A gatories, such as indeed exist of the latter kind, namely the orations against the Sun and the Mother of the gods. I shall not here gather the open places concerning these same books of Julian against the Christians, either from Jerome (a), whom I shall mention shortly, or from Socrates (b), Theophanes (c), or others; for the books themselves, still extant, will provide more immediate and greater proof of this matter; or, as I already hinted above, a luminous part of them exists in this very work of Cyril in which they are refuted. Consequently, learned men, who professed that they would publish the entire works of Julian—and Petavius himself, above all, experienced in perusing the monuments of the ancient Doctors of the Church—ought to have taken note of these books, or at least not been entirely silent as to why their account was omitted by them. For that work had already appeared long ago in Latin, translated by Oecolampadius along with other monuments of Cyril in the previous century; and in the same year that Petavius published Julian at Paris, it was published in the same city in Greek for the first time, and with a new Latin interpretation, by Nicolaus Borbonius.
However, it is a point to be noted in passing that I see the number of these books of Julian being handed down differently by two authors, though both are quite worthy of faith. For by Cyril, to whom this could by no means have been unknown, in this very work in which he attacks them, or in its preface, three are said to exist: B *and indeed he wrote THREE BOOKS against the holy Gospels, and against the pious faith of the Christians*, creating THREE BOOKS against the holy Gospels and the venerable Christian cult. Yet although more, namely seven books, are mentioned by Jerome, who is closer in age to Julian and as a boy (d)—as can be gathered from another place of his—they were written. For he reports this concerning them in his epistle to Magnus the Roman orator (e): *Julian Augustus vomited forth SEVEN BOOKS on the Parthian expedition against Christ, and in accordance with the fables of the poets tore himself to pieces with his own sword; if I have attempted to write against this*, etc. And so, it is not easy to determine now which account deserves greater faith here; or how the seven books of this apostate against the Christian faith, which existed in the age of Jerome, could have been reduced to three shortly thereafter under Cyril, who was a contemporary of Jerome and had already been elevated to the Alexandrian see several years before his death. C Socrates, indeed, and Theophanes, as well as the pagan Libanius, make mention of these same books, as I hinted above, but in a general way, with no number assigned to them; except that some words from the third book of his work are quoted somewhere by Socrates. By that same (f) Nic. Borbonius, who, as I said a little earlier, first brought that work to light in Greek and Latin, nothing was noted regarding this matter, nor was any reason given for the discrepancy between those two most weighty witnesses. In this writing of the Alexandrian pontiff, moreover, not only are Julian's books against the Christians commemorated, but for those same books, which he quotes there as dissected into various parts, their author's name is prompted immediately, from which the Alexandrian pontiff then opposes his own refutation. For he does not recoil from descending into the arena with him as if in open warfare, to risk the fortune of strength and arms, nor from attacking him as if from the shadows, or from inventing a phantom adversary to defeat, or from arming him with weapons supplied by himself, or from evading or dissembling the force and strength of their arguments. In which enterprise he quite rightly considered that he would achieve a victory that was less dubious, but all the more illustrious, against that bitterest enemy of the Christian religion, once he had been pierced and prostrate by the invincible arrows of evangelical truth. D To such a degree, indeed, that Cyril could have been in no way recalled from that plan—namely, inserting the very books of Julian into his own dissertations against him—by the constitution (g) that appeared a few years after his death, in the year 449, under Theodosius the Younger, and which is read almost at the beginning of the Justinianic Code, by which it is decreed that all things which Porphyry, driven by his own insanity, or ANYONE ELSE has written against the religious cult of the Christians, wherever they may be found, are to be consigned to the flames; and similarly by Justinian's Novel XLII, ch. 1, by which the writings of Severus are prohibited from remaining in the possession of any Christian, just as those of Nestorius are, and indeed with the reason for that matter added: because it seemed good to our imperial predecessors in their constitutions to decree similar things concerning those things which were said and written by Porphy-
- rius, or others among the ancient pagans against the Christians, as were the writings of Celsus, or Hierocles, or others, they long ago perished, so that even mention of them was omitted by Photius; the same fate befell the books of Julian on the same subject, except insofar as they still appear here in this work of Cyril. Regarding which matter, even before that sanction was issued by Theodosius the Younger, a singular passage stands out in Chrysostom in his second oration against St. Babylas, where the reason for the abolition of those very books of the pagans against the Christians is attributed to the pagans themselves. For after that golden-mouthed man had said that philosophers and rhetoricians among the pagans, otherwise of great renown, had been a mockery to all for their writings against the Christians, and had not drawn even an infant to themselves, he adds: "But such is the laughter of those things written by them, that THE BOOKS THEMSELVES long ago VANISHED, and upon being displayed were mostly destroyed. And if somewhere anything should be found preserved, one might find it saved among the Christians." Truly such is the mockery of those books written by them (in that genre, to be sure), that THE BOOKS THEMSELVES long ago VANISHED; and many of them have been shown to have perished at the same time: and if by chance any are discovered to have been saved, who will find them saved among the Christians?
Accordingly, the fate of those books also, which Julian composed against the religion of the Christians, was, as I just hinted, that they are found nowhere in ancient writings along with the rest of his works, which have been transmitted to our own age: nor, therefore, do they survive anywhere other than here, in these books of Cyril which refute them. How this is so is also clear regarding Celsus's commentary against the Christians, which is divided into two books and inscribed *Alethes Logos* (True Word); or the two books of Hierocles against the Christian faith, which were similarly marked *Philalethes* (Truth-loving); and finally in the case of the works of the renowned Origen, even if not entirely in the same way (either by prefacing and dissecting the books or cavils of that philosopher, to whom he would then annex his own defenses individually) against that same Celsus; or the little book of Eusebius against Hierocles, which still exists to this day: in which, from the very beginning, he refers the reader to that writing of Origen, by which the truth and Christian faith were abundantly and fully vindicated from those accusations and fallacies of the pagans. Yet Eusebius, who subsequently mentions in other of his works which we still handle, the books written by Porphyry against the religion of the Christians [a]; and elsewhere [b] even adduces certain notable passages from them; by whom, I say, they were refuted in a special work, and indeed in thirty books, though Jerome [c] reports that only twenty reached him, but now all have perished. The same thing happened to the very strong books produced by Methodius and Apollinaris—whom Jerome [d] specifically names as writing against that same Porphyry—about which, and additionally about Origen's Commentary against Celsus, elsewhere he still says: "Celsus and Porphyry wrote against us: Origen answered the former, and Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris answered the latter most strongly." Of these, Origen wrote eight books: Methodius proceeded to ten thousand lines: Eusebius and Apollinaris composed twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively. Yet Philostorgius [e] reports that the books written by Apollinaris against Porphyry were far superior to those of Eusebius on the same subject. Moreover, Theodoret, who was not a little later in age, and a contemporary of Cyril, in his work *Hellenic Healings* [f], introduces some passages from those books of Porphyry against the Christians, and indeed, as I observe, the same ones that Eusebius had already cited in the places just indicated. However, in this work of Cyril, where there was the greatest occasion for that matter, while I see many passages cited from other of Porphyry's commentaries, such as *On the History of Philosophers*, *On the Life of Pythagoras*, *To Nemesius*, and *On Abstinence from Animal Food*, I see no passages quoted from his books against the Christians; in some place [g] I detect an incidental mention of them: "Porphyry, indeed, who poured out bitter words against us, and almost danced upon the religion of the Christians." That Porphyry, who, having attacked us with bitter sermons, all but mocked the Christian religion by dancing; elsewhere he is said by the same author, following Julian, to be of his *thyrostomia* (abusive language) against us.
A And so, the most just indignation of Christians arose against those most scurrilous books of Porphyry, especially after he had spent a great deal of time, as Theodoret relates, in reading through the Prophets while he was composing those volumes against the Christians; and this indignation was even confirmed by specific imperial edicts, as we have seen. So much so that they deemed it necessary to omit, or rather to remove from the hands of the faithful, the writings of the ancient doctors of the Church—which were, in fact, the very ones that most powerfully refuted those books—rather than have the memory of Porphyrian or similar writers transmitted to posterity along with the brilliant lucubrations of Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris, by which those books were refuted. Indeed, Sozomen mentions B a work of Apollinaris, not so much written against Porphyry as against this Julian, in whose time he lived, as well as against the pagan philosophers in general, which was inscribed *On Truth*; nor is the book ignoble which he composed *Against the Emperor* and the pagan philosophers, entitled *On Truth*; and, as he immediately adds, without any testimony from the sacred books, he shows them to be deceived by various errors in their thoughts about God, which is not as it should be. Theophanes similarly mentions that this work was written by the same Apollinaris against Julian; C and because that author is not in everyone's hands, and his words on the matter at first glance seem to depart somewhat from those of Sozomen, I shall write them here: "Apollinaris, using the divine Scripture as his material, but imitating the style of the ancients, and composing a discourse against Julian which he inscribed *On Truth*, greatly benefited the Church." Apollinaris, therefore, taking his material (certainly not the words, as Sozomen says, or its express testimonies, but the arguments themselves) from divine Scripture, and using the same character of the ancients whom he imitated, greatly aided the Church in the book he wrote *Against Julian*, inscribed *On Truth*. D Moreover, the same Theophanes, a little later, bears witness to these very books of Cyril against Julian: "Julian the impious wrote a refutation of the divine Gospels, which the great Cyril of Alexandria refuted in an outstanding and brilliant treatise." Certainly not light were the reasons that Cyril himself touches upon in his Preface to the Emperor Theodosius, by which the gravest bishop was induced to undertake the defense of evangelical truth against Julian’s most pestilential writing. For as he intimates in that same place, the situation was such that because the apostate frequently sought testimonies from Holy Scripture in order to tear them apart—as though he were exceptionally well-versed in the Sacred Letters—he imposed upon the unwary and the simpler-minded, while the pagans thought that there was such a power of eloquence in these books that they believed they could not be overturned by any of the Christian doctors. Added to this was the great and indeed still recent authority and reputation of Julian among those same pagans, which had been won for him not only by the dignity and breadth of his position at the highest rank in the world, but also by the extraordinary and unusual recommendation of highly praised virtues—such as temperance, continence, and, according to the Donatists, but who have been more than once rebuked by Augustine on this account, justice—and other such qualities; as well as by the excellence of his singular, exquisite, and manifold learning and his sharp wit. Whence, since only a few years before, with intense and supreme zeal—with which he burned against the faith from which he had defected, and with a hatred that even surpassed the cruelty of the persecutors who came before him—that work had been elaborated against the Christian religion, it could not fail to be pushed and bandied about everywhere by sophists and other pagan teachers of that age to assert their ancestral impiety and nefarious idol worship, and to demolish Christian dogmas. And this was done under a greater color and pretext, because he had been initiated into all the mysteries of that religion which he was attacking; because he had even been admitted into holy orders for a time; because he had professed it, at least in external worship, from his birth right up to the time he assumed the empire; and consequently, in the judgment of those who—like him—were worshipers of impiety, there could be no reason for his desertion other than the falsity of that religion, from an internal and
accurate knowledge of all the dogmas of that faith and the Christian ritual, suitably and learnedly convinced, to those things—and indeed to the sacred rites of the Gentiles which had then begun to lie neglected or abandoned—he had defaulted. A Indeed, Cyril relates that from these same books of Julian, very many—from the number of Christians, to be sure—were shaken, and no mean detriment was brought to the faith. Add to this that in the same age in which Cyril was writing this (a), those sacred rites had not yet been fully abolished in the Roman world; that the number of Gentiles was still great everywhere, and indeed in the East, or in Egypt itself—as mention is made in these books (b) of the temple of Saturn still existing among the Alexandrians, where foul crimes were committed by its guardians—and that there was a frequent abundance of sophists, philosophers, and others learned in various doctrines or disciplines from that same fold: such as, and whose lucubrations still survive, Zosimus, the younger Victor, Rutilius Gallus, the nearly equal Syrianus, or he who had only just recently died, the Alexandrian Claudian, and others. B Indeed, even writings of the contemporary and one-time adversary of Cyril, Theodoret, exist on this same subject, or rather *Therapeutici* for the assertion of Evangelical truth against the Gentiles of his age; and indeed, as he testifies in the prooemium of that most learned work, it was for the sake of beating back those who, in familiar conversations, admiring the fables of the Greeks, held the faith of Christians and the ignorance and barbarity of the Apostles who had handed it down in derision. Whence also most grave men in that age and the previous one deemed it by no means necessary to abstain from refuting the writings and cavils of that sort of nefarious men, whether Porphyry or Julian or other Gentiles who impugned the Christian faith: because, as Socrates (c) says concerning these books of Julian and Porphyry by name, all their sophisms had already been suppressed and diluted in the work published by Origen on that matter; or—because, according to the same Socrates—Julian should be considered to have addressed his words in those books only to the rude and unskilled, and by no means to those who were clear-sighted in the truth from the Sacred Scriptures.
C So that with the greatest right, and indeed at the request of many, as he himself says (d), the Alexandrian bishop was induced to contend against Julian, who was insolently insulting the Christians in three books—as it is said by him—or seven according to Jerome, as we have seen; D and not only to convict him of monstrous error and most foul superstition, but further to make plain to all his singular ignorance or caviling regarding the Sacred Scriptures, which he was widely quoting and disparaging in those books, or rather evading with false and inept interpretations. For this *apostate* did not cast at them those absurd and old-wives’ tales about Christians—namely, nocturnal and illicit assemblies, Thyestean feasts, nefarious and Oedipean couplings, or clandestine conspiracies against the prince and the public safety of the empire; which had long since been rejected and refuted in the *Apologies* of the ancient Christians, and which he, in that light of Evangelical truth—and he having professed the same for so many years, born and raised among Christians, a partaker of all their sacred rites—would never have dared to replace or assert. By other arts were the Christians to be challenged, by other machines was their faith to be subverted: and for that purpose, he maligned their received customs, laws, and mysteries, on whatever pretext or count he could; there was no good deed, nor anything rightly and wisely said in the sacred Scriptures, which—as Cyril speaks somewhere (e) of this undertaking of his in those books—he did not distort and interpret in a bad light. This was the undertaking, this the scope, this the reward of a most malicious work, with which the *apostate* contended not only to emulate, but to surpass those impious cavilers at the Christian religion, Porphyry and Celsus. Whence Jerome (f) also touches upon and joins the madness of these three men somewhere: "Let Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, those rabid dogs against the Christians, learn; let their followers learn," etc. Hence also Julian, reading the traces of Celsus in this part, as is clear from the books of Origen against him, refutes Christians as those who, abhorring not only the Gentiles but also the Jews from whom they sprang, worship rites diverse from theirs; and indeed not only from the Jews, which those of his own time put forward, but that they recede from the Mosaic, just as they do from the precepts and institutions of the prophets (g): this is recognized from the usage of sacrifices, circumcision, Sabbaths, and unleavened bread being abolished among Christians; or from the eating of foods prohibited in the law; and because not one more
than a single God is worshipped; the gods of the gentiles, contrary to the express command in the Law, he attempts at more than one place to prove they curse A; and finally, he attributes the impiety of the Christians to a root born of Jewish audacity and the confusion and negligence of the gentiles B. Hence he eludes those ancient oracles in the Mosaic books regarding the coming of Jesus, such as that of Jacob in Gen. xlix, 10 (which he even touches upon and criticizes the reading introduced, *He whom they are expecting*, instead of *the things which are laid up for him*) C, or that of Balaam in Num. xxiv, 17, or Isaiah vii, 14; or he contends, impiously no less than falsely, that Jesus is called by the name of God by John alone, and not by Matthew, Luke, Mark, or even Paul D; and that the beginning of all this affair proceeded from that same John, who, he claims, did not even teach it clearly and explicitly—he who has been given by the Latin Fathers the true name: the apostate emperor. Nor does he any the less rail against the Jews for this reason (although it is established from other sources and from his own works that he was not so incensed against them) [H], or against Moses and the prophets; he defames the history of the creation of the world, the first creation of man, the discourse of the serpent with the woman, and the confusion of tongues [I]; he claims, as he himself posited, that the precepts of the Law have nothing exceptional or singular, which, with two exceptions—the second and the fourth—were not also shared by other nations [K]; he confutes, however, what is handed down in the Mosaic books regarding God’s jealousy, anger, and vengeance [L]; and regarding the selection of one nation, above all other peoples of the earth [M]; nay, he even notes the ignorance and lack of skill of that nation compared to others, such as the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Greeks [N]. Yet the dogmas of Plato and other gentiles concerning the *cosmopoeia* of the world—as I have already touched upon in passing—the principles of things, the different orders of the intelligible and sensible gods [O], the differentiation between nations, and the fact that a god is set over each one, and an angel and a demon subject to that same god [P]—and other teachings of that kind of Platonic or mystical gentile philosophy or theology, to which we have seen him so intensely devoted—these he ambitiously or foolishly opposes. Nevertheless, the same man acknowledges that there were men among the Jews inspired by the divine Spirit [Q]; and furthermore, he acknowledges the fire that fell from heaven under Moses and Elijah for the sacrifices: which things, therefore, the very famous Grotius has also learnedly related in his golden script as being among the illustrious things of the gentiles concerning the Jewish religion, or those things which were divinely handed down by Moses or other most holy men [R]. In which work, Julian conducted himself in such a way, as was his character—which his two satirical little books abundantly argue—that he was prompt and prone to gibes and taunts, and furthermore, trained in the reading of the scriptures of both covenants, and in twisting or vexing their passages (not to mention casting insults and reproaches upon the most holy author of the Christian religion, or its first leaders and teachers, and even Moses and the prophets himself), so that he was always engaged in impiety, and not without occasional acumen and sophistry; yet he does not continually exert that power of intellect or that same color in asserting or defending gentile dogmas. It is added, as the Alexandrian prelate rightly reproves him in one place elsewhere, that he does not proceed in order, but frequently repeats and inculcates the same things; and hence, so as not to fall into the same fault, he [Cyril] hands down that he must engage with that adversary in a more decent order and with topics generally collated.
Although it is clear that not all of Julian’s books—or the three of them which Cyril mentions in his preface—or individual things contained in them, are being referred to or refuted by him continuously, or from those things (to pass over those for now, which we discuss elsewhere) which Socrates adduces from there. For there are not read there, or in this work of the Alexandrian prelate, the things which that historian reports Julian to have treated in his third book [T]: namely, many things excerpted by him from that book and gathered into one, which, according to human custom and by necessity, are said by the same Julian regarding God; and whose individual parts (which are the very words of that emperor on the subject), unless the discourse itself has some arcane intelligence, are filled with much impiety against God: by which...
to add this, it is consistent with the mystical fables of pagan theology and their hidden meaning, as spoken by the same, in his oration on the Mother of God, and in another against the ignorant dogs. Whatever the reason may have been why Cyril omitted these and other things of that kind in those same books of the Transgressor—whether he considered them trivial and unworthy of notice, or indeed believed them to have been already sufficiently discussed and refuted by others, specifically those mentioned, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris in their apologetic writings against Celsus and Porphyry—it is nonetheless the case that, just as in the words brought forward some time ago on that matter by Theophanes [a], or by Cedrenus [b], regarding that work of Cyril, excellent mention is made of it as a work in which those same books of Julian were fully refuted; or indeed, it is read that a colophon was placed by the Alexandrian prelate himself upon that same work, as if he had completely finished the task he had taken upon himself there.
Furthermore, that same Alexandrian prelate should not have been deterred from refuting that same writing of the emperor by any regard for philosophical or other doctrines in those same books of Julian; that he was not hindered by this from perhaps undertaking this burden himself is testified to in the already mentioned letter to the great Roman orator, who, however, as Jerome [c] reproached him, used an excess of secular literature in his writings; whose words, which also indicate the number and date of these Julian books, we have already cited above, to which he immediately adds: "If I attempt to write against this man (Julian, indeed), I think you will forbid me from striking back at this rabid dog of the philosophers and Stoic doctrines, that is, with the club of Hercules." Although he would have immediately felt our Nazarene, or, as he himself used to say, the Galilean, in the battle.
But it was not the Nazianzen who happily took this up; for the two Philippics of his against that emperor—although Jerome, who mentions him there, seems to hint as much immediately—do not do this, but rather this Alexandrian prelate does so in these ten books: who, from the preface of the work or the entire first book, shows that the Greeks, or Julian, boast in vain of their ancient teachers and masters, since Moses is far older than all of them, even before any knowledge of letters, or rather letters themselves were brought into Greece by Cadmus and the Phoenicians, and all that was handed down by him regarding the creation of the world, the beginnings of things, the one and supreme essence of God, the one worship of Him, and other things divinely and most wisely produced and established by him, with which the tenets of those ancient philosophers or legislators, among the Greeks or even the Egyptians, could by no means be compared.
On which occasion he also learnedly relates many things from the ancient poets, historians, and philosophers of those same pagans; as from Abydenus, Alexander Polyhistor, just as had been done before by Eusebius [d], concerning the first flood, the ark on the mountains of Armenia, the Babylonian tower, and the variety of languages having been introduced [e]; in other places, from Eupolemus, what is likewise read in Eusebius [f], concerning Moses, as the first wise man, and who, of course, first delivered letters to the Jews, and they to the Phoenicians, and the Phoenicians to the Greeks. To omit other things now, which rest upon his own notation there, and which one is not allowed to dwell upon here, nor on those epochs that he touches upon there—such as from the birth of Moses, the capture of Troy, and others of that kind; or indeed those numbers of the Olympiads, to which he refers the principal men noted for wisdom, learning, or praise of genius, especially among the Hebrews and Greeks; in all of which it is clear that he hardly departs from the numbers of those in the Eusebian *Chronicle*, or rather, that almost everything was taken from there.
Thus elsewhere [g], among the various fables of the pagans that he touches upon, he makes mention of the poet Dinarchus, as he says there, who is not ignoble, who, when he had narrated the deeds of Bacchus among the Indians, and in what manner he slew Actaeon and Lycurgus, adds that he himself was killed by Perseus, and buried at Delphi by Apollo, with the surname "the Golden." You may see this, which had been handed down earlier by Eusebius in the *Chronicle* , somewhat more confidently exploded by the great critic [i], as if no poet by the name of Dinarchus had existed: from which it is permissible to opine why all mention of that poet has been passed over by the most learned and diligent Vossius. I do not now touch upon more things, which he brings forward from Orpheus, Hesiod, Empedocles, Pindar, Sophocles, Euripides; or from Plato, Xenophon, Xenophanes, Plutarch, Amelius the Platonist, Plotinus, Porphyry; or from Hermes the Egyptian, and other ancient poets or philosophers, the majority of which, however, are found in Clement
...Eusebius, as is read among the contemporary Theodoret, following the customary usage in the Apologetic works of the ancient Christians: by which they gather together either the myths handed down about the gods or insane opinions, in order to confound the Gentiles; or indeed from whence they bring forward or establish healthier doctrines, which approach more closely to the Christian: as concerning the one and supreme God; concerning the eternal mind, that is, the Son of God; concerning the Word of God and God the Father; concerning the knowledge of the Trinity among the Gentiles, to wit, the Good, the Mind, and the Soul of the universe; concerning the essence of God in three hypostases; concerning the creation of the world, and indeed by the divine Word; concerning the providence of God and His free administration; concerning the arts of worldly wisdom as being superfluous; concerning the rejection of the sacrifices of living creatures: each of which the reader shall find related in this work of Cyril, with the very words of the writers among the Gentiles brought forward. In which matter, as the learned know, he did not always maintain that moderation which his predecessors also—Clement, Eusebius, and those more ancient still, Justin and Athenagoras—or indeed that man of otherwise accurate judgment in that same age of Cyril, Theodoret, observed; nor does that come here to be discussed. No less may it be established in general concerning the books of that great prelate that many things are observed in them eruditely, wisely, and opportunely, by which he washes away and beats back the importunate, or more truly futile, cavils of this impious Julian against the sacred books of the Christians and their dogmas: so that, if he is not perhaps to be held superior to his adversary in the praise of sharpness, genius, or eloquence, he certainly excels him by far in the gravity of his reasons and the weight of his arguments, as well as in faith (not to mention the treatment of the subject itself, which is of all the most grave). Thus, the work of Cyril deserves entirely to be placed among his foremost and most useful writings.
OF SAINT CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ADDRESS TO THE MOST PIOUS AND CHRIST-LOVING EMPEROR THEODOSIUS.
A Worthy of hearing and exceptional are your acts, and beyond all praise are the magnificent achievements of your pious reign, and the incomparable piety which, like an inheritance received from your ancestors, you have preserved unharmed and impenetrable by the darts of envy: most especially on account of your imitation of the paternal and ancestral dexterity in all things that are best; which, as it is seen clearly in the present, so it is also my purpose to use regarding you yourselves the words of our Savior. For He said: "A city set on a hill cannot be hid"; for things carried on high and prominent follow in a certain manner that consequence, as it is seen clearly in these things, and it lies before me to fit the words of our Savior also to you yourselves. For He said: "A city set on a hill cannot be hid"; for that which is raised on high is ever wont to be conspicuous. And what could there be that corresponds to your serenity? Nothing at all; for it has passed over to the highest limit of...
the abodes of the blessed, A seeing that its glory of the scepter, radiating over all things with the light and splendor of justice, and gladdening with its gentleness and piety toward Christ the heaven, that is, the rational and heavenly powers above, has reached even thither. For you are so admirable in both regards that, having virtues in yourselves that are equally matched, you have surpassed every manner of praise. Gifts, indeed, from others toward you, O most Christ-loving Emperor Theodosius—victories, crowns, and songs of thanksgiving, and all those things by which the power of kings might not unsuitably be honored—were required; but from us, who have been allotted the divine ministry, it was fitting that books—compiled as well as could be for the glory of God—should be offered. For it is truly beloved by you, and customary, and much prayed for, to set it firm, and to B consider those who in any way whatsoever treat it with wantonness as most abominable, and to count them in the portion of your greatest enemies; while deeming worthy of all honor those who choose to think and speak of things that pertain to the glory of God. And I would say that this, too, is a god-befitting excellence and most especially becoming to your renowned heads. For the divine prophet David somewhere says, singing to Christ, the Savior of all: "Do I not hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? and am I not grieved with Thine enemies? I hated them with perfect hatred; they were counted enemies unto me." And the discourse has much force according to reason. For just as someone gives manifest proof of his good will toward you by loving to oppose those who, out of I know not what excess of great stupidity, choose not to love, so would one manifest the genuineness of love toward Christ by youthfully contending against those who have slandered His things, almost crying out and saying what is in the divinely inspired Scripture: "With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord." And it is necessary to explain what is the manner of the address of my words to you. D And grant me pardon as I begin to speak, not for the sake of the king alone, but for the glory of Christ, the great King, who reigns over all things together with His own Father. Which indeed would fit Him alone to say: "By me kings reign." For He Himself is the Lord of glory in heaven and on earth; it is therefore logical and necessary that we, who have been appointed by Him as defenders of the divine dogmas, should set up vigorous words of resistance against those wishing to injure His glory, and that we should provide quick and present help to those who read them—both as something useful and salutary, and as that which, for those whose weak heart is easily snatched away to where it ought not to go, acts like a staff, suitable for sustaining the footsteps of those walking rightly in the faith, and for fixing more deeply and keeping unshaken the tradition of the right faith. Who
A Who, then, truly is he who has fought against the glory of Christ? There have been very many throughout the ages who were driven to this by the malice of the devil, but above all others was Julian, who once shone in the splendors of imperial power and the ornaments of supreme fortune, yet was ignorant that Christ is the giver of the kingdom and the power to rule. For before the time of his reign, he was numbered among the believers, was deemed worthy of holy baptism, and had been trained in the holy books; but I do not know how, after wicked and superstitious men became intimate with him, he conceived plans for apostasy, and then, with Satan abetting him, he was swept away into the rites of the Greeks, and he who had been nurtured in holy Churches and monasteries became a servant of impure demons. "For evil communications corrupt good manners," as the all-wise Paul says. I would urge those who wish to keep their mind steadfast and to preserve the tradition of the right faith like a pearl in their heart, not to yield B any power of approach or of speech to men of ethnic superstition; for it is written: "With the holy thou wilt be holy, and with the innocent thou wilt be innocent, and with the elect thou wilt be elect, and with the froward thou wilt show thyself froward." Since, therefore, the illustrious Julian possessed the gift of eloquence by a wondrous work of nature, he whetted his tongue against our common Savior of all, Christ, and indeed composed three books against the holy Gospels and the venerable religion of the Christians, by which he unsettled very many and brought no small detriment to the faith. For the light-minded and fickle slide easily into his error, and become a sweet prey to the demons. Yet sometimes even those who have never strayed from the faith are unsettled, thinking that he knew the sacred and divine Scriptures, because he inserted many testimonies from them into his own writings and discourses, even though he did not understand what he was saying. C But since many of the Gentiles, when they encounter any Christian, blather a great deal up and down, brandishing his writings against us and boasting that they possess such a power of eloquence that none of our teachers has ever been able to refute or overturn them, I, urged by many, and trusting most of all in God who says, "Go forth now, and I will open thy mouth," have resolved to humble that Greek pride which has been lifted up against the glory of Christ, to aid the deceived as much as possible, and to convict the accuser of our Savior Christ not only of error, but also of ignorance of the Scriptures. D I wished this work to appear in the name of your Highness, who is most studious of Christ and piety, praying again and again that God may preserve you in solid and unshaken tranquility of soul, ever victorious and subjecting your enemies under your feet, and preserving your holy empire for generations of generations, with Christ consenting, through whom and with whom to God the Father and the Holy Spirit be praise and honor unto the ages. Amen.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN — BOOK ONE
A Those who are wise and sagacious, and learned in the divine dogmas, admire the beauty of truth, and make it their concern in every word to be able to understand a parable and a dark saying, the utterances of the wise and their riddles. For thus, by fixing their mind accurately and rightly upon the divinely inspired Scriptures, they fill their own souls with divine light. Having grasped the boast of a righteous and most well-ordered life, they may also become agents of the highest benefit to others. For it is written: “If you are wise for yourself, son, you shall be wise also for your neighbor.” But those who are twisted in heart, and possess no experience in their mind, being entirely devoid of the divine light, rise up against the dogmas of piety, and speak with excessive boldness, and boast against glories that are unspeakable. Sending forth blasphemous utterances, they “speak unrighteousness against the height,” according to that which is sung by David in the Psalms. I think this is a malady for them arising from excessive madness and the ignorance that resides within them; or rather, if one must speak the truth,
A it is from the guile of the wicked architect of evils, the dragon, I mean, Satan. And the admirable Paul confirms us in this conviction, having written thus: "But if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to those that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them." That he, therefore, who is reputed to be the god of this world and a thief of supreme glory has darkened their heart is not inconsistent with reason, for they have fallen into manifest error and have brought into life countless gods and demons and the souls of heroes, as they themselves imagine and think. But it would have behooved those who are wise to weep for them, and deservedly so, as they could not shroud in silence things that should put everyone to shame. But now their enterprise of impiety has proceeded even to this point, that they seek to transmit the disease of such shameful superstition to others, just like certain serpents lying in wait at crossroads, who spring upon those passing by and inject the bitter venom of destruction into susceptible minds; of whom it may justly be said: "Ye serpents, generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil?" Nor would the Lord deviate from the truth in saying: "A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
B And I say these things having fallen upon the books of Julian, who, having raved against our holiest religion in an unendurable manner, declared that we err and have imprudently departed from the straight and legitimate path; that we are being swept along as if over the precipices of rocks, and that we offer an entirely inept worship to the Almighty God of all—one consistent neither with the laws of the wise Moses, nor with the rites and superstitions—or rather, the customs and habits—of the Greeks, but that we have introduced a certain new manner of life, midway between both and full of error. I, for my part, would assert that we are indeed estranged from the delirium of the Greeks and that the faith of Christians is, as they say, as far removed from their impostures as heaven is from earth: "For what fellowship hath light with darkness? and what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" But that we are not at variance with the books of Moses, nor do we adopt a manner of living contrary to his decrees, I shall endeavor to prove to the best of my ability, having found C a suitable occasion to exercise myself in this kind of dissertation. And for the present, I think it worth saying that the saying bandied about by some as a parody is true: "The one learned from the other." And it must be manifest that the things of the forefathers were known to their descendants, not contrariwise, those of the descendants to their forefathers. Since, therefore, the Greeks boast greatly of their own teachers, and by mentioning to us I know not what Anaximanders and Empedocles, along with Pythagorases and Platos, and others besides, who were to them the authors of impious dogmas, or, as it were, D
A in a word, the fountains of ignorance. Come, let us say that one might observe them at variance with one another and clashing with conflicting opinions, and unable to provide a consistent reason or cause for any of the things that exist. Furthermore, let us demonstrate that Moses, having obtained the preeminence in time, introduced an orthodox and very unerring opinion concerning the ineffable and supreme Essence of all things, and that he made excellent mention of the creation of the world, and was no less an admirable lawgiver for piety and justice; while those who are called wise among them, being latecomers and of the most recent time, plagiarized his work and interwove it into their own discourses, even if they were unable to steal away anything sound and whole, and could not produce therefrom any opinion suitable and similar to the truth. B There were, therefore, some after Moses, and others contemporary with the holy prophets who followed him; those who chose to follow their opinions were deemed worthy of a better judgment than the others, even though they did not put forth a pronouncement about God that was entirely free from falsehood. That Moses, who is inspired by God, is indeed the most ancient in rank and, I say, according to the measure of the time of his birth, while those after him are the latest, we shall make clear by investigating the books of those who have accurately chronicled the times. And I say that those who are about to read these works ought not to be easily overcome by the tedium of reading, nor to reject with a certain disdain the enumeration of names or the calculation of times; rather, they should thirst and eagerly desire the beautiful testimony and certainty concerning each thing, which bears significant fruit. C Therefore, Noah was a man most acceptable to God; he was the tenth from the first man, that is to say, Adam. God, the Parent of all, commanded him, since the flood was about to occur and the human race upon the earth was to be destroyed by utter ruin, to construct an ark; and, together with his beloved ones, his wife and children, and various kinds of four-footed beasts, birds, and creeping things, to embark and sail therein; at the conclusion of which, all the human race and other animals perished, but he was saved with his whole household. As the waters subsided, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat, that is to say, of Armenia; and having again set foot upon the earth, he offered sacrifices of thanksgiving to God. D The divinely inspired Scripture is a rich witness for producing faith. But because some, who are superstitious, repeat that all our accounts are futile trifles and fables, bearing no semblance of truth or probability, I shall necessarily make mention of their own historians—namely, Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus. For they, too, have provided an account of these matters in their own writings—not altogether free from reproach, but rather absurd, as they were devoid of dogmas relating to piety. And Alexander says as follows: After the death of Otiartes, his son Xisuthrus reigned for eighteen years; in his time, they say, the great flood occurred; then he says that Xisuthrus was saved, having been warned by Cronus of what was to come, and that it was fitting to build an ark...
A and to sail in it together with birds, reptiles, and beasts. Abydenus, however, gives a clearer account, saying: "After whom others also reigned, and then Xisuthrus; to him Cronus gave warning that there would be a great flood of rain on the fifteenth day of the month of Desius, and ordered him to conceal whatever writings were in the city of Heliopolis in Sippara." Xisuthrus, having performed these tasks, immediately sailed to Armenia, and upon arriving there, he encountered the things decreed by God. On the third day, after the rain had ceased, he sent out some of the birds, testing whether they might see land that had emerged from the water; but they, encountering an endless sea and being at a loss as to where to land, returned to Xisuthrus, and others did the same; but he met with success on the third attempt. For, since it had arrived covered in mud on its feet, B the gods took him away from among men; and the ship, in Armenia, provided the local inhabitants with wooden amulets as medicinal safeguards. They call Xisuthrus, perhaps, Noe, by an Assyrian name, but in this they have again wandered from the truth by saying that Cronus gave him the oracle, instead of the God of all; and this is not surprising, for they have not participated in the divine light, nor have they seen with the eyes of their mind the venerable beauty of the truth.
