On the Making of Man 23–27

That one who admits the beginning of the world’s constitution must necessarily also agree about its end. But if someone, seeing the present movement of the world carried on in a sequence, by which the interval of time is perceived, should say that the foretold stopping of moving things cannot happen, such a person clearly does not believe that heaven and earth were made by God in the beginning either. For one who grants a beginning to motion certainly does not doubt about an end; and one who does not accept the end did not accept the beginning either. But as we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, believing, as the Apostle says, that what is seen came to be from what does not appear, we shall use the same faith regarding the word of God that foretold the necessary stopping of existing things. The “how” must be set aside from curious inquiry; for there too we accepted by faith that what is seen was framed from things that do not yet appear, passing over the search for what is beyond reach. And yet the argument there suggested many difficulties to us, giving no small occasions for doubting what we believe. For there too it was possible for the contentious, by plausible reasoning in sequence, to overturn faith, so as not to think true the account of material creation which Holy Scripture upholds when it affirms that the genesis of all existing things is from God. For those who hold the opposite view, constructing matter as co-eternal with God, use such arguments as these for their doctrine. If God is simple in nature and immaterial, without quality and without magnitude, uncompounded and foreign to circumscription by shape, while all matter is apprehended in extension by dimension and does not escape the apprehensions of the senses, being known in colour, shape, bulk, size, resistance, and the other things seen in it, none of which can be conceived in the divine nature, what means is there for matter to be produced from the immaterial, or the dimensional nature from what has no dimension? For if they are believed to have come into existence from him, clearly, being in him in some ineffable way, they so came forth into genesis. But if the material was in him, how is he immaterial who has matter in himself? And so too with all the other things by which the material nature is characterized: if quantity is in God, how is God without quantity? If the compound is in him, how is he simple, without parts, and uncompounded? So that the argument forces him either to be necessarily material, because matter came into existence from him, or, if one avoids this, it is necessary to suppose that matter was brought to him from outside for the making of the universe. If, then, it was outside God, there was certainly something else besides God, conceived together with the unbegotten by the principle of its own property; so that two things without beginning and unbegotten are apprehended together in the argument at the same time: what acts with art, and what receives this skilful activity. And if, from this necessity, one supposes that matter lay eternal beneath the Creator of all things, how great a support for his own doctrines will the Manichee find, who sets up the material cause, as unbegotten, beside the good nature! But we have believed, hearing the Scripture say that all things are from God; and we do not think it right to busy ourselves about how they were in God, which is beyond our reason, believing that all things are within the reach of the divine power: both to bring the non-existent into existence and to put upon what exists the qualities it pleases. Consistently, then, as we consider the power of the divine will sufficient for existing things to come into existence from non-being, so, referring the dissolution of what has been constituted to the same power, we shall take our faith into nothing beyond what is reasonable. And yet perhaps it would be possible, by some ingenuity of argument, to persuade those who quibble about matter not to imagine that they are attacking a case left undefended.

A reply to those who say that matter is co-eternal with God. For the view of matter that holds it to have come into existence from the intelligible and immaterial does not appear to be outside what follows by reason. For we shall find that all matter is composed of certain qualities, and if it were stripped of these, it could nowhere be grasped by thought by itself. Yet each form of quality is separated from the underlying subject by reason; and reason is an intellectual, not a bodily, way of seeing. For example, when an animal or a piece of wood, or anything else of material constitution, is set before our contemplation, we have perceived by conceptual division many things about the subject, the account of each of which is unmixed with what is seen together with it. For the account of colour is one thing, that of weight another, again that of quantity, and that of the particular property perceived by touch. For softness and being two cubits long and the rest of what has been mentioned do not coincide in their account either with one another or with the body. For a proper defining account is conceived for each of them according to what it is, sharing nothing with any other quality seen about the subject. If, then, colour is intelligible, and resistance too is intelligible, and quantity and the rest of such properties, and if, when each of these is taken away from the subject, the whole account of the body is dissolved along with it, it would follow to suppose that the concurrence of those things whose absence we found to be the cause of the body’s dissolution produces the material nature. For as there is no body to which colour, shape, resistance, extension, weight, and the other properties do not belong, while each of these is not body but is found to be something other than body in its own particular account, so, conversely, wherever the things mentioned come together, they produce bodily existence. But if the apprehension of these properties is intellectual, and the divine is intelligible in nature, it is nothing unlikely that these intellectual starting points for the genesis of bodies should have come into existence from the incorporeal nature, the intelligible nature bringing into existence the intelligible powers, and their concurrence with one another bringing the material nature into being. But let these things be examined by us in passing; we must bring the argument back to faith, by which we have accepted that all things came into existence from non-being, and, having been taught by Scripture that they will again be transformed into another state, we do not doubt it.

