says that He is corporeal, and another that He is a body. This sort of ignorance belongs to those who do not know what they are saying. But they, being bold, or thinking otherwise about God, have all gone astray. For God ought not to have been imagined from the human heart, but learned about from God. It is necessary for us, however, to rise up A and treat of those things which we have learned from the Holy Scriptures, that God is incorporeal. But it is not sufficient to declare this, nor to approach the rationale of the concept, but to show that both we, and those who are held in the same thoughts, are in complete agreement with what the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments declare concerning God: lest perhaps someone suspect the whole thing, and think that God is presented bodily in the Scriptures; and perhaps he will even think Him composed of parts from the Scriptures, collecting the members that are mentioned. It is necessary, therefore, first to discard the suspicion by which they say that God is in a body, or is a body, so that with the bonds apparent, the magnificence of the solution may be recognized.
Therefore, the whole of Scripture seems to introduce a body, which says: B "He walks in paradise"; or which says again: "Who is this that comes from Edom?" And what Scripture says: "I saw One sitting above the seat of His majesty": and other things which we find in each prophet, it is said: "The Lord said to me." And in the Gospel: "A voice came from above"; for it is necessary that those things which are from the New Testament be mixed with the Old, so that the heretics do not separate them again, and introduce another God. But these things should be joined from the Scripture, from which also all things were moved: "It came to pass on the third day, when morning was made, and there were voices and lightnings, and a dark cloud, and a voice of a trumpet sounded exceedingly upon Mount Sinai." Therefore, the trumpet was sounding loudly, and all the people in the camp were troubled, and Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, as though God were already present there, and he stationed them under the mount. But Mount Sinai was all smoking, because God had descended upon it in fire. If He descended, and descended into the mount, and smoke was ascending like the smoke of a furnace, and all the people were terrified, for the voices of the trumpet were coming forth most strongly; Moses spoke loudly, and God answered him by a voice: and the Lord descended onto Mount Sinai upon the summit of the mount, and the Lord called Moses to the summit of the mount, and Moses ascended, and God spoke to Moses. C These things indeed concerning Him, if He descended, and if He is seen, and if God speaks with voices, and if trumpets were present, and if He descended into fire, what does the smoke mean for itself? But there are other questions following from these: but it is good to approach the proposed subjects gradually. And as those who desire to build, and wish to move stones, if they move them one by one, they will be able to gather many: but if they lift many at once, they will not even be able to lift one: so also we in the meantime; for the first words seem easy to those who are bold, but difficult to the fearful. For if anyone wishes to say He is located, He has not spoken: a voice is not a voice; a face is not a face; it seems simple to work at something, but he works it out boldly. But it is necessary now to receive the solutions from Scripture itself, and to show that these voices are said in such a way, but should not be understood in such a way. For in these same words it first exhibits the necessity for which God appeared in this way. For it says: "Behold I come to thee in a pillar of cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and believe thee forever." And again it says to the people: "You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven." And certainly from Mount Sinai. How therefore can it be from heaven and from Mount Sinai at the same time? "You have seen," He says, "that I have spoken to you from heaven. Do not make for yourselves a likeness of all things that are on the earth." And certainly if there was a likeness that was appearing, those seeing it ought more to be led to the likeness itself. But if He says: "I have spoken to you from heaven," who is said to be from Mount Sinai: it is manifest that it is because [He is invisible]. D
A He showed the ambition (78) of His presence on the mount, while He Himself remained in His majesty. But why does He who is from heaven appear also from Mount Sinai? "I have come," He says, "so that the fear of God might be in you," (Exod. XX, 20) and not so that you might be tempted. Therefore, it was not His nature that was appearing, but a dispensation that was being brought forward. For what people was more audacious? What people was always considered inclined to idolatry? Because he was lowly, he desired to touch God with his hands and to see Him with his eyes. Because the people were of such a sort, but God is merciful and good, He causes fear for them—those who did not fear even after the fear, and He says: "If anyone shall approach, he shall die." (Exod. XIX, 12) And yet, the sheep were there before this, and they did not die. For Moses was shepherding there; Moses was there as a shepherd, nor is he a prophet, and he did not die. Certainly, there were others before Moses, but on account of the advent, who says, the Word of God said, "If anyone shall approach, he shall die." Ought not he who approaches the advent of God to live all the more? But He wishes to strike fear into an audacious people; hence also the trumpets sound as they did. For what great thing is it for God to create the requirements for such a thing, or to emit such a sound without trumpets? It is not irrelevant, however, to add something from Daniel, for it is most opportune. For since we have said that it was not impossible for God to create trumpets, or for a sound to be heard without trumpets, it is written in Daniel that, "A hand entered alone and was writing on the wall" (Dan. V, 5). Is this hand God, or is it the incision of an angel? But because it ought to have been seen not holding [anything], and perhaps also not carrying ink, nor having abused any other instrument—nor having used a reed, and created ink. But if anyone wishes to accept this, the hand wrote, and when it had written, it withdrew. What was this hand saying, whose hand alone is God's, and where is the whole? Or an angel’s, and where is the whole? Was it an incision that occurred? What, then, is the visible sentence? For in order that the king who dared might know, the