in the book of Tobit says: “You saw what I ate, but you saw it with your own eyes” (Tov. XII, 19), that is: “You believed that I took food out of necessity, to strengthen the body, just as you do.” But if something else, more probable, can be assumed regarding the angels, then, at least regarding the Savior himself, the Christian faith has no doubt that even after the resurrection, being already in spiritual, but in true flesh, He took food and drink with the disciples (Luke XXIV). For from such bodies it is not the opportunity, but the need for food and drink that is taken away. Therefore, they will also be spiritual, not because they will cease to be bodies, but because they will exist, animated by the spirit. Chapter XXIII. What is to be understood by the natural body and the spiritual body, or who are those who die in Adam and who are given life in Christ? For just as those bodies that have a living soul, and not a life-giving spirit, are called spiritual bodies, and, however, these are not souls, but bodies; Likewise, these bodies are called spiritual, and, however, we should be far from recognizing them as spirits. These bodies will have the nature of the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, and will not be subject to any inertia or bodily corruption. Man will then no longer be earthly, but heavenly - not because the body created from earth will not be the same, but because, by a heavenly gift, it will already be such that it will be able to live in heaven; not due to the loss of its nature, but due to a change in property. “The first man is from the earth, earthy, a living soul, and not a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. XV, 45:47); the latter was left to him for the future, as reward for obedience. Therefore, his body, which needed food and drink so as not to be exhausted by hunger and thirst, and not through perfect and incorruptible immortality, but through the tree of life, was not allowed to reach the necessity of death and remained in blooming youth, was, without a doubt, not spiritual, but spiritual; although it would not have died if it had not fallen under divine judgment through a crime. And if he had been allowed food outside of paradise, but the tree of life had been forbidden, he would have been given over to time and would have had to end with old age, but living the same life that he could have had in paradise if he had not sinned, eternal, despite the fact that he had a spiritual body, until he became spiritual as a reward for obedience. Therefore, if in the words spoken by God: “On the day on which you eat of it, you will die” (Gen. II, 17), we also understand this obvious death, as a result of which the soul is separated from the body, and in this case it should not seem strange that they were not separated from the body on the same day on which they ate the forbidden and deadly food. On that day, their nature changed for the worse and was damaged, and as a result of a completely just departure from the tree of life, bodily death became such a necessity for them, with which we were born. Therefore the apostle does not say: “The flesh is dead because of sin,” but says: “The body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is alive because of righteousness” (Rom. VIII. 10). Then he adds: “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. VIII, 11). Consequently, then the body that is now in the living soul will be in the life-giving spirit. Nevertheless, the apostle calls it dead because it is already bound by the necessity of death. Previously, although it was not in the life-giving spirit, it was in the living soul in such a way that in justice it could not be called dead, for it could be subject to the necessity of death only through the commission of sin. When did God say to Adam: “Where are you?” (Gen. III, 9) pointed to the death of the soul, which occurred as a result of His abandonment, and with the words: “You are dust, and to dust you will return” (Gen. III, 19) designated the death of the body, which occurred as a result of the abandonment of the soul, then probably did not say anything about the second death, because he wanted it to be hidden for the sake of the construction of the building of the New Testament, in which the second death is announced with complete clarity; so that initially that first death, which is common to all, becomes known as coming from that sin, which in one thing became common to all; the second death is not at all common to all because of those called by foreknowledge: “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. VIII, 28-29). The latter were delivered from the second death by the grace of God through the Intercessor. So, the first man was created, as the apostle says, with a soul body. For, wanting to distinguish the present, spiritual, from the spiritual, which should be after the resurrection, he says: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; sown in humiliation, raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in strength; the spiritual body is sown, the spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. XV, 42-44). Then, to prove this, he continues: “There is a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body.” And to show what the spiritual body is, he says, “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living soul” (1 Cor. XV, 45; cf. Gen. II, 7). This is how the apostle wanted to explain what the spiritual body is. Although about the first man, who was called Adam, the Scripture, when the soul was created for him by