Romans 1:20

God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workmanship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants?

The objects which are touched by the mind are of a higher nature, since they are spiritual, than those which are grasped by the senses. Since these are corporeal, any superiority they may display lies only in the "objects"—e.g., as lofty ones contrasted with humble—not in the "faculties" of the intellect over against the senses. For how can the intellect be considered sovereign above the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? It is a fact that these truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle says in his epistle.

For how can the intellect be superior to the senses, when it is these which educate it for the discovery of various truths? It is a fact, that these truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle tells us in his epistle: "For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made; " and as Plato too might inform our heretics: "The things which appear are the image of the things which are concealed from view," whence it must needs follow that this world is by all means an image of some other: so that the intellect evidently uses the senses for its own guidance, and authority, and mainstay; and without the senses truth could not be attained.

And so upon this ground of inactivity and lack of works he is guilty both of impudence and malignity: of impudence, in aspiring after a belief which is not due to him, and for which he has provided no foundation; of malignity, in having brought many persons under the charge of unbelief by furnishing to them no groundwork for their faith.

For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understanding of which is open to faith (for "if ye will not believe, ye shall not understand" ); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works, or who rashly philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts; and lastly, He is a jealous God.

(This being then an unquestionable position, I ask) which God has the greater fight to be angry? He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature in her (manifold) works, kindly providences, plagues, and indications (of His divinity), but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view once for all in one only copy of the gospel-and even that without any sure authority-which actually makes no secret of proclaiming another god? Now He who has the right of inflicting the vengeance, has also sole claim to that which occasions the vengeance, I mean the Gospel; (in other words, ) both the truth and (its accompanying) salvation.

They are, however, His "invisible things," which, according to the apostle, "are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things that are made; they are no parts of a nondescript Matter, but they are the sensible evidences of Himself.

For (the Naassene) says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice). For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite. As to where, however, they use the expression "above," I shall show when I come to the proper place (for treating this subject). But they assert that, by their account, they testify that Rhea is not absolutely isolated, but-for so I may say-the universal creature; and this they declare to be what is affirmed by the Word. "For the invisible things of Him are seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made by Him, even His eternal power and Godhead, for the purpose of leaving them without excuse. Wherefore, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks; but their foolish heart was rendered vain. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into images of the likeness of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore also God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"-now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,-"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised. For the promise of washing is not any other, according to them, than the introduction of him that is washed in, according to them, life-giving water, and anointed with ineffable ointment (than his introduction) into unfading bliss.

For his invisible things, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, and also his eternal power and divinity; so that they are inexcusable, because when they had known God, they did not magnify him as God, nor give thanks; but they became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For saying that they were wise, they became fools, and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of serpents. Almost every one of these points has already been discussed above. For we said that these things, although they pertain to all human beings in whom there is natural reason, nevertheless look chiefly to the wise men of this world and to those who are named philosophers, whose particular discipline it is to examine the creatures of the world and all the things that have been made in it, and through the things that are seen to gather by reasoning the things that are not seen. Yet it must be known that the invisible things which he here names, he speaks of concerning created things; about which the same Apostle also writes in another place: that all things were made through him, that is, through Jesus Christ, whether the things that are in heaven or the things that are on earth, visible and invisible. And therefore, besides those things which he called invisible, he adds: And his eternal power and divinity. Therefore the power of God, which is eternal, and the divinity, which is no less eternal, is recognized from inferences drawn from the creature. Power is that by which he governs all things; divinity that by which he fills the universe. From this, then, they are made inexcusable: because, although they came to know God when God made himself manifest, they did not worship him as is worthy, nor give thanks; but through the vanity of their own thoughts, while they sought forms and images in God, they lost the image of God within themselves, and those who seemed to boast of themselves in the light of wisdom were rolled down into the deep darkness of folly. For what is so foul, so obscure, and so shrouded in darkness, as to turn the glory of God into a bodily and corruptible likeness of the human form — as is the custom of those who venerate idols — and to make the eminence of the divine majesty equal with birds and four-footed beasts and serpents?

From this we infer that all who live on this earth have to begin with the use of the senses upon sensible objects in order to go on from them to a knowledge of the nature of intellectual things. Yet their knowledge must not stop short with the objects of sense.

The human mind, learning to know the hidden things from those which are manifest, may consider in spirit the greatness of the Maker from the greatness of his works, which it sees with the eyes of the mind.

