On the Soul and the Resurrection.

 With a heart still fermenting with my pain, I asked— How can that ever be practised by mankind? There is such an instinctive and deep-seated abhorrenc

 Why, what is the especial pain you feel, asked the Teacher, in the mere necessity itself of dying? This common talk of unthinking persons is no suffic

 What! is there no occasion for grieving, I replied to her, when we see one who so lately lived and spoke becoming all of a sudden lifeless and motionl

 Whilst I was thus enlarging on the subject, the Teacher signed to me with her hand , and said: Surely what alarms and disturbs your mind is not the th

 I answered rather audaciously, and without due consideration of what I said, for my passionate grief had not yet given me back my judgment. In fact, I

 Away, she cried, with that pagan nonsense! For therein the inventor of lies fabricates false theories only to harm the Truth. Observe this, and nothin

 And pray how, I asked, are we to get a firm and unmovable belief in the soul’s continuance? I, too, am sensible of the fact that human life will be be

 Well, replied the Teacher, we must seek where we may get a beginning for our discussion upon this point and if you please, let the defence of the opp

 When she made this request, and I had deprecated the suspicion that I was making the objections in real earnest, instead of only wishing to get a firm

 Would not the defenders of the opposite belief say this: that the body, being composite, must necessarily be resolved into that of which it is compose

 The Teacher sighed gently at these words of mine, and then said Maybe these were the objections, or such as these, that the Stoics and Epicureans col

 That is the very point, I said, upon which our adversaries cannot fail to have doubts viz. that all things depend on God and are encompassed by Him,

 It would be more fitting, she cried, to be silent about such doubts, and not to deign to make any answer to such foolish and wicked propositions for

 And pray how, I asked, does this belief in the existence of God prove along with it the existence of the human soul? For God, surely, is not the same

 She replied: It has been said by wise men that man is a little world in himself and contains all the elements which go to complete the universe. If th

 I rejoined, Nay, it may be very possible to infer a wisdom transcending the universe from the skilful and artistic designs observable in this harmoniz

 Most certainly, the Virgin replied, the soul herself, to those who wish to follow the wise proverb and know themselves, is a competent instructress o

 What then, I asked, is the soul? Perhaps there may be some possible means of delineating its nature so that we may have some comprehension of this su

 Its definition, the Teacher replied, has been attempted in different ways by different writers, each according to his own bent but the following is o

 But what, I asked, if, insisting on the great differences which, in spite of a certain quality of matter shared alike by all elements in their visible

 Your instance, she replied, and your reasoning upon it, though belonging to the counter-argument, may both of them be made allies of our statement, an

 Why, how can you say that?

 Because, you see, so to understand, manipulate, and dispose the soulless matter, that the art which is stored away in such mechanisms becomes almost l

 That the thing perceived, I replied, is not the same as the thing not perceived, I grant but I do not discover any answer to our question in such a s

 We do learn, she replied, much about many things by this very same method, inasmuch as, in the very act of saying a thing is “not so and so,” we by im

 Here I interrupted her discourse: If you leave all these out of the account I do not see how you can possibly avoid cancelling along with them the ver

 Shame on such absurdity! said she, indignantly interrupting. A fine conclusion this narrow-minded, grovelling view of the world brings us to! If all t

 Well, then, I retorted, we only exchange one paradox for another by arguing in this way for our reason will be reduced to the conclusion that the Dei

 Say not so, she replied to talk so also is blasphemous. Rather, as the Scripture tells you, say that the one is like the other. For that which is “ma

 That those atoms, I rejoined, should unite and again be separated, and that this constitutes the formation and dissolution of the body, no one would d

 But the intelligent and undimensional, she replied, is neither contracted nor diffused (contraction and diffusion being a property of body only) but

 Upon this I recurred to the definition which she had previously given of the soul, and I said that to my thinking her definition had not indicated dis

 You are quite justified, she replied, in raising this question, and it has ere this been discussed by many elsewhere namely, what we are to think of

 What then, I asked the Teacher, are we to think about this? For I cannot yet see how we can fitly repudiate faculties which are actually within us.