the divine breath, did not say: “Man became a spiritual body,” but said: “He became a living soul”; nevertheless, by what was written the apostle wanted to understand the spiritual body of man. And he shows how the spiritual body should be understood by adding: “And the last Adam is a life-giving spirit” (I Cor. XV, 45). Without any doubt, he points this to Christ, who has already risen from the dead in such a way that after this he is completely unable to die. Continuing further, he says: “But not the spiritual first, but the spiritual, then the spiritual.” Here he makes it much clearer that by the spiritual body he meant that about which it is written that “the first man Adam became a living soul”; under the spiritual is that about which he says: “And the last Adam is a life-giving spirit.” For the spiritual body that the first man had precedes in time (although it would not have died if he had not sinned); which we also have at the present time, but with a nature as changed and damaged as this happened in him after he sinned (whence the need for death arose for him); which Christ initially deigned to accept for our sake, although not out of necessity, but according to His sovereign will: then follows that spiritual body, which already preceded in Christ, as in our Head, but will then appear in His members at the last resurrection of the dead. Further, the apostle points out a new, most obvious difference between the one and the other person, saying: “The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second person is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, so are the earthy; and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly; and just as we have borne the image of the earthly, we will also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. XV, 47-49). In these words the apostle sets forth this as it is now being accomplished in us through the sacrament of regeneration; just as he says in another place: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. III:27); in fact, this will be accomplished when the spiritual in us through birth becomes spiritual through resurrection. For, to use his own words, “we are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24). We put on the image of the earthly man due to the location of the crime and death that birth gave us; but we put on the image of the heavenly man by the grace of mercy and eternal life. This is given to us by regeneration and only through the Mediator of God, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. II, 5). Him he means by the heavenly man, because He came down from heaven to put on the body of earthly mortality and to clothe this body with heavenly immortality. He also calls others heavenly because by grace they become members of Him, so that Christ may be one with them as head and body. He points to this even more clearly in the same letter with the following words: “As death is through man, so through man is the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam everyone dies, so in Christ everyone will come to life” (1 Cor. XV, 21-22) - they will come to life, of course, already in a spiritual body, which will be in the life-giving spirit. The expression "all" does not mean that all who die in Adam will be members of Christ, because many more of them will be punished with the second death forever; but for this reason it is said “all”, because just as no one dies with a spiritual body except in Adam, so no one is quickened with a spiritual body except in Christ. Therefore, we should not think that after the resurrection we will have the same body that the first man had before the Fall. And what was said: “Like the earthy, so are the earthy” should not be understood in relation to what happened after the commission of sin. For one should not think that before he sinned he had a spiritual body and that as a result of sin it changed into a spiritual one. To think this way means to pay little attention to the words of this great teacher, who says: “There is a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” How did this happen after the Fall, when such was the original state of man, concerning which the most blessed Apostle brought this testimony of the Law for the purpose of proving that the body was spiritual? Chapter XXIV. How should we understand the breath through which “man came into being as a living soul,” and the one that the Lord made when He said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” Some thoughtlessly understood the words: “God... breathed into his face the breath (spiritum - spirit) of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. II, 7) not in the sense that then a soul was given to man for the first time, but in the fact that the soul that was already in him was quickened by the Holy Spirit. They are confused by the fact that the Lord Jesus, after resurrecting from the dead, breathed, saying to His disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John XX, 22). Therefore, they believe that here there was something similar to what happened then, and that the evangelist could then say: “And they became living souls.” But even if this were said, we would even then understand it in the sense that the Spirit of God in some way serves as life for souls and that without Him rational souls should be considered dead, although thanks to their presence they appear to be living bodies. But this was not the case during the creation of man, as evidenced by the very words of the book, which read like this: “And he created “The Lord God of man