[... I received. I would, however, request those who happen upon the labors of others, that if everything written therein is good, they praise the Giver of these things and offer prayers in return for those who have labored; but if anything is lacking, they ought not on account of these things condemn the whole, but rather derive profit from the things that are well written.]
SERMON I. De fide.
B [4] Medical treatment belongs indeed to the body, but it belongs also to the soul; for, in truth, many diseases occur to both the one and the other. However, those of the body are involuntary, while those of the soul are, for the most part, voluntary. God, then, being all-wise and the Creator of both souls and bodies and of all things, knowing this well, distributed appropriate remedies to each nature; and He appointed physicians, having instructed some in the one science and others in the other, and commanded them to wage war against diseases and to conquer them. But those who are not in a good state of body are distressed by their disease, and they long for health, and they yield to their physicians, and they accept from them not only mild medicines, but even if they cut, even if they burn, even if they command them to fast, and even if they offer cups full of bitter and unpleasant things; and recovering their health through such painful care, they offer a reward to those who attend them in this way, and receiving the treatment, they do not scrutinize the preparation of the medicines; for they desire health, and do not C investigate the method of it. But those who have contracted the ailment of unbelief not only do not know the very grievous disease, but they even suppose that they are enjoying a state of perfect prosperity. If, then, anyone skilled in treating these things should wish to apply a healing remedy to the malady, they immediately recoil, just as those who are possessed by the disease of phrenitis; and they turn away from the treatment offered to them, and flee from the medicine as if it were an infirmity. Nevertheless, those who profess this science ought to bear with those who are difficult, and to endure it if they resort to insults, or if they strike with their fists, or if they kick; for those who are deranged are accustomed to commit such errors. And the physicians are not distressed when these things happen, but they even apply bonds, and they bathe the heads with force, and they devise every device so that they may expel the disease and restore the former D harmony of the parts to the whole. This is what we too must do, and we must care to the best of our ability for those who are so affected. For even if they are very few in number who are enslaved by the disease, and they appear to be like a thick sediment of [...]
those things that cannot pass through the pores of a filter, nevertheless they must not be neglected, nor must we overlook those who are being corrupted by this malady, but every method must be devised to dispel the mist that lies upon them and to show forth the brilliance of intellectual light. For no industrious farmer cuts away many thorns so as to leave a few, but if he finds even one or two, he pulls them up by the roots and makes the crop entirely clean. By much more, therefore, must this be done by us. For the law of our husbandry does not command us to cut away the thorns, but to change them. Come, therefore, let us apply to them, as if to certain thorns, the farmer's iron A, and with the mattock of the Word let us widen the fallow furrows of their ears, so that no impediment lying in the middle may block the stream of irrigation; and indeed, let us sprinkle them as if they were sick, and let us bring to them these saving and healing medicines.
Sermon I
First of all, let us study to cure the disease of arrogance. For certain of them who have been conversant with the writings of poets and orators, and some who have even tasted of the elegance of Plato, despise the divine oracles, as things not adorned with the curling-irons of eloquence; and they count it unworthy to be taught the primary truth by fishermen. And yet, in the individual arts whose fruits they enjoy, they are not anxious about the language which the craftsmen of those arts speak. For they do not require shoemakers to be Attics, nor blacksmiths, nor architects, nor painters, nor shipbuilders, nor pilots; but whether they are Scythians, or Sauromatae, or Iberians, or Egyptians, they enjoy the arts with pleasure, demanding only the B expertise of these, and being not at all troubled by the difference of nations. And when they hear the strings of a lyre, they look only for the harmony, and they do not seek to learn whether he is a Greek or a Barbarian. Yet in the sole study of learning the truth, they cannot refrain from being curious, but they consider it a disgrace if a Barbarian should instruct them in the truth by his speech. And with this kind of pride men swell up, who have not even reached to the highest pinnacle of Greek philosophy, but have only tasted a few things, as the saying goes, with the tips of their lips, and have gathered together some meager trifles from here and there.
But the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, whose memory is even today most celebrated among the learned—Pherecydes the Syrian C, and Pythagoras the Samian, and Thales the Milesian, and Solon the Athenian, and finally that Plato himself, the son of Ariston, indeed, but a student of Socrates, and as for eloquence [...]
A they were not ashamed, for the sake of finding the truth, to travel around Egypt and the Egyptian Thebes, and Sicily, and Italy—and this while no single empire governed those nations at that time, but different modes of life and laws prevailed in the individual cities. For some favored democracy, others oligarchy; some were ruled by tyrants, others were reigned over by lawful kings. Yet none of these obstacles prevented them from rushing to the barbarian peoples, and learning from them what they perceived were better known by them than by themselves. They say that in Egypt they received the doctrine of the true God not only from the Egyptians, but also from the Hebrews. Plutarch the Boeotian teaches this, and so does Porphyry B who raved against the truth, and indeed Numenius the Pythagorean, and very many others. They say that Pythagoras also submitted to circumcision, having learned this from the Egyptians; and the Egyptians had received this law from the Hebrews. For when Abraham the patriarch had received the commandment of circumcision from the God of all, his descendants observed it [a]; and he dwelt for a very long time in Egypt, and the Egyptians emulated the Hebrews. That there was no law among the Egyptians of old to circumcise infants [b], Pharaoh’s daughter is sufficient witness. For having found Moses exposed on the bank of the river, she immediately saw the circumcision, and recognized the race, and declared the infant to be born of Hebrew parents.
They, therefore, having passed through every discipline, possessed such a love of philosophy C that they even scorned wars and the greatest seas, and visited barbarian men, and gathered from everywhere what they deemed necessary. But Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, the best of the philosophers, did not even consider it unworthy of a philosopher to learn something useful from women; wherefore he was not ashamed to address Diotima as his teacher, and he also frequented Aspasia.
But the majority of these people do not even know the wrath of Achilles, from which young students are accustomed to begin their literature. And since they have received very little from the poets and very little from the orators, and have not learned even the names of the philosophers, except for two or three of the famous ones, they nevertheless call divine Scripture "barbarian," and deem it shameful to learn the truth from it. From this ignorance D the malady of pride arises in them. For if they had read the Greek histories, they would have known, surely, that the Greeks learned both the illustrious sciences and most of the arts from the Barbarians. For they say that geometry and astro-
astronomy were discovered first by the Egyptians; and astrology and the casting of nativities are said to be the discovery of the Chaldaeans; while the Arabs and Phrygians were the first to invent augury. That the trumpet is the work of the Tyrrhenians, and the flute that of the Phrygians, both tragedies and histories teach. The Greeks also claim that letters were the invention of the Phoenicians, and that Cadmus first brought them into Greece. They assert that the physician Apis the Egyptian was the author of medicine, and that Aesculapius subsequently expanded the art. They say that the boat was first constructed in Libya. B That Orpheus, an Odrysian by birth, brought the rites of the Dionysia, the Panathenaea, the Thesmophoria, and the Eleusinia to Athens, and that upon traveling to Egypt he transferred the sacred rites of Isis and Osiris into those of Demeter and Father Dionysus, is attested by Plutarch from Chaeronea in Boeotia; Diodorus the Sicilian and the orator Demosthenes are also witnesses, for they say that Orpheus handed down to them the most sacred rites. Furthermore, that the festal solemnities of Rhea—or Cybele, or Brimo, or whatever other name you choose to call her (for you have a great plenty of names for things that do not actually exist)—and the ceremonies performed in them were brought to Greece from the land of Phrygia, those same witnesses whom I cited above clearly teach. C Since, therefore, the Greeks were instructed by the Barbarians in the arts, the sciences, the ceremonies for worshiping demons, and the first elements of letters, and yet glory in these teachers, why I ask, do you—who are not even able to comprehend the things written by them—refuse to learn the truth from those men who received wisdom handed down to them by God? But if you are unwilling to lend them your ears on the grounds that they did not originate from Greece, it follows that you ought not to call Thales wise, nor Pythagoras a philosopher, nor his teacher Pherecydes. For the latter was by nation a Syrian, not an Athenian, nor a Spartan, nor a Corinthian; while Aristoxenus, Aristarchus, and Theopompus say that Pythagoras was a Tyrrhenian, but Neanthes calls him a Tyrian. As for Thales, some indeed say he was a Milesian, but Leander and Herodotus call him a Phoenician. D Add to this that Aristotle was a Stagirite, Diogenes was from Sinope, Alcman, the son of Pirithes, was a Crotoniate, who is said to have been the first to write a treatise on the nature of things; and Empedocles, again, was an Agrigentine, and Agrigentum is a city of Sicily.
A But if you say that these men were born and raised outside of Greece, but were trained in the Greek language, first of all, you admit that there have been wise men among other nations as well; for you surely admire Zamolxis the Thracian and Anacharsis the Scythian for their wisdom, and the reputation of the Brahmans is great among you—yet these are Indians, not Greeks. Furthermore, you are refuted from another quarter for wrongly preferring elegance of speech to truth. For you surely admit, even you, that Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, was the most excellent of the Greek philosophers; yet he was born of a father who was a stone-cutter, and for the most part he followed the craft of his father. And many others have said this, and Porphyry also wrote this in the third book of his *Philosophical History*. He says as follows: "Let us speak regarding Socrates of those things which have been deemed worthy of record by others; and while we pause briefly to examine what has been recounted in many and various ways by eloquent men to his praise and blame, we wish to leave unexamined whether he practiced the stone-cutting craft with his father, or whether his father did so alone. For even if he had performed some work for a little time, this would not have been an impediment to his attaining wisdom. And if he had been a sculptor, all the more so; for this art is considered honorable, not disgraceful." And what follows is of the same opinion; for he introduces some who say that Socrates practiced the stone-cutting craft. But perhaps he spent the B first part of his life as a stone-worker, but later, having become enamored of poetic and rhetorical discourses, he partook of education. But one cannot even say this; for Porphyry said the exact opposite. He speaks thus: "And that he was inept in nothing, yet uneducated in everything, to put it simply; for he knew almost no letters at all; but it was a laughingstock whenever it was necessary for him either to write or read, stammering like children." And C Plato also represents him in the *Apology* as saying the following: "But I swear by Zeus, men of Athens, you will not hear me speaking in ornate words, like the speeches of these men, adorned with expressions and names, but you will hear them spoken at random with the words that come to mind." And after a few words, he added this again: "And now I request this of you, which is just, as it seems to me: let the manner of speech be—for perhaps it might be worse, perhaps better—and D look only to this, and turn your attention to this...
whether what I say is just. A Yet even this man, though he possessed an unlearned and unrefined tongue, was worthy of honor not only above all others, but B even above Plato, who surpassed all the Greeks in elegance of speech. And not even the son of Ariston himself would deny this; for how could he, who attributed and referred all the discourses he ever produced to him, desiring them to be believed to have originated from his mind? But that he too—who surpassed all men, and not only the rest of the Greeks, but even the Athenians themselves, in eloquence and beauty of language—exhorts us to attend not to the elegance of speeches, but to the harmony of thoughts, hear him speak explicitly in the *Politicus*: "Even if you are careful not to be overly concerned with words, you will appear richer in wisdom in old age." C And hear also what he says in the fifth book of the *Republic*: "Shall we then class all these, and those who study other such mathematical subjects, and those who work at the mechanical arts, as philosophers? Not at all, I said, but as similar to philosophers. But whom, he asked, do you call the true ones? Those, I said, who are spectators of the truth. For philosophy does not lie in geometry, which has its postulates and hypotheses, nor in music, which is merely a matter of conjecture, nor in astronomy, which is filled with physical, wavering, and probable arguments; but it requires the knowledge of the Good itself and of the truth." Hear, O men, the greatest philosopher calling those who are experts in music and geometry and other such faculties not philosophers, but "similar to philosophers," while naming those who are teachers of the truth "philosophers" in the true sense. D And in the third book of the *Laws*, he says this: "Let this, therefore, be held as a sacred and established rule, that no magistracies should be entrusted to those citizens who are ignorant of these things; but, as if they were unlearned in all matters, they should be reproached, even if they are very sharp in reasoning and have labored in all those things which are considered elegant and which are most conducive to the advancement of the soul. But those citizens whose condition is the opposite—even if, as the saying goes, they neither know their letters nor how to swim—are to be called wise, and it is to them that magistracies and rule should be entrusted, as to men of understanding." How, then, could anyone more truly and clearly refute the ignorance and arrogance that now occupy all things? For the prince of philosophers measures wisdom not by the discipline of letters, but by the knowledge of the truth; and he calls those men wise who know the truth, even if they do not know the first elements, while those who have attained all branches of learning, if they do not know the knowledge of truth and justice...
are removed and repelled, nor does he think they should be entrusted with any magistracy. A Moreover, in the Theaetetus, he criticizes those who talk about high things with these words: "Just as they say that a clever and charming Thracian maidservant mocked Thales, O Theodorus, when he was observing the courses of the stars with his gaze fixed upward and fell into a well, saying that he was eager to know what was happening in the heavens, while he did not see what was placed right before his feet." And again in the same dialogue: B "It is necessary that such a man, whether rustic or uneducated because of his leisure, should be the same as a shepherd, surrounded by walls in the city just as they are by a sheepfold on the mountain. And when he hears that someone possesses ten thousand acres or even more, he thinks he hears of something very small, since he is accustomed to look at the whole earth." To the foregoing he adds these words: "For the knowledge of this [the truth] is wisdom and the truest virtue; but ignorance is manifest folly and vice; and the other skills, C which are also thought to be wisdom, become burdensome when they are exercised in public affairs and positions of power, but in the crafts, they become base and sordid." Thus, therefore, those who abounded in every kind of learning knew most exactly how much truth is to be valued above words and names, and that it receives no detriment from such ignorance of ornamentation.
Why then, my friends, do you disdain to learn the sentiments of apostolic doctrine, while accusing only the barbarous mode of speech, when your own philosophers are witnesses to you that the Greeks have wandered far from the truth, and that it has come forth D rather from barbarian inventors? For that Porphyry, who undertook a most bitter war against us—where he discourses on philosophy from oracles—speaks thus: "For the path that leads to the gods is fashioned of bronze, and it is steep and rugged. Many tracks of this, indeed, the Barbarians have discovered, but the Greeks have wandered away; and those who already held them have corrupted them. And God bears witness that the inventors of it were Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, Lydians, and Hebrews." If, then, even a man who is the most hostile of all to us accuses his own Greeks as being enslaved to error, while he ascribes the truth to the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Chaldeans, and bears witness that this same thing is confirmed by the response of Apollo, why do you not listen to your own philosopher, nor accept the oracle of the Delphic tripod, and attend with your ears to the Hebrew prophets and apostles? For these are the ones whom Apollo Pythius calls the inventors of truth.
A And if he joined the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians to these, you should know that the Phoenicians, being their neighbors and living on their borders, learned the truth from them, if indeed they learned it at all; and furthermore, the Egyptians benefited to a very great extent from their sojourn, for the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for a long time. The Chaldeans, in the same way, reaped the greatest benefit from them; for when they took them captive and settled them in Babylon, they then, having witnessed the miracles that took place there regarding the furnace and the lions, deemed them capable of being their teachers of the truth. And Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, having shared his life with Daniel, partook of the lessons of piety; and after he had overthrown the Lydians and taken them into subjection, he undoubtedly shared with his own B subjects what he had learned from him.
That the Pythian Apollo bore witness to the truth of the Hebrews and that Porphyry mentioned this oracle, is sufficiently demonstrated, I think, by what I have said. But hear of what sort the things are for which he accuses the Greek philosophers themselves of exceeding great ignorance, in the words he wrote to Boethus regarding the soul. Among many other things, he says: "For who among those who engage in philosophy does not have an ambiguous discourse?" And he wrote the following words to Anebo the Egyptian: "I shall begin my friendship with you from the gods and from the good demons, and from the philosophical C inquiries that are related to them; regarding which, the most has indeed been said by the Greek philosophers, but the greater part of what they have said is based on conjecture, for they lack the principles of faith." And again, a little later: "For among us there is much logomachy, inasmuch as the good is guessed at by human reasonings; but as for those with whom interaction with the higher powers has been effected, this part of the inquiry is always passed over." If, therefore, the doctrines of the philosophers are open to question (for they are the findings of human reasonings), and there is much strife and irreconcilable logomachy among them, whereas Porphyry has testified that certain other men have had communion and conversation with God; D why then, my friends, do you hang upon human and ambiguous discourses, while you reject the doctrine of men who are most beloved of God? For if you do not admit them because they are barbarians, you are doing things that are repugnant and contrary to your own conduct; for you believe Pythagoras, who, according to some, is a Tyrrhenian, but according to others a Tyrian, and you use the Stagirite as a teacher, and you admire the man from Sinope, and others who possessed not Greek but barbarian fatherlands. We have already demonstrated
that both Solon and Plato learned many things from barbarian men. But now let us also hear with what words the Egyptian priest addresses Solon—for these are Plato’s words in the *Timaeus*: A “O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; there is no old man among the Greeks. For you possess no learning that is hoary with age.” If, therefore, the learning of the Greeks is new and more recent, while that of the Hebrews is most ancient and venerable, and possesses truth that flourishes with the passage of time, it is clearly to be preferred and chosen over things that are new and doubtful, or rather, false and not plausibly invented. Nor should the uncultivated nature of the language provide you with an excuse. For we demonstrated that Socrates, the chief of philosophers, was uninitiated in Greek education, and that Plato preferred truth to all science and eloquence.
B But if you accuse us regarding the term “faith” (for I have heard you saying this too, that we offer no demonstration of our doctrines, but merely urge those we teach to believe), you are most openly slandering our teaching. For we adapt the testimony of the very facts themselves to our arguments; yet you, in turn, are again piercing yourselves with your own feathers, C as the proverb says. For that celebrated Pythagoras—who was the son of Mnesarchus, a student of Pherecydes, and the leader of the Italian sect—had laid down a law for his students to keep silence for a five-year period, and only to lend their ears to his words, in order that they might receive what was said without question or dispute, believing it to be so, and not prying into it as if they were doubtful. Thus it came to pass that those who succeeded him, if anyone asked for a demonstration of the things he said, were accustomed to answer, “He himself said it,” deeming the voice of Pythagoras stronger than any demonstration and bidding them hold it so. If, then, both those who spoke and those who heard that they were the doctrines D of Pythagoras thought it sufficient to produce faith, who would be so foolish, or rather so thunderstruck, as to doubt when the God of all things is the teacher, and not believe what is said, nor offer as much reverence to the God of all things as those who had shared in the teaching of Pythagoras offered to him? And how is it not tragic, O dear friends, that we should unquestioningly—
A accept even the poets, whereas you are hostile to us because we urge you to believe God when He teaches? Or are these not the words of Plato: “To speak of other demons and to know their origin is a task greater than our own. However, we must believe those who have spoken before us, being as they said descendants of the gods, and knowing their own ancestors quite clearly. It is impossible, therefore, not to believe the children of the gods, even though they speak without probable and necessary demonstrations, but as they declare they are reporting their own family affairs, we must believe them in obedience to the law.” Plato said these things about the poets in the Timaeus, and he commanded that belief be given to Homer, Hesiod, and the other poets who tell myths. He was not afraid to assert that they use neither signs nor B demonstrations—although elsewhere he mocks the things said by the poets, as we shall clearly demonstrate in another place. But if Plato commands that faith be given to those who compose such trifles and myths full of obscenity, and that no proof be demanded of them, it is much more holy and just to believe the divine apostles and prophets, who teach nothing base, nothing fabulous, nothing incredible, but everything that is worthy of God, holy, and salutary.
Moreover, that those who follow the opinions of the philosophers also used faith as their guide, and that some embraced the doctrines of one and others of another, anyone who diligently examines the differences in their dogmas will very easily learn. For some said the soul is immortal, others that it is mortal; others defined it as a mixture, asserting that it is in part mortal C and in part immortal. And as for the things we see with our eyes, some said they were unbegotten, others begotten; some that they were formed from earth, others from matter, others from atoms. Finally, some make the entire universe endued with a soul, others inanimate. All of whom, although they expressed conflicting views, nonetheless found people to believe their words and opinions. Nor would some have thought that one thing was true and others another, unless some faith had persuaded them to accept what was being said. For this reason, that Socratic of Plato in the Gorgias, having said much about those who are punished D beneath the earth, and also about those who are celebrated with praises as pious men, added: “These are the things, Callicles, which I, having heard, believe to be most true.” And yet these things were neither clear nor visible, but unknown to the majority of men and accepted by only a few; yet he said he believed them to be true, and neither did he himself bring any proof for his faith, nor did those who were listening demand it. Indeed, in the first book of the *Laws*, Plato also confirmed the argument concerning faith. He says as follows:
A "Vobis quidem, tametsi quae ad leges pertinent mediocriter confecta sint, haec una inter optimas lex fuerit, ut nulli, qui paulo sit junior, quaerere liceat quaenam in illis bene vel perperam sese habeant, sed una voce unoque quod dicitur ore, omnes bene se habere omnia fateantur." Plato therefore does not permit anyone to fret about these things, but orders that whatever laws are enacted should be accepted with full faith, and not to be overly inquisitive as to whether they are good or not.
And Theognis, the Sicilian poet, also declares faith to be a B foster child, and he says: "The faithful man is more precious than gold and silver, When exposed to a difficult, O Cyrnus, discord." If he says that the man who is faithful during a civil conflict is more precious than gold and silver, to what extent should one evaluate the man who, without doubt, trusts in the divine oracles? But for those who, like you, contradict me, it seems that what Heraclitus the Ephesian stated very aptly applies: "Those who do not understand are like the deaf; the common proverb bears witness to them: though present, they are absent."
Empedocles of Agrigentum also agrees with the Ephesian, saying thus: "But to the wicked it is extremely fitting to be faithless; For this is what the clear proofs of our Muse command." According to the Agrigentine, then, the faithless are to be relegated to the camp of the wicked; and according to Heraclitus, these same men are senseless and like the deaf.
Furthermore, Parmenides the Eleatic, the companion of Xenophanes of Colophon, C exhorts us to approach things that are known by the intellect through faith. For he says: "Look nonetheless at things absent, as being firmly present to the mind." For by the mind alone it is possible to approach things that are known by the intellect; but without faith, even the mind is unable to see the things that are to be understood.
Solon also alludes to this: "It is most difficult to know the hidden measure of wisdom, Which alone holds all the limits." And if it is most difficult to know it, then it is entirely impossible to express it. And Empedocles says this concerning things that are invisible: "It is not possible to approach [them], nor for our eyes Is it reachable, D nor to be grasped by hands; which is the greatest Highway of Persuasion that descends into the heart of man."
And Antisthenes, who was a student of Socrates and a leader of the Cynic sect, testifies thus concerning the God of all things: "He is not known from an image, he is not seen by the eyes, and he resembles no one; wherefore he..."
A can be learned by no one from an image." Faith is, therefore, necessary for those who wish to contemplate things perceived by the intellect, since it turns out that they cannot even discover an image for them. The Athenian Xenophon, the Socratic disciple, son of Gryllus, wrote things consistent with this, saying (Clem. Alex. Prot. p. 61): "He who shakes and calms all things is indeed known as great and powerful, but what he is like in form is invisible." There is need, then, of faith for those who desire to reach an understanding of the invisible. One might also hear Bacchylides saying in his Paeans: For it is not easy to find the gates of unspeakable words.
We have need, therefore, of intellectual eyes for the B apprehension of things perceived by the intellect; and just as we have need of the eyes of the body for the contemplation of things that can be seen, so, surely, we have need of faith for the contemplation of divine things. For what the eye is in the body, that faith is in the mind. Or rather, just as the eye needs light that reveals what is visible, so also the intellect needs faith that reveals divine things, and keeps the opinion regarding them stable.
Hear also how Plato accuses those who do not wish to contemplate with their mind things that are perceptible to the intellect alone. "Look carefully," he says (Theaet. p. 155 E), "lest any of the uninitiated overhear. These are they who believe nothing else to be real except what they can grasp tightly C with their hands, and who do not accept actions and generations and everything invisible as being in the category of substance." You also are of this same sect; do not, however, take the rebuke ill. For you waste away with things that are solely visible, and by venerating man-made idols, you do not accept the teaching concerning the invisible nature. Perhaps the comic poet Epicharmus adapted that iambic for men of this sort: Human natures, inflated skins.
It is characteristic, however, of prudent men not to indulge personal bias, nor to be bound by ancestral customs, but to seek the truth, and to gather what is useful from every source. Did not Socrates D say as much to Crito (p. 46 C)? "I, however, not only now, but always, desire to be such a man as to be persuaded by nothing of my own, but by the argument which, upon reflection, seems to me best." By these words, he shows that he is eager to discover the truth by the aid of reason, and that he has not sworn allegiance to that law which is to be a slave to personal bias. In this way he persuades Alcibiades
to learn, having first banished the conceit of knowledge. For he first convicted him of ignorance; then, when he said, "But do you not think that I would find it?" he added, "Certainly, if you search." And when he, in turn, said, "Do you not think, then, that I have searched?" he replied, "I do, provided you think that you do not know." Therefore, the beginning of knowledge is the recognition of ignorance. Furthermore, one must also expel evil teachings from the soul, and only then accept the divine. Plato teaches this again in these words: "For it is not permitted for one who is not pure to touch that which is pure." B Orpheus also sings of this:
"I shall speak to those who have the right; close the doors, you profane."
Euripides also agrees, saying:
"Secrets are not for the uninitiated to know, oh mortals."
For how could one transmit divine teachings to the uninitiated? Or how could anyone be initiated, if he does not, by faith, confirm within himself the dogmas offered by the teachers? Or how could he have faith, if he has not first cast out from his mind the doctrines poorly planted there? Therefore, that tragic saying is true, which Euripides spoke in the *Phoenissae*:
"For wicked speech, Being diseased in itself, needs wise remedies." C
And that God also cooperates with those who desire to enjoy healing, the same tragic poet said:
"But for the one who labors, even God lends a hand."
Faith, therefore, is a most useful thing. For, to quote the Pythagorean Epicharmus:
"Mind sees and mind hears; all else is deaf and blind."
Heraclitus, too, again urges us to be guided by faith, speaking as follows: "If you do not hope, you will not find the unhoped-for, since it is inscrutable and inaccessible." And again: "Those who seek gold dig into much earth and find [but] a little." If, then, they endure great labor, and even danger, for the sake of a few grains, who is so averse to divine things as to flee from the teaching concerning the truth, which contains a profit ten thousand times greater? D
Let no one, therefore, my friends, accuse faith. For Aristotle has called faith the criterion of knowledge; and Epicurus said that it is a *prolepsis* (presumption) of the mind; and that this *prolepsis*, upon receiving knowledge, becomes *katalepsis* (comprehension). And according to our...
A definition, faith is a voluntary assent of the soul, or the contemplation of a hidden matter, or an abiding fixation upon that which truly exists, and an apprehension of invisible things appropriate to their nature, or an unambiguous disposition implanted in the souls of those who possess it. Faith, however, stands in need of knowledge, just as knowledge, in turn, stands in need of faith. For neither can faith exist without knowledge, nor knowledge without faith. Indeed, faith precedes knowledge, but knowledge follows faith; desire follows knowledge, and action follows desire. For it is necessary first to believe, then to learn; and having learned, to desire; and having desired, to act. For it is not possible to learn the first elements if one does not believe the teacher that it is necessary to call the first one this, and the second one that, and so on. For if he immediately objects, claiming that the first letter should not be called *alpha*, but that another name must be assigned to it, he would not learn the truth; rather, he must necessarily wander astray and take the false for the true. But if, having placed faith in the teacher, he receives the subjects of study according to his rules, knowledge will very quickly follow faith.
So, too, one must have faith in the geometer who teaches that there is a certain point which has no part, and that there is a length which lacks any breadth. B Yet no one would ever be able to demonstrate in discourse that this is so; for if you strip away the breadth from the length, length itself will surely be removed from the eyes along with the breadth. But the geometer commands it to be understood in this way, and he who desires to learn those linear figures easily believes and readily has faith. Thus, the students also believe the astronomers when they compile the number of the stars, and measure the intervals by which they are distant from one another, and how many myriads of stadia the heaven which we behold is removed from the earth—even though there is a great difference in measurement among the astronomers: for while some say there are four hundred seventy myriads of stadia, others say fewer, and some even many more, the students nevertheless obey their teachers, giving faith C to what they say.
For concerning the sun, there is again great disputation among them. For Anaximander and Anaximenes affirmed that it is twenty-seven times larger than the earth; Anaxagoras, that it is larger than the Peloponnese; and Heraclitus the Ephesian, that it is a foot wide. Who, then, would justly laugh at such a disagreement? For the dissension among them has not arisen over some small measure, but over an immense one, and one that no one could express in discourse. For who could
A calculate the measure of the earth, then multiply this measure twenty-seven times, and sum up the calculation of the reckoning, and compare this to the measure of a human foot? And yet there are some who align themselves with these, and others with those, and while having faith, some affirm these things and others those. Why, therefore, do you heap praise upon that faith which is most irrational and surpasses all reason, while you accuse only our own, which is free from such myths and trifles, and receives divine and intelligible things in an intellectual manner?
Now, in addition to what has been said, let us B consider this as well: that every person who wishes to learn a certain craft goes to one who knows how to teach, and embraces the lessons offered by him. The cobbler, for instance, shows how one must hold the knife, and cut the leather, and indeed, how to sew it and fit it to the wooden last; and the other trusts what is said and does not contradict the teacher. The one possesses the knowledge of the things being done, while the other holds to faith, but through faith he gradually gains the knowledge. In this way, also, the shipwright instructs the one who desires to learn how it is necessary to stretch the plumb line, and how it is fitting to move the saw, and how he must use the hatchet, the chisel, and the auger. The apprentice learns each of these things, performing everything he is commanded, considering the words of the teacher as laws, and believing that under his guidance he will perfect the craft. Thus also, the physician not only teaches the science but also heals those who are sick. He himself indeed knows the theory of medicine; but the one who is suffering with an illness does not know this, yet he believes that through the medical art he will be delivered from the disease. And indeed, only those who know the art of navigation know how to steer a ship, while the passengers trust in them that they will be brought into the desired harbors. C Is it not, then, O friends, a thing common to all—faith—both for those desiring to learn some craft, and for those sailing, and farming, and attending upon physicians? But knowledge belongs not to all, but only to those who understand the crafts. Therefore, if we wish to distinguish good and refined gold, we do not ourselves submit it to the test, but we bid the one who is skilled in such things to test it; and he, either by applying the touchstone or the fire, declares whether it is counterfeit or genuine. Likewise, when we are buying precious stones, we do not entrust the discernment of them to ourselves, but to those to whom time and experience have brought this expertise. And as for silk D vestments, whether they are embroidered or woven...
A if one wishes to purchase them, he entrusts to those who have the expertise of weaving the task of setting the price upon them. And indeed, if someone wishes to learn the weight of certain vessels of gold or silver, or of coins, he brings them to one who is skilled in the art of the balance, and is instructed by him regarding the weight, and he believes him and does not contradict the one who informs him. It is not, then, the case that knowledge belongs to everyone, but to those who have learned such things through instruction, time, and experience; but faith belongs to all who are eager to learn something. Faith is, however, the foundation and basis of knowledge. For even your own philosophers defined faith as a voluntary assent of the soul, but knowledge as a stable habit accompanied by reason. It is absurd and highly unreasonable that, while all masters of every art possess knowledge and those who are learning possess faith, in the doctrine of divine matters alone the order should be inverted, so that knowledge is demanded before faith. For in those matters which cannot be seen, we are in the greatest need of the eyes of faith. Wherefore the divine B Apostle likewise loudly proclaims: "For it is necessary for one approaching God to believe that He is, and that He becomes a rewarder to those who seek Him." For this reason, we also set before those who approach and desire to learn divine things the instruction of faith before all other things, and then, once they have been imbued with faith and initiated, we reveal to them the enigmas of the events that have preceded. And among you likewise, not everyone knows the hierophantic discourse, but the great crowd sees the ceremonies being performed, while those who are called priests carry out the rites and orgies in the authorized manner, but the hierophant alone knows the reason for what is being done, and reveals it to those whom he deems fit. And that Priapus is the son of Dionysus and Aphrodite, some of those who have been initiated C into these mysteries know; but for what reason he is called their son, and why a virile member, erect and very large, is attached to a figure of such diminutive size, the hierophant of these foul mysteries knows, as does any other who happens upon those abominable books. For, calling pleasure Venus, and drunkenness Bacchus, they said that what is accomplished by both is Priapus, because pleasure joined to drunkenness excites the obscene parts of the body. In the same way, as for the phallus of Dionysus (for thus did ridiculous men name the virile member, and the festival of the phallus was called by the Greeks Phallagogia), those who celebrated the orgies D all worshipped and kissed this, yet they did not know the reason. But he who was called the hierophant knew about Osiris and Typhon, and the limbs of Osiris cut up by Typhon and scattered far and wide, and besides, about Isis, the sister of Osiris, who gathered them together with great zeal, but alone did not find his phallus, and for this reason, having erected
and scattered everywhere; and Isis, the sister of Osiris, gathering these together with pain, and failing only to find the phallus, for which reason she fashioned an image of it and commanded it to be worshipped by all. These orgies, A having learned in Egypt, the Odrysian Orpheus transferred to Greece, and established the festival of the Dionysia.
If, therefore, not even these impure and abominable orgies were known to all, but only those who were called hierophants held them, it is clear madness to seek the knowledge of the most holy and divine mysteries before faith. Or do you not listen to Pindar the lyric poet, who clearly forbids you,
*Not to reveal the ancient word to all?*
B This same thing Plato also advises: "Take care," says he, "lest these things should fall into the hands of the uneducated. For there is almost nothing, in my opinion, that can be heard by the masses with greater derision than these things of ours, just as, on the other hand, there is nothing that seems more admirable and divine to men of talent; but being often repeated and always heard, and for many years, they are cleansed with much effort, just like gold." You heard also the earlier saying of Orpheus:
*I will speak to those whom it is lawful to address; but shut the doors, ye profane.*
C Let faith, therefore, be the guide, and knowledge will follow. For the Lord, in whom we believe, grants knowledge to those who believe purely and sincerely, and knowledge, added to faith, perfects the science of truth. He who attains this is happy, nay, most happy. And this Plato has revealed in his *Laws* (p. 730 C): "It is necessary," he says, "that he who is to be blessed and happy should from the very beginning be a partaker of the truth, so that he may live as long as possible a partaker of the truth." For to those who have been partakers of the truth, and have lived a life worthy of it, heaven is well-prepared, and the dwellings of the angels. D But he who is destitute of this, and uninitiated, and ignorant of the most holy and divine mysteries, will be deprived of these blessings, and will be delivered over to eternal punishments. And this same thing Plato again has revealed in the *Phaedo* (p. 69 C). For he says that those who have handed down the initiation rites have said that "whoever arrives in Hades uninitiated and unperfected will lie in the mire; but he who has been purified and initiated, arriving there, will dwell with the gods."
Believe, therefore, O friends, your own philosophers, who initiate you and pre-teach our doctrines. For they seem
A exactly like those vocal birds which mimic the human voice but are ignorant of the meaning of the words they utter. For in a similar way, these men too, when discussing divine matters, did not know the truth of what they were saying. Yet they deserve, I think, some pardon, since they were guided by the light of neither prophets nor apostles, but used nature as their only guide, the characters of whose letters, once impressed by God, the error of impiety had blotted out. Nevertheless, He who had established them repaired some of these, and did not permit them to be utterly destroyed, clearly signifying His providence to men through the creation of the world. The divine Apostle Paul showed this very thing when he preached at Lystra. B For among many other things, he said: "Who in past generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways; yet he did not leave himself without witness, doing good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness." For while the Abrahamic race received the divine law and enjoyed the grace of prophecy, the Governor of all led the other nations toward piety through nature itself and the contemplation of creation. And just as He pours out rain, bountiful and generous, especially upon cultivated fields for the sake of providing for the human race, but out of C abundance and munificence also waters the wilderness and the mountains—producing milder fruits in the tilled soil, but wild ones in the untilled (we very often see wild figs growing on tombs and walls)—so too the gift of knowledge is bestowed especially upon the pious; but upon those who are not of this sort, it falls like rain upon desert and wild places. Hence they often produce certain edible things that are similar to the fruits of cultivated fields, although it is apparent that they are bereft of prophetic agriculture, for a certain roughness and bitterness is mixed into them. But those who know how to discern, taking what is useful, leave the rest; just as those who harvest rose gardens leave the thorns, but gather the D calyxes. Nature has instituted this same law for bees as well. For by alighting not only upon sweet blossoms, but also upon bitter ones, they draw out the sweet quality while turning away from the bitter, and from the various qualities—bitter and tart, austere and pungent—they prepare the sweetest honey for men. Following their example, we too, from your bitter meadows, compose for you the sweet honey of utility. But just as those who heal the bodies
producing medicines that are beneficial from poisonous animals; and as they reject some parts of vipers while boiling others, they drive away many diseases through these means: so do we, in handling the works of your poets, historians, and philosophers, leave aside some things as poisonous, while others we adapt to the science of doctrine, and offer them to you as a salutary remedy. Those whom you have supposed to be our adversaries, we show to be supporters of our arguments and teachers of the faith. Thus, with God’s help, we shall offer you our other teachings as well. Do you, therefore, having learned how necessary a thing faith is, cultivate that Pythagorean silence and lend your ears with attention to our words, faithfully receiving what is said; for thus you will soon be able to learn the truth. A
SERMON II. Concerning the Beginning.
The light which is perceptible to the senses, whether it descends to us from above or—if we consider things on earth—is devised by the art of man, indicates to those who see what is gold and what is silver, what is bronze and iron, B and tin, and similarly with other substances; and it teaches the difference between colors, forms, plants, and animals. But only those who have keen eyesight perceive this distinction of things. For those who are blind are in no way helped by the sun's rays, since they do not even see the brightness of the light itself. Similar to these are they who do not wish to look upon the intellectual light of truth, but rather willingly remain in the darkness of ignorance, like those birds that fly at night, C which quite naturally have a name derived from the night. For owls and night-ravens shun the light as an enemy, and love the darkness as if it were salutary. Now, against them, no one of sound mind would feel indignation; for nature assigned this kind of life to them from the beginning. But as for those who have of their own accord bound themselves to darkness, what measure of pardon could they justly obtain, especially when the divine light of truth has filled every continent and island with its rays, and has occupied the ends of the whole world? D For those who were afflicted with this malady before the divine manifestation of Christ have some moderate excuse, on the grounds that the Sun of righteousness had not yet risen, and they were living as if in darkness, guided only by the light of nature. When
however, this Sun has not only risen, but, to speak poetically, A *has climbed to the center of the heavens*, what room for excuse remains for those who go blind at midday and close their eyes so as not to enjoy the light? It is the vice of arrogance that does not allow them to dispel the mist from their eyes 22. For they suppose they know the truth better than anyone else, because they have been nurtured in the teachings of eloquent men; and they are unwilling to perceive that while sea fish are nourished in the saltiest of brine, they nonetheless require salt for seasoning. Nor, again, do they discern that fluency of speech is by no means the teacher of the truth. For what is more pleasant than the poetry of Homer? B What is sweeter than his beautiful diction? And yet the greatest of philosophers (you understand, I think, that I speak of the son of Aristo) drove him, anointed with oils just as women are accustomed to do with swallows, far from the city he himself established (Rep. III, p. 198), calling him the master of all licentiousness and impiety. For, he says, he teaches the young to blaspheme, and instills in them shameful opinions about the gods, and sows wicked, pernicious, and corrupt teachings in minds that are still tender. Furthermore, he brings many other charges against that most excellent of poets. Thus, not everyone who is trained in sweet eloquence is capable of teaching the truth. But if you object to us by pointing to your philosophers, know that these too were entangled in many errors. For they did not all travel the same path, nor did they follow the footsteps of those who went before them, C but each cut out a path for himself and invented ten thousand tracks; for the paths of falsehood are many and branch in many directions. And that this is so will be shown clearly in a moment. For Thales, the eldest of those who are called the seven sages, supposed that water was the principle of all things, having followed Homer, I believe, who said: *Oceanus the father of the gods, and Tethys the mother.*
Anaximander, his successor, said that the infinite was the principle; but his successor Anaximenes, and Diogenes of Apollonia, with one mind declared that air was the principle. Hippasus of Metapontum and Heraclitus of Ephesus assigned the principle of all things to fire. Empedocles of Agrigentum said it was the four elements. Xenophanes of Colophon said that the universe was eternal, and that all things D
A came from earth. Parmenides the Eleate, a companion of his, confirmed this same opinion, and declared that the judgment of the senses was false, denying that we can reach the truth by this guide. Democritus of Abdera asserted that the universe is infinite and unbegotten. Epicurus, the son of Neocles the Athenian, said that the whole was composed from the beginning of atoms, yet that it was without beginning and eternal. Furthermore, Metrodorus of Chios, Zeno the Eleate, and Diogenes of Smyrna posited different principles for all things.
From this it happened that Socrates, son of Sophroniscus, always attacked them, because while they claimed to know those things which human nature cannot attain, they battled against one another and made themselves leaders of new and clashing doctrines, as Xenophon says in his *Memorabilia*. And Plato also wrote of him in the *Phaedo* saying: "For I, Cebes, when I was young, was wonderfully eager for this philosophy, which they call the investigation of nature. For it seemed to me a splendid and noble thing to know the causes of each thing, why it comes to be, and why it perishes, and why it exists." Then, having recounted many such things, he added: "I will give you a sufficient proof. For I, as I previously thought I clearly understood, as I believed myself and others believed me, was rendered so blind by this investigation of nature that I even unlearned what I previously thought I knew." B And again, blaming the contention of the philosophers, Plato says the following in the *Theaetetus*: "But if you ask any of them, they struggle as if drawing forth the riddles of sentences from a quiver; and if you seek to grasp the reason for this, what they have said, you will be struck by another word newly coined, and you will achieve nothing from any of them, nor do they with one another; but they will guard very carefully that nothing be certain, neither in speech nor in their own souls; believing, as it seems to me, that this is the only thing that is solid; and against this they fight vehemently, and as far as they can, they [cast out] from everywhere. Perhaps, Theodorus, you have seen these men fighting, but you have not been present with them while they were at peace; for they are not your companions; but, I think, they say these things to their students in the school, whom they wish to make like themselves. To what students, my good friend? For not even does one among such men become a student of another, but they sprout up spontaneously, whenever each of them happens to be moved, and one does not think that the other knows anything." And after a little while again: "I almost forgot, C Theodorus, that others have declared the opposite to these things; for instance, that there is one name for the universe, and [other] things as much as Melissus and the Parmenidians, opposing themselves to all these, maintain D
A And indeed, in the *Sophist*, he accuses them in such words—not an apostle nor a prophet, but the first of the philosophers, whether one would wish to speak of Plato the son of Ariston, or Socrates the son of Sophroniscus; for the matters and opinions are those of Socrates, but the writings are those of Plato. Whichever of them it may be, he left it written thus (Soph. p. 242 C): “Each one of them seems to me to be telling us a myth, as if we were children. One B of them says that the things that are are three; but they sometimes fight among themselves, at other times they become friends, providing marriages, births, and the upbringing of children. Another declares that there are two principles of things, the moist and the dry, or the hot and the cold, and he gathers them together and brings them forth. But those among us who are called Eleatics, starting from Xenophanes and even earlier, relate their myths as if what is called ‘all things’ were one. And now some Sicilian Muses C have conceived that it is safer to combine both, and to say that what is is both many and one, and is held together by strife and friendship.” And after having discussed other things of this kind, he adds: “And so there appears to be a sort of war of giants among them, so great is their dispute concerning the substance of things. How so? Some drag all things down from heaven and from the invisible realm to the earth, having grasped, quite literally, rocks and trees D with their hands. For, having taken hold of [all] such things, they very strongly assert that only that which admits of collision and touch exists, defining the same thing as body and substance.”
These are not our Peter, nor Paul, accusing your philosophers; but most eloquent Plato, and Socrates, who was judged by the Pythian oracle to be the wisest of all men. They say that your philosophers affirm that only that which admits of collision and touch exists, and they define the same as body and substance, conceiving nothing beyond the things that are seen. How then could anyone use these men as guides to the truth, who themselves are subject to such and so great errors, and who bring forward such conflicting opinions, and have stirred up the greatest war among themselves? But Timon the Phliasian also, the associate of Pyrrho, mocked them in his *Silli*; and I, from the great number of them, shall mention a few:
Wretched mortals, base, belly-like, What disputes and strife of babblers drive you, O skins, whom empty conceit of soul fills?
Not therefore do we alone [avoid] the stain of arrogance...
for long ago, and very long ago, Timon, one of your philosophers, made this accusation. It is one thing to know, and another to imagine that one knows while knowing nothing. For there is a very great difference, O friends, between truth and the conjecture of truth. For conjecture errs in many things, but truth teaches in such a way that it admits nothing contrary to itself. Hence, one person speaks of truth by conjecture, and truth interprets itself differently; since even Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus, of Clazomenae, seeing that the philosophers before him had understood nothing beyond what is visible, was the first to say that an Intellect B presided over the world, and that this intellect brought the elements from disorder into order. And Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, said that the Monad, that is, the unit, was the principle of all things. Anaxagoras and Pythagoras lived at the same time. But after Pythagoras died, his wife Theano, along with her sons Telauges and Mnesarchus, undertook to manage his school; and Empedocles of Agrigentum became a student of Telauges, while Archelaus became a student of Anaxagoras; and Socrates of Athens was a student of Archelaus. Moreover, Anaxagoras and Pythagoras journeyed to Egypt and mingled with the wise men of the Egyptians and Hebrews there, C and gathered knowledge concerning Being. A long time later, Plato also undertook this same pilgrimage; and Plutarch mentions this in his *Parallel Lives*, and Xenophon, son of Gryllus, also mentions it in the things he wrote to the Socratic Aeschines. He writes as follows (Euseb. P. E., 745 D): “For they fell in love with Egypt, and with the monstrous wisdom of Pythagoras; and that they were licentious and not sufficiently stable under the discipline of Socrates, that love of tyranny indicated, as well as their seeking, in place of a frugal and simple life, Sicilian dinners, in keeping with a most voracious belly.” Such are the things Xenophon wrote D about Plato, that, having disregarded the teaching of Socrates, he envied the monstrous wisdom of Pythagoras, and lived with Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, enjoying the luxuries of Syracuse. He also testifies that he fell in love with the wisdom of the Egyptians. Therefore, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, and Plato all gathered certain riddles concerning Being from the Egyptians and Hebrews. Why, then, do you put faith in these men, who learned divine matters only superficially, yet refuse to learn from those from whom they themselves received these things? For that the poets and philosophers who lived before them supposed that there was nothing beyond what is seen, Plato shows in his *Cratylus*: “It seems to me,” he says, “that the first men in Greece considered those to be the only gods whom many of the barbarians now consider such: the sun, and the moon, and the earth, and the stars, and the heaven.”
