Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book X/Chapter 29

Chapter 29.—Of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which the Platonists in Their Impiety Blush to Acknowledge.

You proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call the Father&#8217;s intellect or mind, and between these a third, by whom we suppose you mean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashion you call these three Gods.&#160; In this, though your expressions are inaccurate, you do in some sort, and as through a veil, see what we should strive towards; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved, and are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand, this is what you refuse to recognize.&#160; You see in a fashion, although at a distance, although with filmy eye, the country in which we should abide; but the way to it you know not.&#160; Yet you believe in grace, for you say it is granted to few to reach God by virtue of intelligence.&#160; For you do not say, “Few have thought fit or have wished,” but, “It has been granted to few,”—distinctly acknowledging God&#8217;s grace, not man&#8217;s sufficiency.&#160; You also use this word more expressly, when, in accordance with the opinion of Plato, you make no doubt that in this life a man cannot by any means attain to perfect wisdom, but that whatever is lacking is in the future life made up to those who live intellectually, by God&#8217;s providence and grace.&#160; Oh, had you but recognized the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His, wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you might have seemed the brightest example of grace! &#160; But what am I doing?&#160; I know it is useless to speak to a dead man,—useless, at least, so far as regards you, but perhaps not in vain for those who esteem you highly, and love you on account of their love of wisdom or curiosity about those arts which you ought not to have learned; and these persons I address in your name.&#160; The grace of God could not have been more graciously commended to us than thus, that the only Son of God, remaining unchangeable in Himself, should assume humanity, and should give us the hope of His love, by means of the mediation of a human nature, through which we, from the condition of men, might come to Him who was so far off,—the immortal from the mortal; the unchangeable from the changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed from the wretched.&#160; And, as He had given us a natural instinct to desire blessedness and immortality, He Himself continuing to be blessed; but assuming mortality, by enduring what we fear, taught us to despise it, that what we long for He might bestow upon us.

But in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowliness that is requisite, and to this it is extremely difficult to bend you.&#160; For what is there incredible, especially to men like you, accustomed to speculation, which might have predisposed you to believe in this,—what is there incredible, I say, in the assertion that God assumed a human soul and body?&#160; You yourselves ascribe such excellence to the intellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you maintain that it can become consubstantial with that intelligence of the Father whom you believe in as the Son of God.&#160; What incredible thing is it, then, if some one soul be assumed by Him in an ineffable and unique manner for the salvation of many?&#160; Moreover, our nature itself testifies that a man is incomplete unless a body be united with the soul.&#160; This certainly would be more incredible, were it not of all things the most common; for we should more easily believe in a union between spirit and spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between the incorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one were human, the other divine, the one changeable and the other unchangeable, than in a union between the corporeal and the incorporeal.&#160; But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that staggers you?&#160; But, so far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously.&#160; Or, do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body had been given up to death, and had been changed into a higher kind of body by resurrection, and was now no longer mortal but incorruptible, He carried it up into heavenly places?&#160; Perhaps you refuse to believe this, because you remember that Porphyry, in these very books from which I have cited so much, and which treat of the return of the soul, so frequently teaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, in order that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God.&#160; But here, in place of following Porphyry, you ought rather to have corrected him, especially since you agree with him in believing such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and huge material

frame.&#160; For, as scholars of Plato, you hold that the world is an animal, and a very happy animal, which you wish to be also everlasting.&#160; How, then, is it never to be loosed from a body, and yet never lose its happiness, if, in order to the happiness of the soul, the body must be left behind?&#160; The sun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge to be bodies, in which you have the cordial assent of all seeing men, but also, in obedience to what you reckon a profounder insight, you declare that they are very blessed animals, and eternal, together with their bodies.&#160; Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is pressed upon you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually discuss or teach?&#160; Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish?&#160; Is it not because Christ came in lowliness, and ye are proud?&#160; The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes occasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ&#8217;s risen body.&#160; But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer no hindrance to the soul&#8217;s contemplation, by which it is fixed in God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, in order to blessedness, every body must be escaped from?&#160; Why do you thus seek such a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and ye proud?&#160; Are ye ashamed to be corrected?&#160; This is the vice of the proud.&#160; It is, forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&#160; The same was in the beginning with God.&#160; All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.&#160; In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.&#160; And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” &#160; The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place.&#160; But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” &#160; So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them.&#160; And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.