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.

VI. An examination of the kindred of mind to nature: wherein, by way of digression, is refuted the doctrine of the Anomœans19    The Bodleian Latin ms. gives:—“That God has not human limbs, and that the image of the Father and of the Son is one, against the Eunomians.”.

1. And let no one suppose me to say that the Deity is in touch with existing things in a manner resembling human operation, by means of different faculties. For it is impossible to conceive in the simplicity of the Godhead the varied and diverse nature of the apprehensive operation: not even in our own case are the faculties which apprehend things numerous, although we are in touch with those things which affect our life in many ways by means of our senses; for there is one faculty, the implanted mind itself, which passes through each of the organs of sense and grasps the things beyond: this it is that, by means of the eyes, beholds what is seen; this it is that, by means of hearing, understands what is said; that is content with what is to our taste, and turns from what is unpleasant; that uses the hand for whatever it wills, taking hold or rejecting by its means, using the help of the organ for this purpose precisely as it thinks expedient.

2. If in men, then, even though the organs formed by nature for purposes of perception may be different, that which operates and moves by means of all, and uses each appropriately for the object before it, is one and the same, not changing its nature by the differences of operations, how could any one suspect multiplicity of essence in God on the ground of His varied powers? for “He that made the eye,” as the prophet says, and “that planted the ear20    Ps. xciv. 9.,” stamped on human nature these operations to be as it were significant characters, with reference to their models in Himself: for He says, “Let us make man in our image21    Gen. i. 26..”

3. But what, I would ask, becomes of the heresy of the Anomœans? what will they say to this utterance? how will they defend the vanity of their dogma in view of the words cited? Will they say that it is possible that one image should be made like to different forms? if the Son is in nature unlike the Father, how comes it that the likeness He forms of the different natures is one? for He Who said, “Let us make after our image,” and by the plural signification revealed the Holy Trinity, would not, if the archetypes were unlike one another, have mentioned the image in the singular: for it would be impossible that there should be one likeness displayed of things which do not agree with one another: if the natures were different he would assuredly have begun their images also differently, making the appropriate image for each: but since the image is one, while the archetype is not one, who is so far beyond the range of understanding as not to know that the things which are like the same thing, surely resemble one another? Therefore He says (the word, it may be, cutting short this wickedness at the very formation of human life), “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ Ϛʹ. Ἐξέτασις τῆς τοῦ νοῦ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν συγγενείας, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκ παρόδου τὸ τῶν Ἀνομοίων διελέγχεται δόγμα.

Καί με μηδεὶς οἰέσθω καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐνεργείας ἐν διαφόροις δυνάμεσι τὸ Θεῖον λέγειν τῶν ὄντων ἐφάπτεσθαι. Οὐ γάρ ἐστι δυνατὸν ἐν τῇ ἁπλότητι τῆς θειότητος τὸ ποικίλον τε καὶ πολυειδὲς τῆς ἀντιληπτικῆς ἐνεργείας κατανοῆσαι. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡμῖν πολλαί τινές εἰσιν αἱ ἀντιληπτικαὶ τῶν πραγμάτων δυνάμεις, εἰ καὶ πολυτρόπως διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων τῶν κατὰ ζωὴν ἐφαπτώμεθα. Μία γάρ τίς ἐστι δύναμις, αὐτὸς ὁ ἐγκείμενος νοῦς, ὁ δι' ἑκάστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων διεξιὼν, καὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐπιδρασσόμενος. Οὗτος θεωρεῖ διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὸ φαινόμενον: οὗτος συνιεῖ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς τὸ λεγόμενον, ἀγαπᾷ τε τὸ κατευθύμιον, καὶ τὸ μὴ καθ' ἡδονὴν ἀποστρέφεται, καὶ τῇ χειρὶ χρῆται πρὸς τὸ ὅ τι βούλεται, κρατῶν δι' αὐτῆς καὶ ἀπωθούμενος ἅπερ ἂν λυσιτελεῖν κρίνῃ, τῇ τοῦ ὀργάνου συνεργίᾳ εἰς τοῦτο συγχρώμενος. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κἂν διάφορα τύχῃ τὰ πρὸς αἴσθησιν κατεσκευασμένα παρὰ τῆς φύσεως ὄργανα, ὁ διὰ πάντων ἐνεργῶν καὶ κινούμενος καὶ καταλλήλως ἑκάστῳ πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον κεχρημένος, εἷς ἐστι καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς, ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν οὐ συνεξαλλάσσων τὴν φύσιν: πῶς ἄν τις ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τῶν ποικίλων δυνάμεων τὸ πολυμερὲς τῆς οὐσίας κατοπτεύσειεν; «Ὁ» γὰρ «πλάσας τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν,» καθώς φησιν ὁ Προφήτης, καὶ «ὁ φυτεύσας τὸ οὗς,» πρὸς τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ παραδείγματα τὰς ἐνεργείας ταύτας οἶόν τινας γνωριστικοὺς χαρακτῆρας τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐνεσημήνατο. «Ποιήσωμεν» γὰρ, φησὶν, «ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν.» Ἀλλὰ ποῦ μοι τῶν Ἀνομοίων ἡ αἵρεσις; τί πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἐροῦσι φωνήν; πῶς διασώσουσιν ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν τὴν κενότητα; ἆρα δυνατὸν εἶναι φήσουσι, μίαν εἰκόνα διαφόροις ὁμοιωθῆναι μορφαῖς; Εἰ ἀνόμοιος κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῷ Πατρὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, πῶς μίαν κατασκευάζει τῶν διαφόρων φύσεων τὴν εἰκόνα; Ὁ γὰρ, «Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα ἡ μετέραν,» εἰπὼν, καὶ διὰ τῆς πληθυντικῆς σημασίας τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα δηλώσας, οὐκ ἂν τῆς εἰκόνος μοναδικῶς ἐπεμνήσθη, εἴπερ ἀνομοίως ἔχοι πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ ἀρχέτυπα. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν δυνατὸν τῶν ἀλλήλοις μὴ συμβαινόντων εἰς ἒν ἀναδειχθῆναι ὁμοίωμα: ἀλλ' εἰ διάφοροι ἦσαν αἱ φύσεις, διαφόρους πάντως καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας αὐτῶν ἐνεστήσατο, τὴν κατάλληλον ἑκάστῃ δημιουργήσας. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ μία μὲν ἡ εἰκὼν, οὐχ ἓν δὲ τὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ἀρχέτυπον: τίς οὕτως ἔξω διανοίας ἐστὶν ὡς ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι τὰ τῷ ἑνὶ ὁμοιούμενα, καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα πάντως ὁμοίως ἔχει; Διὰ τοῦτό φησι, τάχα τὴν κακίαν ταύτην ἐν τῇ κατασκευῇ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς ὁ λόγος ὑποτεμνόμενος, «Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν.»