A Since they saw these things moving and running in a certain course, they named them gods from this nature, from their running. But Homer and Hesiod were entirely ignorant of the Maker of the whole universe. For Hesiod said that Oceanus and Tethys were born from Chaos; and from Oceanus and Tethys the heaven and the earth; and from these, Saturn and Rhea with the other brothers; and from Saturn and Rhea, Jupiter and Juno and Neptune and Pluto. Homer calls Oceanus the generator of the gods, and Tethys their mother; and he calls him whom he styles father of gods and men the Saturnian, as if he were born from Saturn. These men, therefore, also served great errors. Although Plato himself knew this very well, he nevertheless exhorts that faith be given to them, even though they invent such fables and use no signs or true demonstrations. Elsewhere, the same Plato also testifies: “The poet is a light and holy thing, and he is not able to compose anything poetic before he is inspired and loses his senses.” B Orpheus the Odrysian, having also traveled to Egypt, learned some things about the true God and cries out: Perfect is God, who perfects all things alone, He traverses the same: but by no man's eyes May he be seen, though He watches all things Seen by none, since clouds of dark mist Resist, and mortal lights for us, And delicate pupils, while flesh and bones stand in the way. And again: He himself sits back upon the great heaven, Sitting on a golden throne, and beneath his feet The earth is pressed; he stretches his right hand to the shores Of Ocean: the roots of the mountains in their depths Tremble, and cannot bear the divine power on their backs. Residing in heaven, yet he perfects all things on earth below, He acts as the head, the middle, and the end. C But although he had learned these things from the Egyptians—who had received certain documents of truth from the Hebrews—he nevertheless mingled some errors of theology and handed down the most impure orgies of the Dionysian and Thesmophorian rites; and as if smearing the cup with a certain honey, he offered the lethal drink to the deceived. Plato indeed did this very same thing. For the things he wrote in the Timaeus regarding the Being (God) are truly worthy of admiration. For who would not admire him, hearing him say: “What is that which always is, and has no generation? And what, on the contrary, is that which is always becoming, yet never exists? The former is grasped by intellect with reason, always existing in the same way; but the latter is opinable by irrational sense, as it comes into being and perishes, but properly it D never exists.” He also adds these things to what has been said:
A “For all these things are parts of time, ‘was’ and ‘shall be’; B and while we carry these about, we are unwittingly applying them even to the eternal substance, not rightly. For we say that it ‘was,’ ‘is,’ and ‘shall be’; but to it, in the true sense, only ‘is’ is appropriate; and ‘was’ and ‘shall be’ are suitable to be said of that generation which is in time. But that which always and in the same way possesses itself immutably, it is not appropriate to be called either older or younger.” B Who, then, is so caviling and querulous an accuser as to take offense at what has been said, and not rather bear full witness to the truth in them? For that which is always is superior to all generation; but that which [indeed] comes into being, and admits of very many changes, he plausibly said never to be; for the embryo, when it has become an infant, is no longer then an embryo, but an infant; and again the infant, when it has become a child, is no longer called an infant; thus the child, having taken on the age of a youth, is called what it has become; and when it again attains to manhood, it is no longer called a youth, but a man; and having become an old man, this again in turn is called what it has indeed become. C With good reason, therefore, he called those things which come into being and are changed ‘non-beings.’ And Socrates, conversing with Crito, teaches that there is one Inspector of all things, with these words: “But now regarding just and unjust things, and shameful and fair, and bad and good, about which our deliberation is now, whether we must obey the opinion of the many and fear it, or that of the one, if there is anyone who understands, whom we ought to fear and revere more than all the rest? For if we do not follow him, we will corrupt and injure that which was indeed made better by the just, but perished by the unjust.” And a little later again: “Therefore, my good sir, we must not be at all concerned about what the many will say of us, but what the one who understands just and unjust things will say, [who is] the one man, and truth itself.” D Do you see, O men, how in these words Plato and Socrates drove out the swarm of non-existent gods, and exhorted that only the Moderator of all things be revered and feared? Teaching that, if ever he made mention of many gods, he was forced to do so on account of the deceived Athenian crowd. For if, even having done these things, Socrates did not escape the cup of hemlock, what evil would he not have suffered if he had openly denied the large swarm of gods? And Plato has made this clear in what he wrote to Dionysius. For among many other things, he added this: “But concerning the symbol regarding the letters, both those which I write in haste, and those which I do not, I think that you remember; nevertheless, take note, and
A pay attention. For many are those who urge me to write, whom it is not easy to dismiss openly. Of the serious letter, then, God is the beginning, but of the lighter one, the gods. How else could one more clearly show his own intention? For he showed openly the difference he held regarding these names, almost saying: 'For the sake of the opinion of the many, I use the plural name concerning God, suspicious of the deceived preconceptions of the citizens; for when writing seriously, and trusting in both the bearer and the receiver of the B letters, I name God in the singular, and I make this the beginning of my words.' And elsewhere, too, he writes thus concerning the Being: 'For to find the Father and Maker of this whole universe is a labor, and having found Him, to declare Him to all is impossible; for it is in no way expressible as other branches of learning.' But he who in these [passages] theologized thus accurately, in others, whether fearing the many or in truth being ignorant, made mention of many gods, and causes much harm to those who encounter [his writings]. C Why then, O friends, do we draw muddy and earthy water, and do not seek that clear and transparent spring, from which this man, taking the arguments of theology, mixed into it the muddy and earthy dregs? Or are you ignorant that Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews, is more ancient than all your poets, historians, and philosophers? But if you still even now doubt, and suspect that we are inventing this account, let Porphyry at least be a sufficient witness for you: who, having become a champion of impiety, moved his unbridled tongue against the God of the universe. Hear, therefore, him saying these things in that which he wrote against us: D 'Sanchuniathon the Berytian, having received the records from Hierombalus, the priest of the god Jao, narrates the things concerning the Jewish affairs most truthfully, for they are most consistent both with the places and with the names of the Jews. He, having dedicated his history to Abibalus, king of the Berytians, was approved by him and the other examiners of the truth. Moreover, the times of these [men] are prior to the Trojan times, and they approach closely to the times of Moses, as the successions of the kings of Phoenicia indicate. Sanchuniathon, indeed, who in the Phoenician tongue, as a lover of truth, collected and wrote down all the ancient history from the records of the individual cities and the monuments in the temples, lived under Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians.' And from this it is clearly possible to learn by how many years Moses is older than the Trojan times. For if he who wrote the Jewish history flourished in the time of Semiramis, and committed it to writing, Sanchuniathon
who A lived long before—did so, then Moses, having been the lawgiver of the Jews, is consequently much older than Sanchuniathon. That Semiramis lived more than a thousand years before the Trojan times is clearly shown by those who have compiled the chronological records. But to refute Porphyry, as one ignorant of the eras, is not the task of the present moment. It suffices for me to show by how many years Moses was older than the Trojan times. Homer and Hesiod flourished long after the Trojan times. Orpheus, however, was the first of the poets, preceding the Trojan times by one generation. For he sailed to Colchis as a companion to Jason, Peleus, Telamon, Hercules, and the Dioscuri. Now Euneus is said to be the son of Jason, he who sent wine to the Achaeans who were besieging Troy. There was also Tlepolemus, the son of Hercules, whom Sarpedon (the leader of the Lycians) transfixed with a spear in the Trojan war; and Ajax, the son of Telamon; and Achilles, the son of Peleus. When Helen, desiring to see Castor and Pollux—the so-called Dioscuri—from the walls as if they were her brothers, and then, missing the object of her longing, bewailed them bitterly, supposing them to be dead. I have not recounted these things like a garrulous storyteller, but wishing to show clearly that Orpheus was one generation older than the Trojan war. Linus and Musaeus flourished around the time of the Trojan war, and Thamyris and Philammon likewise along with these. If, therefore, B according to Porphyry's own opinion, Moses is more than a thousand years older than these, and they are the most ancient of the poets (for even Homer and Hesiod were born after them, and these again were many years older than Thales and the other philosophers, and those who philosophized after him), why do we not leave them all and pass on to Moses, the ocean of theology, from whom, to speak poetically, all rivers and every sea are derived? For Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, and Plato after them, drew from thence certain small gleams of truth; and Socrates, having conversed with Anaxagoras and Archelaus, learned from them what he taught regarding the Existent. But Moses, the most divine, did not follow human reasonings like these men in writing his theology, but was instructed by the very voice of the Existent itself. For when the Creator of all things began the giving of the law, He exhorted [men] to worship the one God, saying, «I am, He said, the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.» And having C reminded them of the benefit conferred a little before, He exhorted them to persist in the service of God, and not to bestow the worship owed to God upon any other, but to attribute it to the one true God. «For there shall not be, He said, to thee other gods beside me.» Thence He clearly teaches that none of those
things which are seen is like unto Him, and altogether forbids the making of any image for the imitation of any seen things, or thinking such to be a representation and idol of the invisible God. «For thou shalt not make to thyself, He said, an idol, nor the likeness of anything, as many as are in heaven above, and as many as are on the earth beneath, and as many as are in the waters under the earth: ye shall not make them for yourselves, nor shall ye worship them; for I am the Lord thy God.» Thou hast heard a voice, he says, but thou hast not seen a form. Make not, therefore, any image the archetype of which thou dost not know. And elsewhere, also, refuting the false gods and rooting out the error of the Egyptians, He said to them: «Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one.» B
This teaching is contained in the writings of the great Moses; this theology he has interwoven with both histories and laws and prophecies; and having written five books, he forbids the honoring of those who are many and are thought and called gods, yet are not such, and commands that worship be offered to the Creator of all things alone. Joshua, also, the successor to his leadership of the people and military command, and finally the whole chorus of the prophets, did not cease to exhort and command these same things. But you might perhaps say: «You yourselves have not kept this law inviolate. For you preach a Trinity, not a unity; whereas the Jews, nurtured on the books of Moses and the prophets, worship only one, and condemn your Trinity.» C But I, O friendly men, do not consider you unworthy of pardon, as you are ignorant of the divine Scriptures; but I mourn the extreme ignorance of the Jews, that, being nurtured, according to the prophet, from the womb, and trained from childhood even unto old age in divine things, they are ignorant of the truth of theology. For because they had sojourned for a very long time in Egypt, and had learned the worship of many gods according to the Egyptian rite, the all-wise God by no means manifested to them all the mysteries of the Trinity, lest they should take occasion from the multitude of gods and incline toward the impiety of the Egyptians: yet He did not, even then, fully conceal the dogmas concerning the Trinity from those who were to come after, but sowed as it were seeds of a more perfect theology. For this reason He legislates in the singular, D yet enigmatically indicates the Trinity. For the one who says, «Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one,» teaches both the unity, and
signifies the Trinity. For by uttering «God» once and «Lord» twice, he has indicated the number of the Trinity. But by adding «is one,» he has brought forth the teaching appropriate to the Jews, and signified the identity of the divine essence. For the essence, the power, and indeed the will of the holy Trinity are one. On this account, the choirs of invisible powers, offering their hymn to God, say «Holy» three times, but «Lord» only once; in the former they express the number of the properties, in the latter they signify the common lordship. A And while these things are declared through enigmas concerning the divine Trinity, the holy men teach these same things more clearly in other places. For Moses, that divine man, providing an account of the origin of the world and explaining the formation of man, said that the Creator of all said: «Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.» Then he added, as it is written: «God made man; in the image of God he made him.» And he called the one who made man God, as he also called the one after whose image he fashioned the one whom he formed; not that the species of the one is different from that of the other, since the nature of the Trinity is one. For this very reason he said that God had said, «Let us make man in our image and after our likeness,» and added, «In the image of God he made him,» in order to show the distinction of the persons. B And indeed, when legislating to Noah regarding the eating of meat and forbidding the consumption of blood, he said that the God of all said: «Everything, as the herbs of the grass, you shall eat; but flesh in the blood of its life you shall not eat. For your blood I will require; from all the beasts I will require it, and from the hand of man, his brother, I will require it. He who sheds a man’s blood, for his blood his own blood shall be shed, because in the image of God I made man.» He did not say, «In my own image I made him,» but «In the image of God,» again showing the distinction of the persons. And when those who in their madness against their Maker gathered together and were building that great tower, which received its name from the confusion of languages, the legislator says that God said: «Come, and descending let us confuse their languages.» C And indeed, the words «Descending let us confuse» signify equality of rank; for he did not say, «Descend,» or «Let him descend,» which would be appropriate for those who are subject or ordered to obey, but «Descending let us confuse,» which clearly demonstrates equality. Moreover, the word «Come» signifies both the Son and the Holy Spirit. D
the partners in the creation. Since, indeed, when forming man He said, A «Let us make man according to our image and likeness,» it is reasonably inferred that, even while dividing the one voice into many, He takes the Son and the all-holy Spirit as associates. And later, in time, wishing to consume Sodom and the neighboring cities—those partakers in impiety and transgression—with violent winds and thunderbolts, He manifested to us a duality of Lords, as Moses, who wrote these things, says: «And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.» B And that no one should suppose that this prophet alone has spoken the things concerning the divine Trinity, hear, O beloved, also the divine David crying out: «By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their power by the Spirit of His mouth.» And again: «The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.» And after a little, the Father of the Lord is introduced addressing the same Lord: «From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you.» And in another psalm: «Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of rectitude is the scepter of your kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.» And the prophet Isaiah, C and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Daniel, and Zechariah, [and Micah,] and the entire chorus of the prophets deliver the same doctrine to us. But I think it superfluous to bring these things to you, who have not yet presented the confession of faith.
I shall therefore approach another method of instruction, and I will show that both Plato and those who followed him gathered certain things of theology from these divine men and inserted them into their own writings. For Plato, in what he wrote to Coriscus, placed these words: «Swearing with a study not inept, and with the sister of study—education—and swearing by the leader of all gods, both present and future, and by Him who is the leader and cause, D the father and lord, whom, without doubt, you will know if you philosophize correctly.» These, O beloved men, are the dogmas of Plato; of which some are indeed most worthy of praise, as being in harmony with apostolic and prophetic doctrine, while others are the offspring and shoots of Greek mythology. For to say that one is the leader and cause of the whole world, and another is the father of the cause, he truly—
A demonstrated the truth, from which he drew to adorn his own discourses. But the fact that he calls him leader of the gods, both those that are and those that are to be, signifies one of two things: either the philosopher has fallen into the suffering of ignorance, or, pretending to be sick with it, he has mixed falsehood with the truth. Furthermore, he declares those whom the many call gods to be not gods by nature; for who, unless completely deranged, would call him God who is not always God? Yet he has said that these things come to be in time; for he said, “Of the gods that are and those that are to be.” How, then, could anything be God which has not yet come to be? Or how could it partake of the most august name, if it has not yet received existence? The divine oracles designate none of the things that have come to be as God by nature; for they have bestowed only a bare name upon those B to whom the power of judging has been entrusted, and, moreover, upon those who have kept the divine image as undefiled as possible. By nature, however, they are accustomed to call Him God alone, who is always God, and who always exists in the same way and after the same manner. But we shall reserve this for a later part of our discourse; for the present it will suffice to demonstrate that the philosopher knows the leader and cause of the whole world, and also the father of this leader. We may hear him in the *Epinomis* also, where he says: “And let us pay honors, not assigning to one a year, to another a month, to another a portion of a month, nor any time in which he traverses his own pole, C bringing to completion the world which the most divine Word has ordered; which the blessed one first admired, and then had a desire to learn all that was possible for nature to know.” And in these words, he stated that the Word ordered all things, not the Father of the Word. Also, writing to Dionysius, he says the following: “You must speak in enigmas, so that if anything should happen to our letter by sea or on land, the reader may not understand. For the case is this: All things are around the king of all, and for his sake all things exist, and he himself is the cause of all good things; and the second around the second, and the third around the third.” D Do you see how, fearing and trembling, they presented the dogmas of the truth, and declared the truth enigmatically and not clearly, guarding against the error of the many? He has also revealed this fear in the *Timaeus*. He speaks as follows: “Now, therefore, let our resolve be this: concerning the cause or causes of all things, or whatever may be thought regarding these, we must not speak at this present time, for no other reason than because it is difficult to communicate what is thought}
A Numenius the Pythagorean, in what he has written concerning the Good, has taught these things more clearly. For he says: "It is not fitting that the First should be a maker, and one must believe that the first God is the Father of the God who is the maker." Plotinus as well, who emulated the philosophy of Plato, wrote a book about the three primary hypostases, in which he also said: "What, then, must one say about the most perfect? Is nothing from it, or are the greatest things after it? The greatest things after it are mind, and a secondary thing; for mind gazes upon It." And again: "Everything that generates desires and loves what it has generated, especially if they are alone, both that which generates and that which is generated; and when that which is generated is also the best, it is of necessity with Him, so as to be separated only by otherness. And we say that the mind is an image of Him. For one must speak more clearly." Many other things B were said both by him, and by Plutarch, and by Numenius, and by the others who were of their school. For since these men lived after the advent of our Savior, they mingled many things of Christian theology with their own discourses. Developing, therefore, the thought of Plato, both Plotinus and Numenius say that he spoke of three things that are above time and eternal: the Good, and Mind, and the Soul of the universe; and that which we call the Father, he names the Good; but the Mind, which we name the Son and the Word, and the power that animates and gives life to all things, he calls the Soul—which is the very thing that the sacred Scriptures name the Holy Spirit. And these things, as I said, have been plundered from the wisdom and theology of the Hebrews. For David, the composer of hymns, striking up a divine melody and being breathed upon by divine grace, cried out saying: "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were fixed, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." C But both the holy Gospels and Plutarch and Plotinus have heard this; and Amelius, who presided over the school of Porphyry, clearly shows this. For he marvels greatly at the prologue from which John began his theology, speaking thus: "And this, therefore, was the Word, according to which things that come into being always came into being; just as Heraclitus might suppose, and, by Zeus, the barbarian also supposes that, set in the place and dignity of the beginning, He is toward God, and is God; through whom all things absolutely have come to be; in whom whatever has come to be was living and life and being; and that He D came into a body and, having put on flesh, appeared as a man, and that thereupon he even showed the magnificence of his nature; and, indeed, that having been released, he became deified again, and is God, just as he was
before he descended into the carnal body and into man. A Thus, therefore, he admired the theology of the barbarian—a man nourished by the eloquence of Plato and the other philosophers. And he confessed that the Word existed in the beginning, and that he was God, and was with God; and that he made all things, and that he exists as the cause and dispenser of life to all; and that, for the sake of the salvation of all, he concealed the magnificence of the Godhead in flesh, yet revealed the nobility of the Father even within that small and dense cloud. For the divine Evangelist also, having said: «And the Word became flesh,» and having shown the immutability of the [divine] nature, added: «And he dwelt among us.» He taught that even while clothed in flesh, he shed the ineffable and incorruptible radiance of the Godhead. B «For we beheld,» he says, «his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.» For the covering of the flesh did not tarnish the rays of his Godhead; but even while clothed in it, he was manifest as to who he was and from whom he shone forth. But if even the adversaries of the truth so greatly admire the truth, that they adorn their own writings with even small particles plundered from it, and do not dim their own splendor even when mixed with much falsehood, but the pearls shine [exceedingly] even when lying in the C dirt and refuse, and, according to the evangelical teaching, «the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it;» it is easy to discern how worthy of love and how admirable the divine teachings are, separated from falsehood. For a pearl lying in the mire possesses, surely, a great difference compared to one shining in a diadem; and indeed, the joints of the fingers, when separated from one another and scattered, do not possess the same beauty and grace and utility as they are seen to have when they are naturally attached to one another, fitted together, and functioning. Therefore, the beauty of the truth—pure and unmixed—must be contemplated. For if it shines even when mixed with contrary colors, it is clear that it will appear D more brilliantly if it is separated from harmful things. A person would discern this more clearly by setting the Greek mythology alongside the prophetic and apostolic teaching, and viewing the difference side by side. For Sanchoniathon the Berythian wrote the theology of the Phoenicians; and Philo, not the Hebrew but the Byblian, translated this into the Greek language. Porphyry praises Sanchoniathon greatly. Manetho, furthermore, [transmits] the accounts of Isis and Osiris, and Apis and Sarapis, and of others...
A among the Egyptian gods. Diodorus the Sicilian wrote a history of the creation of the world; and the younger generation even knows the Theogony of the Ascræan poet. Orpheus the Odrysian taught the Greeks the mysteries of the Egyptians 40, and Cadmus those of the Phoenicians. Cornutus the philosopher compiled the Greek theology, and Plutarch and Aetius published the opinions of the philosophers; Porphyry also undertook the same labor, adding the life of each individual to their opinions. I ask you, sirs, to compare our own [teachings] with these, and to learn that it B is not only, according to the poet:
*As far as heaven is distant from the earth,*
that it is removed, but as far as that which is called Tartarus is from heaven. I, for my part, ask leave to set aside these myths, that no one may call me a chatterer and a trifler. Yet, in the next discussion, God willing, I shall mention a few of them, so as to demonstrate not only the absurdity of the myths told about the so-called gods, but also their foolishness and impurity. And if anyone should wish to study this comparison for himself, he will find it in the books of Eusebius of Palestine—a work he titled the *Gospel Preparation*. But I shall state briefly that the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, and the C poets and philosophers of the Greeks, either imagined visible elements to be gods, or declared men who had rendered some benefit or had excelled in certain remarkable things to be gods, and built temples to the dead. We, however, make none of the things that are seen with the eyes into God; but we honor men who have been distinguished by some virtue as the best of men. We worship only the God and Father of all, and His Word, and the most holy Spirit. This same One we call and believe to be the unbegotten Son, and Word, and Life, and Light, and Truth; and, using many other names, we hymn the Divine nature. We name Him not only from the attributes which He possesses, but we address Him also by those which He does not possess. For we call Him without beginning, D and incorruptible, and immortal, and infinite, and beyond destruction, and invisible, and without form and figure, and uncircumscribed, and incomprehensible, and inaccessible, bestowing such designations from the things which the divine nature lacks. For because He cannot be seen, He is called invisible and unviewable; and because He transcends the imagination of the mind, He is called inaccessible; and infinite, as one who has neither end nor beginning; and because
is superior to all corruption and destruction, incorruptible and immortal. Other names, too, of this kind indicate to us those things of which the divine nature is devoid. But "good," "just," "light," "life," "creator of all things," "ruler and governor of all," and things similar to these, which it possesses and by which it directs A creation and benefits human nature, are significant. Thus, He is named Son, as having been begotten of God and the Father; and Word, as having come forth timelessly and impassibly, without dividing the One who begat Him; and again, B Radiance of His glory, as being coeternal with the One who begat Him. But let no perturbation seize you, because you hear that the Word is from the Father and with the Father. For it is most absurd for you to tolerate Plato, who calls God the creator of matter, and calls matter coeternal with God, and maintains that the ideas are from God and with God; yet not to believe that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit proceed from God and are with God. For if the philosopher wishes that matter, which is of another kind and nature and is foreign, should be from God and with God, much more reasonably and truthfully must our doctrine be regarded. For we do not say that the Son is of another nature, nor the Holy Spirit, but we proclaim one substance of the Trinity.
If, however, anyone desires to learn the mode of the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him first explain C the mode of the existence of the Unbegotten, how He is, having no cause. For this is entirely unsearchable, and can be grasped only by a pure and sincere faith. For human reason easily admits that something of those things that can be begotten and created comes to be from a cause; but human reason does not accept that there is something which has no cause, unless some promise of faith intervenes. But if we believe that there is something [that is] unbegotten, beginningless, and causeless, we must therefore believe that from the Intellect, having D being, was the Word begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeded. That even some of the ancients call the God of all things "unbegotten," one might hear from Timaeus the Locrian, saying: "There is one origin of all things, unbegotten. For if it was begotten, it would not have been an origin, but those things from which the origin was begotten." And Parmenides the Eleatic, also saying that the world is unbegotten, cries out: Only, soligenitus, and motionless, and unbegotten. And Plutarch of Chaeronea, regarding the "EI" in Delphi
writing thus, he said: "What then is that A which is eternal and unbegotten and incorruptible? Or does time bring no change to it?" If therefore we say that there is something unbegotten and without cause, according to Parmenides, the world, but according to Plato, and Timaeus the Locrian, and Plutarch, and ourselves, the Maker of all things: it is by far more credible to say that the Word and the all-holy Spirit spring from that Unbegotten—the Word, indeed, as begotten from the intellect; but the Spirit, as proceeding. For the Spirit goes forth together with the Word, not as being co-generated with the Word, but as being concomitant and accompanying and proceeding. But we do not say that the Spirit is some breath of mouth—for the Divine is incomposite and formless—nor that the Word is that which is poured into the air; but [we say it is] the substantial Word and the subsistent Spirit; both of which are considered in the Father, and are believed in themselves, both joined and divided: joined by the same identity of nature, but divided by the difference of their properties and understood by themselves. These things, however, cannot be accurately grasped by one who has not encountered the divine Oracles, and received the light of knowledge from divine grace.
One must read not only the teachings of the holy apostles, but also the pronouncements of the divine prophets. For thus will anyone who sees the harmony of both the old and the new theology admire the truth, and will flee the atheism of Diagoras the Milesian, and of the Cyrenaic B Theodore, and of Evemerus the Tegeate: for Plutarch said these men believed that there was no God at all. He will flee also the unseemly opinion of the Stoics concerning God, for these said that God was corporeal; and he will abhor the ambiguous and faithless discourses of Protagoras concerning God. For his are such as these: "Concerning the gods, therefore, I do not know whether they exist, or whether they do not exist, nor of what kind they are in form." He will escape, moreover, the error of other mythologists. And as for Plato and those similar to him, he will find and admire whatever they have pilfered from the divine Scriptures; but whatever false things they have mixed in, he will scrape off, and reject like dung, and drive them from the seats of his soul. Finally, the thieves' hiding places having been detected, he will have faith in the Pythagorean Numenius, who says: C D "For what is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?" For by these words Numenius shows most openly that whatever Plato said piously, he has pilfered from the theology of Moses.
Therefore, it is time, O men, to investigate the root of truth. For just as those who mine the earth for gold and silver, as soon as they find small grains, follow them to search out all the veins, and do not cease digging until they find the abundance of gold from which those grains were scattered A: so too it becomes you, having heard the discourses of Anaxagoras, and Pythagoras, and Plato, and indeed of Numenius, Plutarch, and Plotinus, and the rest of the philosophers, to search out the fountain from which they drew a few small divine streams to adorn their own books; and leaving behind their poverty, to embrace the abyss of wisdom, and to learn accurately from it what is the Maker and what is the work, and what is the dignity of invisible creatures, and what is the utility of those that are seen. For having learned this, you will no longer divide divine worship into many; but you will worship Him who is always and truly is, and who out of pure goodness gave existence to all things that are B; and instead of enemies and adversaries, you will become kinsmen and friends, and—as those familiar with Him—you will enjoy great boldness; and you who now are in need of other guides, you yourselves will guide many who are wandering back to the truth.
SERMON III. On angels, and those who are called gods, and on evil demons.
We are accustomed to praise those bodies that are whole and lacking no members, and that maintain the regularity which they received from nature at the beginning, whole and complete; but those in which something is missing or redundant, we are accustomed to call monsters C. And as for anarchy and polyarchy, because they are harmful, we denounce them, while we admire monarchy and praise the Homeric view, which introduces this law:
Bad is a multitude of masters; let there be one master, One king.
I do not babble these things in vain, but in order to demonstrate divine matters from human ones. And I beg you, O men, to observe this law in those matters too: so that you may call healthy and sound those who follow the true theology, which nature from the beginning delivered to men and the divine oracles subsequently confirmed D; and that you may call maimed, in turn, not only those who believe there is no God, but also those who have divided the divine worship into many, and who set the creature as an equal to the Creator of all.
A For it is not only Diagoras the Milesian and Theodorus of Cyrene, and Euhemerus of Tegea, and those who followed them—who declared that there are absolutely no gods, as Plutarch 39 said—but also Homer and Hesiod, and the various schools of the philosophers, who have fabricated vast swarms of gods, and have declared some of them to be like slaves, subjected to human passions. Indeed, they have even attributed the most shameful passions, which they themselves condemn and from which they earnestly exhort the young to abstain, to the gods, and have bestowed upon them the honor due to gods. B And as Diodorus the Sicilian says, the Egyptians were the first of all to name the sun and the moon as gods, calling the sun Osiris and the moon Isis; and he reports that the Phoenicians, having learned this from them, emulated the deification practiced by the Egyptians. Plato also admits in the *Cratylus* that the Greeks were the first to be imbued with this error regarding those they call gods. He speaks as follows: “It seems to me that the first of mankind in Greece held those alone to be gods whom many of the barbarians also hold to be such: the sun, and the moon, and the earth, and the stars, and the heaven; C and because they saw these things running a course and racing, they named them gods (*theous*) from this nature of running (*theein*).” Now, the all-wise Creator of all things, being in need of nothing, and having absolutely no need of anything either visible or invisible, created heaven and earth, sun and moon, and all other things which are sensible and visible, for the sake of human need; or rather, by the generosity of his great handiwork, he exceeded the bounds of need, and through these things he bestows upon them an enjoyment of all kinds of good things. For the sun, rising and causing day, stirs up the human race to work. D And the moon, when the greater luminary withdraws, tempers the darkness of night, and neither distresses those who wish to rest from their labors with an excessive abundance of light, nor, for those who wish to travel or do anything else, does it fail to provide a sufficient torch; and when it wanes, the stars fulfill this need. However, as I said, the Creator has shown such providence for men; yet they, having received these greatest of gifts, and being obliged to use them as guides to the contemplation of God, and to hymn the author and provider of those things as the great benefactor, have left him unhonored, while they have worshipped the creature, and, as the Apostle says, have served the creature rather than the Creator; and the magnitude and beauty of the gifts became for them an occasion for ingratitude. For they did not know the Giver, and they rendered the honor due to God to the things themselves.
A Yet the Creator, being all-wise, foreseeing this error of men, mingled certain imperfections with the elements, so that their beauty and magnitude might incite men to praise the Maker, but the imperfections attached to them might prevent the attribution of divine worship to them. Thus, small clouds often cover the most brilliant sun and the moon, and mist or haze makes their rays dimmer. Sometimes, even at midday, with no clouds present, the light of the sun vanishes by the casting of a haze, and the same thing happens to the moon at night. Furthermore, the wise Lord devised this again: since the moderate heat of the sun is suitable for bodies, for seeds, and for plants—for it increases and nourishes the former, and ripens the fruits and makes them ready—He ordained that at other times its rays should be intensified, so as to afflict the bodies of men and other animals, and to ruin the germination of seeds and plants, so that we might not suppose it to be the cause of life, but believe it to be a servant of the divine will. B Moreover, He revealed the air to be a helper to us for life. For not only we, but each of the irrational creatures, lives by breathing it, and by its inflow it tempers the innate heat. However, even pestilential disease arises from the air, and bodies that were nourished by its temperate state perish; so that we might not suppose even this to be God, but, seeing it subject to change and alteration, might recoil from worshipping it. In like manner also, the Creator fashioned the earth as a bringer of life, a bestower of riches, a mother, a nurse, and a common foundation for living creatures. But in order that, seeing these things, we might not be led astray and deify it as the provider of good things, He mingled many and various imperfections with it as well. For it is harmed by an excess of cold and heat, and is dissolved by rain more abundant than is needed, so that it ruins seeds and plants. And again, if the clouds do not pour forth their rains at the proper time, it dries up and becomes sterile. Often also rain, falling at an unseasonable time, brings about putrefaction and forces it to breed animals harmful to men. C Perceiving this infirmity of the earth, those who are of sound mind refuse to worship it as God, and rather are led through it, and through the germs coming from it, to contemplate the Creator of the earth and its produce, and through those things which are seen, they arrive at Him who is invisible. D
A Wisely, therefore, did one of our own say, and relevantly: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things, their Creator is analogously contemplated." For the Creator is not such as are the things created, nor is He of such size as they; for the latter are visible, and palpable, and sensible, and conjoined with certain passions: but He is intangible and invisible, impassible and incorruptible, and B incapable of being circumscribed, as are the things created. Wherefore, very fittingly, the word "analogously" was added in the aforementioned text. For when we see the vaulted expanse of the heavens, the breadth of the earth, the magnitude of the seas, the splendor of the sun, the brightness of the moon, and all other things which are visible, we do not equate the Creator with these, but we say that He is superior to the things created in an infinite degree of magnitude and beauty. Deservedly, therefore, did that wise man say: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things, their Creator is analogously contemplated." This statement is confirmed also by the divine Apostle, who speaks thus: C «For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divinity.» For through the things that are seen, we perceive the invisible Creator. And just as, when we see a chest or a stool, we do not call these the craftsman, but we call them the works of the craftsman; and as we look upon a ship skillfully built, we not only admire it, but we praise its shipwright, even though he be absent, and that most highly; and when we see a necklace or some other ornament of the neck skillfully wrought, we offer praise to the goldsmith: so, too, when we turn our eyes to the fabric of the world, we marvel at its magnitude and beauty, and the utility D flowing from it; the mind, however, leaving these aside, runs to that One who wisely fashioned all these things. Very well, therefore, did the divine Apostle say: «For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divinity.» Then he declares those to be unworthy of any pardon who have indeed beheld the creation, but have not admired its Creator, but have attributed to the creature the worship owed to God. Whence he deservedly added: «So that they are inexcusable, because, when they had known God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.» And he exaggerates the accusation
and brings their arrogance into the light: «Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.» And he also speaks of the kinds of their folly: «And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.» By naming God incorruptible, and yet constructing an image of corruptible bodies (for they know not the form of the immortal soul), they bestowed divine honors upon the image of flesh. Nor was this madness sufficient for their impiety; but they also, by fashioning likenesses of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things, called these also gods; and the very things which, because they are poisonous and deadly, they kill when alive, the images of these they named gods and saviors. B
But let us return to that which gave birth to these arguments for us: that the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians, and indeed the Greeks as well, first considered the sun, and the moon, and the earth, and the stars, and the other elements to be their gods. For this is what Plato, and Diodorus the Sicilian, and Plutarch of Chaeronea have taught; but in later times, those who had conferred some benefit upon the human race, or who had fought bravely in wars, or had introduced some method of cultivating the earth, or had brought a cure to those suffering from illnesses, they both deified and built temples to them. C For indeed Sanchuniathon said that Saturn was a man, and Rhea, his wife, a woman, and that Jove and Juno were their children; then, having begun to perform certain deeds of benefit, and having reached the end of their lives, they were deemed worthy of divine honor by the Phoenicians, and were proclaimed gods and honored with altars and sacrifices and annual public feasts. And the Greeks deified Hercules, as being valiant and brave; and they addressed Asclepius as a god after he had died, as one who had become the inventor of the medical art. And for the same reason the Egyptians also deemed Apis worthy of a divine appellation. And yet the Greeks themselves say that Hercules burned himself because of the plot hatched by Deianira, and in this way put an end to his life; and that Asclepius, being a man, and one who had delivered many men from very many sufferings through the art of medicine, was struck by a thunderbolt from Jove and destroyed. For indeed these things, besides many others, Diodorus the Sicilian recorded in the fourth book of his *Bibliotheca*. Nevertheless, although D the Greeks well know these things, they none the less [continue to worship] both Hercules and
Asclepius gods, and in addition to these, the sons of Tyndareus, Castor and Pollux, whom they call the Dioscuri—even though they are not of the most ancient times, but sailed with the Argonauts. For both these, and Hercules, and in addition to them Orpheus, who played the lyre and charmed the fish with his music, compelling them to follow the harmony of the sound, completed the number of the Argonauts. That these men were one generation older than the Trojan [war] we demonstrated in the preceding discourse.
They also ranked Dionysus among the number of the other gods, because he was the first to plant the vine, and pressed out its fruit, and showed the need for wine. But as for Aphrodite, who initiated no benefit but became a teacher of intemperance (for they say she was a prostitute and a harlot, and the mistress of Cinyras), they called her a goddess. And this is not at all surprising. For if those who even deigned to bestow this appellation upon venomous reptiles would hardly have deprived women of this honor, [why should we be surprised]? And indeed, as the poets say, the gods snatched up [[43]] Ganymede to pour wine for Zeus. And they separated Helen from Menelaus after her much-talked-of and excessive adultery, C and, as Euripides says, carried her up into heaven. Thus, the Greeks made gods not only of those who had performed some good thing, but even of the most dissolute men and women.
When the Romans had learned these rites from them, they used to consecrate their emperors as gods after the end of their lives; and not only those who had reigned lawfully and had cared for justice, but also those who had guided their rule through tyranny and injustice and contrary to divine law. For they added to the catalogue of their gods even Nero, who practiced every sort of lasciviousness and iniquity to the point of satiety, and Domitian, and Commodus, and indeed other murderous and most lustful men.
Humans devised this as the second kind of deification; the third, however, is that which relies on the myths of the poets. Plato, in the *Timaeus*, urges us to believe these: "For to speak of the other demons," he says, "and to know their generation, exceeds our power. One must believe those who have spoken beforehand, being as they assert themselves to be: D descendants of the gods, and clearly knowing their own ancestors. It is impossible, therefore, not to believe the children of the gods, even though they speak without probable or necessary demonstrations; but since they claim to bear witness to their own, we must follow the law and believe them." Then, bringing Hesiod into the middle...
A he cites Chaos, and Oceanus, and Tethys, and Heaven, and Earth, and their children, Saturn and Rhea, Japetus, and the others; and again, those born of Saturn and Rhea: Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, and Pluto. And the philosopher is not ashamed to urge us to believe those who invent such myths, and who introduce to us debauched gods, patricides, and murderers of their children. For Saturn cut off the genitals of his father Heaven, and devoured the children born to him. B And Jupiter, after expelling his father Saturn from his kingdom and delivering him to Tartarus, appeared as a tyrant, and one most lecherous. For he made not only his sister, but also his mother and his daughter his wives; and besides these, he defiled countless other goddesses and women.
Yet, although Plato was clearly aware of these things, he nevertheless exhorted us to place our trust in the poets for the sake of the law of the fatherland alone, even though they rely neither on probable signs nor on necessary demonstrations. It is evident, therefore, that he was in awe of the Athenian C throng, and the delusion that held it captive. And that this is true, he himself is witness, speaking thus in his *Republic*: "First of all, I said, the greatest and most significant lie, he who spoke it has lied untruthfully, that Heaven did those things which Hesiod says he did, and that Saturn in turn took vengeance upon him. Even if the deeds and sufferings of Saturn at the hands of his son were true, they ought not to be spoken of so readily to the foolish and to the young; but rather they should be kept silent, or if there were any necessity to speak of them, they should be heard in D private." And again, after a few words, he said this: "For in truth, said I, O Adeimantus, these stories are difficult and are not to be told in our city; nor should it be told to a young person hearing them, that one who does injury in the most extreme degree would be doing nothing strange, nor one who punishes an unjust father in every way; but one might do what the first and greatest of the gods did. Nor does it seem appropriate to me, said I, for him to say this, nor to anyone at all, that gods wage war with gods and plot and fight against them; for these things are neither true, nor useful—if indeed we ought to hold that those who are to guard the city must consider it most shameful to be easily hostile to one another. Much less should they be told myths
[of the] Battle of the Giants [inscribed]
, and all the various other plots of gods and heroes against their kinsmen and their own kin." Then, having legislated what kind of lessons must be offered to the young, he added these things: "And the binding of Hera by her son, and the hurling of Hephaestus by his father, when he was about to defend his mother who was being beaten, and the battles of the gods..."which are invented by Homer, ought not to be admitted into the city, neither with allegories nor without allegories."
I think these things are manifest even to those who are completely senseless A and uninitiated in discourses, as being directly contrary to what the same Plato wrote in the *Timaeus*. For there, he commanded that the poets be believed without any dispute or controversy, even though they speak without signs or necessary demonstrations; whereas here, he openly and clearly accuses them, as having fabricated certain false and blasphemous things. For this reason, he also turns the names of the gods into allegory and attempts to obscure the indecency of the myths. B The *Cratylus* is full of such discourses. For in that dialogue, he sometimes calls Cronus "Coronon" (= intellect's reason), and sometimes "Chronus" (= time); and he calls Rhea the "flowing nature," and Hera the "air." "For he who," he says, "frequently uses the straight form of Hera will clearly be saying 'air' instead of 'Hera'." He also called the moist substance "Poseidon," as if binding and restraining the feet of those walking, and preventing them from advancing. And Plato, as well as Orpheus C and others, call Demeter "the earth," as being the mother and nourisher of all things dwelling upon it. But the Egyptians say that Isis and Osiris are the sun and the moon; and that Zeus is the spirit that permeates all things; and Hephaestus is fire; and the moist substance is Oceanus. This is also written by Manethon and Diodorus. They named the leading part of the earthly power "Hestia"; Rhea, the rocky and mountainous; Demeter, the plain-dwelling; and the vegetative force, they named "Dionysus." D They named the moon "Artemis," being so called from the *selas* (light), and also, as if she were "aerotemis" (air-cutter), inasmuch as she goes through the air and cuts it. For this reason the Egyptians nourish Apis, that is, the bull for the moon; but for the sun, the one they call Mnevis. Thus, some of the philosophers, being affected by shame, turned the myths of the poets into allegory. Yet the Romans never considered that such expositions of myths should be admitted. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is a competent witness to this, speaking thus regarding the Romans in the books which he wrote *On Roman Antiquities* (II, 19): "For neither is it related among the Romans that Caelus was emasculated by his own children, nor that Saturn destroyed the offspring born to him for fear of being attacked by them, nor that Jupiter overthrew the dominion of Saturn and shut up his own father in the prison of
A Tartarus. He also reports that the other mythologies and ceremonies of the Greeks are likewise rejected by the Romans.
We have spoken of this third mode of deification devised by the Greeks; but there is also a fourth, filled with the utmost madness and frenzy. For that part of the soul which they call passible and devoid of reason, and which they exhort to be subject to the command of reason, this they deify. They call desire Venus and Cupid; anger they name Mars; drunkenness, Dionysus; theft, Mercury; mind, Minerva; and they call Vulcan those arts which use fire as an aid. And they are not ashamed, when they denounce intemperance and punish those addicted to it, to venerate the very same thing as a god; and although by their laws they disgrace those who commit adultery and those who prostitute themselves, and put to death those who leap into others’ beds, and raise murderers onto the cross B and beat them with clubs, yet they call the causes and sources of such great crimes—lust, anger, and drunkenness—celestial gods, and accord them divine honors. And though they establish all laws on account of such diseases, they nevertheless command by law that the diseases themselves be venerated; they honor virtue with laws and words, but in their deeds they worship vices and banish virtue as something superfluous. For if, as they themselves say, desire is a god, then whoever resists it is utterly impious. In like manner, if drunkenness and anger are gods, then he who restrains himself from these is openly contrary to God. Wherefore virtue is to be fled from, as being contrary to the gods, and incontinence is to be embraced, as being called a god. But these things are much lighter and more harmful than poetic fables; and, as the proverb says, while shunning the smoke, we have fallen into the very fire. For such is the deception of falsehood, that if one escapes this path, he falls into another that is more difficult. Such, therefore, is the fourth species of deification C among the Greeks. Antisthenes, the associate of Socrates and teacher of Diogenes, valuing temperance most highly and detesting pleasure, is said to have spoken thus regarding Venus: “I would transfix Venus with arrows, if I could catch her, because she has corrupted many of our good and noble women.” He called Cupid a vice of nature, to which the wretched, falling victim, D
A choose to go mad rather than find pleasure.
That they also disagreed with one another in the matter of allegory, one may clearly perceive by examining the writings of the philosophers. For Plato called the air Hera; but Plutarch of Chaeronea claimed that she is the earth; while he called Latona oblivion, or the night in which the mind receives a kind of forgetfulness of things. Orpheus, moreover, says: Earth, he says, is the mother of all, Demeter bestowing wealth. B
That they also overturned one another’s theologies, Plato shows in the *Epinomis*, speaking thus: “It is necessary, therefore, as it seems, that since those before us have ill-depicted theology and the generation of animals, we who have taken up the task should depict it better in a later discourse, approaching that which is holy and proper.”
Regarding those men who were deified, Plutarch in his work *On the Cessation of Oracles* left this written: C “The deeds of the Giants and Titans, which are sung of among the Greeks, and many other lawless acts, and the conflicts of Typhon against Apollo, the banishments of Dionysus, and the wanderings of Demeter, differ in no way from the affairs of Osiris and Typhon, which one may hear shamelessly spread as myths everywhere.” And the same author also says the following: “Since I also hear that the Solymi, who are neighbors to the Lycians, revere Saturn above all; and after he killed their leaders, Arsalus and Aryus and Tosabis, he fled and went away to some place (for they cannot say where he went), it was not he who was cared for by them, but they called those who were around Arsalus harsh gods, and the Lycians make imprecations by their names both privately and publicly.”
Porphyry also, in his *Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian*, testifies that the Egyptians worship a man in the village of Annabi, and sacrifice to him upon altars, and then offer him his own food at the appointed time to eat. D
But indeed, not even the fourth error sufficed for them; rather, they devised a fifth as well, and they made the most wicked demons their gods, and having learned from them the trickery of sorcery, they honored them with rites and sacrifices. Porphyry also revealed this in his book, *On Philosophy from Oracles*. I shall append his very words here: “Through the hostile (demons), indeed, every use (in magic) is accomplished. For those who perform harmful deeds through sorcery appease the power that presides over these ones above all.” For they are full
A of every apparition, and are capable of deceiving through wonder-working, and of preparing philtres and love potions, these evil demons. For all hope of riches and glory rests upon these, and most especially deceit. For falsehood is proper to them, since they wish to be gods; and the power presiding over them seems to be the greatest god. These are they who delight in libations and the burnt-offering of fat, through which their bodily and spiritual nature is nourished.
It is now fitting for me to join the discourses of the Homeric gods with the words of Porphyry; for those [Homeric gods] also call libations and the savour of roasted fat their own portion. Thus, Porphyry is clearly naming as evil demons those whom the poet calls gods. For the one, as well as the other, B has plainly asserted that they delight in libations and the savour of fat. We must inquire, however, what power Porphyry says presides over these evil demons, which, being a lie, has claimed to call itself the greatest god. Yet I do not need much labor for this investigation, for in the same treatise he also says these things: “We do not suspect without reason that the evil demons are under the power of Serapis, nor are we persuaded by signs alone; but because whatever is done to appease or avert them, is all done to Pluto, as we showed in the first book. And this god is the same as Pluto, and for this reason he is especially the ruler of the demons.”
