Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Super I Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura)

After the Apostle has instructed the Corinthians concerning the sacraments themselves and concerning the reality contained and signified in the sacraments, namely grace and its effects, here he consequently instructs them concerning a reality not contained but signified in the sacraments, namely the glory of the resurrection, which is not contained in the sacrament, since one who receives the sacraments does not have it immediately, but the glory of the resurrection is signified in them, inasmuch as grace is conferred in them, through which one arrives at beatitude.

Concerning this he does two things. First he sets forth a treatise on the resurrection; second, through this he proves the common resurrection of all men, at the place if Christ is preached, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he commends the evangelical teaching; second he announces what must be known concerning the resurrection of Christ, at the place for I delivered to you, etc.

He commends the excellence of the evangelical teaching with respect to four things. First, with respect to the authority of those preaching it, because they were the apostles themselves. And this is what he says: O brethren, continuing on from what precedes, I make known to you the Gospel, which is the same as good Announcement, which begins from Christ; hence whatever pertains to Christ, or is about Christ himself, is called Gospel. Which I preach to you, as if to say: that which I preached to you concerning Christ, I make known to you, that is, I bring it back to your memory, as though the things I write were not new. Phil. III, 1: to write the same things to you, etc. I preached, namely to you, and the other apostles, to others. And in this the authority of this teaching appears, because it is from Christ, from Paul, and from the other apostles. Hebr. II, 3: which having received its beginning to be declared.

Second, with respect to the common faith of all peoples, and therefore he says which also you have received, all of you. But Augustine says this pertains to the excellence of this faith, making such an argument: for believing those things that are of faith, either miracles were done, or not. If miracles were done, I have my proposal, that it is most worthy and most certain. If they were not done, this is the greatest of all miracles, that through a few men an infinite multitude of men were converted to the faith; through poor men, preaching poverty, the rich were converted; through unlearned men, preaching things that exceed reason, the wise and philosophers were converted. Ps. XVIII, 5: their sound has gone out into all the earth, etc. But if it be objected that the law of Muhammad also was received by many, it must be said that it is not similar, because he subjugated them by oppression and by force of arms; but these apostles, by dying, themselves led others to the faith, and by working signs and wonders. For he proposed certain things that pertain to delights and lasciviousness, but Christ and the apostles proposed contempt of earthly things. I Thess. II, 13: when you received from us the word of God, etc.

Third, with respect to power, because it confirms and elevates to heavenly things. Therefore he says in which you stand, namely raised up to heavenly things. For he is said to stand who is upright, and only the law of Christ brings this about. Rom. V, 1: justified by faith, etc. For the old law did not make one stand, but bent one down toward earthly things. Deut. XXXIII, 28: the eye of Jacob upon a land of grain and wine.

Fourth, with respect to usefulness, because only the new law leads to the end of salvation; but the old does not. Hebr. VII, 19: the law brought no one to perfection. And therefore he says by which also you are saved. Here already, from the certainty of hope through its inception, which is through faith, you are saved, and in the future, in the truth of the reality and of the hope. Iac. c. I, 21: with meekness receive the implanted word, etc. Io. XX, 31: but these things are written, that you may believe, and that believing, etc.

And here he adds two conditions. The first, when he says if you hold fast, etc. The Gloss explains it thus: if you hold — by the reasoning by which I preached to you — that Gospel, that is the resurrection of the dead, by that reasoning by which I confirmed it to you, that is through the resurrection of Christ. Or otherwise: you are saved, but only if you hold fast, that is, if you keep it by that reasoning by which I preached to you the Gospel of Christ. He sets down the second condition when he says unless you have believed in vain. As if to say: you are saved through faith, if you have not believed in vain, that is, if good works are added to faith, because faith without works is dead, Iac. II, 26. For that is said to be in vain which is directed to an end that it does not attain. But the end of faith is the vision of God. Hence, if you are not saved, you have believed in vain — not simply, but insofar as it did not arrive at its end. Or otherwise: if you hold fast, as if to say, may you hold fast, unless in vain, etc.

For I delivered. Here he sets forth his proposal, etc. Concerning this he does three things. First he shows the origin of the teaching about the resurrection of Christ; second he shows the things that are contained in this teaching, at the place for Christ died; third the harmony or agreement of those preaching with this teaching, at the place for whether I, etc.

He says therefore first: this you ought to hold, that is to have in memory, what I delivered to you first of all, and still deliver. And he says first of all, that is, among the first things to be believed. For things to be believed pertain either to the Trinity, or to the faith of the incarnation. And first man ought to believe those things which pertain to the faith of the incarnation, and afterward those which pertain to the Trinity. Hence, what I delivered to you first of all — namely concerning the incarnation — I did not deliver from myself, or from my own authority, but what I received from Christ or from the Holy Spirit. Gal. I, 1: Paul an apostle, etc.; above XI, 23: I received from the Lord, etc. Is. XXI, 10: what I have heard from the Lord of hosts, etc.

But the things which he received and delivered are four, namely: the death, the burial, the resurrection, the appearance of Christ. He says therefore first: I delivered to you, first, the death of Christ. And therefore he says for Christ died. In which he removes a twofold suspicion which could arise concerning the death of Christ. The first is that he died for his own actual sins, or for original sin. And this he excludes when he says for our sins, not his own. Is. LIII, 8: for the wickedness of my people I struck him. I Petr. III, 18: Christ died once for our sins, etc. The other suspicion is that the death of Christ was accidental, or the violence of the Jews. And this he excludes when he says according to the Scriptures, namely of the old and new testament; and therefore he says pointedly and specially according to the Scriptures. Is. LIII, 7: he was led like a sheep to the slaughter. Ier. XI, 19: I was like a gentle lamb, that is carried to be a victim, etc. Matth. XX, 18: behold, we go up to Jerusalem, etc.

For I delivered to you, second, the burial of Christ, and therefore he says and that he was buried. But is the burial specially an article of faith, since he makes special mention of it here? It must be said that according to those who number the articles according to the things to be believed, it is not a special article of faith, but is included with the article of the passion and death of Christ. The reason for this is that faith concerns those things which are above reason. Hence the article of faith begins there where reason fails. Now this is the first: that the Lord was conceived, and therefore the conception is an article of faith; second, that God was born of a virgin, and so this is another; third, that the impassible God should suffer and die, and this is another, and with this the burial also is understood. Hence it is not a special article. But the Apostle makes mention here of the burial for three reasons. First, so as to show the truth of the death of Christ; for an evident sign of someone's death is that he is buried. Second, to show the truth of the resurrection, because if he had not been buried, and guards had not been beside the sepulcher in those days, they could say that the disciples had stolen him. Third, because the Apostle wants to lead them to faith in the resurrection, and this seems the more difficult, that one who is buried should rise again. And of this it is said, Is. c. XI, 10: and his sepulcher shall be glorious. Is. LIII, 9: he shall give the wicked, etc.

I delivered to you also the resurrection, for he rose on the third day. Os. VI, 3: he will revive us after, etc. And he also says on the third day, not because there were three whole days, but two nights and one day, by synecdoche. And the cause of this was, as Augustine says, that God through his single day — that is, through the evil of punishment, which is signified by one day — destroyed our double, that is, punishment and guilt, which is signified by two nights.

I delivered to you also, fourth, the appearances of Christ, for he was seen by Cephas. And he sets down first the appearances made to others, second the appearances made to himself alone, at the place last of all. But it must be known, concerning the first, that the appearances of Christ were not made to all in common, but to certain special persons. Act. X, 40: he gave him to be made manifest, etc. And the reason for this was, that order might be preserved in the Church, so that through certain special persons faith in the resurrection might come to others. It must be noted, moreover, that not all the appearances of Christ are set down here, nor those which were made to the women. But certain ones are set down here which are not read in the Gospels. And the reason for these was that the Apostle wants to refute unbelievers by reasoning, and therefore he was unwilling to set down testimonies except authentic ones; and therefore he kept silent about the appearances made to the women, and set down certain ones which are not found, so as to show that he appeared also to many others. But he makes special mention of Peter and James, because they were as it were pillars, as is said Gal. c. II, 9.

He says therefore: I delivered to you, that he was seen by Cephas, that is by Peter, Lc. ult.: the Lord has risen indeed, etc. And it is believed that among men he first appeared to Peter, because he was in the greatest sorrow. Hence also the Angel said, Mc. ult.: go, tell his disciples and Peter, etc. Afterward, that is on another occasion, he was seen by the eleven apostles. Once indeed he was seen by ten only, when Thomas was absent, and after eight days by eleven, when Thomas was with them. Augustine says that it ought to say twelve, but it has been corrupted by the fault of scribes, and he says that it does not matter that he had already died and Matthias had not yet been chosen, because it is customary that when the greater part of a college does something, it is said that the whole college does this. Hence, because the Lord had chosen twelve, therefore it can be said that he was seen by the twelve, that is, by the whole college of the apostles; but it is no fault, whether it be said twelve, or eleven.

Then, again, he was seen by more than five hundred brethren. But of this we read nothing in sacred Scripture, except what is said here. It can, however, be said that this appearance was the one about which Dionysius speaks in the third book On the Divine Names, when all the disciples came together to see the body which bore the prince of life. But against this it seems to be, because this was before the ascension, namely when Christ appeared to James. But the gathering of the disciples to see the blessed Virgin, of which Dionysius seems to speak, was much later. And therefore it seems better to say that he appeared to five hundred brethren together before his ascension; and it does not matter that it is said the disciples were a hundred and twenty, because although those who were in Jerusalem were a hundred and twenty, nevertheless in Galilee there were many disciples, and perhaps all were gathered together when he appeared. And, that the testimony of this might be more certain, he says that of them many still remain, that is, are alive, but some of them have fallen asleep, that is, have died in the hope of the resurrection. And he calls the death of the saints a sleep because they die in corruptible flesh, so that they may rise incorruptible. Rom. VI, 9: Christ rising, etc.

Then, that is afterward, he was seen by James, namely the son of Alphaeus. And the reason for this can be assigned, because, as is read, James vowed that he would not take food unless he first saw Christ. But according to this the order of the appearance would not be preserved, because if he had appeared to James after all the appearances that have been enumerated, he would have been without food too long: and this is difficult. And therefore it must be said that Christ appeared to James singularly for this reason, that James had a special devotion toward Christ. And of this appearance too nothing is found in the Gospel. Then, that is after this, he was seen by all the apostles at the ascension, as is read Matth. ult. and Act. I, 3 ff.

But last of all, etc. Here the Apostle recalls the appearance made to himself alone. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows the order of the appearance; second he assigns the reason for it, at the place for I am, etc. He says therefore thus: I have said that Christ was manifested to all; last of all, that is finally and after the ascension, he was seen also by me as by one born out of due time, and therefore last of all. But he says as by one born out of due time, for three reasons. A fetus is called untimely-born either because it is born outside the due time, or because it is brought forth with violence, or because it is not brought to its due size; and because the Apostle saw these three things in himself, therefore he says as by one born out of due time. For first, he himself was reborn to Christ outside the time of the other apostles. For the other apostles were reborn to Christ before the coming of the Holy Spirit, but Paul afterward. Second, because the other apostles were converted to Christ willingly, but Paul was compelled. Act. IX, 4: he threw him down to the ground, etc. And this avails much against heretics, who say that no one should be compelled to faith, because Paul was compelled. And as Augustine says, Paul profited more in the faith when he was converted by compulsion than many who came willingly. Third, because he reckons himself lesser than the others, and not to have attained to the virtue of the other apostles.