How one even of those outside might be brought to believe Scripture when it teaches about the resurrection. But perhaps someone, looking at bodies that have been dissolved and judging the divine by the measure of his own power, says that the account of the resurrection is impossible, saying that it cannot be that what now moves will stop and what now does not move will rise. Let such a person take as the first and greatest proof of the truth of the resurrection the trustworthiness of its proclaimer. The credibility of what is said has its certainty from the fulfilment of the other things foretold. For since divine Scripture has set out many sayings of every kind, it is possible, by seeing how the rest of what was said stands as to falsehood or truth, to understand through them the doctrine of the resurrection as well. For if in the other matters the sayings are proved false and wide of the truth, this too is certainly not free of falsehood; but if all the others have experience bearing witness to their truth, it would follow to consider the prediction about the resurrection true as well, through them. Let us recall, then, one or two of the things foretold, and set their outcome against the predictions, so as to know through them whether the word looks to the truth. Who does not know how the people of Israel flourished in old times, rising up against all the powers in the world? What a palace there was in the city of Jerusalem! What walls, what towers, what magnificence of the temple! These were thought worthy of wonder even by the Lord’s disciples, who, filled with admiration at what they saw, asked the Lord to look at them, as the history of the Gospel shows, saying to him, “What works, and what buildings!” But he showed those who admired the present the desolation that would come upon the place and the disappearance of that beauty, saying that nothing of what they saw would be left after a little while. Again, at the time of his passion, the women followed lamenting the unjust sentence against him, for they did not yet look to the purpose of what was happening; but he counselled them to be silent about what was happening to him, for it was not worth tears, and to put off their mourning and lamenting to the true time for tears, when the city would be surrounded by besiegers and its sufferings come to such distress that the one not born would be thought most blessed. In this he also foretold the horror of the mother who ate her child, saying that in those days the barren womb would be called blessed. Where, then, is that palace? Where is the temple? Where are the walls? Where the bulwarks of the towers? Where is the power of the Israelites? Are they not scattered, one here and one there, over almost the whole world? And did not the palace fall in ruins with their overthrow? For it seems to me that the Lord foretold these and similar things not for the sake of the events themselves (for what great gain was the prediction of things certain to happen to those who heard it? They would have known by experience what would happen even without learning it beforehand), but so that through them their faith in greater things might follow in sequence. For the witness of deeds in the one is also a demonstration of the truth in the other. For as, if a farmer were explaining the power of seeds and someone with no experience of farming happened to disbelieve him, it would be enough for the husbandman, as proof of the truth, to show the power in one seed of those lying in the bushel and to guarantee the rest by it; for one who has seen the single grain of wheat or barley, or whatever happens to be in the full bushel, become an ear after it was cast into the clod, would no longer, because of the one, disbelieve about the rest either; so the truth admitted in the other things foretold seems to me enough to testify to the mystery of the resurrection. Or rather, there is the experience of the resurrection itself, which we have learned not so much by words as by the deeds themselves. For since the wonder of the resurrection was great and beyond belief, beginning with lesser works of wonder he gently accustoms our faith, as it were, to the greater. For as a mother, nursing her infant suitably, at first puts milk through the breast into its soft and tender mouth, and when it is already cutting teeth and growing brings it bread, not rough and unprepared, lest the soft and untrained gums be chafed by the hardness of the food, but ground by her own teeth, she makes it measured and suited to the strength of the one receiving it; then, as its strength increases, she gently leads the infant, accustomed to softer food, to more solid nourishment: so the Lord, nursing and feeding human faintheartedness with miracles like an immature infant, first gives a prelude of the power of the resurrection in a disease despaired of, which was great as an achievement, yet not such as to be disbelieved when told. For by rebuking the fever that was violently burning Simon’s mother-in-law, he made so great a change in the evil that she, who was already expected to die, was strong enough to serve those present. Then he adds a little to his power, and, when the royal official’s son lay in admitted danger (for so the history says, that he was about to die, while the father cried, “Come down before my child dies”), he works again the raising of one believed about to die, accomplishing the miracle with greater power in not even coming near the place, but sending life from afar by the strength of his command. Again, in sequence, he goes up to higher miracles. For having set out to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, he willingly delayed on the way, making public the healing of the woman with the flow of blood, who had been hidden, so that during this time death might take hold of the sick girl. When, then, the soul had just been separated from the body, and the mourners were wailing in loud lament over the calamity, he raised the girl to life again by his word of command, as from sleep, leading human weakness by a kind of road and sequence to what is greater. … What is it that is said? That she had no hope of children to heal the misfortune of her loss, for the woman was a widow. She had no other to look to in place of the one departed, for he was her only son. How great the evil in this is, anyone not estranged from nature can easily see. Him alone she had known in labour pains, him alone she had nursed at her breasts; he alone made her table bright, he alone was the cause of brightness in the house, playing, studying, exercising, rejoicing, in processions, in wrestling schools, in gatherings of youth: all that is sweet and precious to a mother’s eyes, he alone was. Already of the age for marriage, the scion of the family, the branch of succession, the staff of old age. And the mention of his age was another lament. For to say “young man” was to speak of the flower of youth withered, just growing green with down, his beard not yet thick, still shining with the beauty of his cheeks. What, then, was the mother likely to suffer over him? Her heart would be burning as with fire, so that she drew out her lament bitterly over him, clinging to the body as it lay, so as not to hasten his burial but to take her fill of her grief, drawing out her laments over him as long as possible. Nor did the word pass this over: “For when Jesus saw her,” it says, “he had compassion; and he came and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said to the dead man, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise’; and he gave him back alive to his mother.” Now, when the dead man had been dead no short time and was all but laid in the tomb, the Lord performs a greater miracle, with the same command. The working of miracles proceeds still higher, so that what was seen might come nearer to the disbelieved wonder of the resurrection. One of the Lord’s companions and friends was ill; the sick man’s name was Lazarus. And the Lord declines to visit his friend, being far from the sick man, so that death might find room and power, in the absence of the Life, to do its own work through the disease. In Galilee the Lord tells his disciples what had happened to Lazarus, and also of his intention to go to him to raise him who lay dead. But they were very afraid because of the cruelty of the Jews, thinking it hard and dangerous to be again in Judea in the midst of those who sought to kill; and so, delaying and putting off, they made their return from Galilee late. But authority prevailed, and the disciples were led by the Lord to be initiated, as it were, in Bethany into the preliminary rites of the general resurrection. It was already four days after his death; all that was customary had been done for the departed; the body was hidden in a tomb. It was probably already swollen and dissolving into corruption, the body mouldering in the dampness of the earth and necessarily falling apart. The thing was one to shrink from, nature being forced to give back to life what had been dissolved into stench. Then the disbelieved work of the general resurrection is brought to demonstration by a more evident miracle. For it is not someone rising from a severe illness, nor one at his last breath brought back to life, nor a child just dead restored to life, nor a young man about to be carried to the tomb released from his bier; but a man past his prime, a corpse, stale, already swollen and decomposing, so that even his friends could not bear for the Lord to approach the tomb because of the offensiveness of the decayed body within it, made alive by a single call, confirms the proclamation of the resurrection, that is, what is expected in general, which we have learned by experience in a part. For as, at the renewal of the universe, the Apostle says that the Lord himself will descend with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel, and by a trumpet will raise the dead to incorruption, so now too the one in the tomb, shaking off death like a kind of sleep at the voice of command, and shaking from himself the corruption that had come upon his dead state, springs from the tomb whole and sound, not hindered from coming out even by the bands of the grave clothes about his feet and hands. Are these things small for faith in the resurrection of the dead? Do you seek to have your judgment on this confirmed by other things as well? But it seems to me that not in vain did the Lord say to those at Capernaum, as though speaking to himself in the person of men, “You will surely say to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’” For having accustomed people to the miracle of the resurrection in other bodies, he had to confirm the word in his own humanity. You saw the proclamation at work in others: those about to die, the child that had just ceased to live, the young man at the tomb, the decayed corpse, all alike released to life by one command. Do you seek also those who came to death through wounds and blood, lest some weakness of the life-giving power in their case undo the grace? See him whose hands were pierced through with nails; see him whose side was pierced by the spear. Pass your fingers through the marks of the nails; thrust your hand into the wound from the spear. You can surely guess how far the point was likely to have gone in, reckoning its passage inward by the breadth of the scar. For a wound that admitted the entrance of a human hand shows how far within the depth the iron had gone. If, then, he has been raised, it would be easy to utter the apostolic saying: “How do some say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Since, then, every prediction of the Lord is shown to be true by the witness of events, and we have learned this not by word only but have received the demonstration of the promise in deed from those who themselves returned to life by resurrection, what occasion is left to those who do not believe? Shall we not bid farewell to those who by philosophy and empty deceit lead astray the simple faith, and hold to the bare confession, having learned briefly from the Prophet the manner of the grace, in the words, “You will take away their spirit, and they will fail and return to their dust. You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth”? Then also he says that the Lord rejoices in his works, when sinners fail from the earth. For how will anyone be named from sin, when sin does not exist?

That the resurrection is not beyond what is probable. But there are some who, because of the weakness of human reasoning, judge the divine power by our measures and maintain that what is beyond our capacity is not possible for God either. For they point to the disappearance of those long dead and the remains of those reduced to ashes by fire, and besides these they bring forward in argument the carnivorous animals, and the fish that has taken into its own body the flesh of a shipwrecked man, and has itself in turn become human food and passed by digestion into the bulk of the one who ate it. And they go through many such petty things, unworthy of the great power and authority of God, to overturn the doctrine, as though God could not restore to man what is his own by the same roads in reverse. But let us cut short in a few words their long detours of logical vanity, admitting that the dissolution of the body into the things from which it was composed does take place; and not only that, according to the divine word, earth is dissolved into earth, but that air and moisture too go to what is akin to them, and each of the things in us passes to its kin, even if the human body has been mixed by being eaten with carnivorous birds or the fiercest beasts, even if it has come under the teeth of fish, even if it has been changed by fire into vapours and dust. But wherever one may carry man in hypothesis by argument, he is certainly within the world; and the inspired word teaches that this is held in the hand of God. If, then, you are not ignorant of anything in your own palm, do you think God’s knowledge weaker than your own power, so that it could not find out exactly what is contained within the divine span?

That it is possible, when the human body has been dissolved into the elements of the universe, for each to have his own restored again from the common stock. But perhaps, looking at the elements of the universe, you think it hard, when the air in us has been poured back into its kindred element, and the hot and the moist and the earthy have likewise been mixed with their kinds, for what is ours to run back from the common stock to its own. Do you not reckon, then, by human examples, that not even this exceeds the bounds of the divine power? You have surely seen somewhere among human dwellings a common herd of animals, made up from a common stock; yet when it is divided again among its owners, familiarity with their homes and the marks put upon them restore to each his own. If you think of something like this about yourself, you will not miss the mark. For since the soul is disposed by a natural attachment and affection toward the body that dwelt with it, there is in it, secretly, through the blending, a kind of attachment to and recognition of what is its own, as though certain marks had been put on it by nature, by which the common stock remains unconfused, being distinguished by what is particular. Since, then, the soul draws again to itself what is akin and its own, what labour, tell me, would there be for the divine power to hinder the concourse of what belongs together, hastening to its own by some ineffable attraction of nature? That certain marks of our compound remain with the soul even after the dissolution is shown by the dialogue in Hades: the bodies had been committed to the tomb, but some bodily mark of recognition remained with the souls, by which Lazarus was recognized and the rich man was not unknown. It is nothing beyond what is probable, then, to believe that the return of the rising bodies takes place again from the common to the particular, especially for one who examines our nature more carefully. For our being is not wholly in flux and change; for then it would be altogether incomprehensible, having no stability by nature. But by a more exact account, some things in us are stable and others proceed by alteration. For the body is altered by growth and diminution, putting on its successive ages like garments; but through every change the form remains unchanged in itself, not departing from the marks once set on it by nature, but appearing with its own signs of recognition in all the body’s changes. Let us except from the argument the alteration from disease that befalls the form; for the disfigurement of disease takes over the form like a strange mask, and when this has been removed by the word, as in the case of Naaman the Syrian, or of those whose stories are told in the Gospel, the form hidden by the affliction appeared again through health in its own marks of recognition. It is not what flows and passes away in alteration, then, but what is stable and remains the same in our compound, that the godlike element of the soul grows to. And since the particular variations of the blending change the differences of form, and the blending is nothing else than the mixture of the elements (we call elements those that underlie the construction of the universe, of which the human body too is composed), since the form necessarily remains with the soul like the impression of a seal, the things that took the stamp of the seal are not unknown to it; but at the time of the reconstitution it receives back to itself whatever fits the stamp of the form, and those certainly fit which were stamped by the form at the beginning. It is nothing beyond what is probable, then, for what is one’s own to return again from the common stock to the individual. It is said too that quicksilver, poured out of its vessel onto a sloping and dusty place, is scattered over the ground in small globules, mixing with nothing it meets; but if one gathers together what has been scattered in many places, it flows back of its own accord to its kind, not hindered by anything in between from mixing with itself. Something of this kind, I think, we must understand about the human compound too: if only the signal is given by God, the corresponding parts are of their own accord united again with their own, no toil arising for the one who reconstitutes the nature through them. For in the things that grow from the earth too, we see no labour on nature’s part in changing wheat or millet or any other seed of grain or pulse into stalk and beard and ear; for the suitable nourishment passes without effort, of its own accord, from the common stock to the particular property of each of the seeds. If, then, while a common moisture underlies all growing things, each of those nourished by it has drawn what suits it for the increase of what is its own, what is new if, in the account of the resurrection too, the drawing of what is its own by each of those who rise happens in the same way as with seeds? So from all these things it can be learned that the proclamation of the resurrection contains nothing beyond what is known by experience. And yet we have passed over in silence the best known of our facts, I mean the first beginning of our constitution. For who does not know the wonder-working of nature, what the mother’s womb receives and what it produces? Do you not see how simple in a way and uniform is what is cast into the inward parts as the beginning of the body’s constitution? But what account will express the variety of the compound that is constructed? And who, not having learned such a thing in our common nature, would think it possible that this small and worthless thing is the beginning of so great a reality? I call it great, looking not only at the formation of the body, but at what is worthy of wonder before this, I mean the soul itself and what is seen in it.