 You see, she replied, there is a battle of the reason with them and a struggle to rid the soul of them and there are men in whom this struggle has en

 And yet, I rejoined to the virgin, we see no slight help afforded for improvement to the virtuous from all these conditions. Daniel’s desire was his g

 I think, replied the Teacher, that I am myself responsible for this confusion arising from different accounts of the matter for I did not state it as

 Much moved by these words, I said: To any one who reflects indeed, your exposition, advancing as it does in this consecutive manner, though plain and

 And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set? So, if it is necessary tha

 She ceased after this statement and allowed the discussion a short interval, in which I reviewed mentally all that had been said and reverting to tha

 Clearly, replied the Teacher, you have not quite attended to the argument. In speaking of the soul’s migration from the seen to the unseen, I thought

 And how, then, I asked, is it that some think that by the underworld is meant an actual place, and that it harbours within itself

 Well, replied the Teacher, our doctrine will be in no ways injured by such a supposition. For if it is true, what you say above

 But what, I asked, if your opponent should shield himself behind the Apostle, where he says that every reasoning creature, in the restitution of all t

 We shall stand by our doctrine, answered the Teacher, even if we should hear them adducing these words. For the existence of the soul (after death) we

 But if some were to ask the meaning of the Apostle in this utterance, what is one to say? Would you remove all signification of place from the passage

 I do not think, she replied, that the divine Apostle divided the intellectual world into localities, when he named part as in heaven, part as on earth

 When she had finished, I hesitated a moment, and then said: I am not yet satisfied about the thing which we have been inquiring into after all that h

 She waited a moment and then said: Give me leave to invent a fanciful simile in order to illustrate the matter before us: even though that which I sup

 You seem, I interrupted, in this passing remark to have made an excellent defence of the faith in the Resurrection. By it, I think, the opponents of t

 That is very true, the Teacher replied. For we may hear these opponents urging the following difficulty. “The atoms are resolved, like to like, into t

 Then to meet such an objection, I rejoined, the above opinion about the soul will, as I said, avail namely, that she remains after dissolution in tho

 The following illustration also, the Teacher went on, might be very properly added to those already brought forward, to show that the soul has not nee

 I applauded this as well devised to bring out the natural features of the case before us and I said: It is very well to speak like this and to believ

 The Teacher answered: The expressions of that narrative of the Word are certainly material but still many hints are interspersed in it to rouse the s

 What then, I asked, are the fire and the gulf and the other features in the picture? Are they not that which they are said to be?

 I think, she replied, that the Gospel signifies by means of each of them certain doctrines with regard to our question of the soul. For when the patri

 What then, I asked, is the doctrine here?

 Why, seeing that Lazarus’ soul is occupied with his present blessings and turns round to look at nothing that he has left, while the rich man is still

 Then, after a moment’s reflection on the meaning of these latter words, I said: I think that a contradiction now arises between what you have said and

 How so? she asked.

 Why, when every unreasoning instinct is quenched within us after our purgation, this principle of desire will not exist any more than the other princi

 To that objection, she replied, we answer this. The speculative and critical faculty is the property of the soul’s godlike part for it is by these th

 Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with but He operates, as your arg

 That, said the Teacher, is my meaning and also that the agony will be measured by the amount of evil there is in each individual. For it would not be

 But, said I, what help can one find in this devout hope, when one considers the greatness of the evil in undergoing torture even for a single year an

 Why , either we must plan to keep the soul absolutely untouched and free from any stain of evil or, if our passionate nature makes that quite impossi

 What then, I asked, are we to say to those whose hearts fail at these calamities ?

 We will say to them, replied the Teacher, this. “It is foolish, good people, for you to fret and complain of the chain of this fixed sequence of life’

 But it somehow seems to me now, I said, that the doctrine of the Resurrection necessarily comes on for our discussion a doctrine which I think is eve

 As for the thinkers, the Teacher went on, outside our own system of thought, they have, with all their diverse ways of looking at things, one in one p

 The Teacher finished her exposition and to the many persons sitting by her bedside the whole discussion seemed now to have arrived at a fitting concl

 But, said she, which of these points has been left unnoticed in what has been said?

 Why, the actual doctrine of the Resurrection, I replied.

 And yet, she answered, much in our long and detailed discussion pointed to that.