And therefore, as if assigning the reason, he says for I am the least, etc. Concerning this he does two things. First he shows his own smallness; second he explains the reason for this, at the place for I persecuted, etc. But he manifests his smallness, first, in comparison to the apostles, when he says for I am the least. Is. LX, v. 22: the least shall become a thousand, and the smallest a most strong nation. Eccli. III, 20: the greater you are, etc. And although he is least in comparison to the apostles, it could nevertheless be said that he is great in comparison to others, because he is an apostle; and therefore, second, he shows his smallness in comparison to others, when he says who am not worthy, not only to be, but to be called an apostle, though I am called so, II Cor. III, 5: not that we are sufficient, etc.

But you might say: O Apostle, on account of humility no one should say what is false; since therefore you are great, why do you call yourself the least? And therefore, when he says for I persecuted, etc., he shows how he is the least, and how he is not the least. He calls himself least, considering his past deeds. And he says I am not worthy, etc. Why? Because I persecuted the Church of God, which the other apostles did not do. Gal. I, 13: beyond measure I persecuted, etc. I Tim. I, 13: who was before a blasphemer and a persecutor, etc. And although of myself I am the least, nevertheless from God I am not the least; and therefore he says by the grace of God I am what I am.

And concerning this he does two things. First he commends his own condition with respect to his state; second with respect to the carrying out of his state, at the place and his grace, etc. He says therefore first: of myself I am nothing, but what I am, I am by the grace of God, that is from God, not from myself. Eph. III, 7: of which I was made a minister, etc. And he says what I am, because man without grace is nothing. Above c. XIII, 2: if I should have all prophecy, etc.

But how he used and carried out his own state he shows, saying and his grace, etc. Where first he shows how he used this grace, namely toward good, and therefore he says it was not void in me, that is, idle, because he used it for that for which it was given to him. Gal. c. II, 2: I did not run in vain, etc. Second he shows how he surpassed the others, and therefore he adds but I have labored more abundantly than all of them, that is, than the apostles individually — in preaching, because no one preached and announced Christ through so many places, whence he says Rom. XV, 19: so that from Jerusalem even unto Illyricum, etc., and even unto Spain; in laboring, because although he himself, like the other apostles, could demand the expenses necessary for himself, nevertheless he specially wished to seek his own expenses by the labor of his hands, as he himself says II Thess. III, 8: night and day with our hands, etc.; in enduring tribulations — for none of the apostles endured so many persecutions and tribulations, as he himself enumerates II Cor. XI, 23: in labors most abundant, and in prisons, etc. Third he shows the effectiveness of this use, because this was not from himself alone but from the instinct and help of the Holy Spirit. And therefore he says yet not I — I alone do not work, but the grace of God with me, which moves the will to this. Is. XXVI, 12: all our works, etc. Phil. II, 13: who works in us to will, etc. For God not only infuses grace, by which our works become pleasing and meritorious, but also moves us to use well the grace infused, and this is called cooperating grace.

Whether I therefore, etc. Here he shows the concord of those preaching; and this can be read in two ways. First, so that it is a confirmation of what has been said, as if someone should say: you preach thus, but nevertheless we do not believe you alone, because you are the least among the apostles. Therefore the Apostle, answering, says: rather you ought to believe me, because I do not preach other things; whether I, or the other apostles, thus we preach, namely that Christ rose and was seen, etc. And you also have believed as I and they have preached, namely that Christ rose, and was seen, etc. II Cor. c. IV, 13: having the same spirit, etc.

Second, it can be read so that the effectiveness of the preaching is for all the apostles from one, that is from the grace of God, as if to say: whether I preach, or they, that is the apostles — as we preach, we have done this, helped and strengthened through the grace of God; and you yourselves also have believed, namely inspired by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God, without which we can do nothing. Io. XV, 5: without me you can do nothing.

Primarily, the Apostle established faith through Christ's resurrection; but here he proves through Christ's resurrection that the resurrection of the dead is to come. And first he proves that the resurrection is to come; second he shows the quality of those who rise, where he says *but someone will say*, etc.; third he describes the order of the resurrection, where he says *behold, I tell you a mystery*, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he proves that the resurrection of the dead is to come, by an argument taken from the resurrection of Christ; second by an argument taken from the life of the saints, where he says *otherwise what shall they do*, etc. Now he proves the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ by this argument: if Christ rose, then the dead also will rise. Concerning this argument, then, he does three things. First he sets down the conditional, namely, if Christ rose, the dead also will rise; second he proves the antecedent of this conditional, where he says *but if there is no resurrection of the dead*, etc.; third he proves that the conditional is true, where he says *but now Christ has risen*, etc.

He says therefore first: I said that whether I preached, or they, namely, the other apostles, thus you believed. But if it is preached by us that Christ rose from the dead, how do certain ones among you, that is, among yourselves, say, etc.; as if he were saying: if Christ rose from the dead, according as we preach, 1 Thess. 4: if we believe that Christ, etc., no one ought to doubt that the resurrection of the dead is to come. Hence Rom. 8, 11: he who raised up Jesus, etc.

But it seems that this argument is not valid, since it is a topic arguing from the greater. For although Christ rose specially by the power of his own divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise. But to this some say that it is not a topic from the greater, but from the like. For to die and to rise belongs to Christ according to human nature, and they say that it is a similar argument, as if I were to say: the soul of Socrates is immortal, therefore all, namely, the souls of men, are immortal. But it seems better to say that it is a topic from cause, because the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection. And therefore, according to the Gloss, it must be said: if Christ, who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, rose, how do they say, etc.

Yet it must not be said that he is efficient cause only in the manner of merit, because by rising he did not merit it, since already he was a comprehensor and lived the glorious life — unless perhaps the merit of the resurrection of the dead is referred back to the passion of Christ. Nor is he only the exemplar cause, as some say, but he is both efficient and exemplar cause. Hence Augustine says on John, that the Word made flesh gives life to souls, and raises up the dead. Thus, then, it is clear that if Christ rose, the dead also will rise.

But against this: to rise from the dead is above nature, and this belongs to nothing but infinite power, which is God; therefore the resurrection of Christ's body is not the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, since Christ's humanity, or body, is a creature — although of Christ, or of the man, it cannot be said that he is a creature. Response. It must be said that inasmuch as he is God, or inasmuch as divinity is in Christ, Christ is both the exemplar and the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead through his humanity, as through an instrument of his divinity. To that which is objected, it must be said that the flesh of Christ, or his humanity, is not said to produce the effect of infinite power inasmuch as it is flesh or humanity, but inasmuch as it is the flesh of Christ or the humanity of Christ.

But it is still asked: for, a sufficient cause being posited, the effect is at once posited; if therefore the resurrection of Christ is a sufficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, the dead ought at once to rise, and not merely be delayed so long. Response. It must be said that the effect follows from instrumental causes according to the condition of the principal cause. And therefore, since God is the principal cause of our resurrection, while the resurrection of Christ is instrumental, our resurrection follows the resurrection of Christ according to the divine disposition, which ordained that it should come to pass at such a time.

But would men have risen if God had not been incarnate? It seems that the answer must be no, because Christ would not have suffered, nor would he have risen. But it must be said to this that this objection is nothing, because when something is ordained by some cause, one must argue to that conclusion while preserving the order of that cause. And therefore it must be said that God ordained that the resurrection of the dead should come about in this manner; yet another manner also could have been found by God, had he willed.

Then, when he says *but if there is no resurrection of the dead*, etc., he proves the antecedent, namely, that Christ rose, and this by leading to absurdities. And concerning this he does two things. First he leads to absurdities; second he shows those things to be absurdities, where he says *we are found also to be false witnesses*, etc.

Concerning the first he makes his deduction by supposing that if Christ did not rise, neither will the dead rise; and if this is so, two absurdities follow: one is that the preaching of the Apostle is empty and useless; the other is that the faith of the Corinthians is empty. Hence he says *but if Christ did not rise, empty is*, etc. And this is what he says: from this, that whether I, or they, if they thus preach, etc. He says therefore: but if Christ did not rise, empty, that is, false, is our preaching, because thus you believed; and this is a great absurdity, that truth should not have upheld their preaching, since the Apostle says, Phil. 2, 16: I have not run in vain nor labored.

*We are found*, etc. Here he shows those two things to be absurdities. And first he shows that it would be an absurdity if the preaching of the apostles were empty or false; second he shows that it would be an absurdity if their faith were empty, where he says *but if Christ did not rise*, etc. Now the first is shown to be an absurdity, because they would be false witnesses, not merely by saying some vain things, or some things false against some man, which is a mortal sin, but false witnesses against God, which is sacrilege. Because if God did not raise up Christ from the dead, according as we preach, we are found to be false witnesses; and if the dead do not rise, God did not raise up Christ from the dead. Job 13, 7: does God need your lie? etc. And this is the worst thing, namely, that something should be attributed to God which he does not do, and that he should be praised in that which is not. Hence Augustine says: perhaps not by a lesser but by a greater crime is falsehood praised in God, than truth is reviled. The reason for this is that our intellect can never praise God so much that it does not fall short of his perfection; and therefore if the intellect cannot wholly grasp every truth about God, this redounds to the excellence of God; but if something is attributed to God which he does not have, or does not do, it seems that our intellect is greater than God, and understands something greater than that which it falsely attributes to him. And this is against that saying of 1 John 3, 20: God is greater than our heart.

*But if Christ*. Here he shows that it would be an absurdity if their faith were empty. And this he shows through three absurdities which follow from it. The first is, because it is agreed that falsity does not have the power of purging, but it is agreed that faith purges sins. Acts 15, 9: purifying by faith, etc. If therefore our faith is empty, which it would be if Christ did not rise, since thus you believed, namely, that he rose, your sins are not forgiven you. And this is what he says: *you are yet in your sins*. But because someone could say: although faith does not purge sins, yet they can be purged from them by good works; therefore he adds the second absurdity, namely, that the dead, who cannot be purged in the other life, have perished without hope of salvation. And therefore, as if concluding, he says: *therefore those who in Christ*, that is, in the faith of Christ, *have fallen asleep*, that is, have died in the hope of salvation, *have perished*, because in the other life there are no meritorious works.

But because someone could still say: I do not care about sins, I do not care about the dead, provided I have quiet and tranquility in this present life, therefore he adds the third absurdity when he says *if in this life only*, etc. And he relies on this argument: if there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that nothing good is possessed by men, except only in this life; and if this is so, then those are more miserable who suffer many evils and tribulations in this life. Since therefore the apostles and Christians suffer more tribulations, it follows that they are more miserable than other men, who at least enjoy the goods of this world.