Therefore, Noe offered sacrifice after coming out of the ark, and settled there with his loved ones. He had three sons, and from them a great many others were born, and they became a second beginning for the inhabitants of the earth; at first they lived together, in the land of the sunrise alone, but afterwards they were dispersed in all directions, after God, who is over all, divided them into many languages, C for He was indignant at the construction of the tower. That those just mentioned by me also recall this history, we shall no less understand from what they have written. For Alexander speaks thus: "The Sibyl says that while all mankind still spoke with one voice, some of them began to build a tower of unusual size, so that they might ascend to heaven, but God, breathing winds upon the tower, overthrew it and gave each one a distinct language, and for this reason the city was called Babylon." Again, Abydenus says: "In it, they say, those who were first, being puffed up with strength and size, and indeed despising as better than the gods, raised a high tower where Babylon is now; and it had already come closer to the sky, when the winds, D rushing in from all sides, overthrew the machine upon them, the ruins of which came to be called Babylon: and while they were hitherto of one lip and voice, they received from the gods a manifold and diverse sound of language." When those of the blood of Noe had been dispersed, and then a period of time had passed, Ninus, the son of Arbelus, is said to have been the first of the Assyrians to reign in splendor, from whom the city of Nineveh also takes its name, whose walls Semiramis, having married Ninus, magnificently prepared. While Ninus therefore held the Assyrian kingdom, and Europus that of the Sicyonians, in his time...
they say, was born the blessed Abraham, a man of all-embracing knowledge and experience, who showed great zeal for everything, and who maintained that one must know the truth A and who is the Creator and Lord of all. For he cast away and put as far from him as possible the opinions of the Assyrians concerning the multitude of their gods—those wandering errors—believing that the knowledge of the truth would suffice for him for every prosperity, and he was accepted by God. For he heard: "Go out from your kindred, and from your father's house, and come to the land that I will show you." Now, the manner in which both he and those who were born of him lived, I will for the present forbear from telling, for the occasion necessarily carries our discourse to other matters; passing over the intervening events because of the multitude of the histories and names, I shall hasten to the priest of the sacred mysteries himself, Moses.
For when four hundred and twenty-five years had passed B after the divine Abraham, Moses was born in Egypt, where the descendants of Abraham's blood were then dwelling as sojourners. While still a young man, and having arrived at an experience of the wisdom of the Egyptians, he applied himself to human things as a sort of prelude to divine things. Having therefore drawn down the times from Abraham to Moses and to Atlas, in the times of Prometheus, let us again take up from here another beginning of years, numbering specifically from the birth of Moses. In the seventh year of Moses, they say that Prometheus and Epimetheus, and Atlas the brother of Prometheus, and moreover Argus the All-Seeing, came into being. In the thirty-fifth year of Moses, Cecrops first reigned at Athens, he who was surnamed the "double-natured" (Diphyēs); C they say that he was the first of men to sacrifice an ox, and to call Jupiter the highest of the gods among the Greeks, as they themselves say. In the sixty-seventh year of Moses, they say that the flood of Deucalion occurred in Thessaly, and indeed that in Ethiopia the son of the Sun, Phaethon, was burned up, as they say. In the seventy-fourth year of Moses, Hellen, thus called, the son of Deucalion and Pyrrha, became the origin of this appellation for the Greeks, although they were formerly called Graikoi. In the one hundred and twentieth year of Moses, Dardanus founded the city of Dardania, while Amyntas reigned over the Assyrians, Sthenelus over the Argives, and Rameses over the Egyptians; this same man was also called Aigyptos, the brother of Danaus. In the one hundred and sixtieth year after Moses, Cadmus reigned over Thebes, whose daughter was Semele, from whom, as they themselves say, Bacchus was born of Zeus; at that time also flourished Linus the Theban and Amphion, the musicians. At that time, the priesthood among the Hebrews passed by succession to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, after, of course, the death of Aaron. In the one hundred and ninety-fifth year after Moses, they say that that famous rape of Helen, celebrated among the Greeks, D took place by Aidoneus, king of the Molossians; this man is said to have reared a huge dog, Cerberus, which he set upon Pirithous and Theseus when they arrived to steal his wife. Then they say
A that when Pirithous had perished, Heracles arrived and rescued Theseus. Hence they mythologize that he escaped from Hades. In the two hundred and ninety-fifth year, Perseus slew Dionysus, whose tomb they also say is at Delphi beside the golden Apollo. In the three hundred and fifty-fifth year after Moses, Priam reigned after Laomedon. In the four hundred and tenth year after Moses, Ilium was sacked and destroyed, when Heshbon was governing the Hebrews, Agamemnon the Argives, Uaphres the Egyptians, and Tautan the Assyrians. Therefore, from the birth of Moses until the fall of Ilium, four hundred and ten years are reckoned. And observe the sequence again for me; for I shall rattle them off quickly, not lingering on those who lived in the intervening time, but rather directing my discourse instead to the necessary personages.
B Consequently, in the fifth year after the capture of Ilium, Aeneas reigned over the Latins, Demophon, son of Theseus, over the Athenians, and Samson was judge among the Hebrews. In the sixty-fifth year after the capture of Ilium, the priest Eli died, according to that which is written in the first book of Kings; the foreigners carried away the ark into their own land, while the blessed Samuel was prophesying, and Saul was subsequently anointed king. In the one hundred and sixty-fifth year after the destruction of Ilium, they say that Homer and Hesiod lived, while Labotas reigned over the Lacedaemonians, Lasthenes over the Assyrians, Alba Sylvius over the Latins, and Agelaus over the Corinthians. In the two hundred and sixty-eighth year after the capture of Ilium, Elijah and Elisha prophesied, while Joram governed the kingdom of the Hebrews, and Archelaus that of the Lacedaemonians. In the three hundred and sixty-fifth year after the destruction of Ilium, Lycurgus gave laws to the Lacedaemonians, C while Agemon governed the Corinthians, and Proca Sylvius the Latins. In the three hundred and eighty-eighth year after the destruction of Ilium, the prophets Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Jonah prophesied. Some, however, maintain that Hesiod was not a contemporary of Homer, but lived in these times, while Azariah and Uzziah governed the Hebrews, Arbaces the Medes, and Proca Sylvius the Latins. Thus, four hundred and five years are reckoned from the capture of Ilium until the first Olympiad; and from the birth of Moses to this same first D Olympiad, eight hundred and fifteen years. In the first Olympiad, the Milesian epic poet Arctinus is said to have lived, along with Remus and Romulus, when Jotham was reigning in Judea, and Pekah in Israel. In the ninth Olympiad they say that the epic poet Thymilus lived, and the Sibyl of Erythrae. In the seventeenth Olympiad they say that the Sibyl, whom they also named Hierophile, was born. In the twenty-third Olympiad they say that Archilochus lived, while Manasseh was governing the state of the Jews. In the twenty-ninth Olympiad they say that Hipponax and Simonides and the musician Aristoxenus were born. In the thirty-fifth Olympiad, Thales the Milesian is said to have been the first natural philosopher, and they say that his life extended until the fifty-eighth Olympiad. In the thirty-sixth Olympiad, the divine Jeremiah and also Zephaniah were prophesying in Judea. In the forty-second Olympiad, Alcmaeon and Pittacus
of Mytilene, of the seven sages, and in addition to them, Stesichorus the poet, were known. During these very times were those around the blessed Daniel. In the forty-sixth Olympiad, Solon legislated, having A removed the laws of Draco, except those concerning murders. In the forty-ninth Olympiad, while the Jews were in Babylon—that is, in the mountains of the Persians and Medes, for they had been made captives—Daniel and Ezekiel were prophesying among them. In the fiftieth Olympiad, the seven sages were known, and Anaximander the Milesian, a natural philosopher. In the fifty-sixth Olympiad, with Cyrus holding the Persian empire, Haggai and Zechariah were prophesying; and already known were Simonides and Chilon, being of the number of the seven sages. In the fifty-eighth Olympiad, the poet Theognis was named. In the fifty-ninth Olympiad, Ibycus the lyric poet, Pherecydes the historian, Phocylides, and Xenophanes, tragic poets, came into being. In the sixty-second Olympiad, Pythagoras is said to have existed. In the seventieth Olympiad, they say Democritus and Anaxagoras, natural philosophers, came to be, along with Heraclides, nicknamed the "Dark." In the seventy-fourth, Phrynichus, and Choerilus, and Diagoras, natural philosophers. In the eighty-sixth Olympiad, they say that Democritus the Abderite, Empedocles, Hippocrates, Prodicus, Zeno, and Parmenides came to be. In the eighty-eighth Olympiad, they say that the comic poet Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Plato came to be. B In the one hundred and third Olympiad, they say that Aristotle was a student of Plato while he was still quite young. In the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad, they say that Alexandria in Egypt was founded, in the seventh year of the reign of Alexander; and around those times were the philosophers Anaximenes and Epicurus. In the one hundred and twenty-fourth Olympiad, while Ptolemy, the one nicknamed Philadelphus, was ruling Egypt, they say that Serapis came to Alexandria from Sinope, and that he is the same as Pluto; hence a temple was also built for the statue, and the Egyptians call it in their native tongue "Racotis." They signify nothing other than Pluto by this, and for this reason they built the temple near the monuments. But there is a disputed discussion among the Greeks concerning him; for some do not deem him to be Pluto himself, but rather Osiris, while others hold him to be Apis. Since there was great controversy about this, they say that they set up the idol, having C come to an agreement as if by one common consent, calling him "Osirapis," so that in one and the same word both Osiris and Apis might be understood. And the death and burial of both of these are reported, inasmuch as they were men; but long custom prevailed, with the "Osi" being cast off, for that idol to be called Serapis. Now this Ptolemy, being a man most studious of all humanity, sent one of his intimates to Judea, having given him a letter to Eleazar, who at that time was performing the priesthood according to the law, requesting that he send him all the books of Moses and the holy prophets, which he greatly desired to learn, and at the same time suitable men to translate them into the Greek tongue—
which indeed came to pass. A In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad, while Augustus Caesar was ruling over the Roman affairs, our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh.
Therefore, from the accurate record of times and genealogies, to whom is it not manifest that Moses, who is divinely inspired, was by far the most ancient of all the wise men among the Greeks? For they are young and, as it were, of recent appearance; they have arisen long after the counting of the Olympiads had begun. From this, I believe it is easier to observe and truthful to say that, not being entirely devoid of the doctrines of Moses, nor yet having remained unacquainted with the God-given and unadulterated wisdom that is in him, B they sometimes stammer, weaving falsehood into the truth, and mixing mud, as it were, into a most fragrant ointment. For what wise and weighty teaching is there not contained in the Mosaic discourses? Or who could fail to be astonished at his works? For those who have accurately investigated the subtleties of the Greeks say that philosophy is divided into contemplative and practical, and that if anyone becomes skillful and successful in both, he is considered to have attained the goal of philosophy with full success. Consider, then, Moses, who is such a one; for he speaks under divine inspiration, like no other, concerning the essence that is above all and the incomparable glory, and the preeminence over all things, and he reveals the One and only God, the Creator and Lord of the universe. C And to those who have the good at heart and who are possessed by the desire for a blessed life, he is seen to establish as law the best and most excellent things of all, by which they might become as venerable as possible.
But perhaps someone will say: Truly, the things of Moses are indeed more ancient than those of the wise men among the Greeks, yet it does not follow from this that it is true to say that they stole from his wisdom, or that they were convicted of having tampered with it at all. Therefore, let those who are fond of accurate hearing judge whether our argument contains no probability. D The historians among them, having traveled through the whole world, so to speak, were always eager to learn, so that they might appear to know many things. Therefore, they considered it a great ornament to their own writings if they passed over nothing of what had happened in silence. How, then, could such men, who were accustomed to learning useful things and to knowing such grave histories, have neglected to learn carefully the very ancient and accurate explanation of dogmas and laws? Indeed, Pythagoras of Samos and Thales of Miletus, having stayed for no small time in Egypt, and having collected the disciplines they are said to have been instructed in from there, returned to their own country. And indeed, Plato himself, the son of Ariston, says in the *Timaeus* that Solon went from Athens to Egypt, and having met one of the pseudoprophets—that is, the priests—there, heard these words: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; and there is no old man among the Greeks, for you are all young in your souls; you possess in yourselves no ancient opinion, nor any learning old in time; but you are deceived because for many generations you have been without letters and speechless..."
But, I think, even from these things one might see that the ways of the Christians are ancient; for the knowledge of letters did not yet exist among the Greeks—Cadmus having barely brought them from Phoenicia to them—yet the writings of Moses had already been written. Furthermore, Solon, the legislator at Athens, and even Plato himself, both having been in Egypt so that they might appear to surpass all others in knowledge, surely must have admired the writings of Moses. B That Moses was most well-known to the Greek historians, it is possible to see from the very things they have written. For Polemon, in the first of his Greek histories, makes mention of him, as do Ptolemy of Mendes, Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, and others besides these. Diodorus, having made diligent inquiry into the affairs of the Egyptians, says that he heard about him from the wise men there, and writes in these very words: “For after the ancient manner of living among the Egyptians, such as they fable to have been there under the gods and heroes, they tell that it was a man great in soul and most novel in his way of life among the Jews, who first persuaded the multitude to use written laws, he who was called a god. For since they beheld Moses as one filled with every virtue, they even called him C a god, whom some, as I suppose, among the Egyptians worshiped, perhaps having learned what was said to him by the God of all: ‘Behold, I have given you as a god to Pharaoh.’” Regarding antiquity, then, I think this is more than sufficient. And indeed, that the things of Moses precede the wisdom honored among the Greeks and possess a more ancient reputation, our discourse has sufficiently declared with a demonstration that cannot be refuted. After this, it seems to me a good thing to inquire into the opinion which the Hebrews held concerning God and the creation or framing of the world, and then to make manifest to those who read these pages what the wise men of the Greeks thought D on this matter. For where they agree with the words of the divinely inspired Scripture, one may see that they are both superior to themselves and in agreement with one another; but where each one brings forth his own inventions, one may easily detect them as dissenting and as drunk or delirious with absurd opinions. For it was not at all in their power to behold the things that are above the mind and our reason, unless God were leading and directing the reason, shining the lamp into the soul, begetting wisdom, loosening the tongue, and finally permitting them to think and to speak the arcana concerning Himself, as much as the human mind is able. But such grace would not belong indiscriminately to all, but rather to those who would be above the passions and the filth of the flesh, pure in soul, and learned in demonstrating the proofs of vigorous piety, having cast off earthly defilement and filth. To these things, the Father of all, God Himself, urges us on, saying through the voice of David: “Be still and know that I am God.” And indeed our Lord Jesus Christ also: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Now the supreme nature of all is visible, not to the eyes of the body, but to the internal and hidden lights of the intelligence, which produce a sharp and accurate
A curiosity, and through imagination draws in rays of the vision of God that are greater and more powerful than the senses.
Igitur In truth, all mortals born from Adam down to Noah honored God as one by nature, and as the true architect and Lord of all things; for no one is accused of having inclined toward other gods or of having offered worship to unclean demons. But after the flood and the construction of the tower and the differentiation of languages, those who were dispersed throughout the whole earth also held differing opinions regarding God. For since they had drawn their minds away from the truth and had applied them to transient and earthly things and to the pleasures of the body, they easily slipped into every kind of absurdity and, as it were, partitioned among themselves the guilt and error of polytheism. For some conjectured that the heaven was God; others, the sun and moon, and furthermore the stars and the elements of the world—fire and water, air and earth—from which each individual thing is said to be composed. B Others, having slipped into the ultimate depths of ignorance, fell into such confusion of thought that they even built temples and shrines of the most costly materials for these same men, and erected sacred seats and columns, and those whom they had mourned in death, they considered as gods, and sustained the worship of them with libations and sacrifices. And there are very many mortals who attribute the glory owed and appropriate to the one God to the elements of the world themselves; and the Chaldeans, most of all, are addicted to this doctrine, exploring with the utmost curiosity the movements of the stars and observing the flight of birds as a pretext for divination. But, as I have said, the divine Abraham recoiled from their absurdities and madness; for he did not think it fitting C to place the supreme nature of God, which transcends all things, among the things that fall under the senses and the eyes; nor, on the other hand, did he stray from the truth by enclosing that nature within created things. But, referring it much higher and setting it above all things that have had a beginning, he was deservedly acceptable both to the admiration of all and to the Divinity himself, so that God, whom he sought, showed himself to him in a manifest vision. Let us see, therefore, who henceforth among the successors of Abraham might be a rich and suitable witness to prove the faith and conviction which that progenitor is seen to have possessed. Certainly, Moses—drawing his origin from him, and who knew what Abraham had formerly sensed and himself wished to hold and consign to writing—will suffice for this.
18 Conseribens Therefore, in composing the book of Genesis, he says that Sodom had been sacked by certain ones who, having captured Lot along with the others in war, rejoiced as if they had secured a victory. But they were deceived in their hope, as Abraham unexpectedly led against them and defeated them with great force, D and liberated those who had already been taken captive. After he had returned from the slaughter of the five kings—for so it is written—the king of the Sodomites, Chodorlaomor, entreated him, saying: “Give me the persons, but take the horses for thyself.”
He, however, not tolerating the taking of others’ losses as a reward for his exploits, made the matter subject to an oath, saying: A “I will lift up my hand to the Most High, who created the heaven and the earth, that from a thread even to a shoelatchet I will take nothing of all that is thine, that thou mayest not say: ‘I have made Abraham rich.’” And he crowned him as a victor. And the king of Salem, that is Melchisedech, blessed him, saying: “Blessed be Abraham to the Most High God, who created the heaven and the earth, and blessed be the Most High God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hands.” And sending one of his trusted men, or rather one of his most loyal servants, into the midst of the rivers, and commanding him to be a marriage-broker for Isaac, he said: “I will adjure thee by the God of heaven and by the God of the earth.” B Therefore, the godly Abraham knew and clearly confessed one and only one God, and he termed Him Most High and the Creator of all things, both those in heaven and those on earth. Thus, this height is not perceptible by the senses, nor is it conceived as being in a place, nor as something one might grasp regarding a body, but rather it refers to His presiding over all things in a manner worthy of God, and that all things in the heavens and on the earth, and the firmament itself—and indeed I say the very element—have been fashioned by Him. But if all things have been fashioned by Him, He is surely distinct from all things; and He is distinct by nature, since He is neither begotten nor from non-being, but rather unbegotten, eternal, and more ancient than all time, and the source of all things. Thus, as I said just now, the godly Abraham knew clearly that there is one God, and to Him alone he offered pure and undefiled worship. But when in the progress of time his mind had been sharpened for the advancement of the truths he had rightly grasped, C then, oh then, he was instructed more powerfully in the doctrines concerning the Godhead; for he was learning not only that God is one and there is no other besides Him, but that He is also conceived in a holy and consubstantial Trinity, the fullness of the one and undemiled nature; though he was still being taught as in types, and not yet perceptibly. For what reason? Because to those who have just been called to the knowledge of the truth and who do not have their minds practiced in the contemplations upon it, the light of the vision of God seems somewhat inaccessible, and in truth it is. For such knowledge requires a mind that is steadfast, exercised, and accustomed to seeing sharply, and in addition to these, one that has already had faith installed within it; for this is the foundation and unshakable base of all discourse concerning the Godhead. D And the prophet Isaiah confirms this for us, saying: “Unless you believe, you shall not understand.” But when it is necessary, by all means, to use the pedagogy through riddles for those who are just now putting forward such subtle and, as it were, fluttering thoughts—concerning God, of course—who would doubt it? Not even the wise men among the Greeks have been ignorant of this matter. Porphyry, for instance, having obtained no contemptible glory among them in secular learning, in [the first book of his Philosophical History, such a...]
says something like this about the so-called wise men, or those who have formed the reputation of pseudo-wisdom: "For not being able," he says, "to hand down the primary species and first principles clearly in discourse, on account of their being difficult to conceive and difficult to explain, they had recourse to numbers, for the sake of clear instruction, imitating the geometers and grammarians. For just as they, when they wish to hand down the powers of the elements and the elements themselves, have recourse to characters, calling these, as if for the sake of primary instruction, elements, yet afterwards they teach that these characters are not the elements, but that through them the concept of the true elements is given; and the geometers, not being able to present incorporeal species by discourse, come to the descriptions of figures, saying that this is a triangle, not wishing that that which falls under the eye should be a triangle, but that by means of such a thing they might represent the concept of the triangle. And so in the case of the primary reasons and forms, the Pythagoreans did the same; B being unable to hand down by discourse the incorporeal species and the first principles, they had recourse to declaration through numbers, and thus they designated the principle of unity, and that of identity, and that of equality, and the cause of the conspiracy, and of the sympathy of all things, and of the preservation of that which exists in accordance with them and in a like manner."
Since, therefore, the very property and differentiation of the Godhead is something scarcely expressible and utterly difficult to penetrate, and whatever discourse is held concerning it is found to be exceedingly meager and below its dignity, we are taught the things concerning it through more vivid figures and types, as if through a mirror or an enigma. Thus, finally, we assert that the divine Abraham was instructed, for it is written of him thus: C "And God appeared to him by the oak of Mambre, as he was sitting at the doors of his tent at midday; and having lifted up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men were standing over him; and having seen, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and bowed himself to the ground, and said: 'Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.'" And after other words: "And he said," he says, "to him: 'Where is Sarra your wife?' And he answering said: 'Behold, in the tent.' And he said: 'I will surely return to you, at this time in a season, and Sarra your wife shall have a son.'" Behold, he says most clearly that God had appeared to him, yet that those who were seen were three men; but that the divine Abraham, running to them, did not address them as three, D "Lords, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant," but calling the three one Lord, as if to invite them to stay with him, he pleaded, since, also, being as it were one, the three spoke as if from the person of one again: "Where is Sarra your wife"
and that, "I will return at this time to the hour." A Observe then, observe those who appeared to him, three indeed existing and each one subsisting in their own person, yet, according to the principle of consubstantiality, gathered into one, and thus striving to conduct their conversations. But the images of such things are somewhat obscure, and far inferior to the truth; yet they have their usefulness for guidance, to lead us—I mean—to things beyond mind and word; for to the clearest minds the light of divine vision enters, and as if from perceptible things we fly up somehow towards things above perception, and which exceed the power of the words within us. For there is admittedly one nature of the Godhead, which is over all and through all and in all; but it is extended intellectually into the holy and venerable and consubstantial Trinity—into the Father, I say, and indeed the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even if each of those named subsists individually—this being true, that which they are said to be exists in reality—nonetheless the principle of consubstantiality gathers them into an unchanging nature. For the Son has been begotten of the Father, and is in Him and from Him naturally; and the Spirit also proceeds, being the proper Spirit of God and Father, and likewise of the Son; for God and Father sanctifies through Him that which is apt to be sanctified. Our forefather Abraham, therefore, did not ignore B the Architect of earth and heaven and all things, who is worshipped in the holy Trinity, and who has power over all things; nor did those who descended from him, Isaac and Jacob, think otherwise, but walking in the footsteps of their father’s virtue, they became zealous imitators of his faith. And indeed, the blessed Moses, explaining to us in the book of Genesis the things concerning them, says that God, the Creator of all, appeared to Jacob, and rousing him to noble hopes, said: "I am the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac." And Jacob himself also confessed, saying: "If the Lord will give me bread to eat and a garment to put on, then the Lord shall be my God." And these things suffice concerning them. But I say it behooves us henceforth to direct the discourse to the divine Moses, for he too proclaims the one God by nature and in truth, not being ignorant of Him through whom all things have been brought into existence—I mean His living and hypostatic Word—and the Spirit who is in God and from Him, the life-giver, who is sent through the Son to the creation. For he said that "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," C and having indicated Him as the Creator of the universe more summarily and in a few words, he soon explains the matter and shows that through the living Word of the God who rules all things, those things which had not existed before came forth into the existence of nature, and are quickened in the Spirit. "For He said," he says, "God said: Let there be light, and there was light; Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and it was so." And in each of the things that have been made, one might perceive the Father D speaking: "Let this or that come to be," producing into generation whatever He wills; by the intervention
of A the Word, without any hesitation. For the Word of God is living and active, and even if He merely inclines, that which was willed comes to be. He said that "The earth was invisible and unrefined, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was being borne over the water." Therefore, He makes mention very clearly of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and in other ways, within the holy and consubstantial Trinity, He proclaims the one Deity in nature and in truth. For, because He sent the fire upon those in Sodom who had transgressed intolerably—"The Lord rained," He says, "upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord"—I think it worth the effort, and for those who will read this B a matter of great utility, to bring into the middle what is written regarding the creation of man: "And God said: Let us make man according to our image and likeness." And then, a little after: "And God made man, according to the image of God He made him." For the Son is the image of God and the Father, to whom we also have been conformed by the intellect, and this is what the nature of man has been endowed with, being distinguished above the rest; for the beauty of the One who created it reflects upon it. What, then, could those say who rise up against our arguments and pretend to piety, by agreeing indeed that God is one and alone, but by no means that He has begotten the Son from Himself? To whom did God say: C "Let us make man according to our image and likeness"? Is it not that one might consider that the holy and consubstantial Trinity Itself carries on the discourse regarding these things, as if the all-wise Moses wished to demonstrate that the fabrication of man did not occur with God without prior consultation, but was, as it were, honored with preliminary deliberations? For the divine and undefiled mind would have no need of reflection, or hesitation, or scrutiny regarding anything whatsoever. For at the same time that He wills anything, this also exists rightly and irrefutably; but the nature of man, as I said, has been honored with what are, as it were, preliminary deliberations. But neither must the discourse of the godless be passed over in silence; for they might perhaps say straightway to these things: "For the Father, not as you yourself think and deem it D worthy to believe, spoke with His own Word and Spirit, but to gods who are secondary to Himself and inferior; and how is it not evident to all that even among those accustomed to philosophizing after the manner of the Greeks, it was judged that one God should be confessed, the Creator of all things and by nature transcendent over all, but that other secondary gods, as they themselves say, both intelligible and sensible, had been made by Him and brought forth unto generation, falling under intellect and sense?" And indeed Plato says most clearly: "It is my opinion, then, that one must distinguish, first, what that is which is always and has no generation, and what that is which comes to be, but never is. The former is always apprehensible by knowledge with reasoning, being the same in the same way; but the latter is opinable by opinion with irrational sense, coming to be and passing away, never strictly being." For that which is always, and has no generation, is the highest and greater
nature, and he names as God the one who truly is. For so too does he himself speak somewhere to the prophet Moses: "I am who I am." A But that which comes to be, and which is never, is that which is brought from non-being into existence by some ineffable and incomprehensible power of God, who fashioned this whole universe.
It is clear, therefore, that this has been shown to me very plainly, not only from our own sacred Scriptures, but also from those sources according to which they themselves are accustomed to think and to speak: that all things were brought into existence by God, and that He himself has been allotted a nature unlike those that were created. For they are subject to Him, and it is entirely ordained by nature that that which is created should be inferior to the Maker. Since these things are thus, what indeed do they mean, those who suspect that the God of the universe said these things to other gods: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness"? B For if He wished to fashion an animal on earth capable of reason [37 Gen. 1, 26], as an image of the created things, why does He bring in their own inherent aspect, saying "Let us make" and "according to our image"? But if, indeed, He considered it right that it should be fashioned according to His own and solitary most god-befitting beauty, why does He simultaneously include the mention of others, either by species or as one might properly speak of these matters? For the Maker and the thing created could never be reckoned as being in identity of nature, pre-eminence, and dignity, nor could the generated and the ungenerated nature—the incorruptible and the one subject to corruption—if indeed one can truthfully say that everything whatsoever that is conceived as being in generation is necessarily subject also to perishing. C For divine Moses, looking toward future things by the mystical instructions of the Holy Spirit, took thought for our affairs; and in what way, I shall say. Since in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—that is, in the consubstantial Trinity—the one, ineffable, and incomprehensible nature of God is conceived; lest anyone, out of excessive folly, being carried headlong where they ought not, should say that man was made according to the image and likeness of God, but not likewise of the Son—for it would be reasonable to conjecture the converse, and to say that man was made according to the likeness of the Son, but not likewise of the Father—therefore, foreseeing, as I said, the sophistries that would sometimes arise from some, he said that the holy Trinity itself said to Itself: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," D so that he may be understood as having been fashioned according to the whole—that is to say, intellectually—the ineffable nature of the Godhead. But those who are overly puffed up with the pride of knowledge think these things are mere trifles, and because of extreme stupidity having the light of truth fleeing from them, they perhaps contend that He said this to false and adulterous gods. And yet it was right for it to come into their mind that it is never the case that the nature that is the Maker and Creator would rashly impart the supreme dignity of His own glory and pre-eminence to the nature of generated things: not that He is subject to envy—for who would say that?—but because by nature...
the essence of created things could never attain to the excellence of divine prerogatives, nor, I think, could it be enriched therewith, at least in a substantial way, belonging as these do most specifically and exclusively to the ineffable nature. A Moreover, it is absurd in another respect to imagine that the King and Lord of all spoke to other gods: “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” For what difficulty had He encountered that He should take to Himself ministers and as it were helpers for the sole construction of man? Especially when He had already fashioned the rest of all creation, I mean the Angels, and the Principalities, the Authorities, and the intellectual Powers, the heaven and the earth, the sun and the moon, the stars and the light, and in sum everything that is in heaven and on earth. For who would dare say that, being affected by some weakness, or not having sufficient power for that work, He took for Himself those to assist Him? And yet, what sort of extreme folly would it be even to conceive such a thing in one's mind? For God is omnipotent, and perfect in Himself, and sufficient for all things, and nothing is above His strength and action. B Wherefore, leaving aside such trifles, let us come to that which is to be held as valid: that the fullness of the ineffable Godhead is understood to exist in the holy and consubstantial Trinity; and we have been conformed to the true and most accurate image of the Father, that is, to the Son, and His divine beauty is sealed within our souls through the participation of the Holy Spirit. For He is in us, as the Son Himself says: “For the Spirit is truth,” C according to what is written. Thus the wisest Moses has truly instructed us, and those who came after him—the holy prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists—have not thought anything different from him. One and the same mode of the knowledge of God is seen in them all, and no one would find them in any way contradicting one another; for, having in truth been instructed by God, they speak all things from one Holy Spirit; and regarding this, our Lord Jesus Christ does not allow us to doubt, saying most clearly through them: “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of our Father who speaks in you.” D Therefore, possessing the conviction and faith concerning God which has been handed down to us from long ago by the holy Fathers, unadulterated, we glory in it, and we are not accustomed to concede it to those who are of the blood of Israel, as if it belonged to them alone; far from it, since we too are reckoned among the children of Abraham. For we are children through promise, as Paul also will persuade us, writing: “For not all who are of Israel are Israel, nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but the children of the promise are considered as seed.” Much more could indeed be added to what has been said concerning our holy religion and the irreproachable view which we have formed of the almighty God of all, and it would be no difficult task; but because the requirements of order and method demand that individual inquiries should be reserved for their proper times, I shall, for now, leave these aside and turn to weighing the rites of the Greeks and to examining their opinions one by one.
of [their] subtle art, I shall for the moment pass over those things, and I shall turn rather to the necessity of speaking about the Greeks, and of inquiring into the things among them, and of making an exact testing of the glory of each. A For they say that Orpheus, the son of Oeagrus, was the most superstitious of all, and that he preceded the poetry of Homer, inasmuch as he lived in earlier times, and that he wove songs and hymns for the falsely-named gods, and that it is not to be wondered at that he obtained glory for this, and then, having condemned his own dogmas, and having realized that he had, as it were, abandoned the high road and had strayed from the straight path, he passed over to the better part, and exchanged falsehood for truth, and spoke thus about God:
I will speak to those whom it is lawful; but close the gates, O ye Profane all together; but thou, O Muse, offspring of light-bearing Memory, listen; for I shall declare what is true; and let not the things formerly Seen in thy breast deprive thee of the life of the beloved age. Looking unto the divine Word, abide in it, Directing the intellectual capacity of [thy] heart; and walk straightly The path, and behold only the King of the world. One is self-begotten; from one all things have been made, And He Himself remains throughout them, nor does any of Mortals behold Him, but He Himself beholds all. And after other things, again: For He Himself is established in the brazen heaven, He sits on a golden throne, and his feet have stepped upon the earth. His right hand He has extended on all sides To the ends of the Ocean; for around [Him] tremble the high mountains, And the rivers, and the depth of the hoary and bright sea. B
One, therefore, and this self-begotten [Being], he names God through all and over all, and he says that the heaven is a throne for Him, but that the earth lies under His feet, wishing, I think, to signify by this that His uncorrupt nature is circumscribed by no boundaries, and that it passes through all things and fills all. And that He grasps the whole, he would intimate by the fact that His hand is spread out even to the very ends of the Ocean, with the mountains and the sea, and simply of the whole world, trembling. For as the divinely inspired Scripture says: C «All the earth calls upon the truth, and the heaven blesses it, and all works shake and tremble.» Such, then, are the things of Orpheus.
One might say, I think, that Homer, the best of the poets, differs little from those who dance in the theaters; for those who delight in spectacles say that they are accustomed, by figures and gestures, to give form to the natures of things, so that they seem almost to present the things themselves before the eyes of the spectators. But he has made it his study to clothe virtues, and vices, and the parts of the world, and the very nature of the elements themselves, in the guise of gods: for he says that the gods once fought among themselves at Ilium, and he clearly narrates who fought against whom: D
For truly against king Neptune Stood Phoebus Apollo, having flying arrows; But against Mars stood the goddess bright-eyed Minerva; Against Juno stood she who holds the golden distaff, the clamorous—
A Diana, rejoicing in arrows, sister of the far-shooting Apollo; And against Latona stood the helpful savior Mercury; And against Vulcan the great deep-swirling river. Observe, therefore, in these things, how he is eagerly striving to show that the virtues are in a certain way conjoined with the vices. For it is the custom of the Greek poets to call Mars senseless and furious, and besides this, unstable; Pallas, however, they call most acute and endowed with various counsels; Latona they signify as oblivion; but Mercury as memory and reason. Then he touches upon natural philosophy, and explains the difference of the elements from one another, saying: B For truly against King Neptune Stood Phoebus Apollo, having flying arrows; Against Juno stood she who holds the golden distaff, the clamorous— And against Vulcan the great deep-swirling river. For here it seems to me that he calls Neptune the liquid substance, and Apollo the sun, and Juno the air; and by her who holds the golden distaff and is clamorous, the moon; and Vulcan the fire; and the river he accepts as in the category of cold. But even if he is very much delighted with fables, yet we shall find that he was not entirely ignorant of the truth; for he says again: C Neither if God Himself should promise me, To wipe away age and make me a youth in his prime. For he does not say: Even if some one of the gods promise me the casting off of old age and the return of youth; but he has reserved this matter for God alone, who is over all, attributing to His power alone that He can successfully achieve all things without labor, even those things which are placed above all our hope and comprehension. "Neither if," he says, "God Himself should promise me"; for the expression, "God Himself," can refer not to any one of those who are feigned in myths, but rather signifies the truly existing God. D But let us grant that it seemed good to Homer to think, feel, and speak in this way, and let us now proceed also to those arrogant and haughty men, who have obtained no ignoble reputation for assumed wisdom, at least among the children of the Greeks. Porphyry, that man who has poured out bitter words against us, and who has all but danced in mockery of the Christian religion, says that those seven commonly called wise men derived this appellation from such a cause as this; for he writes thus in the first book of his History of Philosophy: "Whereas there were nine, seven were called wise men for the following reason. When a fisherman had sold a cast of his net to some youths, it happened that a golden tripod was found in the cast; and as the fisherman maintained that he had sold them fish, not a golden tripod, and the youths on the other hand attributed the finding to their own fortune, it was decided to entrust the judgment of the matter to God; and when he had given an oracle that this tripod should be given...
to the wise man, it was first brought to Thales. He, however, sent it to Bias, saying that he was the wise man; and he sent it to another, and he to another, until the tripod had been carried around to the seven, and having returned again to the first, it was decided to consecrate it to God, as he was the most wise of all. What, then, their opinions were, shall be told by us in due time. Thales of Miletus, indeed, says that God is the mind of the world. Democritus of Abdera in some measure agrees, but he adds something else: for he too maintains that God is the mind, but that it exists in an igneous sphere, being in fact the soul of the world. Anaximander, however, entering upon an entirely different path, defines God as the infinite worlds—though what he means by this is unclear. But he who possesses the greatest—and not without wonder—acumen for weighing concepts, I mean Aristotle the Stagirite, the pupil of Plato, calls God a separable form and maintains A that he resides in the sphere of the universe; and furthermore, those who are called Stoics say that God is a creative fire proceeding by a path toward the generation of the world; and Plutarch and others of the most learned among them have written about these things, as has that bold man against us, Porphyry. Are they not, then, at variance among themselves, being guessers rather than discerners of the truth, seeing that they are intoxicated by such varied opinions? Yet those who have truly and unerringly known ought in no way to be in conflict with one another's conceptions, just as we may see to be the case among ourselves.
B But, I imagine, someone will say in response to this: "What then, my good fellow? Are there not many heresies among you yourselves, and are not some people torn away into holding and saying different things?" But I would reply: O excellent man, those who were the first teachers of the sacred doctrines among us, and those at the foundations, all agree with one another, and those in the middle and the last ones confirm the first. For Moses did not think one thing, while those after him taught things in conflict with his; but as I said, there has been one discourse concerning God from all, up to the holy apostles and evangelists. For all confess one God, over all, and through all, and in all—without beginning, eternal, unbegotten, incorrupt, life, and the life-giver, the maker of heaven and earth, and in sum, of all things that are in them. But if any among their successors, not understanding their doctrine, have strayed from the truth, the charge of error should be imputed to them, rather than to the others, in the judgment of those who think rightly. But let the inventors of their superstitious wickedness and the authors of their impious dogmas show whether they have agreed among themselves in their opinions, and I C shall keep silence. But if those first ones have handed down things entirely in conflict with one another, will it not be clear to everyone that they have turned aside entirely from the path that leads to what is right into error? For if one were overcome by a desire to hold the true and genuine account concerning the God who is the principle of all, tell me, whose opinion should one accept, so as not to miss the mark? For Thales and Anaximander, and others whom we mentioned shortly before, in vain D
trifled as they might, Pythagoras and Plato, having spent time in Egypt and having encountered many there—being as they were most eager to learn and fond of history—did not remain ignorant of the virtue of Moses; for the things concerning him were held, even among the Egyptians, in no small admiration. From this I opine that, having learned the account of God not inelegantly, they thought more justly about him than the rest, and indeed chose to think so. We shall find also some of the philosophers at Athens who agreed with the things that seemed to have been rightly thought out by them.
30 Nor is the Egyptian Hermes unworthy of mention, B whom they say was called "thrice-great," being worshipped by the men of his own time, and, as seems right to some, assimilated to him who is celebrated in myths as the son of Jupiter and Maia. Therefore, this Egyptian Hermes, although he was a priest and constantly frequented the shrines of idols, will be found to have thought the same things as Moses, even if not altogether correctly and irreproachably, yet in part; for he himself was benefited, and he whose work it was to compose those fifteen books which are called the Hermetic books at Athens made mention of him in his own histories. For he writes about him in the first book as follows, having introduced a certain priest saying: "In order, then, that we may proceed to similar things, do you not hear our own Egyptian Hermes, that he divided the whole of Egypt into tracts and allotments, measured the fields with a cord, led trenches for irrigation, established laws, and named the regions after them, and instituted contracts and agreements, and finally invented the calendar of the rising of the stars; and further, that he handed down, having invented them himself, herbs and numbers and computations, geometry, and astrology, and astronomy, and music, and in fine the whole of grammar." Let us therefore undertake an enumeration of the opinions of each, and at the same time let us remember others among them who, on account of their learning, were not lacking in the celebrity of their names and admiration. But I consider that those who read these things ought to approach our writings with a desire to learn rather than with disdain. C And I also mention others, for it is not a matter for wonder among those who are, according to their own schooling, more eager to learn than they are hasty, to apply themselves to what has been written.
Pythagoras therefore says: "God is one, and he himself, not as some suspect, is outside the fabric and administration of the world, but in it, whole in the whole circle, beholding all generations, being the mixture of the whole of time, and the light of his own powers and works, the principle of all, in heaven a luminary and father of all, the mind and animation of all the spheres, the motion of all things." Behold, he clearly says that there is one God of the universe, and the principle of all, and the worker of his own powers, D a luminary and animation—that is, the life-giving of all—and the motion of all circles; for nothing is moved by itself, but all things have been brought forth by him, and are seen to have received their motion from non-being into being. Plato also speaks in this way: "For to find the father and maker of this universe is a difficult task, and having found him, to declare him to all is impossible." And quite rightly; for "the glory of the Lord hides the word," according to that which
behind his true worth. For he is beyond all thought, and we see the things concerning him as through a mirror and in a riddle, as the all-wise Paul says. Porphyry, however, in the fourth book of his *History of Philosophy*, says that Plato both sensed and spoke of one God, saying that no name truly fits him, nor can the human mind grasp him, and that the names given to him are applied post-facto and improperly. But if one must dare say anything at all about him using the words at our disposal, the title of "the One" and "the Good" must be assigned to him. For the former signifies his simplicity and, for that reason, his self-sufficiency. He is in need of nothing—no parts, no substance, no faculties, no acts—but is the cause of all these things. The title of "the Good" signifies that all which is good is from him, and that other things, according to their own capacity, imitate his property and are kept safe and whole through it. B Furthermore, Hermes Trismegistus speaks in this manner: "It is indeed difficult to understand God, but to express him is beyond human powers, even if one could understand him; for it is impossible to signify the incorporeal by means of a body, or for the perfect to be grasped by the imperfect, or for the eternal to consort with the ephemeral; the one always is, the other passes away; the one is true, the other is shadowed by imagination. By as much as the weaker is removed from the stronger and the inferior from the more excellent, by so much does the mortal differ from the divine and immortal." If, therefore, there is an incorporeal eye, let it depart from the body and fly up towards the contemplation of the Beautiful, C and let it be lifted up, not seeking to behold form, nor body, nor ideas, but rather that which produces these things—the quiet and serene, the steadfast, the immutable, that which is itself all things and is alone, the One, that which is the same from itself, the same in itself, similar to itself, which is neither similar to another nor dissimilar to itself, and again is the same. Therefore, never say that anything regarding the one and only Good is impossible, for he is all power; nor conceive of him as being in something, nor again outside something; for being infinite, he is the end of all things, and being contained by no one, he contains all things. For how great is the difference D between corporeal things and the incorporeal, between generated things and the unbegotten, between those subject to necessity and those that are free and spontaneous, or between earthly things and heavenly, and things subject to corruption and the eternal? It is not that one thing is sovereign and another enslaved to necessity; rather, you should consider those things below to be imperfect and corruptible. Furthermore, Sophocles also says this concerning God:
In truth there is one God, Who fashioned heaven and the wide earth, The blue swell of the sea, and the force of the winds; But we mortals, wandering in heart, Have set up solace for our woes, Images of the gods made of stone, or of bronze, Or wrought of gold, or ivory forms, And by performing sacrifices to these And empty festivals, we think we are practicing piety.
A And indeed, the most wise Xenophon says: "Shaking all things and remaining stable, he is manifest as some great and powerful being; but as to what kind he is in form, he is invisible; nor indeed does even the sun, which appears to be all-shining, allow itself to be looked upon; but if anyone should look at it brazenly, he is deprived of his sight." That he is one God by nature, incomprehensible beyond every mind and reason, formless, life-giving, the beginning of all things, unbegotten, incorruptible, and the Creator of the generation of the universe, has been clearly testified to, both by the divinely inspired Scripture and by the voice of the poets and chroniclers among them. And that they themselves also acknowledged the Son begotten of him by nature, the Word who is his Creator, we shall show by means of what they have written, having set forth the quotations from them. B For Porphyry says in the fourth book of his *Philosophical History* that Plato spoke concerning the Good in this manner: "From this there came to be a mind, in a certain way imperceptible to men, being whole and subsisting by itself, in which are those things that truly are, and the whole substance of existing things. This, which is also primarily beautiful and beautiful of itself, drawing the form of beauty from itself, went forth before the ages, having shone out from the causing God, being self-begotten and self-fathered; for his procession did not come about by that one moving toward his generation, but by this one proceeding by itself by being born from God, proceeding, I say, from no beginning of time; for time was not yet, nor even when time was made is there any time in relation to him; for the mind is always timeless and alone eternal. C And just as God is first and alone always, although all things are made by him, because he is not numbered with them, nor can anything worthy be added to his existence; so also the mind is eternal, alone, and subsisting without time, and is itself the time of those things that are in time, remaining in the identity of its own eternal subsistence." And moreover, Orpheus again says somewhere thus: I adjure thee, Heaven, wise work of the great God; I adjure thee, Voice of the Father, which he spoke first, When he established the whole world by his counsels. He calls the voice of the Father, which he spoke first, his only-begotten Word, always co-existing with the Father: for there was no time when God and Father could be thought of as existing without his own Word; and at the same time he declared him to be God, the Creator of all. And Hermes Trismegistus speaks thus concerning God: "For his Word, having proceeded, being altogether perfect, and fruitful, and a creator, falling into the fruitful nature of the water, made the water pregnant." And the same man again: "The pyramid," he says, "lying under nature and the intellectual world; for it has as ruler set over it the Creator Word of the Lord of all, who after him is the first power, unbegotten, infinite, looking forth from him, and he stands over and rules all things formed by him: he is truly the offspring of the most perfect, perfect, fruitful, and a genuine and legitimate Son." And again the same man as if by someone questioning—
and saying: "Why, O greatest one, is the good daemon called by this name by the Lord of all?"—he says: "I already said it in the preceding, but you did not understand; A the nature of his intellectual Word is a nature apt to generate and to operate. This, as it were, is his generation, or nature, or custom, or whatever name you please to call it; call it this, knowing only that he is perfect in the perfect, and from the perfect he works perfect goods, and creates, and gives life; since, therefore, he has such a nature, it is well called by this name." And the same man in the first book of the *Digressions to Tat* speaks thus about God: "The Word of the Creator, O son, is eternal, self-moving, without growth, without diminution, without change, alone incorruptible, always like unto himself, equal and level, stable, composite, existing as one after the pre-known God," and by this, I think, he denotes the Father. These things are sufficient, then, for a most complete demonstration that they too possessed some knowledge of the only-begotten Word of God. But I think I must add to what I have said what was stated by them concerning the Holy Spirit.
For Porphyry, expounding the opinion of Plato, says: "That the substance of the Divine proceeds even to three hypostases; that the supreme God is the Good; B after him, a second, the creator or artificer; and a third, the Soul of the world; for divinity extends even to the soul." Behold, clearly in these words he contends that the divine substance proceeds even to three hypostases; for there is one God of all, yet the knowledge of him is extended, as it were, into the holy and consubstantial Trinity, into the Father, I say, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which Plato calls the Soul of the world. But the Spirit gives life, and proceeds from the living Father through the Son, and "in him we live, and move, and exist"; for our Lord Jesus Christ speaks truly, saying: "It is the Spirit that gives life." And again the same Porphyry on Plato: "Wherefore, in his mysteries, hinting at these things and speaking in enigmas, he says: 'Everything is around the C King, and everything is because of him, and he is the cause of all beautiful things; the second [is] around the second things, and the third around the third things.' As if for all things there are three gods, but here primarily around the King of all, secondarily around the God from him, and thirdly around the one from him." He has also shown, indicating their hypostasis out of each other, starting from the King, both the sub-cession and the submission of those things after the first, by saying "primarily," "secondarily," and "thirdly," and that all things are from one, and are preserved through him. He has indeed contemplated, though not altogether soundly, but in the manner of those who hold the opinions of Arius, he divides into equal parts, and establishes, and introduces D the hypostases as subjected to one another, and he thinks there are three gods, dividing in this way the holy and consubstantial Trinity. Nevertheless, he was not entirely ignorant of the truth, but rather I think that he would have felt and spoken
rightly, and would have made public and plain to the common people the true and genuine opinions concerning God, had he not perhaps feared the accusation of Anytus and Melitus, and the hemlock of Socrates. Hermes also says in the third book of his discourses A to Asclepius: "It is not possible that these mysteries should be brought forth to the unrefined and uninitiated; but listen with your mind: There was only one intellectual light before the intellectual light, and the mind is always clear and illuminating to the mind; and there was nothing else but the unity of this, always existing in itself, always encompassing all things by its own mind, and light, and spirit." And after other things he says: "Outside of this there is no God, no angel, no demon, no other substance; for he is the Lord, and Father, and God, and fountain, and life, and power, and light, and mind, and spirit of all things, and all things are in him and under him." For he calls B the Son the mind from the mind, as I think, and as light from light; he also makes mention of the Spirit as encompassing all things; and he says that neither angel, nor demon, nor any other nature or substance, is placed outside the divine eminence, or rather authority; but that all things are determined under it and through it. And again the same person in the same third discourse to Asclepius, as if someone were asking about the divine Spirit, speaks thus: "If there had not been some providence of the Lord of all, that I should open this discourse, there would not have come upon you now such a desire to inquire about this; but now listen to the remainder of the discourse: C Everything is in need of this Spirit, of whom I have often spoken; for it vivifies and nourishes all things after their dignity, and flows forth from the holy fountain, aiding with spirit and life, and always existing as vital and fruitful for all." He knows, therefore, that this one being exists with its own subsistence, that it makes all things live and nourishes them, and that it flows as if from a holy fountain of God and the Father; for it proceeds from him by nature, and is administered to the creation through the Son.
Having therefore scrutinized with care, as far as was possible, the books of these men, we have set forth the opinion of each so that it may be clearly seen; so that those D who read these things may know that many of the Greek sages, relying on their own opinions, have erred and held opinions that are mutually inconsistent. But there are some among them not unacquainted with the Mosaic discourses, having traveled abroad to Egypt for the sake of learning. These have felt in some way better than the rest, approaching more closely to the truth, yet they did not have the eye of the mind kept entirely pure and free from darkness and clear; and if anyone were to call them cross-eyed, he would not depart from reason. That, therefore, the doctrines of the Christians are older, and beyond comparison more true than the superstitious trifles of the Greeks, and that this is confirmed by the testimonies of the most learned men, has, I think, been sufficiently and abundantly demonstrated in this book.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA: AGAINST THE IMPIOUS JULIAN. BOOK TWO.
A Having thought it not unreasonable—nay, rather, having deemed it useful and necessary—to speak first of who lived before whom in chronological order, and furthermore what opinions each held concerning God, we have provided a most accurate account of these matters. And perhaps someone might reproach us, saying: "Why, pray, having undertaken the defense of the doctrines of the Christians and desiring to oppose a superior argument to the blasphemies of Julian, did you not resolve to walk precisely this path, but instead, departing from the decorum of speech, have entangled yourself in reviewing genealogies and anxiously scrutinized the opinions of the Hebrews and the Greeks?" Let us, therefore, ward off this blame and affirm that we were brought to this point opportunely. For since Julian, imitating the Babylonian Rabshakeh, B has not feared to mock with unbridled tongue the glory of God, and, crying out impiously against our holy religion, repeatedly commemorates the wise men of Greece, and while adorning their erroneous opinions with every manner of praise, insults with great boldness the sacred doctrines of the Church; and while he holds the histories of Moses up to mockery, and, to speak once for all, accuses all the saints, for this very reason, and with good cause, we have piled up, as it were, a store of material for our refutations: a clear and most manifest proof that the writing of the most excellent Moses is older than the wise men among the Greeks; and furthermore, that one may perceive that the tradition of the Christian faith surpasses the opinions of those others by incomparable degrees of excellence. And this was, indeed, the one reason why we might set a limit to a longer digression in the remaining books, and not appear
A sometimes to drift far from the sense of the matters proposed. And of these things, enough. But now at last we must approach his own work; and by setting forth his verses word for word, we shall append our own in a suitable manner, not unaware of how sharply one must resist his slanders. Since, however, as I have said, he opens an unbridled mouth to attack the Savior of us all, Christ, with monstrous calumny, and repeatedly hurls infamous remarks against Him, I shall indeed make no mention of such things; but by bypassing, with a prudent mind, those things which would contaminate anyone even by the mere hearing of them, I shall insist only on those that are necessary to refute, showing him everywhere to be a caviler and a chatterer, and one in whom this failing is so deeply set that he cannot speak even a single thing that is true.
Furthermore, it is necessary to know this: for in his first book he wanders through countless thoughts, which he does not cease to turn and revolve every which way; and what he is found to have said at the beginning, he repeatedly brings up again in the middle and at the end, making his discourse appear to have little correctness or order. For it is almost inevitable that those who have decided to contend against his statements will appear to be inculcating the same things not once, but many times. Having therefore partitioned his book into more decent order, and having collected his opinions by category, let us engage with him not too frequently on individual points, but once, B fully and skillfully.
Julian, therefore, begins to speak against us in these words:
JULIANUS.
It seems worth the effort to me to explain to all mortals the reasons by which I was persuaded that the set of the Galilaeans is a human fabrication, maliciously concocted, which has nothing divine in it, but, being addicted to fables, abused the childish and foolish part of the soul and brought forth prodigious narrations as testimony of the truth.CYRIL.
By "Galilaeans," then, as I suppose, he means the holy apostles; and by "prodigious narrations," the writings of Moses, and the predictions and divine oracles of the holy prophets. And he is perhaps unaware—or rather, not without divine influence—that he has uttered a condemnation of his own superstition. For there are two Galilees: of which the one is in C Judaea, and the other is adjacent and neighboring to the cities of the Phoenicians. And indeed it is written in the Gospels that our Savior Christ, when He was walking by the Sea of Galilee, that is, the lake of Tiberias, made a selection of His disciples. And God says somewhere through one of the holy prophets: "And what are you to me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all D the Galilee of the foreigners?" Moreover, the divine Isaiah says: "The region of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, and the rest who dwell by the seaside, the Galilee of the Gentiles:* the people who sat in darkness saw a great light." Therefore, the Galilaeans ofA Judea are not, I suppose, the only ones to be understood, but indeed all the nations. For "Galilee of the Gentiles," he says. It is therefore obscure, and not yet clear, against whom his speech might more truly and fittingly be directed: whether against us, or rather against himself and the laudators of that foolish superstition which he so greatly cherishes. For the Galilaeans themselves—indeed, no one in their right mind could doubt it—are they to whom the force of these words concerning the madness of the Greeks pertains. For where are there so many fables, such inept things, so childish, so cold and futile, and full of all folly, as among those very people who, by means of manifold concocted prodigies, attempt to reconcile faith in the truth with a lie? So many and so great are the stains among them, that even their most distinguished men, who are accustomed to philosophize very well about their own rites, have declaimed most vehemently against the—certainly not divine, but rather absurd—frenzy of the poets, and have openly declared that one must depart from their tricks. For Plato does not admit those things which are said by Homer, who introduced gods and goddesses B partly condemned for lust and subject to human desires, and partly mourning and weeping for the death of their own kin, wailing "Woe is me" in a womanly fashion; because when they wished to snatch someone from fate, they could by no means achieve it, but, defeated by the Fates, they were compelled to yield to Fate, even the one who is the leader of the rest of the gods, whom they call supreme Zeus. But truly, having passed over the many things that I have at hand to say, so that I may not appear to wander from the subject, I shall return to my proposed aim. Fabulosity is a Greek trait; they have endeavored to bring forward portentous fictions as evidence of the truth, not with a simple mind, but rather impiously and flagitiously, and have thus composed a malignant figment against the ineffable glory of the omnipotent God, and have set their art as a sort of snare for the minds of the simpler folk. For they have deceived all mortals, saying that the heaven is God, and the other elements; and, as the most wise Paul writes, "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed animals, and of creeping things." C But in order that we may grant to Julian what he wants, and not transfer those words to others, but even allow him to insult the holy apostles, or at least the most wise Moses and the holy prophets; let him come forth and show clearly what kind of figment that is which he proclaims to have been maliciously constructed, what are these monstrous lies, and what are these fables and childish absurdities of the Christian religion that he names. Did Moses concoct fables for us, when he proclaims there to be one God, by nature and in truth, unbegotten, eternal, incorruptible, devoid of quantity, invisible, immutable, impalpable, life, wisdom, and giver of life, power, author of generation, king, and Lord of the universe? D
A Has the word of the holy prophets, having zealously followed the footsteps of the Mosaic dogmas, missed the truth? Shall we find the doctrine of the holy apostles to be at variance with it? By no means. Further, how does he contend that the doctrine of the Galileans contains nothing divine, but is otherwise mere empty fables and the prodigies of liars? For who would deny that there is nothing better for men than to know rightly and most certainly the one who is by nature and truly the Artificer and Lord of all things? But they themselves B would also concede, I know, that the contemplative part of philosophy is, and is called, the most beautiful and excellent; by which divine things, as far as it is permitted for a man to attain, are grasped by those who have sharper eyes for discernment. And now since he says he is persuaded of this, let him teach from where or from whom. For let him not boast as if he alone knows this; but if he has persuaded himself of it, and this is sufficient, as he says and thinks, to demonstrate the Christian religion to be most perfect—I omit to speak of what a vanity he is making of the matter. But let him enjoy our affairs alone; for we shall not use such a hostile judge. But if he thinks that the speech of those who cross-examine must be true and not false, let him not say that he alone is persuaded of it, but let him prove it by facts. And that he will rather record himself to be in the wrong, and not us in the matter of myth-making, and that he does not hold the charge to be free from suspicion, we shall learn again from what he said.
JULIANUS
Being about to make a speech concerning all the dogmas of those, as they call them, I wish first to say this, that those who are to read these things, if they wish to contradict, ought, as if in a court of law, to C attend to nothing outside the case, or, as they say commonly, use a transference of the charge, until they have defended and dissolved the former things. For thus they will establish their defense better and more clearly when they wish to censure anything of our affairs. And in those matters to which they reply to our charges, let them not use a counter-charge.
CYRILLUS
Must the one whom you demand to be a defendant therefore be tongueless, and do you wish the accused to be condemned in silence, and, having completely forbidden him to speak about you, do you decide that he should act as his own prosecutor? And yet, for us to be unwilling to touch upon any of your affairs by speaking is the mark of a man D who fears rebuke and is not ignorant of the gravity of the disgrace that is joined with them. And surely, if by persecuting the Christian religion he did not affect the superstition of the Greeks with every kind of praise and the most supreme titles, he might demand the same from us in turn. But if he is wonderfully pleased with his own calumnies against us, and assigns the better parts to his own insanity, setting forward the things of the Greeks as superior to ours,
A how can he command us to keep silent and to touch upon nothing that pertains to them, when we have undertaken the defense of our own dogmas and are speaking on this very subject? If, therefore, having abandoned the necessity of refuting your discourse, we had turned our attention only to recounting the affairs of the Greeks, I would grant that this had been said rightly and not without reason. But since we have undertaken a defense and are considering how to meet everything that is brought against us by him, how could he justly rebuke us if, having chosen to speak in favor of our own position, we are zealous to strip bare the shame of the impiety of the Greeks? For just as colors show their splendor more clearly when contrasted with their opposites B (for “the light shines in the darkness,” as the Scripture says [* note: John 1, 5]), so too, I think, the beauty inherent in the virtues is not made manifest to the minds of the simpler folk in any other way than through the sole turpitude of their opposites. For the foulness of wickedness makes it so that we prefer virtues to vices. For this reason, and very naturally, he fears for his own affairs and does not allow them to be brought into the middle, since he is ashamed of the things on which he prides himself; yet he commands those whom he is accusing to keep silent. He also charges us with other things, saying thus:
JULIANUS
C It is worth while to go back a little, to see whence and how the thought of God first comes to us. Then we must compare what is said about the Divine among the Greeks and among the Hebrews. And after this, we must ask those who are neither Greeks nor Jews, but are of the sect of the Galileans, why they preferred the things of the others to our own, and why, furthermore, they do not remain even in those, but, having made a departure from them, have followed a peculiar path, acknowledging nothing good or virtuous either among us Greeks or among the Hebrews who are from Moses; but, collecting as it were certain plagues from both, D they have wished to call this the best piety—extracting atheism from Jewish craftiness and a base and dissolute lifestyle from our own sloth and vulgarity.CYRILLUS
He who says that those who encounter the calumnies which he makes against us, if they desire to refute them, ought—as in a court of law—to bring in nothing from outside, nor to indulge in counter-accusation, clearly promises here to set forth what is said about the Divine among the Greeks and among the Hebrews. To what, then, does this method of comparison look, and what aim could he have in setting the things of the Hebrews, or rather the Christians, against the dogmas of the Greeks? For no one would say that he has set aside his zeal for detraction and calumny, and that he will present himself to be judged by fair judges—namely, the readers—with the intention that he might be instructed by them as to what is better and what is worse; but rather, as may be conjectured, he thinks that he will find heralds for his own opinion about God in no other way than by the Christian-A comparison, by marking the Greek tenets with a baser calculation. But may it be far from happening among those to whom the power of the truth is known, and the weakness of falsehood perceived. Furthermore, observe this—in what way, by a law of silence as it were, which he has laid upon us, so that we may not touch upon anything of his own when we speak of our religion, he is caught being guilty of the very things he forbade. And because he also presses us with questioning, why indeed we have abandoned the Greeks and turned to the Hebrews: come, let us do the same with him. Wherefore, having abandoned the Christians and deserted the truth, do you embrace a lie, and so hatefully prefer the superstition of idolaters—a most foolish opinion about God—and do you think you have consulted your own interests admirably, rather than having been led into the final error of all? But if he wishes to receive the most true cause for which, having left the Greeks, we preferred the Hebrews, we explain the matter in his own words. For he speaks thus: B
JULIAN
And yet, the Greeks invented incredible and portentous fables about the gods. For they said that Saturn devoured his children, and then again vomited them up. Then there are the incestuous marriages of Jove; namely, that he had intercourse with his mother, and having begotten children of her, he married his own daughter, and then, after she had been debauched, he gave her in marriage to another. To these are added the dismemberings of Bacchus and the gluing together of his limbs. Such are the things that the fables of the Greeks produce. C
CYRIL
You have here a suitable defense. Why, then, do you torment yourself and think that we must be accused, because, having all but kicked away the foul and incredible vanity of the Greeks, we have approved the truth with a better calculation? For the divine Moses, and the whole chorus of the holy prophets, and the apostles and evangelists, worship and celebrate the one God by nature and in truth; and they urge us to do the same, and they turn us away from fables and portents and obscene thoughts, and they conform us to an admirable manner of life. Moreover, they have nothing that is fabricated, nothing for which a probable reason cannot be rendered. For we shall demonstrate in its own place that our faith is consistent with the heraldings of Moses and the holy prophets, and that the power of the evangelical and apostolic D doctrine agrees with the opinions of those who have gone before. But now, since led by I know not what reasoning he insists that there is nothing right or honorable among us, come, let him teach us; and let him not construct a bare accusation without proof. For how can it be that nothing is right among us? Is there not an accurate and elaborate doctrine concerning God and the creation of the world found among the Christians? Does there not abound for us from the Holy Scriptures the knowledge of duties, free from all blame and reproach? And indeed, how can it be obscure to anyone that there is no other way in which the best manner of philosophizing is rightly...
concluded, I imagine? For philosophy, both contemplative and practical in addition to this, would be full of all praise; and it is admired also by those who have applied themselves to the Hellenic studies.
Therefore, we have not learned impiety from the opinion of the Hebrews—for he himself objected to this—but, if anyone wishes to speak the truth, we have condemned the ignorance of the Hellenes from the divinely inspired Scriptures. And that the state of being without God is rather to be found among them, as they do not know the one God who is naturally and truly God, how would that not be clear to everyone? He says that we have chosen a base and dissolute manner of life from their sloth, calling the Hellenic gluttony and sloth indiscriminate eating, and the refusing of none of the foods. For in this, indeed, they suppose that they demonstrate the power of piety most of all, and they think that they have attained the glory of every virtue if they abstain from some kind of food. B Yet why on earth do they define the manner of purity in these things? For all things were made by God; but all things that come from the Good are good, and the All-Holy and Undefiled would have made nothing of those things that are accustomed to defile us. For what could food produce in those who have partaken of it? Or what kind of defilement could it introduce into them? But one should, I think, reject those things by which one might reasonably be defiled. And the modes of wickedness would work this, and very nobly so, such as adulteries, fornications, slanders, false reports, calumnies, loves of money, and the rest. But those who account nothing of such things pretend to eat sparingly, and sometimes they send away some of the foods, but they fear none of the monstrous sins. And in addition to this, they delight the highest Jove, having chosen to honor his things, and they serve the powers of the Cyprus-born goddess.
There are, therefore, very many things said against us by him. He quibbles excessively also against the all-wise Moses, and makes no moderate disparagement of his writings. For he says that he who composed the book of the Creation of the World said absolutely nothing of the truth, but simply gathered together worn-out, old wives' tales; and that all those things which it was likely that one would deem worthy of every consideration, he made of no account; but, having simply rhapsodized at random, he appeared to have said something wise and worthy of being heard. And he has admired the opinions of the sages among the Hellenes regarding this, and most of all among the others, he crowns the opinion of Plato with praises and applause. C But I shall pass over saying that he is not moderately arrogant, even in this respect. But that he foolishly raises his eyebrow at the inventions of the Hellenic rhetoricians, I shall attempt to explain as best I can. For I think it necessary to set forth again, having selected from their books the opinion of each, what they deemed fit to hold regarding the construction of the world, and then to bring into comparison the cosmogony of Moses; for thus it will be seen by those who read it that the trifling of their empty chatter is vanity, and the purity of the writings of Moses is the light of truth.
Plutarch, therefore, a man not of obscure name among them, in the second book of his collection of doctrines,
A thus speaks concerning the cosmos: Pythagoras was the first to call the encompassment of all things "cosmos" [order], from the arrangement that is within it. Thales and those from his school, that the cosmos is one; Democritus and Epicurus, and his disciple Metrodorus, that there are infinite worlds in the infinite, and in every condition; Empedocles, that the sun's circuit is the description of the boundary of the cosmos; Seleucus, that the cosmos is infinite; Diogenes, that the universe is indeed infinite, but the cosmos is bounded; the Stoics, that there is a distinction between the "universe" and the "cosmos"—for the entirety, with the void, is infinite, but the "cosmos" is without the void, so that the "whole" and the "cosmos" are not the same. Then, concerning the shape of the cosmos, he writes again, thus: The Stoics say the cosmos is spherical; others say conical; others, that it is egg-shaped. Epicurus says that the cosmoses may be spherical, but that they may also happen to have any other shape. He added again, placing before us for examination the opinions of the philosophers among the Greeks as to whether or not the cosmos is ensouled, as follows: All the others say that the cosmos is ensouled and governed by Providence. But Democritus and Epicurus, and as many as introduce atoms and the void, hold that it is neither ensouled nor governed by Providence, but by some irrational nature. Aristotle [says] that it is not ensouled in its entirety through and through, nor endowed with reason or intellect, nor governed by Providence; for the heavenly [realms] participate in all these, since they contain ensouled and vital spheres, but the earthly [realms] lack all these, and are tempered with a convenient order, but only B by accident, not in themselves and primarily. And these things are concerning those matters. Since, however, it was their aim to inquire again whether the cosmos by its own nature is liable to corruption or not, they have thus determined concerning this: Pythagoras and the Stoics [say it was] both brought into being by God and that it is by nature liable to corruption, since it is corporeal and therefore perceptible; yet it will be preserved from destruction by the custody and providence of the Divinity. Epicurus [says] it is perishable, because it also had a beginning, like an animal or a plant. Xenophanes [says the cosmos is] without beginning, everlasting, and devoid of corruption. Aristotle [says that] the part of the cosmos that lies under the moon is subject to affections, in which also earthly things C are corrupted.
Listen, then, and understand, O men, how great is the nonsense in these things. For, opposing one another's opinions, they belch forth—haphazardly, simply, and without consideration, and according to what seems good to each—now this, now that. How, then, would they not be understood to be guessers rather than possessors of the truth? For some [say] one cosmos, others many; others [say] it had a beginning; and there are those who have resisted these entirely, and, differing in their opinions, say that it is devoid of both destruction and beginning. And some [say that it is] governed by the providence of God, while others contend that it is ruled without any providence, and they attribute the orderly motion of the elements to fortuitous chances and accidents; and finally, there are those who D
see their reasoning, as it were, in a drunken state, cast hither and thither on every subject. A Since he has singled out Plato from the rest and adheres most closely to his dogmas, I would state that Plato and Pythagoras do indeed hold views on God and the world that are somewhat more reasonable. They gathered the learning and knowledge belonging to this subject, having been associated with the Egyptians, among whom the account of the all-wise Moses was widely held, and the wonder of the doctrines that were his was held in honor.
Yet they say that Plato himself held contrary opinions, and that his student, Aristotle, not only did not choose to think the same as him, but even opposed him and brought arguments against him. For Porphyry indeed reports that Plato held and taught that the portion of the heaven which exhibits the appearance of a body was constructed from the four elements, harmonized to one another by the power of the soul. For this reason, he says, it was named *ouranos* either from the commingling or from the abundance (of the elements). And I believe the reason for the name also lends support to this, which he says is called *ouranos* as if it were *horatos* (visible), so that from being seen, one might understand the heaven. B To Aristotle, however, it did not seem that these things were so. How could it? For he says that the heaven was not composed of the four elements, but imagines a fifth body, totally alien to those four and having no share in them.
Plato says that the world is ensouled and is a rational living creature; he also places providence over it, and maintains that it is generated and corruptible, at least as far as its nature is concerned. But his student again did not think in this way. For he does not grant that it is ensouled throughout, nor rational, nor governed by Providence; nor does he grant that it is generated, but rather establishes it as incorruptible and unbegotten. And again, the clever and world-renowned Plato defines the principles of the universe as three: God, matter, and the idea; and he says that God is the maker, matter is the underlying substance, and the idea is the model for each of the things that come into being. C But Aristotle again takes a stand against him, and they do not agree at all. For he does not deem the idea worthy of being considered a principle. He says there are two principles: God and matter. But Plato, by calling the principles of all things three—God, matter, and the idea—adds a fourth, which he calls the soul of the whole. And in addition to this, having called matter unbegotten, he also says that it is generated. Furthermore, when he grants that the idea subsists by itself, he fights against his own discoveries. For he had said that it exists in the thoughts of God, and does not have its own existence, or rather, essence.
To whom, then, should the seekers of truth incline their course, so that they might travel a path free from blame and error? Of those named, whom shall we free from the charge of lying? Or whom is it fitting to bestow our vote upon, as one who has stumbled in no way? D Or rather, how could those carry any authority to convince others, who have strayed so far from the truth that they not only contend against one another, but are even at odds with their own opinions? The all-wise Julian saw these things and placed them on record, and mocking...
the writings of Moses, and turning everything upside down, he dares to set against them the words of Plato, and says:
JULIAN
Here, if you please, let us compare the words of Plato. Consider, therefore, what this man says concerning the Creator, and what words he attributes to Him in the formation of the world, so that we may compare the cosmogony of Plato and of Moses with one another. For thus it will be evident who is the superior, and who is more worthy of God: the one who worshipped idols, Plato? or he of whom Scripture says that God spoke to him face to face? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and A uncompounded, and darkness was upon the abyss, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. And God said: Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness, and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one day. And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water; and God called the firmament heaven. And God said: Let the water that is under the heaven be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear. And it was so. And God said: Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass and fruit-bearing wood. And God said: Let there be luminaries in the firmament of heaven to give light upon B the earth; and God set them in the firmament of heaven, that they might shine upon the earth and have dominion over the day and over the night." In these things, he says neither that the abyss was made by God, nor the darkness, nor the water. Although, having written that light was made by the command of God, it was fitting to say the same clearly concerning the night, the abyss, and the water: yet he says nothing at all about them as things that were made, although he mentions them repeatedly. Furthermore, he makes no mention of the creation or making of the angels, nor in what manner they were brought forth, but mentions only the bodies which are contained by heaven or earth, so that according to Moses, God made no incorporeal thing, but only ordered the subject C matter. But that expression, "The earth was invisible and uncompounded," is nothing else than making the moist and dry substance matter, and introducing God as its orderer.CYRIL
For Moses, then, the discourse would be long and manifold for those who wish to praise him. For he heard God saying openly: "I know you above all others, and you have found favor with me." But a very clear testimony of the manifold virtue that was in him is provided by the power that produced the wonders in which he shone in Egypt. For he was obedient to the God of the universe, and was present as a minister [to Him] who was rousing the creatures against the madness of the Egyptians. As for what kind of man Plato was, even if one were to remain silentA regarding his journey from Athens to Sicily, the departure itself would proclaim it. For they say that Dionysius, being offended by his flatteries, sold him; and to him, since he fawned in such an illiberal manner, he imposed a punishment truly worthy of a slave. But let the discourse about this be dismissed for the time being. Let us return again to the matter at hand. For the divinely inspired Moses is not seen to have composed his words rashly, nor indeed was he prompted to this merely by ambition, but he devised what was necessary for the benefit of life. For he did not propose to discourse minutely on the nature of things, or to make any observations—which are, as they are called, first principles—or about the elements that arise from them; for I consider such matters to be overly curious, and not graspable by the minds of some people. His goal, however, was to instruct the mind of the men of that time in the doctrines of the truth. For they had wandered astray, and each was ensnared by worshipping what seemed [to be divine] to him, and by reason of great ignorance, they remained unaware of the one and natural God, and served the creature. B And some inscribed the heavens as God, while others the circle of the sun, and there are those who were eager to allot the glory of the highest nature to the moon, and to the stars, and to the earth, and to plants, and to the nature of the waters, and to birds, and to irrational animals. Since, then, matters had reached such a point for them, and this terrible disease had been distributed to all those upon the earth, Moses was an assistant, and proved to be a guide to the most excellent teachings for all, explicitly shouting aloud that the Creator of all is so by nature, and drawing them away from the other things which were brought into being and into existence through Him. Most usefully, therefore, and very wisely, he bypassed that overly subtle discourse and moved on to words about matters C that were more necessary. For what need was there to say what the nature of the waters is, or how it had its beginning? Or to measure the abysses, and the nature of the heavens, and to investigate in a curious manner the mode of the existence of the angels? For I think it would be admitted by everyone that these things are difficult to explain. But even if it were possible to speak of them at all by the wisdom given by God, who would be the hearer—that is, who would be capable of understanding such subtle things, or rather, things that are even above the intellect? And yet, we will find those at that time when the writings of the all-wise Moses were being produced to be behind even the ignorance of the Greeks themselves. For they fell into the pit of the ultimate wickedness precisely through those things from which it was possible to discern the glory of God clearly. D For as the divinely inspired Scripture says, it was fitting that those of old should have recognized the Creator and Architect of the universe from the beauty of the things created; but they were so possessed by ill-counsel that, even from those things from which it was expected they would be brought to the knowledge of the truth, they were found, through these very same things, to have adhered to falsehood. And a faithful witness of this fact is the all-wise Paul, writing thus: "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 Godhead; so that they are without excuse, because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and
A their foolish heart was darkened. And this might indeed apply to those who have devised a gregarious, vile, and utterly inconsiderate superstition, such as were, as I have said, those to whom the book of the most wise Moses was addressed. But that they would be found to have fallen into a state of stunned confusion, we shall easily see when we have examined the views of the philosophers of a later age. For Plutarch, in the first book of his collection of doctrines on natural things, speaks of them at great length. For he says: "They derived from this an idea of God. For the sun and the moon and the rest of the stars, when they have been carried in their orbit beneath the earth, rise again with a similar color, magnitude, and in the same places and at the same times." And again in the same book: "They define the nature of God in this way: An intellectual and fiery spirit, having no form, but changing itself into whatever it wishes, and assimilating itself to all things. And they attained the knowledge of this, firstly, by taking a conjecture from the beauty of the things that are manifest to us, that nothing beautiful happens rashly and by chance, but by some creative art." B To these I shall add what the thrice-great Hermes wrote to his own Mind; for this is the name of that book. "Is God, then," you ask, "invisible?" Speak good words, I pray you; who is more manifest than He? For this very reason He has made all things, that He might be seen by everyone through all things: this is the goodness of God, this is His virtue, that He should be seen through all things. Moreover, we find that even Julian, the accuser of our religion, acknowledges the same thing when he affirms that the knowledge of God is something which is not taught, but is learned by men of themselves. He uses these words: "But that the knowledge of God cannot be taught, but is given to men by nature, let our first argument be the zeal for the divine which is common to all men, both privately and publicly, individually and by nations. For we all, taught by no one, believe in some divine power; to speak accurately about which is not only difficult for everyone, but even for those who are imbued with its knowledge, is altogether impossible." And again, after some other things: C "To this common opinion of all mortals another is added. For as many of us as are men, we adhere by nature to heaven and the gods who are seen in it, in such a way that if anyone has imagined for himself some other god besides these, he nevertheless assigns heaven as his seat and dwelling-place: not because the earth forbids it, but as if setting the Ruler of the universe in the most honorable place of the whole world, he thinks that He looks down from there upon the things that are done here." See, therefore, how, when that thick and wandering, and, so to speak, sordid error is cast aside, and the opinion of the common people is left behind, they were not entirely devoid of the knowledge of God, but attained to what and how great is the excellence of His virtue, which by the laws of order
A has placed under Him the vast and admirable mass of the world. But others, of whom we speak, have neither acknowledged God through these creatures, but were held by such stupor, and had so lost all sense of humanity, that they did not only pay divine honors to the heaven, the earth, the moon, and the remaining stars, but also placed various images in their temples, and carved into them not only the figures of men, but also those of brute animals, birds, and reptiles, and called them gods and saviors. Then, how could one not admire the precision of the Mosaic craftsmanship—which, while it may be curious, or profound, or difficult to accept for those speaking at that time, was not insignificant—but rather those things by which they were able to be led over to that which holds the truth, and to direct their knowledge toward an unblamable glory, namely, that which belongs specifically to the God who reigns over all? B Furthermore, would one not praise, and very reasonably so, the teachers of children, who accommodate themselves to their understanding, and by leading them by the hand little by little, enable them to see something of the mysteries, not setting before them at the beginning anything that is too elaborate or difficult of approach? But shall we not pursue with every kind of praise that most holy Moses, who performed this task so excellently? But if it seems to you that he contributes nothing to the matter, do you wish that we turn our discourse to those disciplines which are most dear to your heart? Let us examine, as far as possible, the scrupulous diligence of Hesiod’s *Theogony*. For he feigns that he hears the voice of the gods, and that he is inspired by the Muses, and arrogates this to himself as if it were some great and preeminent thing. C "Tell me," he says, "how the gods and the earth first came to be, and the rivers, and the boundless sea seething with swells, and the shining stars, and the wide heaven from above." Then he says that chaos and night came into being, but in what manner they came to be, he does not suggest. "Earth," he says, "first of all brought forth one equal to herself, the starry Heaven, so that it might encompass her on all sides." D And after he has said that Heaven is the son of Earth, he adds that, having cohabited with Heaven, she brought forth the seas, and Coeus, and Crius, and Hyperion, and Iapetus, and Theia, and Rhea, and Themis, and Mnemosyne; and besides these, Phoebe, whom he calls "gold-crowned." Add to these Aurora, and Saturn, who he says was the youngest of all. Furthermore, he heaps together refuse of empty and poorly coherent myths. But perhaps he will say that these things were fashioned by Hesiod in the manner of poets. For perhaps he cannot hear these things without shame. Why, therefore, does he disparage Moses, the interpreter of sacred matters, who has written a clear and most unerring history of the truest realities? For he stated that the heaven and the earth, and the sun and the moon, the stars and the light, the winged creatures and the swimming creatures, and the kinds of brute animals, and the beauty of plants, and edible fruits, and the herbs in the fields, were made by God. Observe
A how he most wisely cuts away with these words the error that had attacked the men of old. For do they not call the heaven Jupiter, the earth Ceres, the sun Apollo, and the gold-arrowed one—that is, Diana—the moon? And, in a word, by attributing what they pleased to each of the things created by God, they worshipped them as gods. But that the discourse on the creation of the world by the divine Moses is clear, and easy to grasp, and contains nothing intricate, and is set forth with much precision, come now, let us demonstrate.
"In the beginning," he says, "God created the heaven and the earth." B For he does not at all—as some have done—permit matter to be understood as without beginning and co-eternal with God and unborn, nor does he allow the non-existent-at-one-time to run alongside the eternally-being, nor the thing brought into being in time and with difficulty to be thought of as co-existent with the eternal; nor the things that change with the Unchangeable; nor the things subject to corruption with the Incorruptible. Rather, by calling them into being at the beginning as a time for creation, he limits the creation, as having been brought into being from non-existence according to the will of God, to the very being of what it is. And C he certainly does not say that God was merely the decorator and craftsman of a pre-existing and previously discovered matter, who, knowing the way in which it was possible to do so, fashioned what was formless and cast upon it differences of qualities, sizes, and bulk. Rather, by some secret and ineffable power, he brought into the beginnings of existence that which did not exist or subsist at all. But how he created, the infirmity of our mind cannot attain, as it surpasses all human speech. For how could anyone express things that lie beyond the grasp of the mind? And yet, I believe, the discoveries of the highest essence and the method of performing any action so far surpass our own affairs as we ourselves are by nature inferior to it.
When, therefore, Moses says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," understand that he is recounting the creation D of the entire universe, having brought all things together, as it were, in summary and in brief. Then he proceeds skillfully to tell how each of the things that were made was adorned and how it was allotted that which it truly is. And he says that it was by the all-powerful Word that He created all things. For the Creator of all is God, and by nature He is from God, even His own Word. "For He said," he says, "God, Let there be a firmament." And look how, by the power of the Word, the firmament was instantly established, which he also called heaven. "God said, Let the dry land appear, and the water was gathered together into one congregation." And in addition to these, he commanded the sun to be, and the sun was made; the moon was made, and the stars, and light, and land animals and sea-creatures, and the birds along with them. And when he said that the Spirit of God was carried over the water, he taught by these words that the nature of the elements cannot by its own power escape corruption, but rather requires the hand of Him who sustains it for its well-being, saying that
A the Spirit of God was borne above the water. For the Spirit of God gives life to all things, being Himself life by nature, from the life of the Father. All things stand in need of Him, and in no other way can they possess their stability, in order to be that which they are. Observe then, as I have said, the firmament made compact by the Word, and the dry land emerging as the waters are gathered together in one; the earth bringing forth vegetation in grasses and trees, and the seminal forces indwelling in them, so that by their means the things of this fleeting time, by stealing the power of existing eternally, might remain and be preserved. Contemplate the luminaries in the firmament, not created by God for any other use than that they should shine upon those on the earth, and at the same time indicate seasons, and days, and years. And he says that the earth was commanded to give birth to irrational animals, distributing the form to each, and the quantity, and that for which each might be produced, the Creator Himself allotting these things. B And since the whole had already been formed in the world, and there was absolutely nothing lacking for the needs of man, then indeed, then, the Creator contemplated in what manner he also should be. For his generation was not improvised along with the other creatures in an equal manner. Since that supreme nature is something great and excellent, or rather, something beyond all mind, and reason, and wonder, it willed to fashion an animal like to itself, as far as it was possible for this to happen. Therefore, that this animal which was to be—that is, man—might not appear to be something small and cast away, or to differ little from the other animals, but rather be one who was to be according to the image and likeness of God, He does not make his generation without forethought. And yet one might say, and one would not wander from the truth, that nothing could escape the divine mind; for He knows, He knows all things before their generation. What, then, was He contemplating, although He had foreknown the nature of man? By way of dispensation, as I have said, the all-excellent Moses says, as it were, that man was honored with deliberations; he does not introduce his generation as something simple, as one might say, and in no way distinguished from the rest, but as if God were applying care to the matter. And although the language is hyperbolic, it would, I think, have the appearance of being well-said, if we affirm that man is the most excellent of all animals on earth, and that he was made both according to the likeness and according to the image of Him who created him.
D That the entire creation was brought forth into existence by the all-powerful nods of God is not difficult, I think, to learn even from those things which the teachers of that superstition of his have written. For they all did not doubt that they both think and say that all things together were created by Him, both those endowed with reason and sense, and those which strike upon the sense of our eyes, or escape it. For no one among them denies that all things are with the King and Lord of the universe. And truly Plato also contends, using these words: "Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator and father of works." Now, therefore, we have brought forward the utterances of the Greeks, and those at least which I mean, and I will pass over saying the same things. But I will remember the words of Hermes Trismegistus.
A For he says in the dialogue to Asclepius: "And Osiris said: Furthermore, O greatest good demon, how did the whole earth appear?" And the great good demon answered: "By order and drying, as I said, when the many waters were commanded to retreat into themselves, the whole earth appeared muddy and trembling; but when the sun finally shone forth, and kept burning and drying it, the earth was consolidated in the waters, surrounded on all sides by water." And likewise in another place: "The Creator and Lord of all spoke thus: Let there be earth, and let the firmament appear, and immediately the beginning of the creation was earth." And these things are concerning the earth. But concerning the sun, he says again thus: "And Osiris said: O thrice-greatest good demon, do you wish us to recount how the sun first arose, and whence it appeared? It appeared by the providence of the Master of all." And the genesis of the sun is from the Master of all, effected through His holy and creative Word. Similarly, also he himself in the digressive discourse to Tat says first: B "But the Lord of all immediately spoke with His own holy, and intelligible, and creative Word: Let there be a sun; and with the saying, the fire, endowed with an upward-tending nature, I mean that which is simple and most luminous in nature, most efficacious and most fruitful, nature drew to itself by its own spirit, and raised it on high from the water." That all things, therefore, were made by the command of God through the Creator Word is proper for man to conceive, and truthful to say. But the "how," or in what manner, He alone would know. C And that He distributes to each of the things that have come into being its existence as such according to authority, and that the manner of the existence of all things has Him as its definer, would become clear even through what Moses said: "Let the firmament be, and it was so." And, "Let the water be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear." For these things define the nature of each of those brought into generation. And again, the thrice-greatest Hermes, among them, recalls this. For he introduces God saying to the creatures: "I will impose upon you, who are in my power, this necessity which is the commandment given to you through my Word: for you have this law." For, as I said just now, the Creator prescribed a natural law to each of the things that have come to be, and by His own nods, it appears that they have had allotted to them to be of such a kind, or not. And the utterance, direct and unadorned, has it thus. But Julian admires the opinion of Plato no little D and says: "Hear what Plato says about the world. Let the whole heaven, or world, or whatever other name one might prefer, be named by us as follows: Did it always exist, having no beginning of its generation, or has it come into being, having started from some beginning? It has come into being: for it is visible, and tangible, and has a body. And all such things are sensible, graspable by opinion, with the help of the senses." And after other things: "If, therefore, from a probable line of reasoning, one must say that this world, endowed with soul and mind, was truly made by the providence of God." Behold, therefore, also the divine, as he wishes, and most wise Plato, [holding] the world...
If indeed, according to the reasonable argument, one ought to call this universe a living being, endowed with both soul and mind, then it must have come into existence in truth through the providence of God. A Behold, clearly, the divine and all-wise Plato, by his own account, asserts that the entire universe, by whatever name it may be called, is generated and has begun from some beginning. Moreover, that it is tangible, visible, and corporeal, and subject to opinion along with perception, and has been made, indeed, according to the providence of the Creator. But the man who is entirely severed from the philosophical inventions of Plato, and who crowns them with praise to the finish, yet who is led astray along with him—and having thought nothing of the blameless things, is carried about as if by every wind—we shall clarify without delay, having again set forth the words of Julian himself. For he spoke as follows:
JULIAN. B Let us compare one with the other; namely, the way and the kind of method of procreation that God uses according to Moses, and the kind used according to Plato. "And God said: Let us make man according to our image and likeness; and let them have rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens, and the cattle, and all the earth, and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth. And God made man; according to the image of God he made him; male and female he made them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have dominion over it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens, and all the cattle, and all the earth." [*] Hear, then, also the Platonic oration, which he assigns to the Creator of all: C "Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator and father of works. Indissoluble they shall be by my will. Every bond can indeed be dissolved, but it is by no means the act of a good being to wish to dissolve that which is well joined and existing in harmony. Therefore, because you have been generated, you are indeed not immortal, nor entirely indissoluble. You shall not, however, be dissolved, nor shall you meet with the fate of death, having attained my will—a bond greater and more authoritative than those to which you were bound when you were being generated. Now, therefore, understand what I say, demonstrating it to you. D There are still three mortal genera remaining; if these are omitted, the perfection of the heaven will not be. For all the things that it contains in its embrace will not have life; but if they were made by me, and had participated in life, they would be equal to the gods. In order, therefore, that they may be mortal, and that all this universe may be truly complete, do you according to your nature [C/D transition obscured] undertake the creation of animals, imitating my power regarding your generation. And in so far as it is appropriate for them to be immortal in name, what is called divine, and in them the leadership of those who always wish to follow justice and you, I, sowing and initiating, shall hand over. As for the rest, you, weaving the mortal to the immortal part, produce animals and generate, and giving nurture, increase them, and receive them back again when they perish."
CYRIL. Indeed, this noble and bold man calumniates—
A the generation of man, which the most excellent Moses has proclaimed for us, and he deems it a small thing that there was given to human nature by God the being "according to the image" and likeness to Him. Yet who among those accustomed to think soundly would not agree that this is a thing of those who know how to bestow the greatest luster? For tell me, what could be called more excellent than to say that the divine likeness has been stamped upon us? For do we not say that the divine substance is the most supreme and highest of all things, flashing with ineffable glory, and in very truth existing as every form and beauty of virtue? Can this be obscure to anyone? Why then does he deride things so preeminent? And why does he mock even the fact that it was fitting that the intelligent and rational, and most God-like of the things on earth—I mean, of course, man—should be honored at the beginning? And yet the very nature of things agrees B with the writings of Moses. But Julian has no regard for what is reasonable, and having rejected this to an excessive degree, he clings only to the words of Plato. And truly he finds something to admire—and this, too, thoughtlessly—in that speech, invented by him I know not how, which he says the God of the universe addressed to certain generated and falsely-named gods. I think we must also say to him regarding this: If in these things Plato is engaging in characterization, and after the custom of the poets is attributing to the person of God words which he deems fitting for Him, he has failed not a little of his mark, and one might justly reproach him for not knowing how to preserve decorum in the fashioning of a person. But if he claims to have been instructed by the divine, let him go with his trifles; for it is not right to say that the Lord of all things would admit false gods to a share of the glory that belongs properly and uniquely to Himself. For He said: "My glory I will not give to another, nor my praises to graven images." But come, let us briefly set C the truth in opposition to the words of Plato, and let us say this. For let it be granted, if you will, that the supreme and intellectual powers created by God have been honored with the appellation of "gods." For we do say that certain beings in heaven are called gods and lords. But we ourselves also have been crowned with such a name, since God says to us: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High" (Ps. LXXXI, 6). But there is a most necessary reason for this matter in these cases, and the divine munificence toward us has in this regard a very correct account. For since the Creator of all things had fashioned the creature endowed with mind and reason according to His own image and likeness, as it was in His nature to be good, He also honored it with the name of "God," and not without cause; for we ourselves are accustomed, for example, to call the image of a man by the name of man. Therefore, D the creature composed of mind and reason seems to have obtained a preeminence of glory with God, greater than that which lacks reason and intelligence, since it is gilded with the appellation of God. As for the rest, this name has not been bestowed upon any other created thing at all. For neither heaven, nor the world can anyone of our people say to be a living creature, so that even others whom they call wise may be silent.
A For as we have already asserted, even Aristotle, the student of Plato himself, said that the whole world is neither a living creature, nor rational, nor intellectual. For the power of truth allows no one—from within, as I said, and from those most closely related to him—to say that the whole world, or whatever this universe is (for he spoke exactly thus), is a living creature or intellectual; he has a most sufficient refutation ready. But as for those who are not gods at all, whether living creatures or intellectual, if God, he would say, had no need to create, the nature of the matter itself would show us, proceeding through measured proofs. For what at all had the Creator of all things conceived by himself, that he handed over to other gods the necessity to labor concerning the creation of the three genera? Did he hesitate, they would say, or deem nothing of ours worthy of reason? They would be, as I suppose, totally foreign to the substance above all others. B For if the Creator is good, how could envy of anything at all arise within Him? For so Plato himself says somewhere, He was good; and in the good, no envy of anything ever arises. To deem it unworthy, however, to speak of Him would be nothing else than to attribute pride to Him and to fix a charge of arrogance against Him. And how would He wish to rule over those whose procreation He spurns? Or how is He pleased by our worship, if He did not even deign to create us in the beginning? That He also wishes to be honored by us, and requires our service, and desires that the human nature should be assimilated to Him through every virtue—I could easily adduce very many and true testimonies of Holy Scripture. But since things of his own are more approved by Julian, I say that Porphyry wrote in the second book of *On Abstinence from Animal Food* in this manner: "Let us therefore also sacrifice, but let us sacrifice as is meet; to God indeed, who is above all, as a certain wise man said, offering up or consecrating nothing sensible. For there is nothing material which, if it is compared with a nature devoid of matter, is not immediately impure. Therefore, neither is speech that is uttered by voice, nor even the internal, fitting for Him when it is stained by the perturbation of the soul; C but let us worship Him with pure silence and holy thoughts about Him. It is worth our while, therefore, to present our life to God as a sacred sacrifice, having been joined and assimilated to Him, which is brought to fulfillment by the exclusion of the perturbations of the soul and by the contemplation of this God." God, therefore, wishes us to worship Him, and through a holy manner of life to be conformed to Him spiritually, having His beauty inscribed upon our souls. But tell me, how does He require these things from us, if He all but cast us off to be created by other craftsmen, and, if I may say so, robbed us of the prerogative of the state in which He created the rest by Himself? But why does He care for earthly things, which, as Plato thinks, He handed over like a toy to other gods? But that He cares for them, and that His mercy and gentleness reach even to the smallest things, He Himself will teach us. D And it is both a hymn to Him and our salvation. For it is in the absence of the soul's perturbations that this sacrifice is performed.
A And has He not, to speak as I might, cast us aside to other creators, depriving us of the providential care granted to all other creatures? Yet does He provide at all for those things on earth, even though, according to the opinion of Plato, they have been given over to others as a plaything for the gods? That He does provide, and that His care and kindness reach even to the most insignificant things, He Himself, who knows His own Father God, will teach us, saying: «Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall upon the ground without your Father who is in heaven?» B Perhaps, however, he, as one who does not believe the truth, will strike out this utterance; for he fights against God in an outlandish manner. But he will accept those who have become his own, according to my claim that he is deceived. Alexander the student of Aristotle, therefore, writes in his book *On Providence* as follows: "To say that God is unwilling to exercise care over human affairs is altogether alien to God. For it is the mark of a certain envy and a plainly malignant nature not to do better things when one is able. Since both of these are alien to God, neither will they both be found in Him, nor will even one of them. It remains, therefore, that the Divine is both able and willing to exercise care over things here below. And if He is both willing and able, it is clear that He does provide. Nothing, therefore, even of the most incidental things, is reasonable to suppose happens without the divine judgment and will." Some say that Plato held this opinion; but Zeno of Citium and the Stoics clearly and openly maintain this dogma. That the supreme God, by nature the sole God of all, indeed provides even for those things that concern us, they themselves have borne witness. Then what is the matter, one might say? For if it was fitting that He provide, it was not fitting to deprive the human race, the most excellent of all things, of the best gift—this being that it should come into existence from Him, and not—having been born of some contrived "craftsmen" who, apart from the mere, solitary, and adventitious naming of God, are nothing—attain existence from them. C Even if one were to strive against this divine glory as much as possible, the thought that others are able to be creators and to call into existence things that never were at one time, would still be wrong. For it is not permitted to say that those things that are special and exceptional to the divine and ineffable nature can naturally reside in some of the things that have been created by Him. Rather, it will befit Him alone, and it will be to the supreme glory that belongs to Him. For, as I said before, access has been barred to the created thing regarding those things that belong solely and properly to the supreme substance of all, such as the faculty of creating and of bringing into the light things that were nowhere. Furthermore, how shall a thing created and made, which according to the very account of nature must necessarily be corrupted in every way, provide those things which belong to God? For if to create is understood in God as a manner of knowledge, will it not be absurd to allow that the knowledge of creating was handed down by Him to the creature? D Since we ourselves also sometimes produce certain things from underlying matter, using art and skill. But if to create in a manner befitting God is a force and efficacy of a preeminent nature, and it surpasses the capacity of the creature, why do they depress the dignity of the supreme nature and bestow it at their own discretion upon generated things that are subject to corruption? And they think they are understanding something great, forsooth! Nay, they offer an insult to the divine words, while saying that the Uncreated has permitted created things to be able to fulfill what is proper to Him and to Him alone. "Truly," they say, "it was necessary, if anything had been made by God, that it should turn out to be superior to death and corruption."
A Well then, my good friends, the Creator was jealous, it seems, of some, and did not permit them to attain what was best, but cast them into a worse state, since He denied them the power of creating. He feared, therefore, a necessity that did not allow Him to make things subject to death; or perhaps He was wholly ignorant of it. If they contend that He was ignorant, then the creature knows something more than the Creator Himself does. For it brings forth, as they themselves say, things subject to corruption. But if they insist that He was not ignorant of this, then how is He good if He does not do what He knows to be good? For surely, that which is immortal is better than that which is mortal. Moreover, it may be said—not ineptly, I think, but rather wisely—that those gods to whom they claim the King and Lord of all handed over the power of creating, they do not assert to be immortal, but rather claim that they remain bound, dissoluble, and free from corruption only as long as God wills them to be so. B Since, therefore, by their own admission, nothing is incorrupt, immortal, or indissoluble by its own nature, are they not ignorant, those who say that the God of all could not create the three mortal kinds, but instead handed this over to others to do? But as for us, leaving behind the trifles of the Greeks, we say that the Creator made that which is varied and manifold in created things, and whatever changes from time to time and does not remain the same, both by kind and by species, using His power in a manner most befitting God. For, as I have said, nothing is immortal or indissoluble. Rather, the will of God is, in every single one of those things that have been made, its very nature. And He attains to everything without any hesitation, even to those things that concern us. For He is one and alone, not having learned this from another; for this is not a kind of knowledge, but a prerogative of His own nature, befitting God, inherent in Him alone; just as, indeed, are other qualities, which are not accessible by any means to created things, but have been distributed by nature to Him and to Him alone. That it is entirely most absurd to attribute the energy of creation to other gods, while stripping it away from the true and natural God, one may perceive even from Julian's own teachers. For Hermes, surnamed Trismegistus, writes thus to Asclepius concerning the nature of the universe: "If, therefore, it is acknowledged that there are two beings, that which is made and that which makes, they are one in union, the one preceding and the other following. The preceding is God who makes; the following is that which is made, whatever it may be." And do not, because of the variety of the things that come into being, fear to ascribe some vile or sordid thing to God. For to Him, the one glory is to do all things, and the work of God is as it were His body. C But we do not attribute anything evil or shameful to the maker. For affections of this kind are those that adhere to generation, just as rust does to copper, or filth to the body; yet the coppersmith did not make the rust, nor did parents cause the stain. Again, after other things, he proceeds with more vehement words, and brings forward a manifest example: "Is it then permitted to a painter," he says, "to make the heaven, the earth, the sea, the gods, and men, and whatsoever is devoid of reason or soul; but God cannot do these things? O the greatest astonishment and ignorance of God! It must be that those who, while claiming to be pious toward God...
and to praise Him, do not ascribe the creation of all things to Him, do not even know God; and besides not knowing Him, they commit the greatest act of impiety against Him by attributing to Him a passion—either disdain or weakness. For if He does not make everything, He either does not do so out of disdain, or because He is unable, which is impious. For God is affected by only one thing, namely, what is good; and the good is held neither by disdain nor by weakness. For God is the good itself, to whom all power is given to make all things. And everything that is generated has been created by God, which is to say, by the good and by Him who is able B to do all things. But if you wish to learn how He creates and how the things that come into being occur, you may. Look at a most beautiful and fitting image: a farmer casting seed into the ground—here wheat, there barley, elsewhere some other kind of seed. Consider the same man planting a vine, an apple tree, and other trees. So God, in heaven indeed, sows immortality; in the earth, change; and in the universe, life and motion. And these things, those men of old—not undistinguished among the wise men of the Greeks—not only thought, but also deemed it worthy for others to think likewise. Yet that decent man, that deserter of his own flock, having rejected the opinions of others, is held captive, overcome by the words of Plato alone, and he tries to explain, certainly as he thinks, subtly and learnedly, the speech which he says was made by him in the person of God, and he uses these words:
JULIANUS
. C Attend, understand whether this is a dream. Plato calls the visible things gods: the sun, the moon, the stars, and the heaven. But these are images of those that do not appear. The sun which we look upon with our eyes is an image of the intelligible and non-appearing sun. And again, the moon which is visible to our eyes, and each of the stars, are images of those things which we discern only by the mind. Therefore, Plato knows those unapparent gods, who exist in the Creator and coexist with Him, and who were generated and proceeded from the Creator Himself. Therefore, the Creator in his account rightly says, "Gods," speaking to the unapparent ones, meaning the visible gods. But this Creator is common to both, who fashioned the heaven and the earth and the sea, and among them generated the stars, which are the archetypes of these in the intelligible realm. Consider, therefore, how well he adds to these things. He says, "There are lacking three mortal D species: that of men, that of animals, and that of plants." For each of these is defined by its own reasons. "If, therefore," he says, "each of these were indeed to be created by me, it would be absolutely necessary for it to be immortal." For even for thoseA who wish to sow these things and provide their origin, I will transmit the rest. You, for your part, weave the mortal into the immortal. It is clear, therefore, that the creative gods, having received from their own Father the creative power, brought forth in the earth mortal living creatures. For if heaven was intended to be no different from man, and—by Zeus—from wild beasts, and lastly from the reptiles themselves, and the fish swimming in the sea, then the creator of all things must be one and the same. But if there is a great distance between immortals and mortals, so that they neither increase by any addition B nor are brought down to mortal and perishable things by subtraction, it is fitting that there should be some causes for the former, and others for the latter.
CYRIL. That he confuses all things in these arguments, and blends the natures of things with one another, anyone who wishes may see, and very easily so. For, first of all, he says that the visible gods are images of those that do not appear, which Plato seemed to call both intelligible and sensible, designating the things that are seen as opinable by means of sense-perception. But by these things our noble Julian seems to wish to point out to us the Ideas, which Plato on one occasion asserts to be essences and to subsist by themselves, and on another defines as notions of God. But however that may be, even those who are his own disciples, as they say, C declare that this opinion is rejected by those expert in these matters. "Let the Ideas fare well," says Aristotle, "for they are sophistries, and if they exist, they contribute nothing to the argument." For what reason, then, does he himself decide to establish this, and attempt to introduce it as an irrefutable opinion, which even his own teachers have supposed not to be correct? Furthermore, in addition to this, we shall find another of his arguments suffering from no light malady of ignorance. For he says that Plato knows the intelligible and less apparent gods to be both subsisting in and co-existing with, and to have been generated from, the Creator himself. He adds, moreover, that the God of the universe, who crafted the earth and heaven, is the creator of both the things that are seen D and those that are understood only by the mind. When, therefore, as he himself has clearly confessed, the unbegotten God is the producer of both the one and the other, how does he proclaim that they originated from him, and that they co-exist and subsist within him? How, tell me, will the generated coexist with the unbegotten God? And in what manner will it subsist within? For we indeed maintain that the Word of God, being unbegotten, necessarily co-exists with the Father, and indeed subsists in Him, but proceeds from Him in a generated manner. But this zealous advocate of the subtleties of Plato says that the supreme God is unbegotten, yet that those who were created by Him subsist in and are generated from Him, thus confounding and confusing everything, and believing that for the contemplation of God the light is of no moment. Wherefore, the proverb worn by the tongues of many…
A might be said to him: "Beyond the borders of the Mysians and Phrygians." Away with such cold and idle talk, O man. Thy discourse is concerning God, who is above all, and yet thou art caught having perceived but the merest trifle concerning His glory.
For then, having declared Him to be the Creator of all—and the One sufficient in Himself to create such brilliant and wondrous works—he assigns to Him, in the least of all things, other gods as helpers and sharers in the work of creation, who might perchance say to the God over all: "Contribute for us a gift, and produce the three mortal kinds which are missing from the universe. For if Thou grantest the soul, we shall supply the body, weaving the mortal into the immortal."
But perhaps, in order to defend his own teachings, he will interpose this: that the concurrence of elements causes the nature of earthly bodies to coalesce. In this he follows his own masters. B For they say that Empedocles, son of Meton, held this opinion, and indeed chose to think so. For he asserts that the principles of existing things are fire, air, water, and earth. And to these he adds love and strife. Plotinus also mentions these in his book *On the Three Primordial Hypostases*, saying thus: "In Empedocles, strife divides, and love unites." And this indeed is incorporeal. But the elements are as matter.
Wherefore, although the concurrence of elements brings some utility to earthly bodies, we shall not admit the matter without proof. For we must necessarily inquire by whose work it is granted to them to have come together, and who has reconciled things naturally at variance into one, and has, as it were, tamed them C so that the power of each, not remaining unmixed with the others, might incline, as it were, all together toward the existence and generation of one thing. Is it not, then, the God who is the master craftsman of all who has clearly engineered this for earthly bodies, so that, lacking nothing of the elements, they might have the benefit from them? For like is somehow friendly to like.
Therefore, there are no other creators of the three kinds; but rather, He who is the Author of the origin and generation of all things must rightfully be understood as the supreme and only Principle of all, than whom nothing is higher at all, but everything is under Him and through Him, and under His feet, as things created by Him. That He delights in His own works, the letters of the Greeks affirm. We assert the same, D with the divine Scripture also bearing witness. For Wisdom says: "I was she in whom He delighted; and daily I rejoiced before His face, at all times when He rejoiced after finishing the world, and rejoiced in the children of men."
And how, then, would it not be better for Him to delight in His own creatures rather than in those of others? But perhaps he asserts that Plato was overcome by that sloth, or, as I said before, by envy, inasmuch as he envied the things on earth what was more excellent. But it is no wonder, since he prefers that good which is before the Creator God Himself, and that which is immobile, quiet, stable, and [alien] to the duty or will of creating,
as he says, and being, as it were, hesitant regarding these things, he assigned the act of creating to the second God, who is from him and after him. A But look, he also appoints others to be with him, those who know how to be co-workers, so that nothing of superiority might appear in him. And since he thinks he has said something wise and precise—namely, that if the one and only Creator of all were understood to be the sole maker, there would be no distinction between heaven and man, and even less between wild beasts, and those creatures that naturally swim in the sea, B and also creeping things—and that for this reason, one must introduce a creator in proportion to the measures of each of the things created; come then, let us say to this in reply: Yet what is there that stands against or opposes right-thinking ideas, if one should choose to say that all things are from one Creator? For would the power that sufficed for things so far superior be insufficient for lesser things? Not at all! Or would that condition of superiority and excellence, which those things that differ most from others possess, be that, and that alone, of having obtained an autonomous power from God? Then how is it not a specific stripping away of its [divine] property, since it has, as it were, dishonored the rest of the creatures and, as it were, told them to bid farewell to things on earth? But that these are drivel, and stuffed with the utmost insolence, we have already said in what we have previously discussed. C Nevertheless, let him tell us this: He says that the generated gods made the remaining three genera. Is it not, then, clearly seen that, with those belonging to us excluded, there is the greatest possible difference in them according to genera, species, and the sizes of bodies? For their generative power extends from the highest down to the most insignificant. And indeed, if someone were to say the same thing about the plants, he would not be mistaken. Shall we then set a creator over each thing in proportion to its kind, so that what is superior might not be insulted if the same one were said to be the maker even of the lowest things? D Therefore, would one creator be for men, and indeed quite properly so, and as many others for the rest of things, as many as might have been created, even down to the most insignificant? Tell me, are these things not ridiculous and nonsense, and finally leading the mind away from the thought of what is right and true? And how could it not be clear to everyone? That he delights in rotten and absurd opinions along with his own teachers, he would be clear, doubtless. For asserting that the heaven is God, he says again thus:
JULIAN
What need have I to call upon Greeks and Hebrews here as my witnesses? There is no one who does not stretch forth his hands to heaven when he prays, or when he swears by God—or the gods—taking a sense of the divine in general, he is carried thither. And this does not happen to them without reason. For seeing that nothing of the things in the heavens is diminished or increased, or changed, or suffers any of the disordered passions, but that its movement is harmonic, its order temperate, and the laws of the moon and the risings of the sun...
and settings are fixed, in fixed times always; they have reasonably assumed it to be God and the throne of God. For such a thing, as it is neither increased by addition, nor diminished by subtraction, and stands outside the change that consists in alteration and turning, is pure from all corruption and generation. Since A it is immortal by nature and indestructible, it is clean of every stain. But if, as we see, it is eternal and immovable, then it is either carried in a circle around the great Creator by a better and more divine soul dwelling within it, or it receives movement from God himself, just as, I presume, our own bodies receive movement from the soul within us, and, having received it, unfolds an endless circle in an unceasing and eternal course.
CYRIL. That these words belong to a man who is deranged, and who is utterly devoid of any true understanding, is not obscure. Since, however, I do not know how he has persuaded himself that it would be sufficient proof that the heaven is God, because those who ponder prayer lift their hands and eyes on high, come, let us refute this as well. Tell me, I pray you, if it should seem good to anyone to gaze at the clouds, and he himself should cast the eye of his body upward and toward them, would this fact be enough B to convince him that he must confess the clouds themselves to be goddesses? Would he not be worthy of laughter, who had been led into error by such frigid arguments? But since he says that the heaven by its very nature stirs a just admiration for itself, and that this is why many have suspected it to be God and the throne of God, let him come forward and teach us whether he thinks these are one and the same thing, and whether he weighs both in the same balance. But that he has reached such a state of stupor that he thinks there is no difference between God and His throne, I could never be persuaded. Nor, indeed, would anyone doubt that it is not right to understand divine things by our sense-perception, nor as it happens C in bodily things, even if, perhaps, "Throne" is spoken of in a way beneath the dignity of God. Thus, if it is called the throne of God, it signifies His kingdom. Just as, indeed, it could truly be said among us that someone’s throne is splendid and exalted, that is, his principate and kingdom. Furthermore, how can it be that the condition of the ruler and of the one who is ruled is the same: the prince and his subjects; the victor and those who are defeated; the superior and the inferior? In what way, then, does he proclaim the heaven to be either God or the throne of God? "Yet," he says, "it is moved with an orderly, harmonic, and measured motion. The sun and D the moon by their nature illuminate the world at set times; the risings and settings of the stars, and their rotations and courses, and their local movements are the same, and without change, and at every time." How, then, was the divine Paul not most wise, as he who demonstrates from these things the Ruler, and the President of the good order of creation, who, as befits a king, dictates to the things made by Him how each ought to be, and proclaims that so great and so immense an artifice is not without a governor, from the fact that it is also well...
A arranged and admired. For He says: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." [Rom. 1, 20.] This also seemed to be the opinion and teaching of those who were his masters. Plutarch, therefore, says concerning these things, as we have already said: "From these things they received a conception of God; for the sun and moon and the rest of the stars, when they have been carried under the earth, always rise appearing of similar color, equal size, and in the same places." So, those ancients, the inventors of his doctrines, did not come to the knowledge of heaven by wondering at the course of the sun, or by seeing any other things moving in an orderly, harmonic, and in no way discordant fashion; but rather, they deduced B the power of the one who rules, and understood his glorious and exalted primacy. But he, to the very contrary, even shifts the opinion upon this very thing: "The heaven," he says, "in no way suffers anything disordered, but follows a balanced order." And then, who is it that prescribed the order and balanced motion for it? Who distributed the appropriate seasons to each of the moon’s illuminations? Who set bounds for the course of the sun? Is there not, then, one commander of all, as I said? Why then do you turn minds away from a true and correct understanding, not allowing those who marvel at these things to come to the contemplation of God, but only to know the heaven, that it is God, standing outside of alteration and change, and all mutation; C and as being pure also from corruption and generation, and immortal by nature and indestructible? How, tell me, do you say that, being generated, the heaven is devoid of change, and alteration, and mutation? For if it has come into being at all, it has also been moved. But this is change and transition, with the privation of its having been at some time pre-supposed as if in an order. For if what has come into being is produced from that which is not-being, change and transition must be understood in it—that it was called into generation; and that it was generated is well-agreed; how then could it be outside of corruption? And how, too, is it immortal by nature, that which is tyrannized by generation and corruption? And how is it eternal, that which has been brought forth in time? Although Plato says clearly that time was created with heaven, that as they were generated together, so they should be dissolved together, if indeed dissolution should happen to it. How then is that which is dissolved immortal by nature? And how is it indestructible, that which has obtained the lack of corruption only by the will of the Creator? For nature does not possess the unshakable D power in these things, nor is it proper for any thing to maintain solid firmness in its own nature; but in order that they may provide this, they are assisted by the nods of the one who controls. Then he says that by a better and more divine soul dwelling in it, it is carried in a circle around the great Creator, or that it has its motion from God himself, just as, I suppose, our bodies do. But, O most excellent man, I would say, the unbegotten according to you, and incorruptible, and indestructible, the
A immutable and unchangeable heaven—purified of every stain, which you say is also eternal—by what superior or more divine soul is it governed? What is there in it better than that soul, or rather, better than God the Creator? What is great and extraordinary, I cannot conceive. For I myself think the ineffable nature of God to be filled with the highest glory. If, therefore, it is said by us to be incorruptible and indestructible, beyond all alteration and change, unbegotten, eternal, free from every stain, possessing every perfection, and in need of nothing at all—then what have you reserved for B Him, when you adorn the nature of created things with such brilliant and preeminent titles? But it is said, "The Hebrews, speculating about heavenly things, say that heaven itself is the throne of God, and the earth is His footstool." Quite rightly, O noble man; for I remember God himself saying through one of the holy prophets: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet. What house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?" Even though He does not say that heaven is God, but compares it to a throne, and the earth to a footstool. And if anyone wishes to learn the reason for this matter, it is not difficult to speak the truth. For the wisest Solomon had built in Jerusalem that C world-renowned temple, in which the multitudes of the Jews rejoiced wonderfully, thinking that the God of all resided in it, circumscribed. For they were always somehow slow to understand what was said about God; and, thinking Jerusalem to be the city of God, they insisted that He dwelt in it alone, because it had been said by the mouth of David: "Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God." Therefore, since they thought meanly of God, He reproves them with these words: "What house will you build for me, for whom heaven is a throne and the earth a footstool?" For it was necessary, it was necessary for those who supposed His nature to be circumscribed and confined to places, to show clearly that He is everywhere, and is contained by nothing, but rather He himself pervades all things, and heaven is full of Him, and the earth is also full. That heaven is created, it is easy to D prove by very many testimonies from the divinely inspired Scripture. For God says somewhere: "My hand has established the heaven, and I have commanded all the stars." And indeed also the blessed David says that the heavens were established by the word of the Lord, and all their host by the spirit of His mouth. He also knows them to be declaring the glory of God. How, or in what way? By the fact that from their own nature and origin they provide wonder, and all but use such a voice as this. For the most beautiful and extraordinary of works, although lacking a voice, all but cry aloud the skill of the craftsman, exhibiting it to be seen in themselves.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL FOR THE HOLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN. BOOK THREE.
A He has slandered all things belonging to the Christians: their customs, laws, and mysteries. There is no good deed done or word rightly spoken in divine Scripture that he is not ashamed to twist into a bad interpretation. Yet he praises as great and magnificent only those things by which, if he truly possessed wisdom, he ought to have been moderately offended and moved to amend his life. And that discourse of Plato, which he himself concocted to slander the divine and supernatural glory, he admires in no small measure. But, as one piling sin upon sin, he attacks again the writing of Moses, and against it he whets his tongue; or rather, he lifts up his horn on high and speaks injustice against God, arming himself against the dogmas of the truth; and thus he says:
JULIAN: Compare with these the Jewish teaching, the garden planted by God, the Adam formed by Him, and then the woman who came to be for him. For God says: "It is not good that man should be alone; let us make for him a helper like unto him"; yet she did not help him in anything at all, but rather deceived him, and became the cause both to him and to herself of being cast out from the delights of paradise. For these things are utterly fabulous. For how can it be reasonable that God should be ignorant of the fact that what was made by Him for a helpmate would turn out, for the one who received her, not as a benefit, but rather to his own harm?
A You do not believe, then, that any paradise was planted by God; or perhaps you act foolishly in condemning His ineffable power, as if He were unable to do this. You make a cause for laughter of the shaping of Adam and the woman from him, and you claim that He who cannot be deceived went astray in His counsel and plans. For you say it did not turn out for Adam's good, but rather to his bewilderment and his fall from paradise and its delights. Will you, then, my good friend, abandon these things—as you yourself consider them frivolous and putrid—and shall we insist instead upon the discourses of your own teachers? Will you have us compare the cosmology of Moses with those of Hesiod and examine those things which you, like your ancestors, admire? For he invoked the Muses and, having requested from them, as he himself says, a "lovely song," he has heaped upon us putrid and obsolete fables. He writes that B Coeus and Hyperion were born of Earth and Heaven, and besides these, Iapetus, and a certain Prometheus, son of the latter, who, had he not stolen fire from Zeus, the woman—whom that limping smith, that is Vulcan, fashioned—would not have been brought to light at all. And they say that Pallas, born of a mighty sire, adorned her with varied finery, and that he gave a "beautiful evil" to mortals. But if the woman had been lacking, whom we have received from an angry Zeus, as they themselves claim, how could the human race have survived? Or in what way could some of the gods of the gods have been creators, weaving the mortal into the immortal, as it seemed to Plato? They have not shuddered to set these things against the writings of the most wise Moses, although they ought rather to have honored the Mosaic writings with holy acclamations. But they will say, perhaps, that the law of their art permits poets to invent fables without fear of censure. Therefore, if they have brought nothing necessary to life, let no credence be given to all their fables and trifles, and let them be called old wives' tales; and if they have written anything about the gods, let it be dismissed, and let it have the name of poetic artifice. But they are far from thinking that these things are so. For they have another mindset. They do not consider what is told of the gods to be witticisms and fables, but rather they receive these utterances as true and most approved—and this holds true even for the most intelligent among them. Herodotus, at any rate, who composed a famous history, writes somewhere as follows: C "I believe that Hesiod and Homer lived four hundred years before me, and no more. These are the ones who created a theogony for the Greeks, gave the gods their epithets, assigned their honors and arts, and described their forms. But those who are said to have been poets before these men were, as it seems to me, later than them." Therefore, those who gave the gods their names, and assigned to them honors and titles, and described their forms—if they have written nothing for them but fables and nothing else, let them be laughed at with good reason, and let what they have rashly uttered be held as of no account. If, however, they held them in honor and even now affirm that those who are named by them as gods are indeed gods, then they do not [fruitlessly...]
babble things that are in no way consistent with themselves. For why do they receive those whom they consider worthy of belief when they write about the gods, yet treat them contumeliously by detracting from the credibility of other things they say? For that Plato, whom they admire, does not reject the Theogony of Hesiod, anyone could very easily show from his own words. For he wrote as follows: "But indeed, we can neither hide from the gods nor coerce them. Therefore, if they do not exist, or if they have no concern for human affairs, we also need not worry about hiding from them. But if they do exist and do care for human affairs, we do not know or hear of them from any other source than from daily conversation and from the poets who have written about their origins." Yet these very same people say that they are such as can be swayed by sacrifices, libations, and offerings. B Observe, therefore, how he has clearly acknowledged that if gods exist at all, we must know and learn of them from what others have written about them. And that he does not hold the account of Hesiod concerning the gods in contempt is surely evident where he says elsewhere: "Oceanus and Tethys were born children of Earth and Heaven; from them, Phorcys, and Cronus, and Rhea, and Zeus, and Hera, and all whom we know as their siblings." Is it not clear to everyone that wherever the argument fails to coincide with the obscenity of their dogmas, they immediately attribute those accounts to the charm of poets' storytelling, and they take in the worst sense only those things that are said about those whom they hold to be gods? Most maliciously, they only accept the accounts concerning the gods that are among them.
What then, most excellent sir, shall we set aside the woman formed by God and the account concerning her as unseemly, and instead accept Hesiod's Pandora? Does this seem to you to be the best course of action? But perhaps he says that the things written about her by God are falsified. For she was made, he says, to be a helpmate, C and as one who would be of some use to the man; but she performed no such thing; on the contrary, from the opposite, it is observed that she brought not insignificant harm both to herself and to him. For both slipped out of the delights of Paradise, and became very far removed from being superior to death and corruption. To such things, one who has applied his mind to the oracles of the divinely inspired Scripture would easily reply. The woman was indeed made for help. But the manner of this help, for which she was destined, must be carefully and primarily weighed. For thus we shall free the Creator from his disparagement. For the woman was not taken as a partner in counsel or deliberations, nor was she brought into existence by the decree of God, to whom nothing is hidden, so that she might have a nature that was immutable and endowed with such stability and constancy that it could never deviate from the will of the Lord. For rational creation is governed by voluntary motions, D and is moved by free inclination toward both that which is right and its opposite. Rather, she was given as a helpmate so that she might serve in the procreation of children. For it was said of both: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth." For having been already brought into birth—
A the other animals, I mean the land, winged, and aquatic creatures, there was already hope that their race would eventually be propagated into an innumerable multitude, for they were male and female. But for man, there was lacking a partner—that is, an animal similar to him in nature—by whose aid he might, like the other animals, increase his own kind. Observe here, I pray, how wisely and skillfully, so far as concerns the will of God, the female was created. For although He could have created her from scratch, and in the same way that Adam himself was made, namely by taking clay from the earth and molding her, He did not do this at all; but because He wished to engender in the man an affection for her, He withdrew a small portion of his own substance and, by weaving onto it the rest of the elements of human nature, brought her forth complete. The man welcomed her willingly, and being moved by the impulses of nature toward love, and as if kin to her, he said, "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." 75 B God therefore implanted a natural affinity in the male nature toward the female, I mean, so that human affairs might be best managed if those who are joined by lawful union are disposed toward their wives in the same way as Adam was. Therefore, the power of this "help," if we examine the force of the word according to its proper sense, should be understood as that which was brought to Adam by his spouse for the sake of the procreation of children. But if it could have been done in some other way, let him bring it forward, let him show it, and I will say no more. But if man cannot be born otherwise than by the concurrence of both, that is to say, of father and mother, why does he rashly insult us, and why does he dare to malign and tear apart things that were created so excellently and that proceed as if on a straight path? Therefore, let him cease from accusing the Creator; for he does not prove that He erred in His plan for forming the woman. But, he says, she was surely a bad counselor, since she persuaded Adam to set at naught the command of God. Quite so: she was manifesty a bad counselor. Truly, I will by no means deny it. But if he has anything to complain about regarding the laws of nature, or if he finds fault with what was done by God as though it were not done rightly, let him provide the reasons by which one might argue that He deviated from His purpose. C But if this is mere madness and a manifest sign of the utmost derangement, why does he say that God acted in vain if the little woman was induced by the whisperings of another to choose to do what is unlawful, when in fact the mind of man has received the power over what should or should not be done, and it has been granted to it that it might be carried, as I have said, by arbitrary motion toward anything it pleases, since it also seemed right to the supreme Artificer of all, God, that it should be so? For it was fitting that a creature endowed with reason should be honored with the freedom of acting, and that it should show the fruit of its free will in the performance of good deeds. But this also seemed worthy of all praise to his own teachers. Porphyry indeed says in his book *Ad Nemertium*: "God has surely wished that men should also be participants in the truth of things: wherefore He made them possessors of reason, as if, forsooth, D
A the reason itself were sufficient to track down the truth, and He gave moreover the free and self-determining power to each, so that the good might be in their own hands, adorned with the praise of what is voluntary. But the many, having inclined toward that lack of reason and lack of judgment which comes from sloth, have fallen into a beastly life, and have been deceived in those matters whose truth it was hard for the sober man to grasp by the virtue of diligence." And indeed also elsewhere: "For the soul, having obtained self-determination for the acquisition of freedom of virtue, or the voluntary choice of vice, so that in its own case each might be tested as to whether it is worthy of praises or blameworthy, and so that amongst men there might be room for acceptances, and praises, and the distribution of rewards, and reproaches, and dishonors, and punishments for those who have chosen to perform the works of injustice." Further, the wise men say that souls choose the life that each one desires, having received the authority for this from Providence. Does it seem to you that our argument misses the truth, or will you agree with yours, and will you yourself also say that these things stand thus? And if he thinks that he needs other testimonies for this, I will produce the words of Alexander, a man who was most sharp and diligent among them. For he speaks thus in the book *On Providence*: "In these things one may also perceive the kindness of the divine nature toward us. For since it could not happen that virtues should exist in us by nature, He gave us the power which He Himself possessed, and brought it about that the acquisition of them should not be in any other, but in us ourselves, so that what we could not have from Him, we might take through ourselves as though from Him. If, therefore, we derived virtues from nature, no room would be left for vice. But since that cannot happen, for nature proceeds only to the point of making us capable of virtues, it is necessary that whatever is capable of something to which there is a contrary, is also capable of the contrary." And in the book *On Fate* he says again: "For we do not see that all, or even the majority, are endowed with virtues, which is a sign of things that occur according to nature; but it is to be rejoiced at if one can find such a man, who through exercise and teaching shows what men by nature provide over other animals, adding through himself that which is necessarily lacking to our nature. Therefore, the acquisition of virtues is in our power, and praises are not useless or vain, nor are reproaches, nor exhortations toward better things, nor education according to the laws through the habituation to better things." C
Minime igitur dubitaverit sapiens quisquam, omni prorsus crimine vacare Deum universorum, tanquam de hominis conditione non recte consuluerit; licet prævaricati nonnulli sint, nacti, ut dixi, motionis in quidlibet ac potestatis clavum, et sponte delapsi in quidpiam quod præter legem esset, eique repugnaret. Si enim datam legem servasset, prorsus ei licebat perpetua felicitate frui. Quando vero ad defectionem impulsus est, sua illico ipsi spes decidit,
B and he was carried off to more shameful things, or rather to everything whatsoever which is of a nature to cause distress. But, someone says, why did He give a law at all, and forbid any of the edible things? For He commanded to eat of every tree, save only that which was in the midst of the paradise. If law and commandment had not been weighing upon him, it would not have happened that he sinned. And being good, for what cause did He punish? Therefore, since the God who is above all is good, tell me, does it befit us to hold His commandments as nothing, and shall we despise them with impunity? Yet, to be of such a mind and to think so did not seem right even to the wise men of the Greeks. For Plato says somewhere again: "God indeed, as the ancient saying goes, holding the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things that are, proceeds in a straight line, according to nature; and Justice, the avenger of those who abandon the divine law, always follows Him." Since, therefore, avenging Justice follows Him, punishing in justice, as it surely does, those who have chosen to despise Him, it is not the case that because God is good, one might therefore suppose that we also may proceed without blame to everything that one thinks ought to be done and is becoming; but rather, that we ought to consider the greatness of His excellence over all, and both fear Him and submit the neck of our mind, pliable and amenable, to His decrees. For would anyone grant that it is most becoming for a good being to tolerate evil? Yet how is it not true to say that the goad of the laws is not sharpened against the upright, but rather against those who have abandoned the zeal for doing right and have cast off the duty of living honestly? It is therefore permitted to those who have bound the reins of their mind to the virtues to reap the fruit from the laws. For there can be no doubt that laws draw back if anything is difficult to follow, and they repress with punishments that which tends toward falling away, exhorting to the good, and compelling those to withdraw from shameful things who have chosen to be devoid of proper reasoning. And no one in his right mind could blame either the laws themselves or those who have been their lawgivers. For they themselves, surely, could not be the cause of the necessity for those who have been caught to suffer; for since it was possible to choose to think aright, they went towards what seemed good to them; and they themselves, having destroyed themselves rather, would be found out. Therefore, if anyone were to say that it was not fitting for the God of all things in the beginning and first of all to institute laws, he will hear in response from us, and most reasonably: Tell me, then, was it fitting for man to be without a governor, left entirely to himself, and without a bridle, knowing nothing of that which is superior, or is there anyone who rules, even though to excessive prosperity there always follows in some way a having of things in a perilous state, and being utterly unrestrained creates a terrible instability and a falling away into ruin? He is more temperate, rather, who is under a yoke and has been allotted to be under the hand of one who rules. For just as bridles are not without use for horses for the sake of knowing how to run well—and this is an adornment for them—nor are rudders for ships—for by them they keep their course—so neither is law for man. But if he blames the things I say, the lawgiver himself confesses that the laws were given in vain. From the state, therefore, O good man, must be removed both judges and that most useful fear, namely punishment, I say, or fear, D nor is it absurd for children to be carried out into the deep as if from a harbor under the guidance of parents. But neither will a horse ever run well without a bridle and a rider, nor will ships keep their course, with him removed who knows how to steer, nor does it have
A a city appear to be governed in the best way if judges are not presiding, nor is the guidance of parents useless to children who are still infants. A presiding law is therefore beneficial everywhere. But let us also examine, if you like, the other created things, whether they are joined to the laws of the Creator.
For in this world that great and all-shining sun fulfills its own course in a becoming order. But also the moon, and the remaining stars, and the seasons return in an orderly manner, as do day and night; whence it is possible for those who wish to see how, through the best order, creation proclaims its own commander, and by that good state it all but cries out that it also obeys laws and is governed by the nods of the God who is the most excellent Artificer of all things. B Therefore the prophet David sings and says: “You have made the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down” (Ps. CIII, 20). And the divinely inspired Scripture is full of such testimonies. But perhaps their faith, who feel the same as he does, will persuade him, or rather, even against his will, lead him back to the straight path. Alexander, therefore, a learned man, says thus in his book *On Providence*: “For nothing of those things which are in the world happens without providence. For all things are full of the Divine, and It passes through all things that exist. Therefore, all things that happen, happen according to the will of God, and those things which are seen are a proof of this. For the order of things that happen, having its nature always in the same manner, is a great indication that these things do not happen by chance.” And elsewhere: C “For Aristotle affirms that the salvation, and the generation, and the species-specific preservation of the things here do not happen without divine providence. For the power which is from the sun and the other stars that are fellow-travelers with the sun provides the cause for the generation and salvation of those things which consist by nature, according to him.” Therefore, from the order and harmonious movement of things that are seen, it is not obscure that they are subject to imperial laws. “For the heavens,” he says, “tell the glory of God, and the firmament declares the work of his hands” (Ps. XVII, 1). But if anyone, with the inner eyes of the mind, should transcend the nature of those things which are apparent to the senses, and be carried above every visible thing, and should examine the intelligible and knowable creation, he will D discover that it too is governed by fitting laws, obedient and compliant, and dedicated to God who is above all. For angels and archangels serve him and honor him with perpetual hymns, and have [that state] as they sincerely present themselves, according to their capacity for praise. And indeed, the divine prophet Isaiah says that he saw the Lord of hosts sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the Seraphim standing around, and singing to one another in turns (Isa. VI, 1-3). David also sings and says: “Bless the Lord, all you his angels, mighty in strength, who do his word, to hear the voice of his words. Bless the Lord, all you his hosts, his ministers, who do his will” (Ps. CIII, 20, 21).
The law A given by God to the progenitors of our race was not, it is clear, to their detriment; far from it, it was rather for their supreme profit and the mediator of matchless blessings. If I seem to anyone not to be advocating the truth, let him look at the matter from the facts themselves. For there were many trees in paradise, and God commanded them to have all of them as food, while only the one in the midst was to be avoided. Yet someone might say that it would perhaps have been more advantageous for the tree to have been placed at the extremities of paradise, and as it were in unknown places, so that it might not, by being constantly in their sight, sharpen the desires of those who saw it towards the appetite for itself. But what shall we say to this? It was a dispensation, and one most provident and of supreme skill, that God brought about, so that it could not be hidden. For it was fitting, B truly fitting, that those who beheld it should by that very fact be summoned always to the remembrance of the law, and recognize the excellence of the Sovereign, and not be ignorant that He is both Legislator and Lord. And it was otherwise not unprofitable for their benefit, that they should be accustomed to exercise the faculty of self-control in such small matters and be trained in temperance. And in addition to this, I believe it must also be said: it was very likely that, as they always looked upon the plant and were not ignorant of the law concerning it, they would be recalled to the memory of God who had enjoined it, and thus, having leapt up to the contemplation of Him, and drawing their mind away from terrestrial things, they would wisely reason who and how great He is who had commanded it. C For there could be nothing more precious than the true contemplation of God, since this is what makes us partakers in the attainment of blessedness. And indeed our Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to the Father and God who is in heaven, says: “This,” he says, “is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John XVII, 3). And indeed the all-wise Moses, desiring to attain such a great thing, besought God, saying: “If I have found favor in your sight, show me yourself, that I may know you” (Exodus XXXIII, 13). For Israel had seen Him, and Moses with them, but not yet so as to know Him, but rather to perceive Him. For He descended in the likeness of fire upon Mount Sinai. But that the divine and ineffable nature is not to be understood as fire itself, D nor subjected to view or eyes, Christ confirmed when He said to the Jews regarding God and the Father: “You have neither heard his voice, nor seen his form” (John V, 37). For God was being fashioned in the fire by way of dispensation. That, moreover, the accurate contemplation of God is the mediator of the supreme felicity of all who are worthy to receive it, even the speech of those who disagree with us might demonstrate. For again, the Alexander whom we just mentioned says: Nor indeed is it right to omit that which was given to men as a gift of divine Providence, of which we also made some mention earlier. This is that our supreme happiness is placed in piety towards God, so that we do not expect a reward from anywhere else but from Him, but rather in
the service toward Him, we attain the greatest of all goods. It is agreed, then, that human happiness has its foundation in contemplation. For this is the operation of the most precious of the powers of the soul, which is the mind. For contemplation is the true knowledge of those things which are best among beings. And all divine things are the best of beings. Therefore, our happiness lies in the knowledge of divine things. B Since, therefore, as even those comrades of his in belief and fellow-superstitious ones say, happiness consists in the contemplation of divine things, how could one fail to admire the God of the universe, who gave to the first humans the opportunity for the vision of God by means of the law concerning the tree? This tree was planted in the middle of Paradise, for the reason that it was necessary for those who were contemplating to be called very frequently to a remembrance of the law, and through the law, to be able to glimpse, as it were, the preeminence and the exceptional beauty of the Lawgiver. Therefore, as far as the purpose of the Creator reaches, no one could say that the woman was a cause of damage or harm to the man. Nor do we say that the pure and supreme Mind was ignorant of future events. For He knows all things before they come to pass; but He allows human affairs to flow along, as it were, in a stream, especially because the doing or not doing of any given thing is seen to depend on the choice of each individual. C But if, because He is good and is always accustomed to hate what is alien to what is appropriate, someone should decide that it would be better if He had been slow in matters of duty, and had not allowed certain people to come into the light at the beginning—we should not, I think, remonstrate with Him regarding the first humans alone, but regarding very many others, or rather, regarding all who have been since them and still exist down to the present, who are slothful and wicked and accustomed to neglect divine laws. But, I think, it would be the part of a wise man to attribute to Him, and to Him alone, the knowledge of all things and the government of our affairs in whatever way He might choose. Most certainly, to believe that all things are well and blamelessly arranged, and to accuse Him regarding anything whatsoever, constitutes the crime of supreme impiety. For, as the prophet Isaiah says: "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" And the prophet David well cries out to Him and says: D "Thy way is in the sea, and Thy paths in the great waters, and Thy footsteps will not be known." For the counsel and will of God, who rules over all, and the way in which things are done, are difficult for humans to discern, or rather they are altogether invisible. I will add to what I have mentioned the agreement of his own teachers on this very matter. For Porphyry speaks thus again: "For when the divine mind exists, which presides over all things, and with its surpassing magnitude of wisdom and incomparable power of authority, has ordered and rules the universe, most of the causes are hidden from the human mind, since it is small, even if it seems wise and an investigator of truth. And it is pious, if one pursues the difficulty of those things concerning which one has doubts, not to dare to speak against them, but to believe well that they are as they are, and to think and maintain that because they are good, they were made as they are. For what could a mind so great and such as that do wrongly? Nor is it right for prudence
A to be made an examiner of what is well-ordered, or to mark as evil what we do not understand. Consequently, one would be least likely to lack wisdom in thinking and saying correctly that all things done by God are well-done; but it is impious and altogether to be rejected to wish to be busybodying over things, the investigation of which could never be attained by us, since they are rather beyond our measure and the thought that is in us. And the all-wise Julian immediately adds other things as well to what I have said. B
JULIAN. For as to the serpent that speaks with Eve, what kind of language shall we say it used? Was it human? And how do such things differ from the fables invented by the Greeks?
CYRIL. Behold, he attacks the truth again, and says that these things are similar to Greek fables. Therefore, he clearly knows that they are fables and the chatter of old women, and nothing else, even though he considers them to be true and draws them into the power of religion. But we, my good man, do not say this concerning the holy and divinely inspired Scripture. For there is nothing at all in it that is fabulous; rather, it is full of truth. And I am amazed that, although he is very sharp and not unskilled in the inner C sciences, as he himself thinks and proclaims, and while he sometimes lifts his mind beyond perceptible things, he did not understand that the voice was made by the operation of the wicked and primeval demon, who used the serpent as a pretext for his own malice. For since there was no other creature at that time that was rational, the woman, through her excessive simplicity, perhaps thought that the use of human speech could have been given to other animals too. But that it is not at all difficult for unclean spirits to attempt such things from time to time, the words of Moses alone are sufficient to provide the fullest faith. But because it is likely that those who have chosen to hold the same opinions as this detractor of Christian matters will not wish to agree with our words, come, let us examine their own histories D and demonstrate the matter as far as we can. Homer, therefore, in composing the deeds done by the Greeks at Troy, asserts that one of the horses of Achilles (this was Xanthus) prophesied his death to him, and that the hero said: "Xanthus, why do you prophesy death to me?" Nor did he in the least neglect the need to avoid being thought to lie; for he said: "Juno of the white arms gave it a voice." But he will perhaps oppose us again with his usual arguments, and that poetic com-
A composition of yours will say that the object is poetry. Well then, if it seems good, let the falsehood of Homer’s poems be condemned, and let the charge fall upon his teachers. Let us investigate others also who have written such things. Porphyry, then, his associate and the father of the insolent speaking against us, when explaining the life of Pythagoras, speaks somewhere thus: "For the things told about the equipment laid up in Mycenae with the Trojan spoils for the Argive Hera, the shield of Euphorbus the Phrygian, we pass by as too common. But they say that the river Caucasus, while he was crossing it with many of his companions, addressed him, and that the river spoke out in a louder voice than the rest, in the hearing of all: 'Hail, Pythagoras.'" But, I suppose, some might say that he merely said the river addressed him, not that a demon spoke. Very well. The water was perhaps, then, endowed with reason. But, I suppose, to say this is the mark of a deranged mind, and we say it is an impossibility. Therefore, a demon spoke, and it was a demonstration of Pythagoras’ sorcery that the river seemed to address him. But this is not true; it is rather a desire to find fault. Therefore, if he was not full of what the Greeks call secret wisdom, or rather the art of magic, let him be cleared of the charge, and let us be the ones talking nonsense. But if he is clearly both a sorcerer and an enchanter, and an expert in such things, why is it not true to say that the greeting was accomplished by the power of one of the demons who attended him? Porphyry writes again B about him in this way: "He did not even conduct his daily walks in an invidious manner with a crowd, but second or third, choosing the quietest and most beautiful places in temples or groves. He loved his friends exceedingly, being the first to proclaim that the things of friends are common, and that a friend is another self. He spent time with them when they were healthy, and he would heal those who were sick in body, and comfort those who were sick in soul, as we have said, the former by incantations and magic, the latter by music." But I suppose it is equal to say that a serpent could never have had the power to use a human voice, and that the river Caucasus became approachable and friendly to the magician. The most wise Clement C makes mention of this in his *Stromata*, saying: "And Pythagoras emulated the Persian Zoroaster, and those who follow the sect of Prodicus boast that they possess the secret books of this man." That the Magi are a Persian race, they will surely admit somewhere. No argument, however, will absolve Zoroaster of being devoted to magical arts, of whom they say Pythagoras was an excellent imitator, so that some have boasted that certain secret books were composed by him. These are the things from both Porphyry and Clement. Philostratus, attempting to embellish the life of Apollonius with selected graces of language, and carrying it up to the supreme D miracle, brings him to the very furthest ends of the Theban land; and he said that he gave himself over to the very cataracts of the river. And that he met with the Gymnosophists who are there, themselves also most skilled in sorcery; then to the...
head of all (this was Thespesion) said to Apollonius in these very words: "But that we are not incapable of performing sorcery, do you, O tree"—it was an elm, the third from that under which they were conversing—"greet the wise Apollonius for me." And the tree greeted him as it was commanded; and the voice was articulate and feminine. I will also make mention of the Dodonean oak, which they say also used a human voice. Moreover, Isigonus of Citium says that in the island of Rhodes, Zeus’s bull was not without a voice of our kind. See then, how clearly he exposes the trifles of the sorcerers, in that it is inherent in the nature of demons to be able at times to produce voices, and that not only from animals endowed with sense, but also from those lacking voice and sense—I mean water and trees. Since, therefore, it is manifest to all that it was not only the woman who was addressed, and through the serpent itself, which is of a nature endowed with neither reason nor intellect, but rather that Satan, the father of evil, had assumed its person, wishing to rob man of the gift of immortality bestowed upon him—who would not rightly censure him B for not having understood these things, which raise a cry almost as great against the wicked and impious dragon? But if he himself does not believe, the truth cannot for that reason fail to be perceived. He, however, not assenting to the truth, would deservedly be laughed at. But having finished the discourse on these matters as he pleased, he grows insolent again in a juvenile way towards the sacred Scriptures, and says:
JULIAN.
C That God should forbid the discernment of good and evil to the men formed by Him, does this not have an excess of absurdity? For what could be more foolish than one who cannot distinguish good and evil? For it is manifest that he will not flee the former, I mean those that are evil; nor will he pursue the latter, I mean those that are good. Yet God forbade man to taste of the head/chief point of prudence, than which nothing would be more precious to man. For that the discernment of good and better is a work proper to prudence is plain, I suppose, even to the senseless.
CYRIL.
D That he was ignorant of the power of the written words, an investigation will demonstrate. But I think it necessary, in order to make the nature of the whole matter clear, to say a few things to him. For to be utterly ignorant of what is good and what is to the contrary, would be brutish, and more like a stone or a log, and entirely foreign to a soul endowed with reason. But the force of the expression, I mean "the knowledge of good and evil," signifies in the divine Scriptures, surely, not the mere grasping of the knowledge of things by reason alone, but rather by power and experience, as we shall demonstrate clearly and evidently in the process of the discourse. I think it worth while to say that God fashioned man for good works, that out of the sacred
writings it is manifest that he lacked no good thing and was perfect in respect to the natural causes which reside in the spirit and body. For a mind was bestowed upon him of such a kind that it could behold God and divine things, according to the measure A of its nature. «For we see through a glass and in a riddle,» as is written; but being filled with desire for everything that is to be marveled at, and having acquired, as it were, a simple and uniform knowledge of all that is good, it looked upon it without distraction, as though seeing only that, and inclined itself toward it with the entire force of its will, moving toward it with the greatest alacrity. B His body, indeed, was fashioned from the earth, but it was more powerful than death and corruption (even if some of the unbelievers might laugh when they hear this said), because it came to pass by the will of God, to whose nods the nature of things obeys, he having made it, truly and plainly, come to pass through some secret efficacy as he himself saw fit; for that which he himself wills is the nature of each of those things which have been made. For it will not be permitted for Plato, as it were, to speak from the person of God to the things created by him—I mean heaven, the sun, and the stars, which he even names sensible gods: «Therefore, since you have been made, you are not immortal, nor entirely indissoluble. Yet you will not be dissolved, nor will you meet the lot of death, having obtained my will, a bond C indeed greater and more powerful than that by which you were bound when you came to be.» Shall we then deny faith to the writings of Moses, if he says that what is by nature born to be corrupted was, by the will of God, rendered superior to corruption? The body was therefore stronger than death; for the Maker of all had implanted life within it. When, therefore, it had exceeded the bounds of corruption, it had been allotted the natural appetites, indeed, for food and the procreation of children; but it was a marvel, for it possessed mind not subject to those impulses. For it did whatever it seemed, with the flesh not yet enslaved to the passions resulting from corruption. But since he offended the God who had fashioned him, by disregarding the given command, and the eating of the forbidden things became for him the beginning of incontinence, from that moment he was conquered by the pleasures that entice toward evil, and the law of sin entered into the nature of the body, and, as from an unholy root, the passions of strange desires blossomed from corruption; and like some untamed beast, the love of pleasure at last raged within us, resisting the zeal for all that is best in every regard. And thus the divine Paul, as if groaning over the infirmities of nature, says: «For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I know not.» And again: «For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.» D If, then, anyone should look more precisely at the motion innate in the flesh toward the foulest perturbations, he will not have...
the good dwelling in us; for it forces the human mind A even to the necessity of choosing heedlessly to do what is unlawful, and it subjects it to the same yoke of slavery as those taken captive, doing violence to the free. The all-wise Paul also declares this resistance to be intolerable, saying: «For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.» Who then, indeed, brought the human nature into such weakness and misery? The all-wicked dragon, clearly, having entered into the still simple and innocent mind of the woman, and spoken against the ineffable glory. For even though Eve stated that the God of the universe had forbidden them to eat of the tree which was in the midst of the paradise of delight, and had threatened death to anyone who neglected the law, he deceived them, saying: «Ye shall not surely die; for God knows that in the day you eat of it, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.» Observe, then, how he became the inventor of deadly teachings. B For he said that the God of the universe had not spoken the truth to them, but rather that He had lied, and out of envy had forbidden them to eat, as One who knew well that they would be gods once they had eaten. He slandered, therefore, the supreme and ineffable nature, and cast the deadly doctrine of polytheism into the souls of the first humans; and for this reason he is called the slanderer, and most deservedly so. But, as I said, corruption broke into its nature through the transgression, and it brought in with it the manifold diseases that proceed from it—that which I consider the knowledge of good and evil; not, as someone might say, that the first parent Adam, or the first-born of men, had taken into his mind a simple knowledge of evil, but that he had arrived at the knowledge of evil through the things themselves and by experience. It is written, therefore: «And Adam knew Eve his wife.» And no one would surely C say that this is spoken of simple knowledge, or that the knowledge is posited now as existing only in notion, but the holy Scripture named the act of intercourse, knowledge. It is the custom, therefore, of the divinely inspired Scripture to sometimes denote knowledge gained through the experience itself of any of the things to be done by the name of "knowledge." And certainly, the Only-begotten Word of God, reshaping human nature into its original state, has indeed abolished sin by becoming man in the flesh; but, as I said, transferring us into the newness of life, He bids us recover the ancient dignity of nature, and exhorts us to return generously to that admirable beauty. He says then: «It was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you: Thou shalt not covet.» Although D the thing is, as I think, difficult for anyone to do and to grasp, and as it were above nature. But the divine Paul does not allow us to think this way, for he wrote: «For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.»
A And yet, the matter is difficult to attain, as I think, and hard for everyone to master, and, as it were, beyond nature. But not even Paul, the inspired, held such an opinion: «For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.» B Therefore, when the Only-begotten became man for our sake, the law of sin was abolished in the flesh, and our nature was, as it were, drawn back upwards, having made a return to that state in which we were in the beginning, clearly overpowering both death, and corruption, and carnal pleasure, and the other desires which used to plunder the idle and weak mind, having shown corruption to be visible.
These things, I think, have been necessarily stated. But since our discourse has somehow strayed from such matters, we must return to the path that existed in the beginning. The first humans were not in ignorance of good and evil within paradise. Being endowed with reason, they were allotted the knowledge becoming to humans, which was in perfect harmony with everything necessary for them and naturally innate to them, as the Creator had ordained. And having a mind unenslaved to the pleasures of the flesh and to strange desires, they continued in a holy and thrice-blessed life. But when, as I said, corruption rushed in, and the pleasures that move toward baseness were stirred in the flesh, they did not have a simple knowledge of evil, but now the malady had also come to them through experience. C And even if someone were to wish to direct the investigation to those intellectual substances that are above the body and senses, and affirm that it is entirely inherent in them to know what is good, and, moreover, the opposite, he would speak rightly. Yet not with passion, and through experience itself, and in such a way that they are entangled in it; just as we say that it certainly would have happened to us too in the course of events. For among the holy angels, those who still keep their own beginning live a glorious and thrice-blessed life, one to be admired in every way, having their mind turned and entirely focused on the good, and rejecting what is otherwise as base. For they are not in ignorance of evil, but they know it without being tyrannized and acting freely. But those who left their own dwelling-place, and neglected the better things, and chose the uglier ones, although they had the knowledge of evil even before the falls themselves, yet they have held it more clearly through experience itself. D But, if it seems good, let us fix our mind on the truth, and come, let us raise our discourse to the doctrine proposed to us and to that which transcends every mind. For shall we not admit that the divine and transcendent nature, so honorable and most pure, has the knowledge of good and evil? And then, how does He give laws, and forbid shameful things, and point out the modes of transgressions, and bring us toward better things, and render clear the means by which one might live brilliantly, and attain the truly select glory for this very reason? Therefore, the divine and ineffable nature is good and the sole producer of good, indeed is goodness itself: yet it is not ignorant of evil, but knows it, yet not unto action: which, after it happened to us, we have been afflicted with all evils. Having been instructed, therefore, in this way regarding this matter, let us see what follows. For that philosopher Julian concludes his discourse with these words:
JULIANUS.
A So the serpent was a benefactor rather than a destroyer of the human race. And not only this, but he adds again, saying: "In these things God is called envious. For when He saw man had become a partaker of wisdom, he expelled him from Paradise—so that he might not, he says, taste of the tree of life—explicitly saying: 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he extend his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of delight.' If each of these points is not a myth containing an inner symbolism—which I believe it is—this statement abounds in many blasphemies against God. For to be ignorant of that which was to be a help (the cause of the fall), and to forbid the knowledge of good and evil, by which alone the life of men seems to be sustained; and furthermore to be jealous, lest by partaking of life he might become immortal from mortal: this is the act of one who is excessively envious and malicious."CYRIL.
C The things which he has said are indeed abundant to refute the vanity of his words. But there is nothing inconvenient, nay, rather, it will be useful for the readers, to add a few things even now regarding the same matters. For God, the Lord of all, did not banish man from Paradise because he had acquired wisdom—for he was endowed with reason, and was made such from the beginning. Nor was it an act of envy and malice, as he has dared to say, for Him to prohibit him from eating of the tree of life, so that he might not live for ever. But the manner of the providence shown toward him in this very thing would be clear to those who have a sound mind. For it was not fitting that those who had once transgressed even the divine law, and had been overcome by the pleasures of the belly, and had consequently fallen into such misery that the law of sin had become weak in the very nature of the body, and who were destined to move into every kind of disgrace, should be kept in this world as an eternal evil, and, like the unclean spirits, live a long life hateful to the most holy God. D It would have been better, one might say, for those who had sinned against what is right, not to be seen as evil forever and eternally, but rather to cease, and as it were to reach the limit of evil, garnering for themselves at least some hope of mercy by having incurred death as a punishment once and for all. So, therefore, lest man, having obtained through that very experience the knowledge of evil which is hateful to God, should enjoy a long life on earth, he was restrained by the most wise counsel of death of the flesh, as God, who is merciful, did not ignore the proper time for His own clemency and humanity. This very thing the divine Paul teaches, that while it was a mystery foreknown to God before the foundation of the world, nevertheless in the last times...ceased, not being ignorant of the season appropriate to that calm and to the benevolence of God; and this the inspired Paul teaches, writing: "Having made known to us the mystery of His will... that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ," A for it was decreed that the mystery should be foreknown to God before the foundation of the world, but revealed in the last times of the age, at which it was necessary that the restoration of those things which had happened to human nature should take place. Consequently, these are by no means myths, but rather wise and necessary reasonings, and in no way err from the truth. For that the Creator of all things, seeing human nature tyrannized by sins, most economically subjected it to death—which, I say, first of all [occurred] in those around Adam—is sufficient, as I believe, for the demonstration of the truth, and the very experience of events will confirm it. Porphyry, a partaker of his own opinions, will also testify to this. For he writes as follows in his treatise *To Nemertius*: "God, however, knowing the future, often anticipates, leading some still young out of life because of their piety, and others because of injuries that are about to fall upon their kin; and pitying them, he removes them out of the way before they fall into future irreparable calamities." And indeed, elsewhere again, he says to the same effect: "Chrysippus, who follows Socrates, did not deem it right to add to what was happening, 'Who knows?' but rather: 'This was for the best.' For if a better administration than the divine cannot be portrayed, one must entirely suppose that what occurs is better as it is, as it happens to be. For surely, if you had received from the king of this place a part of the human domain to administer, and, in B the interest of the state, you were obedient to the laws, and could not otherwise preserve the lawful state than by removing some of the subjects, confiscating the property of others, and even putting others to death, nor could you preserve the life of all, because that would not be advantageous to all—shall we not then permit Him who administers so vast a world to manage His own affairs blamelessly, as it has been judged right for Him that the whole should be well, both by way of going through death, and through changes, and through the indeterminacy of the ages? He was, therefore, accusing his own teachers, who attribute no wrong action whatsoever to the secret providence of the Ruler of all, God, but rather, leaving them unexamined, honor them with the highest commendation. For they allot to the supreme knowledge—as it perfectly and skillfully knows, and as seems right to it alone—the governing of our affairs. For He whose nature is the principle, donor, and bestower of wisdom and prudence to all others, would by no means have erred from what is best and blameless, either in deed or word. God, therefore, did not envy. Nor, indeed, would He be overcome by the pricks of C emulation, as we are, but rather He arranged what had transpired with great skill. For that the first man was deceived into vain hope by the snares of the serpent, perhaps even thinking he would be God, having eaten of the tree, Moses has shown. For He introduced God of the universe saying: 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us.' Nor was it that he was God through transgression, but he was found to have fallen into the ultimate calamity. But let the fullness of the Holy Trinity be made known to us even from these words. For He who is above every creature did not say to any of the holy angels: 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us,' but rather the unique and ineffable nature itself, which is in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, makes these words. Then, having transferred the machine of his deceit elsewhere upon us, he attempts D to confer with the unhappy
A dogmas of the Christians, saying thus:
JULIANUS. Whatever those men think rightly concerning God, and whatever our ancestors handed down to us from the beginning, this is our doctrine: that the Architect of this world is present to it. For Moses said nothing at all concerning this above, for he did not even dare to say anything regarding the nature of the angels; but that they minister to God, he mentioned in many places and often. But whether they were created or uncreated, or created by another but ordered to minister to someone else, or in some other way, is nowhere defined. But concerning the heaven and the earth, and what is contained in them, and in what manner they were adorned, he narrates. And he says that God commanded some things to be brought into being, such as day, and light, and the firmament; and that he made others, such as the heaven and the earth, the sun and the moon. And that he separated things which existed, but were hidden, as I suppose in the case of water and dry land. Furthermore, he did not dare to say anything about the origin or creation of the Spirit, but only this one thing: "And the Spirit of God was moving over the water [a]"; but whether he is uncreated or created, he indicates nothing.
CYRILLUS. That he is unsuitably coining words, and having abandoned the more convenient path of speech, has fallen into the midst of trifles, you may see without any trouble. But to these things let us respond to him: That divine man Moses clearly B demonstrated to us the one and supreme, and God above all things, as the Maker of all, yet through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For thus, by being intent upon created things, the ineffable nature may be understood through relation. Why then does he most foolishly lie, saying that nothing at all was said about the supreme God, as he himself calls Him? For what is above Him who is above all things? What could be understood as the beginning of the beginning of the universe? For his parent and teacher, Plato, determined that the Architect of all is one cause, whom he also says was attentive to the world. But he said that another god—or the "Idea of the Good"—existed before him. Moreover, he fabricates a third C cause, inferior in order and nature to the first ones, which he calls the "soul of the universe." But we, having been enriched more wisely and more certainly with the gift of divine contemplation, have been taught to worship the one and true nature of the Godhead, which is above all created things, and which is in the Holy Trinity, following the voices of the heralds of God. We say, therefore, that God the Father is the Maker of all things through the Son in the Spirit, whose intelligible and supramundane beauty one may, I suppose, so far as is permitted, conjecture from thence. D
A And the manner in which created things are well-disposed, and indeed brought forth in the world as they ought to be for their existence, is manifest without labor. "For the invisible things of him," he says, "from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." We also say that the discourse of Plato himself is in harmony with these things; for he said that from the beauty of sensible things, one must ascend to the intelligible beauty of God; but from that which is in laws and customs, one must contemplate His virtue.
We, therefore, also praising the way of divine vision through this (for creation cries aloud for the Creator), do not marvel at the Father only from those things which we lately mentioned, but rather, as from an exact image of the Son, we are struck with greater wonder. For He writes to us intelligibly of His own Begetter in His own nature. B And that Plato himself—although he posits the first God, as he says somewhere, in rest and immobility—was not ignorant that He moves in another way through the second, according to what he also believes to be the creative manner, one may learn from his own words; for he said thus: "These lives are, some of the first God, others of the second." But it is clear that the first God will be standing, and the second, on the contrary, is always moving. The first, therefore, is concerned with things intelligible; the second, with things intelligible and sensible.
But do not marvel again if I have said this; for you shall hear something far more marvelous. For in place of the motion that is in the second, I declare that the state which is in the first is an innate motion, from which the order of the world, and the only eternal and saving order, is derived in the universe. When, therefore, the state of the first, as he calls it, is understood as innate—and that indeed deservedly—does not its motion which is in the first, for so it constitutes created things and distributes order and permanence to each, C confirm that the accuser of this writing of Moses is shouting in vain, saying that he stated nothing at all concerning the first and supreme God? And yet he had written clearly that all things were brought forth by the Father through the Son in the Spirit, so that they might be and subsist.
"But," he says, "he is found to have written nothing about the origin of the angels." For it was not appropriate to speak of things that cannot be understood. For if it is true that we find with difficulty the things that are in our hands, as it is written, and the investigation of the things that we perceive and opine is altogether difficult of access to our minds; who is there who can explain those things which are above sense, and possess a glory placed beyond our speech? For who would doubt that they are created, when he calls them ministers, and as it were bound by necessity to the nods of another? For everything that is under a yoke serves; and by nature there is nothing at all free that may be said to minister. D And David also chants somewhere: "Who makest his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." But because there is some such thing in the accusations against Moses—for he says that he said nothing at all concerning the divine Spirit, whether He be created or uncreated, but only that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"—let him hear from us, although it would have been better for him to attend carefully and weigh the words
A of what is said. For if it is entirely called the divine Spirit, how could it be thought of as created, or how could that which is created be naturally proper to the Uncreated? Therefore, in the very fact of saying that there is a Spirit of God, he has testified that it is also uncreated. For it is not, according to him, of a different nature or alien; what is substantially from Him would naturally be His own, if we reflect in a manner appropriate and fitting to the doctrines. Furthermore, he accuses the most excellent Moses B of having introduced to us the God of the universe, sometimes by bringing certain things into existence by His word, and at other times by actually making them. And to these points we say that his statement, formulated concerning all things, is excellent and most wise. For it was fitting, truly fitting, for the Author of all things to be revealed. And that He achieves what He wills by a word and a nod was a most useful addition. For even within us lies the ability to effect certain things, but not in the same way. Far from it; rather, by toil and working the material with our hands, we are called inventors and craftsmen of technique. Therefore, the workmanship of God will surpass us with an incomparable difference. For He brings into existence things that never were, yet is seen to be the accomplisher of works by will alone, and the Word co-ordinates what He wills with Him. But perhaps he understands none of these things; on the contrary, with hardened brow, as if giving free rein to his insults against God, he always devises something more detestable than what came before, and C strives to show that the God proclaimed by the writings of Moses must be and must be called merely one of many, and one of the gods thought of as partial, who has obtained only a tiny portion of the earth under heaven—I speak of Judaea—and has made only the race of Israel subject to Himself, and that this is a great thing for Him, and that He can barely provide for what is at hand; then, holding consistently to other absurd and childish thoughts, he thinks he has sufficiently performed his demonstration. I shall therefore set forth one by one each of the things he has babbled, passing over the greater part, and I will gather into a few words whatever is of the same intention. He says, therefore:
JULIAN. D Since Moses is not seen to have discussed everything concerning the immediate Creator of this world, let us compare the opinion of the Hebrews and our own ancestors regarding these very matters. Moses says that the Creator of the world chose for Himself the race of the Hebrews, and is intent upon that one, and cares for it, and attributes to it alone His diligence; but of other nations, how or under which gods they are governed, he makes not even the slightest mention, unless perhaps one would grant that He apportioned to them the sun and the moon. But we shall speak of these things a little later. Furthermore, that he says He is the God of Israel and Judaea alone, and that they are His chosen, both he himself and the prophets after him, and that Jesus the Nazarene—I shall demonstrate, but also that Him whom all who have ever
been known as sorcerers and deceivers, Paul, surpasses. Hear then their words. First, those of Moses: "And you shall say unto Pharaoh: Israel is My son, My firstborn. And I said: Let My people go, that they may serve Me; but you would not let them go." And a little later: "And they say unto him: The God of the Hebrews hath called us. We will go therefore into the wilderness, a journey of three days, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God." And after a few words, again in like manner: "The Lord God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying: Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness." B
CYRIL. To these he strings together other oracles collected from the Holy Scriptures, endeavoring to confirm that God is named as belonging to Israel alone, and that the race descended from Abraham is assigned to Him as a peculiar lot. Then he brings his speech to a conclusion: that it is fitting to think that the God of the Hebrews is not the Creator of the whole world, nor that He possesses power over all, but that He is confined, as I said, having a limited dominion, and is to be accounted as one mingled with the other gods. This, then, is the aim of the perversity that is in him. We shall—for our part—also meet his arguments point by point, opposing the truth to his deceits, so that those who admire him in their simplicity may see that he uses the expressions of the divinely inspired Scripture in an unrefined way, in order that he might appear to some as a wise man and one practiced in the dogmas of the Christians. That he understands absolutely nothing, but is boastful, thinks highly of himself, and lies unbridledly, the matter itself will teach us. He has therefore imputed to the God of the universe—pretending, I know not how, that He has abandoned the other nations—that Judea is attributed to Him alone, and that the yoke of His kingdom is allotted only to those of the blood of Israel. From whence, I think, anyone could very easily infer the feebleness of the mind that is in Julian; for he is utterly ignorant that the highest nature has all creation under Its feet, and provides for the universe as a whole. Yet, we say that the knowledge of God is deeply implanted in human nature, and that the Creator has sown into it an innate awareness of everything useful and necessary for salvation. Nor was it, in fact, anything incongruous that, being granted such a constitution, and indeed from the creation of the world, from its order and beauty and the constancy found in these things, a person proceeding uprightly toward the truth should be able to see how great is the wisdom and power of Him who brought it into being and produced it, who is beyond all things. And the most excellent Moses has also schooled us well toward this, having stirred up like a dormant fire the law that lies within our nature. For when he organizes for us the discourses about God, he says that He is the Creator of the entire world, with nothing at all excepted. "For in the beginning," he says, "God made the heaven and the earth," C signifying, I think, in a summary and brief fashion, the things contained by both. And again: "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth. In the day that God made heaven and earth, and every herb of the field." If therefore he attacks us with the words of Moses, let him believe Moses.
A He who fashioned this whole by a nod, and brought it into existence by his word, and possesses a power so supernatural and incomprehensible to every mind—he who made man upon the earth—how would he have wished to rule over only a few, though it was in his power to be poured out over all things, and not to be confused in the estimation of others with gods, nor to have a limited dominion? Come, let us inquire more curiously into the causes of his will, or rather, let him come himself to teach us. B Did he therefore lack the strength, and does he not possess the power to provide for all things? How then does he appear to have sufficed for the making and creation of these things? For it would be truly incredible, I think, and senseless to say that he possesses sufficient faculty and power to create, but not likewise the power to rule over them. But that he rules in a manner befitting God, how is it not effortless to see? For the creation, just as it was made in the beginning, so it loves to move even until now, and there is nothing that has disturbed it into disorder. For the sun is carried about in the cosmos, and rolls its circle from rising to setting. Similarly, the moon governs the night, and the bright chorus of the stars is governed by the same law. In turn, the changes of the seasons happen, and the returns of night and day take place, measured by corresponding intervals, as do the returns of fruits, the falling of ripened crops, and the begetting of land animals, of birds, and of sea creatures; and I will add to these our own affairs as well. He therefore who has imposed the inescapable yoke of his will upon created things C seems to me to rule most powerfully over the universe of things, and not to have abandoned them to others, nor to have set up bitter masters over his own creatures, namely the falsely-named gods, that is to say, the unclean demons. Therefore, the most wise Moses introduced to us the Creator of all things as God. Observe, then, observe if the facts themselves do not correspond to the words of his. For he says that to the sun was ordained the rule of the day, and that in the same manner the moon was set for the power of the night; and furthermore for seasons and signs, and to shine upon those on the earth, the chorus of the stars. And he who wrote these things does not desire that worship be given to others rather than to God, nor to created things, but he commanded that they be devoted to the one Creator of the universe. For he says: "Lest, having looked up to heaven, and seen the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the array of heaven, you be led astray and worship them, which the Lord your God has assigned to the nations which are under heaven." How then does he say that the God of all things neglected the rest of the multitude of nations, and ruled only over those from Israel, and bestowed his own providence upon them, even though the writer of the sacred books says that the benefits of the Creator have been distributed to all the nations under heaven? Nor indeed should the value of such a great good be diminished by these words: unless someone confesses that he gave the sun and the moon to them. For what he, whom we worship, from the writings of Moses, who were of the blood of Israel,
A demonstrates—and we shall show this continuously from the divinely inspired Scripture itself—that God is the God of all, and is found to have distributed his own providence to all those everywhere on earth. But, as if retracing our steps in the discourse, we shall proceed to the first man, that is, Adam.
He was fashioned, therefore, by God, and from him the entire race sprang up, I mean the human race. God, then, being over all, the man on earth—or rather, the entire race—is understood. For the master of the root may rightfully claim as his own those who have sprouted from it. From the first man, two youths were born: Cain and Abel. They were the first to offer sacrifice, and the former did so rightly, but the latter not so. B Yet, He praised the upright and righteous Abel; the sacrifice of the other, however, He did not accept; and very rightly so. For it was necessary, it was necessary through those who were the authors of reverence toward God and of piety, that those who were to come after them should learn how, most excellently and blamelessly, honor—that which is becoming and owed to Him—should be offered to God. And this was, as I suppose, the act of One who provides and cares for the manner in which those who have chosen for themselves a life of distinction might live brilliantly. For I truly affirm that piety toward God is a great prize, and one truly worth acquiring. C And after that pair of brothers, there arose other devotees of justice, admired for their virtue and, by their progress in every good thing, having obtained the prize for the best of all. Among these, I say, was the thrice-blessed Enoch, of whom the holy Scripture says that he was not found, for God translated him. Him, therefore, Enoch translated; for everything that is exceptional and admirable and shines with the glory of virtues is dear and familiar to Him. But since all the earth had corrupted its way, as it is written, and the heart of man had inclined toward evil from his youth, He sent the flood upon all the inhabitants of the earth, D as if reclaiming a garden that had grown wild and become wasteland, and having preserved in it a noble plant—the most excellent Noah—so that from him the human race might be transformed into another, as it were, beginning, and be saved again on the earth.
But what does he say to this, he who has neglected no method of accusation against us, the man skilled in speech and in falsehoods? For if the God of the Hebrews were confined only to Judea, and held a limited scepter, tell me, how did He send down the cataracts of heaven upon the inhabitants of the earth, and again, having covered the whole earth with waters, condemn all in a single judgment? But if He did not rule over all, as he says, why did the other gods remain silent? For it was necessary, it was necessary for them to bring aid to their own worshippers, and for each to struggle fiercely for his own kingdom. But I know not how they either betrayed their own, or were slothful in defending the lot assigned to them. Are these things not ridiculous, therefore, and old wives' fables? Indeed, is it not a clear demonstration that He cannot be a particular
God, nor must one imagine that the One proclaimed to the world through Moses is one of the false so-called gods? A For he declared Him to be the Maker of the world and Lord of all, yet he says that He chose the race from Abraham as a kind of first-fruits of the other nations, to be brought into the knowledge of God by Him as their tutor, just as those previously called were received in the root. But this noble fellow, passing over the first of Moses’ writings, attempts to define God’s sovereignty solely by His election of Israel. But, O excellent sir, one might say in response to this: He who in later times "netted" Abraham by his counsel, and honored the nation sprung from him with a most beautiful decree, claiming it as His own lot because the other nations were not yet called—this very One, and no other, is He who "hast set firm the heaven and founded the earth in its stability," as it is written, and has made, in a word, the whole of creation, visible and invisible. If, however, stuck in the mire of unbelief, he rejects the discourse of the most wise Moses concerning God, this will not in the slightest harm the power of the truth. For as the all-wise Paul writes: B "Shall not our unbelief destroy the faithfulness of God?" But since he dares to subject the sovereignty of the one and truly existing God to boundaries and limits, citing the sayings of the saints, and bringing forward the words of the most wise Moses himself, through which God is seen naming Israel His own peculiar lot, come, let us ourselves oppose to him other words of the saints, that declare Him to be the God of all. The blessed prophet Isaiah thus says: "Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven, this is God, who showed forth the earth and made it, He fashioned it, He did not make it in vain, but that it might be inhabited: I am, and there is none else beside me." And indeed elsewhere: "I am thy God who makest firm the heaven and createst the earth; whose hands have fashioned all the host of heaven, and I did not show them to thee so that thou shouldst go after them." And He has also addressed Cyrus somewhere, who took Babylon by force: "I have called thee by my C name, and I will accept thee; but thou hast not known me, that I am the Lord God, and there is no God besides me. I strengthened thee, and thou didst not know me: that they may know who are from the rising of the sun and the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord God, and there is no other. I am He who fashioned light and made darkness." These, then, are sufficient, as I believe, even if taken alone. But if he thinks he needs others, I will add these as well. For it is written again: "Look up to heaven with your eyes, and see who has shown forth all these things. Who brings out His host by number, and will call them all by name, by reason of His abundant glory, and in the strength of His might. I am God the first, and unto the things that are coming I am. The nations saw, and the ends of the earth feared." D
A Who, then, would dare to say that an insignificant and restricted dominion was assigned to Him? And this despite the fact that He brought the entire creation into existence, and is the Creator and Lord of all. But if one were to choose to recall the plagues brought upon the Egyptians, one would marvel, for there is surely in Him an all-encompassing power, and an unsearchable height of the excellence that is in Him. For the whole of creation, yielding as it were to the nods of the One who rules it, armed itself against those who offended Him. B And since Israel is named "firstborn," what was to prevent a man of such learning from being able to understand that no one would be called "firstborn" if there were not others to whom he might be preferred before all? Therefore, if Israel is the firstborn of God, he surely has other brothers as well, under God the Father. For if there be some who were later than the one first called Israel, they are not on that account excluded from the number of the children of God; for He is understood to be the Father of all, as He who has provided the cause for all things to exist—or rather, He is Himself the beginning and origin of all. For that all who are on the earth are to be reckoned among the children of God, as being the works of God, we shall also know from this: The leader of the synagogue of the Jews (this was Caiaphas) said that it was beneficial to the people of Israel that Christ should be taken from the midst. C And the evangelist signifies this and says: "This he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad." The entire human race on earth is divided into two nations, I mean into the Jews, and indeed into the nations (the Gentiles). Christ, therefore, was destined to endure the death of the flesh not for the sake of those from Israel alone, but that He might also gather into one the other children of God, who had been dispersed by the craftiness of the devil into the error of polytheism—that is, by bringing them into one and unerring knowledge of God—and might create the two peoples into one new man, making peace, according to the Scriptures, and reconcile both in one body to the Father. But he who revels insatiably in his foolish chatter against God says again as follows: D
JULIANUS
"But that God cared only for the Jews from the beginning, and that this was His own special portion, is shown to have been said not only by Moses and Jesus, but also by Paul; although this is something to be wondered at concerning Paul. For he changes his dogmas about God to suit the occasion, like octopuses to the rocks; at one moment he contends that the Jews alone are the inheritance of God, and at another he tries to persuade the Greeks to join them, saying: 'Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.' It is reasonable, then, to ask Paul, if God was not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, for what reason He sent a great deal of the prophetic spirit, and Moses, and the anointing, and the prophets, andthe prophetic spirit, and Moses, and the anointing, and the prophets, and the law, and the wonders, and the prodigies of the fables? And you hear them crying out: "Man ate the bread of angels." A And at the end He sent Jesus to them, not a prophet, not an anointing, not a teacher, not a herald of the divine clemency finally coming even to us; but He also overlooked myriads, or if you like, thousands of years, in such great ignorance, serving idols, as you say, all those from the rising sun to the setting thereof, and from the midst of the north to the south, except for a small nation, and one not even settled in a part of Palestine two thousand whole years ago. For if He is the God of us all, and equally the Creator of all, why did He overlook us? And after other things: "Shall we also attend to you, that you have imagined the God of all things, at least by a bare notion, B or as one of your own lineage?" Are not all these things partial? For is God a jealous God? And why does God also get jealous, punishing the sins of the fathers upon the children?
CYRIL. But that God cared for those from the blood of Israel, as He Himself says, how is it not evident to all? For it was fitting, and it was necessary that those who were yoked to the divine law, and had departed from the error of the polytheistic throng, should not be devoid of His indulgence; nay, rather, that they should be instructed through those things by which it was likely they would return quite well toward better things, and gradually progress to the point of being able to learn the mystery of Christ. C But that he calls the divine Paul an impostor, because he rebukes his own fathers and does not absolve them of guilt, I will pass over, since no one is ignorant of it. But since he argues that he changes mystical decrees according to circumstances—that which he surely and most rightly said: "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since God is one"—I would most gladly ask him for what reason, as if they were less good, he rebukes these expressions. For he will not strip God of the majesty innate to Him, nor of the lordship over all things, because some have revolted from His dominion, and have been ignorant of the excellence of the glory that is in Him. For if some people despise the public and established laws, shall we take away the name of legislators from those who are famous for the glory of writing laws? D And if someone of those who are subject to the power of the emperor violates his duty, shall the one who sits upon the throne of the empire and is gloriously adorned with supreme majesty be cast down? Or if some, clearly, who are deprived of their sight, do not see the splendor of the sun's rays, shall anyone say that the star is therefore devoid of light, or will he rather pity them for their infirmity? If, therefore, he wishes to show himself fair, why does he dare to call such a venerable and such an admirable man a hypocrite, who has most wisely fought against the Jewish pride and the ignorance of some? For because some, out of excessive imprudence, feeling the same things as this adversary of ours, desiring that He rule over one region of the Jews, Since
the master of mysteries strikes down this opinion very prudently, and resists those who think such things, armed with the weapons of truth, and says: "Is He the God of the Jews alone, but not of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God." For if there is one God over all, and there is no other besides Him, He must be the Lord of all, because He is the Creator of all. That He is the God of the Gentiles also, He has most fully proven through the innate laws which the Creator engraved upon the hearts of all: "For when the Gentiles," he says, "which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts." B But if He were only of the Jews, and not also of the Gentiles, and God and Creator, how are they who have not the law a law unto themselves, arriving at this through an innate discipline? For nature is enriched automatically with the knowledge of everything good, having attained even this by the nod of the Creator. Therefore, His providence deems worthy not only those who are of the blood of Israel, but also, as I said, those who are throughout the whole earth. For there is one Lord of all. But because he [Julian] attempts to show, with no art or reason at all, that He is God and Lord only of those who are from Abraham—which is something that, in his view, the Gentiles never attained, for he says: "It was necessary, if the nations were of any account to Him, to have sent the prophetic Spirit to them also, and to have displayed for them prophetic mystagogues, and before all, to have let the sacred laws shine forth—those, I mean, through the all-wise Moses—and for divine signs to have been shown"—we say this, checking the intemperance of his tongue. For, O excellent man, C that it is dangerous, and indeed discordant, to fight against divine decrees, would be, I think, something manifest and acknowledged; but it is timely for one to remember the words of Isaiah, and indeed to say: "Who has measured the water with his hand, and heaven with a span, and the whole earth with his fist? Who has set the mountains in a balance, and the forests in a scale? Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" For the Divine is all-powerful and stands in need of absolutely nothing; rather, It imparts both wisdom and understanding to those worthy to receive them. Furthermore, is it not also worthy to consider this? Those who are accustomed to break in colts, and are masters of this art, if they have very many horses brought to them for this purpose, do they harness them all together in a crowd, or one by one and separately? But, I think, it is clear to everyone that they bring them to the ways of running well not in a crowd, but rather one by one. And if the latter ones, having others go before them, were to complain because they were not taught first—even though he who undertook to guide them was not ignorant of the time appropriate for each—who would not acquit him of blame, or rather, not of blame, but of a putrid charge and calumny? For he who was teaching was certainly not sluggish; but the nature of things granted to the first that they should be put under the art first. But if the trainer had no care at all
A for those who came after the first, he should be justly reproached, for he neglected them entirely. But if he has observed the proper time for the transition of each, and the due return for those who were called before, let him be exempt from the charge. But having moved from this brief image to greater and far more elevated things, let us, come now, come, contemplate the ineffable dispensation of the all-wise God. For to Israel, who was called before, those things were given through which it was likely that, having been freed from ancient maladies, he would dwell upon better things, and be made radiant by the fear of God, and, being filled with the gentleness according to the law, be seen to be enviable and worthy of admiration. Yet the other multitude of the Gentiles has also been deemed worthy of sparing and providence as at the fitting time. For they have been called after them, and they possess an inheritance which has been set apart, and they are superior to the former. For the ones were under law B and punishment, but the others under grace and forgiveness. And the ones were mediated through a servant, but the others through the Son Himself by nature. And the spirit in them was of slavery; but in us it is of freedom and adoption—that is, the Holy Spirit—for through Him we cry, "Abba, Father." But if someone now says: "Why did Israel go before?" there is no one, I suppose, who will not say in anger, "Dismiss these things, O good sir; know thyself, if you deem yourself worthy to harbor an opinion of the wise." For the pure mind knows, it knows the time befitting each of things. Or shall we grant to the experience of physicians to offer to those who ask, at whatever time they might wish, and according to the times they might choose, that which they think will result in benefit and aid to the sick—but shall we reproach and, with reckless audacity, say of the all-excellent and supreme Mind that this or that was not done well by Him? And yet, how is it not better to say that we are surpassed and C bested by Him in wisdom as much as the space that intervenes and separates us according to the principles inherent in our natures? Let these things, then, be said concerning the legation of the all-wise Moses. But that the Savior of all, God, has shown care for the nations, and not for Israel alone, we shall demonstrate without labor. For it is clearly seen that He has bestowed His providence upon the Gentiles, even prior to that calling from Egypt of those who were brought into the promised land through Moses.
110 For those indeed who have finely and precisely numbered the times from the beginning of the age, and who have pursued them with the greatest subtlety, bring down from Adam to Noah, the tenth from him, D the number of years to perhaps two thousand two hundred and forty-two. Yet in the holy Scriptures we shall find absolutely no one of those who existed in that time implicated in the crimes of polytheistic error. For they were made guilty of other things, and not in vain did they perish, the deluge having been brought upon them: "For," it says, "all flesh had corrupted its way." But as I said, we shall find no reproach of idolatry at all. But after the deluge, from the sons of Noah,
and these were three — as if from another beginning, the human race extended into an immeasurable multitude. Nine hundred and forty-two years having passed, while those from the blood of Noah were scattered everywhere and had settled in the regions toward the east and the rising sun, and having already gathered into cities, the first of men to rule the land of the Assyrians was an arrogant man of haughty brow, Belus, who is also said to be the first of men to have taken the name of divinity from those under his hand. And so the Assyrians and the nations neighboring them have continued to offer sacrifice and worship to him. After Belus came his son Ninus; and after Ninus, Ninyas, from whom also is named Nineveh, which it is said his wife Semiramis enclosed with impregnable walls. Now, while Ninus was governing the kingdom of the Assyrian land, the divine Abraham appeared; he abominated the undertaking of the Assyrians, and was distressed that the glory of God was being wronged. Therefore, he was snatched from the midst of those who were deceived, and was called to the light of true knowledge of God. And then, how did that expert in discourses fail to know that God cared for the salvation of the Gentiles? For behold, behold, of those who were instructed in piety through the Law and the Prophets, Abraham became the root, whom we say was called from the error of polytheism to the precise knowledge of the God who is in reality. We say, therefore, that the care and providence of the God who is over all for the Gentiles appears older even than the calling of those from Israel out of Egypt; so that the calling of the Gentiles is the very purpose of the calling of the Hebrews B, as having been completed in the beginning of the race in Abraham, whom he snatched, as it were, from a wild forest and made a genuine worshiper. And so he said something of this sort through one of the holy prophets: "As a grape in the wilderness have I found Israel, and as a first-ripe fruit in a fig tree have I seen their fathers." For a grape is indeed a thing hard to procure and hard to find in the wilderness. But once found, I think it is most desirable to one who has seen it, and a thing to be seized upon; and most sweet also among figs is that which has ripened before the others, that is to say, early, and is already somehow more ready for eating. "Thus," he says, "I have seen Israel; and thus I found their fathers." For they were idolaters and superstitious throughout the whole region of the Assyrians; but, as I said before, as a grape in the wilderness, and as a first-ripe fruit in a fig tree, the divine Abraham was snatched. And he very well compares Abraham to the first-ripe figs; for that which is early among fruits, as if the others were to follow it, is called by such a name. As, therefore, the others would not be long in following in his footsteps, and the other nations were all but ready to ripen, the faithful Abraham was the first-ripe fruit, the first-fruits of the calling of the Gentiles. Then who was it who brought this about? Christ, evidently. For the Word was God, and co-eternal with the Father, even if he came to be according to C us in the last times of the age. Therefore he levels charges and says: "Why did the Father not rather send him as Savior and Redeemer to the Gentiles; but was he more gratified toward the Israelites?" Let him therefore hear
the holy prophets crying out concerning him, so that he may clearly learn that Christ has become a hope for the Gentiles. The all-wise Isaiah therefore spoke of him: "It shall be in that day, there shall be one Lord, and his name one, surrounding all the earth." And he himself says somewhere through one of the prophets: "Rejoice and be glad, daughter of Zion, because behold I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, says the Lord. And many nations will flee to the Lord in that day; and they shall be to him for a people, and they shall dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you." And again: "For thus says the Lord Almighty: Yet once I will shake the heaven and the earth, and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations; and there shall come the chosen of all the nations, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord Almighty." B And to heap up other things to what has been said is indeed not difficult; but since for the fullest and most indubitable faith the outcome of events is sufficient—for the multitude of the Gentiles has been called and has been sanctified through Christ, if it should persevere in his faith—it would be in a certain sense superfluous to think that these things need further confirmation by many more examples; for the multitude of the nations has been called, and through Christ has been sanctified by faith in him, if it but remains. It is therefore somehow vain to think that these things must be confirmed by even more arguments.
If the sacred Scriptures speak of God as a "jealous" one, and one who even "repayeth the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him," let no one be scandalized; for the divine and ineffable nature is not as we are. C It is situated in such a high place and tends toward such a height, in a spiritual manner, that the reasons for the difference are incomparable. For in us, our affections in individual matters are joined with perturbation; for our nature suffers from the sickness of weakness and an excessive proclivity toward sin. But in the God of all, such things are signified by human voices and words; they are not, however, understood in that way. For the Godhead is without affection. Furthermore, he is said to be "jealous" because he does not wish any of those who have once recognized his glory to be shaken by impulses toward worse things; for it is not right, nay, it is completely impious, to despise his worship and to pay homage to profane and impure demons. If, therefore, he is said to be jealous, D he would certainly exercise it in these very matters, in the way we have just described, since he is good by nature and wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. It is the mark of one who is good in truth not to make light of it if any, having perchance lapsed from the truth and thrusting the divine light from their own minds, should through ignorance slip into choosing to follow worse things, and fill their own mind with darkness and imprudence. For to those who are well established in the necessity of being seen as single-minded and wise, there will certainly follow rewards from God; but for those who incline toward what is not right, there follow punishments, and judgment, and the damage that comes from these things. He is therefore jealous, if it is at all appropriate to speak in a human manner, since he does not bear it without grief if
A he should see any of those who were fashioned by him perishing miserably. But it was necessary for those whom we have signaled once to learn this, so that they might know that sloth will not go unpunished for them. For does it not befit true fathers, regarding good children, to have this mindset? How then is that phrase open to dispute: "He repays the sins of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation"? It is not stated absolutely; for it has been added by necessity, and indeed by the best of rights: "to those who hate him." Whence one may indeed marvel greatly at the incomparable gentleness of the Lord of all. For if there should be any among men who are slothful and lovers of sin, and thereby sharpening the hatred of the Lawgiver against themselves; having long-suffering toward the first, and not infliciting the penalty for their offenses immediately in their footsteps, he grants this also to the second; and his long-suffering sometimes proceeds even to the third generation. But if those who are born from them, regarding the B ancestral lapses, should decide not to yield at all, and should perhaps become even worse and more savage, and—looking quite disproportionately toward sloth—should persist in it, then, and only then, and most deservedly indeed, he punishes, though barely and reluctantly. For he is good by nature, and is the beginning and the source of all gentleness. And we remember that he teaches this same thing also most clearly through the voice of Ezekiel. For he said: "The soul that sins, it shall die. And the son shall not take upon himself the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father take upon himself the iniquity of his son. Each one in his sin in which he sinned, in it he shall die." This is the holy sentence of God who judges justly, nor would he himself contend against his own laws. It must therefore be understood piously, that he repays the sins of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation, "to those who hate him"; that is, if neither the first, nor the second, nor the third, and those after them, should desist C from their impious and sin-loving mindset. For these would indeed be the ones who hate God, because they dare to oppose his divine decrees, and the penalty that comes to those who are thus condemned follows justly and as it is deserved.
OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS CYRIL, ON THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF JULIAN THE ATHEIST. BOOK FOUR.
A He has therefore accused the majesty of God, and has most foully declaimed against the ordinances of Moses: as if he could not otherwise assign the first place to the superstitions of the Greeks, unless he diminished the Christian faith as much as he certainly can by impostures and reproaches. Although it were better, as it seems to me, for their opinions to be defended by the things themselves, if they had any truth in them, and not to be adorned with the sought-after trappings of words: just as truly harlots attempt to drive away the turpitude of their actions with the blandishments of their voices and with foreign elegances. But concerning Julian, and any other supporter of Julian, let us also say, according to the voice of the Savior: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof, and he abode not in the truth." It is difficult, therefore, or rather impossible, that truth should proceed from an ethnic mouth and a mind full of diabolical efficacy. But this distinguished spirit assumes much for himself, and audaciously inveighs against his own ancestors. For he does not admit the sayings of the poets, and calls them makers of fables. Yet he glories and prides himself in the words of Plato alone, and clings to him only; although he was the last of the others, nor did he lack sluggish adversaries even among his own disciples. Among whom is one of the most haughty brow, and immoderately arrogant, and a man of the highest ability in the exquisite care of establishing dogmas and in reasoning; his disciple is Aristotle, and others after him also not a little commended by the name of the same science. But in what way the opinions of both of them differ—
and how they cannot be reconciled, I shall forbear A to say. For the discussion that has already been made regarding these things is sufficient for us. But I shall now turn to this point: for, following, as I said, the opinions of Plato, and adding, I believe, his own, he declares the proximate creator of the world, as he himself says, to be the Lord of all, and after having subjected all things to his scepters, he in another way again strips him of his authority over us, and he does not blush to distribute his kingdom to certain innumerable gods, and others besides him. For he writes again thus:
JULIAN.
B But now consider again these things from our side. For our people say that the Creator is indeed the common father and king of all, but that the remainder of the nations have been distributed by him to the ethnarches and guardian gods, each of whom administers his own lot as is befitting to himself. For since in the Father all things are perfect, and all things are one, but in the particular things, one power prevails in one and another in another: Mars indeed directs the military affairs of the nations; Minerva the same, with the addition of prudence; Mercury, those things which are of greater skill than boldness: and thus, according to the nature C of each, the gods follow, as well as the nations which they themselves care for. If, therefore, experience does not bear witness to our words, then let what we say be a fiction and an untimely persuasion; and let your views be commended. But if, on the contrary, experience from of old bears witness to what we say, while to your doctrines nothing anywhere appears to be in agreement, why do you cling to this obstinacy? For let it be told to me, what is the cause why the Celts and Germans are bold; but the Greeks and Romans are for the most part civil and humane, and at the same time constant and warlike; the Egyptians wiser and more skillful; the Syrians unwarlike and delicate, yet at the same time wise, and warm, and light, and docile? For of this difference among the nations, if one perceives no cause, but rather says that these things happen by chance, how then can anyone still think the world is governed by D providence? But if he holds that there are causes for these things, let him tell me through the Creator himself, and let him teach me.
CYRIL.
Opportune again will be this utterance of ours through the voice of the prophet Ezekiel: "Woe to those who prophesy from their own heart, and see nothing at all. For who has known the mind of the Lord, as it is written, or who has been his counselor?" For this fine fellow lies, and while posing as a partner, so to speak, of the divine counsels, he says that the nations have been distributed to certain ethnarches and guardian demons, or rather, according to him, gods. Let him then, therefore, teach those who desire to learn whether it is by reason of weakness, and because he does not have the power equal to that task,
A or because he surrendered the responsibility of providing for others; he who is omnipotent and possesses the power to rule without effort. If, therefore, he says that the Creator of the world grew weak and renounced his authority, he indicts the Creator and ascribes weakness to the Substance that surpasses all things. But if he knows that he possesses the power to rule, and yet says that he chose not to do so, let him teach the reasons. For if he says that the hosts of nations were assigned to the gods who are the guardians of cities as being more skilled in ruling, he must, whether he likes it or not, confess himself to be the leader of such shameful dogmas: that the Creator of all, the immediate Maker of the world, for some reason I know not, created others superior to himself and far more ingenious.
But if they were to govern less well, and not as he himself knows how and is able, it would surely not be good to yield the things created by him to others, so that they might enjoy that which is superior. "But," he says, "he did not want to do this." Yet how can such an excuse avoid the charge of pride and of remarkable disdain? For why did he wish to create those whose rule he disdains, and whose management he deems too humble and inferior to his own glory? But I, on the contrary, say that it is desirable and truly to be sought after, that each one should endeavor, as much as possible, to express the likeness of the most pure God through noble deeds and the pursuit of piety. Therefore, even if he is a lover of virtue, he nevertheless permitted the administration of the nations to others. Or was it so that they might teach this, or certainly, as he himself says, so that according to their own judgment, they might persuade and, indeed, compel those who are subject to them to believe and to do whatever each of those who have received the charge might choose, and to follow the opinions of their rulers? B If, indeed, he says that they were given so that they might be directed according to the nod and will of God, how is it that not all men who inhabit the earth are necessarily seen to be gentle and upright, skilled in every virtue, and of one and the same will? For the will of God is not diverse, nor is it carried in another direction, but rather it is uniform towards what is good and towards anything that is worthy of admiration.
But if he insists that they were not given to the tutelary gods of the cities, so that, as he says, each one might attend to his own lot in his own way, come, let us examine whether he dares to accuse divine providence while thinking and speaking these things. For the Celts, and besides them the Germans, are bold and cruel; the Greeks and Romans are for the most part civilized and humane; the Syrians are voluptuous. I would add also those nations who dwell in the East. For the Scythians are savage and murderous; they say the Chaldeans unite with their mothers and have intercourse with their sisters, and commit the most shameful acts of all without anyone to rebuke them—or rather, they are even encouraged to do so by their own ancestral laws. And so that I may mention something from the Mosaic writings, the inhabitants of Sodom, being inflamed by the forms of males, and savagely pursuing forbidden pleasures, perished by fire as abominable and profane. But the Romans piously condemn such obscene acts, being cultivators of justice and equity, lovers of discipline, and the fiercest enemies of impiety and every vice. Since, therefore, each individual god who presides over the cities, by his own nod, perhaps maintains such a mind and C
judgment in those subject to him—for instance, in the Persians and Medes, that which is in them; in the Germans and Celts, savageness and cruelty; in the Scythians, the necessity to commit murder and to exult cruelly in human slaughter; in the Romans, the necessity that they should consider noble deeds especially praiseworthy—what is this, most noble sir, one might say, or of what kind of providence is this the work? And why, indeed, should we any longer accuse the nations by right, even if we see them involved in the ultimate crimes? Or how shall we praise the followers of the best discipline for their noble deeds if it was not permitted to them, nor to others, to do freely what they wished, but, as if bound by necessity to the customs and laws of the gods who were the guardians of each city, they operated in vice or virtue? For it follows very naturally that those who have chosen of their own will to do good are worthy of praise; however, those who are followers of impiety and who, by the impulse of their own will, have embraced such counsel, ought to be punished and judged by the laws. But if those of whom we speak were neither good nor bad in their characters—since, as you said, it was not permitted to them to know and do better things, nor, likewise, to do worse—then we must necessarily abstain from the praises of the good, just as we do from the censures of the bad. Therefore, the exhortations of fathers to their children will be a certain futile thing and thoroughly vain; likewise, their instructions through learned teachers will perhaps be superfluous and an empty song. Furthermore, we shall abolish the laws themselves, which are the arbiters of things to be done or not to be done. For if it is not permitted for each person to pursue whatever path of life he wishes, but he is instead impeded by the nod of others—nay, rather, can absolutely neither escape nor free himself from this bond—then the laws and all other useful things must now be removed, as I have said. And so I would gladly address my adversary with these words: "There are indeed many and innumerable flocks of nations that inhabit the earth which is under the sun; among them, some are of savage customs and entirely untamable, and they lead a life infamous for every crime, yet count it as praise; others live honestly and laudably, valuing probity and equity most highly." Yet that wise man maintains that all have been assigned to gods and demons who are the curators and presidents of the spheres, and even to angels and a special class of souls. Does he, then, praise the affairs of the Greeks and glory in the laws of the Romans, or will he grant the first place to the customs and morals of those others? Or does he marvel at the boldness and untamable nature of the barbarians, or will he consider those who have inclined toward gentleness as rightly to be preferred to the rest? But, in my opinion, he himself censures the affairs of the former, while he holds the institutions of the latter in greater admiration. But how has the Maker and Parent of all given to some, leaders who are fierce and harsh, and who can lead their own toward no part of what is honest, while to others he has given those who are gentle and wise? Will anyone, even unwillingly, say that the supreme mind has taken poor counsel, and will the facts themselves, in a certain way, cry it out? For it is clearly possible for everyone to see, if only they wish, that as it is easy to incite barbarian nations to unbridled impulses, [the gods] instill such thought in their subjects, just as to the Persians and Medes, that they may live according to their own customs; to the Germans and Gauls, that they may serve cruelty and atrocity; to the Scythians, that they may perform slaughters and exult cruelly in homicides; to the Romans, that they may think noble deeds especially to be praised: what does this mean, most noble sir, will someone say, or whose providence is this work? Why, indeed, should we accuse the nations by right, even if we see them involved in the final crimes? Or how shall we praise the followers of the best discipline for noble deeds, if it was not permitted to them, nor yet to others, to do freely what they wished, but, bound as if by necessity to the customs and laws of each city's guardian gods, they operated in vice or virtue? For those who have embraced good of their own free will are to be praised, and rightly so; yet those who are cultists of impiety, and who have undertaken that counsel by the impulse of their own will, must be punished and judged by the laws. But if those of whom we speak were neither good nor bad in their morals—since, as you said, it was not permitted to them either to know and do better things, nor was it permitted to do worse—it is necessary that we abstain from the praise of the good and likewise from the reproof of the bad. Therefore, the exhortations of fathers to their children will be some futile thing and indeed vain: likewise, their instructions through learned teachers will perhaps be superfluous, and an empty song. Moreover, we shall abolish the laws themselves, which are the judges of things to be done or not. For if it is not lawful for each person to pursue the path of life he wishes, but he is rather impeded by the nod of others, indeed he is absolutely unable to escape or free himself from this bond; then the laws and all other things that are useful, as I have said, must be removed. It pleases me, therefore, to address the adversary with these words: "Multi indeed and innumerable are the flocks of nations that inhabit the land which is under the sun; among whom some are of savage customs, and entirely untractable, and they lead a life infamous with every crime, holding it for praise; others live honestly and laudably, valuing integrity and equity most highly." Yet that wise man maintains that all have been assigned to the curators and presidents of the spheres, the gods and demons, and even to angels and a special kind of soul. Does he, therefore, praise the affairs of the Greeks and glory in the laws of the Romans, or will he defer the first places to their customs and morals? Or does he marvel at the audacity and intractable spirit of the barbarians, or will he think those inclined toward gentleness are rightly to be preferred to the rest? But, in my opinion, he himself finds fault with the affairs of the former; but he holds the institutions of the latter in admiration rather. But by what pact has the Opificer and Parent of all given to some, fierce and harsh presidents, who can lead their own toward no part of the honest, but to others, those who are gentle and wise? Will anyone, therefore, say, even against his will, that that supreme mind has taken poor counsel, and will it not in a certain way cry out from the very things themselves? For it is clearly visible to all, if they only wish, that [the gods] incite barbarian nations to unbridled impulses,
and they rush toward murder in such a way that they think nothing better. Of all these things, then, according to his own judgment, that nocturnal evil, the raging Ares, is the overseer, the murderer and destroyer of mortals; for he is so named by the poets who know him. How then has God, the lover of virtue, abandoned so many flocks of nations to a random evil and a destroyer of mortals? For if His purpose B was to adorn human nature with every kind of virtue, why did He not entrust them to such instructors as those who teach these things, like the most upright pedagogues? But if He had no concern for our affairs, and simply cast us aside to the teachers of wickedness, or rather, if He subjected us to gods, demons, and angels who train themselves to bring [men] down to every kind of abomination, why does He find fault with those who sin and love to accuse those who do not live rightly? For someone, I think, who has considered these things in his mind, might speak thus. To what kind of teachers do sensible fathers bring their own children? Is it not to those who are most diligent in the best things? To which of our servants are we accustomed to entrust the guidance of others? Is it not to the genuine, and indeed the upright, and those accustomed to lead according to the will of their masters? Tell me, to which of those accustomed to handling the steering-oar is it fitting to entrust the guidance of a merchant ship? Is it not to the most skilled and to those who know how to sail most well and wisely? And to which of the farmers should the care of the orchards be fitting? To those who are neglected and utterly lacking in the knowledge of how to see what is most useful and profitable, or to those who are masters of these crafts? Do we then consider the things of God to be inferior to our own affairs, and shall we place His [judgments] behind human ones? Is this not stupidity and thoughts full of madness? For it is clearly detected by these very things that [the gods] by no means help human affairs, but rather bring damage upon them, and do not at all allow one to attain the most excellent life, if each one of the tutelary gods or demons forces even those who are unwilling C to obey his own will. For he said that Ares indeed cares for the warlike affairs of the nations; Minerva, however, [cares for] the same, when prudence is applied; and Mercury, [for those] which pertain more to prudence than to boldness; and that, as the nature of each particular god dictates, individual things are cared for by them. And yet it were better, O good sir, that those who were to be well-off according to the will of God should not follow the nature and judgment of their overseers, but rather be subjected to the Creator of all. And in what way, I shall say; for Julian himself said it: Since in the Father all things are perfect and all things are one, but in the particular things one power prevails in one and another in another: Ares indeed oversees warlike things; Minerva and Mercury the others; therefore, since in the Father all things are perfect and one, but in the particular things there is the knowledge of one thing or another, would it not be better and more useful for the nations to act under God and to be ruled by Him alone, in Whom all things are perfectly good, rather than under others, and those not altogether good, but suitable for one certain thing and that alone, just like those indeed who practice trades of gain, the blacksmith, for example, or the carpenter? Although he has also demonstrated by this that they are not gods. For indeed, He Who is God in reality and nature is understood as being something perfectly good and perfect in Himself, and for each of the things that are His
A in no way lacking, the fountain and source of every good thing. If something is not in this state—being one thing and one alone, and bearing the invention of a base mind—how could it be understood as God? B It is possible for those who wish to do so to perceive the ugliness of the Hellenic belief even from our own worldly affairs. For those who sit exalted on the throne of earthly sovereignty, and have attained power over all, appoint as governors of provinces those whom they recognize as wise and skilled in the most excellent of matters among those under their scepter, and they crown them with the honors of office. And those who have been deemed worthy of such bright rewards govern their subjects, not by directing them through their own autonomous laws, but rather by the laws of the kings who rule them; they carry the name of those kings to the highest honors, render service owed to the royal dignity, raise the taxes, the imposts, the contributions, and their statues, both at home and perhaps publicly, and by this very sight, they always bring to their subjects a reminder of the preeminence of the one who holds power. C Come then, let us examine whether, having received the right to rule from God—as he himself says—the tutelary gods and demons, and angels besides, have preserved for Him the honors, the adoration, the reverence, the offerings, and the glory, or whether they have not rather laid them upon their own heads. Yet how is what I have said not self-evident? For they have altogether turned those upon the earth away from even knowing at all who is by nature and in truth the Creator and Lord of all things; and they snatch for themselves the rewards, the sacrifices, the festivals, the hymns, and the thanksgivings from all, and they have persuaded those upon the earth to be dedicated solely to their own worship. What then shall someone say of the images in the shrines, if they do not impiously insult the glory of God in their manifold forms and appearances? D For those who fashioned them desired to depict that nature which is without form, not only in the form and appearance of human bodies, but indeed also of irrational animals, both swimming and winged. But if the tutelary gods and demons did these things, with the Parent of all, God, in no way opposing it, it would surely be clear that He desires not to be known by us and rejects our adoration. How then do we suppose that we are pious when we adore Him and worship Him through the life that is commended by Him? And how do we assign the most important parts to the knowledge of Him, and say that those who see Him even, as it were, in a mirror and in an enigma are blessed? But if God did not wish mortals to be led astray, while those beings dragged them into deceit even against their will, what discourse will liberate them from the crime of tyranny against God, or with what tears should we not pursue those who have fallen into that state? For they were once enrolled in the number of the holy angels and had been drawn into the choirs of the supreme spirits, living a life that was indeed blessed and holy; but, as the holy Scripture says, they did not keep their own principality, and as if bidding farewell to fellowship with God, they fell into worse things and they, in their misery, rejected their allotted portion, and having cast off the subjection owed to God, being hard and proud, they were separated from the multitude of the saints, and mortals, who were divided, from all virtue, [they...]
B and having led them astray—not allowing them at all to know, even if someone should wish to know, who is by nature and in truth the God and Lord of all, and who has essentially assumed power over all things—they persuaded them to worship the creature instead of Him; and for each of the nations, having devised a worship that seemed good to them simply and without consideration, they caused them to set it up in shrines, to build altars, and to hold them in honor with libations and sacrifices. And since it was likely that those upon the earth, being tutored by innate impulses toward the need to know the truth, would perceive with the keenness of their mind who is the God and Father of all, and thus depart from their perversity, and, having abandoned the pursuit of wickedness, prefer that which is beneficial; those beings became guides and teachers of every sort of depravity to them, and never ceased to carry them over to whatever was hateful to God. For they thought that mortals could never be reconciled with God, as if sin had necessarily incurred enmity with Him. But after the Lord and Maker of all, the Word of God, saw man destitute of every zeal for doing good, and rushing in droves into the depths of hell—"For hell has enlarged its soul, and opened its mouth without ceasing," as it is written—He appeared to us, and we have been delivered from their fraud. And indeed, He commanded the holy and rational powers—they who have their origin from Him, who perfectly subject their mind to His scepters, who are accustomed to obey His lordly commands, and who, being obedient without any reproach whatsoever, are blameless in themselves—to shield those who have suffered wrong. Not that He was unequal to saving them—for who is, or from where?—but just as some king commands his own bodyguards to resist the incursions of barbarians and to restrain the greed of his subjects. "For the angel of the Lord," He says, "shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them." And it has also been spoken through the voice of the saints to every holy man who has chosen to act uprightly: "For He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." And indeed, even the most wise Paul says of them: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" And the Lord and Savior of all Himself says: C "Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." These drive away from us the implacable beasts; and snatching those who are captive to their cruelty, they teach them to make a level and smooth path toward everything honest and praiseworthy. These celebrate the Supreme Lord of all with us. For it is written: "Bless the Lord, O all His angels. Bless the Lord, all His powers, His ministers that do His will." These teach one to offer worship and adoration not to themselves, but only to God, who is above. But I shall give you faith in what I have said from the holy Scriptures. For to Gideon once the angel of the Lord appeared, and said to him: "The Lord shall be with thee, and thou shalt smite Midian as one man."
And Gideon said to him: "If I have found mercy in thy sight, and thou wilt perform for me all that thou hast spoken with me today, do not depart from here until I come to thee, and bring out the sacrifice, and sacrifice before thee." And he said: "I am; I will sit until thou return." And Gideon went in, and prepared a kid of the goats, and an ephah of flour, and unleavened bread, and he put the meat in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought them out to him under the terebinth tree. And he drew near. And the angel of the Lord said to him: "Take the meat and the unleavened bread, and set them upon that rock, and pour out the broth." And he did so. B But God also spoke once to Manoe through an angel, and usefully indicated something of what was to come to pass; for it is written thus again in the book of Judges: "And Manoe said to the angel of the Lord: 'Let us detain thee here, and we will perform before thee a kid of the goats.' And the angel of the Lord said to Manoe: 'If thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou offerest a whole burnt offering, thou shalt offer it to the Lord.'" And he took, he says, Manoe the kid of the goats, and the sacrifice, and offered it to the Lord on the rock, and he separated to perform it. You hear how they in no way hinder those who desire to worship and honor the Lord of all with what is at hand; but they teach that it is not fitting to ascribe the honors to them, as if they were subjects and numbered among the ministers, but rather to the Lord. For the words, "Set them upon that rock," were nothing else, as I think, than if he were saying clearly, "Offer them to Christ." "For the rock was Christ," as the all-wise Paul says. "But even if thou offerest a kid," he says, "thou shalt offer it to the Lord." And he, though he had been taught this, still brought the sacrifice to the rock, knowing that Christ was called the rock, because the divine nature is most firmly established with the majesty befitting it. If, therefore, God has in reality subjected the nations to the gods who are the guardians of cities, why did they not rather command the gifts of offerings to be brought to Him by them? But, by leading them completely away from His worship—nay, by not even allowing Him to be acknowledged by us—they usurped the worship for themselves, along with the prayers, vows, omens, and gifts of all; and they persuaded them to fall into such confusion and impiety, that they were even willing to have bloody sacrifices performed for them. By this act they gave the greatest proof that they are not by any means good, but rather envious and D foreign to all goodness. Therefore, Porphyry writes thus of them in the second book *On Abstinence from Animals*: "All delusions also are accomplished by the contrary powers. For they especially worship these and their leader, who devote themselves to evil deeds through every kind of delusion. For these are able to deceive by prodigies; through them evil demons prepare love charms and witchcraft; for all intemperance, and the hope of riches and glory, come through these, and especially fraud. For lying is peculiar to them; for they desire to be gods, and their primary virtue is that they may be seen as God. These are they who are delighted by libations and sweet-smelling savors, by which what is spiritual and corporeal in them
A waxes fat; for this being lives on vapors and fumes, and it is nourished in various ways by various things, and is strengthened by the odors of blood and flesh. Wherefore, a prudent and wise man will beware of using such sacrifices as might entice them to himself; he will rather take care to cleanse his soul thoroughly, for they do not approach a soul that is pure, since it is unlike them. In another place he imagines someone, one of the false prophets or priests of Egypt, asking the causes and wishing to learn why demons rage malignantly, in these words: "How do those skilled in divine matters show them to be subject to passions, and to be delighted by the obscenity of words and other such wicked deeds?" Here he exposes the distinction of their wickedness, saying: "These, he says, maintain that there is externally subject to them a race of deceitful nature, one that changes itself into all forms and modes, and feigns itself to be gods, and demons, and the souls of the dead, and to be able to do everything through these things that are deemed to be good or evil. For as for those things that are B truly good, such as the goods of the soul, they are able to contribute nothing at all, nor do they even know them; but they spend their time in evil arts and in mockery, and are more often an obstacle to those striving for virtue, and are full of pride, and are delighted by odors and sacrifices." Let Julian, therefore, clearly see Porphyry, inextricably ensnared in the same opinion and superstition as himself, setting forth the true opinions regarding demons. For he says they are occupied with evil arts, and oppose those who resolve to do something with virtue and praise, and are delighted beyond measure by odors and bloody victims. Moreover, we shall find even among Homer’s gods those who covet such a base honor, if indeed this way of honoring can be understood as any honor at all. Jupiter says: C "Never did my altar lack an equal feast, Of libation and of savor; for this honor we have obtained by lot." The Argives also used to sacrifice "Black bulls to the Earth-shaker who has dark-blue hair." It would perhaps be troublesome to go through these things one by one, when it escapes no one that all those gods of theirs—or rather, those abominable and impure demons—take pleasure in libations and odors. For divine David would not lie, D when he says that "all the gods of the nations are demons." But, yes, he says, e...
A if you censure the sacrifices of the Greeks, and consider the matter one of no small crime, it is absolutely necessary that we also accuse the law given through Moses. For he commanded that sheep be slaughtered, and that one should go about bringing offerings to God by the same modes. But come, let us examine with refined discourse, as far as it is possible, what was the method of the instruction under the Law, and to what purpose God looked when he permitted the ancients to use bloody sacrifices.
It was, therefore, a certain divine dispensation, not the discovery of a necessary thing. For if God delighted in bloody sacrifices, he would accept them gladly and would never cease permitting those who desired to perform and offer them; he would honor the matter with a most beautiful decree; he would demand them rather as a necessity, as if honor were due to him from all; and he would not let the negligence of one who fell into sloth regarding these things go unpunished. But as for B rebuking such worshippers, and chiding them, and at the opportune time forbidding those offering them, and, as if they were laboring in vain and seeking glory from a useless thing, calling them back to better things—this is proof that the matter is not necessary in practice, and that it is done against his will. For he says: "Why do you bring me incense from Sheba, and cinnamon from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices are not pleasing to me." And further, regarding these: "For who has sought these from your hands? You shall not continue to tread my courtyard; if you offer fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to me." C And through another prophet he said: "Gather your burnt offerings with your sacrifices, and eat the flesh: for I did not speak to your fathers concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt." For God was not in need of blood; nor did he seek such a dense and material worship; but rather a refined and spiritual one, which consists, as it were, in the spirit and is perfected by every virtue; a character of life that is upright and whole, and an activity conspicuous for the praise of good deeds, and a sincere contemplation of God, and the spiritual fragrance of an excellent doctrine leading to a right and true manner of life, and the true and blameless knowledge of him who is truly good.
Since, however, it was somewhat impossible to lift up Israel, having been led away from the servitude in Egypt, D and from its base and impious customs, and from the abomination of the inhabitants there, while he still possessed a mind that was weak and infirm, and did not yet know how to walk vigorously (I speak of him being able to traverse the distinct path of the life that is set apart, and to arrive at the conclusion of virtuous deeds); it is manifest that, having provided for them the law through Moses in a spiritual manner, as a kind of tutor, he commanded them to depart from the polytheistic error; but for a time he permitted them to offer thanksgiving to him, according to the custom of ancient worship, and with offerings—as if in figures and shadows they might prefigure the truth. For the Law has the figure of the truth, and through it
the mystery of Christ is written. A Indeed, the beginnings of the sciences are always lacking in perfect erudition, but they gradually advance toward that which is perfect, adding little to little, and by certain steps, as it were, they move and strengthen the vigor of our mind toward more excellent things. But, as I have said, after the Savior of all, Christ, shone upon us at the opportune time, the figures were abrogated, and the weakness of the shadow as it existed in the letter ceased, for He Himself was adumbrated through it to the men of old. Therefore, He suppressed bloody sacrifices, which had been granted to the ancients by a singular counsel, as if they were a kind of childish instruction. For Christ said: "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." B That the form of legal worship was not, even from the beginning, free from reproach and guilt regarding Him, He declared through the mouth of the all-wise Moses, who was the interpreter of the Law: "But if the Lord thy God exterminate the nations, to which thou art going in there, so that thou mayest receive their land by inheritance, and thou shalt inherit them, and dwell in their land; take heed to thyself, search not to follow them. And after they have been exterminated from thy face, search not for their gods, saying: How do these nations do to their gods, so will I do. Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God; for they did the abominations which the Lord hated to their gods, because even their sons and their daughters they burn in the fire to their gods." Therefore, He repudiates bloody sacrifices. For these things were done for their gods by those who did not know Him. He adds the truly most grievous and unholy crime, and one abhorrent to the laws of nature itself, namely, that they slaughtered their own sons and daughters. O the great ferocity of the tutelary gods! O the nefarious cruelty and bestial nature! C Men are usually carried against those from whom they have received trouble, and resist their enemies with vengeful anger; but when retribution reaches the children, they check their wrath and pursue the tender age with mutual compassion. But these (gods), as Julian says, administering the affairs of mortals according to each one's reason, genius, and nature, make the parents the murderers of their own children, even though they have harmed them not at all, but rather have in mind to honor the gods; and they rejoice in human blood, and when they see their own worshiper dying at their impious altars, they account the matter a delight. But perhaps someone will say that we are trifling, and that we are leveling a rash accusation against them; for (they might say) that this has never happened. Let us see, D therefore, from the histories of the Greeks, whether or not the altars and shrines of the gods whom they worshiped were defiled with human gore and blood. For Aristomenes, that Messenian, would offer to Jupiter, surnamed Ithometes, the bodies of three hundred dead men at once;
A to these he would add even a king of the Lacedaemonians; this was Theopompus. From thence, this prince and supreme lord of the gods is held in admiration! For he was wont to mock at men perishing miserably, seeing their altars filled with a feast commensurate to their suffering. For it is their custom to make the calamities of men their own delights. The Scythians, moreover, who dwelt about the Tauric Chersonese, would sacrifice to their Artemis whatever strangers they could intercept, and would hang their heads before the gates of the temple, offering to the goddess the slaughter of men, a rich prey and a hospitable gift most pleasing to her; so that she seemed more cruel than the sea and its waves, for she would snatch away those who had escaped [the sea], and made the hope of salvation the very cause of death for those putting into land. Dorotheus, the writer of histories, in the fourth book of his *Italica*, relates that Erechtheus the Athenian cruelly slaughtered his own daughter to the subterranean demons. Monymus also reports in his *Collection of Wonders* that certain persons were sacrificed to Peleus and Chiron in the Thracian city of Pellene. Moreover, they say that the Lesbians drenched the altar of Bacchus with the blood of men. B And while the superstition of the Gentiles was still at its height, gladiatorial contests were celebrated among the Romans at set times; and a certain Saturn was hidden beneath the earth, gaping through perforated stones, so that he might be defiled by the blood of the one who fell. Porphyry also, in the second book of his *On Abstinence from Animal Food*, writes thus again: "History, therefore, has handed down to memory not only those things which Theophrastus mentioned, but also many others, so that men were indeed sacrificed in ancient times. And that we do not say these things lightly, but are speaking from histories full of this subject, let these things suffice to demonstrate it. For among the Rhodians a man was sacrificed to Saturn on the sixth day of the month of Metageitnion. C But in what is now Salamis, but was formerly called Coronis, in the month known among the Cyprians as Aphrodisius, a man was sacrificed to Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops and the nymph Agraulis. And this custom persisted until the times of Diomedes; afterward it was changed, so that the man was sacrificed to Diomedes. Yet the temple of Minerva and [those] of Agraulos and Diomedes were enclosed within one precinct. And he who was to be sacrificed, being led by the youths, would circuit the altar three times. Then the priest would strike his stomach with a lance, and thus consume him entirely upon the altar fire that had been kindled. And after other things: 'They also used to sacrifice a man to Bacchus in the island of Chios, tearing him apart; and at Tenedos, as Euelpis the Carystian says.' Furthermore, Apollodorus says that the Lacedaemonians sacrifice a man to Mars. The Phoenicians also, in the greatest calamities of war, or pestilence, or drought, used to sacrifice to Saturn whomsoever of their dearest ones they had chosen by lot. And after other things: 'Ister, in his collection of Cretan sacrifices, says that the Curetes of old sacrificed children to Saturn.' Therefore, the altars of the gods whom they worshiped were defiled with the blood of wretched men. D But perhaps those who have the affairs of the Greeks at heart will say: 'Indeed, there have been slaughters of men at times; yet they did not offer them to the gods whom it was their custom to worship, but rather to wicked and abominable demons.' Where, then, shall we place Saturn and Jupiter, and Mars
A and the sister of Apollo, that haughty one who delights in arrows, and the son of Semele, the demented Bacchus—those who are worshipped to this day, or perhaps even hold a preeminent place among the gods—to whom even the chosen ones of the Greeks acknowledge that bloody sacrifices have been offered? Either, then, they must confess that they are abominable, impious, and wicked demons, or, if they assert that they are gods, they must join us in accusing them, as having reached the extreme of cruelty and as yielding nothing to the wickedness of demons; indeed, from the very nature of the case, it is most certain that they, and none others, are the hateful and execrable demons.
Let them answer, then, to those who inquire: what was the scope of those who sacrificed? Was it for fear that some untoward event might befall them that they became murderers? And yet, anyone who is of such a sort, we declare to be impure, profane, and guilty of the ultimate crime. For if someone were a wicked slayer of his own children, would not his affairs have reached the height of unhappiness and the very abyss of evils? For what worse thing could happen to a man than the loss of his son, miserably slaughtered by his father's right hand? That Scythian and savage woman—I mean the bewitching enchantress, daughter of Aeetes— B was at first a lover of her husband; but after her lust fell short of its expectation, she brought death upon her children, and became a fable for the ages and a subject for tragic drama. Such are the things that these foul and execrable authors of all wickedness bestow upon their own worshippers, the demons. They say that these, together with the gods and angels, preside over our affairs by the permission of God, the Creator and Maker of all things.