is from the dust of the ground” (Gen. II, 7). Some, recognizing the need for a clearer translation, expressed it this way: “And the Lord God blinded (finxit) man from the dirt of the earth.” Since it was said above: “Steam rose from the earth and watered the entire face of the earth” (Gen. II, 6), it seemed to them that here they should understand dirt, that is, a mixture of moisture and earth. For immediately after these words follows: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.” This is how this place is read in the Greek codes, from which the Scriptures were translated into Latin. But whether anyone wants to read “formed” or “blinded,” which in Greek is called ἔπλασεν, this does not relate to the essence of the matter; although it would be more accurate to say “blinded.” Those who considered it necessary to avoid ambiguity preferred the word “formed,” because in Latin the word “blinded” (fingere) is used mostly in relation to those who invent something false. So, this man, formed from the dust of the ground, or from dirt (for it was wet dust), or - to put it more expressively, as the Scripture said - this “dust” became, according to the teaching of the Apostle, a spiritual body when it received a soul. “The first man Adam became a living soul” (1 Cor. XV, 15), that is, the dust that received a certain form became a living soul. They say that he already had a soul, because otherwise he would not have been called a man, since man is not one body or one soul, but consists of soul and body. It is true that the soul does not constitute the whole man, but the best part of man, and the body does not constitute the whole man, but the lower part of man; when both are combined together, it is called a man. But this name is also given to individual parts when we talk about each of them separately. Do the laws of ordinary speech prohibit someone from saying: “This man has died and is now at peace or is suffering punishment,” although this can only be said about one soul; or: “This man is buried in this or that place,” although this can only be understood in relation to the body? Will they not say that Holy Scripture is not in the habit of speaking in this way? But its evidence in this regard is on our side to such an extent that, when both parts are still united and a person lives, it nevertheless calls each part separately by the name of man: the soul calls the internal man, and the body the external man (1 Cor. IV, 16), as if there were two people; although both together constitute one person. But when it is said that man was created in the image of God and that he is earth and must return to earth, one must understand what this is being said about. In the first case, it is said about the intelligent soul, which God gave to man, that is, the human body, by inhalation, or, more precisely, by blowing; in the second - regarding the body in the form in which God created man from dust, gave him a soul so that there would be a spiritual body, that is, so that man would have a living soul. Therefore, when the Lord blew, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John XX, 22), by this action He, of course, made it clear that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not only of the Father, but also of the Son. For the same Spirit, which is from the Father and from the Son, together with Them is the Holy Trinity. It was not the bodily breath that comes from the bodily mouth that was the substance and nature of the Holy Spirit; this breath was a sign by which we, as I said, should understand that the Holy Spirit is equally inherent in the Father and the Son, for not each of them has a special Spirit, but one in both. This Spirit in the Holy Scriptures is called in Greek πνεῦμα, as in this place the Lord called Him, designating Him by the breath of His lips and giving Him to His disciples. In no place in the Scriptures have I seen Him called anything else. Here, where we read: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. II, 7), in the Greek (translation) it does not say πνεῦμα, as is usually said about the Holy Spirit, but πνοή, a name applied to the creature, and not the Creator. Therefore, some in Latin preferred to translate this word not as “spirit” (spiritus), but as “breath” (flatus). This word is found in the Greek text and in the place of Isaiah where God says: “Every breath that I have created” (Is. 57:16), meaning by this, undoubtedly, every soul. So, what is read in Greek πνοή, ours sometimes translated the word “breath”, sometimes the word “spirit”, and sometimes “inspiration” or “breath” (inspiratio vel apiratio). Πνεῦμα was always translated by the word “spirit” - were we talking about the spirit of man, about which the apostle says: “What man knows what is in a man, except the spirit of man that lives in him?” (1 Cor. II, 11); or about the spirit of cattle, as it is written in the book of Solomon: “Who knows whether the spirit of the sons of men ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?” (Eccl. III, 21); or about that bodily spirit which is called wind, for this name is also applied to it when it is said in the psalm: “Fire, hail, snow, bareness, stormy spirit” (Ps. 149:8); or even about the Creator Spirit, about whom the Lord says: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John XX, 22), designating Him with the breath of His lips. Likewise in the place where He says: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew XXVIII, 19), testifying in the clearest way to the Trinity. It is the same where it is said: “God is