But concerning this argument two things seem doubtful. One, because it does not seem to be universally true, what the Apostle says, namely, that Christians are hopeful in this life only, because they could say that although bodies have no goods except in this present life, which is mortal, yet according to the soul they have many goods in the other life. To this it is countered in two ways. In one way, because if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy — indeed it is difficult — to sustain the immortality of the soul. For it is agreed that the soul is naturally united to the body, but is separated from it against its own nature, and by accident. Hence the soul, stripped from the body, so long as it is without the body, is imperfect. But it is impossible that that which is natural and per se should be finite and, as it were, nothing, while that which is against nature and by accident should be infinite, if the soul should always endure without the body. And therefore the Platonists, positing immortality, posited reincorporation, although this is heretical; and therefore if the dead do not rise, we shall be hopeful in this life only. In another way, because it is agreed that man naturally desires the salvation of himself, but the soul, since it is a part of the body of man, is not the whole man, and my soul is not I; hence although the soul obtains salvation in the other life, yet not I, or any man. And besides, since man naturally desires salvation, even of the body, the natural desire would be frustrated.

The second doubt is because it seems that, granted that bodies do not rise, we Christians would not be more miserable than other men, because those who are in sins sustain the greatest labors. Jer. 9, 5: that they might do iniquity, they have labored; and Wis. 5, 7: the impious say: we have walked difficult ways. But of the good and the just it is said, Gal. 5, 22: but the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, etc. To this it must be said that the evils which are in this world are not to be sought for their own sake, but insofar as they are ordered to some good. Now the apostles and Christians suffered many evils in this world. Unless therefore they were ordered to some good, they would be more miserable than other men. Either, then, they are ordered to a future good, or to a present good; but they are not ordered to a future good, if there is no resurrection of the dead. But if they are ordered to a present good, this is either a good of the intellect, as the natural philosophers suffered poverty and many other evils, that they might arrive at true truth. But they cannot be ordered to this, if there is no resurrection of the dead: because thus their faith would be false, since they themselves preached the future resurrection; but falsity is not a good of the intellect. Or it is a good of morals, as the moral philosophers suffered many evils, that they might arrive at virtues and fame. But neither can they be ordered to this, because if there is no resurrection of the dead, it is not reckoned virtue and glory to be willing to let go all delights, and to sustain the pains of death and contempt, but rather it is reckoned folly. And thus it is clear that they would be more miserable than other men.

Here he proves that the conditional posited above is true, namely, if Christ rose, the dead rise. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows how the resurrection of Christ is related to the resurrection of others; second he shows the order of the resurrection, at "but each in his own order," etc.; third he shows the end of the resurrection, at "then the end," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the relation of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of others, through the aforesaid conditional, proving this; second he proves the relation itself, at "for since," etc.

He says therefore "now," that is, since the aforesaid absurdities follow if Christ did not rise, therefore to avoid them let us say that Christ has risen. But this is true, according to what is said in the last chapter of Matthew, and in other places of the Gospels. But the relation of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of others is as the firstfruits of fruits to the fruits that follow, which exceed the other fruits in time and in excellence, or dignity; and therefore he says that he rose, not as the others, but as the firstfruits, that is, first in time and in dignity. Apoc. I, 5: the firstborn of the dead. "Firstfruits," I say, "of them that sleep," that is, of the dead who rest in the hope of the resurrection.

From this the conditional posited can be inferred, because, as we say and it is true, if Christ, who is the firstfruits of them that sleep, rose, then also the others who sleep. But the contrary seems to be the case, namely that Christ did not rise as the firstfruits of them that sleep, because Lazarus was raised up by Christ before he had suffered, and certain prophets raised others from the dead, as is found in the Old Testament.

To this it must be said that resurrection is twofold. One is to mortal life, and to this Lazarus and others, who were raised up, rose before Christ. The other is to immortal life, and of this the apostle speaks here. But against this, Matth. XXVII, 52 it is said, that many bodies of the saints rose. Since therefore this is read as before Christ's resurrection, and it is established that they did not rise to immortal life, it seems that the first question still remains.

Response. It must be said that this which Matthew says about the resurrection of those, he says by anticipation, because although it is said in the account of the Passion, they did not rise then, but after Christ rose.

"For since," etc. Here he proves the relation posited, namely that Christ is the firstfruits of them that sleep. And first he proves it in general, second in particular, at "and as in Adam," etc.

He proves it in general by this argument: God willed to restore human nature, but human nature was corrupted through a man, because death entered through a man. It pertained therefore to the dignity of human nature that it be restored through a man, and this is that it be brought back to life. It was fitting therefore that, as death entered through a man, namely through Adam, so the resurrection of the dead should come about through a man, namely through Christ. Rom. c. V, 17: for if by the offense of one, etc.

"And as in Adam." Here he proves the same thing in particular, saying that as in Adam we all die a bodily death, so also we are all made alive in Christ. Rom. V, 12: by one man, etc. And he does not say "through Eve," which seems to be against that saying of Eccli. XXV, 33: through her we all die. It must be said that this is through her, Eve, namely as suggesting, but through Adam as causing. For if only Eve had sinned, original sin would not have been passed on to posterity.

"They shall be made alive," I say, "in Christ," namely both good and evil with the life of nature, but with the life of grace only the good; but nevertheless the apostle speaks here of the resurrection to the life of nature, to which all shall be made alive. Io. V, 26: as the father has life in himself, so also he has given the son to have life, that is, the power of giving life. Io. V, 28: all that are in the graves, etc.

"But each in his own order," etc. Here he shows the order of the resurrection. And first he suggests the order itself; second he explains what he had said, at "Christ the firstfruits," etc.

He says therefore that it is true that all shall be made alive in Christ, but nevertheless differently, because there will be a difference between the head and the members, and a difference as regards the good and the wicked. And therefore he says that each shall rise in his own order, namely of dignity. Rom. XIII, 1: but the things that are, are ordained of God.

But he consequently explains this order, because "Christ the firstfruits," because he is prior in time and in dignity, because he has more of glory. Io. I, 14: we saw him as it were the only-begotten, etc. Then shall rise all who are Christ's, later in time and in dignity. These are they who have crucified their flesh with its vices, et cetera. Gal. IV, 4: but when the fullness came. I Tim. VI, v. 14: that thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord.

But who are Christ's he explains, saying those who have believed through faith, working through love. Hebr. XI, 6: he that cometh to God must believe, etc. "At his coming," the first and the second. But it must be known that among the other saints there will be no order of time, because all shall rise in the twinkling of an eye, but indeed according to dignities, because a martyr shall rise as a martyr, an apostle as an apostle, and so of the others.

"Then the end." Here he shows the end of the resurrection, and this a twofold one. One as regards the attainment of good, the other as regards the removal of evil, at "for he must reign," etc.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the attainment of the good itself consists in adherence to God; second he shows that it consists in immediate adherence, at "when he shall have brought to nought," etc.

He says therefore, that "then," that is, after this, will be the end of the resurrection. And the end of this sort will not be that they live by the life of the body and by pleasures, as the Jews and Saracens imagine; but that they cling to God through immediate vision and blessed enjoyment: and this is "to deliver up the kingdom to God and the Father." And therefore he says "when he shall have delivered up," that is, shall have brought, "the kingdom," that is, his faithful ones whom he acquired by his own blood, Apoc. V, 9: thou hast redeemed us to God in thy blood, "to God and the Father," that is, before the sight of God, that is, of his creator, insofar as he is man, and of the Father, insofar as he is God. And this is what Philip was asking, Io. XIV, 8: lord, show us the father, etc. But he will hand it over in such a way that he does not take it away from himself, rather he himself, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, will reign. Or "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," that is, when he shall show God the Father to reign. For in Scripture things are said to come about then, when they first become known, and this kind of becoming known comes about through Christ. Matth. XI, 27: no one knows the father, but the son, and he to whom, etc.

"When he shall have brought to nought." Here he shows the immediacy of the said adherence. For as it is said Gal. IV, 1 s., as long as the heir is a child, he is under tutors, etc. But when he is already grown and mature, then immediately, without a tutor and a guardian, he is under his father in the household. But the state of this present life is likened to childhood, and therefore in this life we are under angels, as under tutors, insofar as they are set over us and direct us; but when the kingdom shall be delivered to God and the Father, then we shall immediately be under God, and all other dominions will cease. And this is what he says, "and when he shall have brought to nought all principality and power and virtue," that is, when every dominion, both human and angelic, shall have ceased, then we shall be immediately under God. Is. II, 12: the lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Ier. c. XXXI, 34: a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, etc.

But will not the orders of the angels remain distinct? It must be said that yes, as regards the eminence of glory, by which one is preeminent over another, but not as regards the efficacy of execution toward us. And therefore he says that those are brought to nought whose names pertain to execution, namely principalities, powers, and virtues. But those who are of the higher hierarchy he does not name, because they are not executors; nor angels, because it is a common name. But he did not say that dominations are brought to nought, because although they are among the executors, yet they themselves do not execute, but direct and command. For it belongs to lords to direct and command, not to execute; but archangels are understood together with principalities; for "archos" is the same as "prince." These three orders, according to Gregory, are read in descending order, because according to him principalities are above powers, and powers above virtues; but according to Dionysius, in ascending order, because he holds that virtues are above powers, and powers above principalities. Or otherwise, "when he shall have brought to nought," etc., that is, then it will be known that principalities, and powers, and dominations had no power of themselves, but from God, from whom are all things.

Then when he says "for he must," etc., the apostle shows the end of the resurrection as regards the removal of evil. And this indeed he shows through the destruction of all the enemies with respect to Christ. And first he sets down their destruction; second the perfection of the subjection, at "but last," etc.; third the end of the subjection, at "but when all things shall be subdued."

He says therefore first: I have said that the end will be, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father; but does Christ have a kingdom such that he must reign? For thus it is said in the last chapter of Matthew: it is given to me, etc. Lc. I, 32: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob. "He must," I say, "reign until he put his enemies under his feet." But are not his enemies now under his feet, that is, under the power of Christ?

It must be said that now the enemies of Christ are under his power, but in two ways. Either insofar as through him they are converted, as Paul, whom he cast down, Act. IX, 3 s.; or insofar as Christ works his own will, even concerning those who here act against the will of Christ. Thus he puts his enemies under his feet, by punishing them; but in the future he will put them under his feet, that is, under the humanity of Christ. For as by "head" the deity of Christ is understood, because "the head of Christ is God," I Cor. XI, 3, so by "foot," the humanity. Ps. CXXXI, 7: we will adore in the place where his feet stood, etc. Thus therefore enemies will be not only under the deity, but also under the humanity of Christ. Phil. II, 10: in the name of Jesus every knee, etc.