 Then are you not aware, I insisted, of all the objections, a very swarm of them, which our antagonists bring against us in connection with that hope o

 She, however, replied, First, I think, we must briefly run over the scattered proclamations of this doctrine in Holy Scripture they shall give the fi

 But that, said I, was not the point in question. Most of your hearers will assent to the fact that there will some day be a Resurrection, and that man

 When I had finished, the Teacher thus replied, You have attacked the doctrines connected with the Resurrection with some spirit, in the way of rhetori

Why105    Macrina’s answer must begin here, though the Paris Editt. take no notice of a break. Krabinger on the authority of one of his Codd. has inserted φησὶν ἡ διδάσκαλος after προνοητέον, either we must plan to keep the soul absolutely untouched and free from any stain of evil; or, if our passionate nature makes that quite impossible, then we must plan that our failures in excellence consist only in mild and easily-curable derelictions. For the Gospel in its teaching distinguishes between106    distinguishes between. The word here is οἶδεν, which is used of “teaching,” “telling,” after the fashion of the later Greek writers, in making a quotation. a debtor of ten thousand talents and a debtor of five hundred pence, and of fifty pence and of a farthing107    of a farthing. No mention is made of this in the Parable (S. Matt. xviii. 23; S. Luke vii. 41). The “uttermost farthing” of S. Matt. v. 26 does not apply here., which is “the uttermost” of coins; it proclaims that God’s just judgment reaches to all, and enhances the payment necessary as the weight of the debt increases, and on the other hand does not overlook the very smallest debts. But the Gospel tells us that this payment of debts was not effected by the refunding of money, but that the indebted man was delivered to the tormentors until he should pay the whole debt; and that means nothing else than paying in the coin of torment108    διὰ τῆς βασάνου. Of course διὰ cannot go with ὀφειλὴν, though Krabinger translates “per tormenta debita.” He has however, with Oehler, pointed the Greek right, so as to take ὄφλημα as in opposition to ὀφειλὴν the inevitable recompense, the recompense, I mean, that consists in taking the share of pain incurred during his lifetime, when he inconsiderately chose mere pleasure, undiluted with its opposite; so that having put off from him all that foreign growth which sin is, and discarded the shame of any debts, he might stand in liberty and fearlessness. Now liberty is the coming up to a state which owns no master and is self-regulating109    a state which owns no master and is self-regulating, &c. He repeats this, De Hom. Opif. c. 4: “For the soul immediately shows its royal and exalted character, far removed from the lowliness of private station, in that it owns no master, and is self-governed, swayed autocratically by its own will,—for to whom else does this belong than to a king?” and c. 16: “Thus, there is in us the principle of all excellence, all virtue, and every higher thing that we conceive: but pre-eminent among all is the fact that we are free from necessity, and not in bondage to any natural force, but have decision in our power as we please: for virtue is a voluntary thing, subject to no dominion:” and Orat. Catech. c. 5: “Was it not, then, most right that that which is in every detail made like the Divine should possess in its nature a self-ruling and independent principle, such as to enable the participation of the good to be the reward of its virtue?” It would be possible to quote similar language from the Neoplatonists (e.g. Plotinus vi. 83–6): but Gregory learnt the whole bearing and meaning of moral liberty from none but Origen, whose so-called “heresies” all flowed from his constant insistence on its reality.; it is that with which we were gifted by God at the beginning, but which has been obscured by the feeling of shame arising from indebtedness. Liberty too is in all cases one and the same essentially; it has a natural attraction to itself. It follows, then, that as everything that is free will be united with its like, and as virtue is a thing that has no master, that is, is free, everything that is free will be united with virtue. But, further, the Divine Being is the fountain of all virtue. Therefore, those