spirit” (John IV, 24), and in many other places in the Scriptures. In all of them we find among the Greeks πνεῦμα, and not πνοή, and among the Latins spiritus (spirit), and not flatus (breath). Therefore, if in the words of Scripture: “He breathed into his face the breath of life,” the Greek text had not πνοήν, but πνεῦμα, then in this case it would not at all follow that we should necessarily understand here the Spirit of the Creator. But they say that “life” would not be added to the word “breath” if the Holy Spirit were not meant here. And having said: “Man became a soul,” it (Scripture) would not have added “living” if it did not want to designate the life of the soul, which is given to it from above, according to the gift of the Spirit of God. But all this is stubborn persistence and a careless attitude towards the texts of Holy Scripture. Indeed, is it really necessary to go far for examples when right there, a little higher than this, it is said: “Let the earth produce living creatures” (Gen. I, 24)? Then, a few pages later, when it is told how everything living on earth perished in the flood, we read: “Everything that had the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils on the dry land died” (Gen. VII, 22). So, if we find similar expressions in relation to cattle; if, further, in such places the Greeks put in the texts not πνεῦμα, but πνοή, then isn’t it clear that Scripture calls the soul living simply by the turn of phrase adopted in it. But, they say, the breath of God comes from the mouth of God; if it is a soul, then it is of the same nature as Wisdom, which also comes from the mouth of the Most High (Sir. XXIV, 3). But Wisdom does not say that she is the breath of the mouth of God, but only came out of His mouth. And we, if you think about it, make a breath not from our nature, but from the air around us, which we inhale and exhale. However, He could have produced it not only not from His nature, but also not from created nature, but simply from nothing. But so that these people who want to talk about the Scriptures, but do not want to pay attention to the way the Scriptures are expressed, know that not only are they spoken of as coming from the mouth of God, but they are of the same nature, let them listen to what is written in the words of God: “But because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth” (Apoc. III, 16). So, there is no reason why we would contradict the clear words of the apostle when he, distinguishing the spiritual body from the spiritual body, that is, from the one in which we will be, this in which we are now, says: “A spiritual body is sown, a spiritual body is raised. There is a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body. So it is written: “the first man Adam became a living soul”; and the last Adam is a life-giving spirit. But not the spiritual first, but the spiritual, then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second person is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, so are the earthy; and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly; and just as we have borne the image of the godly thing, we will also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. XV, 44-49). We have already spoken about these apostolic words above. So, the spiritual body with which Adam was created was not created in such a way that it could not die at all, but in such a way that it would not have died if man had not sinned. For only that which is spiritual through quickening by the Spirit will not be able to die. Thus, the soul was created immortal: and although it, having died because of sin, lost some property of life, thanks to which it could live wisely and blissfully, it does not cease to live some of its own, albeit pitiful, life. In a similar way, the fallen angels, although to some extent died through sin, leaving the Source of life, that is, God, thanks to Whom they could live wisely and blissfully, however, did not die so much that they stopped living and feeling, for they were created immortal. And even after the Judgment, when they undergo the second death, they will not lose life and will retain their feelings, enduring eternal torment. People who have received the grace of God, fellow citizens of the holy angels living in a blessed life, will so put on spiritual bodies that they will no longer sin or die. Their immortality, similar to that of angels, will not be able to destroy sin; in the bodily nature, although it will be preserved, there will be absolutely no corruption or inertia left. Now there is a question in turn that needs to be considered and resolved with God's help: if the lust of the disobedient members arose in the first people due to the sin of disobedience, when the grace of God abandoned them; if this is what forced them to open their eyes to their nakedness, that is, to pay attention to it and cover their shameful members, then how would they give birth to children if they remained without sin in the state in which they were created? But since it’s time to finish this book, and the mentioned issue requires detailed consideration, we will postpone it until the next book. De peccator. remiss. et remiss. deque bapt. parvul. l. II, c 30 et 31. Ancient grammarians called declension not only changes in names, but also changes in verbs This is a pun based on the double meaning of the verb declinare: to incline and to deflect or avoid. That is, philosophers who were called so by the name of the cloak, pallium, which they wore. A. Gell. Noct. Attic. IX, 2. You might be interested in: