On the Making of Man.

 I. Wherein is a partial inquiry into the nature of the world, and a more minute exposition of the things which preceded the genesis of man

 II. Why man appeared last, after the creation

 III. That the nature of man is more precious than all the visible creation

 IV. That the construction of man throughout signifies his ruling power .

 V. That man is a likeness of the Divine sovereignty .

 VI. An examination of the kindred of mind to nature: wherein, by way of digression, is refuted the doctrine of the Anomœans .

 VII. Why man is destitute of natural weapons and covering

 VIII. Why man’s form is upright and that hands were given him because of reason wherein also is a speculation on the difference of souls .

 IX. That the form of man was framed to serve as an instrument for the use of reason .

 X. That the mind works by means of the senses.

 XI. That the nature of mind is invisible.

 XII. An examination of the question where the ruling principle is to be considered to reside wherein also is a discussion of tears and laughter, and

 XIII. A Rationale of sleep, of yawning, and of dreams .

 XIV. That the mind is not in a part of the body wherein also is a distinction of the movements of the body and of the soul .

 XV. That the soul proper, in fact and name, is the rational soul, while the others are called so equivocally wherein also is this statement, that the

 XVI. A contemplation of the Divine utterance which said—“Let us make man after our image and likeness” wherein is examined what is the definition of

 XVII. What we must answer to those who raise the question—“If procreation is after sin, how would souls have come into being if the first of mankind h

 XVIII. That our irrational passions have their rise from kindred with irrational nature.

 XIX. To those who say that the enjoyment of the good things we look for will again consist in meat and drink, because it is written that by these mean

 XX. What was the life in Paradise, and what was the forbidden tree ?

 XXI. That the resurrection is looked for as a consequence, not so much from the declaration of Scripture as from the very necessity of things .

 XXII. To those who say, “If the resurrection is a thing excellent and good, how is it that it has not happened already, but is hoped for in some perio

 XXIII. That he who confesses the beginning of the world’s existence must necessarily also agree as to its end .

 XXIV. An argument against those who say that matter is co-eternal with God.

 XXV. How one even of those who are without may be brought to believe the Scripture when teaching of the resurrection .

 XXVI. That the resurrection is not beyond probability .

 XXVII. That it is possible, when the human body is dissolved into the elements of the universe, that each should have his own body restored from the c

 XXVIII. To those who say that souls existed before bodies, or that bodies were formed before souls wherein there is also a refutation of the fables c

 XXIX. An establishment of the doctrine that the cause of the existence of soul and body is one and the same.

 XXX. A brief examination of the construction of our bodies from a medical point of view.

XIX. To those who say that the enjoyment of the good things we look for will again consist in meat and drink, because it is written that by these means man at first lived in Paradise84    Otherwise Chap. xx. The Bodleian ms. of the Latin version has the title:—“How the food ought to be understood with which man was fed in Paradise and from which he was prohibited.”.

1. But some one perhaps will say that man will not be returning to the same form of life, if as it seems, we formerly existed by eating, and shall hereafter be free from that function. I, however, when I hear the Holy Scripture, do not understand only bodily meat, or the pleasure of the flesh; but I recognize another kind of food also, having a certain analogy to that of the body, the enjoyment of which extends to the soul alone: “Eat of my bread85    Prov. ix. 5.,” is the bidding of Wisdom to the hungry; and the Lord declares those blessed who hunger for such food as this, and says, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink”: and “drink ye joy86    Cf. Is. xii. 3,” is the great Isaiah’s charge to those who are able to hear his sublimity. There is a prophetic threatening also against those worthy of vengeance, that they shall be punished with famine; but the “famine” is not a lack of bread and water, but a failure of the word:—“not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord87    Amos viii. 11. .”

2. We ought, then, to conceive that the fruit in Eden was something worthy of God’s planting (and Eden is interpreted to mean “delight”), and not to doubt that man was hereby nourished: nor should we at all conceive, concerning the mode of life in Paradise, this transitory and perishable nutriment: “of every tree of the garden,” He says, “thou mayest freely eat88    Gen. ii. 16..”

3. Who will give to him that has a healthful hunger that tree that is in Paradise, which includes all good, which is named “every tree,” in which this passage bestows on man the right to share? for in the universal and transcendent saying every form of good is in harmony with itself, and the whole is one. And who will keep me back from that tasting of the tree which is of mixed and doubtful kind? for surely it is clear to all who are at all keen-sighted what that “every” tree is whose fruit is life, and what again that mixed tree is whose end is death: for He Who presents ungrudgingly the enjoyment of “every” tree, surely by some reason and forethought keeps man from participation in those which are of doubtful kind.

4. It seems to me that I may take the great David and the wise Solomon as my instructors in the interpretation of this text: for both understand the grace of the permitted delight to be one,—that very actual Good, which in truth is “every” good;—David, when he says, “Delight thou in the Lord89    Ps. xxxvii. 4.,” and Solomon, when he names Wisdom herself (which is the Lord) “a tree of life90    Prov. iii. 18..”

5. Thus the “every” tree of which the passage gives food to him who was made in the likeness of God, is the same with the tree of life; and there is opposed to this tree another tree, the food given by which is the knowledge of good and evil:—not that it bears in turn as fruit each of these things of opposite significance, but that it produces a fruit blended and mixed with opposite qualities, the eating of which the Prince of Life forbids, and the serpent counsels, that he may prepare an entrance for death: and he obtained credence for his counsel, covering over the fruit with a fair appearance and the show of pleasure, that it might be pleasant to the eyes and stimulate the desire to taste.

ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ ΙΘʹ. Πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας, πάλιν ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει εἶναι τῶν ἐλπιζομένων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν, διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ γεγράφθαι διὰ τούτων τὸν ἄνθρωπον ζῇν.

Ἀλλ' ἴσως τις οὐκ εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ πάλιν τῆς ζωῆς εἶδος ἐπανελεύσεσθαι λέγει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, εἴγε πρότερον μὲν ἐν τῷ ἐσθίειν ἦμεν, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης λειτουργίας ἀφεθησόμεθα. Ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τῆς ἁγίας ἀκούων Γραφῆς, οὐ μόνον σωματικὴν ἐπίσταμαι βρῶσιν, οὐδὲ τὴν διὰ σαρκὸς εὐφροσύνην, ἀλλά τινα καὶ ἑτέραν οἶδα τροφὴν, ἀναλογίαν τινὰ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἔχουσαν, ἦς ἡ ἀπόλαυσις ἐπὶ μόνην τὴν ψυχὴν διαβαίνει. Φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων, ἡ Σοφία τοῖς πεινῶσι διακελεύεται: καὶ μακαρίζει τοὺς τὴν τοιαύτην βρῶσιν πεινῶντας ὁ Κύριος. «Καὶ εἴ τις διψᾷ, φησὶν, ἐρχέσθω πρὸς μὲ, καὶ πινέτω.» Καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἡσαΐας, Πίετε εὐφροσύνην, τοῖς δυνατοῖς ἐπαΐειν τῆς μεγαλοφυΐας αὐτοῦ ἐγκελεύεται. Ἔστι δέ τις καὶ ἀπειλὴ προφητικὴ κατὰ τῶν τιμωρίας ἀξίων, ὡς λιμῷ κολασθησομένων: ὁ δὲ λιμὸς οὐκ ἄρτου τίς ἐστιν ἀπορία καὶ ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ λόγου ἐπίλειψις. Οὐ λιμὸν γὰρ ἄρτου φησὶν, ἢ δίψαν ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ λιμὸν τοῦ ἀκοῦσαι λόγων Κυρίου. Οὐκοῦν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φυτείας τῆς ἐν Ἐδὲμ (τρυφὴ δὲ ἡ Ἐδὲμ ἑρμηνεύεται) ἄξιόν τινα τὸν καρπὸν ἐννοῆσαι προσήκει, καὶ τρέφεσθαι διὰ τούτου μὴ ἀμφιβάλλειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον: καὶ μὴ πάντως τὴν παροδικὴν καὶ ἀπόῤῥυτον ταύτην τροφὴν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ παραδείσου διαγωγῆς ἐννοεῖν. «Ἀπὸ παντὸς, φησὶ, ξύλου τοῦ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ βρώσει φάγῃ.» Τίς δώσει τῷ ὑγιεινῶς πεινῶντι τὸ ξύλον ἐκεῖνο, τὸ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, τὸ παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ περιληπτικὸν, ᾧ ὄνομά ἐστι τὸ πᾶν, οὗ χαρίζεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν μετουσίαν ὁ λόγος; τῷ γὰρ γενικῷ τε καὶ ὑπερκειμένῳ λόγῳ πᾶσα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἰδέα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συμφυῶς ἔχει, καὶ ἕν τι τὸ ὄλον ἐστί. Τίς δέ με τῆς συμμιγοῦς τε καὶ ἐπαμφοτεριζούσης τοῦ ξύλου γεύσεως ἀποστήσει; πάντως γὰρ οὐκ ἄδηλον τοῖς διορατικωτέροις, τί τὸ πᾶν ἐκεῖνο, οὗ καρπὸς ἡ ζωὴ, καὶ πάλιν, τί τὸ ἐπίμικτον τοῦτο, οὗ πέρας ὁ θάνατος. Ὁ γὰρ τοῦ παντὸς τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν ἀφθόνως προθεὶς, λόγῳ τινὶ πάντως καὶ προμηθείᾳ τῆς τῶν ἐπικοίνων μετουσίας ἀπείργει τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Καί μοι δοκεῖ τὸν μέγαν Δαβὶδ, καὶ τὸν σοφὸν Σολομῶντα διδασκάλους τῆς τοῦ λόγου τούτου παραλαβεῖν ἐξηγήσεως. Ἀμφότεροι γὰρ τῆς συγκεχωρημένης τρυφῆς μίαν ἡγοῦνται τὴν χάριν, αὐτὸ τὸ ὄντως ἀγαθὸν, ὃ δὴ καὶ πᾶν ἐστιν ἀγαθόν. Δαβὶδ μὲν λέγων, «Κατατρύφησον τοῦ Κυρίου:» Σολομὼν δὲ τὴν σοφίαν αὐτὴν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ Κύριος, ξύλον ζωῆς ὀνομάζων. Οὐκοῦν ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλῳ τὸ πᾶν ξύλον, οὗ τὴν βρῶσιν τῷ κατὰ Θεὸν πλασθέντι ὁ λόγος δίδωσιν. Ἀντιδιαιρεῖται δὲ τῷ ξύλῳ τούτῳ ἕτερον ξύλον, οὗ ἡ βρῶσις καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ γνῶσίς ἐστιν, οὐκ ἰδιαζόντως ἑκάτερον τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον σημαινομένων ἐν μέρει καρποφοροῦντος: ἀλλά τινα συγκεχυμένον καὶ σύμμικτον καρπὸν ἐξανθοῦντος ταῖς ἐναντίαις συγκεκραμένον ποιότησιν, οὗ κωλύει μὲν τὴν βρῶσιν ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς, συμβουλεύει δὲ ὁ ὄφις, ἵνα τῷ θανάτῳ κατασκευάσῃ τὴν εἴσοδον. Καὶ πιθανὸς γίνεται συμβουλεύσας, εὐχροίᾳ τινὶ καὶ ἡδονῇ τὸν καρπὸν περιχρώσας, ὡς ἂν ὀφθείη τε ἡδέως, καὶ τὴν ὄρεξιν πρὸς τὴν γεῦσιν ὑπερεθίσειεν.