hand needed a lamp, which were things not seen by the eyes. And certainly, for one to write, a great deal of intention is necessary, and [that of] seeing eyes, and acutely seeing ones. Now, however, it writes without eyes, without a holder, whether with ink, or without ink, or without other instruments, or with others—it is a marvel; those who are very carnal, who wish to grant a body to God, let them answer us: was that hand a body or not a body? If it is a body, it cannot move without shoulders; it cannot be a hand without a whole body. But if a hand appears, and writes a hand, and the hand withdraws, let the nature of the present vision be recognized. It is, however, inappropriate to add why the hand [appeared]. For if it has already been said that the sentence had to be written, perhaps it was through a hand because the father of this king, against whom this sentence was written, because of the sins of the people, was able to hold both the people and the temple. And he led the people away captive. B Granting that prophecies were given by God foretelling the captivity of the people which seems to have been brought about through him, for he taking the priestly vessels—and being proud and lifted up and thinking high things, as the prophet said of him: "You said in your heart, I will ascend to the heavens; above the clouds I will place my seat, and I will sit above the highest mountains of the north, and I will be like the Most High" (Isa. XIV, 13)—because he was thinking such things, and saying such things, and pondering such things, this man taking the priestly vessels did not dare to use them, but placed them in the temples as a matter of honor, not consecrating them to idols, as those things which follow the demons show, but refusing to use divine vessels. His son succeeding him in the kingdom, did not succeed him according to this honor, but innovating the power of his kingdom, he brings forth the priestly vessels and drinks from them. And because he and his own wickedly extended their hands to the vessels—for because they touched with their hands those things which did not appertain to them—a hand coming forth instead of a hand wrote beside the lamp, so that the men who were present might see the sentence. What, then, is that hand? It is not a body, nor an incision from a body, but an efficiency coming [into being] for the sake of the vision, so that the message of the invisible might be recognized. It was however sufficient for the hand both to show power, and to interpret obscurities, and to solve doubts, but [God] is not in need of wealth. For we find in the Scriptures many things which, as questions have been moved, can provide us with a solution. For we know also concerning Daniel, that he saw thrones placed, and the Ancient of days sitting, whose hair was white, and his garments white (Dan. VII, 9). And certainly even this was accepted because of contumacy, or because of negligence. For the sake of display, indeed, because God is a body; but the sentence exhibits the power of the words, because it is most clearly shown from this that God is incorporeal. For who is ignorant that everyone who uses eyes, [knows] that the eye is capable of seeing the things that are present? But things for tomorrow, or after a short hour, or after a moment they weep, the eye does not see. The vision of Daniel, however, has its beginning from a lion, but after the lion he introduces a bear, a third animal like a leopard, a fourth such as its nature is not found among us. I will ask1 him who wishes to contend: is the lion a kingdom? For if what Daniel saw was visible, but he saw a lion; he did not see the kingdom, but the lion. Let us not, therefore, remove what is said, let us look at the Scripture. For if Daniel himself interpreting, or hearing the vision interpreted by an angel, [says] that the first kingdom is the Chaldeans’, you perceive that what was seen was a lion; but what is interpreted is a kingdom. Or let him who wishes say, do you think it was some wild beast, and it was alive; and was it of such a sort as Daniel saw? But if he saw the insignia of the kingdom, but recognized the interpretation, we ought not to make visions corporeal. The bear, moreover, appeared second after the lion, and there were three ribs in its mouth. Do you think that the ribs were alive, and from where does the bear receive them? Do you think [it was] some animal attacking? [alt-version omitted]
A ...what is in custom among us; or it signifies that three regions will belong to that second kingdom because of [the three sides]. As for the third, the leopard, it was indeed as it appeared in the vision, but it had four heads. If any of you has seen a leopard with four heads in nature, let this animal be a visible one. But if he transforms nature—for kingdoms are formed through visions of this kind—let us not compel them to follow [the rules of] bodies. As for the fourth animal, no configuration at all is set down, because it seemed unchanged and new in comparison to the others, such that not even the likeness of any animal could be found in it. This Daniel saw. And before these, he says: I saw the four winds of heaven rushing into the great sea. Do you think that the winds were also visible? Four are cast into the sea at once. And he saw the sea, where the sea acting as present, or not present, saw it. And he says that four beasts were rising from the sea: a lion from the sea, and a bear from the sea, and a leopard from the sea. You observe that Scripture itself, by those things which it makes visible, through the same [things] also resolves them. The sea was not in those places where Daniel was. Suppose that there was a lion, and a bear, and a leopard, and that new animal: how do they ascend from the sea? And how are the winds seen? Suppose that these were sights. The lion rises from the sea, as a kingdom on earth. But if the kingdom is on earth, it is no longer a lion: for what was seen was one thing, but what was interpreted was another. But suppose that he transfers it and interprets the lion as the kingdom—for the angel interprets to him who had seen it, and the other beasts, each one in its own constitution. For if we transfer these things which we have among us and which are visible to those which are invisible, and say that they were not present, but were seen; then it is a vision, and not a offspring of nature. Let us pass to God, where thrones are placed; and let us no longer say that the thrones are some other thing, but the thrones themselves: and let us no longer say that He who is not visible was seen, but that it is a vision. Whoever wishes may dare to introduce a judge, thus Scripture grants it to him.