who have parted with evil will be united with Him; and so, as the Apostle says, God will be “all in all110    This (1 Cor. xv. 28) is a text much handled by the earlier Greek Fathers. Origen especially has made it one of the Scripture foundations upon which he has built up theology. This passage in Gregory should be compared with the following in Origen, c. Cels. iv. 69, where he has been speaking of evil and its origin, and its disappearance: “God checks the wider spread of evil, and banishes it altogether in a way that is conducive to the good of the whole. Whether or not there is reason to believe that after the banishment of evil it will again appear is a separate question. By later corrections, then, God does put right some defects: for although in the creation of the whole all the work was fair and strong, nevertheless a certain healing process is needed for those whom evil has infected, and for the world itself which it has as it were tainted; and God is never negligent in interfering on certain occasions in a way suitable to a changeful and alterable world,” &c. “He is like a husbandman performing different work at different times upon the land, for a final harvest.” Also viii. 72: “This subject requires much study and demonstration: still a few things must and shall be said at once tending to show that it is not only possible, but an actual truth, that every being that reasons ‘shall agree in one law’ (quoting Celsus’ words). Now while the Stoics hold that when the strongest of the elements has by its nature prevailed over the rest, there shall be the Conflagration, when all things will fall into the fire, we hold that the Word shall some day master the whole of ‘reasoning nature,’ and shall transfigure it to its own perfection, when each with pure spontaneity shall will what it wishes, and act what it wills. We hold that there is no analogy to be drawn from the case of bodily diseases, and wounds, where some things are beyond the power of any art of healing. We do not hold that there are any of the results of sin which the universal Word, and the universal God, cannot heal. The healing power of the Word is greater than any of the maladies of the soul, and, according to the will, He does draw it to Himself: and so the aim of things is that evil should be annihilated: whether with no possibility whatever of the soul ever turning to it again, is foreign to the present discussion. It is sufficient now to quote Zephaniah” (iii. 7–13, LXX.).”; for this utterance seems to me plainly to confirm the opinion we have already arrived at, for it means that God will be instead of all other things, and in all. For while our present life is active amongst a variety of multiform conditions, and the things we have relations with are numerous, for instance, time, air, locality, food and drink, clothing, sunlight, lamplight, and other necessities of life, none of which, many though they be, are God,—that blessed state which we hope for is in need of none of these things, but the Divine Being will become all, and instead of all, to us, distributing Himself proportionately to every need of that existence. It is plain, too, from the Holy Scripture that God becomes, to those who deserve it, locality, and home, and clothing, and food, and drink, and light, and riches, and dominion, and everything thinkable and nameable that goes to make our life happy. But He that becomes “all” things will be “in all” things too; and herein it appears to me that Scripture teaches the complete annihilation of evil111    But, when A. Jahn, as quoted by Krabinger asserts that Gregory and Origen derived their denial of the eternity of punishment from a source “merely extraneous,” i.e. the Platonists, we must not forget that Plato himself in the Phædo, 113 F (cf. also Gorgias, 525 C, and Republic, x. 615), expressly teaches the eternity of punishment hereafter, for he uses there not the word αἰ& 240·ν or αἰωνίος, but οὔποτε. They were influenced rather by the late Platonists.. If, that is, God will be “in all” existing things, evil; plainly, will not then be amongst them; for if any one was to assume that it did exist then, how will the belief that God will be “in all” be kept intact? The excepting of that one thing, evil, mars the comprehensiveness of the term “all.” But He that will be “in all” will never be in that which does not exist.