You will find that the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings. It is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God. Through visible and perceptible objects it provides guidance to the mind for the contemplation of the invisible.

In all things visible, clear reminders of the Benefactor grip us. We shall not give any opportunity for sins, nor shall we leave any place in our hearts for the enemy, if we have God as a dweller in us by our constant remembrance of him.

Paul here repeats the same thing in order to teach even more absolutely that, although the power and majesty of God cannot by themselves be seen by the eyes of the creature, they may be known by the work of the structure of the world. In this way he indicts those who lived without law, whether natural or Mosaic. For by the habit of sinning they broke the law of nature, wiping out any memory of him. But they did not want to accept the law, which had been given for their reformation, and thus were doubly condemned.His power and deity are eternal, so that they are without excuse. So that ungodliness might in no way be excused, Paul added that the power of God and his eternal divinity were known by men, who were prevented by some foolishness from honoring God, who they knew existed and provided for their welfare.

For we easily understand that the author of the Angels and Dominations and Powers, who in the moment of His command made this great beauty of the world exist out of nothing, which did not exist before; and He did not give substance to existing things or causes.

For to those who think aright, God is manifest even by the operations of the world which He has made, using the evidence of His creation; [Romans 1:20] and therefore, since there ought to be no doubt about God, we have now to inquire only about His righteousness and His kingdom. But if our mind suggest to us to make any inquiry concerning secret and hidden things before we inquire into the works of righteousness, we ought to render to ourselves a reason, because if acting well we shall merit to obtain salvation: then, going to God chaste and clean, we shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, and shall know all things that are secret and hidden, without any cavilling of questions; whereas now, even if any one should spend the whole of his life in inquiring into these things, he not only shall not be able to find them, but shall involve himself in greater errors, because he did not first enter through the way of righteousness, and strive to reach the haven of life."

Which also the prophet said, "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Ps. xix. 1.) For what will the Greeks (i.e. Heathen) say in that day? That "we were ignorant of Thee?" Did ye then not hear the heaven sending forth a voice by the sight, while the well-ordered harmony of all things spake out more clearly than a trumpet? Did ye not see the hours of night and day abiding unmoved continually, the goodly order of winter, spring, and the other seasons remaining both sure and unmoved, the tractableness of the sea amid all its turbulence and waves? All things abiding in order and by their beauty and their grandeur, preaching aloud of the Creator? For all these things and more than these doth Paul sum up in saying, "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." And yet it is not for this God hath made these things, even if this came of it. For it was not to bereave them of all excuse, that He set before them so great a system of teaching, but that they might come to know Him. But by not having recognized Him they deprived themselves of every excuse, and then to show how they are bereaved of excuse...

God's hidden qualities can be deduced from things which are manifest. For if he made visible things so splendid that some people thought they were gods and tried to maintain that they were eternal, how much more were these people capable of understanding that the one who made these things is everlasting, almighty and boundless?

Invisible things are seen in a special and appropriate way. When they are seen they are much more certain than the objects of the bodily sense, but they are said to be invisible because they cannot be seen by mortal eyes.

Notice that Paul does not call them ignorant of the truth but says that they held the truth in iniquity, and he does not fail to answer the obvious question: How could those to whom God had not given the law have a knowledge of the truth? For he says that through the visible things of the creation they reached an understanding of the invisible things of the Creator.

How does Paul mean that they are without excuse, except by reference to a kind of excuse that usually prompts human pride to voice such protestations as: "If only I had known, I would not have done it." … This kind of excuse is taken away from them when a precept is given or when the knowledge of how to avoid sin is made clear to them.

He created us with such a nature, placing a mind and reason within us and granting us these things so that by studying this world we might come to a knowledge of the invisible things which are his.Paul says that they are without excuse in order to shut them up.… For God did not deign to reveal himself to human beings in order to give them some excuse but in order to show them that it would be to their advantage to accept him and his mercy.

For the invisible things of him, saith the divine Apostle, are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and godhead; so that they may be without excuse; as if he said: The invisible things of God, namely, His power and wisdom and providence and goodness and His eternal godhead, we apprehend and see from things existent and visible, and through all His works we, in our measure, perceive the Creator, so that we cannot offer any excuse of ignorance (for this is what without excuse signifies) since we have it in our own hands to know from all these things in our measure the Creator of ourselves and of the universe.

The very creation, by its harmony and ordering, proclaims the majesty of the divine nature.

So it turned out in practice. God created the world not so that they would be without excuse; but so it turned out in practice. Note this peculiarity of Scripture and do not criticize it. In many places it contains such expressions, for the explanation of which one must seek the reason for what is mentioned in it through experience. Thus David says: "and done evil in Your sight, so that You are justified in Your sentence" (Ps. 50:6). This expression seems strange; but it is not so. It conveys the following: having been blessed by You, Lord, beyond all expectation, I sinned before You; from this it came about that if You assert Your rights against me at the judgment, You will prevail. Thus, God is justified by our actions, when we prove ungrateful to Him for the benefits received from Him and have nothing in our defense. The pagans, therefore, have no excuse either; for having come to know God from creation, they did not glorify Him as they ought, but rendered the worship due to Him to idols.

Since it is fitting that these invisible things of God be manifested through works, therefore God, originating this sensible world, so produced, so governs, so restores, so rewards and consummates it, that in production supreme power is manifested, in governance wisdom, in restoration clemency, and in retribution consummated justice. Therefore, that power might be manifested, he produced all things from nothing for his own praise, glory, and honor, making something close to nothing, namely corporeal matter, and something close to himself, namely spiritual substance, and joining these together in one man in the unity of nature and person, namely the rational soul and corporeal matter. That wisdom might be manifested, he indeed governs all things most providently and in order. For he himself rules the highest part of man through himself, namely the mind, which he illumines, and the lowest part, namely the body, through the free choice of the will, so that the body and bodily things as regards governance may be subject to the spirit, and the spirit to God.

For "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen—His everlasting power also and divinity—being understood through the things that are made": God's "everlasting power" and His "divinity" are understood through their effect, since God is the Cause of all things, and all things are made by this power of His. And this is contrary to the theory of the philosophers who deny that things endowed with many forms can proceed from one and the same Being, that temporal things can proceed from the Eternal, possible things from the most Actual, changing things from the most Stable, composite things from the most Simple, lowly things from the supremely High: since the effect reflects the cause, and the opposite is true in these cases.

They did not know the disease because they were unaware of its cause. If, indeed, as the philosophers say, the soul is naturally united to the body, it does not contract a disease—otherwise God would be wasting beings instead of preserving them. But this comes about through sin, from the first principle, that is, Adam. But the fact that Adam ate of the forbidden tree cannot be known through reason, but only by hearing: and so faith is necessary. Wherefore, they did not reach the cause of the disease because they did not believe the prophets. As Augustine says in the thirteenth book, nineteenth chapter, of his work "On the Trinity," "These are the foremost philosophers of the Gentiles, who could see God's invisible attributes, being understood through the things that are made. Yet, because they philosophized without the Mediator, that is, without the man Christ, whom they did not accept as the One who was to come to the prophets and who did come to the apostles, in wickedness they hold back the truth."

From all of which it is gathered that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, being understood through those things which have been made, are clearly seen: so that those who are unwilling to attend to these things and to know, bless, and love God in all of them are without excuse, since they are unwilling to be transferred from darkness into the admirable light of God. But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who from darkness has transferred us into His admirable light, while through these lights given outwardly to the mirror of our mind, in which divine things shine forth, we are disposed to re-enter.

That the divine being is eternal, the authority of Scripture demonstrates this, Exodus 15: The Lord shall reign forever and ever; and Romans 1: His eternal power also and divinity. The truth of the faith also demonstrates this: "Eternal the Father," it says in the Athanasian Creed, "eternal the Son, eternal the Holy Spirit." Likewise, the necessity of reason concludes this same thing. For everything that is its own being is eternal; for being cannot not be, therefore it can neither begin nor cease, and thus it lacks a beginning and an end: if therefore God, since he is most simple, is his own being, indeed is simply being itself; therefore he is altogether eternal.

Then when he says for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, he shows the manner in which they received such knowledge. Here the first points to be considered are the things they have known about God. He mentions three.

First, the invisible things of him, through which one understands God's essence, which, as was said, cannot be seen by us: no one has ever seen God (John 1:18), i.e., in his essence, no one living in this mortal life: to the king of ages, immortal, invisible (1 Tim 1:17). He says invisible things, using the plural, because God's essence is not known to us in regard to what it is, i.e., as it is in itself one. That is the way it will be known in heaven: on that day the Lord will be one and his name one (Zech 14:9). But it is now manifested to us through certain likenesses found in creatures, which participate in manifold ways in that which is one in God. Accordingly, our intellect considers the unity of the divine essence under the aspects of goodness, wisdom, power, and so on, all of which are one in God. Therefore he calls these the invisible things of God, because the one reality in God which corresponds to these names or notions is not seen by us: so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear (Heb 11:3).

Another thing known about God is his power, in virtue of which all things proceed from him as from a principle: great is the Lord and abundant in power (Ps 147:5). This power the philosophers knew to be eternal; hence it is called his eternal power.

The third thing known is what he calls divinity, namely, they knew God as the ultimate end unto which all things tend. For the divine good is called the common good in which all things participate; on this account he says divinity, which signifies participation, rather than deity, which signifies God's essence: for in him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily (Col 2:9). These three things are referred to the above-mentioned three ways of knowing. For the invisible things of God are known by the method of negation; the eternal power by the method of causality; the divinity by way of excellence.

Second, one must consider the medium through which they knew those things. This is designated when he says by the things that are made. For just as an art is shown by an artist's works, so God's wisdom is shown by his creatures: from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator (Wis 13:5).

Third, he shows how God is known through them when he says clearly seen, being understood. For it is by the intellect that God is known, not by the senses or imagination, which do not extend beyond bodily things: but God is spirit (John 4:24); behold my servant shall understand (Isa 52:13).

Fourth, he designates the things from which God is known by this medium when he says from the creation of the world. In one way, this can be understood as referring to man: preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), either on account of the excellence of man, who in the order of nature is less than the angels but greater than lower creatures: yet you have made him less than the angels; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen (Ps 8:5), or because he has something in common with every creature. For he has existence in common with stones, life in common with trees, sense in common with animals, and intelligence in common with angels, as Gregory says.

In another way it can be understood of all creation. For no creature by its own natural power can see God's essence in itself. Hence it is said even of the Seraphim, with two wings they covered their head (Isa 6:2). But just as man understands God through visible creatures, so an angel understands God by understanding its own essence.

Or, creation of the world can be taken to mean not created things but the creation of things, as though it were said: from the creation of the world. In this case, one interpretation would be that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things made since the creation of the world and not only since the time of grace. Another interpretation would be that from the creation of the world men began to know God through the things that were made: all men have looked on it (Job 36:25).

But a Gloss says that by the invisible things of God is meant the person of the Father: whom no man has ever seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16); by the eternal power the person of the Son: Christ the power of God (1 Cor 1:24); by divinity the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom goodness is appropriated. Not that philosophers under the lead of reason could arrive by means of created things to a knowledge of the persons, so as to know what are proper to each, which do not signify any causal connection with creatures; but by way of appropriation. Yet they are said to have failed in the third sign, i.e., in the Holy Spirit, because they did not mention anything corresponding to the Holy Spirit, as they did for the Father, namely the very first principle, and for the Son, namely the first mind created, which they called the Father's understanding, as Macrobius says in his book On the Dream of Scipio.

After showing that truth about God was known by the gentiles, he now states that they were guilty of the sins of ungodliness and injustice. First, he shows this with regard to the sin of impiety; second, in regard to injustice, at and as they liked not to have (Rom 1:28). But someone might believe that they would be excused from the sin of ungodliness on account of ignorance, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Timothy: I received mercy, because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim 1:13). First, therefore, he shows that they are without excuse; second, he states their sin, at and they changed the glory.

In regard to the first it should be noted that ignorance excuses from guilt, when it precedes and causes guilt in such a way that the ignorance itself is not the result of guilt; for example, when a person, after exercising due caution, thinks he is striking a foe, when he is really striking his father. But if the ignorance is caused by guilt, it cannot excuse one from a fault that follows. Thus, if a person commits murder, because he is drunk, he is not excused from the guilt, because he sinned by intoxicating himself; indeed, according to the Philosopher, he deserves a double penalty.

First, therefore, he states his intention, saying so, i.e., things about God are so well known to them, that they may be without excuse, i.e., they cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance: whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:17); wherefore, you are inexcusable (Rom 2:1).