B It is necessary to remember what we suggested, which nature also suggests, that the eyes do not see future things. Nor, after any moment, was the lion the first kingdom then under Daniel, and the bear succeeded his kingdom; the leopard [was] the third kingdom. For a kingdom is not [signified] by each animal, but each beast is a kingdom having many kings. Therefore, up to the fourth kingdom, there are many kings. After the fourth kingdom, however, there is a judgment against the four, and the four [are] not against the first. But Daniel saw judgment for the first, and for the second, and for the third, and for the fourth, after the final fourth, in a single moment. Can those things which are done today, with those things which will be done tomorrow, and on the third and fourth day, be gathered together so that they may be seen? If, therefore, those things which happen in four days cannot come together into one moment, how could those things which were done in four kingdoms, and will be done in such ages and times, be able to be seen by the eyes in a single moment? Therefore, the things which Daniel saw C were what are seen, but he saw what are not seen. Hence, also, this nomenclature of prophets existed, so that they were called "those who see": for since, even among us, some see and some do not see, there is both a comparison of those who see to the blind, and a diversity and a distinction. But we, with regard to the consideration of visions, are not seeing. Prophets, however, see things which we do not see. Therefore, from that very efficacy, those who were called prophets according to the ancient word received also their name, when they especially received it from those who see. Whence also many such inscriptions are found, while it says: *The vision which Isaiah saw against Egypt: The vision against Babylon*. Because, therefore, they were seeing, as they were seeing, D and were seeing not as men. What, therefore, is not seen by the eyes of men is not corporeal. Daniel saw, what did he see? That thrones were placed. When? For if he saw a judgment, then it was surely when the destruction of the fourth kingdom was to be. Yet, again, when he saw these things, those things which he saw were not happening. For he sees also the thrones; the Judgment sat; the vision was made for the efficacy of the thing. For because among us judges sitting on a seat judge those who are subject to them, he says, *Thrones were placed*. And certainly, if God were such by nature, he should not have said, *thrones were placed*, but, *they were*. But if those things were placed which previously were not arranged, and He sat who before was not sitting; therefore neither were they placed then, nor did He sit then: but He reveals through the words which are known to us the efficacy of God for judgment. In fine, he also described there white hair, a white garment, fire before the judge, and a fiery river. For he says that the *Ancient of days* sat. Why the Ancient of days? And certainly days are not even a work for God: but because the resurrection was happening at the exit of the ages of kingdoms, much time was considered necessary. For because this was being fulfilled through many days, he calls the judge the *Ancient of days*. And because the judgment was pure, and most pure, and inflexible; the white hair of the judge of the world, and his white and immaculate garments are spoken of: therefore also the hair is white, either announcing in themselves antiquity, or the purity of judgment. I, however, am afraid even to touch upon a state of this kind. But he says, *You make the sons of Israel timid*. But why does a fiery river flow there? He says because the beast was killed and its body was given to the fire to be burned. For with the same sentence by which he was sending the beast into the fire, he first prepared the performance through which the judgment was to be. From those things, therefore, which are set down in Daniel, of those beasts, the ones which were seen remain as beasts, but not those which were announced as kingdoms, and of the times which have the spaces of ages, which are joined through the vision to one moment, and from the fact that the judgment did not happen then, when also it was seen; not only to the suspi-
- cion that God ought not to have allowed the body to be, but rather to satisfaction, because God is incorporeal. It is, however, a matter of reason to add things similar to these. For the very vision of Daniel which occurred through the beasts is sister to that which Nebuchadnezzar saw by the image; and they are compared with A *poenitentia* (repentance), and the things seen in the image are placed in contrast with those things which are known to have been shown through this vision of the beasts. For there were four [beasts] there of diverse nature; and four materials also concur there for the composition of one image, and nothing prevents us from questioning them one by one and viewing them. The lioness is held to be ruling among the beasts: just as gold is preeminent in such materials; for it shines, and as fire in the night, so does gold shine among other things that are possessed. Let us take, therefore, from the image the golden head; and from the vision, that lioness. And perhaps for this reason both are of the feminine name, because they are kingdoms. Then let us take the silver breast and the arms: after gold, silver; after the lioness, the bear: and there are