But what is it that he says "until he put"? etc. Will he not reign, before he has put his enemies under his feet? It must be said that this can be understood in two ways, for the word "until" sometimes determines time, and is put for the finite, as if I should say: I shall not see God until I die, because up to then I shall not see him, but afterward I shall see him. Sometimes it is put for the indefinite, as when it is said: he knew her not until she brought forth her son. Not that he means to say that he did not know her only up to the bringing forth of the son, but that he never knew her even afterward, as Jerome says. This manner is observed when some intend to exclude only those things about which there is doubt. Hence the Gospel excluded only that which seems to be doubtful, namely that Joseph had known the blessed virgin before the birth. But that after the birth he did not know her is doubtful to no one, since he had seen so many mysteries of the child and had been so often warned by angels, and Jesus had even been adored by the magi; hence he could already know her to be the mother of God, and therefore he did not trouble to exclude this: so also the apostle speaks here.

For that someone should reign while his enemies are not yet subjugated, seems to be doubtful; but that he should reign after the enemies have been subjugated is doubtful to no one. And therefore he principally excludes that, saying "until he put," etc., as if he were to say: it is true that Christ has a kingdom, and although there are some enemies, while they do not do his will, nevertheless he reigns until he put, etc.

It can also be understood in another way, "until he put," etc., so that the word "until" determines time, and is put for the future, so that it be said thus: he must reign, but when? "Until he put," etc. As if he were to say: he will reign until then, until he puts his enemies under his feet, but afterward he will not reign. But according to this exposition, "to reign" does not signify having a kingdom, but progressing in reigning and the kingdom being increased, and this as regards the perfect manifestation of the kingdom of Christ. As if he were to say: the kingdom of Christ progresses little by little, namely insofar as it is manifested and becomes known, until he puts his enemies under his feet, that is, until all enemies confess him to reign: the good indeed with the joy of beatitude, but the wicked with confusion; and afterward he does not reign, that is, his kingdom does not progress, and is no longer manifested, because it will already be fully manifest.

Thus therefore the subjection of all who oppose is evident, and this subjection indeed will be most perfect, because even that which is most hostile will be subjected to him. But this is death, which is most contrary to life; and therefore he says "but last," etc.; where he does three things. First he sets down the subjection of death; second he proves this by an authority, at "for he has subjected all things," etc.; third from that same authority he argues, at "but when he says," etc.

He says therefore: I have said that he has subjected all enemies under his feet. But how? Most perfectly, I say, because "last, the enemy death shall be destroyed," namely at the end, because it will not be able to be together with life, where all shall live through the resurrection. Os. XIII, 14: I will be thy death, o death. Is. XXV, 8: he shall cast down death forever.

But it must be known that Origen took from this word an occasion for his error, which he sets down in the Periarchon. For he held that the punishments of the damned would be purgative and not eternal, and he held that all who are in hell would at some time be converted to Christ and be saved, and even the Devil. And this he confirms through those words, "until I put my enemies," etc. And he understands that this which is said, "enemies under his feet," is understood only of the subjection which comes about through the conversion of sinners to God, not of the subjection by which even those who never are converted to Christ are subjected to Christ, insofar as he punishes them in hell. And therefore he says "he must reign, until he put his enemies under his feet," because then all the damned and those who are in hell will be saved, namely insofar as they will be converted to him, and will serve him, and not only the damned men themselves; "autem" [used] in place of "sed," "last, death itself," that is the Devil, "shall be destroyed," not that it will not exist at all, but that it will not be death, because even the Devil himself will in the end be saved. But this is heretical and condemned in a Council.

Again it must be known that the apostle pointedly set down this which is said, "but last," etc., to remove two questions, which can arise concerning the aforesaid things about the resurrection, namely whether Christ could make the dead alive. And this is resolved, because he has put all enemies under his feet, and even death itself. And why did he not immediately raise all up? To this it is answered, that it is necessary that first he subject his enemies under his feet, and last, when death itself shall be destroyed, then all shall rise to life. He does not therefore delay because he is unable, but in order to preserve order, because the things that are from God are ordained.

But that death itself is subjected to Christ, he proves by the authority of Ps. VIII, 8: thou hast subjected all things under his feet, that is, under his humanity, namely Christ's. Phil. II, v. 11: every tongue, etc. Is. XLV, 24: to me every knee shall bow, etc.

But from this authority he argues, saying "but when he says," etc. And his reasoning is this: the prophet says "thou hast subjected all things," etc., but by saying "all things," it is clear that he excluded nothing, except him who subjected; therefore all things are subjected to Christ, and death itself. He says therefore: "but when he says" — the Psalmist, namely — "all things are subjected to him," namely to Christ, insofar as he is man, "except him," namely the father, "who subjected all things to him." Hebr. II, v. 8: in that he subjected all things to him, etc. Matth. ult.: all power is given to me, etc.

But against this. If the father subjected all things to the son, then the son is less than the father.

Response. It must be said that the father subjected all things to the son insofar as he is man, as has been said, and thus the father is greater than the son. For he is less than the father according to his humanity, but equal according to his divinity. Or it must be said, that also the son himself, insofar as he is God, subjected all things to himself, because thus he can do all things that the father can, Phil. III, 20: we look for the savior, etc., according to the operation by which he is able to subject all things.

Consequently, when he says "but when all things shall be subdued to him," etc., he shows that the end of this resurrection is not in the humanity of Christ, but the rational creature will be led further to the contemplation of the divinity, and in this is our beatitude, and our end is God himself. And therefore he says "but when all things shall be subdued," etc., as if he were to say: God has not yet subjected all things to Christ, but when all things shall have been subjected to him, namely to Christ, then the son himself according to his humanity will be subjected to him, namely to the father, Io. XIV, 28: the father is greater than I; and Christ is now also subjected, according as he is man, to the father, but this will then be more manifest.

And the reason for this subjection is that God may be all in all, that is, that the soul of man may rest totally in God, and that God alone may be the beatitude. For now life is in one thing, and virtue in another, and glory in another, but then God will be life and salvation and virtue, and glory and all things. Or otherwise thus, "that God may be all in all," because then it will be manifested that whatever good we have is from God.

Having shown the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ, here he consequently shows the resurrection of the dead from the life of the saints. And concerning this he does two things. First he proves his proposition; second he adds an admonition, where he says "be not seduced," etc. Now he proves his proposition by leading to three untoward consequences. The first untoward consequence is that the devotion of men toward Baptism would be rendered vain; the second is that the labor of the saints would be rendered vain, and this he sets down where he says "why also are we in jeopardy," etc.; the third is that occasion would be given for enjoying pleasures. And this he sets down where he says "let us eat and drink," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the first untoward consequence; second he explains it, where he says "if the dead rise not at all," etc. He says therefore first: I have said that the dead rise again; otherwise, namely if there is not to be a future resurrection of the dead, as we preach, what shall they do who, etc.

This can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that by what he says, "the dead," the works of sin are understood, which are dead, because they lack the life of grace, and lead to death. Heb. 9:14: "the blood of Christ shall cleanse," etc. And according to this the text is plain. What, namely, shall those do who are baptized for the dead, that is, for sins to be washed away, if they are not to have the life of grace? In another way, because certain people at that time wished that men could first be baptized, so that they might obtain for themselves the remission of sins; and again they were baptized for some deceased kinsman of theirs, so that even after death sins might be forgiven him. And according to this let the text be: what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, namely for kinsmen, for whose salvation they are baptized, if there is no resurrection of the dead? But these can be commended in one respect, namely in that they seemed to have faith in the resurrection. But they can be reproved in one respect, namely in this, that they believed that one could be baptized for another.

But then there is a question: if the prayer of one profits another, why not also Baptism? To this there is a twofold response. One is, that the works which the living do profit the dead on account of the union of charity and faith. And therefore they do not profit any except those who depart with charity and faith. Whence neither prayer nor the Baptism of the living profits unbelievers; yet prayer profits those who are in Purgatory. The other response, and the better one, is that good works avail for the dead, not only from the power of charity, but also from the intention of the one who performs them. Just as if I should say the Psalter for someone who is in Purgatory, who was bound to say it, so that I might make satisfaction for him, it avails indeed as to satisfaction only for him for whom I say it. It must be said, then, according to this, that Baptism does not have its power from our intention, but from the intention of Christ. Now the intention of Christ is that Baptism should profit those who are baptized in the faith of Christ.

Consequently he explains this untoward consequence, saying "if the dead rise not at all," etc. And this explanation seems to agree more with the second exposition set down above, as if he should say: why then are they baptized for them, that is, for the dead, if they do not rise again? But if it is explained according to the first exposition, then it can be said thus: if the dead rise not at all, why then are they also baptized for them, that is, for sins, since these are not forgiven?

"Why are we also in jeopardy," etc. Here he sets down the second untoward consequence, and concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the untoward consequence in common; second in particular, where he says "daily," etc. He says therefore: not only are some baptized in vain for the remission of sins, but we also are afflicted in vain, if there is no resurrection of the dead. And this is what he says: "why also are we," the holy apostles, "in jeopardy," that is, do we suffer perils, "every hour"? 2 Cor. 11:26: "in perils of rivers, in perils," etc. For it is certain that the saints expose themselves to tribulations, and afflict themselves for the sake of the hope of eternal life, according to Rom. 5:11: "and not only so, but we also glory," etc. "And hope confoundeth not," etc. If therefore there is no resurrection of the dead, hope perishes altogether. In vain, therefore, would they afflict themselves, if the dead do not rise again. Nor is it an obstacle if it be said that the separated soul is rewarded, because, as was proved above, it could not be proved that the soul is immortal.

Consequently, when he says "daily," etc., he enumerates the perils in particular, and first as to his own person; second as to place, where he says "if, after the manner of man, to beasts," etc. He shows therefore in particular the perils as to his own person; whence he says "I die daily," etc., as if he should say: we suffer not just any perils, but also those of death, because "I die daily," that is, I am in perils of death. Ps. 43:22: "for thy sake we are put to death all the day long." And the Apostle shows that this was said in the person of the apostles, Rom. 8; 2 Cor. 4:10: "always the mortification," etc. "By your glory," that is, that I may acquire the glory which I expect from your conversion to the faith. 2 Thess. 2:20: "you are my glory and joy." "Which I have," that is, I hope that I shall have it, "in Christ Jesus our Lord," that is, through the charity of Christ. Another text has "by your glory," etc., and then this phrase "by your glory" is the expression of one swearing an oath; as if he should say: "by your glory," which namely you expect, which is God. As if he should say: I swear by God, whom I have in hope in Christ Jesus, that is, through the passion, etc. From which it appears that the Apostle also swore an oath, and that in perfect men to swear an oath is not a sin.

"If, after the manner of man," etc. Here he specifies the perils as to place. Where it must be known that this is read in Acts 19, where it is said that, when Paul at Ephesus had converted many to the faith, certain persons stirred up the people against him, to such an extent that he did not dare go out into the theater, and that he suffered many perils there. Therefore perhaps he makes mention of this here, because he had suffered this recently. He says therefore: "if after the manner of man," that is, according to the reason by which man is man — disputing this concerning the resurrection, concluding that man does not die as a beast does — "I have fought with beasts," that is, with men living in a beastly manner at Ephesus. Or: if I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, and I say this not from divine revelation, but "after the manner of man," that is, from human instinct, if I have suffered so many perils, etc.