Again, he has also added these things: C “Are these they over whom Serapis rules, and is their symbol the three-headed dog? That is to say, the evil demon who is found in the three elements—water, earth, and air—whom the god restrains, having them under his hand. And Hecate also rules over them, as she contains them according to the triple element.”
These things were not written against evil demons by Moses the lawgiver, nor by Peter, or Paul, D or John, the heralds of the truth, but by Porphyry, the adversary of the truth; and he named both Pluto and Hecate as princes of the evil demons, and said that he who called himself the greatest god was a liar. And this miracle truly appears similar to the riddle of the brave Samson: “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness” (Judic. xiv, 14). For these things were indeed written against falsehood by the advocate of falsehood; and he who accused the truth was found, against his will, to be an advocate of the truth. For God, who compelled the tongue of the seer Balaam (Num. xxii, 12 seqq.), which was prepared to curse, to bring forth a blessing, the same also changed this man’s tongue, which was rushing in rabid fury against the truth, and compelled it against its will to speak against falsehood. Nor did he write these things in this place alone, but in the Epistle
A to Anebo the Egyptian he set forth similar things. He speaks thus: "As for those who are called gods, but are in reality evil demons, it troubles me greatly how, when invoked as though they were superior beings, they are ordered about as if they were inferior; and while they claim that it is just that a servant who has done wrong should be punished, they themselves do not refuse to perform unjust deeds when ordered; and when someone who is not pure from sexual relations invokes them, they do not heed him, yet they themselves do not hesitate to lead any who happen to be present into unlawful sexual acts. The interpreters of sacred rites determine that one must abstain from meat, lest they be defiled by vapors from bodies, yet they themselves are caught and enticed most of all by the savors B of sacrifices. And they consider it a sacrilege for the high priest to touch a dead body, yet by means of dead animals, the acts of drawing down gods are performed. But more absurd by far than these things is that a man of the lowest condition, threatening not merely a demon or the soul of someone deceased, but the king Helios himself, or the moon, or anyone among the heavenly bodies, should strike terror into them, lying so that they might speak the truth. For to say that he will shatter the sky, and reveal the secrets of Isis, and disclose what is hidden in the sanctuary, and halt the sacred barque, and tear asunder the limbs of Osiris for Typhon—what measure of madness does this not exceed in him who threatens those things which he neither knows nor can perform, and what measure of servility in those who tremble C at such empty terror and fiction, after the manner of foolish children? And yet Chaeremon, the scribe of sacred things, writes that these things are widely known among the Egyptians themselves, and says that these and such like things are of the greatest compulsion." And having added many other things, he also subjoined this: "Concerning happiness, they have nothing secure or reliable. They were not, therefore, either gods or good demons, but that which is called error." Who among those instructed in divine matters, and who detest that error, could have demonstrated more clearly that the so-called gods are that error? For the adversary of truth himself manifestly shows that these are neither gods nor good demons, but teachers of lies and fathers of wickedness. Plato, in the Timaeus, says that they are not by nature immortal. For he says that their Creator D spoke to them: "You are not immortal, nor are you altogether indissoluble, but you shall not be dissolved, meeting the success of my will." And yet it seems that Homer holds the opposite, for he calls them immortal everywhere (Iliad E 341): "For they eat not food," he says, "nor do they drink dark wine; / Therefore they are bloodless and are called immortals."
A Such is the controversy among poets and philosophers regarding those who are not gods, but are called such. Yet they built temples to them, raised altars, and honored them with sacrifices; and by carving out of wood and stone and other materials certain shapes and images, they labeled these man-made idols as gods, and esteemed the statues fashioned by the art of Phidias, Polycletus, and Praxiteles worthy of the divine appellation. Xenophanes of Colophon, censuring this error, says the following: "But mortal men imagine that gods are born And have perception equal to our own, and voice, and form." And again: "But if oxen or elephants possessed hands, Or could use their hands to paint and perform as men do, Horses would paint the forms of gods like horses, And oxen like oxen, to match their own bodies, Just as they are, in form." Then, mocking this deception more clearly, he refutes the falsehood by the very color of the figures. For he said that the Ethiopians depict their own gods as black and snub-nosed, just as they themselves are by nature; while the Thracians portray gods as having blue eyes and red hair; and, moreover, that the Persians and Medes make theirs resemble themselves, and the Egyptians similarly shape them according to their own form. Observing these things, Zeno of Citium B in his book *On the Republic* forbids both the building of temples and the crafting of statues; for he says that no such work is worthy of God. Plato, however, did not absolutely forbid this, fearing, as it seems, the Athenian temper, and dreading the hemlock that was administered to Socrates. Yet he too censures the making of statues to a great extent, speaking as follows: "Let no one, then, consecrate a sacred image to the gods. Gold and silver in other cities, held both privately and in temples, are a cause of envy. Ivory, taken from a dead body, is not a holy offering. Iron and brass are instruments of war. But let anyone who wishes dedicate wooden and stone images, and offer them to the public temples." That through fear of the Athenian populace he did not forbid the making of statues entirely, is easy to understand C from this. First, he forbade anyone to make images of the gods privately. Then, he rejected gold and silver as invidious materials that provoke sacrilege. He called ivory profane. He said that brass and iron belong to war, not to the statues of gods. He ordered them to be carved only of wood and stone, because he knew, I suppose, that the material is contemptible and would easily persuade those who see it not to consider as divine, nor to worship, things so cheap and of no value. For indeed the D
A God, through the prophet, has made the same accusation against those who both perform these deeds and worship them. "For," he says, "a craftsman chooses wood that does not rot, and a wise man seeks how he may set up an image for himself, and that it may not shake." For he does not merely remove the superfluous parts of the material and imprint the likeness of the human form, carving each of the limbs extremely well, but he also takes the greatest care for its foundation and its posture, preparing its stability for it with certain props and nails; and what has been put together from material and art is called a god. "Half of it," he says, "he burned in the fire, and having roasted meat he ate, and said: 'It is pleasant to me, because I have been warmed and have seen the light'; but the half of it he made into a carved image, and he worships it, and prays, saying: 'Rescue me, for you are my God.'" After he had thus openly mocked their insanity, he added: "Know that their heart is ash, and they themselves go astray." B
I, for my part, am astonished at the impudence of those who still cleave to the gentiles. For while they pay reverence to the inhabited world, which has turned to a sound mind and has been delivered from its former error, they say that the things spoken by the poets about the gods are false myths, and they do not blush to be accused by their very deeds. For they worship idols fashioned according to these myths. The figure of Aphrodite is more shameless than any harlot standing in a brothel. For who has ever seen a harlot standing in the marketplace naked, without a tunic or a girdle? But the statuaries and sculptors make the mistress of these women naked, and do not cover her even with a tiny tunic. Moreover, painters depict, C craftsmen cast, and statuaries carve Europe sitting upon the bull. And these same craftsmen make Bacchus with soft and slack limbs and an effeminate body. They also fashion Pan and the Satyrs as though they were desiring and attempting copulation in the manner of horses and donkeys. In like manner, the makers of images also fashion Jupiter raging for Ganymede in the form of an eagle, and consorting with Leda in the guise of a swan, and flowing into Danae's bosom in the likeness of gold; and they fashion other things similarly, just as the poets recount them. If, therefore, you assert that the myths about these things, invented by the poets, are false, why do you suffer the statuaries, sculptors, and painters to be among you, confirming falsehood through their art? Why do you bestow such honor upon the idols fashioned by them? For it would have been fitting, if you indeed condemn the poets with a just accusation, to burn their poems, and to prohibit the craftsmen by law, and to threaten them with death, so that no one might D at any time make such images.
A It was necessary, moreover, to smash and destroy the things constructed—even if done in mockery or insult of those called gods—and to persuade everyone that the things bruited about by myths regarding these are false. But nothing of this sort has ever been done by you; on the contrary, one may see the opposite occurring: poets are admired for their poems, and sculptors, image-makers, and painters are praised highly for their handiwork, while those very images, which you verbally denounce, are worshipped and honored with sacrifices and rites. B Even that small figure—I mean Priapus—is honored with a great and erect member, and the phallus of Dionysus is worshiped in the Phallagogia by those performing the orgies. No less is the female comb (for so they call the pudenda of a woman) honored with divine reverence in the Thesmophoria by initiated women. The Egyptians, indeed, were so enslaved to obscene pleasures that they even called the goat a god, as it is a most lustful animal; the Mendesians especially venerate this. C Other cities also dedicated divine worship to other animals. For the Memphites worshiped the bull, the Lycopolitans the wolf, the Leontopolitans the lion, and indeed the Cynopolitans the dog; the inhabitants of the city of Latona worshiped a certain fish called the *laton*, others the ibis, and others the crocodile. Each of these they consecrated in their own temples, served them an appropriate diet, and performed sacrifices to them as if they were gods; and upon their death, they honored them with the extravagant mass of a sepulcher. Such a great error once occupied the world. But that error was utterly destroyed and rooted out by Him who is worshiped by us and unknown to you, who has led the drunken and deranged nature of men toward a better fruit and condition.
D But I think you will say: Yet you yourselves say that there are certain invisible powers, which you call and name Angels and Archangels, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones; and furthermore you have learned to call others by the Hebrew names Cherubim and Seraphim. Why then are you indignant at us if, after that God who is ever-existing and who always remains in the same state, we suppose there to be certain secondary gods, and those far inferior to him, and honor them with veneration? I, for my part, confess that our divine Scripture teaches that there are certain invisible powers, who praise the Creator and are obedient to his divine will. Yet we do not call them gods, nor do we pay them divine worship, nor do we divide divine adoration between the true God and these; but we consider these to be of higher...
A station than men, yet still fellow servants. We do not divide the incorporeal nature into male and female. For the nature of those who are subject to the laws of death requires this distinction of sex. Since death leads mortals into captivity, marriage introduces the procreation of children to replace what is consumed; for the Creator devised procreation for the mortal living creature as a kind of restorative immortality. For this reason, the use of the female is necessary for those who possess a mortal nature, but for those who have been created immortal, the female sex is entirely superfluous. For they neither need to increase in number, since they cannot decrease, nor do they have any work of union, since they are devoid of bodies. The creation of both the one and the other confirms what we say. For God did not create many men immediately from the beginning, but He fashioned one man and one woman, and through their union He filled the whole earth and sea with this race. But He did not create the nature of the bodiless ones according to two, but He created them all at once. For as many myriads of them as He deemed to exist, He brought forth all of them from the beginning. Therefore, the use of the female is superfluous for them: as immortals, they do not need increase; and as incorporeals, they do not admit of union. For this reason, we also call them B holy, as having nothing earthly, but being free from earthly passions, having as their task the dance in heaven and the hymn-singing to Him who made them; and again, they perform services as they are commanded according to the divine will, being sent by the God of all for the salvation of the human race. For the divine Apostle said, indeed, concerning them: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who are to be heirs of salvation?" (Heb. 1, 14) Renouncing their way of life, all those men who have embraced the service of God have even fled the legitimate union of bodies, as something that draws one away from divine things; they have even left behind their country and their kin, in order to transfer all their care to divine things, so that no bond might hinder the mind from flying up to heaven. And as they desire to contemplate the invisible and ineffable beauty of God, they have despised all things that are on earth. Of these, cities and villages are now full, C and mountain tops and valleys. And some, dwelling together in groups, fashion in their souls the images of philosophy and piety; others live together two or three at a time; others live alone, being shut up, and preventing their eyes from being delighted by the beauty of visible things, they provide the soul with the opportunity to feast upon the contemplation of intelligible things.
But if those who are still fettered to bodies and are troubled by many and diverse passions embrace an incorporeal, lofty, and heaven-befitting life, what language could express the passionless and care-free manner of life of the incorporeal natures? A These things, therefore, the sacred Oracles have taught us, regarding what we should think concerning those natures that are indeed created, but cannot be perceived by the sight of the eyes. Yet you proclaim such wantonness and incontinence of them, and such baseness of every kind, and furthermore such contentions, and wars, and tyrannies, that what is fabulously invented about them would not befit even the most wicked of men. For not even the most utterly depraved possess all those things that you attribute to the father of gods, B and the highest and greatest of all. For those who have been slaves to the wantonness concerning the young have not violated the marriages of others; and those who have fallen into this passion have spared their closest kin. And if anyone has fallen into love for a sister, he did not rage against a mother, nor did he go mad for a daughter, but he respected nature, and did not emulate the senselessness of brute beasts. The Persians alone do such things, obeying some ancient and most detestable law, and not considering themselves to be acting lawlessly. But this one, whom Homer called the father of gods and men, C made Hera, who was his sister, his spouse; and with his mother Rhea—whom they also call Deo and Demeter—he consorted in insane frenzy. And having fathered Proserpina from her, he had her as his consort, and became the husband of his own daughter. As for the things fabulously told concerning Ganymede, and Leda, and Danae, and Semele, and Alcmena, and countless others, I am ashamed to even speak of them; and I think it would be superfluous to recount these tales to those who already know them, and to stir up the poetic stench. You, feeling shame for their mythology, call it false, yet at the same time you embrace it as true theology. D Compare, therefore, the things fabulously invented by you concerning natures that are incorporeal but created, with the things reported by us concerning the celestial powers, and you will perceive the difference. And with a sober mind, discern which of the two is more appropriate to invisible substances. For you will find, if you are willing to judge with a correct vote, that those things which you religiously observe as your gods befit not holy angels, but most wicked demons. Since, however, I have mentioned demons, I think it advantageous to demonstrate also what our opinion regarding them is. For the sacred oracles call them—and their ruler, whom they name Satan—demons; (and the name signifies the
apostate in the Hebrew tongue). A And the divine Scripture also calls him “diabolus” (the devil), as one who slanders God to men, and stirs up strife and contention among men themselves. We, I say, by no means assert that these were created evil by the God of all from the beginning, nor that they were endowed with such a nature, but that through the perversion of their will they fell from better to worse; and, not content with the gifts given to them by their Maker, but desiring greater things, they admitted the disease of pride, and fell, and were stripped of the honor initially bestowed upon them. Then, they raged against men, who were honored as the divine image, and undertook a war against them. The Maker, on the one hand, shielded the human race with the guardianship of the angels, so that he B who invisibly attacks—using violence and tyranny, and pursuing with hatred through envy those whom he hated—might not destroy them with impunity. Yet, he did not remove the struggle and the contest, in order to display the most stalwart athletes through the wrestling match, and that they might become archetypes of virtue. For this reason, although he checked that one’s violent assault through the protection of the angels, he allowed the struggle of fighting thoughts, that he might show those who have resisted bravely to be worthy of crowns; not that he assigned to that adversary a role by nature, but that he made use of his malice for a necessary purpose, just as physicians use vipers for the curing of diseases. These things, then, the sacred Scriptures have taught us to hold regarding the adverse powers. But what C Plato thought about these same matters, one who reads what he wrote in the tenth book of the *Laws* (p. 896 D) would most easily recognize. He speaks thus: “When you say that soul governs all things, and is implanted in all things that move everywhere, it is necessary to say also that it governs the heavens. What then? One or many? I shall answer on your behalf. Let us not posit fewer than two: one that confers good, and another that is capable of producing the contrary.” Such indeed are the things he wrote. But it is easy to perceive immediately with how many absurdities these things are filled. For he called “soul” the power that moderates all things, both visible and invisible. And he asserted that this [soul] governs not only the earth, but also the heavens. Then, being asked whether one or many ought to be spoken of, he replied that it should not be said that there are fewer than two, and D of these he called one the producer of goods, the other of evils: he attributed equal power and faculty to both. Furthermore, he established that the heavens are governed by that one which is the author of evil. We, however, say that the Holy Spirit, whom the divine oracles also call the Paraclete, steers, governs, and sanctifies not only the angels and archangels, and the other supercelestial orders, but also from among men those...
those who desire to cultivate piety and to value things divine highly; but as for the demons, and their leader, we say that they have not only been cast down from the vault of heaven, but that they also shudder at, fear, and flee from the athletes of virtue, and that they have as subjects only those who are deserters and who have voluntarily embraced his friendship. For the divine Apostle has said that he operates only in the sons of disobedience. B Regarding this, Plato has again left this written in the *Phaedrus*: "There are, indeed, other evils, but some demon has mixed present pleasure with the majority of them. He uses this as a sort of lure, and by concealing the deadly hook, he deceives and destroys those who are easily misled; but those who are endowed with a stronger spirit foresee the snares and leap over them." Since, therefore, you set the views regarding this side by side, behold which of these is more fitting to God: to say that the good God is the author of an evil nature, and to entrust and permit him to govern not only the earth, but also heaven as he pleases? Or, on the contrary, to say that God is in no way the author of evils, and that the demons have become evil by the choice of their own will, just as is the case for most men? Yet I believe that you too will acknowledge that these doctrines are better than those. But if you were to look into the divine Scriptures yourselves, and to discern their intent more diligently, you would more clearly perceive how much the divinely inspired words excel human reasonings, and what the doctrines of the Holy Spirit are, and what, on the other hand, the teachings of the evil demons are. C
SERMON IV. Concerning matter and the world.
They say that Democritus the son of Damasippus, the Abderite, used to say that the best teaching is that which is similar to nature. For it truly transforms it and alters the soul for the better, and renews the ancient marks which nature placed there from the beginning. And I for my part have judged this principle to be very sound. For Porphyry also reports that Socrates the son of Sophroniscus, when he was young and inclined toward intemperance, abolished these marks through study and discipline, and imprinted those of philosophy. And surely the divine Scriptures have taught us many such things. For our Savior also rescued from wickedness [the] publicans, D a class of men addicted to greed and injustice, and the most lustful harlot, and the most wicked thief, and many others of a lost and profligate life, by means of his persuasions and exhortations.
And if he was able to rescue these from the abyss of wickedness and make them A workers of the most perfect virtue, why do I speak of three or four, or ten or fifteen? For he suddenly transformed the whole world, which was in such a state, by means of those few whom he himself had reformed, and he caused that which formerly resembled those who were deranged and raving to become temperate. Since we clearly know this, we offer to you the saving doctrine; and seeing you struggling and contradicting and pushing away the cure, we do not weary, but rather with the sponge of our discourse we wash away the disease of unbelief. We have already done this three times, and we have shown how necessary and useful the medicine of faith is. We have explained what one ought to believe regarding the divine substance, and what one ought to think concerning those natures that are created but invisible; and we have also exposed the obscenity of poetic mythology and refuted the monstrous allegories of the philosophers. But because they have held opinions regarding visible creation that are neither true nor in harmony with one another—but rather, as if in a night battle, they have split into many factions and have attacked B one another like enemies—I think it fitting to bring their opinions into the midst and to set against them the dogmas of holy Scripture. From this, it will be manifest to everyone how timid are the thoughts of men, and how uncertain are their providences, just as a certain wise man of ours has said.
Xenophanes, therefore, the son of Orthomenes, the Colophonian, who was the leader of the Eleatic sect, said that this universe is one, spherical in shape and C finite, not begotten, but altogether eternal and immovable. Yet, forgetting this very argument, he said that all things were born from the earth. For this is his verse:
All things are from the earth, and unto the earth all things pass.
These opinions are contrary to one another. For if the world is eternal, it is certainly without a beginning; and if it is without a beginning, it is without a cause; and if it is without a cause, then it does not have the earth as a mother. But if the earth is the cause of the world, then the cause is not lacking; and if the cause is not lacking, then neither is the beginning; but if it has a beginning, it is not eternal. Moreover, Parmenides, the son of Pyrrhetus, the Eleatic, being a hearer of Xenophanes, wrote things in harmony with those which were said in the former D place by his master. For they say that this verse is his:
A Solum, atque unigenum, intrepidum manet, ingenitumque.
He asserted that the cause of all things was not only the earth, as did that other, but fire as well. Melissus, the son of Ithagenes, the Milesian, was a companion of his, but did not preserve the handed-down doctrine intact. For while they held the world to be finite, he asserted it to be infinite. Democritus of Abdera, son of Damasippus, first introduced the opinion regarding the vacuum and the solids. Metrodorus of Chios called these indivisibles and a vacuum. Just as Epicurus, son of Neocles, the Athenian, born in the fifth generation after Democritus, called the things which those men termed solids and indivisibles "atoms." B Some say that they were named indivisible, atomic, and solid because they are impassible; others, because they are exceedingly small, and so cannot admit of cutting or division. They call those smallest and most minute bodies thus, which the sun, shining through windows, reveals dancing up and down within itself. Diophantus the Syracusan, the Pythagorean, also followed this opinion. Plato, son of Ariston, taught that the principles of all things are God, matter, and the ideas. Aristotle, son of Nicomachus, the Stagirite, taught form, matter, and privation. He affirms the elements are not four, but five: for he says there is another element, the ethereal, which can neither be altered nor changed. Xenocrates of Chalcedon called matter the C ever-flowing, from which all things have been made. Zeno of Citium, son of Mnaseas, a pupil of Crates, from whom the Stoic sect took its beginning, said that God and matter are the principles of all things. Hippasus of Metapontum and Heraclitus, son of Bloson, the Ephesian, said that the universe is one, immovable, and finite, and that it has taken fire as its principle. Diogenes of Apollonia said that the universe was constituted from air. Furthermore, Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, and the whole order of the Stoics said that matter was mutable, alterable, and fluid; but Democritus, Metrodorus, and Epicurus posited the atoms and the vacuum as impassible D principles. Plato, however, said that matter was similar to a body, but formless, without species, without figure, and entirely without quality. For he says that it received all these things subsequently from the Creator. Aristotle called it bodily; the Stoics, a body; and Democritus taught that the vacuum is the place of the atoms. But all the others openly mock this account of his. Therefore, Empedocles speaks as follows:
In toto nihil est vacui, nihil inde superfit.
A The Stoics, on the other hand, say that within the universe there is no vacuum, but outside it, there is a vast and infinite one. Strato, quite the contrary, says that there is no vacuum outside, but that one can exist within.
Nor was this the only matter on which there was the greatest disagreement among them; they held the same in other things as well. For Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Melissus, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno all agreed that the world is one; but Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaus, Xenophanes, Diogenes, Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus held the opinion that there are many and infinite worlds. B Some said that it is spherical in shape, others said it is otherwise. Some said it is mill-like, others that it revolves like a wheel. Some said it is animate and breathing; others that it is entirely inanimate. Some said it is generated by a mental conception, not in time; others that it is entirely unbegotten and causeless. And the former thought it corruptible, the latter that it was exempt from corruption.
Furthermore, Thales said that the stars are earthy and fiery. Anaxagoras said that stones were torn away by the rotation of the universe, and that these, having been ignited and thrust upwards, were called stars, an opinion which Democritus also confirms. Diogenes says that they are pumice-like, endowed with certain exhalations. Anaximander said that they are certain agglomerations of air, compressed into a circle, full of fire, and emitting flames through certain vents. C Diogenes said that some of them fall to the earth, and that when they are extinguished, they are shown to have the nature of stones, and he brings forward as a witness the one that once fell, in the form of fire, into Aegospotami. Plato says that they consist for the most part of fire, but that they also share in the other elements. Aristotle, however, asserted that they are kin to the fifth body. Xenophanes says that they are composed of fiery clouds, but that they are extinguished by day and reignited by night, like coals. Heraclides and some other Pythagoreans say that each of the stars is a world, containing earth and air; and some said they were spherical, while Cleanthes the Stoic said they were conical. D Moreover, Xenophanes affirms that the sun and moon are fiery clouds; Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Metrodorus, that they are a fiery mass or stone; Thales, that they are earthy; Diogenes, that they are pumice-like; Aristotle, that they are a sphere composed of the fifth body; and Plato, that they have for the most part fire, but also partake of the other bodies. Philolaus the Pythagorean said that it [the sun] was made of glass, receiving
A the reflection of the fire that is in the world, and straining toward us both its light and heat, serving the purpose of an image. And others have imagined other things about this, which I think it superfluous to recount, lest I myself fall into the same absurdities. There is also much contention among them about its size and shape. For some say it is spherical; others, boat-shaped; others, like a chariot-wheel; and Anaximander asserted it to be twenty-seven times larger than the earth; Empedocles, equal to the earth; Anaxagoras, larger than the Peloponnese; Heraclitus, of the size of a foot. And concerning the moon they babble in like manner. For Thales says it is of an earthy nature; Anaximenes, and Parmenides, and Heraclitus [say it is composed] of fire alone; Anaxagoras and Democritus, a burning solid, containing within itself plains and mountains and ravines; Pythagoras, a stony body; Heraclides, earth surrounded by mist. And some declare it to be larger than the earth; others, equal; others, smaller; and some say it has a palm's breadth for its diameter. But what need is there to recount what they fabricate about shapes, eclipses, and distances? For they do not only pronounce how far they are from each other, but also how far they are distant from the earth; and they count four hundred myriads of stadia—and even more—some from the earth to the moon, and others from thence to the sun. And they are not ashamed that, while they are ignorant of the depth of the sea, into which they could at least lower a plumb line and a cord, they yet boast that they clearly know the measure of the air and the ether, neither pondering the vanity of the matter nor heeding the saying of Aeschylus: C Do not seek in vain for things that profit you nothing.
Each of these things, even if it were easy to discover, was nevertheless utterly useless. But since this discovery is also unattainable by men, they seem exactly like those who write upon water, or draw water with a sieve. For both the one and the other undergo vain labor, and expend their leisure on nothingness. When Socrates perceived this, he bade farewell to those who discourse on meteors and the nature of things, and embraced the study of morals. Xenophon has shown this in his Memorabilia, speaking thus: D "He entirely discouraged any concern for the things of the heavens, which God himself contrives. For he did not think these things could be discovered by men, nor did he believe that one would be pleasing to the gods who would search out things which they did not wish to reveal; and he was in danger of becoming insane who would trouble himself with these things, no less than Anaxagoras who…
A prided himself greatly on assuming to explain the mechanisms of the gods. And the same writer again records the following regarding Socrates: “No one ever saw Socrates doing anything impious or unholy, nor heard him saying such things. For he did not discourse about the nature of all things, or how the universe—as most of the so-called sophists would have it—is ordered, and by what necessities each of the heavenly bodies comes to be; indeed, he even showed that those who concern themselves with such things are foolish. And first of all, he would examine whether these people, when they consider that they already understand human affairs well enough, arrive at the study of such things, or whether, neglecting human affairs and investigating divine ones, they believe they are doing what is appropriate. Further, he wondered if it was not obvious to them that it is impossible for humans to discover these things, since even those who B think most highly of themselves in their discussions about them hold not the same opinions, but are disposed toward one another just like madmen. For among the mad, some do not fear even things that are dangerous, while others fear things that are not to be feared; and to some it does not seem base to say or do anything whatsoever in a crowd, while others think they should not even appear in public. And some again do not honor temple, nor altar, nor any other divine thing, while others worship stones, and wood, and even beasts. Likewise, among those who anxiously inquire into the nature of all things, some believe that what exists is only one, while others [believe it to be] infinite in number; and to some it seems that all things are always in motion, while to others that nothing could ever be moved; and to some [it seems] that all things are generated and perish, while to others that nothing is ever generated or will perish.” And he sets forth many other such things, exposing their great loquacity. It was not one of our own people who brought these charges against those high-talking men, but Xenophon and Socrates, the most excellent of the Greeks. And it is easy for those who wish to encounter the Memorabilia of Xenophon to know clearly C that he wrote these things about the most celebrated philosophers.
If anyone thinks that I too am slandering those men by exposing their great disagreement, let him read the Collection of Opinions by Aetius; let him read also the Compendium of the Philosophers' Opinions by Plutarch; and the Philosophical History of Porphyry also teaches many such things. But the words which we have just brought forward from Xenophon are enough to give credence to our statements. For he D has abundantly criticized them.
A For he also ridiculed their great ignorance and the strife they have always maintained against one another.
I shall pass over all the others, but I will praise certain things in Plato, and refute others, as not being well stated. For those things which he wrote in the *Timaeus* are highly praiseworthy: "Let us say, then, for what cause the Opifices constituted generation and this whole universe." Then he appended that most excellent and admirable answer: "He was good; and for the good, no envy arises regarding anything. And being beyond this, He desired that all things should be as much as possible like unto Himself." B And he says that they are not "like" according to nature, but only in the fact that they exist. For just as He Himself is, so He desired that things which were not should come to be and exist; but while He Himself is, having received being from no one, to generated things He Himself has granted being.
Affiliated with the things mentioned are these also: "For God did not make the world because of any need, so that He might reap honors from men and from other gods and demons, as if He were deriving some profit from generation: from us, indeed, the vapor of smoke; from gods and demons, their own proper ministries." C And here again, he said that God is in need of nothing, and that for the sake of goodness alone He made all things. And he called those "gods and demons" whom we address as angels, and said that these are ministers of the God of the universe.
Things which he wrote in the *Republic* are also worthy of praise: "For to those things which have come to be, he says, not only the fact that they are generated and created comes from the Good, but also that their very Being and substance is added to them by Him; the Good itself not being substance, but beyond substance, surpassing in dignity and power." D For He did not merely impart to them a common form, like a coppersmith or a goldsmith, but He also created and gave them their very substance; not possessed of the same nature as the things created, for He is above substance and beyond substance; being superior to the things made by Him not only in eternity, but also in power. By these words he has clearly shown that God did not create all things out of underlying matter, but brought forth as He willed those things which previously were not.
His following words are also admirable and worthy of wonder: "Whether was the world always, having no beginning of generation, or has it come into being, having started from some beginning?" Then he answers and says: "It has come into being." And he provides the demonstration: "For, he says, being visible, it is also touchable; and being touchable, it also has a body; and all things of this sort are sensible; and things which are sensible were revealed as apprehended by opinion and [as being] generated. But to that which is generated, we say that it is necessary that it be generated by some cause."
Having said these things concerning generated things, which one ought to think...
A regarding their Author, he taught most wisely. For he says: "To find the creator and maker of this universe, and having found him, to declare him to all, is impossible; for it is in no way expressible as are other subjects of instruction." He shows us, furthermore, that it was the Word of God that created all things (for he had learned these things also from the writings of the Hebrews), and he cries out, saying: "From the Word and Mind, therefore, of God, toward the generation of time, so that time might be generated, the sun and the moon and five other stars, called planets, came into being for the distinction and preservation of the numbers of time. And God, having made their bodies, placed them in the orbs of the heavens." By these words, he taught us that God not only created the fabric of the world through the Word, but also that the sun and the moon B and the stars are generated bodies, and that they received their existence from God the Maker. None of these, according likewise even to Plato's argument, is God; for they have been generated for the use of men. And Euripides has made this clear in his *Phoenissae*, saying thus: "While sun and black night serve mortals, Will you not endure that your house should be equal?" But while Euripides says that the sun and the moon serve mortals, you for your part do not begrudge serving your own slaves, and you offer them divine worship. But I shall turn myself again to Plato. For I praise the man, because he spoke things similar to ours even concerning the consummation of the world. For C saying (p. 29 A): "If this world is good, and the Maker is good, it is manifest that he looked toward the eternal." And adding concerning heaven: "For this is the most beautiful of generated things; and he, the most excellent of causes." And again adding: "He constructed a heaven visible and tangible," he added a little later: "Time, therefore, was generated with heaven, so that, born together, they might also be dissolved together, if ever any dissolution of them should occur." And in the *Statesman* (p. 269 D) he left it written thus: "To remain always in the same state and in the same way, and to be absolutely the same, befits those things alone which are most divine. But the nature of the body is not to be classed in such an order. And indeed, the heaven which we have named the world has partaken of many and most blessed things from the Maker; yet, nevertheless, it has entered into a communion with a body; and for this reason D it cannot be entirely free from mutation." And these also are his (p. 272 E): "Then the governor of this universe, as if letting go of the rudders, withdrew to his own watchtower; but fate and innate desire turned the world back again in various ways."
A And the other parts of the world they abandoned, failing to care for them. But the one who turned back and collided, having been impelled by an impulse contrary to the beginning and the end, causing a great earthquake within it, brought about yet another corruption of all kinds of animals. Now, in these things, he agrees with us insofar as he spoke of the transformation of the universe, and that when God let go of the rudders, the invisible powers that had been commanded to manage certain parts of creation departed, while the things that are seen underwent alteration. But as for the rest, he remains in the error that gripped him at that time, because the innate desire of matter turned the world back, according to the fate that was allotted from the beginning.
For these are the very things we find fault with in the philosopher concerning his discourses on creation; he said that matter co-exists with God, just as Pythagoras, Aristotle, and those named after the B Stoa (the Porch) also said. He even calls matter evil at times. For we hear him saying about the world: "From the one who constructed it, it possesses all things good; but from its former state, whatever harsh and unjust things occur in heaven, these it has from that source, and it produces them in animals." And he added these things also: "The cause of these very things is the corporeal form, having been nurtured with the ancient nature, because before it arrived at the world as it is now, it possessed much disorder."
I think that any person who has a sound mind should be indignant at these things. For he openly slanders the nature of matter, and says that its vice is so strong and invincible C that not even the Maker could change it for the better. For it persisted in using its bad state, and even after receiving form from God, it did not cast off its former wickedness. For which reason, it performs harsh and unjust deeds not only on earth, but also in heaven, and produces them in animals. These things are unworthy of what was said before, and alien to that lofty theology, and are the product of low-lying and earth-bound reasonings. For the very claim that disorder remained even in heaven, so that even there some harsh and unjust things are dared, gives cause for the suspicion that we should consider matter to be most powerful, but the maker weak and feeble.
Yet he says that he D fashioned the heaven itself according to an intelligible model. For it is written thus in the *Timaeus*: "Whether, then, have we rightly said there is one heaven, or would it be more correct to say there are many and infinite ones? One, if indeed it is to be created according to the model." I think he means by "model" either God, in that He is one; or the Idea, which he says is the thought of God; or the intelligible heaven, which the divine Scripture says is superior to this one. Whether he means this or that,
it certainly A does not befit heaven for any grave or unjust act to be attributed to it.
Therefore, among those who are called philosophers, there is so much discord in their dogmas. But now it is time to demonstrate the excellence of the divine Scripture and the truth concerning the creation of the world. For he cast all the fables about matter into the Chaos of Hesiod, and declared that God created all things—yet not B as masons, shipbuilders, coppersmiths, goldsmiths, and indeed weavers, shoemakers, and other craftsmen, who—borrowing materials—shape them, fashion them, and take instruments from one another, do. Rather, he declared that at the very moment He willed it, things that before in no way existed were brought forth. For the God of the universe is in need of nothing; but human arts are in need of one another. For the helmsman needs the shipbuilder, and the shipbuilder needs the woodcutter, the blacksmith, the pitch-maker, and the rope-maker; C and the woodcutter needs the gardener, and again the gardener needs land, irrigation, plants, seeds, and the blacksmith to forge a hoe and a mattock for him. And the blacksmith, in turn, needs the carpenter to build a wooden shed for him, to place an anvil upon a wooden base, and to fit a handle to the hammer; and all alike, furthermore, have need of the shoemaker, the weaver, and the farmer, so that they may nourish and clothe their bodies. And in general, every art needs the work of another in order to subsist. But the Artificer of all things needs neither instruments nor matter; rather, what D matter, instruments, time, labor, art itself, and diligence are to other craftsmen, that is the will to the God of the universe. “For all that the Lord willed, He did in heaven and in earth, in the seas, and in all deeps,” as the sacred Scriptures testify. He willed, however, not all that He could, but all that He deemed sufficient. For it would have been easy for Him to produce ten or twenty thousand worlds, since to will is the easiest of all operations. For even to us, to will is the easiest of all things; but our power does not immediately follow our will. But for the God of the universe, all things He wills, He can do. Indeed, to the divine will, power is joined. Yet He did not measure out the creation of things by His power, but made what He willed. And since of things that have been made, some are sensible and some intelligible, and some are terrestrial and some supercelestial, He fittingly created creatures of both kinds, some sensible and some intelligible: and to the intelligible He assigned the ether and the heaven, to the sensible...
He gave the earth and the sea as a dwelling place. And since some of the intelligible beings inclined of their own accord toward evil, they were justly driven out of the heavenly regions, and He assigned as their residence the air and the earth, not that they should bring to pass whatever they attempt to plot against men—for the guard of the holy angels indeed prevents them from doing this—but so that by the change of place they might learn what great evils wickedness produces. And since He distinguished the sensible creatures into two categories, and made some rational and others irrational, He subjected the nature of the irrational to the rational living being. Yet some of these rebel and rise up against their authority and attempt to plot; since their own leaders B do this very thing, and though adorned with reason, they rage against the Creator; for this reason they themselves also suffer sedition, so that by what they endure they may learn how wretched and wicked it is to transgress the order and to audaciously overstep the established boundaries. And it is possible to see even the inanimate elements keeping these boundaries. For the sea, though it be ruffled and stirred by storms and driven violently toward the land, yet it respects the sand and does not dare to cross the fixed boundaries; but just as a horse speeding in a race is held back by a bridle, so it too, observing the unwritten law C of God on the shores, turns back, as if checked by certain reins. In the same way the rivers run as they were commanded from the beginning, and the springs gush forth, and the wells provide enough water for human needs, and the seasons of the year succeed one another in orderly fashion and, honoring equality, do not seek more than their due. Days and nights also observe this law unceasingly: neither do they boast when they are extended, nor do they complain when they are shortened; but, by borrowing time from one another, they pay back the debt again without any dispute, not struggling against one another, but most peacefully both giving and receiving. Furthermore, that fact demonstrates the wisdom and power of the Creator, D that neither has the earth—though for so many thousands of years it has been plowed, sown, planted, nourishing fruits, trodden upon, mined, and rained upon, covered with snow, and scorched—suffered any diminution, nor does it produce fewer or smaller fruits for the farmers; nor has the sea, though from it the clouds continuously draw up the nature of the waters, and beget rain and pour it out upon the earth, ever appeared less, or become deeper, or abandoned the shores which it formerly occupied; nor has it increased, even though it receives the rivers flowing into it from all sides. And indeed not even now does it...
A appear to me—whence the streams of the rivers are derived; for this account is to me altogether ineffable. But how the sun is by nature accustomed to consume moisture is very easy to learn for those who wish to do so. For it dries up marshes, and consumes the collections of water, and makes our own bodies drier. And indeed, we see rivers decrease when the sun, having left the southern regions, moves to the northern tracts and produces summer for us. And for this reason, they say that the Nile also does not flood outside its channel at the same time as the other rivers, but rather covers Egypt with overflowing waters in the middle of the summer, as the sun is traversing the more northern zone and exerting influence on the other rivers, while remaining very far from this one. But if some contend that this increase occurs for other reasons as well, I for my part do not think that this argument is appropriate at this time; for I counsel others not to investigate the causes of the divine governance too curiously, but rather to wonder at what happens and to praise the Creator. Therefore, I myself also wonder B that the nature of the air is not consumed, although so many humans and so many brute animals are incessantly drawing it in by breathing, and the fervent rays of the sun, and besides the sun, the moon and the stars also, are penetrating it throughout. Indeed, it is a miracle above a miracle; and I am nearly led to say that a miracle should not even be held as a miracle. For when God is at work, to wonder is least appropriate, but to praise is most appropriate. For it is easy for Him to do all things that are fitting for Him. Moreover, He implanted in the things He created a sufficient power for the time during which He decreed they should endure. From which it has come to pass that the earth remains even today just as it was created from the beginning, and the sea neither decreases nor increases, and the air preserves inviolate the nature it obtained from the beginning, and the sun cannot liquefy or dissolve the firmament through which it runs, nor does the firmament, although humid by nature, extinguish the hot sun. For each thing has perpetually C preserved the lot it obtained from the beginning. For the Creator of all things brought the contrary qualities of the dry and the moist, and again of the cold and the hot, into friendship. When, therefore, we see each of these things, and that the sun now traverses the northern regions, now the southern, and at other times the middle parts of the heavens, and that the moon increases and wanes in light, and that the stars rise and set at specific times, declaring the time of harvest and sowing, and indicating to those who sail at sea storms and calm—these things, O friends, let us not deify, but rather, recognizing their Author as the Creator and Governor, and through these things which we contemplate with our eyes, let us proceed to Him.
But indeed, it is not travel that we need, but faith; for by this alone can we see A Him. When, therefore, we see the seasons moving in their time, and rain being provided for the earth, and the earth causing it to grow, covering itself with grass, and the grain crops waving, and the meadows blooming, and the groves flourishing and heavy with fruit, let us move our tongue to the praise of Him who has given these things; and let us not deify the Orestiades nymphs, or those of the fountains or rivers, nor the daughters of Nereus, nor let us sing our hymns B to Iulus or Lityerses for Ceres, nor the dithyramb to Dionysus, nor the Paean to the Pythian prophet, nor the *hypopa* to Artemis. But let us offer the Davidic melody to the Creator of all
Sermon V
and with him let us cry out: "How magnified are thy works, O Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all!" (Ps. CI, 6). When we hear the tuneful birds singing their varied and diverse songs, and the cicadas chirping, let us bid farewell to the Sirens and Muses, and worship the all-wise and all-powerful God, who has bestowed such harmony of melody C even upon small birds, and who through all things nourishes, delights, and charms the human race.These things, O friends, compare with the opinions of the philosophers, and examine, using a right and just judgment, which of these seems more appropriate to speak concerning God: that the all is unbegotten, or that it came into being by chance, or was fitted together by atoms and the void, or that it was indeed created by God, but from matter; or whether it is impious to say any of these things D about God, but that this is right and true: that God is the Maker of all things, not having fashioned all these things from primeval matter like other craftsmen, but having Himself brought all things forth from nothing, and having willed to grant being to what did not exist. For it is easy for Him to create both from things that do not exist and from things that do; for He did this long ago, and continues to do it, so to speak, every day. For He fashions the bodies of animals from pre-existing bodies, and He creates souls from what does not exist—not for all animals, but for humans alone. And He creates birds from birds, and swimming creatures from swimming creatures, and each of the other species He fashions from its own kind. In this way, He also produces the fruits of the earth for human use through those things that are sown and planted. Yet long ago, the earth, neither plowed nor sown, sprouted every species of plants and seeds, and brought forth the genera of reptiles and quadrupeds. They themselves—
and planted. Yet long ago, the earth, neither plowed nor sown, sprouted every species of plants and seeds, and brought forth the genera of reptiles and quadrupeds. They themselves— A Likewise, the nature of the waters, as it was commanded, brought forth the creatures dwelling in the waters and those naturally suited to traverse the air. However, God did not instruct matter to produce the earth itself, the heaven, the air, the nature of the waters, fire, and light; rather, He brought them forth from nothing, He himself being the planter B and the shipwright of this great vessel of creation; He himself governs and steers it, having crafted it most wisely. These things are taught to us not only by the evangelists and apostles, but also by the prophets, and by the chief of the prophets, Moses, who wrote the cosmogony; and before them, Abraham and Melchizedek, and the whole chorus of the patriarchs. For each of these acknowledged not many, but one Creator of the universe, God. This you will perceive if you unroll the books of Divine Scripture. Taught, therefore, by comparison how much the teachings of the Holy Scriptures excel human cogitations, flee from error, O friends, and love the truth which is brighter than the sun, so that, being enlightened by it, you may grasp the sense of Divine Scripture and respect its masters, and—to speak in the apostolic manner—falling upon your faces, you may worship God, saying: "Truly God is in you."
SERMON V. Concerning the Nature of Man.
C There is a certain kind of stone which they call the magnet, whose nature is such that, while leaving all other matter unmoved, it draws only iron to itself; and sometimes it even displays it suspended in the air, neither supported by anything from below, nor attached to anything visible above, but hanging invisibly by the hidden virtue of the stone. One may see something of this sort occurring in the divine oracles. For many, or rather almost all mortals, hear these things, but only those who are foster-children of faith are grasped by them: for they are held neither by the consolation of any lower earthly happiness, nor are they D suspended, attached to any visible thing above, but they adapt their mind to hidden hopes alone. For this reason, the divine Apostle Paul also said that the word of the Cross is "to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." But that stone, by a certain property of its nature, compels the iron to move toward it; the grace of the divine words, however, does not itself admit some and exclude others (for it pours out its streams to all who desire to be filled), but it is the free will of those who hear that brings the thirsty forward, while it holds at a distance those who do not wish to have this desire. But the Physician of souls—
do not wish to enjoy the healing. For having created the rational nature as sovereign and self-determining, he turns it away from worse things by exhortations and laws, and urges it toward better things, yet he does not force those who do not wish to partake of the good things, lest he disturb the boundaries of nature. Therefore, he cries out even through the prophets: "If you are willing and obey me, you shall eat the good things of the land." And again: "Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Who is the man who desires life, loving to see good days?" Then, turning them away from worse things, he shows what must be done: "Refrain your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile. B Turn away from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it." He also makes manifest to those who obey the rewards for their labors: "The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer." But since fear is also appropriate for those being disciplined, he necessarily terrifies those living in sloth with threats, saying: "The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off their memory from the earth." He who offered this exhortation through the prophet, in the holy Gospels, not using another as a minister, but speaking himself in the flesh which he assumed, said: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." And again: "Come to me, all C you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." One could find ten thousand other things in the holy Gospels, as well as in the writings of the apostles, which clearly demonstrate the free will of human nature. For this reason, I too, O men, offer this fifth exhortation to you: not merely requesting, but even greatly entreating and beseeching you not to cast away the opportunity for this healing, and not to defer your salvation until tomorrow, for we do not know if we shall see it at all; but let us remember the warning of the Ascræan poet, and not defer salvation until tomorrow, which [in the poet's words], "do not defer until tomorrow comes, until the third day arrives," and let us D diligently attend to the other sentiment of the same poet, which vibrates in harmony with these words: "The procrastinator always struggles with disasters."
Sermon V
Since, therefore, we have learned what we ought to think about the world and about matter, and how great is the difference between divine dogmas and the dogmas of the philosophers, let us now examine what the holy Scripture has instructed us to think about the nature of man, and what is taught by those who embellish their treatises with the beauty of speech, and who have brought forth falsehood, adorning their books with the grace of names and the elegance of words. Whatever the poets fable about this subject, we shall leave aside for the present.A For they do not merely say that men were born from the earth, but also that they were sown, and that they sprang from the teeth of a serpent. Those things alone which the philosophers and historians recount 74 are to be brought forward for the instruction of the truth. It must be stated, before all else, how much strife and contention there has been among them concerning the origin of this race. For some have said that the nature of men is eternal, and that the earth has always been full of this race; others, that men were first born in Attica; others, that this occurred first in Arcadia; others again, that it happened in Egypt; and other cities also have had great ambition concerning this matter. Furthermore, some have called this animal blessed, while others, conversely, have called it wretched and most miserable. Homer calls it feeble and woe-stricken; and B Theognis the Sicilian of Megara exclaims:
“Better it is for mortal wights not to be born, Nor to behold the rays of the sharp sun; But once born, as quickly as possible to cross the gates of Hades.”