three; there is brass, here is a leopard; for the comparison is deduced according to B *poenitentia*. Then there is the iron mixed with clay; there is a beast whose form it did not manifest because of its variety. And there is the stone that grinds the image to dust; here is the judge who judges the beasts. If therefore anyone who is contentious wishes these to be visible things, let him tell us whether the lioness is the golden head: for both converge unto this very thing, and neither are they similar to each other, nor is that which is announced. For what has gold to do with a lioness? And what have both to do with a kingdom? And so it is with the things that follow, which are brought forth from the image and which are distinguished from the beasts. And there is the stone without hands, so that it is not the work of man; here it is the judge. And there, because they were materials, they are ground to dust; here, because it was a beast, it is cast into the fire. Thus we have also the ears of corn of Pharaoh, and the seven kine, both the fat and the lean. And as far as nature is concerned, the kine indeed eat the ears of corn, but the ears of corn are eaten by the kine. But what is signified by both those who are eaten and those who eat, they have the same and equal power. For it does not dissent from that for which it had been received, but it is a necessary vision. For because it was about years, and birth, and fruits, and the ears of corn are the progenitors of these; by the ears of corn, indeed, the years are announced. C Because, however, through the labors of the kine the ears of corn are born—the kine whose labors are the crops, and the ears of corn the births of the kine—they were received in various ways, but they announced by their effect. Do you think, therefore, that the fruit is of the kine, or the year of the ears of corn? But some things are those which are seen, others are those which are announced. Joseph, however, saw sheaves: ought there not to be years here also? But it says: *Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers, and said to them: Hear this dream which I have dreamed. I thought we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field, and my sheaf arose, and stood, and your sheaves turned and adored my sheaf.* And the father interprets it, and the brothers suspect that he will begin to reign over his brothers. And now, indeed, the sheaves: but again he himself sees the sun and the moon and eleven stars. A star differs in glory; a sheaf does not differ. But it appears that the star is not better than the sheaf to which it was D compared. For when the father is placed in the position of the sun, and the mother in the position of the moon, the brothers consequently were made to occupy the position of the stars: but perhaps we should not simply pass over this: but because the occasion of the adoration was the abundance of fruits, therefore he saw his brothers adoring him from no other occasion than that of the sheaves of the harvest. If, however, anyone wishes to inquire about the stars, and the moon, and the sun, he will find that they concur with this discourse. For who is ignorant of the voice of Moses among all, that the occasion of the vision was made from the fruits which the sun and the moon nourish? Therefore, because there was an occasion of fruits, through those things which nourish the fruits, the double vision also was made. Do you think, therefore, that anyone of those who are present, while awake and sober, thought within himself while sober, that these visions were made through dreams, and perhaps will suspect that we are using violence even with these visions which are known to have been made through dreams, and to accept them for their solution, which are seen through the eyes of those who are awake. For if it were so, I ought to steal away and to persuade and trifle about this very thing: but perhaps even if I had remained silent, because the discourse was made to me through dreams, I would seem to those who are still dreaming to be uttering and presenting something unheard of. But because it is a place of truth, and it is not fitting to seduce us, nor to seek after persuasion, let us know that all these things which have been said were seen through dreams: seeing that Nebuchadnezzar also saw a dream, and Daniel saw that which we have spoken of through a dream, and Pharaoh, and Joseph had these visions through dreams. It is no wonder, therefore, if those things which are seen also appear to us through dreams. For we frequently see some things about others, either the storm of the sea, or ourselves being dragged by rivers, or meadows, or fruits; or that we are thrown from roofs, or that we find treasures, or that we have lost something, or that someone has entered, or that another has gone out, or that I know not who has spoken, or that someone has given something. But all these yearnings were, as Isaiah says: *As one who saw himself eating in his sleep or drinking, but upon waking he is still hungry or thirsty.* When we have most seemed to have resolved these things, and each of the listeners has already refreshed his mind, as if the solution had been found and the anxiety dissolved; suddenly those things which were thought to be visions revealed by dreams, again bound us with the chains of questions, and the time for silence took hold. Perhaps the time is neither inopportune nor useless. For even if some...