Possibly the most pathetic of all the delusions of the modern students of primitive belief is the notion they have about the thing they call anthropomorphism. They believe that primitive men attributed phenomena to a god in human form in order to explain them, because his mind in its sullen limitation could not reach any further than his own clownish existence. The thunder was called the voice of a man, the lightning the eyes of a man, because by this explanation they were made more reasonable and comfortable. The final cure for all this kind of philosophy is to walk down a lane at night. Any one who does so will discover very quickly that men pictured something semi-human at the back of all things, not because such a thought was natural, but because it was supernatural; not because it made things more comprehensible, but because it made them a hundred times more incomprehensible and mysterious. For a man walking down a lane at night can see the conspicuous fact that as long as nature keeps to her own course, she has no power with us at all. As long as a tree is a tree, it is a top-heavy monster with a hundred arms, a thousand tongues, and only one leg. But so long as a tree is a tree, it does not frighten us at all. It begins to be something alien, to be something strange, only when it looks like ourselves. When a tree really looks like a man our knees knock under us. And when the whole universe looks like a man we fall on our faces.

The sun by this time was a blazing fact; and I saw that all Nature is chivalrous and militant. We do wrong to seek peace in Nature; we should rather seek the nobler sort of war; and see all the trees as green banners... "Whom can I pay for my own superb experience? What is the usual charge for seeing the clouds shattered by the sun? What is the market price of a tree blue on the sky-line and then blinding white in the sun? Mention your price for that windmill that stood behind the hollyhocks in the garden. Let me pay you for..."

Now there is very good ground for guessing that religion did not originally come from some detail that was forgotten because it was too small to be traced. Much more probably it was an idea that was abandoned because it was too large to be managed. There is very good reason to suppose that many people did begin with the simple but overwhelming idea of one God who governs all; and afterwards fell away into such things as demon-worship almost as a sort of secret dissipation. Even the test of savage beliefs, of which the folk-lore students are so fond, is admittedly often found to support such a view. Some of the very rudest savages, primitive in every sense in which anthropologists use the word, the Australian aborigines for instance, are found to have a pure monotheism with a high moral tone. A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists, who had told him all their polytheistic tales, and telling them in return of the existence of the one good God who is a spirit and judges men by spiritual standards. And there was a sudden buzz of excitement among these stolid barbarians, as at somebody who was letting out a secret, and they cried to each other, 'Atahocan! He is speaking of Atahocan!'

I stared stupidly round, racking my brain for expedients. Then I suddenly stood up and roared with laughter, again and again, so that the cows stared at me and called a committee. Imagine a man in the Sahara regretting that he had no sand for his hour-glass. Imagine a gentleman in mid-ocean wishing that he had brought some salt water with him for his chemical experiments. I was sitting on an immense warehouse of white chalk. The landscape was made entirely out of white chalk. White chalk was piled more miles until it met the sky. I stooped and broke a piece off the rock I sat on; it did not mark so well as the shop chalks do; but it gave the effect.

Can you not see that fairy tales in their essence are quite solid and straightforward; but that this everlasting fiction about modern life is in its nature essentially incredible? Folk-lore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the fairy tale is--what will a healthy man do with a fantastic world? The problem of the modern novel is--what will a madman do with a dull world? In the fairy tales the cosmos goes mad; but the hero does not go mad. In the modern novels the hero is mad before the book begins, and suffers from the harsh steadiness and cruel sanity of the cosmos.

You cannot see a wind; you can only see that there is a wind. So, also, you cannot see a revolution; you can only see that there is a revolution. And there never has been in the history of the world a real revolution, brutally active and decisive, which was not preceded by unrest and new dogma in the reign of invisible things. All revolutions began by being abstract. Most revolutions began by being quite pedantically abstract.

The Fabian argument of the expert, that the man who is trained should be the man who is trusted would be absolutely unanswerable if it were really true that a man who studied a thing and practiced it every day went on seeing more and more of its significance. But he does not. He goes on seeing less and less of its significance. In the same way, alas! we all go on every day, unless we are continually goading ourselves into gratitude and humility, seeing less and less of the significance of the sky or the stones.

He who holds the Christian and Catholic view of human nature will feel certain that it is a universal and therefore a sane view, and will be satisfied. But if he has lost the sane vision, he can only get it back by something very like a mad vision; that is, by seeing man as a strange animal and realising how strange an animal he is. But just as seeing the horse as a prehistoric prodigy ultimately led back to, and not away from, an admiration for the mastery of man, so the really detached consideration of the curious career of man will lead back to, and not away from, the ancient faith in the dark designs of God. In other words, it is exactly when we do see how queer the quadruped is that we praise the man who mounts him; and exactly when we do see how queer the biped is that we praise the Providence that made him.