Then when he says "let us eat and drink," etc., he sets down the third untoward consequence, which is: if there were no resurrection of the dead, occasion would be given for enjoying pleasures. As if he should say: if there is no other life, we are fools if we afflict ourselves; but "let us eat and drink," that is, let us make use of delights and enjoy pleasures. Wis. 2:1: "there is none that hath been known," etc.: "come, let us enjoy," etc. "For to-morrow," that is, shortly, "we shall die"; for we shall utterly perish in soul and body, if the dead do not rise again.

Then when he says "be not seduced," from the foregoing he concludes with an admonition, and first as to the weak; second as to the perfect and the just, where he says "awake, ye just," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he makes them attentive, saying "be not seduced," as if he should say: it has been said that if there be no resurrection of the dead, it would be foolish not to make use of wantonness and pleasures. Lest, therefore, you be led into wantonness, be not seduced by those who deny the resurrection. Col. 2:18: "see that no man seduce you," etc. Second he assigns the reason for this attentiveness, saying "corrupt," etc., as if he should say: therefore be not seduced, because "evil communications," namely of those who deny the resurrection, "corrupt good manners." 2 Tim. 2:17: "their speech spreadeth like a canker." Jerome says that this is taken from the sayings of the Gentiles, and is a verse of a certain Menander. And from this, as he himself says, we have an argument that it is sometimes permitted to us to use the authorities of the Gentiles in sacred Scripture.

Then when he says "awake," etc., he sets down the admonition as to the perfect. For one might say that the weak, who are easily seduced, ought to beware of their conversations; but the perfect cannot be so seduced. But the Apostle wills that even the perfect be cautious. Whence concerning this he does two things. First he makes them attentive, saying "awake, ye just," that is, you who are reputed just, "awake," that is, be solicitous. Matt. 24:42: "watch, because you know not," etc. Apoc. 16:15: "blessed is he that watcheth," etc. Second he assigns the reason, saying "and sin not," etc., and this a twofold reason, of which one is for their own sake. For no one is so perfect that he ought not to beware of sins for himself. Now idleness and torpor frequently lead to sin, whence, lest they sin, he induces them to watchfulness, and therefore he says "and sin not," that is, lest you sin. Tob. 4:6: "have God in thy mind, and beware lest at any time thou consent to sin." He introduces another reason on account of others, namely that they should be solicitous not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of others, lest those be seduced. And this is what he says: "for some have the ignorance of God," that is, not the right faith. Rom. 10:3: "not knowing the justice of God," etc. "And this I speak to you for your reverence," that you may be cautious. Or: to your shame, because it is shameful for you, who are reputed wise, and instructed in the faith, that there should be some among you having the ignorance of God, that is, not the right faith.

Above, the Apostle proved the resurrection of the dead; here he shows the quality and manner of those rising again. And concerning this he does two things. First, he raises a question concerning the quality of those rising again; second, he resolves it, at the place "Foolish one, you," etc.

Concerning the resurrection there were two errors. For some totally denied that the resurrection of the dead would be. For since they considered nothing but the principles of nature and of power, and saw that according to the principles of nature and of power no one can return from death to life, nor can a blind man recover sight, therefore they totally denied the resurrection; in the person of these it is said in Wisdom 2:5: "the passing of a shadow is our time," etc. And in the same place: "we were born of nothing," etc. Job 14:14: "Do you think a dead man will live again," etc.

But others said that the resurrection of the dead would be, but they said that they would rise again to the same manner of living, and to the same acts. And this also certain philosophers held, who say: after many courses of years Plato will yet rise again, and will have the same students at Athens whom he once had. This also the Pharisees asserted, Matthew 22:28, concerning the woman of seven husbands, whence they said: "in the resurrection, whose will she be?" The Saracens also imagine that after the resurrection they will have wives, and pleasures, and bodily delights. Job 20:17: "let him not see the streams of the river, the torrents of honey and butter." Against whom it is said, Matthew 22:30, that they will be like the Angels of God in heaven.

These two questions, therefore, the Apostle raises here. The first when he says, "How do the dead rise again?" How is it possible that the dead, who are ashes, can rise again? The second, when he says, "But with what body will they come?" As if he were saying: will they rise again with such a body as we now have? These two questions he resolves when he says, "Foolish one," etc. First he resolves the second, but second he resolves the first, at the place "Behold, I tell you a mystery," etc.

But for the understanding of those things which the Apostle sets down in the first part, it is necessary to investigate what the Apostle intends. Now the Apostle intends in this part to show that the dead rise again, and that it will be the same substance. Here first he sets down similitudes; second he applies them, at the place "so also is the resurrection of the dead," etc.; third he proves it, at the place "if there is an animal body," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he proposes similitudes in one species, second in diverse species, at the place "not all flesh is the same flesh," etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that we see in one and the same species that one thing in the process of generation has diverse qualities and forms; just as a grain has one form and quality when it is sown, another when it sprouts, another when it is already in the blade. And therefore from this similitude the Apostle intends to show the quality of those rising again. Whence concerning this he does three things. First he compares the order of sowing to sprouting; second the difference of quality in the seed and in the sprouting, at the place "you, that which you sow," etc.; third the cause of the quality in the sprouting, at the place "but God," etc.

He says therefore, "Foolish one," etc. But against this, Matthew 5:22: "whoever shall say to his brother: Raca," etc. It must be said that the Lord forbids saying to a brother "Raca" or "fool," out of anger, not out of correction. But the reason why he says "foolish one" is that this objection against the resurrection proceeds from the principles of human wisdom, which is wisdom only so long as it is subject to divine wisdom; but when it withdraws from God, then it turns into foolishness; whence, since it contradicts divine wisdom, he calls it foolish. As if he were saying: foolish one, do you not experience daily, you, that what you sow in the earth is not brought to life, that is, made to grow, unless it first dies, that is, rots? John 12:24: "unless a grain of wheat," etc.

From this it appears that the Apostle makes a comparison, that when the body of a man is placed in the tomb in the earth, then there is a kind of sowing; but when he rises again, then there is a kind of bringing to life. Whence from this some are of the opinion that the resurrection of the dead is natural, because the Apostle here compares the resurrection to the sprouting of seed, which is natural. For they are of the opinion that in the resolved dusts, into which human bodies are dissolved, there are certain active seminal powers for the resurrection of bodies. But this does not seem to be true. For the resolution of the human body into the elements happens just as with other mixed bodies, whence the dusts into which human bodies are dissolved have no other active power than other dusts, in which it is agreed there is no other active power for the constitution of the human body, but only in the seed of man; but the dusts into which human bodies are dissolved differ from other dusts only according to the divine ordination, insofar as dusts of this kind are ordained by divine wisdom, so that from them human bodies may again be reintegrated. Whence the active cause of the resurrection will be God alone, even though for this he may use the ministry of Angels, as far as the gathering of the dusts is concerned. For which reason the Apostle, below, in expounding the manner of the resurrection, attributes it to the sound of the trumpet, and above he attributes it to Christ rising again, but not to any active power in the dusts.

Therefore the Apostle does not intend here to prove that the resurrection is natural, on the ground that seed naturally sprouts, but he intends here to make manifest by certain examples that the quality of the bodies rising again and of the bodies dying is not the same, and first by this, that the quality of the seed and of the sprouting is not the same, as will be clearly shown from what follows. For consequently, when he says "and that which you sow," etc., he shows that the quality of the seed is different from the quality of the sprouting, when he says: "and that which you sow, you sow not the body that shall be," that is, you do not sow it such as it shall be. Expounding this he adds: "but bare grain," as of wheat or of some of the rest, namely of seeds, because the bare seed is sown, but it sprouts adorned with blade, and with ears, and things of this kind. And likewise the human body will have another quality in the resurrection than it now has, as will be expounded below.

There is, however, a difference between the resurrection of the human body and the sprouting of seed; for the same body numerically will rise, but it will have another quality, just as the Apostle says below, that this corruptible must put on incorruption; and Job 19:27 it is said: "whom I myself shall see, and not another." But in the sprouting there is neither the same quality, nor the same body numerically, but only the same in species. And therefore, speaking pointedly about the sprouting, the Apostle said: "you sow not the body that shall be," giving to understand that it is not the same numerically. And in this the work of nature falls short of the work of God. For the power of nature restores the same in species, but not the same numerically; but the power of God can restore even the same numerically.

And thus also from what is said here a proof can be taken for this, that it is not impossible for the future resurrection to come about, as the foolish one was objecting. For if nature, from that which has died, can restore the same in species, much more can God restore the same numerically; because this very thing that nature does is also the work of God. For nature has this from God, that it can do this.

And therefore, consequently describing the quality of the sprouting, he attributes it first indeed to God, second to the proportion of nature. He says therefore first: "But God gives it a body as he wills," because, namely, it proceeds from the ordination of the divine will that from such a seed such a plant is produced, which plant indeed is, as it were, the body of the seed. For the final fruit of the plant is the seed. And this therefore he attributes to the divine operation, because every operation of nature is an operation of God, according to that above, 12:6: "but it is the same God who works all things in all."

And this can be considered thus. For it is manifest that natural things, without cognition, operate toward a determinate end; otherwise they would not always, or for the greater part, attain the same end. It is manifest also that no thing lacking cognition tends toward a certain end unless directed by some knowing being, just as an arrow tends toward a certain mark by the direction of the one shooting it. Just as, therefore, if someone saw an arrow tending directly toward a certain mark, although the one shooting it were not seen, he would know at once that it was being directed by the one shooting it. So, when we see natural things without cognition tending toward certain ends, we can know for certain that they operate from the will of some director, whom we call God. And thus the Apostle says that God gives, to the seed, a body, that is, from the seed he produces the plant, as he wills.

But again, lest anyone should believe that natural effects of this kind proceed from the will of God alone, without the operation and proportion of nature, he adds: "and to each of the seeds its own body," as for instance from the seed of the olive the olive is generated, and from the seed of wheat wheat is generated. Whence also Genesis 1:11: "let the earth bring forth green herb, and such as may make seed, according to its kind."

So therefore also in the resurrection there will be another quality of the body rising again, which nevertheless will be proportioned to the merits of the one dying.