is the meaning, that he who will begin to receive the knowledge of these things through the night, meditating and pondering over these sleepless hours, A and not even yielding to sleep itself, perhaps searching through the night in leisure, and from the night-light receiving illumination, will seek the solutions to these riddles: and if indeed he finds them, he has gained, and by turning them over and over, upwards and downwards, and seeking and pondering, he will persist in uncertainty, and will come only to be more anxious for the discovery of the solution. I know, however, that every one who is present here, while departing from these things, will indeed be anxious, not serving the belly: but perhaps some are even indignant because we extend the discourse; for the majority want to sleep, and to accept what is ready-made without labor from the labors and sweat of others; but if they do receive them, yet those who discover them do not labor. But if those who receive them also keep them, having not labored, and requiring nothing of these things; whether one cogitates, or one is intent, or one receives an advantage, or one turns reproach aside, I rejoice. But if they who hear neglect them, and those who are taught ignore them, what account will he give, who has been appointed a teacher, and does not speak of what is a matter of questioning, but what he imparts to the flock of the Lord? He prays indeed that all who are with him should be anxious, and search, and seek, and hold fast, and learn, and bear fruit. But if some neglect them, to whom even anxiety does not belong, this is nothing to me: but surely it is to me; it touches me personally and saddens me; yet whether the sermon is rendered to few or to many, whether they are negligent or anxious, I ought not on account of the negligence of another to be found negligent myself. Perhaps, however, some will even contend B against being reproached, and if not for the love of doctrine and study, at least for the sake of shame and disgrace, etc.
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI ON WHAT THE LORD SAID: I came not to send peace on earth. BOOK SIX.
Et sponsos qui nunc filii habentur, the longing of the parents draws them, and they hasten to announce to their parents C the beauty and conversation of the bride, whose custom and demeanor and affection are manifest to the parents. They hasten again also to the bride, mindful of the command from the beginning, which says: A man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. But the parents also rejoice seeing the children fathers. And we know the true bridegroom of the Church is the Lord. But because that true light makes lights, and the teacher himself has placed teachers alone in the Church, and the good shepherd himself has appointed shepherds, the bridegroom himself is true, as a bridegroom is. But because it is mystical, this mystical quality does not become defiled—the bride, if she receives even servants in the honor of the bridegroom. For the bridegroom, the Lord, was saying, as you have heard: He who receives you, receives me. But it is apparent how much the bridal state itself excels that which is dangerous in the world; for not from here does the wife help the man, but the bridegroom the bride: not the bride serves the man, but the bridegroom serves and says: I will gladly be spent for your souls, and will deliver myself up. And who is worthy of these things? For if he who is truly the bridegroom, the Lord and God, the only-begotten Son of the unborn God, who being constituted in the form of God, for the love of the bride, took the form of a servant: if the Lord assumes the form of a servant because of the love of the bride; D who by nature are servants, what do you think of what sort a figure they ought to assume? The bridegroom surely sustains what is necessary for the correction and adornment of the bride, he suffers both labors and vigils and discoveries: for he watches that the bride may be refreshed, and he labors that she may be adorned, and he finds that she may be fed. For he who is born [of her] is made the ornament of the bride. But what do I say of the Son who descended from heaven, that he might take to himself a captive bride, that one who was before sordid, who had been a fornicatress, who had impure hair, who was not good from within or from without, into whom demons played, who was defiled in the mountains, who ran naked, who had the lessons of demons, who sang foul things, played foully, spoke foully: who did not even concede to men on the journey, who carried stones, and fornicated toward wood, who was smoked, who smelled of foul stench, what evil did she not have? For to whom and for what else was it becoming to choose for himself such a bride, than to him who was a merciful bridegroom? For she had nothing of encouragement for the love that was assumed. Because, therefore, there was no encouragement from her, therefore the grace of him who accepted such a one took place: for by the hate with which she was worthy, he loved her; for punishment he honored her, for the mortal he died, for the condemned he was condemned, for the injurious he himself suffered injury and receiving spittle on his holy face, and before the spittle he took her. This bride was a handmaid from servants, from a father not good, and a mother who had wandered, and...