The trimeters of Euripides’ tragedy also accord with these sentiments:
“For we ought to gather together And bewail the newborn as he enters into many evils; But the dead, who has ceased from his labors, We should carry forth from the house with joy and words of praise.”
Moreover, Herodotus bears witness that Solon the Athenian, who gave laws to the Athenians, said to King Croesus: “O Croesus, every man is a heavy calamity.” C Pythagoras and Plato, furthermore, introduce a certain population of incorporeal souls, and they say that those which have fallen into some sin are, for the sake of punishment, sent down into bodies. Hence Plato in the *Cratylus* called the body a tomb (*sēma*), as if the soul were buried in the body. Philolaus the Pythagorean expressed agreement with this in these words. He says thus: “The ancient theologians and seers also bear witness that the soul is yoked to the body on account of certain punishments, and is buried in it as in a tomb.” But Plato, having forgotten these things which he had said, signifies the opposite in the third book of the D *Republic*: “For one must take care of the body,” he says, “for the sake of the soul and of harmony; for through the body it is granted to us to live, and to live rightly, if we wish to proclaim the message of the truth with a clear voice.” But if the soul lives and lives rightly through the body, then it certainly did not exist before the body; but if it did exist before the body, it must surely have lived, since it was endowed with an immortal and rational nature. And if it existed formerly, but did not live rightly while it was separate...
A from the body, but once it had come into the body, and had trained this most excellently, it accomplished a righteous life, it follows that it obtained through the body the good things of which it did not partake before the body. Why therefore did he say it was buried in the body as if in a tomb?
From these things, then, we have clearly learned that they not only wrote things contrary to one another, but even to themselves regarding the same matters. But that we may understand their great conflict, come, let us again display what the celebrated philosophers have opined concerning the soul, and how empty glory, according to Homer, persuaded them to B fight in battle.
What I shall say, with God’s guidance
, I will relate from the commentaries of Plutarch and Porphyry and indeed also of Aëtius.
Thales then called the soul an immovable nature; Alcman however said it was self-moving; and Pythagoras, a number that moves itself; and Xenocrates agreed with this opinion. Plato, indeed, called it an intelligible substance, moving from itself; the Stagirite, the first entelechy of a natural and organic body having life in potency; and he called its activity an entelechy. But Clearchus, [said] that it is the harmony C of the four elements; Anaximenes, and Anaximander, and Anaxagoras, and Archelaus said the nature of the soul was airy. But the Stoics, that it is spiritual, partaking for the most part of heat. Parmenides, and Hippasus, and Heraclitus called it fiery; and Heraclides thought it endowed with the appearance of light; Epicurus, the son of Neocles, [called it] a mixture of four certain qualities, namely fiery, and airy, and spiritual, and a fourth of some kind that is nameless. Empedocles, a mixture out of etherial and airy substance. Critias, meanwhile, said it consists of blood D and moisture; and others again have trifled with other and contrary things.Moreover, there has been the greatest dispute among them concerning its division. For Pythagoras and Plato and Democritus distribute it into two parts: and the one part of it is rational, the other, irrational. And again, they divided the irrational part into two; and one part of it they say is spirited, the other, appetitive. But Xenocrates, although he is reckoned the third from Plato (for he was a student of Speusippus, the nephew of Plato), divided the soul into the faculty of sensation and the power of reason. But the son of Nicomachus attributed to it five duties and parts: appetitive, nutritive, sensitive, locomotive, and cognitive. But the Stoics did not acquiesce in this number, but eight from
A the parts of which they said the soul is composed: the sensitive [power] of sight, and of hearing, and of smell, and of taste, and of touch; sixth, they said, is the vocal [power]; and the seminal, the seventh; and the ruling [power], the eighth, by which each of these is set in action. They said also that it resembles the tentacles of an octopus. But the successors of Pythagoras, asserting that the body is tempered from five elements (for to the four they added the ether), said that the powers of the soul B are equal in number to this; and they have named these intellect, prudence, knowledge, opinion, and sense. And how much they clashed with one another regarding the seat of the ruling [power] is easy to discern. For Hippocrates, and Democritus, and Plato have said that it is situated in the brain; but Straton, between the eyebrows. Erasistratus the physician [said it is] around the membrane of the brain, which he also calls the C epicranis; and Herophilus, in the ventricle of the brain; and Parmenides and Epicurus, in the whole chest of man; but Empedocles, and Aristocles, and the troop of the Stoics assigned the heart to it. And again among these, some [placed it] in the ventricle of the heart, others in the blood, and some in the pericardial membrane, and others in the diaphragm. And Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Diogenes, and Plato, and Empedocles, and Xenocrates declared the soul to be incorruptible; D but Heraclitus said that those which are released from the body depart into the soul of the universe, as being of the same kind and substance. But the Stoics said that souls separated from bodies survive and live by themselves, but the weaker ones for a short time, the stronger ones even until the conflagration of the universe. And Democritus, and Epicurus, and Aristotle have freely declared this to be corruptible. But Plato and Pythagoras held that the rational part of it is incorruptible, and the irrational corruptible. And Plato indeed called even plants animals, since they possess the third kind of soul, the appetitive alone; but Aristotle could not be brought to call them animals: for he deemed that only that which is endowed with the function of sensation is worthy of the name of animal. He supposed, however, that the vegetative and nutritive soul exists in plants. But the Stoics did not in the least admit this opinion: for they refused to call the vegetative power a soul. And Zeno of Citium, the leader of this sect, taught his disciples to think the following things concerning the soul: for he said that the human seed, being fluid and endowed with spirit, is a part of the soul, or an avulsed particle, and a certain confused mixture of the ancestors' seed, collected into one from all parts of the soul: of its
A reason, therefore, he called it corruptible. But Numenius the Pythagorean, debating against these, said (Euseb. P. E. p. 822 B): “They declare the soul to be generated and corruptible; yet that it does not perish immediately upon being released from the body, but persists for a certain time by itself: that of the upright, until the conflagration of all things in fire; but that of the foolish, for certain periods of time.” Longinus also openly accuses them, writing thus (Euseb. ibid. p. 825 C): “One might justly be angry with Zeno and Cleanthes, who have spoken so very abusively concerning the soul; for both asserted the soul to be a certain exhalation of a solid body.” But to these, the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato were entirely contrary; for they declared the intellect to be a divine portion. And Nicomachus also agrees with this account, even though he pronounced the soul itself to be mortal; for he supposed the intellect to be something else beyond it. And those around Plato and Pythagoras say that this [intellect] is admitted from without. Again, on the other hand, some of them said the intellect is self-governing, and able to lead the passions wherever it wills; while others declared it to be a slave to necessity and fate, and that its actions and operations depend upon the threads of the Fates, and the rotation of the heaven, and the conjunction of the stars. B But Plato taught the contrary opinion to these concerning the soul. For he said it was free, and mistress of the disturbing passions, and that it moves of its own accord here or there, and is victorious or defeated by its own will. And he has clearly shown this in his *Laws*. He speaks as follows: “Even here, O stranger, to conquer oneself is the first and best of all victories; but to be conquered by oneself is the most base and evil; for these things signify that there is a war of every one of us against ourselves.” And again, a little further on: “But this we know, that these passions within us, like certain nerves or strings, pull us and draw us in opposite directions, as they are contrary to one another, toward contrary actions, where a distinct seat of virtue and vice is placed. For logic says that there must be one principle of the pulls; C which, if one follows it, and never departs from it, he will clearly perceive that the forces of the passions, which attempt D to pull in contrary directions, are altogether moderate. This guidance and principle, we assert, is that of reason.” By these words, therefore, he showed that we men have not been allotted an evil nature, nor are we compelled to sin by necessity or violence; nor are we led by the threads of Clotho, nor indeed are we driven by the conjunction of the stars to act; but that there is an internal struggle for the soul, and that it has the power of victory, if it inclines toward virtue.
It draws desire toward itself, but anger pulls in the opposite direction; yet reason has the power of being persuaded, or not. For it was appointed to hold the reins, and to lead, not to be led and dragged along. A He confirmed this argument even in the tenth book of the *Laws*, speaking thus: "He has left the causes of the generation of each one of us to the wills of each; for in whatever direction one may desire, and of such a quality as one may be in his soul, in that way he almost always becomes, and such each of us becomes for the most part." And after a few words he also adds these: "But the soul is greater, when it has become a participant of virtue or vice, and through its own will and constant habit, when it has adhered to the divine virtue, and has become especially such, it is transferred into a holy and better place; but when it has chosen things contrary to virtue, it also transfers and establishes its life in contrary abodes." B In this place, too, he taught that the Creator has granted to the will of the soul the choice of better and worse things. For it is the free will of the mind that makes it incline toward this side or that; but use and custom beget a powerfully inherent habit. And so, when the soul, being a lover of virtue, has impressed the form of it upon itself, it migrates into another place, a holy one and much better than the present one; but, on the contrary, having chosen vice and having embraced a shameful life, it obtains the corresponding place in return. C Also in the second book of the *Republic*, he wrote in harmony with these things, in these words: "Is God, therefore, entirely good? Indeed, he is. And must we speak thus? Why not? And is nothing that is good harmful? For how could it be? It does not seem so to me. Does that which is not harmful bring harm? Not at all. And that which does not harm, does it produce any evil? Not at all. And could it be the cause of any evil? How could it? What then? Is the good useful? Yes. Is it therefore the cause of well-being? Yes. Is the good, therefore, not the cause of all things, but the cause of all things that are well, and the non-cause of evil things? Entirely so, he said. Therefore, I said, God, since he is good, would not be the cause of all things, as many say, but he is the cause of few things for men, and of many he is not the cause; D for far fewer are the good things that happen to us than the evil. And for good things, the cause must be attributed to no other; but for evil things, other causes must be sought, and not God. Most truly, he said, you seem to me to speak. Therefore, I said, one must not listen to Homer, nor to any other poet, who foolishly commit this sin regarding the gods, and say that...
A Two jars sit at the threshold of Jove, With lots of fates, the one of good, the other of evil; And to whomsoever Zeus, mixing them, grants both, Sometimes he meets with evil, at other times with good. B There are other things of this kind also in Homer, and in Hesiod, and indeed also in Aeschylus. Then he adds: "But one must fight in every way against saying that God, being good, is the cause of evil; nor should anyone in his city, if it is to be governed by just laws, say this, nor should anyone hear it, neither young nor old, whether telling stories in meter or without meter, as such things would be neither holy, if they were said, nor useful to us, nor consistent with themselves. I agree with you, he said, regarding this law, and it pleases me. This, however, I said, would be one of the laws and patterns regarding God, in which it will be necessary for those who speak to speak, and for those who act to act, that God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good." C This is what Plato taught us to think and believe, both concerning the God who made us and concerning ourselves, and he ordered those who say that God is the cause of evils to be banished; for he says that this doctrine is impious, and both useless to us and inconsistent with itself. For if God is good, as he is indeed good (for this is the common opinion), then he who is good could not be the cause of evils. But if God is not the cause of the evils that happen (and we properly call evils, not those things which the crowd considers as such—poverty, and sickness, and other things like these, which some are accustomed to call calamities—but malice, and intemperance, and the other illegalities), but we ourselves dare to commit these things, then we are the causes of them, and not God, who has legislated the opposite. D Socrates and Plato taught us to think these things; they also called that part of the soul which is endowed with reason divine. And it is possible to hear Socrates speaking to Alcibiades, which Plato also recorded: "Can we then say that the most divine part of the soul is this, or are we unable to know or understand anything about this matter? We cannot. This part of it therefore resembles God; and someone looking into this, and knowing all that is divine, both God and wisdom, would thus also be most able to know himself." Similar things to these are also written in the Phaedo: "Are you willing, he said, that we posit two species of things: one, visible; the other, invisible? Let us posit them, he said. And the invisible, always remaining the same; the visible, never remaining the same? Let us also posit this, he said. Come then, he said: is there anything else in us, than this which is body, and that which is soul? Nothing else, he said. To which species, then, shall we say that the body is more similar and more akin? It is clear to everyone, he said, that it is to the visible. What then of the soul? Is it visible, or invisible? Not visible to men, O Socrates, he said. But...
is it invisible? Yes. Is the soul, then, more akin to the invisible, and the body to the visible? It is altogether necessary, O Socrates. Having gone through many other such things, he added: To which, then, is the soul akin? Clearly, O Socrates, that the soul is akin to the divine, but the body to the mortal. And again, after a few words: What then? Since these things are so, does it not follow that it is appropriate for the body to be quickly dissolved, and for the soul to be entirely indissoluble, or to draw very near to being so? Why should it not? Then, having explained how the body is dissolved, he added: But the soul, being something invisible, departing to another place like itself, noble and pure and invisible, indeed B departs to the good and wise God, to which, if God wills, my soul also must straightway depart. But this our soul, being such and endowed with such a nature, once it has been freed from the body, will it immediately be dissipated and perish, as most men say? Far from it, O beloved Cebes and Simmias; but it is much rather the case that it is otherwise. And the following things also hold the same line of thought and demonstrate the immortality of the soul quite explicitly. C Such, then, and so great is the strife and contention that historians, philosophers, and poets have stirred up among themselves concerning the soul and the body, and indeed concerning the very constitution of man; for some have championed these views, others those, and still others have spawned opinions contrary to both. For they were not held by a desire to learn the truth, but, serving vain glory and ambition, they desired to be called inventors of new dogmas. And for this reason they have endured a great deal of error, since those who succeeded their predecessors overturned the opinions of the ancients. For Anaximander, when Thales had already died, employed contrary dogmas; and Anaximenes, after the death of Anaximander, did the same thing; and Anaxagoras likewise. But Aristotle openly opposed Plato while he was still alive, and undertook a war against the Academy, and he neither honored the teaching of which he had once been a most eager recipient, nor did he revere the glory of that most celebrated man, nor did he fear the power of Platonic eloquence, but he licentiously showed himself an adversary to him, having become the author not of better, but of much worse dogmas. For when the latter said the soul is immortal, the former said it is mortal; and when the latter taught that God embraces all things with providence, the former, as far as his words go, [assigned this to] the earth...
moon, while asserting that all other things are subject to fate. He innovated 87 many other things besides, which I have judged superfluous to recount at present. They have justly demolished one another’s opinions. For falsehood is contrary not only to the truth but also to itself, while truth is in harmony with itself, having only falsehood as its enemy. It is therefore easy to find that Moses the lawgiver, the prophet David, the valiant Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the whole choir of the prophets, as well as Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Peter, Paul, and the entire assembly of the apostles, B taught all men in harmony everywhere. For we do not hear one of them saying these things and others saying those, nor some claiming that men are earth-born, others that they are not; nor some declaring the soul to be mortal and others immortal; nor some calling reason the mistress of the passions and others naming it a slave and servant enslaved to them. For all teach in harmony that the human body was fashioned from earth, water, and the other elements, and that the soul was not sent down into it after existing previously, but was created after the body's formation. C "For God," he says, "formed man, taking dust from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul." We must understand this inbreathing not as some outflow of spirit coming from a mouth (for the Divine is incorporeal, simple, and uncompounded), but as the very nature of the soul, in that it is a rational and intelligent spirit. The lawgiver recorded these things in the account of the world's generation, and he teaches similar things in the laws. For, speaking of a pregnant woman who suffers a miscarriage as a result of certain D blows, he says that the infant is first shaped in the womb and then receives a soul, not that the soul is introduced into the body from somewhere outside, nor that it originates from the seed, but that it receives its creation by divine decree, according to the law implanted in nature from the beginning. The valiant Job, also, in his renowned struggles, while discoursing with the Umpire and Creator, said: "Remember that you fashioned me as clay, and you turn me back to the earth." "Did you not milk me like milk, and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh; you knitted me together with bones and sinews; you placed life and mercy within me, and your oversight guarded my spirit." By these words he reveals the nuptial intercourse, the help for begetting children, and that small human...
seed transforming into ten thousand forms, and then the soul being fashioned and united to the body, and moreover, even after the birth pains, the divine assistance guarding and governing it. C The inspired David also cries out: "Your hands made me, and formed me: give me understanding, and I will learn your commandments." (Ps. CXVII, 73) In these words, along with created things, he also commemorates the Creator and begs to obtain understanding from Him. All the prophets likewise teach in harmony with this concerning human nature. But lest anyone imagine that Greeks are born in one way, and Romans in another, and Egyptians differently, and that Persians and Massagetes and Scythians and Sauromatae have obtained a different substance, he who wrote the history of the world's generation taught our own, how the Creator fashioned one man from the earth and, having created the woman from his side, from the union of these two filled the entire inhabited world with humans, with children and grandchildren from them propagating the human race. For it was very easy for God to command and immediately fill every land and sea with inhabitants; D but in order that no one might suppose that the natures of men are different, He ordered the myriad tribes of men to come into being from that one pair. For this reason, He did not fashion the woman from anywhere else but took the material for her formation from the man, so that she herself, thinking she possessed a nature other than the man's, might not behave insolently toward him. Hence, He offers the same laws to both men and women, because they differ in body shape, not in soul. For she, too, is endowed with reason, just like him, and is capable of understanding, and skilled in action, and equally knowledgeable about what must be avoided and what must be pursued; sometimes even finding better than a man what will be to their advantage, becoming a useful and suitable counselor to him. Whence not only men, but women too must approach the divine temples; nor does the law permit them to participate in the divine mysteries and forbid the others: but it commands them to be initiated equally and to be instructed in the holy rites. Indeed, the rewards of virtue are set before them just as they are before them, A since the struggles for virtue are common. Nor does the difference in languages harm nature at all. For even among Greeks and among Barbarians it is possible to see both those who strive for virtue and those who labor at wickedness. The Greeks themselves confirm this. For they admire and praise Anacharsis, a Scythian man—not an Athenian, not an Argive, not a Corinthian, not a Tegean, or a Spartan; and they look up to the Brahmans, Indians by race, not Dorians, not Aeolians, not Ionians. They praise, moreover, the Egyptians as being most wise: for they accepted many disciplines from them. Therefore, the variety of languages does not [harm] nature; for indeed even among Greeks and among barbarians one can see those who care for virtue and those who are workers of wickedness. Greeks indeed agree with the
A barbarians that there is some care for virtue, and that the difference of language does not prevent one from being adorned with this possession. For indeed all the heralds of the truth, I mean the prophets and apostles, did not partake of Greek eloquence, but because they abounded in true wisdom, they brought the divine doctrine to all nations, both Greek and barbarian, and filled every land and sea with books concerning virtue and piety. And now everyone, abandoning the trifles of the philosophers, enjoys the teachings of the fishermen and publicans, and embraces the volumes of Paul; and they do not even know the names of the Italian, Ionian, and Eleatic sects, for time has erased their memory. But the names of the prophets, who preceded those philosophers by more than B fifteen hundred years, they have on their lips and circulate; indeed, they even know the fathers who were more ancient than these—I refer to Abraham and his children—and those even older than them: Abel, Enoch, Noah, and those others whose praiseworthy life made them illustrious. But the names of those seven wise men who were born after the prophets, and of those who succeeded them, even those who cherish the Greek language do not know with certainty. And why do I speak of those who live now? For indeed, even among those of old, there was great C doubt regarding these. For some include among them Periander the Corinthian, others Epimenides the Cretan, others Acusilaus the Argive, others Anacharsis the Scythian, others Pherecydes the Syrian; but Plato lists Myson the Chenean. These ancients, therefore, they themselves have ignored, but Matthew, Bartholomew, and James—yea, even Moses, David, Isaiah, and the other apostles and prophets—men know as well as they know the names of their own children. And although they even mock their names as barbaric, we, for our part, lament the insanity of those D who, when they see that men of barbarian speech have surpassed the eloquence of Greek diction, and that their skillfully adorned fables have been thoroughly routed, and that the Attic syllogisms have been dissolved by the solecisms of fishermen, do not blush, nor do they hide themselves in shame, but impudently fight on behalf of a lie; even though they are so few that they can easily be counted, and are not even imbued with Greek eloquence, but are men who fall into as many barbarisms as they speak words, thinking the acme of doctrine and the brilliance of discourse to consist in their swearing and saying: "Not by the gods, not by the sun," and crafting other oaths of this sort in their speech.
If I do not speak the truth, tell me, O men, whom did Xenophanes of Colophon leave as the successor of his sect? Whom did Parmenides the Eleatic? Whom did Protagoras and Melissus? Whom did Pythagoras or Anaxagoras? Whom did Speusippus or Xenocrates? Whom did Anaximander or Anaximenes? Whom did Arcesilaus or Philolaus? Who today preside over the Stoic sect? Who maintain the doctrine of the Stagirite? Where are those who govern cities according to the laws of Plato, who have embraced the form of commonwealth written by him? But certainly you can show us no master of these dogmas. We, however, clearly demonstrate to you the power and strength of the apostolic and prophetic doctrine. For all the earth that is under the sun is filled with these teachings. And the Hebrew language was translated not only into the A language of the Greeks, but also into that of the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Indians, the Armenians, the Scythians, and the Sauromatae, and, to speak concisely, into all the languages which nations use to this day. And indeed the wisest Plato, who held many discourses regarding the immortality of the soul, did not even persuade his auditor Aristotle to cherish this tenet. But our fishermen and tax-collectors and the leather-worker have persuaded both Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, and, in a word, every nation of men, that the soul is immortal, and endowed with reason, and able to master the passions; and that, disdaining these, it transgresses the laws not because compelled by any force, but by contempt and negligence; and again, inclining toward better things, it is liberated from its former malice and imprints the divine marks upon itself once more. And everywhere you may see these dogmas B of ours held not only by those who are masters in the Church, but also by shoemakers, blacksmiths, and wool-workers, and other artisans; and likewise by women, not only those who have learned letters, but also by seamstresses and needlewomen, and even by maidservants. Nor do only those who inhabit cities possess this knowledge; you may find farmers, ditch-diggers, herdsmen, and planters of trees, who discourse about the Divine Trinity and the creation of all things, and who are much more expert in human nature than Aristotle and Plato; who, moreover, take care of virtue and shun vice, fearing the punishments laid up and awaiting the divine judgment without doubt, and philosophizing about the immortal and eternal life, and eagerly undergoing every labor for the grace of the celestial kingdom; and these things they learned not from any other, but from those whom you yourselves call Barbarians: and have you not heard even Anacharsis saying: "To me all Greeks are Scythizing." This is indeed plainly in agreement with the words of our Paul D
B "For if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (I Cor. xiv, 11). For in truth, just as the Illyrians, and Paeonians, and Taulantii, and Atintanes are considered to speak barbarously to the Greeks, so in turn, to them and to all others who are unable to understand the Greek tongue, the Attic, and Doric, and Aeolic, and Ionic dialects seem to be barbarian. That every language possesses the same faculty of reason (for the nature of all men is indeed one) is taught by experience. For one can find even among the Barbarians both arts and sciences and deeds of valor in war; and some of them often discover mechanical devices more clever than those of the Greeks, and better battle formations, and more cunning ambushes. There are even those who surpass the eloquence of the Greeks in brevity of speech. This C is indeed testified to by the Persians, both by ancient writers and by anyone who, whether acting as an envoy, or leading an army, or for any trade, has spent time among them. For they say that they acutely detect all the shifts of speech and conquer their interlocutors with very brief statements; and that they are most keen debaters, able to dissolve the arguments of their opponents and to use proverbs and riddles full of wisdom—not because they have read the labyrinths of Chrysippus and Aristotle, nor because Socrates or Plato taught them this kind of education; for they were trained in neither rhetorical nor philosophical discourses, but used nature alone as their teacher. They say, moreover, that the Indians are even wiser than these. But the Nomads also, our neighbors (I mean the Ishmaelites, who live in the deserts and are utterly ignorant of Greek writings), are adorned with sagacity and understanding D and possess a keen mind, capable of discerning the truth and refuting falsehood. Concerning the Egyptians, moreover, I think it superfluous to speak, since the very princes of the philosophers among the Greeks themselves have said that these were superior to them. The Romans, indeed, have had both poets, and orators, and historians, and, as those who are versed in both languages say, their inventions are more prudent, and their sentences more brief, than those of the Greeks. And I say this, not that I may disparage the Greek tongue, of which I am in some measure a participant, nor that I may render rewards contrary to my foster-mother; but that I may curb the mouths of those who boast of it more than is just, and cast down their pride, and teach them not to mock the language which radiates with truth, nor to be arrogant on account of expressions cultivated by the veneer of art but destitute of truth; but rather to admire the teachers of truth, who, while indeed adorning and varying their speech
A with the varnish of art, have not been taught to do so, but rather exhibit the beauty of truth unadorned, and have the least need of foreign and imported flowers.
Compare then, O friend, the simple teaching of the fishermen with the windy trifles of the philosophers, and discern the difference; and as you count up the many myriads of your volumes, recognize the weakness of their arguments. For no one has induced my soul B to follow either the poetic fables or the opinions of the philosophers. But admire the brevity of the divine Scriptures, and praise their power, and learn the truth of divine dogmas, the divine formation of the body, the immortal nature of the soul, and its rational part which governs the passions, and that the passions are necessary and useful to nature. For the power of concupiscence is most useful, and the irascible power opposite to it is likewise so. For through the former we desire even divine things, and, despising things visible, we ponder the intelligible C with our mind; and while dwelling on earth, we desire to see the Lord who is in the heavens, and we seek virtue; and, indeed, we maintain our life, we take food and drink, and through the lawful procreation of children the race is propagated. But the irascible power is given as an ally to reason, so that it may coerce immoderate desire. For since the latter strives to cross the established boundaries, the Creator has yoked to it, as a kind of colt, the irascible power, to draw it back D whenever it tries to advance beyond the need. And just as hot things are indeed contrary to cold, yet when mixed with one another they produce the best temperament, so concupiscence and irascibility, mixed with one another and chastened by one another, produce the best mixture of virtue. But reason holds the power and authority over actions, so that it both restrains the one and impels the other, or inhibits the one and excites the other. For concupiscence checks excessive irascibility, and irascibility in turn chastens the insatiability of concupiscence. These things, then, are perfectly accomplished while reason skillfully holds the reins; but if the reason, having been charmed by the soft and slippery sense of concupiscence, or having joined in the untimely exultation of the irascible power and exceeded the bounds, has loosened the reins more than is proper, they indeed beyond measure
A like horses biting the bit, run headlong, or are dragged away by force, and become a laughing-stock and a subject of reproach to those who see them. For this reason they also pay the penalty, as having endured the passion voluntarily. For human laws also punish those who commit offenses, and God has threatened unquenchable fire for those who sin. Now, neither would God, being good and just, have exacted a penalty from those who embrace an unlawful life if they sinned under necessity; nor would the wisest of men have enacted such laws if they had known that human offenses were not committed by the judgment of the mind; nor, again, would those who have been allotted the magistracy inflict the most cruel tortures upon those who dare to do evil, if they had clearly understood that the laws were violated not by the decision of the will, but by the necessity of fate or nature. But if they do not grant pardon to those who commit offenses, they clearly demonstrate that wickedness is a work of the will.
We have been taught B to think thus concerning the nature of man, and we ourselves teach it; and we admire the wisdom of the Creator God which is manifest in us as we contemplate it, seeing the different activities of the senses produced from one brain, yet each contributing to it a different perception: one of sight, another of hearing, and another of smell, and another of taste, and another of touch; and furthermore the use of all the members, both those that are manifest and those that are hidden; and the memory, which receives many and diverse things and does not confuse them, but preserves them uncorrupted, and brings them forth C just as it had received them long and very long ago; and the many sciences, not harming one another, but each displaying itself at the proper time. When, therefore, we contemplate these and similar things in our soul and thought, let us raise our voice with the Prophet: "Thy knowledge is become wonderful from me; it is strengthened; I shall not be able to attain to it." For what speech is sufficient to explain either the manifest harmony in the body or the wisdom contemplated in the soul? For although many things have been written concerning these by Hippocrates and Galen, and indeed also by Plato and Xenophon, and Aristotle and Theophrastus, and countless others, yet many more things than what they have said have been left out, because the human D mind cannot attain to the works of divine wisdom. Therefore, the Prophet praised God for the things he had grasped, but as for all the things that are seen in us, since he could not attain to them, he openly confessed himself overcome, deeming such a confession sufficient for a worthy hymn of praise. ☛ Ps. CXXXVIII, 6.
HOMILY VI. On the providence of God.
A Those who have devoted themselves to maritime pursuits, some ply merchant ships with oars, while others steer them with rudders. Moreover, every fisherman, riding in his boat, casts his net and hunts the denizens of the waters; another, seated upon a rock, lets down a fishing line, and with bait, impales some of the fish upon his hook. There are also those who suffer shipwreck and are overwhelmed by the waves, either because they imprudently launched into the deep at the wrong time, or because they recklessly dared to defy the tempests. I have not poured forth these words at such length without purpose, but rather to demonstrate by a kind of analogy the stupidity of those who stumble over created things, and who, without shame, accuse those things which are governed within them by divine Providence. For some, looking upon creation, offer hymns of praise to the Creator; others, admiring it more B than they ought, most foolishly make it their god. Some observe each individual event occurring in the world and look upon the Ruler of the universe as one who manages all things excellently, and they praise the wisdom that is evident in these manifestations; others, however, find fault with everything that happens, and nothing that is done pleases them at all; indeed, they condemn riches, and bring infamy upon poverty, and complain of diseases, and are severely disturbed by those who are in good health; and to say it in a word, nothing that occurs in life pleases them, whether they be prosperous things or adverse. Thus, they are annoyed by both the abundance of crops and the sterility of the fields, and they are equally tormented by both the abundance and the scarcity of children, by peace and by war. Hence it comes about, of course, that they accuse the helm of Providence; nay, as much as in them lies, they utterly abolish it, and instead introduce the Fates, Destiny, Fortune, and some C violent necessity which they set over every individual; and they affirm that this [necessity] forces them to become murderers, burglars, and adulterers against their own will. Come, then, let us again examine the opinions of the Gentiles, and compare them with apostolic and prophetic dogmas. But let us leave the poets with their impious fables; for indeed, the prince of these poets represents the prince of the gods lamenting because he is unable to bring aid to his own son, but must yield to the threads of Clotho, and wanting to undo them, is prevented by Atropos and Lachesis, and for this reason mingles his words with complaints, weeping, and wailing. The same man says that Neptune, when he wished to take vengeance upon the leader of the Cephallenians who gouged out the eye of Polyphemus, was unable to overcome fate, because it was fated D that the son of Laertes would visit Ithaca. Having set these aside, let us bring forward the company of the philosophers. Di-
A They say that those around Diagoras were called atheists by name, because they denied the Divine altogether. They say that Protagoras held an ambiguous opinion about these matters. For they report him as saying that he did not know whether there are gods, or whether they do not exist at all. Epicurus, son of Neocles, and his faction said that God exists, but that He has turned to Himself, and neither cares for any business nor wishes to provide for others. But the son of Nicomachus B went so far as to claim that God’s providence governs things up to the moon, but that He neglects everything below it, and has handed over the management of these to the necessity of fate: and that this distributes to mortals not only wealth and poverty, health and sickness, slavery and freedom, war and peace, but also assigns to them virtue and vice. Oenomaus the Cynic clearly and openly censured all of these, and because the Pythian seer responded with similar things, he entangled him in the same accusation, and called his book *The Exposure of Impostors*. In it these things are read (Euseb. P. E., p. 254 D): "For it has perished, as far as it lies with wise men—it has perished, I say, from human life—whether one likes to call it a rudder, or ballast, or a foundation—the liberty of our life: which we indeed judge to be the master of the most necessary things. But Democritus, if I am not mistaken, and Chrysippus, the one attempts to show the most beautiful part of man to be a slave, the other a half-slave. But as much as one would esteem a human being, as a human being, their discourse should be worth that much. But if C in this matter God also opposes us, alas! what evils we shall suffer!" And having said many other such things, he added these also (p. 257 C): "Come, and let us also be indignant in return. Why then? Where something seems good to us, shall this be most certain and most ancient? But where it does not seem so, there a certain hidden adverse power predominates over it, Fate and Destiny (Himarmene and Pepromene), having different things for each of us, part from God, and part from those minute bodies which, by urgent necessity, are driven up and down, and are intertwined, and dissolved, and separated, and placed alongside one another?" And again, after a little: "And for this reason I have brought these matters into the discourse, because they have escaped you, O seer, of which we ourselves are the masters; and you who know all things, have not yet known these things, the threads of which depend upon our own will." D With these words, that Cynic reproved the Pythian, and Democritus, and Chrysippus, being deservedly indignant that, having enslaved the free nature of our own mind, they surrendered it to the necessity of Fate and Destiny. But Destiny...
A Chrysippus said was a finished and completed governance; while *Himarmene* (Fate) he termed a kind of "interweaving," whether from the will of God or from any other cause whatsoever. The Fates (*Mæræ*) were so called because something is divided and distributed to each one of us; and in this way also *Chreon* (Necessity) is said to be derived from *chreos* (debt), namely that which happens and is incumbent according to the law of fate. The number of the Fates signifies the three times in which all things revolve and in which they are accomplished. And Lachesis is so called from the fact that each one "allots" (*lanchanō*) what is fated; Atropos, on account of the "inflexibility" and immutability of the allotted portion; Clotho, because all things are "wound together" (*sygklōthesthai*) and woven together, and because there is one set purpose for them all. They have called this Providence B because it arranges each thing for what is useful; and the same is called Adrasteia, because nothing escapes it. Not only did those around Democritus, Chrysippus, and Epicurus say that all things happen according to necessity, calling Fate "necessity," but the most celebrated Pythagoras also said that necessity encompasses the world. Parmenides called necessity "Daemons," "Justice," and "Providence." Heraclitus also asserted that all things come to be according to Fate, and he too gave to Fate the name of necessity. Chrysippus the Stoic also said that there is no difference between what is fated and what is necessary, but that Fate is an eternal, continuous, and ordered motion. Zeno of Citium C called Fate a force, the mover of matter, and he named the same thing Providence and Nature. His successors said that Fate is the reason for the things in the world that are governed by Providence, and in other writings they called Fate a "chain of causes." In like manner, some have regarded Fortune as a god and have honored her as such; but Plato said it was a cause that comes to be according to some accident, and again, he called it an occurrence of nature or of choice. Aristotle likewise said it was a cause per accidens in those things that come to be for the sake of something through voluntary motion, being hidden and unstable. Anaxagoras and Democritus, and those who took their name from the *Poecile* (the Stoa), said it was a cause hidden from human reason. Philemon the comic poet, D though a poet made to provoke laughter, openly accuses those who have supposed Fortune to be a god, and explicitly exclaims:
There is for us no god of Fortune, There is none; but that which happens by chance, As it befalls each man, is called by the name of Fortune.
The same poet, ridiculing those who use omens and auguries, said: When I see, he says, one who observes who sneezed, Or who spoke, or who is the one approaching,
A I will destroy this man instantly in the marketplace. Our man walks, and speaks, and sneezes For himself, not for his fellow citizens in the city. For things happen just as nature brings them about. Menander also, in *The Superstitious Man*, mocks those who observe such things with these words: I pray that this may turn out well for me, most precious gods: While I was tying the strap of my right Sandal, it broke. And reasonably so, you fool, For it was rotten; but you are too stingy to want To buy new ones. Thus, even those who spent their lives in laughter and the theaters knew that such signs and observations are highly ridiculous. Furthermore, when someone was distressed and suspected that some harmful omen was being signaled because a sow had eaten her own farrow, Antipho said: "Rejoice at this sign, because it was out of hunger that she did not eat your children." Similar to this is the remark made by Bion. For he, too, mocking such things, said: "What is B strange, he said, if a mouse, having nothing to eat, gnawed through a bag? That would have been strange indeed, if, as Arcesilaus said in jest, the bag had eaten the mouse." And Diogenes, when a serpent had wound itself around a pestle, and someone was amazed at this and thought it was a portent, said: "Do not gaze in wonder; for it would be more extraordinary if you had seen the pestle wound around the upright serpent." And again, finding this same man in the house of a certain scoundrel where it was written: The son of Zeus, the victorious Hercules, Dwells here: may no evil enter, "And how then," he said, "will the master enter the house?" Thus did even those who were enslaved by the error of superstition mock the omens, and the voices, and the portents that are still considered such by many even today. They said that those who sneezed were not signaling anything to others, but were merely suffering a common physical experience; and those who were talking were not declaring anything to others, but were simply discussing the matters before them; and that the mouse, driven by hunger to pierce the bag, was not making any prophecy to the master of the bag; and that the straps of the sandal had broken because they were old, not because they were foretelling some misfortune like an oracle. C Epicharmus the Pythagorean, clearly understanding these things, bids us disdain all of them, and exhorts us to fear Him who observes all things. For he speaks thus: Nothing escapes the divine; you must know this firmly. He Himself is our inspector, and nothing is impossible for God. Diphilus the comic poet also, mixing true philosophy with comedy, left these things written:
A
Do you think, O Niceratus, that those dead, Who partook of every pleasure in life, Have escaped the Divine, as though unnoticed? There is an eye of Justice, which sees all things; And we believe there are two paths in Hades, One of the just, and another of the impious.
And after a few words: Be not deceived; there is also a judgment in Hades, Which God, the Master of all, will execute.
Since not all who transgress pay the penalty here, nor do all the athletes worthy of the prize of virtue receive the rewards of their struggles according to their merits in this life, he very reasonably pointed to the eye that beholds all things and predicted the coming judgment, so that, fearing those things and believing that He sees these, all might embrace the struggles of virtue that are so worthy of love, and not be disheartened when they do not see the rewards of their labors. Pindar the Theban also, while bidding farewell to Fate and Fortune, teaches those who are ignorant of the omnipotent power of God: B
For it is in the power of God, he says, To raise a pure beam from the darkness of black Night, and to shroud in dark shadows The clear light of day.
But the son of Ariston [Plato] shows us more clearly the Governor of all things, holding the helm of the entire world in His hands. In the *Laws* he says this (p. 716A): "God, therefore, as the ancient saying also testifies, holding the beginning, the end, and the middle of all existing things, brings them to completion in a straight course, proceeding according to nature; and Justice always follows Him, taking vengeance on those who abandon the divine law. He who is to be blessed attaches himself to it, following along in humility and order. But if any man, puffed up by pride, or exalted by wealth C or honors, or by physical beauty, inflamed in his soul by youth and foolishness, acts with insolence, as though he had no need of a ruler or leader, but were himself capable of leading others, he is left behind, deserted by God; and having been left, and having attached others of the same kind to himself, he leaps about, throwing everything into confusion, and to many he seems to be someone of importance; but after a time, suffering a penalty not to be complained of at the tribunal of justice, he brings total ruin upon himself, his house, and his city." Through these words, the philosopher showed both the Caretaker of the whole world, and His long-suffering toward some at certain times, the harm that subsequently arises for the foolish from this, and the total destruction that is brought upon them in the end. And in the *Gorgias* he also reveals the causes of punishment, stating it thus: "It is fitting for every one who is in punishment, if he is D rightly punished by another, either to become better and derive benefit from it, or to serve as an example to others, so that they, seeing what he suffers, may become better through fear. There are those who are benefited and pay the penalty at the hands of gods and men; these are they who have..."
sinned in a curable way. A Yet even for them, the benefit comes through pain and suffering, both here and in Hades; for it is not possible to be delivered from injustice in any other way. But those who have committed the most extreme wrongs, and because of such misdeeds have become incurable, from these come the examples; and these people themselves are no longer benefited at all, being, as they are, incurable; but others are benefited, those who see them suffering the most grievous, painful, and fearful B afflictions for their great sins, and being held up as examples for all time. The philosopher seems to have pilfered these things from the divine Oracles. For he certainly heard what the inspired Moses wrote that God had said to Pharaoh: "For this very reason have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." For in truth, God inflicted manifold punishments upon that most wicked man; not so as to render him better (for He knew his mind was recalcitrant and his malady incurable), but in order that the accounts concerning him might become useful examples for all. Just as cities C maintain executioners, so that they may punish murderers, housebreakers, and others who break the law through them; not indeed praising them, but rather greatly detesting their way of life, yet tolerating their service because of necessity: so too the Governor of this great city of the world permits tyrants to be, as it were, executioners, that through them He may exact penalties from the ungodly and the lawless; yet afterward He is about to hand them over themselves to the most exact punishment, for they brought about those terrible things D not as ministers of God, but serving their own wickedness. Thus He handed over the sinful Israel to the cruelty of the Assyrians. But because these men did not recognize the reason for that punishment, He also overturned their dominion and compelled them to serve others. And Isaiah, Ezekiel, and all the prophets teach these things clearly; from whom, I think, Plato stole the premises, and said that those who have become incurable are punished for the benefit of others. Again, in the *Philebus*, he strengthened the discourse concerning Providence: "For all wise men," he says, truly honoring themselves, "agree that intellect is king over heaven and earth for us. And perhaps they speak well. But let us, if you wish, examine the genus itself through smaller things." Then, having used very many syllogisms, he added these words: "Do you wish that we, too, agree with what has been previously admitted, that these things are so, and that we should not only think we ought to speak of others' affairs without danger, but also that there is a common danger..."
we should share in the blame when a serious man says that these things are not so, but are in disorderly state?" B And having used many other arguments, he adds this: "Therefore, if it is not this, we would speak better by following that reason, as it is, which we have often stated, that there is much that is infinite in the universe, and a sufficient end; and some cause over them that is not trivial, adorning and connecting years and months and hours, called wisdom and intellect." And he drew these things from the Hebrew streams. For those clearly teach that God founded the earth by wisdom, and prepared the heavens by prudence, and the other things that follow these.
In the *Laws*, this same philosopher also divides the nature of goods, and shows that some are human, others divine. For he speaks thus: C "There are two kinds of goods: some are human, others divine. The latter depend upon the divine ones; and if one obtains the greater, he also possesses the lesser; but if not, he is deprived of both. The lesser, however, are in the first place health, in the second beauty, in the third strength of body for running and all other movements; and in the fourth place, wealth—not that blind one, but one that sees most sharply, if it follows prudence as its guide. But the first of the divine goods, and one presiding over the rest, is prudence; the second, along with intellect, is a tempered habit of soul. And from these, when mixed with fortitude, the third will be justice; the fourth, fortitude. All these things are naturally prior to the others; and thus it must be arranged by the lawgiver. After these, I judge that other precepts D must be prescribed to the citizens, which tend toward this. Of these goods, those which are human look toward the divine, but those which are divine look in their entirety toward the ruling intellect."
Then he teaches at greater length that by nature only virtue is a good, and that other things are called good equivocally, partaking of the name alone: "For what are commonly called goods," he says, "are not rightly called so. For it is commonly said that good health is the best of goods, in the second place beauty, and in the third, riches. And ten thousand other things are also called goods. For to be endowed with sharp sight or hearing, and to enjoy the other senses without hindrance, and for one who is in power to do whatever he desires, and the end of all blessedness, is to be possessed of all these things and to have been born immortal as quickly as possible. But you and I, however, say that all these things are the best possessions for just and holy men, but for the unjust, all things are the worst, starting from health. And indeed, to see, and to hear, and to use the other senses, and to live at all, is the greatest evil to the one who is immortal for all time and has obtained...
A all the things called goods, save for justice and every virtue; and it is a lesser evil, provided that such a one lives for the shortest possible time. » And after a few lines: « For I clearly say that what are called evils are good for the righteous, but [are] evils for the unrighteous; and [I say] that what are called goods are good for the good, but are evils for the bad. » And I myself very much approve of this distinction. For it is truly a great good to know what is properly good, and what is called good but becomes now one thing, now the contrary, in the hands of those who either pursue it well and nobly, or embrace the opposite opinion. For health, and beauty, and bodily strength, and indeed wealth, have profited some and shown them worthy of the possession of such things, while to others they have become instruments of wickedness and incontinence. But temperance and justice, and all other things similar to these, are possessions of the soul, which are useful to all who hold them, and harm none of their possessors. To such people, even those things which are commonly called goods are useful possessions; for they fall into the hands of just and temperate stewards. Yet those things which become best through such people appear B worst when they have fallen to wicked and lawless men; for they see what they ought not, and hear what they ought not, and train their other senses toward incontinence.
Do not, therefore, O friendly men, confuse the natures of things, but let us distinguish what is truly good, what is evil, and what has taken the middle rank between these; and let us not call those happy who are wealthy, and robust, and clothed with some power; for it is fitting to call those truly wicked and thrice-wretched who have indeed partaken of these things, but have rendered them the material for vice and wickedness. When, therefore, we see a thoroughly wicked man pouring over with wealth, let us not call him thrice-blessed, but wretched, because he has many incentives for living in a lawless manner; and when we see another, who seems to be an upright man, joined to C some difficulty and poverty, let us neither deem him miserable, nor think of the providence of God as unjust. For, in the first place, he who is thought to be just is not necessarily just in reality; for the eye that sees all things sees and judges these matters differently. And the observer of all things himself taught this to the prophet Samuel: « For, » he says, « not as man sees does God see; for man looks to the face, but God looks to the heart » (I Reg. xvi, 7). And even if we assume that one who is gripped by some misfortune is truly just, this at least is manifest to all, that he will receive no harm from his adversity, as he bears it D as an athlete of virtue
A For just as those who live in wickedness reveal even the things called good to be instruments of wickedness, so too do those who love virtue make even the things considered evil to be material for true philosophy. By thus discerning each of these things, we shall never call God unjust; rather, we shall agree that what was written by Plato in the *Theaetetus* is correct, namely: "God is in no way and in no manner unjust, but as far as possible most just; and there is nothing more like Him than the one among us who becomes most just in this respect."
Again, in the tenth book of the *Laws*, he attempts to heal those who do not accept the reasoning concerning divine providence. He says the following: "As for the man who believes that there are gods, but that they take no thought for human affairs, he is to be consoled thus: 'My dear Demophon [for he thinks that there are gods, and a certain divine kinship leads you to honor and believe them], the fortunes B of wicked and unjust men, both in private and in public, are not truly happy, though they are highly praised in opinion; but they lead you quite improperly toward impiety.'"