Here the Apostle sets forth an example concerning the diversity of quality of the body that rises again, in diverse species. And first by comparing heavenly things to earthly; second, earthly things to heavenly, there, "there are heavenly bodies", etc.; third, heavenly bodies to one another, there, "one glory", et cetera. Because someone could say: how is it possible that the dead resume body and flesh, if they are not going to have the same quality of body? Therefore, to exclude this, he introduces diverse qualities of body and flesh, so that it may thus be manifest that it is not necessary, if the quality will not be the same, that the same body, or the same flesh, is not resumed. He says therefore first that not every flesh is the same flesh, according to form, but one is the flesh of men, another of fish, another of cattle, another of birds, et cetera. And likewise the flesh of the one dying is one thing, and that of the one rising is another. But just as the example brought forward above, of the seed and its sprouting, was deficient in this, that in the sowing and sprouting there is not the same thing in number, nor the same qualities, so these examples are deficient, because in these examples there is neither the same species nor the same quality. But the flesh of the man rising again is the same according to species as the flesh of the one dying, yet it will be other according to quality. For it will be of the same nature, but of another glory, as Gregory says concerning the body of Christ. But if anyone should wish to refer these things that have been said to the diverse state of those rising again, it could be said that by men are understood the good who live according to reason, according to that word of Ezekiel 34:31: "But you my flocks, the flocks of my pasture, are men." By cattle, however, are understood the luxurious, according to that word of 2 Peter 2:12: "But these, as irrational cattle", et cetera. By birds, the proud; by fish, the covetous, according to that word of Psalm 8:9: "the birds of heaven and the fish of the sea", et cetera. To the same end he also introduces the diversity of heavenly and earthly bodies, when he adds: "there are heavenly bodies", such as the sun and moon and the like, and there are earthly bodies, such as fire, water, etc.; "but one indeed is the glory," that is, the beauty and comeliness, "of the heavenly bodies, but another of the earthly," Ecclesiasticus 43:10: "the beauty of heaven is the glory of the stars." And by heavenly bodies the contemplatives can be understood. Philippians 3:20: "our conversation is in heaven." By earthly bodies, the active, who are occupied about earthly things; whence it was said to Martha, Luke 10:41: "thou art troubled about many things." And to the same end he further introduces the diverse quality of heavenly bodies, when he says, "one is the brightness of the sun", et cetera. Likewise among the stars there is difference, for "star differs", et cetera. And by the sun Christ can be understood, Malachi, last chapter: "unto you that fear my name shall the sun of justice arise", et cetera. By the moon, the blessed Virgin, of whom Canticle 6:9: "fair as the moon." By the stars ordered to one another, the rest of the saints. Judges 5:20: "the stars remaining in their order", et cetera. Consequently, when he says, "so shall be the resurrection of the dead", he adapts the aforesaid examples to the resurrection of the dead. Nor is it to be understood, as far as the literal exposition goes, that the Apostle says this in order to designate a diversity of kind among those rising again, because of what he had premised, "star differs", et cetera. But this refers to all the foregoing, so that it may be shown from all that has been premised, that just as diverse qualities of bodies are found among things, so there will be a diverse quality of those rising from the quality of those dying. Whence follows, "it is sown a body", et cetera. Here the Apostle shows most of all that the quality of the dying body and of the rising body is different. And here he treats of the glorious rising body, whose proper qualities are called the endowments of the glorious body. These indeed are four, which the Apostle touches on here. For first he touches on the endowment of impassibility, when he says, "it is sown in corruption", et cetera. And although sowing could be taken for the first origin of the body, according as it is generated from seed, nevertheless it is more fitting, according to the understanding of the Apostle, that sowing be referred to death and burial, so that it may correspond to what was said above: "that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first." Now death and dissolution are called sowing, not because in the dead body, or in the ashes dissolved from it, there is some power toward resurrection, as there is an active power in seed toward generation; but because such an ordination has been appointed by God, that the human body be reformed anew from it. Thus therefore the human body, when it is sown, that is, when it dies, is in corruption, that is, according to its own property it is subject to corruption, according to that word of Romans 8:10: "the body indeed is dead because of sin." "But it shall rise in incorruption." Now incorruption is said here, not only to exclude the separation of the soul from the body, because even the bodies of the damned will have this incorruption, but to exclude both death and any harmful passion whatsoever, whether from within or from without. And as to this is understood the impassibility of the glorious body, according to that word of Apocalypse 7:16: "they shall no more hunger nor thirst", et cetera. Second, he touches on the endowment of clarity, when he says, "it is sown in dishonor", that is, the body which before death, and in death, is subject to many deformities and miseries, according to that word of Job 14:1: "man born of a woman", et cetera. "But it shall rise in glory," which signifies brightness, as Augustine says upon John. For the bodies of the saints will be bright and shining, according to that word of Matthew 13:43: "the just shall shine as the sun", et cetera. Third, he touches on the endowment of agility, when he says, "it is sown in weakness," that is, the animal body, which before death is weak and slow, and not easily moved by the soul, according to that word of Wisdom 9:15: "the body which is corrupted burdens the soul." "But it shall rise in power," because namely it will come to be such that it can be moved by the soul with so great power, that it exhibits no difficulty at all to motion, which pertains to the endowment of agility. For there will be as much ease there as there is felicity, as Augustine says. Whence it is said of the just, Wisdom 3:7: "the just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." And Isaiah 40:31: "they that hope in the Lord shall have strength, they shall take wings", et cetera. Fourth, he touches on the endowment of subtlety, when he says, "it is sown a natural body", et cetera. Which some wish to refer to this, that it belongs to the glorious body, according to this endowment, that it can be at the same time with a non-glorious body in the same place. This indeed could be maintained, if it belonged to the body according to its present state, that it could not be at the same time with another body in the same place because of something that could be removed from the body. But now if it be carefully considered, according to this nothing else belongs to a body except according as it has bodily dimensions. Whence we see that bodies, however subtle, do not admit other bodies together with themselves, as is evident in air and in fire; and further, if bodies existed altogether separate without matter, as some have supposed, they could not be at the same time with natural bodies in the same places, as the Philosopher says. The dimensions therefore remaining in whatever body, it is against its nature to be with another body in the same place. Whence if this ever happens, it will be from a miracle. On account of which Gregory and Augustine ascribe it to a miracle that the body of Christ entered to the disciples with the doors closed. For no finite power can make a miracle; for this belongs to God alone. It remains therefore that to be at the same time with another body in the same place cannot be from an endowment or from a quality of the glorious body. Yet it is not to be denied that a glorious body can be at the same time with another body in the same place, because the body of Christ after the resurrection entered to the disciples with the doors closed, to which we hope our body will be conformed at the resurrection; but just as the body of Christ had this not from a property of the body, but from the power of the united divinity, so the body of any other saint will have this not from an endowment, but from the power of the divinity existing in it. In this way the body of Peter had it that at his shadow the sick were healed, not through any property of it. It is therefore to be said that it pertains to the endowment of subtlety that the Apostle touches on here, saying, "it is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body." Which some, understanding badly, said that the body at the resurrection will be turned into spirit, and will be like air or wind, which is called spirit. Which is most of all excluded by that which is said to the apostles, Luke, last chapter: "handle, and see, for a spirit", et cetera. Whence also the Apostle here does not say that a spirit rises, but a spiritual body. Therefore at the resurrection it will be spiritual, not spirit, just as now it is animal, not soul. Now to know the difference between these, it is to be considered that one and the same thing in us is called both soul and spirit; but it is called soul according as it perfects the body, but spirit properly according to the mind, according to which we are made like spiritual substances, according to that word of Ephesians 4:23: "be renewed in the spirit of your mind." Likewise it is to be considered that there is a threefold difference of powers in the soul; for there are certain powers whose operations are ordered to the good of the body, such as the generative, nutritive, and augmentative. There are others, which indeed use bodily organs, as all the powers of the sensitive part; but their acts are not ordered directly to the body, but rather to the perfection of the soul. There are yet others which neither use bodily organs, nor are ordered directly to the good of the body, but rather to the good of the soul, such as those which pertain to the intellective part. The first powers therefore pertain to the soul insofar as it animates the body; the second, however, pertain most of all to the soul insofar as it is spirit; the third indeed hold themselves in a middle way between the two: yet because judgment about any power ought to be taken more from the object and the end, than from the instrument, therefore the second powers hold more with the third than with the first. Likewise it is to be considered that since each thing is for the sake of its operation, the body is perfected for this by the soul, that it be the subject of the operations of the soul. Now in this present state our body is subject to operations which pertain to the soul insofar as it is soul, as it is generated and generates, is nourished, grows and decreases. But as to the spiritual operations of the soul, the body, although it in some way serves, nevertheless brings much impediment, because "the body which is corrupted burdens the soul", as it is said, Wisdom 9:5. But in the state of the resurrection the animal operations from the body will cease, because there will be no generation, nor increase or nourishment, but the body without any impediment and fatigue will incessantly serve the soul for its spiritual operations, according to that word of Psalm 83:5: "blessed are they that dwell in thy house, O Lord", et cetera. Just as therefore now our body is animal, then it will be spiritual. Now the cause of these properties some attribute to light, which they say is of the nature of a fifth essence, and comes into the composition of the human body, which because it is frivolous and fabulous, following Augustine, we say that they proceed from the power of the glorified soul. For Augustine says in the letter to Dioscorus: "God made the soul of so powerful a nature, that its most full beatitude, which is promised to the saints at the end of time, overflows also into the lower nature, which is the body; not the beatitude which is proper to the one enjoying, but the fullness of health, that is, the vigor of incorruption." Now we see that four things come to the body from the soul, and the more perfectly, the more virtuous the soul shall have been. First indeed it gives being; whence when it shall be at the height of perfection, it will give spiritual being. Second, it preserves from corruption; whence we see that men, the stronger their nature is, the less they suffer from heat and cold. When therefore the soul shall be most perfect, it will preserve the body altogether impassible. Third, it gives beauty and clarity; for the weak and the dead, on account of the weakness of the operation of the soul upon the body, become discolored, and when it shall be in the highest perfection, it will make the body bright and shining. Fourth, it gives motion, and the more easily, the stronger the power of the soul shall have been over the body. And therefore when it shall be at the last of its perfection, it will give the body agility.

Here the Apostle shows by argument the difference of quality between dying bodies and rising bodies, which he had shown above by examples. Concerning this he does two things. For first he sets forth what he intends to prove; second he proves what he has set forth, at the place, as it is written, etc. He says therefore first: I said that what is sown animal shall rise spiritual, and, that this is true, namely that there is some spiritual body, I show, because if there is an animal body, there is also a spiritual one. And the Apostle does not intend to argue from this to his proposition, but he supposes this, intending to prove that very thing which he says, if there is a body, etc. Ecclus. XXXIII, 15: consider all the works of the Most High, two and two, one against one. As it is written, etc. Here he proves the proposition. His proof is this: there are two principles of the human race; one according to the life of nature, namely Adam, the other according to the life of grace, namely Christ; but animality is derived into all men from the first principle, namely Adam; therefore it is clear that much more from the second principle, namely Christ, spirituality will be derived into all men. Of this argument, first, he proves the first diversity of the principles, second the middle, namely the determination of the likeness from each of the principles, at the place, such as the earthy, etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the difference of the principles; second the order of the principles to one another, at the place, but that is not first which is spiritual, etc.; third he assigns the order of the argument, at the place, the first, etc.

He sets down, therefore, first, the condition of the first principle according to the life of nature, taking the authority of Gen. II, 7. Whence he says, as it is written: the first man Adam was made, by God, into a living soul, namely with animal life, such as the soul can give, when, namely, the Lord breathed into his face the breath of life, Gen. II, 7. For the human form is called both soul and spirit. For insofar as it is directed to the care of the body, namely by vegetating, nourishing and generating, thus it is called soul; but insofar as it is directed to knowledge, namely by understanding, willing and the like, thus it is called spirit. Whence when he says the first man Adam was made into a living soul, the Apostle here means the life by which the soul serves about the body, not the Holy Spirit, as some imagine, because of the fact that it precedes and he breathed into his face the breath of life, saying this is the Holy Spirit.