Nor could any one imagine any connection between corn and dreams and an old chief with a spear, unless there was already a common feeling to include them all. But if there was such a common feeling it could only be the religious feeling; and these things could not be the beginnings of a religious feeling that existed already. I think anybody's common sense will tell him that it is far more likely that this sort of mystical sentiment did exist already; and that in the light of it dreams and kings and cornfields could appear mystical then, as they can appear mystical now.

I had always vaguely felt facts to be miracles in the sense that they are wonderful: now I began to think them miracles in the stricter sense that they were wilful. I mean that they were, or might be, repeated exercises of some will. In short, I had always believed that the world involved magic: now I thought that perhaps it involved a magician. And this pointed a profound emotion always present and sub-conscious; that this world of ours has some purpose; and if there is a purpose, there is a person. I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller.

[Responding to the question "Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?"]

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts—i.e., of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

One might argue that reason had developed by natural selection, only those methods of thought which had proved useful surviving. But the theory depends on an inference from usefulness to truth, of which the validity would have to be assumed. All attempts to treat thought as a natural event involve the fallacy of excluding the thought of the man making the attempt.

It is admitted that the mind is affected by physical events; a wireless set is influenced by atmospherics, but it does not originate its deliverances — we'd take no notice of it if we thought it did. Natural events we can relate one to another until we can trace them finally to the space-time continuum. But thought has no father but thought. It is conditioned, yes, not caused. My knowledge that I have nerves is inferential.

Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word _glory_ a meaning for me. I still do not know where else I could have found one.... Of course the fact that a Christian can so use nature is not even the beginning of a proof that Christianity is true.... A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition...; she will help to show what it means. And not, on the Christian premises, by accident. The created glory may be expected to give us hints of the uncreated; for the one is derived from the other and in some fashion reflects it.

People often talk as if nothing were easier than for two naked minds to "meet" or become aware of each other. But I see no possibility of their doing so except in a common medium which forms their "external world" or environment. Even our vague attempt to imagine such a meeting between disembodied spirits usually slips in surreptitiously the idea of, at least, a common space and common time, to give the co- in co-existence a meaning: and space and time are already an environment. But more than this is required. If your thoughts and passions were directly present to me, like my own, without any mark of externality or otherness, how should I distinguish them from mine? And what thoughts or passions could we begin to have without objects to think and feel about? Nay, could I even begin to have the conception of "external" and "other" unless I had experience of an "external world"? You may reply, as a Christian, that God (and Satan) do, in fact, affect my consciousness in this direct way without signs of "externality". Yes: and the result is that most people remain ignorant of the existence of both. We may therefore suppose that if human souls affected one another directly and immaterially, it would be a rare triumph of faith and insight for any one of them to believe in the existence of the others. It would be harder for me to know my neighbour under such conditions than it now is for me to know God: for in recognising the impact of God upon me I am now helped by things that reach me through the external world, such as the tradition of the Church, Holy Scripture, and the conversation of religious friends. What we need for human society is exactly what we have--a neutral something, neither you nor I, which we can both manipulate so as to make signs to each other. I can talk to you because we can both set up sound-waves in the common air between us. Matter, which keeps souls apart, also brings them together. It enables each of us to have an "outside" as well as an "inside", so that what are acts of will and thought for you are noises and glances for me; you are enabled not only to be, but to appear: and hence I have the pleasure of making your acquaintance.

Total surrender is the first step towards the fruition of either. Shut your mouth; open your eyes and ears. Take in what is there and give no thought to what might have been there or what is somewhere else. That can come later, if it must come at all. (And notice here how the true training for anything whatever that is good always prefigures and, if submitted to, will always help us in, the true training for the Christian life. That is a school where they can always use your previous work whatever subject it was on.)

[Lewis argues that the resemblance between imaginative experience and Christian experience is not accidental, but that all created things reflect heavenly truth]

I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental. I think that all things, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least. "Reflect" is the important word. This lower life of the imagination is not a beginning of, nor a step towards, the higher life of the spirit, merely an image. In me, at any rate, it contained no element either of belief or of ethics; however far pursued, it would never have made me either wiser or better. But it still had, at however many removes, the shape of the reality it reflected.

Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God's, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the 'living God'. But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it.