_Μ. Ὥστε προνοητέον ἢ καθόλου τῶν τῆς κακίας μολυσμάτων φυλάξαι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀμιγῆ τε καὶ ἀκοινώνητον: ἢ εἰ τοῦτο πάντη ἀμήχανον διὰ τὸ ἔμπαθες τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα ἐν μετρίοις τισὶ καὶ εὐθεραπεύτοις εἶναι τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀποτεύγματα. Οἶδε γὰρ ἡ εὐαγγελικὴ διδασκαλία καὶ μυρίων ὀφειλέτην τινὰ ταλάντων, καὶ πεντακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ πεντήκοντα, καὶ κοδράντου τινὸς, ὅπερ τὸ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν ἐν νομίσμασι: τὴν δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαίαν κρίσιν διὰ πάντων διεξιέναι, καὶ τῷ βάρει τοῦ ὀφλήματος συνεπιτείνουσαν τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς ἀπαιτήσεως, καὶ οὐδὲ τῶν σμικροτάτων ὑπερορῶσαν. Τὴν δὲ ἀπόδοσιν τῶν ὀφλημάτων τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον εἶπεν οὐκ ἐκ χρημάτων διαλύσεως γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ παραδίδοσθαι τοῖς βασανισταῖς τὸν ὑπόχρεων, ἕως ἂν, φησὶν, ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον: ὅπερ οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν, ἢ διὰ τῆς βασάνου τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ὀφειλὴν ἀποτίσαι, τὸ ὄφλημα τῆς τῶν λυπηρῶν μετουσίας, ὧν παρὰ τὸν βίον ὑπόχρεως ἐγένετο, ἀμιγῆ τε καὶ ἄκρατον τοῦ ἐναντίου τὴν ἡδονὴν ὑπὸ ἀβουλίας ἑλόμενος, καὶ οὕτως, ἅπαν ἀποθέμενος τὸ ἀλλότριον ἑαυτοῦ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ἁμαρτία, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὀφλημάτων αἰσχύνην ἀποδυσάμενος, ἐν ἐλευθερίᾳ τε καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ γένηται. Ἡ δ' ἐλευθερία ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς τὸ ἀδέσποτόν τε καὶ αὐτοκρατὲς ἐξομοίωσις, ἡ κατ' ἀρχὰς μὲν ἡμῖν παρὰ Θεοῦ δεδωρημένη, συγκαλυφθεῖσα τῇ τῶν ὀφλημάτων αἰσχύνῃ. Πᾶσα δ' ἐλευθερία μία τίς ἐστι τῇ φύσει καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν οἰκείως ἔχει. Ἀκολούθως οὖν πᾶν τὸ ἐλεύθερον τῷ ὁμοίῳ συναρμοσθήσεται: ἀρετὴ δὲ ἀδέσποτον. Οὐκοῦν ἐν ταύτῃ γενήσεται πᾶν τὸ ἐλεύθερον, ἀδέσποτον γὰρ τὸ ἐλεύθερον.
Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἡ θεία φύσις ἡ πηγὴ πάσης ἐστὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς. Ἐν ταύτῃ ἄρα οἱ τῆς κακίας ἀπηλλαγμένοι γενήσονται, ἵνα, καθώς φησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος, ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. Αὕτη γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ σαφῶς μοι δοκεῖ βεβαιοῦν τὴν προεξητασμένην διάνοιαν, ἡ λέγουσα, καὶ εἰς πάντα γενέσθαι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι. Τῆς γὰρ ἐν τῷ παρόντι ζωῆς ποικίλως τε καὶ πολυειδῶς ἡμῖν ἐνεργουμένης, πολλὰ μέν ἐστιν ὧν μετέχομεν, οἷον χρόνου καὶ ἀέρος καὶ τόπου, βρώσεώς τε καὶ πόσεως, καὶ σκεπασμάτων, καὶ ἡλίου, καὶ λύχνου, καὶ ἄλλων πρὸς τὴν χρείαν τοῦ βίου πολλῶν, ὧν οὐδέν ἐστιν ὁ Θεός: ἡ δὲ προσδοκωμένη μακαριότης μὲν οὐδενός ἐστιν ἐπιδεὴς, πάντα δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ ἀντὶ πάντων ἡ θεία γενήσεται φύσις, πρὸς πᾶσαν χρείαν τῆς ζωῆς ἐκείνης ἑαυτὴν ἁρμοδίως ἐπιμερίζουσα. Καὶ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν θείων λόγων, ὅτι καὶ τόπος γίνεται ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς ἀξίοις, καὶ οἶκος, καὶ ἔνδυμα, καὶ τροφὴ, καὶ πόσις, καὶ φῶς, καὶ πλοῦτος, καὶ βασιλεία, καὶ πᾶν νόημά τε καὶ ὄνομα τῶν πρὸς τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἡμῖν συντελούντων ζωήν. Ὁ δὲ πάντα γινόμενος καὶ ἐν πᾶσι γίνεται. Ἐν τούτῳ δέ μοι δοκεῖ τὸν παντελῆ τῆς κακίας ἀφανισμὸν δογματίζειν ὁ λόγος. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ὁ Θεὸς ἔσται, ἡ κακία δηλαδὴ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν οὐκ ἔσται. Εἰ γάρ τις ὑπόθοιτο κἀκείνην εἶναι, πῶς σωθήσεται τὸ ἐν πᾶσι τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι; Ἡ γὰρ ὑπεξαίρεσις ἐκείνης, ἐλλιπῆ τῶν πάντων ποιεῖ τὴν περίληψιν. Ἀλλ' ὁ ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐσόμενος, ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν οὐκ ἔσται.