Second he sets down the condition of the second principle, saying but the last Adam, that is, Christ. And he is called last, because Adam brought in one state, namely of guilt, but Christ that of glory and life. Whence since after this state no other follows in this life, therefore he is called last. Is. LIII, 2 f.: we have desired him despised and the last of men. And elsewhere, namely Apoc. I, 17: I am the first and the last. And elsewhere: I am alpha and omega, etc. But he says Adam, because he was made from the nature of Adam into a living spirit. And from this, the conditions of the principles having been seen, their diversity appears, because the first man was made into a soul, the last into a spirit. But the former into a living soul only, the latter however into a living and life-giving spirit. The reason of which is: because, just as Adam obtained the perfection of his being through the soul, so also Christ obtained the perfection of his being, insofar as he is man, through the Holy Spirit. And therefore since the soul cannot give life except to its own body, therefore Adam was made into a soul, not life-giving, but only living; but Christ was made into a living and life-giving spirit, and therefore Christ had the power of giving life. Jn. I, 16: of his fullness, etc., and Jn. X, 10: I have come that they may have life and have it more abundantly. And in the creed: and in the Holy Spirit, the giver of life. But lest someone should say: if Christ was made into a life-giving spirit, why is he called last? Therefore, consequently, when he says but that is not first, etc., he shows the order of the principles. For we see in nature that in one and the same thing, the imperfect is prior to the perfect. Whence since spirituality stands to animality as the perfect to the imperfect, therefore in human nature the spiritual, which is perfect, ought not to be first, but, that order may be preserved, the imperfect ought to be first, namely that which is animal, then the perfect, namely that which is spiritual. Above ch. XIII, 10: when that which is perfect has come, etc. As Augustine says, a sign of this is that firstborn sons of old were accustomed to be animal, as Cain was born before Abel, Ishmael before Isaac, and Esau before Jacob.

He assigns the reason of the said diversity, saying the first man, etc., as if he were to say: truly the first man was made into a living soul, because from the earth, Gen. II, 7: the Lord formed man from the slime of the earth, and therefore he is said to be earthy, that is, animal; the second man, namely Christ, was made into a life-giving spirit, because from heaven; because the divine nature which was united to this nature, is from heaven. And therefore he ought to be heavenly, that is, he ought to have such perfection as befits one coming from heaven, namely spiritual perfection. Jn. III, 31: he who comes from heaven is above all. But he says the first man is from the earth, according to the manner of speaking, by which things are said to be of that from which the first part is in their coming to be, just as a knife is said to be of iron because the first part from which the knife comes is iron. And because the first part from which Adam was made, is earth, therefore he is said to be from the earth. The second man is said to be from heaven, not because he brought his body from heaven, since he took it from the earth, namely from the body of the blessed virgin, but because the divinity (which is united to human nature) came from heaven, which was prior to the body of Christ.

Thus, therefore, the diversity of the principles is clear, which was the major proposition of the principal argument. Consequently when he says such as the earthy, etc., he shows the derivation of the likeness of these principles from each, and first in common, second he divides it through its parts, at the place, therefore as we have borne, etc. He says therefore such as the earthy, etc., as if he were to say: the first man, because he was earthy and mortal, therefore it was derived that all should be both earthy and mortal. Above the same v. 22: and as in Adam all die. Zach. XIII, 5: Adam is my example, etc. But because the second man was heavenly, that is, spiritual and immortal, therefore we shall all be both immortal and spiritual. Rom. VI, 5: but we have been made complanted in the likeness, etc.

Therefore as we have borne, etc. Here he concludes how in particular we ought to be conformed to the man, namely the heavenly one. Now we can be conformed to the heavenly one in two ways, namely in the life of grace and of glory, and one is the way to the other: because without the life of grace one does not arrive at the life of glory. And therefore he says as we have borne, etc., that is, as long as we were sinners, in us was the likeness of Adam. II Reg. VII, 19: this is the law of Adam, Lord God, etc. That therefore we may be able to be heavenly, that is, to arrive at the life of glory, let us bear the image of the heavenly one, through the life of grace. Col. III, 9 f.: putting off the old man, put on the new man, namely Christ. Rom. VIII, 29: whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed, etc. Thus therefore we ought to be conformed to the heavenly one in the life of grace, because otherwise we shall not arrive at the life of glory. And this is what he says but this I say, brothers, as if he were to say: unless you live, namely the life of grace, you will not be able to arrive at the kingdom of God, namely the life of glory, because flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God. This indeed is not to be understood, as certain heretics say, that flesh and blood will not rise according to substance, but that the whole body will be turned either into spirit, or into air: which is heretical and false; for the Apostle says that he will conform our body to the body of his glory. Whence since Christ after the resurrection had flesh and blood, as is said Lk. last: handle and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, etc., it is clear that we too in the resurrection shall have flesh and blood. Flesh and blood is not to be understood, that is, the substance of flesh and blood, shall not possess the kingdom of God, but flesh and blood, that is, those giving effort to flesh and blood, namely men given over to vices and pleasures, shall not possess the kingdom of God. And thus flesh is taken, that is, man living carnally, Rom. VIII, 9: but you are not in the flesh, etc. Or: flesh and blood, that is, the works of flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, which is against the Jews and Saracens, who imagine that after the resurrection they will have wives, rivers of honey and milk. Or: flesh and blood, that is, the corruption of flesh and blood, shall not possess the kingdom of God, that is, after the resurrection, the body will not be subjected to the corruption of flesh and blood, according to which man lives. Whence, and according to this, he adds neither shall corruption possess incorruption, that is, neither shall the corruption of mortality, which is expressed here by the name of flesh, possess incorruption, that is, the incorruptible kingdom of God, because we shall rise in glory. Rom. VIII, 21: the creature itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption, etc.

Here is a mystery, I tell you, brothers, meaning something hidden, which ought to be revealed to you and to all believers. Lc. VIII, 10: to you it is given to know, etc. Above, II, 6: we speak wisdom among the perfect, and afterward: but we speak the wisdom of God which is hidden, etc. But what this mystery is, he adds: we shall all indeed, etc. On the first point, it should be known that, as Jerome says in a certain letter to the monks Minervius and Alexander, what is said here—we shall all rise again, etc.—is found in no Greek book; but in certain ones it is found: we shall all indeed sleep, that is, we shall all die. And death is called sleep on account of the hope of the resurrection. Hence it is the same as if he said, we shall all rise again, since no one will rise again unless he dies. But we shall not all be changed. This is not altered in the Greek books. And this is true, because this change of which he speaks here will occur only with respect to the bodies of the blessed, since they will be changed into those four qualities set down above, which are called the endowments of glorified bodies. And this Job desired: Iob. XIV, 14: all the days in which I am now in warfare, I wait until my change comes.

In certain books, however, it is found: we shall not all indeed sleep, that is, die, but we shall all be changed. And this is understood in two ways. First, according to the letter, because it was the opinion of some that not all men will die, but that some at the coming of Christ to judgment will come alive, and these will not die but will be changed into the state of incorruption, and on this account they say, we shall not all indeed sleep, that is, die, but we shall all be changed, both good and evil, both living and dead. Hence according to these the change is not understood as from the state of animality to the state of spirituality, since according to this only the good would be changed, but from the state of corruption to the state of incorruption.

In another way it is expounded mystically by Origen, and he says that this is not said of the sleep of death, since all will die—Ps. LXXXVIII, 49: what man is there who shall live, etc.—but of the sleep of sin, of which in Ps. XII, 4: enlighten my eyes, lest I ever sleep, so that it may be said thus: we shall not all die, that is, we shall not all sin mortally, but we shall all be changed, just as above concerning the state from corruption to incorruption. And although this reading, namely we shall not all die, etc., is not against the faith, nevertheless the Church accepts the first more, namely that we shall all die or rise again, etc., because all will die even if there are then some who are living.

He then makes manifest the order and manner of the resurrection when he says, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, et cetera. And this in three respects. First he makes manifest the order as to time; second as to the cause of the resurrection, where he says, at the last trumpet; third as to the progress of the effect from the cause, where he says, for the trumpet shall sound, et cetera. He says therefore that we shall all rise again, but how? In a moment. By which he excludes the error of those saying that the resurrection of all will not be at the same time, but they say that the martyrs will rise before the others by a thousand years, and then Christ will descend with them, and will possess the bodily kingdom of Jerusalem for a thousand years with them. And this was the opinion of Lactantius. But this is clearly false, because we shall all rise in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye. Also excluded by this is another error of the same man, who said that the judgment would last for a space of a thousand years. But this is false, because there will be no perceptible time there, but in a moment, et cetera.

It should be known, moreover, that a moment can be taken either for the very instant of time, which is called now, or for some imperceptible time; yet it can be taken in either way, referring it to different things. For if we refer this to the gathering of the dust (which will be accomplished by the ministry of angels), then the moment is taken for imperceptible time. For since in the gathering of that dust there is a change from place to place, there must be some time there. But if we refer it to the reuniting of bodies and to the union with the soul, all of which will be done by God, then the moment is taken for an instant of time, because God unites the soul to the body and gives life to the body in an instant. Also, what he says, in the twinkling of an eye, can be referred to either, as if by in the twinkling of an eye only the opening of the eyelids is understood (which occurs in perceptible time), then it is referred to the gathering of the dust. But if by in the twinkling of an eye the sudden glance itself of the eye is understood, which occurs in an instant, then it is referred to the union of the soul with the body.

Next, when he says, at the last trumpet, he shows the order of the resurrection as to the immediate cause. And this trumpet is that voice of Christ, of which Matth. XXVI, 6 it is said: at midnight a cry was made; Io. V, 25: they shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who shall have heard, et cetera. Or the very presence of Christ made manifest to the world, according to what Gregory says: the trumpet signifies nothing other than the presence of Christ made manifest to the world, which is called a trumpet on account of the manifestation, since it will be manifest to all. And in this way trumpet is taken Matth. VI, 2: when you do alms, do not sound a trumpet before you. Likewise it is called a trumpet on account of the office of the trumpet, which was for four purposes, as is said Num. X, v. 1-10, namely: to call a council, and this will be at the resurrection, since then he will call together for a council, that is, for judgment. Is. III, v. 14: the Lord will come to judgment, et cetera. To solemnize a feast. Ps. LXXX, 4: blow the trumpet in the new moon. So also at the resurrection. Is. XXXIII, 20: look upon Sion, the city of our solemnity. For battle, and this at the resurrection. Sap. V, 21: he will fight for him, et cetera. Is. XXX, 32: with harps and timbrels, et cetera. To move the camp, so also at the resurrection: some going to Paradise, some going to Hell. Matth. XXV, 46: they who have done good shall go into life everlasting, but they who have done evil into everlasting fire.