Then, having discussed the supposed success of the unjust, he continues: "But perhaps it would not be difficult to demonstrate this: that the gods are no less careful of small things, but rather more so than of those that excel in magnitude. For you have heard, and are present at what is now being said, that since they are good, they possess every virtue and treat the care of all things as most peculiarly their own." C Then, having strengthened the argument with syllogisms, he adds: "Let us not, therefore, suppose that God is inferior to mortal craftsmen, who, the better they are, the more accurately and perfectly they produce both small and great things by one and the same art; but that God, being wise and willing to care for all, is able to do so—and being able, cares for them more easily—while it is impossible for Him not to care for small things, as if He were some idle or cowardly person D who grows sluggish through labor." And then he adds: "Let us in no way accept such an opinion about God, my friend; for such a notion would be neither holy nor true." And again, after a few lines: "For every physician and every skilled craftsman does everything for the sake of the whole, and works with a view to the common good, performing the part for the sake of the whole, and not the whole for the sake of the part; but you are indignant, being ignorant of how that which concerns you turns out for the best for the whole." And after many windings of speech, he added: "The same argument of yours will also hold concerning those whom you, having observed that from small beginnings they have grown great by committing acts of impiety or something of the sort, have thought to have become happy from wretched, and as if in a mirror you thought you had seen through their actions the neglect of all things by the gods,"
A nor do you know their goal, nor how it contributes to the whole. For by all these things He showed the justice of Providence, and how each of the things that come to pass is established as beneficial to the universe. For the whole has not been created for the sake of the smallest part, but the parts fill up the harmony of the whole; nor was the entire body fashioned for the sake of one finger or one joint, but both the fingers and their joints were fitted together for the sake of the body. Since, therefore, the nature of men has become mortal, and being mortal, is in need of many things—of agriculture, and the cultivation of plants, and navigation, and indeed also of architecture, and metalworking, and weaving, and shoemaking, and the shipbuilding art, and all the others which cooperate toward the necessary care of the body—the Governor of the universe very reasonably allotted poverty to some and wealth to others, so that the former might provide the materials, and the latter, hands trained in the crafts. And the Ruler of all things has made those who pride themselves on their wealth dependent upon poverty, through their need. For they have need not only of bakers and cooks and cupbearers, but also of builders and farmers and weavers and shoemakers; and those who are vainglorious [have need] of painters and sculptors and the others whose work makes the houses of the wealthy appear more brilliant. B And on the other hand, the manual laborers again have need of the well-to-do, who provide the money and purchase the things produced by them. But let those who are vexed at this difference, and are angry that we have not all shared in the same things, accuse also the painters, because they do not paint with one color, but adorn their images with various ones; let them also accuse the lyre-makers, and indeed the musicians themselves, because all the strings do not emit the same sound, but one is the lowest, another the highest; and the one has a sharp note, another a deep one, and another has the middle tone. C And it would have been appropriate for them to be indignant also at the geometers, because those who are taught the science of lines do not demonstrate only one shape, but triangles and squares and crescents and circles and tables and many other things besides those mentioned. Let them also complain against those who teach the science of arithmetic, because of the numbers, some are even, others odd, others even-odd, and others odd-even; and some are cubes, and others are supercubes, and others cube-supercubes. But if the ideas of numbers are necessary, and the variety of shapes, and the difference in the strings, and the diverse kinds of colors, why then are you vexed that you have not all been made Croesuses and Midases and Dariuses? For nothing else D
A do you desire, you who long for this equality, save that the human race should be utterly destroyed by famine and the lack of necessary things. For who would be willing, if all men shared the same status, to undertake the labor of attending to his neighbor, or to plow the land and sow it, and to reap the wheat, or to plant and gather and press the fruit of the vine and the olive? And if equality of status did not allow one to serve another, how would each one be sufficient for himself, becoming at once a cowherd, a goatherd, a shepherd, and a swineherd, and moreover also a weaver, a shoemaker, a builder, a copper-smith, a baker, a cook, a farmer, a gardener, a shipbuilder, a sailor, and a helmsman? For each one of us stands in need of all these crafts and of many more besides. Why then do you not praise this excellent distribution B of things, but rather complain of it most of all—you who possess so many handmaidens, servants, and farmhands? For the farmer lives content with his lot, and the servant likewise, and the craftsman also loves his art and the toils to which he has been assigned. You, however, who are sated with a surfeit of luxuries and who overflow with every indulgence ministered to you by others, assail the Giver of these many blessings with blasphemous words. You pour forth such words because you have chosen to be slaves to incontinence, and you think you have found an excuse for your apology—first, that the tiller of the universe is not moved by divine Providence; and second, that you think not only the body and what pertains to the body, but even the very choice of the soul, lies under the necessity of fate. But Plato teaches the contrary: C 'Virtue is subject to no master; he who honors it will have more, and he who slights it will have less.' And again: 'The fault is his who chooses; God is blameless.' For God is never the cause of evils. And in the midst of the most grievous dangers, Plato shows Socrates philosophizing about Providence and about not fearing death. For he has inscribed these things also in his Apology: 'But you, too, O men of the jury, ought to be full of good hope concerning death, and to think on this one truth, that to a good man no evil can befall, neither in life nor in death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods.' Therefore, poverty, disease, slavery, and death are not truly evils; D but they are indeed called evils by the foolish, while they become goods for those who make good and noble use of them. That the lack of belief that all things are governed by Providence increases the wickedness of men, is loudly proclaimed by Atticus the Platonist: 'And so, the despair of Providence is a thing most ready for wickedness.' And Plotinus too (who is also of great renown among those who write on philosophy) has inserted this opening into his discourses on Providence: 'To attribute the essence and constitution of this universe to chance and fate is the mark of a man who is irrational, and who possesses neither sense nor...
intellection, which is sufficiently manifest even if I should utter no word;' and many copious discourses have been brought forward before this man, which demonstrate that this is the case. Then, having unrolled many such arguments, he added: B «Thus, then, from one Mind and from the Word which proceeded from It, did this whole rise up and stand apart.»
These things, moreover, he has pilfered from the sacred oracles. For he certainly heard the theology taught by the divine Gospels, which says: «All things were made through the Word, and without him was made nothing» (John 1, 3). For this man was born many years after the Apostles. For they began the saving preaching under Tiberius Caesar; but Tiberius was succeeded by Gaius, and him by Claudius, then Nero, and Vespasian, and Titus, and Domitian, and Nerva, and Trajan, and Hadrian, and Antoninus the First, and Verus, and Commodus. In the reign of this man, Ammonius, surnamed Saccas, having abandoned the sacks in which he used to carry grain, devoted himself to the philosophical life. They say that our Origen, and this Plotinus, were his students. And Porphyry was a student of the teaching of Plotinus.
I have not set down the calculation of time idly, but to show that Plotinus, not only, like Plato, having been imbued with the doctrine of the Hebrews, but also with that of the fishermen and of Paul, learned from that source that all things were constituted and set apart from the Mind and the Word which proceeds from It, and attained the fitting harmony. After this, he refutes the folly of those who attempt to find fault with certain parts of the creation, speaking as follows: C «For He made something whole, very beautiful, and self-sufficient, and friendly to Himself and to its own parts, both to the more principal ones and to the lesser ones, in a way that is equally fitting. He, therefore, who finds fault with the whole because of the parts would be absurd in his reasoning. For one must consider the parts in relation to the whole itself to see if they are consistent and harmonious with it, and he who considers the whole should not look to some small parts; for this is not the act of one finding fault with the world, but of one taking certain things of it separately—for example, if someone, looking at a hair of an entire animal, or at the nails of its feet, should neglect to gaze upon the whole man—a divine vision—or, by Zeus, if he should leave aside the other animals and take the most lowly one, or, overlooking the whole genus, should bring forward, for example, Thersites into the middle.»
Since, then, the world is the whole that has been brought into being, he who contemplates this might perhaps hear from it: D «God has made me, and I too have come into being from thence, perfect from all animals, and sufficient in myself and self-satisfied, needing nothing; for all things are in me, and [the]
A plants, and animals, and the nature of all kinds. In these words, he surely betrayed another theft of his. For he seems to me to have heard David saying: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands." And after a little, he shows the difference between the things that have come to be, and says: "Some things seem to participate only in being; others, in living; others, more so in perceiving; others already possess reason; others, the whole of life. For one should not demand the same things from those that are not the same; for surely, it is not the role of fingers to see, but of eyes; but for a finger, it is, I think, to be a finger and to possess what belongs to it." He said that stones and things similar to these participate only in being, whereas plants participate also in living, and that irrational animals possess perception along with life; but the human race has been granted to participate in reason, and the nature of the incorporeal beings possesses the most perfect life. And to these he adds: "But if fire is extinguished by water, and another thing is destroyed by fire, do not marvel; for Another brought them into being." And concerning virtue and vice, B in the same discourse, he argues thus: "Many things suffer also from one another, even when those acting are unwilling and are tending toward a different end. But as for the animals that move by themselves in the exercise of free power, they might incline at one time toward the better, at another toward the worse; but to immediately demand a reversal toward the worse from Him—perhaps this is not worthy. For a motion that is small at the beginning, when it has proceeded little by little, always generates a greater and more numerous sin; and the body is aligned with it, and out of necessity, desire [arises]. And having been seduced at first and suddenly, and not having been restrained, it immediately produced a choice for the thing into which someone fell. Yet justice follows; and it is not unjust for one who has become such to suffer things consistent with his disposition. Nor should one demand that happiness belong to those who have not performed things worthy of happiness. For the good alone are happy; for it is for this reason that the gods C are also considered happy. If, therefore, it is possible for souls in this universe to be happy, if some are not happy, the universe is not to be blamed, but the weaknesses of those who were not able to struggle well, where the prizes of virtue are set forth. And if they did not become divine and did not possess a divine life, what is the terrible thing?" Then he enumerates the difficulties, and says these are necessary for the good, but a misfortune for the wicked; "and it is necessary for those who possess bodies to fall ill. And these things are not altogether useless for the arrangement and completion of the whole." Then he teaches how, from these examples, most of the others benefit, and says: "For poverty, he says, and diseases are, to the good, nothing, but to the bad, a calamity; and it is necessary D for those who possess bodies to fall ill. And these things are not altogether useless for the arrangement and completion of the whole." Then he teaches how, from these examples, most of the others benefit, and says: "For poverty, he says, and diseases are, to the good, nothing, but to the bad, a calamity; and it is necessary for those who possess bodies to fall ill. And these things are not altogether useless for the arrangement and completion of the whole." Then he teaches how, from these examples, most of the others benefit, and says: "For the, or they [who] sin..."
A against, vice has produced something useful for the whole, having become an example of justice, and having provided many useful things from itself. For it made men vigilant, and awakens the mind and understanding, opposing the ways of wickedness; and it also makes them learn what a good thing virtue is by comparison with the evils that the wicked possess. And evils have not come to be because of these things, but it has been stated B that it uses even them for a necessary purpose. Now this is of the greatest power, to be able to use even evil things well, and to be sufficient to use those things which have become without form for other forms. And in general, evil must be posited as a deficiency of the good. And after many such arguments, he exhorts one not to require the good to be exact and pure in the mixed animal, and he says: 'First, therefore, it must be said that those seeking the good in the mixed entity must not look for it in every way, but rather as much as the mixed entity possesses of the good; nor should they look for the higher things in the secondary, but since it also possesses a body C, they must allow it to go from this to the whole, and must ask from reason as much as the mixture is capable of receiving, if it lacks nothing in this.' Then he is indignant at those who do not wish to struggle for the sake of virtue, but claim to be saved by God, and he says: 'But now, some, being unarmed, and others being armed, gain the upper hand, where it was not fitting for God Himself to fight on behalf of the unwarlike. For the law says that men ought to be saved from wars by manliness, D and not by prayers. For just as we do not gather fruits by praying, but by taking care of the land, nor do we remain healthy without taking care of health, nor should we be indignant if the fruits be more for the wicked, or if they cultivate them at all, or better. Then it is ridiculous to do all other things in life by one's own judgment, even if we do not do them in a way pleasing to the gods, yet to claim to be saved by the gods alone, without having done even those things by which the gods order them to be saved. And so, death is better for them than to live in such a way as the laws of the universe do not wish them to live. So, since opposite things are happening, with peace being maintained in the midst of follies and 874 all manner of wickedness, it would be absurd for the affairs of Providence to be such that it allows the worse to prevail in this way. For the wicked rule, while those who are ruled show cowardice; for this is just, and not the other. For Providence ought not to be such that we are nothing. For if Providence alone existed, then there would be nothing; for what would there be? But only the divine would exist.' And after a few words he displays the rewards of the good: 'For, he says, to those who have become good, a good life will be, and it lies in wait for the future; but to the wicked, the opposite. And to demand that others be their saviors when they themselves have abandoned themselves...'"
that they should cultivate the fields themselves, or something better. Then it is ridiculous that men should perform all other things in life of their own will, even if they do not do them because they are pleasing to the gods, yet at the same time expect to be saved by the gods, without having done the things through which the gods command them to be saved. For them, therefore, it is far better to perish than to live in a way contrary to the laws that exist in the universe. Wherefore, if the opposite were to happen, and a certain perpetual peace were established among foolish and wicked men, providence would be acting wrongly, since it would allow those who are worse to have so much power. Yet the wicked rule because of the sloth of their subjects. For this is fairer than the contrary. For it is not fitting that providence should be such that we are nothing. For if Providence were all things, and it alone were, it would not even be providence (for of what thing would it then be?), but there would be only God. B And a little later, he shows the rewards of the good: "For those, indeed, who might turn out to be good men, there will be a good life, and from then on into the future: but for the wicked, all things will be contrary. But for others to wish to save the wicked at their own peril, when they ask it, is not right." Then, too, he speaks thus concerning other living creatures: "For not even does a sensible person complain about other living creatures, however many there be that are smaller than man and bring honor to the world. For it would be ridiculous if someone were to complain that they bite people, as if it were fitting for them to spend their lives sleeping. It is necessary, however, that these things also exist, as they possess manifest benefits: but many things that were hidden, time itself finds: so that none of them is in vain, even for men. It would also be ridiculous to complain that many of them are wild, when men themselves are wild." And after many other things, he adds this: "But we are like those who, ignorant of the art of painting, accuse the painter because he has not applied bright colors everywhere, nor wherever they are appropriate to each place: or if someone were to accuse a drama because not all the characters in it are heroes, but a servant also speaks, and a rustic, and someone of the lowest station; yet the tragic drama will not be beautiful if someone removes the men of inferior fortune, since it is completed through these as well." The whole discussion, therefore, both the former and the latter, is full of arguments of this kind. C But I, so as not to be longer, will pass over the greater part, although I could use the Socratic Xenophon, and the Stoic Epictetus, and very many other witnesses; and although I could demonstrate with physical proofs the ignorance of those who do not believe our discourse, I think that these things which I have collected are sufficient to confirm the truth. But I have thought this only to be worth the effort to add to what has already been said, that when it has once been established that the Creator provides for all things, the account of the Savior’s dispensation is proven to be invincible and indeed indisputable. For it was fitting for Him who possesses all things, and who bestowed existence upon those who did not exist, not to overlook the nature of men being destroyed, for the sake of which He prepared all things that are visible. D For the earth is their dwelling-place, and they have the heaven as a ceiling; and the air, and the sea, and the rivers, and the springs, and the throes of clouds, and the dews, and the breezes, and indeed the fruitful and unfruitful plants, and animals of the earth and the air and the water and amphibians, and ten thousand kinds of herbs, and metallic woods, provide for the need of the human race. And indeed, the sun, and the moon, and the multitude of stars, having divided time in two, perhaps apportioned it for themselves; and one illuminates the day, and calls to labor; the other, with the stars, obtained the torch-bearing of the night. Therefore, the Lord of all did not deem it just to overlook him, for whose sake all these things were made, being besieged by sin, and handed over to death as if captured by the spear. For this very reason He assumed the human form, and covered the invisible nature with the visible, and preserved the visible one without sin, and the hidden...
B one untouched. For neither did the latter suffer the infirmities of the flesh, nor did the flesh contract the stains of sin. For it was very easy for Him, even without the covering of the flesh, to bring about the salvation of men, and by His will alone to dissolve the tyranny of death, and to render its mother, sin, utterly vanished, and to drive away from the earth the all-wicked demon who travailed with it, and to send him into that darkness to which He threatened to deliver him a little later; but He did not wish to demonstrate His power, but rather the fairness of His providence. For just as He was able, from heaven, to converse with men and to terrify those who lived in ease, yet He did not do this, knowing that the nature of men could not contain it; but He appeared only rarely, measuring His appearances to the capacity of those who saw Him, and always, through men, He continued both to give laws and to offer exhortations to men, using the prophets as ministers of His words and as servants: C so, too, when He later wished to bring saving remedies to all humanity, He did not use angels or archangels as servants, nor did He from heaven pour forth a resonant voice, audible and easy for all men to hear, but He Himself made for Himself a tabernacle in the womb of a Virgin, and from thence came forth [Christ] as man seen, and God worshipped; begotten from the essence of the Father before the ages, but having taken his visible form from the Virgin, being the same both recent and eternal. For the D union did not confuse the natures, nor did it make the Maker of times subject to time, nor did it represent that which was born in time as being before the ages; but each nature remained pure; the one enduring the sufferings of nature—I mean hunger and thirst, sleep and weariness, and the cross and death; 100 the other working the divine things, and customarily performing miracles: preparing feet of flesh to walk upon the sea, and commanding five loaves to suffice for a weary multitude of many thousands, and bestowing at the wedding wine that was then made for the first time, and healing marred bodies; and eyes—which nature, in forming them in the womb, had left behind—fashioning with clay; and by His word binding up limbs that had failed, and opening tombs, and calling those who were lying within, and preparing them to run, and doing all the other things which the histories of the divine Gospels teach.
had failed, and opening tombs, and calling those who were lying within, and preparing them to run, and doing all the other things which the histories of the divine Gospels teach.
A But if you admire these things, and say that they are worthy of God, yet call the manner of the dispensation unbecoming, first, it is a sign of extreme audacity and madness to declare yourselves wiser than that Wisdom which fashioned all things, and not to be content with what is done by Her, but to suppose that you could find a better course of action. I, for my part, have no doubt that even if He had devised another way of salvation, you would have criticized that as well. For you are fastidious, and skilled only in caviling at and attacking the mysteries of the divine dispensation. Since, then, you boast that you can surpass the abyss of Wisdom with your own counsels, show us a better device for our salvation. But you will not be able to show it. For He exercised such an excess of benevolence that it seems incredible to you and those like you, namely, that the only-begotten Son of God, who is God the Word before the ages, the Creator of all things, took upon Himself human nature and became man, and wrought our salvation. B And yet you are accustomed to praise those physicians who do not commit the sick to be cared for by others, but themselves, having put aside their cloaks and girded up their tunics, take the iron in their hands and make incisions; they do not turn away from the stench of the ulcer, but catch the flowing pus, daub it with the sponge, apply the medicines, and perform all the other things which the law of the healing art prescribes. Furthermore, you also like to admire and praise those kings who are not those pampered in royal chambers, enjoying every kind of luxury, but those who do not find it burdensome to expose their heads to dangers for the sake of their subjects, and who, clad in armor, fight bravely against the enemy in the front line. C But if you perchance ask, why did the Creator of all things not do this earlier? Accuse also the physicians, because they reserve the stronger remedies for the final stage; for having first used milder ones, they apply the most potent last. The all-wise physician of our souls has done the same. For since He had first brought many and varied remedies—to all men indeed through the fabric of the world and the nature of things, but to the Hebrews through the law and the prophets—at length He brought this all-powerful and saving medicine, and drove away the disease. D And the facts themselves confirm our words: earth and sea have been delivered from their former ignorance; the deceit of idols has ceased, the darkness of impiety has been dispelled, and the rays of the light of (divine) knowledge are filling the world; Greeks, Romans, and barbarians proclaim the crucified God, and honorably cherish the sign of the cross.
A And instead of the many and false-named gods, they worship the Trinity. The shrines of the demons have become desolate, the altars of the idols have been torn up from their foundations, and illustrious churches have been built everywhere—in cities, in villages, in the fields, and in the furthest reaches of the provinces. Temples of the martyrs have been beautifully constructed, and the dwellings of the ascetics hallow the mountain peaks and inhabit the desolate wildernesses. B
These things, and things similar to these, demonstrate the divine character of the dispensation of our Savior; and the ancient prophecies also bear witness to the truth of the Gospels. For some contain the prediction of these things, while others demonstrate the end of the prediction. Some foretold the birth from the Virgin, while others teach the truth of that prophecy. Some prophesied the cross, while others show the cross; some foretold the sufferings, while others record the miracles. Some uttered oracles concerning the salvation of the world, while we behold the end of those oracles. They announced the unbelief and the total destruction of the Jews, while we see their unbelief, their dispersion, and their servitude. C But for my part, if I did not fear that the length of my discourse would weary both you and those who might happen upon these things in the future, I would have set before you the actual predictions of the divine prophets, so that you might have learned the truth of their words more accurately through the events themselves. But since the multitude of the things already mentioned does not allow me to do this, I ask you, sirs, to both believe the prophecies and to harken to the events that cry out, and to be persuaded by Euripides, the writer of tragedies, who says in his *Oenomaus*:
By things present we conjecture what is hidden.
And again in the *Phoenissae*:
What is hidden is caught by suitable conjectures.
D And if the tragic poet does not seem to you a sufficient witness, listen to the orator Hyperides, who says: "But it is necessary that those who teach things that are obscure should investigate them through conjectures and signs." And Isocrates (this orator, too, is among the illustrious) has written consistently on this subject: "For it is necessary," he says, "to conjecture future things from those that have already occurred." And moreover, Andocides (who is also one of the ten orators) says: "It is necessary to use precedents as proofs for future matters." For since you are dependent upon the elegance of language, I have brought you these demonstrations, so that, being guided by them toward the truth, and seeing manifest by the events of things
and, seeing the epiphany of our God and Savior proclaimed by his works, you may embrace the discourse concerning his dispensation, and not fail to attain that most desirable and thrice-longed-for salvation. A
SERMON VII. On sacrifices.
Most men are, for the most part, fond of play and laughter, and take no heart in a diligent and serious life, but rather in one that is fluid and relaxed. Hence it is that the most wicked demon has most easily brought them under his power. For he did not bid them walk solely by that straight, narrow, rough, difficult, and uphill path, but by that other one which is downhill, sloping, level, and easy. He did not command them to concern themselves with temperance and justice, but permitted them to abandon themselves with impunity to intemperance and lust, and to dare every sort of lawlessness. From this it is easy to see how he led most men into servitude. For, fleeing from the laborious life of virtue and avoiding the difficulty of the divine law, they have, of their own accord, defected to the one who commands what is easy and agreeable to do. In this way, having reduced them to servitude, he first of all took care to abolish the opinions which B nature had from the beginning inscribed in them concerning the God of the universe; next, he handed down perverse dogmas about false gods, and taught them to worship a vast throng of false gods instead of the one true God, establishing this as the foundation and base of a most depraved life. For since a secret concern gnaws at those who do wrong (for the conscience pricks them from within, and does not allow the pleasure of sin to be untainted, but mixes in a most bitter torment: as one may see in the case of a violator of tombs, or one who commits adultery, or in the housebreaker, the thief, the traitor, or whoever else attempts something that is forbidden), the cunning master of iniquity devised this remedy for their pain, namely, to insinuate into men the worst opinions concerning the gods, as they are called. For he showed them to be pleasure-loving and most lascivious, and boys-seducers, adulturers, C laying violent hands upon their parents, and most impudently polluted by the embraces of mothers, sisters, and daughters, laying traps for each other’s marriage beds, and when discovered in these acts, being bound by those whom they had injured and laughed at profusely by others. And they say that these things are practiced by the celestial beings, as they call them, in heaven and on earth; by those of the sea, in the sea and on land; and by those called nymphs, in the mountains and in the dales and D
A in the streams. But this most shameful and detestable myth-making was instilled not only by poets, but also by theologians and philosophers, who skillfully devised this deception and used many teachers of this imposture. And because not everyone is learned in letters, nor indeed capable of understanding poetic and philosophic discourses, he fashioned other snares for those unable to learn these things. For he taught painters, bronze-smiths, and the makers of stone and wooden statues to paint, carve, and mold images of those whom they call gods, such as the myth-tellers had described in their tales, so that those who could not grasp the doctrines through words might have before their eyes proposed models of licentiousness and not fall short of that accursed teaching. And with these idols he filled not only their temples, but also the marketplaces, the streets, B and even the houses of the wealthy. For everywhere it is possible to find the so-called gods loving, raging, and leaping; the father of the gods likened to an eagle, a bull, and a swan, and in this manner having intercourse with his mistresses; Mercury, the master of eloquence, turned into a goat; and Pan, with his goat-legs and goat-horns, begetting offspring. And what need is there to speak of the love of the Pythian god, and the chastity of the maiden, and the frenzied embrace of the tree, and the abduction of the daughter by Pluto, and the wandering of Ceres? For poets tell all these things in their myths, theologians confirm them, and philosophers try to bestow upon them a certain dignity, but they offer an allegory more ridiculous than the myths themselves. The enemy of mankind ordained that feast days, public assemblies, and public banquets be performed for these: the Pandia and Diasia for Jupiter; the Heræa for Juno; the Panathenæa for Minerva; the Dionysia for Bacchus; the Eleusinia and Thesmophoria for Ceres; the Delia and Pythia for Apollo. And for all the others—for the crowd of them is great—he drew lots for festivals for each of the demons, naming the feast after the title of the deity: Hermæa, Cronia, Posidonia, Heraclea, Asclepia, and Anacea. C For not only to those called gods, but also to men, they assigned this worship. In these assemblies, every kind of licentiousness was performed without fear. For the ceremonies and the orgies of these gods had their riddles: Eleusis had the comb, the Phallagogia had the phallus. But even apart from the riddles, the acts performed by those celebrating the orgies provoked the spectators to every kind of debauchery. For who, even among the most lecherous men, has ever dared to perpetrate within the privacy of his bedroom such things as the chorus of Satyrs performed publicly while parading, having D in their midst
A Silenus and Pan—the one raging with the Bacchae, the other undone by drunkenness, called the tutor of the effeminate boy. To these they sacrificed hecatombs and chiliombs, slaughtering flocks and herds, offering up frankincense, and pouring out wine—and that in the greatest possible abundance—along with other such things as the hierophants of these beings enjoined. For the poets say that they take great pleasure in the libations and the burnt-fat, and that they declare this to be their honor and reward; for this reason, they say, they travel even to the sacrifices of the Ethiopians, and honor Hector with every care, because he never left their altars destitute of sacrifice. And Chryses reminds Apollo not of justice and temperance, but of the fat thighs of goats and bulls, and of the garlands with which he adorned the temple. So delightful to them was the smoke and the foul odor of the burnt-fat, and they were, in truth, simple cooks. Yet I have not correctly compared them to cooks; for cooks test the delicacies they have skillfully prepared by smell and taste, whereas those gods received the stench exhaled from charred bones. And each of us, if even a tiny bit of such things should fall into the hearth, finds it unbearable and stops up his nose, turning away from the foul smell; yet those who are said to enjoy nectar and ambrosia are seen to depend on the stench of burnt bones.
These things, perhaps, they will dare to retort even upon the true and everlasting God; for although they hear the laws concerning sacrifices laid down in the divine Scripture, they are utterly ignorant C of the Lawgiver’s purpose. For Israel, having spent a very long time in Egypt and having become imbued with the depraved customs of the natives, having been taught by them to sacrifice to idols and demons, and to take pleasure in games, dances, and musical instruments—desiring to liberate them, now that they were accustomed to these things, He permitted them to sacrifice, yet not to sacrifice everything, nor to the pseudo-gods of the Egyptians, but to Himself alone to offer the gods of the Egyptians. For the Egyptians of old used to deify the ox, the sheep, the goat, the dove, the turtledove, and others among those that were not eaten, but called unclean. That they might not, therefore, be vexed as if entirely cut off from those customs, He forbade them to sacrifice to the gods who are not gods, but ordained that they sacrifice to Himself those things which had been worshipped by them formerly: from the land-dwelling animals, the goat, the ox, and the sheep; from the winged creatures, the turtledove and the dove. For both of these types of animals are gentle and fond of humans. Therefore, the all-wise Physician applied this kind of remedy to the Egyptian malady: he granted the Jews the right to sacrifice, on account of their weakness, but commanded them to sacrifice those things which they formerly worshipped, so that D by sacrificing they might learn that those which they slaughtered as victims were not gods. For this reason also he ordered them to abstain from swine's flesh.
A because the Egyptians fed on these alone, while abstaining from others as if they were gods. For by enacting that these things were to be held as unclean, he commanded them to eat those things which were being worshipped as gods, so that they might appear contemptible, since they were eaten by them, and might not usurp divine honor. For knowing them to be superstitious and gluttonous, he opposed one ailment with another, and set gluttony against superstition. For by ordering them to abstain from swine as unclean, and enacting that they should enjoy the others as clean, he constrained them B by the desire for eating meat to partake of the things that were thought to be gods. God, therefore, not needing animal victims, nor yearning for the odor of burnt offerings, commanded them to sacrifice, but was healing the ailments of those who were ill. Thus also he suffered the use of musical instruments, not because he was delighted by the harmony of these things, but because he was gradually putting an end to the deception of idols. For if, immediately upon their release from the power of the Egyptians, he had presented them with perfect laws, they would have revolted utterly, and throwing off the bridle, they would have returned to their former corruption. For if, while things were ordered in this way, they attempted to do this many times, what would they not have dared if God had mandated the evangelical philosophy to them from the very beginning? But that God is in need of neither sacrifices nor musical instruments, hear him saying through the prophets: C « I will not accept from your house calves, nor from your flocks he-goats. For mine are all the wild beasts of the field, the cattle on the mountains, and the oxen. I know all the birds of the air, and the beauty of the field is with me. » For in these words he cast aside everything that was ordered by the law to be offered, not only terrestrial animals and winged ones, but also the libations of wine, and the oil which it was the custom to offer with fine flour and cakes. For he called these things the beauty of the field, and testified that both these and those things were his own handiwork, teaching thereby that the divine nature lacks nothing. Then, with a certain elegant irony, full of every benefit, he refutes their ignorance and displays his own power. He said: « If I hunger, I will not tell you; for mine is the world and its fullness. » D Having thus clearly shown through these things both the creation and his own lordship over it, he tempered what he had ironically said, by saying: « Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? » And having shown that sacrifices were utterly superfluous and unworthy of the divine nature, he proposes a certain new manner of sacrifice, one that does not stain an altar with blood, but is performed by the tongue and lips. « Sacrifice to God, » he says, « a sacrifice of praise, and render your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the day of your tribulation, and I will deliver you, and you will glorify me. » For a rational and congruous prayer is sufficient for him, above all the flocks of sheep and goats, and above all the herds of oxen: and this
A he receives and recompenses those who offer it, extending aid, and helping in time of need; and delivering them from those who attempt to harm them. He added the very same thing at the end of the melody: « A sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; and there is the way wherein I will show them the salvation of God. » For it is not sufficient only to sing hymns to the Benefactor; it is necessary also to walk the path whose end is true salvation. The prophet says this also in another psalm, addressing God: « Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you did not seek. » Again elsewhere: « I will praise, he says, the name of my God with a song: I will magnify him in praise: and it shall please God more than a young bull that brings forth horns and hoofs. »
But lest anyone think that David alone wrote these things, hear, O men, what God himself said again through the voice of Isaiah. For these are his very words: « To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of lambs, and I do not desire the blood of bulls or goats. B Nor if you come to appear before me. For who has required these from your hands? » By these words he openly shows that he did not ordain these things as necessary, but accommodated himself to their weakness. For that is what the words: « Who has required these from your hands? » signify. Then he added: 891. « You shall no longer walk in my courtyard. For if you offer me fine flour, it is in vain: incense is an abomination to me. Your new moons, and sabbaths, and the great day I do not tolerate. Your fasts, and leisure, and your festivals my soul hates. You have become a burden to me. » These things are very similar to the Davidic melody. For here too, in like manner, he not only rejected bulls, and goats, and lambs, but also the fine flour, and the sweet fragrance of aromatics, and the catalogue of great solemnities.
But as, through the mouth of David, having removed sacrifices of this kind, he ordered the sacrifice of praise to be offered: so also here, by eliminating all these, he proposes the baptism of incorruption and regeneration, saying: « Wash yourselves, be clean. » And lest anyone think he commanded him in the matter of customary washings, he necessarily added: C « Take away the evils from your souls, from before my eyes »; which words manifestly signify the gift of holy baptism. And in the middle, again, of the prophecy, God says to the prophet through the prophet: « I have not called you now, Jacob, nor have I made you labor, Israel. You have not brought me the cattle of your oblation, nor have you glorified me in your sacrifices. You have not served me. »
in offerings, nor have I made you weary with frankincense; neither have you bought me silver incense, nor have I desired the fat of your sacrifices; but you have stood before me in your sins and your iniquities A.» Having thus once again shown the futility of the legal ritual, he promises the forgiveness of sins, which he has granted through the all-holy baptism: «I am he that blots out your iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.» For it is not by praiseworthy works, but by faith alone, that we have attained these mystical blessings. Therefore, the divine Apostle also cries out: «By grace you have been saved, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, so that no one may boast.» Indicating this here as well, he has added «for my own sake.» He also gives witness to these things through Jeremiah, saying: «Gather your burnt offerings together with your sacrifices, and eat flesh; for I did not speak to your fathers, nor did I command them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice.» For what he had commanded concerning these things in the Law was for the sake of their dullness, not for his own need or desire. He says these same things elsewhere too: «Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices have not pleased me.» And again he cries out: «Remove from me the sound of your songs, and I will not listen to the voice of your instruments.» And it is possible to find many other such things, which clearly declare that God did not need sacrifices, nor did he command them to be performed because he was delighted by smoke, the smell of burnt flesh, or musical instruments, but rather out of concern for the healing of those people.
C Do not, therefore, think that this counter-accusation regarding the charges against your sacrifices is a defense. For the Lawgiver has made clear what the intent of the Law was through the prophets. Having read these precisely—for Porphyry spent a great deal of time on them, while he was contriving his volumes against us—he also declares that sacrificing is alien to true piety, both doing and suffering something like the apes. For just as they imitate the practices of men, yet do not change into the nature of men, but remain apes; so too, having stolen these divine oracles and inserted the meaning of some of them into his own writings, he did not desire to learn the truth, but remained an ape, or rather a jackdaw, decking himself out in borrowed D feathers.
A This man, having written many arguments on the necessity of abstaining from living things, introduced Theophrastus [V. Euseb. P. E. p. 28] B saying that "the men of old offered neither incense nor any other victim, but taking a small amount of the down of productive nature in their hands, they burned it, C thereby honoring with sacrifice the visible celestial gods." Then, after having set forth many such things at length, he added: "But far from those first fruits of sacrifice provided for men, the transgression D of taking the most terrible victims was introduced, full of cruelty; so that the curses uttered against us long ago seem now to have reached their fulfillment, when men slaughtered their fellow-men and besmeared the altars with blood." Then, having gone through many arguments, he said: "One ought not to suppose that the gods are those who delight in the sacrifices of animals; for it is most unjust, impious, and abominable [and harmful] to sacrifice animals, and therefore not pleasing to the gods." He added further: "Rightly does Theophrastus forbid those who truly wish to be pious from sacrificing living things, using also other such reasons." Then he shows what is appropriate to sacrifice, and says: "Moreover, one must sacrifice those things which, when sacrificed, will harm no one. For nothing ought to be so innocent to everyone as sacrifice." And again: "One must therefore abstain from living things in sacrifices." He also calls back to memory the ancient murders committed by men: "For it is said, in Rhodes, on the sixth of the month Metageitnion, a man was sacrificed to Cronus. This, having prevailed for a long time, passed into a custom. For they would keep one of those condemned to death until the Cronia." Then he says that in Salamis of Cyprus, too, a human being was sacrificed to Agraulus, daughter of Cecrops, and in Heliopolis of Egypt, three men were slaughtered every day. And they say that the Lacedaemonians also sacrifice a man to Ares, and that in Laodicea of Syria and in Carthage of Libya, such sacrifices were offered in olden times, and that the Greeks, when going out to war, were accustomed to sacrifice a human being; and he recounts many other such things. The historian Philo also says that Aristomenes the Messenian slaughtered three hundred men to Zeus Ithometas. Plutarch also bears witness to things consonant with these; and many other historians have committed many such things to memory; and the tragic poets have dramatized such calamities—that of Menoeceus in Thebes, of Codrus in Athens, and of the daughters of Leos. It is easy for anyone who wishes to turn the pages of ancient histories to know that these things were sacrificed at the command of those whom they called gods. But the Creator and Master of the world condemns this transgression everywhere; and through David He cries aloud: "[And] they sacrificed their sons"
and their daughters to demons; and they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the carved images of Chanaan." A And again, blaming them through the prophet Ezekiel, He says: "And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you begot for me, and brought them to your lovers. This is beyond all your fornication." B Accordingly, these things were practiced of old by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hebrews, and other barbarians; but after the manifestation of our God and Savior, all those things have been extinguished, and the divine laws of the Gospels prevail. Sophocles the Athenian, describing those bloody slaughters in a tragic manner, spoke excellently of God and very wisely mocked the statues of the demons and the unlawful slaying of victims. He says as follows:
"There is in truth one God, Who fashioned the heaven and the vast earth, The swell of the sea, and the violence of the winds. Yet we mortals, with hearts wandering in sleep, Have set up as a light solace for our minds Statues of gods from stone, or bronze, Or wrought of gold, or patterns of ivory; And by offering sacrifices and fair festivals to these, We think we are being pious."
C Therefore, not only we, but also your own poets, historians, and philosophers mock these things which you deem divine. I think, too, that Socrates son of Sophroniscus ordered the cock to be sacrificed so that he might refute the indictment laid against him; for Anytus and Melitus had brought charges against him as one who did not deem [them] gods. For that he knew the Divine to be in need of nothing, he clearly declared in other places. For these things are indeed also his, if indeed Plato wrote down his doctrines: "God did not make the world for the sake of any necessity of His own, so that He might receive honors from men and from other gods and demons, D as if harvesting some income from the generation of things—from us, indeed, smokes, and from gods and demons, the services proper to each." By these words he has clearly shown that the Divine is in need of nothing, and that such sacrifices possess nothing more than smoke, and smoke full of foul odor.
Having learned these things from your own teachers and from the divine oracles, from which they have plundered these things, and having confirmed [our] teaching—abhor the sacrifices that are suited to victuallers and butchers, and offer to the Creator the sacrifice of praise. And let it not be the laws of the ruling powers that persuade you to do this, nor the fear of punishment, but the power of the truth, which has by now become known to all the inhabitants of the sea and the land.
SERMO VIII.
On the Veneration of the Martyrs.
A They say that Pythagoras, whose praise is celebrated among you, was said by those who wrote his life to have preferred the Muses to the Sirens. As for me, if it had been his habit to use clear speech, as is the case with some other philosophers, I would have said that he deemed the voice of the Muses sweeter. But because his sayings were enigmatic and hidden (for he offered his exhortations symbolically; such, for instance, are: "Do not stir fire with a sword," and "Do not sit upon a bushel," and "Do not eat the *melanurus*," and "Do not overstep the balance," B and other things of this sort), I think he compared those speeches that are elegant and polished to the Sirens, but to the Muses those which, displaying no artificial embellishment, show the naked form of truth. For by as much as natural beauty is superior to that which is patched up by the art of cosmetics, by that much is the simple decor of truth better than a sharp and artfully composed speech. Therefore, one must have faith, O men, if not in others, then at least in the most celebrated philosopher who decreed these things. And the sacred Scriptures are not to be despised by you because they do not use a superfluous apparatus of speech, but rather set before us the naked and radiant beauty of truth. C For it was inclined and very easy for the source of wisdom—which gave eloquence even to impious men, and could have rendered the heralds of truth more eloquent than Plato, sharper than Demosthenes, weightier than Thucydides, and more acute at hammering out insoluble syllogisms than Aristotle or Chrysippus—to have done so. But He did not wish that only five, or ten, or fifteen, or a hundred, or twice that many men should be refreshed by the saving waters, but all men, both Greeks and barbarians, those nurtured in the study of letters, and the unlearned, and cobblers, and weavers, and blacksmiths, and the rest of the manual laborers, D and with these also slaves, and beggars, and farmers, and woodcutters, and women likewise—both those flowing with riches and those bound to labor and those forced to live by the work of their hands. For this reason, using fishermen, publicans, and Paul as his ministers, He brought saving and divine doctrine to men, not at all changing the tongues they had received from the beginning, but pouring through them the clear streams of wisdom: in no other way than if someone, providing wine of the sweetest scent and taste for his guests, were to pour it into phials and cups that were less elegantly carved. For those who are thirsty drink more freely, not considering the cups, but admiring the wine. All men always do the very same thing. For when they drink the streams of sacred doctrine, not only do they not mock the tongues of the apostles, but they much rather admire them, because elo-
eloquent speech they have not been instructed in, yet some having learned fishing from childhood, others having served in tax-collecting bureaus, and others having practiced the trade of leather-working, they were suddenly revealed as ministers of holy oracles, dispensers of heavenly gifts, and saviors who keep away evil, and most brilliant luminaries, A enlightening not one nation, but as many as the sun which we see sheds its rays upon. And all admire and wonder excessively that even when dead they perform those things which they were accustomed to do while alive, or rather, the events accomplished by them after their departure from here are far greater and more brilliant. For when they were living with their bodies, now they used to travel to these people, and now to those, and at one time they would converse with Romans, at another time with Spaniards or Celts; but since they have traveled to Him by whom they were sent, all enjoy them continually, not only the Romans and those who love their yoke and are steered by them, but also Persians, Scythians, Massagetae, Sarmatians, Indians, and Ethiopians, and to speak succinctly, all the ends of the inhabited world. For their writings, being simple and stripped of Greek brilliance, and indeed small and few, are B greatly beloved by all men, except you and if there is anyone else who, having the cloud of unbelief poured over him as you have, does not wish to see the radiance of the truth. And not only are these stripped of Greek elegance, but the very nature of the things they teach has nothing magnificent or illustrious about it. For they do not propose to their followers some visible kingdom, adorned with purple and shining with a crown, and surrounded by the number and magnitude of shield-bearers and guards, and possessing a numerous army, and generals taught to excel in wars, and all the other things that make their possessors famous; but a cave, and a manger, and a working maiden, and an infant wrapped in humble swaddling clothes C and cast into an empty manger, and an obscure and small village in which these things happened, and again the poverty of the growing infant, and hunger, and thirst, and the fatigue from traveling, and after these the passion sung by all, slaps on the cheek, backs torn by scourges, the cross, nails, gall, vinegar, death. And yet, when the writings of the apostles relate these things and things like these, they have produced faith in all men that He is the Son of God, and God begotten before the ages, and the creator and maker of all things, who assumed human nature and through it worked the salvation of the human race. Nor did they merely produce faith, but they implanted such faith in very many, that they most willingly met death for these dogmas, and to those commanding them to deny these, they would by no means surrender their D tongues, but to those wishing to scourge their shoulders and—
A their sides with torches and claws, and to have their necks offered to the swords, and to be eagerly crushed and impaled, and indeed even to be burned and to see wild beasts devouring their bodies. Therefore, the Arbiter of the contest granted them an inextinguishable glory, and a memory which overcomes the very nature of time. For while time is naturally accustomed to wither everything, it has preserved their glory unfading. And the noble souls of the conquerors now circulate through heaven, dancing together with the incorporeal choirs; but their bodies are not hidden in the individual tomb of each, but cities and villages have divided these among themselves, calling them the preservers of souls and physicians of bodies, and revering them as guardians and protectors of the cities; and by using them as intercessors with the Lord of all, they receive through them divine gifts; and though the body is divided, the grace has remained undivided. And that small and most slight relic possesses the same power B as the martyr who has not been divided at all in any way. For the grace which blossoms upon them distributes the gifts, measuring its own liberality by the faith of those who approach. Yet not even these things move you to praise the God of these men, but you laugh and scoff at the honor offered to them by all, and you consider it an abominable crime to approach their tombs. But even if all mortals were offended by these things, the Greeks certainly ought not to have been angry at them: for they have their libations, and expiatory offerings, and heroes, and demigods, and men promoted to the rank of gods. For they declared Hercules, who was born a man, the son of Alcmene and Amphitryon, to be a god, as it seemed good to them, and they numbered him among the other gods. But that Plato also knew him to have been the son of Amphitryon, and not of Zeus, hear him speaking C thus in the *Theaetetus* (p. 175 A): "Moreover, when someone counts a lineage of twenty-five ancestors, and traces the origin of Hercules, the son of Amphitryon, he seems to him to be a person of ridiculously small mind; for he thinks that he is the twenty-fifth from Hercules." The rhetor Isocrates also says thus (p. 13 A): "For Jupiter, when he had begotten Hercules and Tantalus, as it is in the myths and is believed by all everywhere." In this way they mocked, those who were able to discern what kind of things those were which others commended in myths. And yet, although he was a man, and was compelled to serve Eurystheus, they erected temples and altars to him, and offered sacrifices, and D dedicated feast days—and not only the Spartans and Athenians, but all of Greece, and a part of Europe.
B Indeed, this disease of delusion crossed over into Asia as well. For in Tyre and other cities, they built him many very great shrines. And they did not merely assign annual festivals to him, but honored him also with quadrennial contests; and this, too, while knowing the man, and knowing that he was neither temperate nor a lover of wisdom, but that he lived in incontinence and debauchery. To pass over the rest of his utter lack of self-control, they say that in a single night he defiled fifty virgins, having perhaps engaged in this thirteen-fold struggle. This is sufficient to reveal the whole bent of his life. Indeed, he also met the end of his life before his time because of such incontinence. For, having Deianeira as his wedded wife, he became enamored of another, and suffered, despite the earlier one's intentions, at her hands. C For she, having prepared a love potion and having anointed her husband’s tunic, sent it to him when he requested it, and in this way she hoped to entice him to herself, but she was deceived in her hopes. For the poison, heating Hercules' body, wrapped him in a most grievous malady. He, pained and unable to bear the suffering, heaped up a pyre and cast himself into it, and so received the end of his life. Worthy indeed—is it not?—are the pursuits for which it was thought he deserved to be made a god by you! Nevertheless, though you know these things (for ancient writings teach them), you none the less continued to call him "Savior" and "Averter of Evil," and you appended "Lord Hercules" to your speeches. And you, in the same way, pride yourselves on such phrases, thinking it sufficient for a display of learning to frequently use such little expressions. D Now Apollodorus says that Asclepius, according to some, was the son of Arsinoe, but according to others, of Coronis, who, having become pregnant by a secret and violent congress with Apollo, is said to have exposed the child she had borne. But then hunters, having found him by chance—snatched from the teats of a bitch—are said to have brought him to Chiron the centaur, and having been nourished there and instructed in the medical art, he first displayed an example of his art at Tricca and Epidaurus. And it is said that he was instructed with such diligence and such zeal that he attempted to raise not only the sick, but even some from the dead; and for this reason, Jupiter, indignant, struck him with a thunderbolt and removed him from the midst. He was, therefore, also a mortal man, though not raised after the manner of other men, but first fed by a dog and saved by the pity of hunters, not by divine wisdom teaching the skill of healing...
but by having learned this art from Chiron. And this Chiron was also the tutor of Achilles. A Whence it is evident that he lived at the same time, or was even a little older than Achilles, since he also sailed with the Argonauts, and his son, Machaon, fought alongside Achilles.
Furthermore, that lightning bolt and the subsequent incineration demonstrate a nature liable to death. And yet, although he was a man thus born, and saved, and nurtured, and incinerated, they joined him to the other gods, dedicating shrines to him and consecrating altars; and with libations and the burnt-offering of victims—in times past openly and publicly, and now perhaps in secret—you worship him, and deem his images worthy of divine honor. You marvel at the serpent entwined about him and assert that it is a symbol of the medical art, because just as that creature casts off old age, so does medicine set one free from diseases.
That he had not yet attained to the status of a god in the time of Homer, the poet himself is witness, for he introduces Paeon, not Asclepius, as the healer of the wounds of Ares; for it is fitting that such gods should have both wounds and physicians. And he calls Machaon not the son of a god, nor of a demi-god, but of a physician. B For he said:
*To this man, Asclepius is father, famous in the healing art.*
Moreover, both Homer and Euripides and very many others affirm that Dionysus was born of Semele; and Semele was the daughter of Cadmus. And yet, this one, too, was deemed worthy of divine honor, even though he was effeminate and womanish, and a half-man. C For he promised to give to those who brought him aid a reward, not of gold or silver, but the ignominy of his own body; and he was such a faithful performer of that execrable promise that, for those who had assisted him and died before receiving that infamous reward, he devised another way of fulfilling his pledge. I pass over the fig-wood phallus and the things done in relation to it, for I am ashamed to mention those things on account of which the Greeks held their solemn festivals.
Nay, the Greeks D even called the Tyndaridae gods, and named them Dioscuri, and Ephestii, and Anaces; and not only the Spartans, but the Athenians also deemed them worthy of sacred shrines. And the rhetorician mentions these...
things A in these words: "In the public hostelry that is near the temple of the Dioscuri." The Leocorion is actually a temple dedicated to the daughters of Leos. They also deified many other miserable and thrice-wretched little men, and honored them with public banquets. For indeed the Pythian prophet ordered that divine honors be granted to Cleomedes the Astypalaean, the boxer, and the Pythia issued this oracle concerning him:
"Last of the heroes, Cleomedes the Astypalaean, Whom ye honor with sacrifices, as one no longer a mortal."
But that you yourselves may know for what cause he was numbered with Zeus and the other gods, I myself shall tell you the stories that have been handed down about him. This man, while being a boxer, struck his antagonist one blow and opened his side, and putting his hand inside, he gripped his entrails. The presiding officials of the games, being greatly moved on account of the excess of his cruelty and imposing a fine upon him, he departed in resentment; and as he was passing through the marketplace, he pulled down one of the columns that supported the roof of the portico, and by this collapse crushed the entire assembly of boys who happened to be gathered there with their teacher. On account of these B achievements, the Pythian god assigned him a place among the gods. And they say that Hadrian, the Roman emperor, pronounced Antinous, who had been his favorite, to be a god, and built a temple to him, and commanded that he be worshiped by his subjects with divine honor. Furthermore, the Spartans considered the Hyacinthia an extremely great festival and a public banquet.
Why then do you, who have named so many dead men as gods, begrudge us, who do not make gods, but honor the martyrs as witnesses of God and extremely beloved servants? Why do you think that he who approaches the tombs of the dead is defiled and polluted? For these are things of madness and of the utmost ignorance. For C indeed at Athens, as Antiochus testifies in the ninth book of his history, there is the tomb of Cecrops up in the acropolis itself, near the City-Protectress Minerva; and in Larissa in Thessaly, they say again that Acrisius is buried in the temple of Athena; and Leander states that Cleomachus lies inside the Didymeum at Miletus; and Zeno of Myndus reports that Lycophron was buried in the sanctuary of Artemis in Magnesia. They state that the altar of Apollo which is at Telmessus is the monument of Telmessus the seer. But nevertheless, neither did those who buried them at that time think they were polluting the altars, nor did those who sacrificed D later think that they incurred any guilt therefrom. You alone entertain this notion, whereas the ancients
A suspected nothing of the kind. For Homer, in the *Iliad*, describes Achilles, son of Peleus, the Aeacid, born of Thetis, and—as you claim—of Jove himself, embracing the dead body of Patroclus, and when the Myrmidons would carry it to the lit pyre, he would support its head; he would then extinguish the pyre, collect the bones, and place them into a golden urn, carrying them inside to his tent. Thucydides, too, commemorates the rewards of those who had fallen in the Peloponnesian War, and how each man buried the bodies of his kinsfolk that were found, and what honors they devised for those that were not found, manufacturing cypress caskets; and they would all carry these together—some leading, others following and accompanying—and build a huge tomb for those who had been consumed by birds, dogs, or wild beasts. In this same manner they honored those who had fallen in battle on the plains of Marathon. That they also offered libations to the dead, you yourselves know, who do not hesitate to do this by night against the laws. Homer also bears witness to this (*Odyssey* 10.517), showing the son of Laertes, in accordance with the instructions of Circe, digging the earth, pouring out libations, and recounting these things to Alcinous:
"I drew my sharp sword from beside my thigh, And dug a pit, a cubit’s length and breadth; About it I poured drink-offerings to all the dead, First with honey-mixture, then with sweet wine, And the third time with water, and sprinkled white barley over it. I made many vows to the strengthless heads of the dead, That when I came to Ithaca, I would slaughter a barren heifer in my halls, The best I had, and fill the pyre with choice gifts, And to Tiresias alone I would sacrifice a black ram apart, The one that excels among my flocks. But when I had besought the tribes of the dead with vows and prayers, I took the sheep and cut their throats over the pit; And the dark blood flowed, and the spirits gathered up B From out of Erebos of those who had died."
He then narrates how the throng of spirits gathered and hastened to partake of the libations. But why do I cite the poet? For Aristocles the Peripatetic cites Lycon the Pythagorean as a witness, saying that Aristotle, son of Nicomachus, was accustomed to perform rites for his deceased wife in the same manner that the Athenians performed them for the goddess Demeter. But we, O men, offer neither sacrifices nor libations to the martyrs, but honor them as holy and God-loving men. For they followed the Creator and Savior with such love that they considered death, endured for His sake, to be desirable. But if you chance to think that they lack consciousness of what is occurring, nor
enjoy a truly divine and thrice-blessed lot A in truth, let Pindar the lyric poet cast out this opinion of yours, saying thus:
The souls of the pious, dwelling in the heavens, Sing of the great blessed one in hymns.
But if heaven is the dwelling-place of those who have lived piously, the martyrs possess this lot; for among them there is nothing more pious. And Empedocles of Agrigentum also speaks thus:
Hymn-singing seers, and those skilled in medicine, Are the first among mortal men, From whom arise gods, greatest in honors.
If that man said that seers and physicians are worthy of such honor, what might someone say regarding those who have displayed such courage for the sake of piety, to whom he bears witness not only of courage, but also of justice, temperance, wisdom, and prudence? B For what is more temperate than those who did not allow themselves to be led away from those things which they judged from the beginning to be right? Or what is more just than those who repaid divine benefits with slaughter, and delivered their own bodies for the sake of Him who delivered His own body to the cross for us? Or what is more prudent or wiser than those who took this counsel for themselves, and held these lower things in contempt, as having nothing firm or stable, but fell in love with those things which speech cannot interpret? Or what is more courageous than those who competed C against many and various sufferings, and conquered their tormentors by the constancy of their mind? These are truly the leaders and champions of men, and helpers, and averters of evils, wards who keep far away the harms brought on by demons. Heraclitus indeed considers even those who have been slain in wars to be worthy of all honor: “For those slain by Ares,” he says, “the gods and men honor.” And again: “For only the greater ones obtain a greater lot.” But I, for my part, do not accept this statement; for very many who have embraced a most wicked life have endured a violent death. If, therefore, it is fitting that all who are slain in war be honored, it is time for you to bestow this tribute also on the sons of Oedipus, who left their father neglected, and for the sake of tyranny, D raging against one another, stained their own right hands with the blood of their brother. The Pisistratidae, too, who were justly slain by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, would have to be honored. But the Athenians did the opposite; for they honored the slayers with bronze statues, and granted to their descendants immunity from taxes. Therefore, it is not all those who have been slain by the sword who are to be honored, as Heraclitus maintains, but those who gladly embraced death for the sake of piety; for they alone, he says, and truly are the greater ones, and therefore greater
A portions they enjoy, and now receive the reward from all men, and await the eternal crowns. But that saying of Heraclitus I greatly admire: "Men who die await what they neither hope for nor expect." That the souls of the holy also enjoy a divine lot, Plato has also shown in the *Phaedo*, speaking as follows: "Those who are judged to have lived with preeminent piety, these are they who are released from these places in the earth as from a prison, and arrive above at a pure dwelling." And after a few words he adds: "And they reach dwellings even more beautiful than these, which it is neither easy to describe, nor is there sufficient time at present." But lest anyone hearing these things, and becoming inflamed with the desire for that divine life, might deem it just and holy to lay violent hands upon himself and drive himself from this life, he appropriately added: "It is unlawful, however, for anyone to release himself from this dwelling, and to take flight from here, and, to speak concisely, to consider matter to be evil." He says also that the soul, when it has withdrawn into itself, can attain true wisdom and a power and capacity greater than human, when love from here makes it fly upward to heaven, through the philosophical life having reached the end of its hope, and taking hold of the beginning of another eternal life. And again in the same dialogue he says: "They depart from here with a good hope; but the wicked, he says, live with an evil hope." He also called philosophy a meditation on death. "For those," he says, "who happen to engage in B philosophy correctly, are in danger of escaping the notice of others that they practice nothing else but to die and to be dead." These things, therefore, he wrote in the *Phaedo*; but in the tenth book of the *Republic* he speaks thus: "And of those who have died on campaign, whoever dies having won glory, shall we not say that he is first of the golden race? Most certainly." And after a little: "And what then? shall we not for the rest of time, as if they had become daemons, thus honor and worship their tombs, and shall we not deem the same must be done when one dies from old age or in any other way, of those who are judged to have been preeminently good in life?" And in the *Cratylus* he expanded on this sentiment: for he praises Hesiod and C the other poets who have said that when a good man dies, he receives a great lot and honor there, and becomes a daemon according to the name of wisdom. Therefore, in this I [agree]. D
A And Hesiod said these things concerning the golden race:
But after this race was covered by earth by fate, They were called holy earthly daemons, Good ones, averters of evil, guardians of mortal men.
If, therefore, the poet has called those who have lived best and then departed, “good” and “averters of evil” and “guardians of mortal men,” and the best of the philosophers confirmed the poet’s B statement, and affirmed that one ought to honor and revere their tombs, why then do you blame what is done by us, O best of men? For we call those who have shone in piety, and who have accepted slaughter for its sake, averters of evil and physicians—not calling them daemons (may such madness be far from us!), but friends of God and kind servants, who possess boldness of speech and announce to us the flow of good things. For the chief of the philosophers himself has declared this C to us in his *Epinomis*. For he says:
I do not say that it is possible for men to become blessed and happy, except for a few; as long as we live, I define this, but the departed has a good hope of obtaining all things.
This is precisely similar to the things spoken by divine Scripture:Do not call any man blessed before his death h;
and,The light of the just shines always i;
and,The souls of the just are in the hand of God j;
and the things similar to these.That the Ruler of all has apportioned to the just in this present life reproaches, and insults, and outrages, D and scourges, Plato also has written in his *Republic*.
For in this way,
he says,the just man being disposed, will be insulted, tortured, bound, have his eyes put out, and at the end, having suffered all evils, will be impaled. Are not, therefore, those who do these things most miserable, but those who suffer them most blessed?
That the souls of the holy can even care for human affairs after they have become outside of the body, Plato also taught this in the eleventh book of the *Laws*; and he speaks as follows: For we seem to have reached a time when we have gone through the previous arguments, that the souls of the departed have some power even after they have finished, and they care for matters concerning men. These, however, are true but long arguments; it is necessary to believe also in the other accounts which tell us these things, since they are so many and very old.A Yet the philosopher bids us believe rumor; but you not only disbelieve us and refuse to listen to the voice of events crying aloud the truth, but you are not even willing to believe your own philosopher when he says outright that the souls of the holy, once released from their bodies, occupy themselves with human affairs. To such men it is fitting that this prize should be attained, as to those who have loved the divine things with all their heart and have persisted until the end in what they from the beginning chose, and who have not endured to abandon the station in which they set themselves. Plato confirms this argument in the *Apology*, saying as follows: B "For it is truly so, O men of Athens, in truth: wherever a man has posted himself, deeming it to be best, or has been posted by a commander, there, as I think, he must remain and face danger, taking no account of death or any other thing compared to what is shameful." And a little later: "For to fear death, O men, is nothing other than to seem wise when one is not." And again after a little: "For at least regarding the evils which I know to be evils, I shall not fear or flee those which I do not know if they happen to be good." And again: "For as for other things, those who are there are happier than those who are here; and already they are immortal for the remainder of time." Of the same man, O friendly men, are these words also: C "For neither Melitus nor Anytus will harm me at all; for they will not be able. For I do not think it is divinely permitted for a better man to be harmed by a worse one. He will perhaps kill me, or exile me, or dishonor me; but while he perhaps, and some other man somewhere, thinks these are great evils, I do not think so, but rather much more [to be an evil] to do what he is doing now, attempting to kill a man unjustly."
Such, then, is the philosophy that Socrates practiced even in the very crisis of his life, as Plato has testified; yet he did not obtain the honor equal to the martyrs. For those who shared in his discourses neither built a temple for him, nor consecrated any place, nor appointed a solemn festival, but allowed even a man who had become wise and brave to remain without honor, although he had endured an unjust slaughter; but he did not possess the best and purest piety, D for it was mixed with the error that was then received and common. Whence I think it came about that, once his life was finished, he was deemed worthy of no honor. Nor did that Anaxarchus, who, when he was being pounded with iron pestles, said, as they report: "Pound, pound, the pouch of Anaxarchus; for you are not pounding Anaxarchus," obtain that prize.
A Nor did Zeno the Eleate, who, when he was being forced to betray some secrets, withstood the tortures without confessing anything. As Eratosthenes says in his *On Good and Evil*, he, fearing that he might be overcome by the extremity of his sufferings and blurt out some of the things they had agreed upon, and thus denounce his fellow conspirators, bit off his tongue and spat it in the tyrant’s face. They say that the Pythagorean Theodotus did the same, as did Paul, a close associate of Lacydes, as Timotheus of Pergamum writes in his *On the Courage of Philosophers*; Achaicus also confirms this in his *Ethics*. B Yet none of them was deemed worthy of the honor of the martyrs. Nor, indeed, were those who erected brilliant and world-renowned trophies: not Miltiades, not Cimon, not Pericles, not Themistocles, not Aristides the son of Lysimachus; although he was considered not only valiant, but also just. Yet neither he, nor Brasidas the Spartan, nor Agesilaus, nor Lysander (who destroyed the Athenian hegemony), nor Pelopidas the Boeotarch, nor Epaminondas (who ravaged Laconia and dared to bring his army to Sparta), nor the most illustrious generals of the Romans—not Scipio the elder, nor the man who bore his name, nor Cato, nor Sulla, nor Marius, nor Pompey, nor Caesar himself. For each of these was outstanding in generalship and in brave deeds in war, but they did not share in the reward of the martyrs. And why do I speak of generals? For not even those who held the kingship of the world enjoyed this honor: not Cyrus, not Darius, not Xerxes, C not Alexander the son of Philip—for I am naming only the famous ones; not Augustus, not Vespasian, not Trajan, not Hadrian, not Antoninus. All of these were indeed remarkable while they lived, and they conquered the barbarians, and after their victories they celebrated processions and festivals; but once they have died, they differ in no way from the masses. For they have neither notable tombs, nor are they honored with annual public feasts. For who knows the tomb of Xerxes, or of Darius? Or who knows that of Alexander, who conquered so many nations in so short a time? And why do I speak of the ancients? For not even the monument of Augustus is known, nor of the others who, after him, guided the Roman Empire D and ignored the giver and provider of this power. Only the tombs of the pious emperors are known and famous; and if any among them reigned impiously, their monuments indeed remain, but they are in no honor whatever. For not only are they deprived of imperial honor, but also of that...
A which falls to the lot of private individuals. And yet there have been certain foolish people who have proclaimed themselves gods and built temples to themselves. For Antiochus was called a god, and Gaius, the successor of Tiberius, and Vespasian and Hadrian built most magnificent temples to themselves, but together with their lives they were stripped of that impious honor.
But the shrines of the victorious martyrs appear luminous and conspicuous, distinguished by their size, adorned in every way, and diffusing the splendor of their beauty to a distance. And we do not approach them once or twice B in the year, or even five times, but we keep feasts frequently, and often on every single day we offer hymns to the Lord of them. Those who are in sound health ask for the preservation of their health; those who are struggling with some disease ask for the removal of their ailments; those who are childless ask for children, and the barren supplicate to become mothers; and those who have enjoyed this gift ask for the gifts to be kept whole for them. Those who are setting out on a journey implore them to be their companions and guides on the way; and those who have returned in safety offer a confession of gratitude, not approaching them as gods, but beseeching them as divine men and asking them to be intercessors on their behalf.
That those who ask in faith do indeed obtain what they seek, their votive offerings, which demonstrate the healing they have received, C plainly testify. For some hang up images of eyes, others of feet, others of hands, fashioned of silver or gold. For the Lord of these accepts even small and inexpensive things, measuring the gift according to the means of the one offering it. These things indicate the removal of diseases, to verify which they were placed by those who received health. These same things also proclaim there the virtue of those buried there; and their virtue further declares that their God is the true God.
Let us examine who they were and whence they came, these who were found worthy of this grace. Were they perhaps some famous and illustrious people who prided themselves on the nobility of their birth, or who were flowing with the streams of wealth, or who had become D known through some power? By no means, O men. For they possessed none of these things, but they were private, common people. Some of them were even menservants and maidservants, who in weak bodies strove courageously; some of them bearing the yoke of marriage chastely, others not yet having known marriage. I myself hear that some were even raised on the stage, and suddenly joined the ranks of the athletes, and became victors and obtained the crowns; and after they were proclaimed, they struck the demons, to whom they had once been subject, with great terror. Moreover, many priests and temple attendants raised trophies against impiety. From such men and women, therefore, the choirs of martyrs were constituted.
the demons to whom they were subject in the past. B And many of the priests and temple wardens have raised up trophies against [pagan] impiety. From such men and women the choirs of the martyrs have been formed. And while philosophers and orators are given over to oblivion, and the masses do not even know the names of kings and generals, yet all men know the names of the martyrs better than the names of their own loved ones. And they are eager to give these names to their children, for they thereby secure for them safety and protection. And why do I speak of philosophers, kings, and generals? For they have even erased from the minds of men the memory of those who were called gods. For the temples of the latter have been so utterly destroyed that the common people of this age do not even know the shape of their forms or the design of their altars; but the materials of these shrines have been consecrated to the shrines of the martyrs. For our Lord God has introduced His own dead into the temples in place of your C gods, and while he has rendered the latter useless and void, He has bestowed honor upon the former. For instead of your Pandia, Diasia, Dionysia, and other festivals, the public feasts of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius, Marcellus, Leontius, Panteleemon, Antoninus, Maurice, and the other martyrs are celebrated; and instead of that ancient pomp and shameful obscenity of deeds and words, modest festivals are celebrated, not exhibiting drunkenness, laughter, and jests, but divine hymns, the hearing of sacred discourses, and prayer adorned with praiseworthy tears. Seeing, therefore, the utility of the honor paid to the martyrs, flee, O friends, from the error of the demons, and using these as luminaries and guides, walk the path that leads to D God, that you may share in their choir in the ages that have no end.
SERMON IX. Concerning Laws.
You, O men, desire to hear elegantly composed speeches, and you seek to be charmed by them; but when you do not find such, you laugh and mock, and you stop your ears, and do not wish to listen to what is said. Yet you ought to have recognized that the greater part of the most precious things are covered in cheap wrappings. For it is a vile shell that produces and nourishes the precious pearl, so desired by the rich, and it even conceals it; but those who buy it, paying as much gold as possible, let the shell go. And those gleaming little stones that adorn the royal head are surrounded on the outside by another kind of stone that is altogether useless; but the craftsman of such an ornament, by cutting away and scraping off what is superfluous and useless in it, reveals the brilliance of the transparent stones. Gold, too, which all men commonly love, and silver, and copper, and
iron are covered by sand and earth; but those who search for the gold-bearing and silver-bearing veins dig through A the metals and gather the particles. And when gold has been stamped and has received the royal impression, it is kept not in golden containers, but in leathern or wooden ones. Reasonably, therefore, it is not some brilliant men of great swelling puffed-up speech who proclaim the true doctrine concerning divine and human things, but simple, lowly men, known to all, who carry about this great and ineffable treasure in most vile containers.
How much strength and power these men possess, anyone can easily perceive who brings forward the legislators of the Greeks and Romans, and compares our fishermen and tax-collectors with them. For he will find that the former did not even persuade their neighbors to live according to their laws, whereas the Galileans have persuaded not only Romans and Greeks, but every race of barbarians as well, to embrace the evangelical legislation.
For Minos, who boasts according to the myth that he is the son of Zeus, and who, as their fables tell, by frequenting that man’s B cave, learned the principles of his laws, became the legislator of the Cretans; yet he did not persuade either the Sicilians, or the Carthaginians, or indeed the Greeks to live according to his laws, but forced only that island over which he reigned to accept these laws, and not even that for an eternal length of time; for since the Romans have mastered the world, they too follow the laws of the latter.
Again, they say that Charondas was the first legislator of Italy and Sicily. But neither could he persuade the Tyrrhenians, or the Celts, or the Iberians, or the Celtiberians, although they were neighbors and border-dwellers, to accept the laws laid down by him. And why do I speak of neighbors? For not even those who at that time cherished and admired those laws live by the same laws now; for these, too, have submitted to the yoke of the Roman laws.
Zaleucus, in turn, gave laws to the Locrians, having received the knowledge of them from Minerva, as they say who delight in inventing fables. But neither the Acarnanians, nor the Phocians, nor the other Locrians admitted his laws, even though they dwelt not far away but were immediate neighbors.
Furthermore, those who are eager to invest the laws of Lycurgus with authority say that he betook himself to Delphi to the Pythian god, and being inspired by him, gave the laws to the Lacedaemonians. They also produce the oracle which the Pythian god uttered concerning him. It is as follows:
C Thou art come, O Lycurgus, to my fat temple, Dear to Zeus, and to all that inhabit the halls of Olympus. I am in doubt whether to pronounce thee a god or a man, Yet I am more inclined to believe thee a god, O Lycurgus.
Such was the oracle concerning him. But neither the vast glory of the lawgiver, nor the splendor of Sparta, nor the response of the Pythian oracle compelled the Argives, or the Tegeatans, or the Mantineans, or the Corinthians—though they were very close neighbors—to accept the constitution of the Lacedaemonians. And why do I speak of the others? For the Phliasians dwell, it is true, in a small town, and they have always loved the Lacedaemonian government, and were their allies; yet, though they served as mercenaries under them and always fought B by their side, they did not make use of their laws. And to pass over other lawgivers—Apis of the Argives, and Mneson of the Phocians, and Demonax of the Cyrenaeans, and Pagondas of the Achaeans, and Archias of the Cnidians, and Eudoxus of the Milesians, and Philolaus of the Thebans, and Pittacus of the Mityleneans, and Nestor of the Pylians, whose words Homer said were sweeter than honey—to pass over these, I say, and the lawgivers of other nations, Solon the renowned, and Draco, and Cleisthenes were lawgivers of the Athenians. Yet the Athenians were unable to persuade the Megarians, or the Euboeans, or the Thebans—though they were their neighbors and lived in extremely close proximity—to obey the laws of Solon, or of Draco, or of Cleisthenes. C And the Athenians themselves, having bidden these farewell, just as the Lacedaemonians, and the Locrians, and the Thebans, and the rest of the Greeks, now live according to the laws of the Romans. The Romans, indeed, having gathered together the laws of the Greeks and the barbarians, and having taken those from each lawgiver that seemed best established, compelled the nations subject to them to serve these laws, yet those who did not wish to be ruled by them they did not force, either by violence or by persuasion, to embrace their policy. Many, even though they have accepted the bridle of servitude, refuse to live according to their laws. For neither the Ethiopians who are neighbors to the Egyptian Thebes, nor the many tribes of Ishmael, nor the Lazi, nor the Sanni, nor the Abasgi, nor the other barbarians who rejoice in the rule of the Romans, draw up D their mutual contracts according to the Roman laws. But our fishermen, and the publicans, and the tentmaker, have brought the evangelical laws to all men. And they have induced not only the Romans and those who serve under them, but also the Scythian and Sarmatian nations, and the Indians, and the Ethiopians, and the Persians, and the Seres, and the Hyrcanians, and the Bactrians, and the Britons, and the Cimmerians, and the Germans, and, to speak once for all, every human race and all nations, to accept the laws of the Crucified; not using arms, not using an infinite force of picked soldiers, not the cruelty of Persian violence, but persuading by words, and demonstrating the utility of the laws.
A And they did not do this without dangers, but endured many outrages in every city, received many lashes from whoever happened to be there, were tortured, imprisoned, and met every form of punishment. For men, regarding their benefactors, and saviors, and physicians as conspirators and enemies, some drove them out, some pelted them with stones, others bound them with shackles and fetters; some they beat with clubs, others they impaled, others they threw to the teeth of beasts. But they indeed confounded those legislators, yet they could not abolish the force of the laws. For they appeared much more powerful after their death. B For after their death, the laws penetrated even to the Persians and the Scythians and the other barbarian nations; and although everyone resisted, not only barbarians but even the Romans themselves, they remained holding the same power. And the Romans, having set everything in motion to extinguish the memory of the fishermen and of Paul, made it even more illustrious and more conspicuous. C And whereas they ordered the laws of Lycurgus, and Solon, and Zaleucus, and Charondas, and Minos, and the other legislators to cease, and none of those who obeyed their empire dared to struggle—but their word became law, and the memory of those once-most-celebrated legislators was utterly extinguished—the Roman laws, on the other hand, govern the cities of the Greeks. The Areopagus among the Athenians is idle, and the Heliaea, and the court which was held at the Delphinium, and the council of the five hundred, and the eleven, and the Thesmothetae, and the Polemarch, and the annual archon, whose names are known to very few, except to those who spend time in the monuments of ancient writers. D But neither among the Lacedaemonians is it possible to see guests expelled from their borders according to their ancestral custom, nor the servitude of the Helots, nor the neodamodeis, nor finally the impunity for pederasty according to the laws of Lycurgus, nor the licit abuses in marriage. For that Lycurgus, the most excellent of legislators in the judgment of the wise men of the Greeks, left written in his laws, as those who have written about the Lacedaemonian polity say, that it is permitted for both men and women who have already received the yoke of marriage to beget children freely by cohabiting, the men with the wives of others, and the women with the husbands of others. And Plato took admiration of these laws, and ordered the state established by him to be governed by them. But let us reserve the philosopher—as a philosopher, and as someone who boasts himself to be the best of those who have enacted laws—for the final place; but now let us refute the weakness of the Pythian laws (for it matters nothing whether one prefers to call them Pythian or Lycurgan). For as soon as the Romans ordered these to cease and their own to be observed, the impregnable force of the Lycurgan laws was dissolved.
But the laws of the fishermen, the tax-collector, and the tent-maker, neither Gaius could dissolve, nor Claudius, nor Nero who followed them, even though he struck down two of the best of the lawgivers; for he slew both B Peter and Paul. But he did not destroy the laws along with the lawgivers. Neither did Vespasian, nor Titus, nor Domitian, although they assailed them with many and various machinations. For they sent many who embraced these laws to their death, using all sorts of punishments. Trajan and Adrian, too, strongly took the field against these laws. But while Trajan subverted the empire of the Persians, subjected the Armenians to the Roman bridle, and compelled the Scythian nations to submit to his scepters, he could not abolish the legislation of the fishermen and the leather-worker. And Adrian utterly destroyed the city of those who crucified Jesus, but he could not persuade those who believed in Him to abandon His service. Antoninus also, who succeeded him, and Verus his son, erected many and brilliant trophies over the defeated Barbarians and imposed the yoke of Roman rule upon peoples living under their own laws; yet they could neither persuade nor force those who had fallen in love with the yoke of the saving Cross to abandon what they loved, although they terrified them with many threats and tortured them with many punishments. C And to pass over Commodus, and Maximinus, and all the rest who reigned up to the time of Aurelian, Carus, and Carinus, who is ignorant of the madness of Diocletian, Maximian, Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius against the Christian piety? For they did not attack the Christians one by one, or by twos or threes, but slaughtered them in droves, by the thousand and tens of thousands. In some cities, they even set fire to churches filled with men, women, and children; and on the very day of the saving Passion, in which we celebrate the memory of both the Passion and the Lord's Resurrection, they destroyed all the churches that were within the boundaries of the Roman empire. D However, they demolished the structure and fabric of stones, but they did not subvert the piety of souls. As for what things were attempted against the Christians in the times of Julian, those more advanced in age know; and we too have heard those who saw it narrating that tragedy. Moreover, though all these men were so many in number, and ruled over such a great empire, and broke the audacity of so many Barbarians, and were renowned for deeds of war, they could not prevail against manual laborers, the uneducated and the very poor, and women seeking their living by wool and weaving, with numberless
A devices. And what shall I say of men and women? They could not drive out the opinions concerning God and our Savior even from youths who had only been taught the rudiments. And though they acted like the Corybantes, raging and fuming, and employed numberless artifices and sophistries, they did not abolish the laws of the fishermen; rather, by attacking them, they rendered them much stronger. They were exactly like those who want to extinguish a flame, but pour oil upon it, and make it burn more vehemently. For in this way, too, those who undertook war against piety made the strength of the truth more manifest. And just as once upon a time the fire was burning that bush but not consuming it, so the weapons of the assailants did not consume those who were attacked. But B just as when woodcutters cut down a forest, far more branches sprout from the roots than those which are cut away, so too, at that time, as the Christians were being slain, many more were coming over to the evangelical doctrine, and that blood of those who were slaughtered became a kind of irrigation for the new converts. And the things we witness bear testimony to this; for those who now take pride in the name of the faith are ten thousand times more numerous than those who believed of old. For the children of the enemies, having loathed the madness of their parents, have passed over into the phalanx of those who were attacked. The things of the Greeks have vanished and been handed over to eternal oblivion, while the things of the fishermen have blossomed, and the God who was preached by them is believed to be the God of all. And the cities are full C of those who believe these things, and the villages are full, and the mountains are free from the error. For instead of those altars and that ancient deceit, choirs of ascetics inhabit these places, praising the Crucified One, and his Father, and the all-holy Spirit.
But if anyone supposes that the piety of the emperors lent strength to the dogmas of the fishermen, this very fact shows how great the force of those dogmas was. For they would not have despised the ancient laws, and the written monuments of their ancestors, and long-established custom, and the institutions of their fathers, if they had not admired the truth of the former and hated the fables of the latter. Why then do you not call to mind the past wars against the Church? For by them you will easily dissolve that opinion. For if so many and such great emperors D
A arranged themselves with all their might against the Church, and brought against it machines of every kind, yet did not effect even the slightest tremor in its walls, then he is surely a foolish and utterly stupid man who does not suppose the power of the fishermen to be divine, but imagines it to have been increased by imperial power. But that this may become clearer to you, learn what is now being dared by the Persians. For what kind of slaughter against the pious has not been devised by them? Are there not skinning, the cutting off of hands and feet, the mutilation of ears and noses, bonds invented for the excess of pain, and pits B prepared with extreme care and stuffed with the largest mice, which devour those bound within? And yet, although they have devised such torments and others many times greater than these against those who are pious, they indeed mangle and maim their bodies and utterly destroy them, but they cannot plunder the treasure of their faith. And while they compel all their subjects to submit to their other laws, they do not persuade the faithful to renounce the laws of the fishermen. Rather, the Persians, who formerly lived according to the laws of Zaradas, and who—O the shame—mingled without fear with their mothers, sisters, and even daughters, and considered this illegality to be a law, once they heard the legislation of the fishermen C, they trampled upon the laws of Zaradas as an illegality and embraced evangelical temperance. And those who had learned from that same man to expose their dead to dogs and birds, now cannot be induced to do this, for the faithful do not allow it, but bury them in the earth, and they do not care for the laws that forbid them to do this, nor do they tremble at the cruelty of those who punish them; for they fear the judgment seat of Christ much more, and, while they see and laugh at the things that are visible, they ponder and fear the things that are not seen. And they received these laws from Galilean men; and they did not fear the power of the Romans, but submitted to the kingdom of the Crucified. D Neither Augustus nor Trajan, who overthrew their dominion, could compel them to live according to the Roman laws; but the writings of Peter and Paul and John and Matthew and Luke and Mark they revere as though they had been brought from heaven, and the natives have become subject to the laws of foreigners and strangers. The Massagetae, too, who formerly considered those who did not die by a violent death to be the most miserable of men, and who for this reason had established a law to sacrifice and feast upon those who had grown old, once they heard the laws of the fishermen and of the tentmakers, loathed those abominable feasts and slaughters. The Tibareni, also, who were once accustomed to throw their old men headlong from the highest cliffs, having received the evangelical law, annulled this most iniquitous law. Nor indeed do the Hyrcani or the Caspii any longer feed dogs for the purpose of a human
A corpse-devouring and slaughter. And the Tibareni, who were accustomed to push their elders off the deepest cliffs, brought this most iniquitous law to an end, having hearkened to the evangelical laws. No longer do the Hyrcani or the Caspii feed dogs with the bodies of the dead, nor do the Scythians bury the living together with those who have departed, whom they loved. Such a change in customs did the fishermen bring about.
And these men persuaded even the barbarian nations to live according to the laws handed down by them; but Plato, the best of the philosophers, having written laws, did not even persuade his own fellow-citizens, the Athenians, to regulate their state according to his prescriptions. And very rightly so; for they are truly laughable. And that no one may suppose that I am slandering the philosopher, listen, O men, to what he has B legislated. For having commanded that women—not only the young, but also those advanced to a senile age—should exercise in the gymnasium in the nude, and then seeing those who were conversing about this breaking into laughter, he took the floor and said: "The man who laughs at women nude, who are exercising for the best possible cause, as he reaps the fruit of wisdom from a ridiculous situation, does not even know, as it seems, at what he is laughing." And again: "This, my discourse, would say the same things regarding females as it does regarding males, that it is necessary for the females to practice the same things." And fearing nothing, I might say this word, that neither the art of horsemanship nor gymnastics would be a fitting thing for men if it were not also fitting for women. And who, hearing these things, would not C reasonably laugh? For nature has distributed to each gender what is appropriate: to women, spinning; to men, agriculture and the experience of war. By this division, indeed, Homer also makes use. For he has made Hector in the epics say to Andromache:
Go to thy house and busy thee with thine own duties, The loom and the distaff, and bid thy handmaidens Ply their work; but war shall be the care of men.
But the philosopher seemed not to know even this division of the poets, but commanded that women exercise and ride horses in the nude. And the things that follow in Plato are consistent with the former. For he says thus: "Let a judge, inspecting, decide what age is appropriate for celebrating nuptials: and for this reason let him inspect the males nude, and the females nude down to the navel." But he who ordained these things does not appear to recall what the wife of King Candaules once said. For she, when ordered by her husband to show her nude body, very wisely replied: "A woman, when she takes off her tunic, together with it takes off her shame." Therefore, the philosopher strips the brides of their modesty and teaches impudence. And in the tenth book of the Laws he wrote similar things. "For the sake of such a thing," he says,
A that a discipline be established, so that both boys and girls may perform dances, observing and being observed, and—together with reason and at an age that has appropriate and plausible causes—we allow both these and those to be stripped, as long as the modesty and decency of each person is preserved."
But I see significant ruin arising from this, and no advantage coming from it. For not only were they trained in impudence, being stripped and viewing stripped men, but they also afforded many opportunities for incontinence to one another. For the sight of bare bodies provoked both men and women to illicit love.
But so that we do not appear to be railing against the philosopher rather than refuting him by laying bare the damage flowing from these laws in every respect, let us pass on to the noble laws of marriage, using moderate reproofs. B Let us hear him, therefore, speaking thus in the *Republic*: "‘Of all these men, wives are to be common, and no one is to live privately with any man; and the children, in turn, are to be common, and neither is a parent to know his own offspring, nor a child his parent.’ Then he adds: ‘One person, therefore, I said, the legislator, just as he chooses the men, so also he will hand over the women, to the extent possible, to those of a similar nature. And they, seeing that they possess homes and common meals, and that no one possesses anything of the sort privately, will C live together continuously. Mixed together promiscuously, both in the gymnasia and in other occupations, they will be driven, I suppose, by an innate natural appetite, toward mutual intercourse. Or do I not seem to you to be saying necessary things?’ ‘Not by geometric, he replied, but by erotic necessities, which are likely to be sharper than those for convincing and pulling along the common crowd.’"
That the philosopher ordered wives to be common, there is no need for long arguments for refutation. For he himself has declared it in direct terms, and has invented the necessity for common intercourse. For he said that by living in common, dining in common, and exercising in common, they will be impelled by innate desire toward mutual intercourse. And this indeed declares the children born to be common, D as each one fearlessly consorts with those he happens upon, and they consider that which is born of these to be their own. Having understood this, the interlocutor, when Socrates had said: "‘Or do I not seem to you to be saying necessary things?’" replied: "‘Not by geometric, but by erotic necessities, which are likely to be sharper than those for convincing and pulling along the common crowd.’"
I, for my part, marvel at the impudence of those who nowadays wish to interpret Plato’s words—or rather, to misinterpret them; for they say that he did not legislate common intercourse, but a friendly communion, and not...
A listening to him saying: "And sharing with one another dwellings and banquets and gymnasia, they will be led by necessity and by natural desire to mutual intercourse." But perhaps, blushing at the ridiculous laws of the philosopher, they attempt to hide their master’s blunder; but they ought to have remembered his words, that "man is a friend, but truth is a friend; and though both are dear, truth is dearer." Let us, then, listen to his other laws as well. For these, too, are his: "For a woman, I would say, it is fitting to bear children for the city from her twentieth year until her fortieth; and for a man, once he has passed the peak of his swiftest race, to beget children for the city until his fifty-fifth year." But these do not contain any manifest ruin; yet the things that follow are worthy not only of laughter but of tears, and of a fire to consume such illustrious laws. For he says the following: "But when the women and the men have passed the age for childbearing, we shall allow them to associate with whomever they wish, providing only that they take care not to bring into the light any fetus that has been conceived; but if any by force of action transgress this, they are to dispose of it so that there is no nourishment for such a one." Which Echetus or Phalaris has legislated such things? Or who has ever dared such murders, as if they were lawful acts? For by ordering that they not be brought into the light, he is surely commanding that infants be done away with by abortive drugs; and those who have survived the power of the lethal potion and have been brought into the light, he orders them to be exposed in such a way that they do not enjoy even the slightest care, but perish by hunger or cold, or become the prey of wild beasts. What peak of cruelty do these things not surpass?
C Such, then, were his laws regarding marriage and the procreation of children; what he teaches regarding the other sort of incontinence is easy for anyone who wishes to learn. For those who embrace unnatural lewdness, he has supposed both to be blessed here and has asserted that they will be equally blessed after departing from this life. "For they receive," he says, "no small reward for their love. For there is still a law for those excluded from the heavenly journey to go into the darkness and the journey under the earth, traveling together and using the same wings for the sake of love." Then, after these things, he concludes thus: "O boy, and thus shall the friendship of a lover bestow upon you divine gifts." And he says these things not concerning those who are temperate, but concerning those who...
are A licentiously in love; and it is easy to learn these things from his dialogues. Such a law, however, neither Nero, the most shameful king of the Romans, nor Sardanapalus the Assyrian, notorious for his pleasures and luxuries, ever wrote or ever praised. For I think that even those who are excessively enslaved to voluptuousness do not praise the passion, but are slaves to it, having made a habit of it through time. And what need is there to speak of all the laws he enacted in violation of the law concerning murders? For he orders that he who kills his own slave be considered innocent, but that he who kills another’s slave in anger pay only a fine; and he decrees that he who kills a free man in anger be exiled for only two years; and he orders him who kills by treachery to be exiled for three years; and as for him who commits the same acts after his exile, he punishes him with perpetual exile alone. He has enacted similar punishments for children who kill parents, and parents who kill children, B and husbands who kill wives, and wives who kill husbands.
But the philosopher wrote down such laws as these, and has persuaded no human being—not a citizen, not a foreigner, not an urbanite, not a rustic, not a Greek, not a barbarian, not a slave, not a freeman, not a man, not a woman, not a youth, not an old man, not one educated in letters, not one uninitiated in learning—to live according to these laws. But I, in turn, shall now recite the laws which the fishermen, the tax-collectors, and the tent-maker have presented to all men. And you, placing those and these side by side, marvel at the divine rays of the latter. For the philosopher admired even licentious pederasty, and pointed out the thrice-blessed prizes of this; C but our Savior punishes not only the licentious act, but even the look of such a kind. "For whoever," He says, "has looked at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart." And while he (the philosopher) decreed that it was safe and permitted to share in the wives of others, the Creator of nature, because when He created human nature He formed one man and one woman from the beginning, forbids the dissolving of the marriage, and has assigned one sole cause for dissolution, that which truly tears asunder the bond. "For everyone," He says, "who puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery." And through these {words} He commands one to bear all the faults of a wife, even if she be a babbler, even if she be a drunkard, even if she be most prepared for D scolding; but if she should transgress the laws of marriage and look toward another, only then does He command that the bond be broken. He established similar laws again through Paul, and he, writing the Epistle to the Corinthians, has
A brought these laws before all people. "It is good," he said, "for a man not to touch a woman; but because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." Do you see how great the difference is B between the laws of the philosopher and those of the leather-cutter? For the latter commanded that each woman possess her own husband, and each man his own wife; but the former held that all women should be common to all men. And when laying down laws concerning continence, he does not permit the wife to flee from the husband's intimacy if he does not consent to it, nor the husband if the wife does not approve. "For the wife," he says, "does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; likewise, the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by consent." He considers one to be defrauded of power if they observe continence against the will of their spouse. Then, gradually leading them to more perfect things, he added: "For a time, that you may have leisure for fasting and prayer; and come together again into the same." Thus, having measured the laws to nature, he also states the cause: "Lest Satan tempt you." And in order to teach that he takes the occasion to tempt us from ourselves, he added: "Because of your incontinence." And concerning celibacy, C not giving commands but advice, he showed how great is the usefulness of that state of life. "He who is unmarried," he says, "is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who is married is concerned for the things of the world, how he may please his wife." He said these same things also concerning women, teaching that virginity provides a life free from cares.
Marvel, O men, at the tongue of the leather-cutter, and worship Him who spoke through it. And if you wish, examine also the laws concerning murders and parricides. For the philosopher did not even order the murderer of a father to suffer the punishment of retaliation, but our Savior punishes even unseasonable insult D and movement of anger that is aroused unjustly. "For everyone," He says, "who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." He also threatened that he will demand an account for idle words. And He commanded not only to do good to friends, but also to enemies. "For love," He says, "your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." After these things, He also points out the reward, far exceeding the dignity of those who strive. "That you may be," He says, "sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes to rise
upon the evil and the good, and rains upon the just and the unjust." And when He established laws concerning oaths, He forbade the taking of oaths entirely, saying that it was sufficient for the confirmation of what is said that it be "Yes" and "No." Moreover, He declared that a life of poverty is the most perfect. "For whoever," He says, "does not renounce all his possessions cannot be My disciple." Yet, even while legislating such a rigorous manner of life, He did not promise to bestow anything delightful or B pleasant in this life; rather, He promised poverty, misery, reproach, scourgings, and various kinds of slaughter. "For in the world," He said, "you shall have tribulation." And: "Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake; rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your reward is great in heaven." He showed both the labors and the dangers, but promised that He would bestow the rewards and the crowns after the end of this life. And in another place He says: "If they have C persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My word, they will also keep yours." And again: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of His household?"
The laws, then, are of this sort; but it is truly right to admire those divine men, and likewise those who believed in them. For when hearing such words, and having received from Him who called them neither wealth, nor power, nor bodily strength, but having believed in long-standing promises of things that were not seen, they embraced D labors and endured dangers, and traversing the inhabited world, brought the teachings to the nations. But it is no less fitting to praise those who received them, because, seeing nothing illustrious or noteworthy in the heralds—but only the tongues of fishermen and leather-workers, and extreme poverty (for they did not even have an abundance of necessary food; for whence could they have it, who were forbidden by law even to be anxious about the morrow?)—they not only believed what was said, but also despised the laws by which they had lived until that day, renounced their ancestral customs, and themselves also lived their remaining time in the midst of dangers, preaching in the same manner as their teachers, and suffering the same insults and outrages, and traveling through the same storms and billows. Yet so great is the reverence that men then had, and that all now possess, for those who risked their lives even unto death, that they consider their tombs to be treasuries, from which all sorts of good things are derived. Observe, therefore, O men, the power of these laws. For these, both Romans, and Persians, and those who
eir tombs to be treasuries, from which all sorts of good things are derived. Observe, therefore, O men, the power of these laws. For these, both Romans, and Persians, and those who A live outside their rule, in striving exceedingly to abolish them, have shown their own weakness, but have rendered the power of these laws more manifest. No one has waged war against the laws of Lycurgus and Solon, but they have collapsed of their own accord. And neither the Pythian [god] nor the City-Guardian [Athena] preserved the laws which they themselves had set, but as soon as the Romans commanded it, they were extinguished. Let anyone of you, O men, point out even one Spartan who consented to die for the laws of Lycurgus, or one Athenian for the laws of Solon, or a Locrian for those of Zaleucus, or a Cretan for those of Minos; but none of you could point this out. We, however, point out many myriads of men and women who have willingly encountered death for the laws of the fishermen and of Paul. The temples raised for the martyrs are witnesses of this, which both adorn cities and brighten regions, and provide great advantages to both foreigners and natives. Since, therefore, the difference between the laws themselves and the lawgivers has been made clear by comparison, and some have been seen to be the inventions of human reasoning, while others have been given from God and are saving, receive, O men, these divine gifts, and do not despise the bountiful and generous Giver. You will know the surpassing dignity of these laws more accurately if, having driven the wicked opinion from your minds, you unfold these words of ours.
SERMON X. On true and false oracles.
Those who affect tyranny invade a power that by no right belongs to them. They indeed usurp royal trappings—the purple, the crown, the throne, the chariot, and the bodyguards—yet they are unwilling to imitate royal manners. For they do not desire to be called gentle fathers, but harsh masters; nor benevolent guardians, but most severe leaders. Whence it happens that often the legitimate kings defeat them, being moved by compassion for those oppressed by them; and often also soldiers and citizens, not enduring their pride, strip them of their tyranny. The most wicked demons have both done and suffered the same thing. For having abandoned the station they had been assigned, and fleeing the most gentle dominion of the Creator, they seized a tyranny, and flying toward the divine name, they called themselves gods, and persuaded foolish men to offer divine worship to them. Then, in order to confirm the tyranny they had seized, they boasted that they knew and could predict future events, driving easily captured men into fraud by this method above all. Wherefore they erected factories of deceit everywhere in the world, and B C D
presAcribed methods of divination, such as flour-divination, breast-divination, and necromancy; and the fountain of Castalia, and the stream of Colophon, and the sacred oak, and the Dodonaean cauldron, and the tripod of Cirrha, and the Thesprotian caldron. In Libya there is the oracle of Ammon; in Dodona, that of Zeus; among the Branchidae, and at Delos, and at Delphi, and at Colophon, there are those of Clarian, Pythian, Delian, and Didymaean Apollo; and at Lebadia, that of Trophonius; at Oropus, that of Amphiaraus; and in the lands of the Tyrrhenians and Chaldaeans, the most obscure caverns for necromancy. Elsewhere there are those of Amphilochus, elsewhere of Glaucus, and in another place of Mopsus, and of other infamous men.
That these oracles were of most wicked demons who had stolen the divine name, the silence now imposed upon them is sufficient proof. B For after the manifestation of our Savior in the flesh, those who introduced these deceits to men took flight, unable to endure the brilliance of the divine light. Plutarch of Chaeronea bears witness to this quite clearly—a man who was not a Hebrew, but a Greek both by race and by language, and indeed enslaved to Greek opinions, and accurately acquainted with the deceit of the oracles. For Delphi, Lebadia, and Oropus are not far from Chaeronea, but are neighbors and share the same territory. This man wrote many other things—for he was a learned man and very experienced—and among others, he wrote concerning divination and titled his book, *On the Oracles that have Ceased*. In this book, then, among many other things, he also said this: "That it is not gods, who ought to be far removed from earthly regions, who preside over the oracles, but demons, the servants of gods, does not seem to me to be ill stated; but to suppose that these demons C should take—as it were—a drachma from the verses of Empedocles, and bring about faults and follies and errors, and finally even deaths, as if they were men, I consider to be rather bold and barbarous."
These words were not spoken by a prophet of ours, nor by an apostle, nor by any other of those who have believed in Christ and have been eager to hold their convictions, but by a man who, while trained in every discipline, was yet enslaved to the ancient error of the philosophers. This is what he said: first, that those who gave the responses were demons, not gods; then, that the temple attendants of these demons, being seized and possessed by them, used to sell their oracles for payment. And that they predicted nothing true; but concerning those same ones whose spirit they boasted dwelt within them, they uttered many serious and harsh things, not only harms and deceits, but even deaths, such D as men suffer. Yet they do not [speak] these verses from any fury...
A or possession, but by filching from the poetry of Empedocles. The following passage also bears the same meaning; for he says: "And concerning the mysteries, from which one may derive the greatest indications and proofs of the truth regarding the nature of demons, let silence be observed by me, in accordance with Herodotus; but as for festivals and sacrifices, just as on inauspicious and gloomy days, in which there is the eating of raw flesh and the rending of limbs, and fasts and wailings, and in many places again, obscene language at the sanctuaries, and other manias of those who are stirred up and toss their heads with tumult—I would say that these are performed for no god, but for the averting of evil demons, providing a consolation in place of the slaughter of men that was once sacrificed to them."
In the foregoing discussions, he said that those oracles were not of the gods, but of the demons; but here he even called them malignant, deriving most manifest proofs from their own actions. For to whom do raw feasts, and the rending of limbs, and shameful words or deeds, and the frenzies of those in tumult, and the B tossing of heads with clamor, belong, if not to the evil demons that infest the human race? For they, in days of old, as most wicked beings, took delight in the slaughter of miserable men; but after they saw that men loathed such slaughters, which those [demons] craved, and abstained from them, they devised scourging, raw feasts, and other rites of this kind. To the things already said, he also added this: "When Ammonius had finished speaking, 'Tell us rather,' I said, 'O Cleombrotus, something about the oracle. For great was the ancient fame of the divinity there, but now it seems to have withered away completely.' But as Cleombrotus remained silent and looked down at the ground, 'It is not right,' said Demetrius, 'to inquire about the affairs of that place, nor to doubt whether the oracle there has vanished, when we see that C everywhere, with the exception of one or two, all the oracles have failed.'"
Plutarch wrote these things after the advent of our God and Savior. Therefore, the very time makes manifest the cause of why the oracles ceased. But Porphyry also, in the book which he wrote *On the Philosophy from Oracles*, says these things as well: "But even an exact knowledge of the movement [of the stars?], and the accounts derived from these things, are incomprehensible to men; and not only to these, but also to some of the demons; whence they are often found to be lying when questioned about many things." Since, therefore, O men, when we discourse about your oracles, you are unwilling to put faith in us, believe at least him who is most hostile to us, but most friendly to you. For this being is implacable to us D
A and has undertaken an open war against piety. Yet this man says that the demons who preside over what are called oracles are liars. That he calls these same beings gods, and attributes astrology to them rather than any divine foreknowledge, he has shown in the same book. For he says these things: “For what the gods say, if they say them as being aware of what is fated, they indicate from the motion of the stars; and this almost all the truthful among the gods have made known.” But those whom he here called gods, he B has denied are gods again in this same book, and not in another. For having set down the oracle of Apollo—which teaches how one must sacrifice to the subterranean gods, how to the terrestrial, how to the marine, and how to the celestial and ethereal—he refutes this as foolish, saying that “those who delight in having animals sacrificed to them are not to be considered gods; for it is the most unjust, impious, abominable, and harmful thing of all to sacrifice living creatures, and therefore not even pleasing to the gods.” Then he introduces Theophrastus saying that sacrifices involving animals are not appropriate for gods, but for demons. He also mocks the ancient human C sacrifices and recounts how they were used by many. Having then taught that it was by the command of evil demons that these things were wont to be done, he adds: “Therefore a prudent and temperate man will beware of using such sacrifices, through which he would draw such beings to himself; he will strive by all means to purge his soul, for they do not approach a purified soul.” But the Pythian contradicts the views of Porphyry. He orders him who seeks a response from the oracle to offer certain ransoms to the evil demon, namely libations, a pyre, black blood D and dark wine; and having added such things, he taught [him] the prayer which one sacrificing must offer: “Demon who has obtained the kingdom of sinful souls, Below the vault of heaven, yet above the earth.” These things Porphyry has set down in the same book, refuting him as not being God, and establishing his own argument that those who delight in sacrifices are not gods. And lest anyone suspect that he is inventing these things falsely, he has prefaced [this section] with an oath regarding the book. “For I call the gods to witness,” he said, “that I have neither added anything nor taken anything away from the meaning of the oracles, unless I have corrected some faulty word, or changed it for the sake of greater clarity, or added the missing meter.” By these words he also accuses the Pythian of ignorance; for not only did he correct the erroneous words, and [explain] those that were clearer...
but he also supported the lameness of the verses which the Pythian had brought forth through his prophets. A Moreover, Diogenianus likewise refutes the falsehood of the gods who utter oracles. He speaks as follows: “That the so-called prophets fail in most things, the entire life of men can bear witness, and they themselves too, who profess the art of divination.” And after a few words: “Now, I will just add this to what has been said, that if the so-called prophets ever happen to speak the truth in their predictions, it would be the work of a fortuitous cause, not of knowledge. For we have previously determined that if someone occasionally attains their proposed end—not always, nor for the most part, nor as if from knowledge—we should call it the work of fortune, distinguishing by separate names the evident conceptions of our mind.” B That Porphyry also affirms the same, namely that the gods who utter oracles are forced by men to make their predictions, is easy for anyone who wishes to learn from that very book which he entitled *Philosophy from Oracles*; for he inserted the very words of the gods themselves. He says, therefore, that Hecate, having been called by a certain man, responded thus: I have come, moved by the sound of your wise prayer, Which the race of mortals discovered by the counsel of the gods. And again, chiding the one who had called her: What need, she says, of us do you have, C That you have bound Hecate with fatal necessities to your roof? And Apollo also cries out: Hear those things which, though unwilling, I shall tell you, and which I tell under compulsion. And again: Release the king now; no mortal can hold a god any longer. By these words, Porphyry shows that even those who have usurped the name of God for themselves—human arts are more powerful than them, and impose necessity upon them. For they draw them down from heavenly places and keep them bound in lower ones, D so that they cannot depart until they are released by men. Many other countless such things can be found in the same writer, which demonstrate the weakness of the demons. And how many evils their divinations bring, anyone who reads our account will easily recognize. For when Athens was pressed by famine, the Pythian gave the response that it would not cease until the Athenians sacrificed seven virgins and as many youths to Minos. Furthermore, the puzzling obscurities of the oracles have brought destruction to many. For Aristomachus...
having misconstrued the Stengyra, A left behind the strait and the triremes, and having attacked by way of the isthmus, he met his end, having suffered a defeat. But it was fitting for the vaticinating god, if indeed he had knowledge of the future, not to shroud the oracle in the gloom of darkness; yet he craftily gave an ambiguous prediction so that his falsehood might not be easily detected. This very thing also led Croesus to disaster. For Croesus, he says, "crossing the Halys, shall destroy a great empire." B But he did not reveal which one, whether his own or that of his enemies, so that whether he won or was defeated, he could not accuse the prophet. And the Pythian did these things after having received from him most precious gifts. Therefore, one of two things must be the case: either he is arrogant or most ungrateful. For he either vaunts that he foresees what he does not know, or, being aware of future events, he deliberately inflicts injury upon those who were eager to worship him. He employed similar evasions also when Julian C was leading his army against the Persians: "For now, he said, we all, the gods, have arrived at the river named for a wild beast, to carry off the trophies of victory. Of these, I shall be the leader, fierce Gradivus, the whirlwind of war." He did something similar also in the case of the Athenians. For indeed, since Xerxes had marched against them with many myriads, the envoys of the Athenians ran to him; and he began his response concerning the oracles thus: "O wretched ones, why do you linger and sit idly?" D This indeed plainly convicts him of ignorance. For if he had truly foreseen the victory, he would surely not have called them wretched, but most blessed. For they defeated three thousand two hundred Persian ships and three thousand myriads of men. They were therefore victors and most renowned, not wretched and most miserable, they who would raise up a famous and much-told-of trophy. Then he counseled them to flee, foreshadowing the weakness of the city's guardian goddess: "For Pallas," he said, "cannot appease great Zeus, though she beseeches him pouring forth imploring words." To this, what follows is directly contrary. For after having said that Zeus is not persuaded by Athena while she entreats him, as if retracting his words, he soon adds: "Zeus, the high-thundering, grants to the daughter of Triton a wooden wall." And to those whose hopes were poised on a razor's edge, he did not quickly point out any clear path of safety, but he veiled his own ignorance with the ambiguity of the oracles.
A Likewise, the end of the oracle itself is similar:
*O Salamis, and you shall destroy the offspring of women,* *Either when chosen Ceres meets, or when she is scattered in the fields.*
For he was ignorant, as he showed, of who was to fall, whether the Persians or the Athenians. On this account he mentioned only women, but he kept silent about their nation and homeland. And of the words, *either when chosen Ceres meets, or when she is scattered in the fields*, these are the words of one who is entirely ignorant of the time of victory. Elsewhere, however, Themistocles, using prudence and courage, did not permit the falsehood of the oracle to be completely exposed; however, he did not show the Athenians to be miserable, but blessed. But to the Lacedaemonians and the Cnidians, the oracles of this one brought defeat to some, and slavery to others. And he boasts that he gave to Lycurgus the legislator those most cruel and shameful laws. For when he arrived at Delphi, he spoke these things:
*You come, O Lycurgus, to my rich temple,* *Dear to Zeus and to all who inhabit the halls of Olympus.* *I am in doubt whether to call you a god or a man.* *But I have even more hope, O Lycurgus, in a god.* *You come seeking good laws; and I will surely give them to you.*
B What kind of laws this man established, we have revealed in the previous discourse. For he legislated the expulsion of foreigners, and he permitted the wanton loves of boys and illicit unions with women, and he overturned the marriage laws. And the most wise and most musical prophet himself declares he is the inventor of these laws, and calls him a god who promulgated them; and he confesses that he does not know whether one ought to call him a god or a man. And though he wished to give him the more honorable title, he did not give it as a god, but said "I hope," like a man. This same one also praises the Lacedaemonian women, who mingled freely with whomever they wished, and he says:
*In all the cities, Pelasgic Argos is best,* *Thracian horses, and the women of the land of the Lacedaemonians,* *And the men who drink the water of fair Arethusa are praised.*
This same one also called Archilochus, who was a most obscene poet, famous and immortal, and he gave this response to his father:
*Immortal shall your son be, O Telesicles,* *And he shall be the most famous among mortals.*
D And to Homer he said:
*O you both happy and most miserable,* *The one indeed on account of the misfortune of blindness, the other on account of the poetry composed by him, which he deemed most perfect, because of which Plato judged that he should be driven from the city, like swallows, after being sprinkled with ointment. This one also commanded that the boxer Cleomedes be honored with divine honors.
A “The last of the heroes,” he says, “is Cleomedes of Astypalaea, / Whom you honor with sacrifices, as one no longer mortal.” How many murders this man dared to commit, we have already stated before. He also gave this oracle to the Methymnaeans: “It will be much better for the inhabitants of Methymna, / If they honor the Phallos, the head of Dionysus.”
And the wisest of the gods is not ashamed—whom the poets called Phoebus, as though he were pure and undefiled—to give an oracle that the *acro-posthion* (the prepuce) of Dionysus should be honored. This one did not help his own temple when it was burning, but said that this lot had been received from the Fates, and he sang a monody, lamenting the misfortune. But I shall state the end of this [poem]: “Endure the unchangeable counsels of the Fates, / For the head of Zeus, the son of heaven, has consented to them, / That whatever they spin, it shall remain unshaken, B and irrevocable.” For it was fated that in the long passage of time, the very beautiful shrine / Should be subdued by the lightning sent down from Jove.
There are ten thousand other such ridiculous things to be found in his oracles. And not only did Porphyry collect these in his work *On the Philosophy from Oracles*, but also the Cynic Oenomaus, refuting the lies of the oracle-mongers.
I have mentioned Oenomaus, and Porphyry, and Plutarch, and Diogenian, and the others, for your sake, C since they who recount your own affairs to you are worthy of belief in your eyes. To us, however, the testimony of the facts themselves is sufficient, being of a most distinct voice, and openly convicting the falsehood of the oracles. For before the appearance of our Savior, while a kind of darkness was covering the world, those malignant demons—the enemies of mankind—like certain brigands and cutpurses, used ambushes and snares and every kind of net, hunting for the nature of men. But when the light of truth arose, D they all fled and abandoned their own shrines. Therefore, when He appeared, they cried out, “Away! What have we to do with Thee, Son of God? Hast Thou come hither before the time to torment us?” And others again besought Him not to cast them into the abyss. At Philippi, the spirit of Python cried out regarding the apostles, testifying, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” Seeing, therefore, the proclamation of truth spreading everywhere, like fugitive soldiers who have committed many terrible and lawless deeds, and then sensing the presence of the King, they took flight and abandoned the places empty of their snares.
A The King of the universe, however, has destroyed their strongholds. No longer do divinations take place at the waters of Castalia, nor does the fountain at Colophon prophesy, nor does the Thesprotian cauldron divine, nor does the Cirrhaean tripod utter oracles, nor does the Dodonaean bronze chatter, nor does that most famous oak speak. The Dodonaean is silent, the Colophonian is silent, as are the Delian, the Pythian, the Clarian, the Didymaean, and those at Lebadia, the cave of Trophonius, Amphilochus, Amphiaraus, Ammon, and the necromancy of the Chaldeans and Tyrrhenians. For He who rebukes the abyss, according to the prophet, and dries it up—He who says to the abyss, "You shall be left desolate, and I will dry up your rivers"—has commanded silence upon them. B And the Daphnaean Apollo, once he had caused the bones of our martyr to be moved elsewhere, was struck by a lightning bolt from heaven. For he did not allow him to prophesy anything or to continue leading men astray with his usual trickery. Just as the great Paul rebuked the spirit of Python, so the ashes of this martyr placed a bridle upon that most mendacious seer.
What kind of oracles your demons have, you have learned from your own philosophers. But as for what the God and Creator of the universe foretells, and how useful, beneficial, and radiant with the light of truth those things are, it is possible for anyone who wishes to know, if he but turns the pages of the Divine Scriptures. C I, however, shall relate but a few such predictions, that by comparison I may show the difference. First, I shall mention those which foretold the destruction of the idols. Hearken, then, to Isaiah the prophet saying: "In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and the house of God at the top of the mountains; and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall come to it. And many peoples shall walk and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will declare to us His way, and we will walk in it. For the law of God will go forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. D And He shall judge between the nations, and shall rebuke many a people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and nation shall not take up sword against nation, neither shall they learn to make war any more." You have heard, then, what the prophet has foretold. But, I ask you by the truth, tell me whether anything in these words appeared to you twisted or ambiguous. But I know you will not say so, for you respect the testimony of the very events themselves. For you see the outcome of the prediction clearly. Do you not see the loftiness of the Church, and all men bowing down in supplication to her, and rendering her honor? And most of them
willing, while others speak against her and serve under constraint? Do you not see the mountain peaks relieved of your defilement and adorned with the dwellings of monastics, and all men A flocking from every direction, and proclaiming as God the Word who appeared in Sion, and embracing the law that gushed forth from Sion, and wars having ceased, and instead of weapons of war using the tools of agriculture? Or are you unaware that at the time the prophet foretold these things, Jerusalem was ruled by one king, Samaria by another, and others by the Idumeans, and others again by the Moabites, and in turn others by the Ammonites? And the Arabs, and the Midianites, and the Amalekites were subject to other leaders; and Gaza, and Ascalon, and Azotus, and indeed also Sidon, and Tyre, and Damascus were governed by separate rulers. For it was not merely by cities, but even by villages that they were ruled. But immediately as our Savior was born according to the flesh, B Caesar Augustus gained control of everything, and having abolished the ethnarchies and petty kingdoms, he brought everyone under the sway of the Romans. Seeing these things in advance, the prophet foretold what has been said, and after a few words he described the abolition of hand-made idols: "For all hand-made things they shall hide, carrying them into the caves, and into the fissures of the rocks, and into the crevices of the earth, from the face of the fear of the Lord, and from the glory of his might, when he arises to crush the earth. For in that day a man shall cast out his abominations, the silver and the gold, which they made for themselves to worship as vanities and bats, to go into the crevices of the solid rock, and into the fissures of the rocks, from the face of the fear of the Lord, and from the glory of his might, when he arises [144—] to crush the earth." C It is not for us to provide the interpretation of this prophecy, but for you to marvel at the truth of the oracle, and to acknowledge what has frequently occurred among you. But do not blush, O men; for it is not the confession of sin that one should be ashamed of, but the commission of it. But if you yourselves do not wish to speak, yet all who have been eyewitnesses of the gods frequently buried in the earth, and then dug up by those who had been taught to be pious and brought into the light, are well aware of this. For some, enslaved by impiety, buried them, thinking they were helping the D gods; but others informed those who were searching for such things. And these, having dug them up and found them, brought them out to be seen in public, so that those who were called gods might be a laughingstock to women and youths. For they were images partly of reptiles, partly of quadrupeds. They worshiped the images of bats also, and of mice; and though they would kill the animals themselves, I say, snakes and scorpions, and mice and bats, yet they worshiped the images of these as gods.
B But we have already spoken many words concerning these things; let us therefore learn the truth of other prophecies. The same prophet also says these things: “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: In that day a man shall trust in Him who made him; and his eyes shall look to the Holy One of Israel. And they shall not trust in the altars, nor in the works of their hands, which their fingers have made, and they shall no longer look to the trees, and to their abominations.” C The prophet predicted these things more than a thousand years before Constantine reigned, after whose reign the shrines of the demons were destroyed. But that man filled with God saw things so far in the future as if they were present, and predicted events at such a great distance of time. As for the Dodonean and Pythian oracles, they did not even predict what was to happen three months hence, but issued uncertain oracles that slanted this way and that. Hear also what follows: “Turn back, you who have devised the deep and iniquitous counsel, O sons of Israel; for in that day D men shall cast away their hand-made idols of silver and gold, which their hands have made.” And again: “I am the first God, and I am for the times to come. The nations saw me and were afraid, the ends of the earth were amazed; they drew near and came together, each one judging to help his neighbor and his brother, and he shall say: The craftsman has prevailed, and the smith striking with a hammer, at the same time driving. Then indeed he shall say: It is a good joining; they strengthened it with nails, they will set it up, and it shall not be moved.” For they can neither stand unless they are nailed, nor move unless they are carried by others. And again: “Jacob is my servant, I will uphold him; Israel is my chosen, my soul has received him. I have given my spirit upon him, and he shall bring forth judgment to the nations; he shall not cry out, nor show slackness, nor shall his voice be heard outside; he shall not break a bruised reed, and he shall not quench smoking flax; but he shall bring forth judgment unto truth; he shall shine, and shall not be broken, until he shall set judgment upon the earth, and in his name shall the nations hope. Thus says the Lord God of Israel, who made heaven and fixed it, who established the earth and what is in it, and gives breath to the people who are upon it, and spirit to those who walk upon it. I the Lord God have called you in righteousness, and I will hold your hand, and will strengthen you. I have given you for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to lead out of the bonds the
bound, and to lead those sitting in darkness out of the house of prison. I am the Lord God; this is my name. My glory I will not give to another, nor my virtues to graven things. B These words the God of all spoke as if to a man to the Master Christ, naming him Jacob and Israel from his visible nature; for from that lineage he sprang according to the flesh, and the writer clearly demonstrated his gentleness and the long-suffering he employed when he was mocked by the Jews. He said that he was given as a covenant of the race, for he had promised to the patriarchs, and to the Jews themselves, that he would grant salvation through him. He said also that he had risen as a light for the nations, so as to open the eyes of the blind, and to break the bonds of the shackled, and to deliver those sitting in the gloom of ignorance, as it were in a prison, from the darkness. He called those who are surrounded by the mist of ignorance, and those shackled by the chains of sin, the blind, the shackled, and those sitting in darkness. C That he thus named those enslaved by the deceit of superstition is testified by what follows: "For I," he said, "am the Lord God; this is my name. My glory I will not give to another, nor my virtues to graven things." For as soon as he appeared, he stripped them of the title which they had seized and placed upon themselves. And after a few words he said again: "The Lord God of hosts shall go forth to crush war and kindle zeal, and shall cry out against his enemies with power." Then he teaches why he had not done this long ago, and says: "I kept silent from the age; shall I also always be silent and endure? I have long suffered as a woman in labor; I will manifest and at once destroy and dry up." D Those were words of long-suffering, and these are of humanity. For suffering long from the beginning, he did not punish; then, using mercy, he called the wandering and scattered those who led them astray. "For I will destroy," he says, "and dry up at once. I will make deserts of mountains and hills; I will turn rivers into islands, and I will dry up the marshes." By these words he indicated the shrines of the idols which were in such places, all of which, after he appeared, he demolished and dried up like marshes. He adds furthermore: "And I will lead the blind in a way that they knew not, and I will make them walk in paths which they did not know." For they, while once wandering, were ignorant of the way of truth; but having found the apostles as hosts, leaders, and indeed ministers of light, they abandoned the paths of deceit and recognized the way of truth. "I will make darkness into light for them, and crooked things into straight." For instead of the former darkness, that of the intellectual
A light they partake, and having left behind the distorted paths, they walk in the straight one. Then, as if reproving those still wandering, he says: "Be ashamed with shame, you who trust in graven images, who say to molten things: You are our gods." And after a few words: "Behold I do new things, which shall now arise, and you shall know them; and I will make a way in the desert, and rivers in a dry land, to give drink to my elect race, my people whom I have acquired for myself, to recount my virtues." Now he has called his race those who have believed, of whom he was named the firstborn because of the flesh he assumed. That he said these things concerning the nations, what follows bears witness: "Hear, O islands, and attend, O nations; stand for a long time, says the Lord." That none of this is appropriate for the Jews, the very name of islands and nations testifies. And again: "Hear me, hear me, my people; and you kings, hearken to me; B for a law shall go forth from me, and my judgment for a light of the nations; my righteousness draws near quickly, and my salvation shall go forth as light; the islands shall wait for me, and in my arm shall the nations hope." By all these things he prophesied the salvation of the nations, and the evangelical law, and the light of divine knowledge, which he brought to all men through the holy apostles. He did not, however, mean the arm as a member of the human body (for the divine nature is simple and devoid of composition), but he indicated power figuratively. Since it is with their arms C that soldiers fight, and farmers work, and indeed all those who practice any craft, he rightly indicated by [the word] "arm" that power in which we trust, crying out: "I will not fear evils, for you are with me." And again he cries: "Behold, I have given him as a testimony among the nations, a prince and commander to the nations. Behold, nations that did not know you, shall call upon you; peoples who do not know you shall take refuge in you, for the sake of the Lord your God, and the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you." Seeing, therefore, Christ the Lord reigning over the inhabited world, and all the nations most gladly acknowledging his sovereignty, understand now the prophecy, and admire its truth. Hear also what follows: "And those D who are in the West shall fear the name of the Lord, and those who are in the East, his glorious name." And again: "I became manifest to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. I said: Behold I am, to a nation that did not call upon my name." And the whole prophecy is full of such words. But that we may also show the other prophets in harmony
A listen to Jeremiah crying out: "In that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered together into it; and they shall no longer walk after the evil thoughts of their heart." Observe, O men, the agreement of the words, and see all people from every quarter running together to that city, which received the Lord’s and saving passion and which loathed the deception of idols and offered that same veneration to the Crucified. And of the same prophet, these words also [are written]: "Thus saith the Lord God: Stand upon the ways, and see, and ask for the ancient paths of the Lord, and see what the good way is, and walk in it, and you shall find B sanctification for your souls. And they said: We will not walk [in it]. I set watchmen over you; hear the sound of the trumpet. And they said: We will not hear. Therefore the nations heard, and those who feed the sheep among them." For the divine proclamations were first offered to the Jews, both by the prophets and by the apostles. But since they showed themselves stubborn, the divine gifts were granted to all the nations. And the God of the prophet calls the ancient prophets "ways," but the Savior and Lord Himself the "good way." For just as paths from the villages and fields lead into and move toward the royal highway, so did all the prophets point out this way to those willing to believe. And the Lord Himself cries out in the holy Gospels: "I am the way, and the life, and the truth." He exhorts the Jews, therefore, to read the oracles of the prophets and to seek what is heralded by them. And since they spoke against the prophecies, He sounded the apostolic trumpet. But because they said again, "We will not hear," the divine men cry out to them, as Luke recounts in the Acts: "It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken to you first; but since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, C henceforth we go to the nations." Again, however, the prophet foretells the salvation of the nations and cries to the God of all: "Lord, my strength, and my help, and my refuge in the day of evils, the nations shall come to you from the ends of the earth, and shall say: Surely our fathers have possessed vain and false idols, and there was no profit in them; shall a man make gods for himself, and they themselves not be gods?" What could be more manifest than these words? For as if present and beholding the change of the world, and as if hearing the nations who had turned to repentance and were mocking the weakness of idols, so he wrote down the oracle. D Now the prophet Amos predicts not only the salvation of the nations, but also the dispersion of the Jews, or rather, the God of all [speaks] through his tongue: "For behold, he says, I command, and I shall sift the house of Israel among all the nations, just as one sifts [grain] in a sieve."
And after a little: "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David which had fallen, and I will rebuild its fallen parts, and I will rebuild its demolished parts; and I will rebuild it as in the days of old, so that the remnant of men and all the nations upon whom my name has been called may seek me, says the Lord who does all these things." If any of you wishes to know what this tabernacle is, let him hear the most holy John saying: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." B Furthermore, Sophonias also cries out: "The Lord shall appear upon them, and he shall destroy all the gods of the earth; and they shall worship him, each from his own place, and all the islands of the nations." For because he had commanded the Jews to frequent the temple that is in Jerusalem, he necessarily added that, when the false gods had been removed from the midst, each would worship the true God, not being compelled to run to that city, but offering worship in their houses, and cities, and villages, and fields. And after a few things he says again: C "Then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him under one yoke; from the borders of the rivers of Ethiopia they shall bring me sacrifices." For he divided the one tongue of the apostles, which was Galilean, into the languages of all the nations, and brought to all the saving calling. And indeed, he also foretells things consonant with these through Zacharias: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Sion; for behold I come, and I shall dwell in your midst, says the Lord; and many nations shall flee for refuge to the Lord in that day, and they shall be to him a people; and he shall dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you." D In these words the Only-begotten showed both his own person and that of the Father. He says he was sent because he appeared not as God, but as man; for it is fitting that he, having come, should fulfill justice for men, and demonstrate the lauded obedience. And again: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; preach, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you, just and saving; he is meek, and riding upon a beast of burden and a young foal. And he shall destroy chariots
A from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off; and a multitude of peace from the nations; and he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth. And after much more: «And the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day the Lord shall be one, and his name one, encompassing all the earth and the wilderness.» Which of these things, O men, is obscured or stands in need of clarification? And which of the things said does not possess the testimony of the events themselves crying out?
Hear also what God of all said through Malachi to Israel: «I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept a sacrifice from your hands; for from the sun’s rising even to its setting, my name is glorified among the nations; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord Almighty; but you profane it.» B
Compare, friends, these words with the events themselves, and see both the contumacy of the Jews and the confession of the nations, and how everywhere on earth and sea a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the God of all; and praise Him who so clearly predicted these things. And if you wish, apply your eyes also to the oracles of Daniel, and Ezekiel, and Joel, and Micah, and Hosea, and the other prophets. For all of them indeed proclaim the salvation of the nations.
Moreover, God himself, in making covenants with the patriarch Abraham, promised that through his seed he would give the blessing to the nations. «For I will bless you,» he said, «and I will magnify your name, and you shall be blessed, and I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.» And he gave this promise to him not once, but also many times; indeed, even after his death he bestowed that same blessing upon his son Isaac, C and after him again upon Jacob. For because the Only-Begotten, having taken human nature from their seed, became man, and having become man and having fulfilled the dispensation, sent forth the apostles into the whole world, and commanded them to make disciples of all the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the nations, having believed, attained their salvation; therefore, with good reason did He bestow this blessing upon Abraham and those from him, both making manifest to them the things that were to come and demonstrating the greatness of the gift, and providing comfort with the hope of salvation to those who listen to the divine oracles.
And Jacob the patriarch, in blessing Judah, also made mention of the blessing of the nations. «For a ruler,» he said, «shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes for whom it is reserved; and he himself is the expectation of the nations.» And Moses the great D likewise exclaims: «Rejoice, O nations, with his people.» But who could easily compile the prophecies of divine David? For in the second psalm, assuming the person of our Savior: «The Lord,» he says, «said to me: My Son...
th his people.» But who could easily compile the prophecies of divine David? For in the second psalm, assuming the person of our Savior, he says: «The Lord said to me: My Son are you; I today have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and your possession the ends of the earth.» And in the eighth A he says: «O Lord our God, how wonderful is your name in all the earth! because your majesty has been raised above the heavens. Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise.» We see these things being fulfilled daily. In the ninth [psalm] again, he speaks to the God of all: «Arise, O Lord; let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in your sight. Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver B over them; let the nations know that they are men.» For since the human race had fallen into extreme insanity, he necessarily asks for a lawgiver to be given to them, so that they might both recognize their nature and cast off their beastly habits. And in the twenty-first: «All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations will worship before him: for the kingdom is the Lord's, and he himself rules the nations.» And what follows has the same meaning; for he predicts a new people [formed] from all the nations. And that I might omit the greater part, hear him directly in the forty-fourth psalm saying: «Instead of your fathers, your sons have been born; you will establish them as princes over all the earth.» And again in the forty-fifth: «Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations; I will be exalted in the earth.» C And the one that follows this entirely foretells the salvation of the nations: «For all you nations, clap your hands; shout to God with a voice of exultation. For the Lord is most high, terrible, a great king over all the earth.» But indeed, the forty-seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and I may say almost all the Davidic psalms, predict the change of the world, and proclaim both the calling and the faith of the nations, and furthermore the existence of our God and Savior that is before the ages, his birth from the Father, his birth from the Virgin, the miracles, the sufferings, the unbelief of the Jews, the resurrection from the dead, the ascension into heaven, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and D the course of the apostles through the whole world, by land and sea. And indeed all the other prophets predict these things. But I have considered it superfluous to collect all the predictions; for I would have need of many books if I were to describe them all, and of speaking about [them] each in turn.
of each, and saying what is fitting. But it is enough for you, if you wish, to discern the truth also from the other things you have heard. A For these are manifest and true, and are, as it were, clear images of the facts. Just as, therefore, one would be able to learn the art of the best painters more easily by comparing the painted image with the true and archetypal form, so it behoves you also to compare the prophecy, as a kind of idea previously outlined by the most wise painter, with the events themselves, now that it has obtained its end, and to contemplate the similarity, which admits of no variation. For formerly, before the prophecy received its end,2 it was a matter of no small labor to persuade the men of that time that the things which were predicted would come to pass. But now, when we see fulfilled what was long ago predicted, and that those words have become deeds, we have no labor in creating faith for our ears. For they have the testimony of the eyes, and Herodotus’s saying is superfluous to us, that “men’s ears are less faithful than their eyes”; B for our eyes surely see what our ears receive by hearing.
Since, therefore, you have heard a few prophecies and have seen the testimony of the events, compare, O men, the oracles of the prophets with your own, and cry out with the Apostle: “What partnership has light with darkness? Or what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” For the choirs of the prophets are the temples of God; but the idols, which the nations worshipped, are deaf and dumb, concerning which the divine Spirit says: “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have a mouth, but will not speak; they have eyes, but will not see; they have ears, but will not hear; they have noses, but will not smell; they have hands, but will not handle; they have feet, but will not walk; they will not cry out in their throat; for there is no spirit in their mouth. Let those who make them be like them, and all who trust in them.” But may it be granted to you, O men, to learn the truth, and not to suffer the punishment of the prophetic curse.
SERMON XI.
On the end and judgment.
D Perhaps, O men, you have heard of that Aristippus, the grandson of that Aristippus who was a companion of Socrates. He, living with his mother as she practiced philosophy, partook to the greatest extent of philosophy. He also obtained a name derived from the event, for everyone called him Metro-didactos [taught by his mother]. But that was sufficient for him for...
acquiring philosophy; but you, although you have already heard so many prophets and apostles, and indeed also those who, following them, have flourished in doctrine, are nevertheless unwilling to learn the truth. A This affliction comes upon you because perhaps you consider these teachings to be useless. For they do not promise Syracusan delights, nor a relaxed and most soft kind of life, nor detestable riches and their slippery, Euripus-like flux, but sweats and labors and a life exposed to many hardships. For these things are clear to you, but the end of these things is not seen. For, being accustomed to behold only those things which are seen, you are unable to see the nature of those things which are not seen; for you lack those eyes of which faith is the creator. But I, as far as I am able and as far as you are capable of grasping, will manifest even these, using once again the torchlight of the divine oracles. It is, I think, useful to show even now, in parallel, the opinions of the philosophers and the dogmas of the divine Gospels, so that you may know what end they defined, and what end the divine words promise.
B Epicurus, therefore, measured the end by living most pleasantly. For he thought that pleasure alone was the supreme good. Democritus the Abderite, the father of his dogmas, instead of pleasure, posited "desire," having made a change of names, not of dogmas. And Heraclitus the Ephesian shifted the designation, but left the meaning; for instead of pleasure, he posited "good-pleasure" [beneplacitum]. This definition, however, has another force. For he posited the good-pleasure indefinitely, but did not express the quality of it. For various and different are the opinions of men. If, indeed, temperance is pleasing to some, to others vice, its opposite, is pleasing; and to some, incontinence; to others, continence; and to these, a life given to iniquity and avarice; to others, one tenacious of justice. Therefore, that which is pleasing and sweet and desirable to each one, this he seemed to have defined as the end, having substituted the term "good-pleasure" for pleasure. C The widely-celebrated Pythagoras thought the ultimate good was in the most exact science of numbers; Hecataeus, in self-sufficiency; Antisthenes, in freedom from vanity; but Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, in the contemplation of life and the freedom which proceeds from it, establishing a definition fitting for a philosopher. For it is truly the greatest good to discern the nature of things, to despise those things which are fleeting, and to preserve the soul unenslaved and free. But Plato, the son of Aristo (Rep. p. 613 A), surpassed him in the height and magnificence of his definition; D for he defined the end of goods as being to be made like to God as far as is possible. Praise-worthy, therefore, is also the
A exhortation which invites us to the imitation of divine things. Yet that addition, “as far as is possible,” renders the definition more admirable. For it is not possible that we should become like to God in every respect. For how could one who is visible be made like to the invisible, and one who is brief and circumscribed in a small space be made like to the uncircumscribed, who contains the creation? And again, one who is recent be made like to the eternal, and the creator of all things be made like to one who cannot even fashion a heaven of a single cubit's span? Therefore, it is impossible to imitate that nature, or that power, or indeed that wisdom; yet it is possible to express in some way certain types of His goodness, justice, gentleness, and philanthropy. For even the Lord Christ proposed this imitation to those longing for perfection: “Be ye,” He saith, “merciful, as your heavenly Father B is merciful; for He maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and raineth upon the just and the unjust” d. And Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, the teacher of Plato, was accustomed to call not him who flows with wealth and is carried by favorable winds, but him who is adorned with justice, happy; and he called those who separate the useful from the just impious, for he said that only the just is useful. But the orators did not wish to incline their ears to these words; for they said that what is just is something other than the useful, thus showing the useful to be in a certain way at odds with it; for what is unjust, of course, is separated from what is just; and what is unjust is harmful; but what is harmful cannot reasonably be called useful. Plato, then, and Socrates spoke things that are consistent and worthy of praise; but Aristotle, although he was a disciple of Plato’s teaching, C did not profit from these dogmas, but said that happiness is completed from a threefold category, from those things relating to the soul, from those relating to the body, and from external things; for he said that it was necessary for the happy man not only to be adorned with virtue, but also to have strength, and to shine in bloom of youth, and to flow with wealth; and that he who is deprived of any of these is in no way to be called happy. But this man, as it seems, followed rather the poet Simonides. For he said thus: To have health is best for a man; Second, to be born of beautiful form; And third, to be wealthy without guile. And Theognis D also urges that poverty be fled, and he says: It is necessary for him who flees poverty even into the vast-gulfed sea To cast himself, or from the steep crags, O Cyrnus. But the Stoics decreed the contrary to these openly:
A for they defined the end of life as living in accordance with nature, and they said that the soul receives neither benefit nor detriment from the body. For neither does health compel an unwilling person to virtue, nor does sickness drag one into vice against one's will; for they said that these things are indifferent. But that other tenet of theirs is truly bold; for they asserted that the virtue of man and God is the same. Epicurus, however, walking the opposite path to these, defined human happiness as neither hungering nor thirsting; and he said that he who experiences these things could fight even with father Zeus: so much did the love of pleasure school him in impiety. For let no one look only at the name mocked by him, namely Zeus; for understanding that he was the God of all things, he dared such blasphemy. But this has befallen the wretch because he attributed everything to chance and atoms, and believed that all things are without a ruler and without care, and that they do not await an examination of their lives, but considers the constitution of men to extend only as far as the grave. B Plato, however, shows that judgments and punishments await those who have departed from this life, and he writes in the tenth book of the *Republic* (p. 615 C): "There stood by, men of savage aspect, fiery to behold, who, understanding the cry, seized some of them and led them away; but Aridaeus and others, having bound their hands and feet and head, threw them down and flayed them, and dragged them along the road outside, carding them over thornbushes." In the *Phaedo* also he writes things similar to these (p. 113 A): "For a third river," he says, "flows between them, and not far from its entrance it falls into a place great and burning with much fire, and makes a marsh larger than our sea, boiling with water and mud. C Thence it travels in a circle, murky and muddy, and winding about, it arrives at other places, and at the edges of the Acherusian lake; and it does not mingle with its waters. And having wound around many times under the earth, it pours out into the lower parts of Tartarus. This is the one which they name Pyriphlegethon; and it is from this that its streams throw off fragments wherever they happen upon the earth. And opposite this, again, a fourth falls into a place terrible and wild. It is said to have a color altogether like blue; which they name the Styx; and the marsh which the river makes as it flows in, they call the Stygian. D The river, having fallen into this, and having received some powers in the water, having gone under the earth, and winding around, proceeds contrary to the Pyriphlegethon, and meets it at the Acherusian lake from the opposite side. And not even its water mingles with any other, but this one also, having circled around, falls into Tartarus opposite to the Pyriphlegethon." And in order that I may not, by saying all things, grow too
A long in my discourse, it is easy, o men, to take the dialogue itself into your hands, and to learn clearly from reading it how he establishes a tribunal, and how he determines due penalties for those who have sinned in small ways, and incurable torments for those who have committed many great acts of impiety. I will, however, recall a few things. He speaks thus: "But those who are thought to be incurable on account of the magnitude of their sins, whether they have committed many great acts of sacrilege, or many murders contrary to what is right and just, or other deeds of a like nature, a fitting fate casts these into Tartarus, from whence they never emerge. But those who are found to have committed sins that are curable, though great—as, for instance, those who in a fit of rage have committed some violent act against their father or mother, and who, having repented, have lived the rest of their lives according to that repentance, or those who have become murderers in some similar way—these must necessarily fall into Tartarus; but after they have fallen, and have spent a year there, the wave casts them out: the murderers, by way of the Cocytus; those who have sinned against their parents, by way of the Pyriphlegethon." After this he teaches how they cry out and beseech those whom they have wronged to grant them forgiveness; and then, B when those whom they have wronged refuse, how they are sent back again into the lake, where they continue to undergo the same torments. Having thus shown the places of punishment, he also reveals the regions of those who have lived well, in this manner: "But those who are thought to have excelled in living a life of holiness, these are they who are liberated and released from these places on earth as if from prisons, and arriving at that pure dwelling above, they establish their homes upon the earth. And of these very ones, those who have been sufficiently purified by philosophy live forever, for all time to come, without any labors, and they arrive at dwellings even more beautiful than these, which it is neither easy to describe, nor is the present time sufficient to relate them; but for the sake of these things which we have recounted, o Simmias, one must make every effort to partake of virtue and wisdom. For the prize is noble, C and the hope is great." In the *Gorgias* also, he says things of a similar nature: "Hear, then, a very beautiful discourse, which you, I suppose, will think is a fable, but I believe is the truth; for it is as a truth that what I am about to tell you should be recounted." And after a few words: "But him who has passed his life justly and piously, when he dies, [he says] that he goes to the isles of the blessed, to dwell in all blessedness, exempt from evils; but him who has lived unjustly and impiously, [he sends] to the prison of judgment and justice, which they call Tartarus." And again: "Then men must be judged naked of all these things. For it is necessary that they be judged dead; and the judge must be naked and dead, viewing the very soul of each person with his own soul, suddenly, when he has died, D bereft of all his kin, having left behind on earth all that ornament, so that the judgment may be just." Thus strictly and accurately
A Plato was persuaded that there are places of judgment in Hades. For having resided in Egypt with the Hebrews, he had heard the prophetic oracles, and had learned of the river of fire which the divine Daniel relates that he witnessed. He had also learned the words of the divine Isaiah. For he speaks thus in a certain place concerning the punishments of the guilty: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished." And again: "Who shall announce to you that fire is burning? Who shall announce to you the eternal place?"
Another many things to this effect can be found among the prophets. But the philosopher, taking some things from thence, and mixing in other things from the myths of the Greeks, wrote B his discourses on these matters. And the things that follow have the same intent. "For of the judges," he says, "as I was saying, first of all that Rhadamanthus, if he receives someone such as this to be judged, knows nothing else about the man, neither who he is, nor from whom he is sprung, but only that he is wicked; and having perceived this, he sends him away to Tartarus, marking him to signify whether he appears curable or incurable. And he, having arrived there, suffers appropriate things. Sometimes, however, having seen one C who has lived holily and with truth, whether a private man or another who has cultivated truth—and especially, I truly think, Callicles, the philosopher who has devoted himself to his own affairs and has not been busy about many things in life—he both admires and sends him to the islands of the blessed." And after a few words he added: "I, for my part, Callicles, am persuaded by these arguments, and I look to one thing, how I may present my soul most sound to the judge. Dismissing, therefore, the honors which many covet, and inclining toward truth, I will strive with all my strength, both that I may live as the best man, and, when it is time to die, that I may die. I exhort also the other D men, as far as I am able; and indeed I invite you in turn to this life and to this struggle, which I affirm is to be chosen before all the struggles that can be entered into in life. And I rebuke and accuse you now, for you will not be able to offer yourself assistance when your case is there, and the judgment that I was just speaking of occurs; but when you have come before that judge, the son of Aegina, when he has seized hold of you and leads you away, you will gape and be dizzy, just as I am here, and you there; and perhaps he will strike you, and will dishonor you with blows, and will utterly treat you with contumely. Perhaps, therefore, this tale seems to you to be a myth.
and you despise them; and indeed it would not be a matter of wonder to despise these things, if, while searching, we could find better and truer things. But now you see that you three, A who are the wisest of the Greeks—you, I mean, Polus and Gorgias—cannot prove that any other life is to be lived except for this one, which appears to be useful for the attainment of that happiness. Such things he discussed both in this dialogue and regarding those matters, and he exhorted us most wisely so that we might take care of those things by which we may be delivered from those punishments. B In the *Crito* also, he introduces the laws, speaking thus to Socrates: "But, Socrates, believe us, your nourishers, and do not value your children, nor life, nor anything else more than what is just, so that when you arrive in the underworld, you may be able to present an account of all these things to those who preside there." And in the *Apology* he says that death is also a good thing: "Let us consider," he said, "even in this way, that there is great hope that it is a good thing. For death is one of two things: it is either as if it were nothing, and he who is dead has no perception of anything at all; or, according to what is said, C it happens to be some change and a migration of the soul from this place to another."
Now, these words of his are worthy of praise, although they contain some admixture of spurious dogmas, such as Rhadamanthus and Minos, and the islands of the blessed, and, moreover, that only souls separated from bodies are punished. For these things are indeed foreign to the dogmas of the truth; however, he is in a way to be forgiven, as he was not a participant in the apostolic teaching. But the transmigrations into other bodies, which he drew from the dogmas of the Pythagoreans, D must be wholly avoided, O men. For those dogmas are utterly ridiculous. For regarding the souls that are sent into bodies, he says in the *Phaedo* that they put on, as is natural, the same habits as they happened to have practiced in this life: "What kinds do you mean, Socrates? For instance, those who have practiced gluttony and wantonness and drunkenness, and have taken no thought for anything, it is likely that they will enter into the breeds of donkeys and other such animals. Is it not so? Most likely, you say. But those who have preferred injustice and tyrannies and robberies, into the breeds of wolves and hawks and kites? Or whither else should we say that such souls go? To be sure," said Cebes, "into such animals." And that I may not prolong the discourse by mentioning everything, one who reads him will find him asserting that the souls of those who have practiced the political virtue enter into the bodies of bees, or of wasps or...
A formicarum, et hominum subituras. Haec vero f non modo sunt ridicula, verum iis etiam quae superius dixerat, penitus contraria. These things, however, are not only ridiculous, but are also directly contrary to what he has already said. In those earlier passages, he said that souls were punished, some being cast into Acheron and the Acherusian lake, and others into the Styx, Cocytus, and Pyriphlegethon; and that those who had sinned beyond remedy were swept away in the currents of the Pyriphlegethon into Tartarus, while those who had committed sins for which they could be expiated, as they were carried along by the waves, became suppliants to those whom they had injured in times past, whom they perceived on the bank of the river, and then were carried back again by the wave into the lake. But here, he says that those who have been slaves to pleasures become donkeys, and those who have loved a tyrannical and rapacious life pass into the bodies of wolves, hawks, and kites. Moreover, those who have cultivated the political virtue, he says, enjoy the most blessed rewards, being converted into wasps, bees, and ants. For such are the prizes the philosopher B assigned to those who were diligent in virtue. And these things are likewise contrary to what was said above. For there, he sent them to the Isles of the Blessed and asserted that the dwellings of the philosophers could not be explained in words; but here, he attributes to them the life of wasps, bees, and ants, and claims that those who in their former life had harmed no one receive as a reward the ability to harm others and inflict damage. For bees and wasps have it by nature to prick with stings, and ants plunder the crops and share the fruits with the farmers, although they have not shared in their labors. Wasps, however, are pests to those who cultivate plants, corrupting the produce of the trees. And bees do something similar in a way. Yet it never C entered the mind of this most wise philosopher, but he looked only to the authority of the one who first uttered these things. Indeed, even elsewhere he brings forward other myths of this kind in these words (Phaed. p. 248 E): "For into that same place whence each soul comes, it does not arrive for ten thousand years. For it does not grow wings to fly away before that time, except for him who has philosophized sincerely, or who has loved boys in accordance with the standard of philosophy. These, upon the third period of a millennium, are released. Three times, I say, having been lifted up by these wings for that life in succession, they depart after a thousand years. But other souls, when they have completed their first life, undergo judgment: once this is finished, some are sent down into the subterranean places of justice and pay the penalty: but others, being lightened by justice into a certain place in heaven, D live in a manner worthy of the life they lived in the form of a human." [And he does this] even as he admits the absurdity of these things.
A For who taught him about the myriads of years, and that after ten thousand years have passed, each soul returns to 39 its own place? And the things spoken between these matters were not fit for the most debauched men to say, let alone a philosopher. For he yoked the licentious and the pederasts to those who have achieved pure philosophy, and said that both these and those would enjoy the same rewards. But again, forgetting these words (for in the *Republic* he assigned heaven to such souls), he said that Orpheus’ soul chose a swan’s body, and that Agamemnon became an eagle, Ajax 40 a lion, Atalanta an athlete, and Thersites a monkey. And I know not for the sake of what he consented to insert the irrationality of these doctrines into his dialogues; but it is clear that he is playing rather than being serious in the passages where he discourses on transmigration, for in many places he B shows the places of punishment in Hades. I shall turn back to these, so that I do not leave the philosopher among those ridiculous 41 words. Hear, therefore, his own words: "But I will not tell you an Alcinoan tale, but the tale of a courageous man, Er the son of Armenius, of the Pamphylian lineage; who, having died in battle, [was found] when the ten-day-old corpses were already decaying, yet he was taken up whole, and brought home, and being about to be buried, on the twelfth day while lying on the pyre he came back to life, and while alive he told what he had seen there. And he said that, when [there] the soul had departed, it went along with many, and they arrived at a certain C demonic place, in which there were two chasms of the earth near to each other, and again in the heaven above, two others directly opposite; and between these sat judges, whom, when they had judged, they ordered the righteous to go by the right-hand way and upward [through] heaven, having signs fastened on them from the front of what had been judged; but the unjust [they ordered] the way to the left and downward, having these also behind them, a sign of all that they had done. And [he said] that when he approached himself, they said he must become a messenger to men of the things there, and they commanded him to listen to and D watch everything in that place." These words are truly worthy of philosophy. For they do not send souls down into the bodies of irrational animals, but those that have lived well to heaven, and those that have chosen the opposite down into Hades. It is clear, therefore, that he is playing in the former cases, but speaks seriously in these. And indeed, Plutarch also, in his writings about the soul, pointed out both the judge and the ministers of the court, having inserted a certain narrative of this kind into his composition;
D "To this Antyllus," he says, "we ourselves were present, along with Sositelis and Heracleon, as he related it. For when he seemed to the physicians to be already lifeless, having revived a little from a certain fit of lethargy—not by any means a violent one—he neither did nor said anything that might be a sign of a deranged mind. Rather, he recounted that he had returned to life again, and that he would not die at all from that illness. He even complained that those who brought him were rebuked by the Lord’s master, for having been sent for a certain Nicandas, they had brought him instead; now, Nicandas was a leather-worker." He relates, moreover, that when Nicandas died, Antyllus immediately recovered.
Such then are the dogmas of the philosophers, and you have learned from what we have said above how some of them have measured human happiness by the belly, while others have spoken of it more perfectly; and how some have considered the life of man to extend only to the grave, while others have dreamed of rewards for those things done in life, and have depicted, as far as their eloquence could reach, places of torment full of horror, not even leaving these free from fables. Now it is time for you to contemplate the dogmas of the holy Gospels, which are worthy of God. They say, therefore, that the beginning of good things is the praiseworthy fear of God: "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord," as Solomon and his father teach; B and the end is a life adorned by divine laws: "For blessed," he says, "are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that search his testimonies; with their whole heart shall they seek him." The Savior of all taught us this very thing in the holy Gospels. For he calls blessed, not the rich and those who enjoy luxuries and to whom all things flow smoothly, but the poor in spirit, and the meek, and the merciful, and those who hunger and thirst after justice, and those who endure suffering for the sake of some good; and to those who have performed these and similar things zealously, he promises the kingdom of heaven. I think it will be useful for me to recite to you the laws themselves as they were written under the form of beatitude: C "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." Other things, too, O men, tend to the same meaning. But these will be sufficient to show the intention of the Lawgiver, and to whom D
A He taught us to look as the end. For He did not command us to look forward to riches, nor to the bloom and health of the body, but to the labors of virtue, and the dangers undertaken for its sake, and its greatest and ineffable rewards. For what speech is capable of proving that kingdom of heaven which is undying and infinite, and a life free from old age, from grief, and from cares? Regarding these, the inspired Paul cries out: "Things which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him." But if the one who was a spectator of these things could not utter what he was deemed worthy to see, hardly would another dare to attempt to describe the ineffable. And that He Himself also defined the end of good things to be eternal life, hear Him writing to the Romans: "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit, then, had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now, having been freed from sin and having become slaves to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." It is sufficient, B he says, the gift of freedom in itself to show you the fruit of piety; yet, out of His bounty, the generous and munificent Lord bestows upon you eternal life as well, so that you might discern the difference between sin and righteousness: for sin had death as its end, but righteousness, eternal life. Then, after many other things, he shows the greatest of the gifts: "For as many," he says, "as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together." And writing similar things to the Galatians, he said: "So that you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." And to Timothy he has written the same thought: "It is a faithful word: for if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him." And writing another epistle to him, he also included these things: C D "For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the just judge, will award to me in that day, and not only to me, but also to all those who have loved His appearing."
A Likewise, regarding the resurrection of bodies, he wrote to the Corinthians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, and to many others. And now, he says, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in
A His body, which is dishonored, he says, which is small and lowly, he will clothe with light and immortality." And when those on the right are praised, and have received the rewards of their labors, he will say also to those on the left: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." And he explains to these also the causes of their punishments: because none of them performed those things which the choir of the just performed, nor even imitated their exceeding modesty. For those, while having done all those things, denied it; but these, while not having done them, falsely claim to have done them; but they shall both receive the rebuke, and shall be delivered to punishment.
These things, O men, compare with the discourses of Plato, which are praised the most. For the rest of this man's words, and those of the others, are trifles, worthy of those same shadows. But those which we have praised possess some affinity to these. For both he confessed the punishments and the rewards of good works, and the holy oracles, both the new and the old, demonstrate them. And he indeed introduced other judges, Aeacus, and Minos, and Rhadamanthus, men not altogether to be praised—in the case of Minos, indeed, there are even those who bring many charges. We, however, await as judge Him who made us, who also knows best the nature which He Himself fashioned, and who knows not only its deeds and words, but even the very impulses of the internal thought. He will judge us, having put on the garment of our humanity; for the nature of the Godhead cannot be seen by the eyes. C Wherefore He also called Himself the Son of man, because those who are to be judged will see this nature. Whence the divine Apostle, preaching among the Athenians, said thus: "The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
If any man does not believe these things that are said, and deems the words of the apostles to be trifles, let him learn the truth of them in this way. Many things concerning the future life D both Christ our Master and His heralds foretold; but they also prophesied other things which in no way pertain to that future life, but only to this present life. Examine, therefore, O men, the predictions that have been uttered concerning this, and if you find them true and clearly matched by the events, accept without dispute those things foretold concerning the future. This, indeed, must be examined in this way: the of Jerusalem
A Master Christ foretold the siege, and how that famous Temple would be utterly destroyed, and how the race of those who crucified Him would be scattered to the ends of the inhabited world. Let us see, then, if the report received its fulfillment. And concerning the Jews, I do not believe you will doubt; for they have been driven out of that city and have become sojourners in all lands. As for the desolation of the Temple and its destruction from the foundations, those of you who have seen it, confess it truthfully; and the rest of you, believe those who recount it. For I myself have been an eyewitness of that desolation, and the prediction 31 which I had heard with my ears, I saw with my eyes, and I praised and worshipped its truth. That this saying is therefore unerring, B and that events cry out the same, [using the most powerful voice]: let us inquire also into the outcome of another prophecy. Master Christ foretold to the apostles the struggles and dangers that they were to suffer when bringing the teaching to both the Gentiles and the Jews. "For behold," He said to them, "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves." And again: "They will deliver you up to courts, and in their synagogues they will scourge you, and you will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles." And a little later: "Brother will deliver brother to death, and father his children; and children will rise up against parents and will put them to death; and you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But the one who has endured to the end, he will be saved." And again: "If they called the Master of the house Beelzebul, how much more his domestics?" And again: "Do not think that I came to cast peace upon the earth. I did not come to cast peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and daughter against her mother, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be his own C domestics." Each of these things, O friend, one can see fulfilled in deed. For it was amidst these dangers that the apostles illuminated the inhabited world, and those who came after them preserved the faith they had received; and the shrines of the martyrs bear witness to this, shining everywhere on land and sea, and proclaiming the truth of the divine predictions. For He did not foretell to them only the dangers, but also the victory. "For upon this rock," He said, "I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." One can also see, according to the prophecy, houses divided; for either husbands, caught by the net of the faith, struggle with wives who are still unbelieving, or wives, having accepted the yoke of piety, strive to ensnare their husbands who are still wandering, and this necessary disagreement for the sake of salvation gives birth to a praiseworthy conjunction. And that I may pass over other D predictions, a certain woman brought ointment to His holy feet: accepting her faith, He said to the standing disciples: "Amen, I say to you, wherever"
this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached, that which this woman has done shall also be told for a memorial of her." A This prediction we can see even now being fulfilled. For everywhere on land and sea the sacred Gospel is read, and the faith of this woman is proclaimed.
Seeing then that the Lord has foretold these things, and B proclaimed what was to come to pass in that life, and since we see the truth of these with our own eyes, let us also accept those others without doubt, making our way from the things that have already happened toward those things, and using the former as proofs of the latter. For this is the very reason why He foretold both the former and the latter, so that through these He might confirm those. And He generously bestowed honors upon those who believed in Him that He had not even promised; C and not only did He give great splendor to the living, but He also assigned very great honor to those who have departed this life most excellently, so that by those things which He did not promise, yet gave, we might believe in those things which He did promise. For He who bestowed gifts not contained in the covenants, and by His liberality exceeded His promises, will undoubtedly give what He promised, and reveal the rewards He has shown to those who contend. For it would be shameful for the overseers of the gymnasia D to provide the promised wage to the athletes, and for those who hire laborers to fulfill the agreements after the work is completed, but to say of the Creator of the universe—who out of goodness alone granted existence even to those who did not exist, and who accomplished the mystery of the dispensation, and who bestowed the light of the knowledge of God upon those who did not see the light—that He will not fulfill His own promises. For if the divine promise is true—as it indeed is true—then the teachings of divine instruction, O dear friends, are not in vain. For He has promised the kingdom of heaven, and life that has no end, and intellectual light, and fellowship with the incorporeal beings, to those who obey, just as, on the other hand, He has threatened eternal punishment to those who disbelieve; for He has made this clear even in the parable of the tares. For, interpreting it, He added: "So will it be at the end of this age: the Son of man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Having said these things, He added: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." These same things we also say to you, O dear friends, exhorting you. For we do not force anyone against their will to receive the divine gifts, but we exhort and entreat you, demonstrating to you the magnitude of these things. Therefore, since this word of the Lord God
A bids us: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
SERMON XII. Concerning active virtue.
Trees are indeed nourished by their roots and bring forth growth, but it is the branches and leaves that adorn them, and the fruit that hangs between these. For if anyone were to cut away the branches and strip the foliage, they become useless and are despoiled of their comeliness, and the foundation of the roots appears utterly superfluous. So too, the body requires eyes that see and guide the other senses; it requires feet that walk and carry the body; and it requires hands that perform work and supply food, drink, and all other necessities to all its members. B And indeed, as for tunics, cloaks, and mantles—to speak in a word, all garments—they are not made by the warp alone: there is need also for the woof, which is woven through the warp and holds it together. Why, then, have I said these things? Not, sirs, because I love wordy trifles, but in order that through these analogies I might show the substance of the most perfect philosophy. For the knowledge of divine things is truly a most great and magnificent good; but it is not sufficient to render a man perfect who possesses it. For good actions must surely be joined to knowledge. For what the root is to the tree, and the eye C to the body, and the warp to the woven fabric, that is the knowledge of truth and stable faith to the soul.
It is necessary, however, not only to know what ought to be believed about the Divine, but also to order one’s life and character according to His laws. For just as those who are being taught painting, or cobbling, or any other craft do not apply themselves to it merely so that they may have the knowledge, but so that they may also practice the work and show themselves in their deeds to be imitators of their teachers; so must those who are lovers of piety be trained not only in theology and the study of nature, but also in the laws of active virtue, and must keep these as much as they are able, D and endeavor to mold and fashion the appearance of their soul according to them. For he who thus regulates and forms his soul not only expresses the characters of the divine laws, but also becomes a living and rational image of the Legislator Himself. Teaching this, that great herald of the truth exclaims: “Be therefore imitators of God.” His Lord also urges this, saying: “Be imitators of your Father who is in heaven.” And again: “Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Moreover, he who loves God imitates Him as much as is permitted, and likewise pursues with hatred those things which He hates.
« Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. » A He who desires the God of all things also imitates Him as much as is possible, feeling hatred and love for the same things that the Lord Himself hates and loves. The divine laws teach us expressly who is hostile to Him and who is beloved by Him. For we hear the divine David crying out: "For You are not a God who desires iniquity; the wicked shall not dwell with You, nor shall the lawless remain before Your eyes; You have hated all those who work iniquity, You shall destroy all those who speak a lie; the Lord abhors a man of blood and deceit." B Having demonstrated in these words the disposition of the Lawgiver, he introduces in another melody [n. Ps. ci, 2-7] the person who has accurately copied these characteristics and who prays to the Lawgiver, saying: "I walked in the innocence of my heart in the midst of Your house; I set no lawless thing before my eyes. I hated those who commit transgressions. A crooked heart did not cleave to me; as for the one who turned away from me, I did not know the wicked man. The one who slandered his neighbor in secret, I drove him away; with a proud eye and an insatiable heart, with such a one I did not eat. My eyes were upon the faithful of the land, that they might sit with me; the one walking in a blameless way, this one served me; the one doing pride did not dwell in the midst of my house. The one speaking unjust things did not prosper before my eyes." By these things, He has not only taught us that it is possible to imitate the all-powerful and all-wise Lord, but He has also shown us the very mode of imitation. C For He did not command us to create heaven and earth, the sun and the moon, and other things, nor to possess a simple and uncircumscribed nature, but only to hate what He has hated and to love what He has dearly loved. Having attained the pinnacle of this virtue, the Prophet cries out to the Lord with boldness: "But to me, O God, Your friends have been greatly honored; their rule has been established exceedingly." [Ps. cxxxviii, 17] And again: "Did I not hate those who hate You, O Lord, and pine away because of Your enemies? I hated them with a perfect hatred; they became enemies to me." [Ps. cxxxviii, 21, 22] And again: "Ye men of blood, depart from me." [Ps. cxxxviii, 19] And once more: "Depart from me, ye wicked, and I will search out the commandments of my God." [Ps. cxviii, 115] And again: "I have hated the lawless, but I have loved Your law." [ibid. 113] And again: "How I have loved Your law, O Lord! It is my meditation all the day." [ibid. 97] And: "How sweet are Your words to my throat! More than honey to my mouth." [ibid. 103] D Many other things much more numerous than these can be found in the same psalm: for the prophecy is full of this kind of doctrine. Moses the Lawgiver also shows in the laws what is pleasing to the God of the universe and what, conversely, He hates. To these things, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the whole chorus of the prophets...
B have instructed us regarding this distinction. And their God Himself said in the Gospels: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of God, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." And again: "He who has done and taught shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He who loves Me will keep My commandments." Moreover, even in the parable of the talents, He showed that He will demand not only the number of what He gave, but He will also exact the interest; and he who did not possess this, having been stripped of grace, He will deliver, bound, into the darkness. And the virgins who had not brought sufficient oil He left outside the bridal chamber, and this while calling them virgins. And the man who was clothed in a garment not befitting the wedding, He separated from the guests and drove out from the banquet; and yet, he did not intrude of his own accord, but entered having been invited. But because, having been summoned by the pure liberality of the bridegroom, he did not change his garment, for this reason he suffered what he suffered. Hence the Apostle also says: "For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the divine gift, no longer does a sacrifice for sins remain, but a certain C terrible expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire which is about to consume the adversaries." Then, confirming his words with an example, he reinforces the argument: "Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you think, will he be judged worthy who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has considered the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, as common, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said: 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. And again: 'The Lord will judge His people.'" Then he terrifies the idle and slothful, saying: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." And he cries out elsewhere: "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he did, whether good or evil."
That knowledge requires practical virtue, these things, I think, are sufficient to demonstrate. But let us see what the philosophers of the Greeks have D thought regarding these matters as well. For we shall find Plato, and some others who have zealously followed his philosophy, in agreement with this discourse; for indeed in the Laws he speaks thus: "Therefore, he who has become pleasing and beloved to God..."
A in as much as it is possible, he must become such himself; and according to this reasoning, he who among us is temperate is dear to God, for he is like Him; but he who is not temperate is unlike and plainly different. Therefore, he has said nothing alien, but he himself also agrees that it is possible, in the dispositions regarding the good, to imitate God, the Creator. Yet here he did not call "temperate" him who is superior to pleasures, but him who preserves the rational part of the soul safe and sound. He wrote similar things also in the *Theaetetus*; for he said: "But it is not possible that evils should perish, O Theodore; for it is necessary that there should always be something contrary to the good, nor is it possible for them to be established among the gods, but of necessity they roam around the mortal nature and this region; wherefore it is necessary to attempt to flee from here to there as quickly as possible. And flight is the likeness to God, as much as possible. And the likeness is to become B just and holy with wisdom." Most clearly and wisely, he educated us in these words on the manner of imitation. For, first, he commanded us to flee the things here, not becoming outside the earth, but being freed from all earthly things; for he made this clear in what he added: "For I called flight the likeness to the divine." And the addition is also praiseworthy; for he did not ordain that we be simply like, but as is possible for men. Then he showed the form of the likeness: "For, I called the likeness," he says, "the becoming holy and just with wisdom." And this addition is also worthy of admiration. For there are some who have the greatest concern for justice, but by foolishness they corrupt the beauty C of the noble action. Afterward, in the same dialogue, he teaches the perfection of virtue through many words, writing thus: "Let us speak regarding the foremost. For what could one say of those who spend their time unlawfully in philosophy? For these, perhaps, know not the way to the market, nor where the court, or the council-chamber, or any other common assembly of the city may be; and laws and decrees, whether spoken or written, they neither see nor hear; and the strivings of societies for offices, and meetings, and feasts, and revels with flute-girls, do not even in a dream come upon them in their actions; nor does he know if anyone has become evil in the city, or what evil has happened to anyone from ancestors, from men or women, D more than he knows how many measures of water are in the sea. And he does not even know that he does not know all these things; for he abstains from them not for the sake of reputation. But in truth his body alone lies in the city and sojourns there, but his mind, considering all these things small, and as nothing, despises them, and flies everywhere, according to Pindar, both beneath the earth, and measuring the plains, and observing the heavens above, and searching out every nature in every way. And in these...
words did Plato depict the life of our philosophers; for no one such as this existed among them. For Socrates, that coryphaeus of A philosophers, used to spend his time debating both in the gymnasia and in the workshops; at one time he would linger in the city, at another he would go down to the Piraeus to watch the processions; and being enrolled among the armed soldiers, he served in Potidaea and on the island of Delos. Indeed, he would attend banquets, endure the comic mockery of Aristophanes and the petulance of Alcibiades — for this is what Plato’s *Symposium* teaches—and even entering the theater, he would watch the spectacles with the people. Therefore, what has been said by Plato least of all befits Socrates. And if it does not befit him, it would scarcely befit anyone else.
But those who have loved the evangelical philosophy have kept themselves far B from all the tumults of the city, and having occupied the mountain peaks or living in solitary places, they have given themselves over to the contemplation of divine things and to the life that befits this; not distracted by any care for wives, children, or possessions, but directing their souls according to the canon of the divine laws, and like excellent painters, they express their own intellectual images according to the archetypes of virtue. For that what has been said by Plato befits these men, he himself is witness, adding these things after many others: "It is necessary for such a one to be unrefined and unlearned on account of his occupation, no less than the shepherds, inasmuch as he is surrounded by a wall on the mountain just as they are by a sheepfold. But when he hears of ten thousand acres or more being mentioned, and that he who possesses them is proclaimed most wealthy, he seems to hear something very small, as he is accustomed to look upon the whole world." That no philosopher among the Greeks, however, inhabited a mountain sheepfold, the old writings sufficiently show; and you yourselves bear witness to this, for you are deeply resentful of those who teach this way of life, even though Plato called it highly praiseworthy.
He writes things consistent with this also in the second book of the *Republic*: "Once we have posited such a man, he says, let us place the just man beside him in our discourse, a man simple and noble, who, as Aeschylus says, desires not to seem, but to be good. For I C hold that this 'seeming' must be stripped away entirely. For if he is thought to be just, honors and gifts will follow him, because he is seen to be such. It will therefore be uncertain whether he is such for the sake of justice, or for the sake of the gifts and honors. He must be stripped bare of everything, except justice, and modeled in the opposite way to the prior one. For even though he possesses nothing, let him have the greatest reputation for injustice, so that he may be tested in his justice, by not being swayed by a bad reputation and the things that arise from it; but let him be immovable until death, appearing to be unjust throughout his life." And these things likewise befit our athletes of virtue. For not in the manner of Antisthenes, and Diogenes, and Crates, for the sake of empty glory, but for the sake of the truth itself...
do they perform what they do. And for this reason, they live removed from cities and villages, hiding their virtue, and showing it only to Him who rewards it. But you do not wish either to behold these men thus struggling, or to follow them with praise. If, however, by chance you see some who bear the appearance of this name, but do not live a life consistent with their garb, you immediately move your tongue to slander. And if you were attacking only those men, one might find some reason for what is happening; but since, together with them, you attempt to mock and disparage those who are diametrically opposed to them and who truly live philosophically, you clearly show the most unjust purpose of your mind. For you are not hostile to the wicked, but you slander the praiseworthy life, acting just as if someone, seeing an ape mimicking the gestures of a man, were to hate the nature of man as well on account of that imitation.
And that this is the judgment, not only of me, but also of Plato, he testifies. For in his *Theaetetus* he says: "Let us examine it in this way: come, if someone praises the rearing of goats, and the animal itself, as if it were a fine possession; but another person, having seen goats grazing in cultivated fields without a goatherd and doing damage, were to find fault—and seeing all such a herd lacking a master or with bad masters, were to rebuke it—do we consider such a rebuke to be a healthy way to find fault, and in any way at all?" B These are Plato’s words, O men, not mine. And he taught us not to mock all the herds because of those that are badly managed by bad masters, or that are completely deprived of a master. And elsewhere again he teaches expressly that it is impossible for the multitude to be philosophers. "For there are many who bear the wand," he says, "but the Bacchants are few." This same thing our Master Christ also said: "For many," said He, "are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. xx, 16; xxii, 14).
In harmony with these, Plato also says in the *Epinomis*: "I do not say that it is possible for men to become happy and blessed, except for a few. As long as we live, I define it thus. But there is a good hope for the dying to obtain everything." Why, then, are you angry with us, seeing some who belie the life they profess? And why do you not admire those who have loved a life beyond nature, and while struggling in a body, have emulated a bodiless manner of life? For you ought to do the complete opposite: to admire those who surpass the bounds of nature, and to grant some pardon to others [as they are] dragged along by the passions that are innate. For that these things are most difficult, [know that] even you — for "you are not born from an oak," according to the poetic saying, "nor from a rock." D Plato has indicated this also in the first dialogue of the *Republic*, having introduced Cephalus conversing with Socrates, and saying: "Know well that for me, as much as..."
A the other bodily pleasures wither away, by so much do the desires and pleasures concerning discourses increase." Then, when Socrates inquired if the passion of pleasures still arose in him, he replied, saying: "Speak better, man; most gladly have I escaped such things, as one having escaped a raging and wild master." B In that place, then, he has discoursed thus concerning shameful pleasure; but in the *Gorgias*, concerning justice and injustice, he speaks thus: "For it is difficult, O Callicles, and worthy of much praise, for a man having been placed in great power to do wrong, to live justly. But few such men become. For both here and elsewhere there have been, and I think there will be, beautiful and good men, who might manage this virtue justifiably if someone entrusts it to them." And again: "But in such arguments, many being refuted, this argument alone rests, that one must be more cautious of doing wrong than of suffering wrong, and that every man must be practiced not in appearing good, but in being good, both privately and publicly." C And Socrates brought these arguments again to Crito. For after many other things he added this: "In no way, therefore, must one do wrong. Nor, when being wronged, must one return wrong, as the many think; since in no way is it permitted to do wrong. But what then? Is it necessary to do harm, O Crito, or not? Surely not, O Socrates. And what then? To return harm when suffering harm, as the many say, is it just or unjust? In no way. For to do harm to men surely differs in nothing from doing wrong. You speak correctly. Therefore, neither is it necessary to return wrong, nor to do harm to any human being, not even if one should suffer anything from them." Such a doctrine, then, [[172]] concerning injustice and justice, Socrates and Plato have produced, truly worthy of praise and logical and consistent with human nature; for nature has instructed all men in moral teachings. D For the Creator, having fashioned the race of men, has implanted in their nature the discernment of good things and their opposites. Whence not only Socrates and Plato and Aristides, son of Lysimachus, and some others of the Greeks abhorred the unjust life, but many even of the barbarians. For Hellanicus also said in his histories: "The Hyperboreans dwell beyond the Rhipaean mountains, and they practice justice, not eating meat, but using fruits." And others record that the Brahmans dwell in the woods, covering their bodies with leaves. And they say that Anacharsis the Scythian became a philosopher. So did the love of philosophy set him on fire, that he became most renowned and celebrated among all. For he strove not only while awake to control the passions of the soul, but even while sleeping he revealed the signs of temperance; for he was accustomed with his left hand to...
hold his genitals, and with his right to cover his lips, thereby demonstrating that the struggle of the tongue is far greater, and it requires greater relief for its safety.
Hermippus of Berytus says that Chiron the Centaur was a teacher of justice, and Homer called him “the most just of the Centaurs.” It is therefore not at all appropriate to marvel at either Hesiod, who calls the path of virtue rough and steep and difficult to travel, or Simonides, who said that B “virtue dwells upon inaccessible and difficult rocks.” For what Homer attested regarding Chiron and the Hippemolgi, and what Anacharsis the Scythian pursued in deed, the poets who are praised recommended in word.
Antisthenes the Cynic (who was also a Socratic) said it is better to be mad than to be pleased; for this reason he advised his acquaintances never to extend even a finger for the sake of pleasure. Diogenes of Sinope was imbued with his teaching; he too, in word, zealously pursued philosophy, but became a slave to pleasure, mingling publicly with harlots and offering a most wretched example to those who watched. They say that when someone reproved his conduct and said, C “What are you doing, O Diogenes?” he used his customary insulting language and replied, “O scoundrel! I am looking for a man, if I can find one.” Thus openly did he live in lewdness.
Crates the Theban emulated his life, and graced virtue with many praises; for this is his very saying:
From the servile empire of pleasure, free and unbending, D They love an immortal kingdom and liberty.
He was accustomed to say that the remedy for the sexual impulse is hunger; if not that, then a noose. But when passion rose up, he married Hipparchia the Maronite publicly and celebrated his cynical nuptials in the Stoa Poikile, leaving behind those magnificent words of his.
Aristippus the Cyrenian, when reproached because he frequently consorted with the Corinthian harlot, said, “I possess Lais, but I am not possessed by her.” And the Peripatetics in word praised virtue, but in deed they were devoted to pleasure; and they are not accused of this by others, but write it themselves about their own teacher. For Aristocles the Peripatetic says that Lycon the Pythagorean testified regarding Aristotle that it was his custom to sell oil, applying it after...
A he had first anointed himself with warm oil; and when he was going away to Chalcis, the tax collectors, having searched his baggage, discovered seventy-four bronze dishes belonging to him: although certain other authorities have stated that he had three hundred dishes. And I think that they are not lying altogether. For it was in such things indeed that that man defined happiness. For he was accustomed to say that no one could become happy in any other way than through the pleasant condition of the body and the abundance of external things, without which he said that virtue benefited nothing. And Atticus the Platonist clearly shows this in the things which he wrote against Aristotle (see Euseb. xv, 4). Therefore, the things that are said against him are confirmed by the talk of many. But Plato teaches exactly the opposite. For in the third book of the *Republic* (Clem. Alex. iv, p. 571), he orders that care be taken of the body for the sake of the soul's harmony, B through which it is possible for men to live, and to live rightly, while proclaiming the message of the truth. The divine Apostle also exhorts this, saying: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." For he does not suggest that such great care should be offered to it, so that it might kick against the soul; but only that it might serve and assist, and follow the impulses of the soul. Plato, therefore, agrees with our teachings C in these things, having encouraged that the necessary care of the body be taken. He also demonstrated how the passion of desire begins and how it grows. "For we," he said, "might perhaps not unreasonably say that sight is the beginning of love, but hope increases the passion, memory nourishes it, and habit preserves it." He has also said this very same thing concerning virtue. "For of every plant," he says, "the first germination, if well-directed toward virtue, is the most powerful mistress of its own nature to append the appropriate end." And Socrates also commanded D us to beware of those things that persuade us to eat when not hungry, and to drink when not thirsty; and the glances and the kisses of the beautiful ones, as being naturally prone to infuse a poison more grievous than scorpions and phalangia. But these were mere words, lacking in deeds and actions. For he was accustomed to frequent the gymnasia for the sake of beautiful youths, and fed his eyes with a shameful spectacle. And the *Philebus*, and the *Phaedrus*, and the *Rivales*, and the *Charmides*, and many other dialogues of Plato, which narrate many things of this kind, are witnesses. But as for the things which Alcibiades said in the *Symposium* concerning Socrates, Plato actually wrote them, and I, out of respect for Socrates, will not endure to repeat them. Such great absurdity and drunken folly do those stories in that dialogue have regarding the fallibility of Socrates. And to pass the evening
A in drinking, he said, and while the others were already exhausted and seeking sleep, he remained awake, drinking and conversing, if not to any profit, at least in a manner that was fitting for Alcibiades and Aristophanes and the other revelers. And Porphyry, too, in writing his philosophical history, first states that he was quick-tempered and easily angered, using as his witness Aristoxenus, who wrote the life of Socrates. For he said he had never encountered anyone more persuasive than him. Such was his voice, his mouth, his outward demeanor, and in addition to all these things, the peculiarity of his form. And this would happen when he was not angry; but when he was seized by this passion, his indecency was terrible; for he would refrain neither from any word nor any deed. And having detailed other things of this sort, he demonstrates that he was also enslaved to pleasures. He speaks as follows: B “As for the use of sexual relations, he was more vehement, but he was not unjust; for he kept to either his wedded wife or common women. He had two wives at the same time, Xanthippe, a citizen and somewhat common, and Myrto, the granddaughter of Aristides, the daughter of Lysimachus. And Xanthippe, having been taken after a marriage, from her Lamprocles was born. Myrto he took in legal marriage, from whom he had Sophroniscus and Menexenus. And these women, when they ceased from their mutual quarrels among themselves, would rush upon Socrates, because he never used to stop them when they were fighting, but would look on with a laugh, both at them fighting with each other and at their attacks upon him. He says that in his conversations he was also terribly contentious, abusive, and insulting.” And Porphyry said these things C regarding the life of Socrates: “It was said about him that even as a boy he did not live well, nor orderly. For first, they say that he was always disobedient to his father, and whenever he ordered him to take up the tools of his craft and go anywhere, he would disregard the command and run off wherever he pleased. And when he was about seventeen years old, Archelaus, the student of Anaxagoras, approached him, claiming to be his lover; and Socrates did not rebuff the meeting and conversation with Archelaus, but spent many years with him; and thus he was encouraged by Archelaus to take up philosophy.” And then, after a little, “And these things among others were criticized in Socrates, that he used to force his way into crowds, and hold his discussions D near the tables, and near the Hermae.” These things Porphyry said regarding Socrates, and other such things, which I voluntarily
have omitted. From these it is possible to understand A how they lauded virtue in words, while they embraced pleasure and willingly allowed themselves to be slaves to the passions. For if, according to Porphyry, he was inclined towards sexual indulgence, and was not satisfied with the cohabitation of two wives at once, but even impudently made use of public women, and took delight in the sight of youths naked in the palaestra, as Plato testifies; if he was prone to wrath, and could scarcely restrain his rising anger, and had an abusive and unbridled tongue, what kind of philosophy was it, pray, that he practiced?
That some of the ancients also accused Plato of having done many things unworthy of philosophy, hear Xenophon speaking thus in his Epistle to Aeschines: B “For they became enamored of Egypt and of the monstrous wisdom of Pythagoras. The excess and lack of stability in which he persisted in the case of Socrates is shown by that love with which he pursued the tyrant, and his desire for the Sicilian table of immoderate gluttony and voracity instead of a frugal and sparse diet.” By these words he implies his association with Dionysius the tyrant in Sicily. For, having left Athens, he lived with him, enjoying the luxuries of Syracuse, and after his death, with his son. And he profited the tyrant so little by his exhortations that he was even bound and confined in the stone quarries, and later was even sold like some barbarian slave. And Plutarch also says that he carried oil to Egypt for the sake of trade. C But nevertheless, hearing even such reproaches as these, we admire the things well-said by him, and we desire that you also gather the benefit from them. For we hear that there were also women among the Greeks worthy of praise. Lysidice, as they say, because of her extreme modesty, did not take off her tunic when she washed. Philotera, however, when going down into the bathtub, would gradually bare that part of the body which the water covered, little by little drawing down the tunic, and again coming out, she would clothe herself in a similar manner. The Pythagorean Theano, when someone looked upon her and said, “A beautiful arm,” is said to have replied, “But not public.” Again, when asked what kind of woman goes from her husband’s house to the Thesmophorion, she said, D “From her own, immediately; but from a stranger’s, never.” These, and as many things as these, we both praise and say are worthy of philosophy. And we accept Plato, who enjoined marriage upon good men, and who encouraged the conception of immortality and the preservation of the race. But we greatly blame Democritus and Epicurus, who urge that both marriage and childbearing be avoided. For, having defined pleasure as the end, they utterly rejected things that involve cares and certain discomforts. Those of the Stoa chose a middle path; for they joined marriage and childbearing with matters of indifference. But the divine words hymn purity conceived for the sake of philosophy, as
A one that renders life free from cares; whereas they served pleasures and wrote laws that teach incontinence. For such are the laws of Plato concerning marriages and pederasty. And indeed, concerning friendship, Hippodamus the Pythagorean wrote thus: "Some things are born from the knowledge of the gods; others, from the provision of men; others, from the pleasure of animals." But the Lord Christ says in the holy Gospels: "Greater love than this no man can show, that one should lay down his life for his friends" (John xv, 13). And, instructing in the most perfect things, He commanded us to love even our enemies (Matth. v, 44). But he who had learned the Pythagorean quaternary said that human friendship proceeds from provision. Which discourse is not only discordant, but cannot even subsist in any way. For we find many who have conferred benefits upon their enemies, and again, many who, having been the recipients of benefits, have been utterly ungrateful toward the authors of those benefits. Therefore, friendship is not the offspring of provision, but provision is the fruit of friendship. B
Our own teachers, then, have instituted a life befitting those endowed with reason; but the most excellent among the philosophers were themselves enslaved to pleasures, and wrote laws teaching incontinence; for such are the laws of Plato concerning marriage and pederasty. And yet, the holy Scriptures, indeed, praise chastity undertaken for the sake of philosophy, as that which provides a life free from cares; they, however, sanctioned chaste marriages by law, that they might increase the race and free from lust those who wish to be chaste. Fornication, however, and every other incontinence they condemn as befitting swine. "For marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled," says the divine Apostle; "but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebr. xiii, 4). And again: "But I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them if they so remain, even as I; but if they do not contain themselves, let them marry" (1 Cor. vii, 8, 9). And elsewhere: "But fornication and uncleanness, let it not be named among you, as becometh saints" (Ephes. v, 3). And elsewhere: "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau" (Hebr. xii, 16). C
Compare these things again, O men, and recognizing how great is the difference between divine and human things, hasten through the former, as if through certain elements, toward the perfection of the latter: "Neither," as the melody of the Holy Spirit admonishes (Psal. cxl, 4), "make excuses in sins." For when we show to you that the evangelical laws are much more sublime than Greek philosophy, you praise them indeed, but you shamelessly bring forward their transgressors, and for their sake you attempt to calumniate the laws. D
A For we do not shun the best vines because of poor ones, nor do we turn away from sweet almonds because of bitter ones; nor do we condemn pure gold because of that which is base with copper, nor do we mock true purple because of that which is counterfeit; nor do we blame skillful painters because of ignorant ones, nor do we hate good men because of wicked ones; nor, if we happen upon an unskilled physician, do we straightway repudiate the art of medicine. But among painters, and physicians, and shoemakers, and coppersmiths, and goldsmiths, we admire those who are excellent, and we are accustomed to rebuke those who do not master the art B perfectly. Yet we do not, under any circumstances, deem the arts themselves worthy of blame, even if we find no one who possesses them. For it would certainly be most insipid, on account of a few who are blind, to disparage the eyes and the very sense of sight as useless; or, on account of those whose tongues are tied, to condemn the organs of speech as unnecessary; or, on account of those whose ears are stopped, to call the sense of hearing superfluous. In the same way, therefore, it is truly wretched and unjust, on account of those who transgress the laws, to accuse the laws themselves, along with those who strive to observe them. For if some woodworker should draw a line correctly, but, by using his ax badly, should spoil the marks of the ink, or by removing too much from the inside, or by leaving behind things that are superfluous on the outside, should go beyond that line, the line ought not to be blamed, for it shows what is straight; C for the sin is the ignorance of the worker. The laws, therefore, hold the place of a line, a rule, and a plumb line. But of those who use the laws, some order their own lives in the best way, while others, preferring what is pleasant to what is better, are carried outside the straight line of these. These, therefore, are to be accused, while the laws are to be praised. For if a skilled physician should instruct a sick person to partake of some things, but to abstain entirely from others, and he, having disregarded the medical instructions, should prefer pleasure to the cure, and by eating and drinking what was forbidden should make the disease more serious, we should not for that reason accuse the physician as a traitor; since the illness grew strong from the intemperance of the sufferer, and not from the providence of the one who gave the counsel. D Having therefore gathered together these things, and whatever is similar to them, celebrate the Lawgiver of the saving laws, and regard the beneficial utility of the laws themselves for human life. And as if you were established as spectators of some praiseworthy contests, celebrate those who observe the laws. But do not condemn all transgressors with an equal vote: since not all transgress with the same intent. For many things, indeed, and contrary to
A even those laws themselves call involuntary. For if someone casts a stone at a dog or anything else and misses it but kills a man, Herodotus also tells of such mishaps. Or if someone holding an axe and cutting wood often casts the iron at someone passing by, it happens involuntarily. To these and the like, as being involuntary, the laws grant pardon.
But even voluntary acts have no small difference. For it is not an equal sin if someone, spurred on by some anger and rage, strikes a neighbor and sends him to his death—not having premeditated this, nor having struck with that intention—and if someone should compass a death by treachery, ambush, and forethought. For the former was of a precipitous anger, but the latter of supreme malice; and the former was not entirely, while the latter was entirely of the will.
So also, not all men fall into the sins of pleasure in the same way. But some, while not at all preoccupied with the attractiveness of bodies, are yet pierced by them—sometimes seeing them suddenly and succumbing to the passion, their reason having been dislodged from its command. Others consume their life in B feeding their eyes with such spectacles. There are those who do not partake of food or drink without fear, yet, though they struggle, they are defeated because they do not wish to struggle skillfully. Others indulge in luxury and gluttony beyond measure, and devise every kind of decadence, and excite their other appetites with every artifice, and even feel aggrieved when they are extinguished.
Since, therefore, there is such a difference among those who transgress, one should not feel the same indignation toward all; but those who openly embrace a swinish life should be loathed, while the others should be counseled, exhorted, and have a hand extended to them, and be cared for diligently, offering them the remedies of health. But as for those others, if they persist in living like beasts, we shall mourn them while they live, and when they die, we shall offer them the epitaph of Sardanapalus. For upon his tomb it has been inscribed:
These I have, that which I ate and committed lewdness with, and for love’s sake I enjoyed delights, but the many and great blessings of all, I have left behind. C For I am ash, I who once ruled Over great Nineveh.
But the writers of this epitaph also spoke falsely. For one who has finished this life does not possess what he ate and drank; but those things have passed into foul corruption. He possesses only the foul odor of an unlawful life, which continuously grieves and distresses the soul, being conscious of the most terrible things and remembering what it wickedly committed.
This, O men, is the twelfth discourse I have presented to you, and I have shown what, concerning D God, and regarding mate-
concerning the nature of God, the origin of the world, and what the Greek philosophers thought about virtue and vice, and what the sacred Scriptures have taught us concerning the same matters; and how it is that their systems are already entirely quenched and wrapped in the darkness of oblivion, while these of ours flourish and thrive, and are frequented by countless myriads of hearers in every city and province, and by teachers who, indeed, lack Platonical eloquence, but offer the healing medicine of truth: and how the error of the false gods has been expelled, while the doctrines of our Savior have been proclaimed. A For Porphyry himself, in the works he wrote against us, has testified to this. "But now," he says, "they marvel that for so many years a disease has held the city, since there is no longer any access for Aesculapius or the other gods. For from the time that Jesus began to be worshipped, no one has experienced any public benefit from the gods." This Porphyry, our most bitter enemy of all, has said, and he openly confessed that Jesus, from the time that faith began to be placed in Him, rendered the gods devoid of power. Therefore, after the cross and the saving passion, Aesculapius no longer imposes upon men, nor does any other of those who are called gods. For the rising light, like some sort of daystar, drove their whole band into darkness, just as it does with owls. I pray that you too may become partakers of this light. It was for this reason that I undertook this labor of writing, and, like someone collecting various herbs from everywhere, I have prepared a salutary medicine for you.
ADMONITION TO THE READER
From the Appendix annexed to the fourth volume of the Sirmond edition, nothing is added to this fourth volume of the new edition except the *Book Against Nestorius*, or the *Epistle to Sporacius*, and the arguments of the twenty-seven books *Against the Eutychians*. The *Oration on Divine and Holy Charity* has found its place in our edition in volume III, p. 1296, after the *Religious History*. The epistles found in the Appendix of the Sirmondian edition will be inserted in their proper place with the remaining epistles. Finally, the *Reprehension of the Anathematisms of Cyril* will hold the first place in the fifth and final volume of this edition, so that the bulk of this volume may not be excessively increased.