Next, when he says, for the trumpet shall sound, et cetera, he sets down the progress of the effect from the aforesaid cause. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the progress of the effect; second he assigns the necessity of this, where he says, for this mortal, et cetera. The progress of the effect is that immediately at the sound of the trumpet the effect will follow, since the dead, et cetera, Ps. LXVII, 34: he will give to his voice the voice of power, et cetera. He sets down, moreover, a twofold effect. One is common, since the dead shall rise incorrupt, that is, whole, without any diminishment of members. And this indeed is common to all, since in the resurrection everything that pertains to the restoration of nature is common, because all have communion with Christ in nature. And although Augustine leaves it in doubt whether deformities remain in the damned, I nevertheless believe that whatever pertains to the restoration of nature is conferred on them entirely; but what pertains to grace is conferred only on the elect. And therefore all will rise incorrupt, that is, whole, even the damned. Jerome, however, expounds incorrupt as meaning in a state of incorruption, namely that afterward, after the resurrection, they will not be corrupted further, since the good will go to eternal beatitude, but the evil to eternal punishment. Dan. XII, 2: many from the dust of the earth shall awake.

The other effect is proper, that is, of the apostles only, since we shall be changed, namely the apostles, and we shall not only be incorrupt, but also we shall be changed, namely from a state of misery to a state of glory, since it is sown an animal body, but it shall rise a spiritual body. And according to this manner of expounding it appears that that reading is better which says we shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed, than that which has we shall all be changed, because although all will rise, yet only the saints and elect will be changed. It could, however, also according to those who have we shall not all indeed die, but we shall all be changed, be read thus: the dead shall rise incorrupt, that is, into a state of incorruption, and we who are alive, although we shall not rise again, since we do not die, will nevertheless be changed from a state of corruption to incorruption. And this seems to agree with what is said I Thess. IV, 16: we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them, etc.; so that, just as there, here too he numbers himself among the living.

Here the Apostle sets forth the necessity of the effect of resurrection as it proceeds from its very cause. And concerning this he sets forth two things corresponding to the two things he had set forth in the progression of effects from the cause itself. The first was general to all, namely that the dead will rise incorrupt. And so, first, as to this he says it is necessary that this corruptible put on incorruption. The second was special to the apostles and to the good, namely and we shall be changed, and so, second, as to this he says and this mortal put on immortality. For since corruptible is opposed to incorruptible, and in the state of the present life we are subject to corruption, therefore he says that when we rise again, this corruptible must, etc., by a necessity, namely, of fittingness. And this for three reasons. First, on account of the completion of human nature. For, as Augustine also says, the soul as long as it is separated from the body is imperfect, not having the perfection of its own nature, and therefore it does not exist in as great a beatitude while separated as it will be when united to the body in the resurrection. In order, then, that it may enjoy perfect beatitude, this corruptible, that is, the body, must put on, as an adornment, incorruption, so that further it may in no way be harmed, being mortal. Second, on account of the requirement of divine justice, namely that those who did good or evil in the body may be rewarded or punished also in their very bodies. Third, on account of the conformity of the members to the head; that as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life, Rom. VI, 4. It should be noted, moreover, that he likens incorruption or immortality itself to a garment, when he says put on. For a garment is present to the one clothed and is absent, while the substance of the one clothed remains numerically the same, so that by this he may show that the same bodies numerically will rise, and the same men numerically will exist in the state of incorruption and immortality, in which they now are. Whence by this the error of those who say that bodies will not rise the same in number is excluded. Whence he says pointedly it is necessary that this corruptible, namely the body, since the soul is not corruptible. Also excluded is the error of those who say that glorified bodies will not be the same as these, but heavenly ones, and concerning this manner something similar is found in II Cor. V, 2: for in this we groan, etc.; Is. LII, 1: put on the garments of your glory; Job XL, 5: gird on beauty for yourself, and so forth.

But against this it is objected, since it seems impossible that this corruptible should put on incorruption, that is, that bodies should rise the same in number, because it is impossible for things which differ in genus or species to be the same in number; but corruptible and incorruptible differ not only in species but in genus; therefore it is impossible for the bodies of those rising to be incorruptible, and yet remain the same in number. Furthermore, the Philosopher says that it is impossible that those things whose corruptible substance has been moved should be reintegrated the same in number, but the same in species; but the substance of human bodies is corruptible, therefore it is impossible for it to be reintegrated the same in number.

I answer. It must be said, as to the first, that each thing follows genus and species from its own nature and not from something extrinsic to its nature, and therefore I say that if the future resurrection of bodies were to come from the principles of the nature of bodies, it would be impossible for bodies to rise the same in number. But I say that the incorruption of rising bodies will be given from another principle than from the nature of the bodies themselves, namely from the glory of the soul, from whose beatitude and incorruption the whole beatitude and incorruption of bodies will be derived. Just as, then, free choice is of the same nature and the same in number, both while it is capable of turning to either side and when it will be made firm in the last end, so also the body will be of the same nature and the same in number, which now is corruptible and then, when it will be made firm through free choice by the glory of the soul, will be incorruptible.

To the second it must be said that the reasoning of the Philosopher proceeds against those who held that all things, in these lower realms, are caused from the motion of the heavenly bodies, and that when the same revolutions of the higher bodies have been revolved, the same effects in number would follow, which had once been. Whence they said that Plato would still one day read the same in number at Athens and would have the same schools, and the same hearers whom he had had. And so the Philosopher argues against them, that although the same heaven in number, and the same sun, is in the same revolutions, nevertheless the effects which thence proceed do not follow an identity in number, but in species, and this according to the way of nature. Likewise I say that if bodies were to put on incorruption, and rise according to the way of nature, they would not rise the same in number, but the same in species. But since reintegration and resurrection, as has been said, come about by divine power, we say that bodies will be the same in number, since the individuating principles of this man are nothing other than this soul and this body. In the resurrection, moreover, the same soul in number will return, since it is incorruptible, and this same body in number from the same dust into which it was dissolved, repaired by divine power, so the same man in number will rise. Nor do I press the point regarding intermediate forms, because I do not posit that there is any other substantial form in man except the rational soul, from which the human body has it that it is animated by sensible and vegetable nature and that it is rational. Accidental forms indeed in no way impede the numerical identity which we posit.

Consequently, when he says but when this corruptible, etc., he confirms what he had said by an authority. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets forth the authority; second from it he concludes three things, at where is, death, etc. He says therefore first: I said that this corruptible must put on, etc., but when this mortal shall have put on immortality, then, namely in the future — which is against those who say the resurrection has already happened — will come to pass the saying that is written, namely, is swallowed up, etc. This, according to our translation, is not found in any book of the Bible; if, however, it is found in the translation of the Seventy, it is not certain whence it was taken. It can, however, be said that this is taken from Is. XXVI, 19: the dead shall live, etc., and XXV, 8: he will cast down death forever. Hosea XIII, 14, where we have: I will be your death, O death, the Seventy have: death is swallowed up in victory, that is, on account of the victory of Christ. And he puts the past for the future, on account of the certainty of prophecy. I Peter III, 22: swallowing up death, and so forth.

Consequently, when he says where is, death, your victory? etc., he concludes three things from the aforesaid authority: the taunting of the saints against death, thanksgivings to God, at but thanks be to God, and his admonition to the Corinthians, at therefore, my brethren, and so forth. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the taunting, second he expounds it, at but the sting, and so forth. The Apostle, then, speaking of the victory of Christ against death, as though placed in a certain special joy, assumes the person of the men rising again, saying where is, death, your victory? This is not found in any place of sacred Scripture; but whether the Apostle had this from himself, or from elsewhere, is uncertain. If, however, he had taken it from elsewhere, he seems to have taken it from Is. XIV, 4: how has the exactor ceased, the tribute rested, and so forth. He says therefore where is, death, your victory? etc., namely your victory of corruption, that is, the power by which you were laying low the whole human race, by which you were triumphing over all. II Kings XIV, 14: we all die, etc., Job XVIII, v. 14: the king of destruction shall trample over him, and so forth.

Where is, death, your sting? What, moreover, the sting is he consequently expounds, saying but the sting, and so forth. Whence he sets forth two things: one by which he expounds what he said; the other by which he excludes an objection, at the power of sin, and so forth. It should be known, moreover, that the sting of death can be said to be either that which stings toward death, or that which death uses or makes; but the literal sense is the sting of death, that is, that which stings toward death, because man through sin is impelled and cast down to death. Rom. V, 23: the wages of sin is death, and so forth. But because someone might object that this sting is removed through the law, therefore the Apostle consequently excludes this, adding but the power, that is, the increase, of sin is the law, as if to say: sin is not removed through the law, rather the law is the power of sin, that is, an increase occasionally, namely not that it induced to sin but insofar as it gave occasion of sin and did not confer grace; from which concupiscence was rather brought nearer to sinning. Rom. V, 20: the law entered in, that offense might abound. Rom. VII, 8: occasion being taken, sin through the commandment, and so forth.

There is, however, another sense, but not the literal one, that the sting of death be said to be that which death uses. And thus by death is understood the Devil. Apoc. VI, 8: his name was death. And thus the sting of death is the temptation of the Devil. And thus everything that is said about death is expounded of the Devil, as is held in the Gloss. Or the sting of death, that is, made by death, that is, by carnal concupiscence. James I, 15: when concupiscence has conceived, and so forth. For concupiscence first entices the willing, as in the intemperate; second it drags the resisting, as in the incontinent; afterward it strives, but does not conquer, as in the continent; afterward its striving is weakened, as in the temperate, and lastly it fails altogether, as in the blessed, to whom it is fitting to say: where is, death, your striving or victory? Since, therefore, the sting of death was destroyed not through the law, but through the victory of Christ, therefore thanksgivings are to be rendered to God. And this is what he says but thanks be to God, namely I give, or let us give, who gave us the victory, over death and sin, through Jesus Christ, not through the law. I John V, 4: this is the victory, and so forth. Rom. VII, 24: who shall deliver me, and so forth. The grace of God, and so forth. For what was impossible, and so forth.

Consequently, when he says therefore, my brethren, etc., he adds the admonition. For as has been said, the pseudo-apostles were corrupting the Corinthians by denying the resurrection, and therefore, after he has now established the faith of the resurrection, and shown it through examples, he admonishes them to conduct themselves well, lest they be seduced by the pseudo-apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First indeed he confirms them in faith, saying therefore, namely the resurrection now having been shown, my brethren, through faith, by which we are all sons of God, John I, 12: he gave them power, etc., most beloved, through charity by which we ought to love one another, I John IV, 21: this commandment we have from God, etc., be steadfast, namely in the faith of the resurrection, lest you depart from the faith, Eph. IV, 14: let us not be like little children tossed about, etc., and immovable, lest namely you be seduced by others, Col. I, 23: founded in faith, steadfast, and immovable, and so forth. Second he induces them to good works, saying abounding in every good work always, Gal. ult.: while we have time, and so forth. Prov. XV, 5: in abundant justice. Third he strengthens them through hope, saying knowing that your labor, etc., Wis. III, 15: for of good labors the fruit is glorious.