But, you may say, O good sirs, if the ancients offered bloody victims—not only of men, but even of irrational beasts—not to the gods, as you yourselves contend, but to wicked and detestable demons, then for whom, pray, did you construct temples throughout every region and city, and set up altars within them? C For who does not know that even to our own day men have performed sacred rites in every temple, and that there is no one among them—neither the highest nor the lowest, neither the unlearned nor the learned, neither those distinguished by honors nor those of the common people and of no account—who has not in every way and altogether engaged in such foul and bloody sacrifices? They have worshipped wicked demons, therefore; and if it was necessary to appease them, as they themselves say, why did they not endeavor to accomplish this by seeking to attach themselves to the Father and Maker of all things? That is achieved most rightly if we set a great value on the will to live piously and blamelessly, and seek to be assimilated to the all-pure God through the zeal and eagerness to grasp every good thing. D For thus we shall overcome the perversity of those demons and will not be exposed to their incursions.
The Scripture is indeed full of testimonies by which this can be shown. For it is written: «The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them» (Ps. xxxiii, 8). But I shall also bring forward the words of the Greeks themselves, especially those of Porphyry, whom we mentioned before, who wrote in this manner: "Wherefore a prudent and wise man will be wary of using such sacrifices, through which he might draw them to himself;"
but will endeavor to cleanse his soul in every way. For they do not attack a pure soul, because it is unlike them." The thrice-greatest Hermes of theirs also appeared to think the same, who, in his writing to Asclepius concerning the impious demons whom one must guard against and flee from with all haste, writes thus: "But there is one protection, and it is necessary: piety. For neither an evil spirit, nor fate, will ever conquer or rule over a man who is pious, and pure, and innocent. For God delivers such a one, who is truly pious, from every evil." A Why, then, have they abandoned that which is confessedly worthy of all praise, and turned toward worse things, saying that sacrifices must be performed to abominable and loathsome demons? Since, as I said, they were offering them to Cronus and Zeus, and to Dionysus and Athena, and indeed even to Ares and the rest; they themselves, evidently, and no others, would be the wicked, loathsome, and envious demons who pilfer the name of Divinity. Raising an objection also in another way, to those things which he attempts to incorrectly believe, he adds, and says:
JULIANUS
For it is evident that the nature of man has established laws for itself that are consistent with its own nature: some civil and humane, in which humanity had been most nurtured; C and some savage and inhuman, in which a nature and customs contrary to these were present and inherent. For the legislators added but little to these natures and dispositions by their upbringing. Wherefore the Scythians accepted their Anacharsis as if he were insane. Nor of the Western nations would you easily find any, except very few, who have been led to philosophy, or geometry, or to the preparation for any such studies, even though the Roman D empire now rules so widely; but those who are very gifted merely enjoy the discourse and the rhetoric, yet they partake of no learning at all. Such a powerful thing nature seems to be. What, then, is the difference of customs among nations and laws?
CYRILLUS
Do you therefore argue for the difference in human nature, and that one account of substance ought not to be predicated of all? For we have been made, it seems, not in the same fashion; but we differ rather substantially toward one thing and another: as if one, perhaps, had been allotted a nature that is noble and virtuous, while another, one that is most foul and abominable. Then in what way could anyone ever perceive the freedom of each person's mind? For it will no longer be in our power to act, neither the good nor the vile; but it will be necessary to be carried recklessly and inconsiderately, even against our will, wherever the law of natural propensity may drag us. But it is difficult to fight against nature, or rather, indeed, impossible. Wherefore, even if someone may happen to be cruel and harsh, by natural
necessity he is compelled to this by the laws, and let the Scythian be freed from the accusation on this account, and let every mind that has declined toward savageness and bitterness be freed likewise. And if those who are wise in these matters establish laws that are similar to the natural aptitudes of the people, let no one among the Greeks or Romans be called a barbarian—I speak now of what pertains to ways and endeavors—but let there be a great lack among them of those who are mild and wise, or who are guardians of justice. For it is impossible for nature to be forced to be other than what it is. If, however, as he thinks, some labor under a natural depravity, this would be, in my opinion, a manifest condemnation of Him who brought them into existence; for He has made evil things, although by nature He Himself is good. Furthermore, how is it that He, who knows how to reward justice, has created us in accordance with reason and has provided for His own creatures, or rather, how is it that He has not actually wronged them, if He has, in some cases, naturally implanted sin and a savageness that is averse to all culture and wisdom?
Although that Aristotelian, Alexander, writes thus concerning God in the book *On Providence*: "We shall say that He continuously and perpetually performs the best and most blessed acts, in which also His very essence consists: but that He has care for each of the things that are here, insofar as He is good and beneficent. For it is the property of every good thing to help." How, therefore, did that Beneficent One help those who by nature have received from Him what is not pleasing to Him? For to will good things is indeed a property of the Good. But perhaps he will say that evil is not in nature as if by necessity, but rather that the laws were made to be consonant with the nature of their ways. And what will this profit him, to demonstrate that the nations were distributed among certain gods governing cities, or among demons and angels? For he says, C if I am not mistaken, that the propensities of the subjects are consonant with the customs and institutions of those to whom the command has been entrusted: for he says that the nations follow the nature of the gods to whose care they have been committed. Wherefore, since the Scythians and certain others are cruel and proud and petulant in their ways, and since other things, most foul and ridiculous, are held in honor among most of the nations, it is altogether necessary that such be those who are prefects and governors of them. D And into the hands of these has that lover of virtue, God, subjected a man born for virtue? But, he says, the Scythians did not receive Anacharsis while he was reveling. For what reason, O good man? Is it not because they were by their own nature alien to humanity? But how did the Scythian revel? For Anacharsis himself was also a Scythian by birth; yet he was held in such admiration for wisdom among the Greeks that some have even thought he should be numbered among the seven sages. Since, however, he condemns the ignorance of the Western nations in order to defend those things which he has wrongly thought, and contends that hardly anyone among them has had any skill in the liberal arts, except for very few: well then, let us answer him as to the manner in which the desire for learning has taken hold of even a few, although they do not have it from nature. For if it is established that those things which are beyond nature can neither be compared nor grasped, how have they been admitted into it? We, therefore, not
A in the least will accuse the Creator of all things, as if He implanted natural wickedness in some. *For God saw,* he says, *all that He made, and behold, it was very good.* We shall attribute the difference of character among the nations rather to customs and upbringings, and to those who were perhaps the originators of the races, who themselves established the laws for each people in accordance with their own opinions. It is therefore effortless for those who wish to see that there are wicked and most ill-mannered people among the Greeks and Romans, even though they possess laws that bring them toward all manner of admirable things. To the barbarians, however, we do not attribute an absolute savagery in every case; but [we maintain] that they possess in this respect an honesty and a fairness at times, so that they have even earned an enviable reputation. Alexander, surnamed Polyhistor, records B at any rate in his book *On Pythagorean Symbols* that Pythagoras went to Zara, who was Assyrian by race; philosophers also existed among the Egyptians called prophets; and indeed among the Assyrians there were the Chaldeans, among the Gauls the Druids, among the Bactrian Persians the Samanaeans, and not a few of the Celts, and among the Persians the Magi, and among the Indians the Gymnosophists, and Anacharsis himself among the Scythians, and Zamolxis in Thrace; and they say that some of the Hyperborean nations, who dwell beyond the Ripaean mountains, became diligent in justice and turned away from gluttony and excessive eating, and could not tolerate a Sybaritic diet, but were content only with the use of fruits. Aristobulus the Peripatetic also says somewhere: "All things that have been said about nature among the ancients are also stated by those who philosophize outside of Greece, partly among the Indians by the Brachmanes, and partly in Syria by those who are called Jews." C It is also recorded that Hippe, the daughter of Chiron the Centaur, having been wed to Aeolus, taught him natural philosophy, which she had received from her father as a kind of ancestral inheritance. Euripides writes of her:
The first, she prophesied divine things With clear oracles from the rising of the stars.
And of these things, enough, so that the discourse might not seem somehow burdensome to the listeners through the addition of even more examples. But that the inventions of their [the Greeks'] minds are full of ignorance would be clear, I suppose; for we are not constrained by the laws of nature as if by force and necessity to be either wicked or good, but rather we are accustomed, with minds that are unconstrained and free, to turn D either this way or that. Furthermore, that fault-finding and sharp adversary of ours, who turns himself in every direction and shifts the argument from one thing to another whenever an opportunity presents itself, mocks the divinely inspired Scripture; and since he understands absolutely nothing of the things contained therein, he adds again:
JULIAN. For Moses has assigned a cause that is utterly mythical.
the variety of languages. For he said that the sons of men, when they had gathered together, wished to build a city and a great tower in it; and that God said that He must descend and confound their languages. And that no one may think that I am fabricating these things, we shall read what follows from the writings of Moses: B “And they said: Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, whose head will reach even to heaven; and let us make for ourselves a name before we be scattered upon the face of all the earth. And the Lord descended to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said: Behold, there is one race, and one lip for all, and this they have begun to do; and now they will not fail from all things, whatsoever they have attempted to do. Come, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not hear each one the voice of his neighbor. And the Lord God scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth, and they ceased to build the city and the tower.” And these things, forsooth, you deign to believe; yet you do not believe the things spoken by Homer concerning the Aloadae, who, it is said, intended to place three mountains one upon another so that there might be access to heaven. For I myself say that this is just as fabulous as the other. But you, while accepting the former, why in the name of the gods do you reject Homer’s fable? For that is what I think should be said to ignorant men: that even if all men throughout the whole inhabited world were to use one voice and one language, they would not be able to build a city reaching to heaven, even if they were to bake the entire earth into bricks. For an infinite number of bricks would be needed, equal to the whole earth, which could reach to the spheres of the moon. Let us suppose, indeed, that all men had gathered together, using one voice and language, and had exhausted the whole earth with bricks and stones; when, pray, would they have reached as far as heaven, even if they were extended as finely as a thread? Therefore, because you consider this fable—being so manifest—to be true, and judge that God feared that men would use the commerce of a single language, and on that account confounded their tongues, you still dare to arrogate to yourselves the knowledge of God.
CYRIL. What is vainer than these thoughts? For he thought that God, who is supreme over all things, D fearing the assault of men, had descended to confound their languages, lest they, having strangely built a tower reaching to heaven, should perhaps somehow cast Him down from the throne of His kingdom. But how, if He had been brought to such a degree of timidity as that babbler assumes, did He descend to confound their languages, and to see the city and the tower that was being raised up? Or is it perhaps likely that, if He had remained in heaven and stayed in His own seat, He would have suffered harm from the malevolent, but if He fought with them on earth, He would easily have emerged the victor? Although it belongs to a timid person not to engage rather with those prepared for battle; but
I am not unaware that I have A foolishly involved myself in discussions about these matters. For the Divine is all-powerful, and nothing is unachievable for It, even if it be a matter of a nod of the head. But it is necessary to refute the adversary, who is accustomed from great and excessive ignorance and love of mocking to pour forth—like a tide—words of a madman and a mind estranged from the truth. He pretends, in a way, that he wishes to seem persuasive, saying that mortals could not—even if they exhausted the entire earth for bricks—reach the spheres of the moon. And we say that this undertaking was impossible for the men of that time as well. But it is worth the effort to explain the cause of the matter. For we do not say, as he truly imagines, that the God of the universe cut up those who were building the city, or rather the tower which we say they were erecting, into a multitude of languages because He was afraid of them; rather, we say He did it to benefit them and to recall them from their vain labors. Since all the men who had lived shortly before them had perished B utterly because of the very great impiety that was in them—God having brought the flood upon them—they, fearing that they might again suffer the same destruction from a like cause, applied their minds to unworthy and foolish endeavors. For, pitting their own judgment against divine counsels, they strove to erect for themselves a tower higher than the clouds, the wretched men not understanding; for they perhaps thought that if the flood came again—as I said—they would be better off by having ascended on high and so escaping death. You see the error of those at that time: the aimless plans, the idle undertaking, the disregard for the glory of God. For it was impossible that God should prove a liar, having promised not to bring a second deluge upon those on the earth. For He spoke thus to the blessed Noah: "I will not again curse the earth because of the works of men, because the inclination of man is diligently fixed on evil from his youth." And it is impossible in any other way for any to escape the all-powerful hand of God if He should choose to punish the wicked. Therefore, lest they leave behind pursuits necessary for their benefit and labor in vain, God dispersed them and sent a manifold voice among them, having devised the remedy of diverse languages in place of a penalty and punishment. But if the holy Scripture should say that the men of that time desired to C raise the tower to heaven, we do not at all say that they intended to raise the construction to heaven itself—for that is impossible—but that it is the custom of the God-inspired Scripture, just as in our common way of speaking, to accept "to heaven" as meaning "on high." Thus, the blessed David chants, and uses hyperbolic language regarding those sailing on the sea: "They that go down to the sea in ships, doing work in many waters: they have seen the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. They mount up to the heavens, and go down to the D abysses." Furthermore, since he made mention of the Aloadae, and names the author of the myth—whom he of course admires, as also the gods whose worshiper he is,
who imparted to him the account of their birth—let us also say a little concerning this. What is so paradoxical, my good man, if at times there have been some young men preeminent in the strength of their body, hot-headed and arrogant, and full of contempt, lifting their eyebrows to heaven, of whom, having intended to describe what sort they were, as a kind of example, I suppose, he attributes to them something great and extraordinarily excessive, saying that their purpose was, perhaps, to make heaven accessible to themselves, if it were in any way possible to set the very tallest of the mountains upon one another? But whether these things have been falsely invented by Homer, and are cast aside as something mythical, or whether the case is otherwise, it is nothing to us. But since he writes that we apply our minds to the histories of Moses, and yet dare to boast of the knowledge of God, tell me, I pray, what does he say has happened which cannot happen? For let it be granted that those who had conceived in their mind, out of excessive folly, to build a tower higher than the clouds, had wandered from the truth and adhered to condemned counsels, just as the two sons of Aloeus also did; what is this to God? For if He feared this attempt, as Moses has left it written, let him show this by arguments, and I will soon cease. But if He freed some madmen from vain labors, why does he rail in vain, and babble with an unbridled tongue, adding: B "He goes down to the abysses." But if he has spared the attempt, and Moses has written this, let him convict it, and I will cease. But if He has checked some mindless people from empty toils, why does he rail in vain and babble immoderately, adding:
JULIAN
I return again to that. For how God confounded the languages, Moses has stated; the cause alleged is that He feared they might do something against Him, having made heaven accessible to themselves, being of one language and of one mind among themselves. But how did He do the deed? By coming down from heaven, not being able to do it from above, as it seems, unless He had descended upon the earth. But concerning the difference of morals and laws, neither Moses nor anyone else has explained; although there is a much greater difference in the laws and morals of men than in languages. For who among the Greeks says that one ought to lie with a sister, who with a daughter, who with a mother? Yet the Persians deem this a good thing. What need is there for me to recount in detail how the Germans are tenacious of liberty and impatient of the yoke, how tractable and gentle are the Syrians, the Persians, and the Parthians, and absolutely all the D Barbarians who dwell to the east or to the south, and as many as love even more masterly royal dominations? If, therefore, these things have come to pass without a greater or more divine providence, why do we seek greater and more worthy things, and in vain worship Him who provides for nothing? For to whom there is no care for life, morals, customs, institutions, laws, and the state of citizens, is it fitting that we demand of him honor for himself? By no means. See into what an absurdity the discourse falls. For of goods, whatever are regarded in human life, the goods of the soul hold the first place; the goods of the body, the latter. If, therefore, He has despised the goods of our souls, and has had no care for our natural composition, nor sent teachers or legislators, as
A to the Hebrews in the time of Moses, and after him the prophets; for what will we have to thank Him properly?
CYRIL
That he both lies and acts arrogantly, and has cared nothing for the truth regarding God, we have already stated before. For he imagines that the impassible Mind was at some time overcome by fear, and that it could not have divided those on earth into a diversity of tongues unless It had descended to it, having perhaps abandoned the things above and leaped down from the most high thrones. And to this, I suppose, one might reply to him: "Your account is about *God*, my good man, who fashioned this whole universe by certain ineffable energies, and who is beyond every mind, B to whom the inspired David also sings: 'Where shall I go from your Spirit, or where shall I flee from your face? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to Hades, you are present.' For all things are full of Him. And besides these things, the Savior Himself confirms us, saying, 'Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.' How then is he not ashamed to say that, had He not descended upon the earth, he would not have been able to divide those of that time into a diversity of tongues? Unless, perhaps, he actually thinks the descent was bodily, and subjects the incorporeal nature to the laws of bodies, and imagines it moves by progression from place to place, C when it is entirely devoid of place, magnitude, and circumscription. But if he mocks Moses because he wrote that the God of the universe came down from on high to the earth—he does not know how to speak in the human manner, for he knew that words must be adapted to the capacity of human nature, since he did not have words equal to the divine majesty.
But when he inquires more curiously how and from where differences in customs and laws are seen among the nations, and says that Moses, or the prophets who came after him, make no mention at all of these things; then, weighing the reasons for the difference, he says that the Greeks and Romans have a great aversion D to marrying mothers and cohabiting with sisters, while among others this is held in high esteem, but he approves of the unbridled customs of the Germans, and likewise the gentle ways of others: thereafter he accuses the God of the universe of negligence towards us, unless He Himself were the author and legislator of such shameful things, and those abhorrent to equity. Come, thus let us address him: "You err, good sir. The unanimity of language was causing harm to those who most senselessly built the tower high as heaven; therefore the Creator of both mind and speech confounded their tongues. Indeed, how would it have been fitting for the God who loves what is good to divide nations that did not at all agree among themselves in customs and rites? For what happened has a cause, and, so to speak, an origin, in the fact that not all choose to embrace an honest and blameless life. For we say that we have received from the Maker of all things a nature needing no good thing, and naturally endowed with the knowledge of useful things. Which opinion of ours
the divinely inspired Scripture supports. For very many pleasures, and the onsets of various passions, corrupt the heart and distract the mind of every man from right reason, and it is necessary that a man be subjected to those evils to which he is exposed. For the mind of every man is autonomous and free to act upon its own judgment. Wherefore, even if some have been trained toward what is not right by evil laws, they would easily transfer themselves to better and useful things if they wished: since they are not bound by the laws of nature to base things, nor are they B constrained by any inextricable bonds to act against their will, but, as I have said, it is permitted to each one to be carried toward what is better. Why then should one say that we ought not to believe that the nations have been divided according to the differences of customs and laws, as if this were not by the divine will? And yet, who would not entirely agree that if there had been one purpose and one desire for all those upon the earth to love to live according to what is pleasing to God, there would have been one way of life for all, with all inclined toward living uprightly, and moreover, one law and one way of living? But since, as I have said, we have neglected a life worthy of man, and, having cast aside the better, more lawful, and God-pleasing way of living, we have adopted in its place a base and bodily way of life, in a manner befitting beasts, and have exchanged gold for bronze, as Homer says, and being vanquished by pleasures, we have left the most useful things behind, preferring present pleasure to the useful—it is for this reason that we are divided in our customs, some not altogether to be blamed, others worse. Therefore, let no one accuse God for this reason, as if He had neglected the care of us or despised our natural constitution. For if He knew that some of those who dwell in the heavens had obtained a different birth and a nature different from our own, He would no longer, I think, be speaking of men. For if they are placed outside the definition and account of humanity, they C should not be judged as we are, but should be held as some kind of different animals, and in no way similar to men. But let him come forward, and let him show such a person, so that we may not appear to have undertaken a vain rebuke against him who says that the Creator made us negligently. But he can never do so; nay, he is truly deceived, as I have said, and perhaps confuses natures with customs and laws. That God has also given Moses, and the law, and indeed also the prophets to the multitudes of the nations, our discourse has sufficiently D demonstrated in the preceding books. For we have shown that the progeny of Abraham, or rather the divine Abraham himself, being a foreigner and from the land of the Chaldeans, was called by God to the knowledge of the truth. And indeed, God also saved those in Egypt who had been brought under the worship of idols, through the intermediary Moses, and instructed them by law toward a straight and sincere way of life. Whence, if we wish to estimate the matter rightly, it is understood with good reason that Abraham and his descendants were the first fruits of the calling of the nations. Likewise, the prophet Jonah was sent to preach to the Ninevites; and he did not set out of his own accord, but was sent when God commanded him to take that journey. For He holds all things by His power, since He is the Creator and Lord of all.
A This person, however, thinks that His authority is constrained, extending with difficulty only to the borders of the Judean country, and that it has fallen to Him by a kind of lot to rule only over the Israelites; and, moreover, that He differs but little from the other ethnarchs, whom he calls—time and again—gods and demons. For he says again:
JULIAN
"But see whether God has not also given to us gods and good protectors of whom you are ignorant, and who are no whit inferior to the one worshipped from the beginning by the Hebrews—who, as Moses and those who succeeded him down to you say, was allotted only the care of Judea. And if the Creator of the world, whom the Hebrews worship, is the closest one, this is because we have had better thoughts concerning Him; and He has given us goods greater than theirs, both in body and soul, of which we shall speak shortly; and He has sent us lawgivers, nothing inferior to Moses, or rather far superior in number."
CYRIL
B Since, therefore, he attempts to show from the writings of Moses and the holy prophets who followed him that God ruled only over Judea, come now, let us turn the argument back as if retracing our steps, and most effectively and necessarily unmask his falsehood. For Moses proclaimed C that there is one God, by nature and in truth, the Highest, and above all, and beyond everything that has come into being. And he says that He fashioned this entire universe through the Son in the Spirit—and this has been explained by us at length in previous discourses. But this "good" man, ranking that supreme Ruler of all created things, who by His nature is Lord of all, among the unclean demons, says: "See whether God has not also given to us gods and good protectors, who are unknown to you, (who are) no whit inferior to the one worshipped by the Hebrews."
Tell me, I pray: do you say that good protectors and gods have been given to you and to those who share your opinions? To whom, then, what kind of leaders of the nations do you assign? To those who inhabit the Tauric Chersonese, that is, the Scythians, and those most inhuman of barbarians, to whom D gentleness and kindness are held as nothing, but in whose eyes fury and intemperance toward moral depravity are prized, and homicide is a matter of praise? Or do you mean those set over the Persians, among whom it is a commendable and desirable thing to marry one’s own mother? But yes, he says, the Greeks and Romans are governed by good and humane laws, and have the best of all gods or demons.
Then, O most excellent one, how was it not better and wiser to set good, equitable, accessible, and kind masters over everyone? For this would have befitted the glory of God; and since He is good, how can you say it is not necessary that He should bestow every good thing upon His own? Notwithstanding, he says, if the God who is worshipped by the Hebrews has a limited empire, like one of the others, (then) we have more excellent—
A ideas about Him. He therefore brings down to a second rank and nature, as it were, the immediate Creator of the world from the First. For, having set before Him "the Good," they say that it is immovable, and having altogether rejected Providence, they devise a second God, whom they also call "immediate" to created beings. But, he says, if this be he, we have thought better things concerning him. Now I shall let pass for the present his hair-splitting about these things. But let him tell us how they have thought better things concerning him by assigning the empire over the nations to other gods, and to those who are beyond number. Yet how is it not better for Him to rule over all, and to be glorified by the praises of all? And how is it even pleasing to Him that the nations should be tutored by some, and not according to His own will? And that they should live in such a way that, even if He has some perception of good, He should even grow angry, while no one takes care to obey Him? That our teachers are incomparably better than the legislators or wise men and teachers among the Greeks, we shall teach in due time. But persisting in his own fabrications, and as it were having hired himself as an advocate for a lie, he says again:
JULIAN.
What we were saying, therefore, is this: if there were not B by nature set over each nation some God, and under Him an angel, and a demon, and a peculiar class of souls serving and ministering to the higher beings, C let it be shown by any other how this difference in laws and customs came to be. For it does not suffice to say: "God said, and they were made" (Ps. xxxii, 9); but it is necessary that the natures of the things that come into being should also agree with the commands of God. But I will explain more clearly what I mean. If God commanded, for example, for the fire to be carried upward and the earth downward, does it not follow that for the command of God to be fulfilled, the one had to be light and the other heavy? And so also in like manner with the rest. And after other things: D In the same way also concerning divine things. The cause, however, is that the race of men is perishable and corruptible. With good reason, therefore, are its works also corruptible, and subject to change and transformation in every way. But since God is eternal, it is fitting that His commands should be of such a kind. And being of such a kind, they are either the very natures of things, or they are in agreement with the nature of things. For how could nature war against the command of God? And how could it fall outside that agreement? Therefore, even if He had commanded that the republics of the nations, like their languages, should be confounded and not agree with one another, He would not have achieved this by a command alone, but He would have also fashioned us by nature for this discrepancy. For there would have had to be first different natures in those who were to differ among the nations. This is seen, at any rate, in bodies too, if one looks at how much the Germans and Scythians differ from the Punics and Ethiopians; and is this also a mere—
command, and does neither the air nor the situation of the region contribute anything to the way celestial bodies are positioned? A CYRIL. I think I have sufficiently shown the cause of the difference in customs and laws, on account of which nations are separated from one another and behave differently. For we assign that dissimilarity of life and customs to the inclination of the will and to the training received from ancestors. To this point, that famous man of the stage who sang of the calamities of many in his tragedies—I mean Sophocles—will assist us; for he wrote in this way:
Every city is [the work] of its leaders,
And every army; and among mortals, those
Who act wickedly follow the words of teachers.
You hear that acting wickedly proceeds from the will of each individual and from teachers, and does not happen to some by natural necessity. But if, as he himself says, the distribution of nations to ruling gods and tutelary demons established the difference in laws and customs, let him speak again, I pray. For I shall ask: did these tutelary demons reluctantly comply with the customs and laws of men, holding a different opinion themselves, or were those who are subject to them compelled to yield to their superiors, and persuaded to live according to their will, rather than being moved by the impulse of their own choices to perform what was dear to each of them? If, therefore, the gods followed the customs and laws of men, and the matter was against their will, they were guided by others rather than having emerged victorious, and are proven to have bowed their own necks to those whom they hold in subjection. But how did God subject nations to those who neither know how nor are able to lead them according to their own judgment? Let him teach us what the benefit of this is. But if the subjects follow the laws of their rulers, the cause of that vast and diverse difference in the nature of customs and laws B must deservedly be ascribed to these. Therefore, among the tutelary or presiding gods and demons, there must be those who are harsh and savage, irascible and murderous, and who have chosen to love the worst of all evils. For whatever the subject nations are seen to be, such must those who are set over them be thought to be. Is it not, then, a clear blasphemy against God to say that He handed over all who are on the earth C to those who are so filthy and who know how to incite them to any kind of atrocity whatsoever? And something more intolerable than this is added. For he says, "It was necessary for different natures to underlie those in whom there was a future dissimilarity, so that things might correspond to God's decrees." Was it therefore necessary, just as fire by nature had to be light so that it might obtain the capacity to be carried upward, and the earth heavy so that it might lie pressed down and settle, that in the same way some men should be of a wicked nature, and thus be made by the Creator, D because it was necessary that they be subjected to the judgment of their rulers? What discourse could sufficiently defend him if it were called into examination by anyone of sound mind? For how will he defend the Creator of all, without being deservedly ridiculed, if indeed the nature of evil things—A is his creation? For if he says he was brought to this against his will, he is defeated by one who is perhaps higher and superior to him, and who has the power to constrain him, and so there is something better than him; but if he contends that he came to this not against his will, but of his own volition, how then is he good, and from the Good? For Plotinus says this about him, and he explains not so much his own opinion as that of Plato. He calls the Good the father of the cause, which is Mind, and that which is beyond mind, and beyond substance; and he most often calls it Being, and Mind, and Idea; so that Plato knew that Mind originates from the Good, and the soul from Mind. And he testifies that these discourses are not new, nor recently born, but were said long ago in more obscure terms, and that those who nowadays clarify them are the interpreters of those originals. If, therefore, he says that the Good became the Father of the Creator, and yet he created natures that are not good, the reproach redounds upon the Good itself, through the medium, so to speak, of the Creator who is proximate to the world. For this is how he appears to speak to them. But I marvel that he also takes the colors of bodies as a proof that one must understand that different natures exist among the nations. If he thinks that he is truly sensing and saying something of the truth in this matter, he does not perceive that he is blundering; for it was necessary, as I suppose, that all who are of one color should be of one and the same opinion: and if someone of a white color were good, then no one would be good who was not of this sort; but if one who is dusky and black were likewise good, then by the same token no one would be good who was possessed of a white body. Are these things not ridiculous, then? Has he not rashly blurted out these trifles, and belched forth discourses full of the B utmost confusion? How is this, finally, ambiguous? Yet he arrogantly insults the doctrines of piety, and attacks the holy Moses with calumnies, and thinks that he was entangled in the same error of opinion and falsehood as himself, and that he adulterates the truth. For he says again:
JULIAN
“That Moses, knowing a thing of this kind, obscured it, and did not attribute the confusion of tongues to God alone (for he says that he not only descended, nor that one only descended with him, but that several descended, and he was silent about who they were), it is manifest that he supposed those who descended together with him to be like unto God. If, therefore, C not only the Lord, but also those with him, were confounding the tongues, they would justly be considered the authors of this division.”CYRIL
“Then he has clearly confessed that he did not even go so far as to say that Moses intended for certain gods to have descended together with God for the confusion of tongues, except for this, and this alone: ‘Come, D and let us go down and there confound their languages.’ How then does he himself divine as he pleases, and that the gods who descended were like him who...is by nature God, and who is one and only and true? Yet how, tell me, has he set ‘Come,’ and ‘Having gone down,’ in the singular? Moses was not ignorant that there is one God, that is, one nature of the Godhead, and it is worshipped in the holy and consubstantial Trinity—in the Father, I say, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. For even if each of those mentioned is believed to be what he is, in persons and in individual subsistences—for the Father is Father, and the Son is Son, and the Spirit is Spirit—yet the identity of essence gathers them into a unity.
That his own teachers, whom he admires greatly for their supposed wisdom, also extend the divine and most perfect nature as far as three subsistences, our discourse has shown in the previous book. But it is not burdensome to repeat it here briefly. Plato, at any rate, says that the supreme God is the Good, and that Mind shone forth from him, and that this is the immediate creator of the world, while the First remains in stillness. And he introduces a third, Soul, B by which he says all things are moved and ensouled. This, then, is his view. We, however, speaking truly and accurately concerning the supreme Godhead, assert that the Son is begotten of God and Father, equal in nature and differing in no respect from Him in anything, and that the Holy Spirit also proceeds, by whom all things are given life. The life-giving Holy Spirit proceeds indeed ineffably, as I said, from the Father, but is bestowed upon creation through the Son. Moses, therefore, knew the venerable and single nature of the Godhead in the holy Trinity. And so, sometimes he uses the number in the singular, and sometimes in the plural. Such is the passage: “Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness.” For God was not certainly making some others C as helpers for Himself for the construction of man; but in the words “Let us make,” and “according to our likeness,” there was an indication of the holy and consubstantial Trinity. Therefore, here too, the saying, “Come, and having gone down, let us confound their languages,” does not signify that other gods were taken along. For how, or whence? For it is not the case at all. But it hints at the venerable and great and truly adorable mystery of the holy Trinity.
It is worth marvelling at that also. For even if, as perhaps he supposed and has thought of himself, being wise, he is not ashamed to attribute the perversity of human characters to the God who is a lover of virtue, and saying that He, along with others, was the author D of things so base and wicked. But the confusion of languages has a cause very consistent with reason. For the Maker of all wished to restrain the men of that time who were laboring in vain, and he restrained them so, by the diversity of languages.
A But did the matter harm those who suffered it, in the sense that they became wicked from being good, and drifted from excellent characters toward things more shameful? For it is possible for every man to be able to excel and live brilliantly, even if he possesses a different-sounding language and one that does not correspond in echo to the Greeks. But as for the perversion of morals, how is it not injurious to those upon the earth, if the characters of the barbarians are detestable, and their desire ungovernable, and their impetuosity into murders censurable, and everything that is repressed by our laws? Then how did God, being so much a lover of goodness, work the perversion of their morals? Summarizing the whole argument, he writes again thus:
JULIANUS.
B What then did I intend to say with such a long flow of words? Truly, if the Creator of the world who is preached by Moses is the one who is near, we have better opinions about him, for we suppose him to be the common Lord of all; but others are appointed over the nations, who are indeed under him, but are like legates of an emperor, each one differently performing his own charge; and we do not establish him as a partner of the other gods whom he holds as subjects. But if he, having honored some particular one, assigns to him the government of the universe, it will be better, according to our judgment, to acknowledge the God of the universe, and together with him not to have been ignorant of Him, rather than to worship in place of the Maker of all things one who has received the government of the smallest part.
CYRIL.
He is indeed the creator of all, who was preached by the all-wise Moses, and he himself is the Lord of all things, visible and invisible; and there is nothing of existing things that does not bow its neck to his scepters. But this man, on the other hand, by distributing his own kingdom to the impure and apostate demons, claims to have thought better concerning him. He even fabricates another argument, adding that if the God who is worshipped by us were a particularized God, it would be better not to be ignorant of the one and universal God. But that we have not been ignorant of the One and the supreme God of all, our long discourse has demonstrated. Let those who are led astray with him listen to us: "Ye deaf, hear; and ye blind, look up" to see such abominable and ridiculous cults. Dismiss the particular and falsely called—or rather, the non-existent—gods, and worship with us the one who is true by nature. D That he also speaks falsely, by saying that the God of all assigned his own kingdom to other gods, as being legates and some kind of prefects of the nations, even those who are willing will find it easy to understand through the divinely inspired Scripture. For I shall endeavor to demonstrate a matter that he would not wish. Did not Israel once cast a calf in the desert, having neglected its own salvation?
A Because of this, God was indignant and spoke to the sacred minister Moses: "Go, descend from here, you and your people whom you led out of the land of Egypt, into the land which I swore to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying: 'To your seed I will give it, and I will send my angel before your face. I will not ascend with you, because you are a stiff-necked people.' And the people," he says, "having heard this evil word, mourned with mourning." And Moses says to Him: "Unless You Yourself go with us, do not lead me up from here. And how will it be truly known that I have found grace in Your sight, I and Your people, unless You go with us?" And the Lord said to Moses: "And this word which you have spoken, I will do." Observe then, B observe Israel acting under God and reaping the fruit of supreme prosperity. But since he had offended not moderately by inclining toward rebellion, he received as a punishment the being under angels. And indeed, I would say that the holy angel is promised by God to be over them, but by comparison, it is much better for Israel to be subject to the God of all things Himself, and not to be put under others beside Him—a matter which Moses also deprecated, petitioning on their behalf. But if it had been necessary and useful for Israel to be under an angel, Moses would not have deprecated it, nor would God Himself, the Lord of all, have acceded to his deprecation of a good thing. But when His anger had subsided, He said that He Himself would be with Israel, although he was guilty of sin; it is clear, therefore, that it is neither unwelcome nor disreputable for God to rule over things on earth, not through some mediator, but directly and, to speak so, acting in His own person; nor, indeed, is it without harm for men to be under certain others, whether "rulers of nations" or angels, even if they are good and holy and under the yoke of the God over all. C I shall add something else that is not useless for the benefit of those who will read this. The wicked and apostate demons had claimed the inhabitants of the earth for themselves; but the Only-Begotten Word of God became man—the most powerful right hand of the Father, the hand that holds all things by its power—so that, having delivered those who were ensnared from their greed, He might present them to God and Father. Paul, the wisest minister of His sacred mysteries, will grant confirmation of this, writing: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then those who are Christ’s at His coming; then the end, when He shall deliver the kingdom to God and Father, when He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power." D Do you hear that when every authority and power has been abolished, and the greed of the devil has been utterly destroyed, the Son delivers the kingdom to God and Father, having, as it were, snatched it away from a tyrant and presenting it? For He does not deliver the kingdom by renouncing it from Himself, but, as I said, freed from the defeated enemies, with no other of all those who are on the earth reigning except Him alone through the Son with the Holy Spirit. For would it not be ungrateful for Him—when He has become man, similar to us, and...
ignominy, he endured the cross, so that he might expel the host of impious demons from attacking us. For he does not set himself as being outside of reigning when he hands over the kingdom to Him, but as free, as I said, from the enemies being cast out, and with no other reigning over the earth, except that now it is His and His alone, through the Son with the Holy Spirit. Then, those upon the earth, he who also became Man for our sake, and endured the cross, despising the shame, so that he might drive out the host of unholy demons from the tyranny they held over us.
OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS CYRIL, ON THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN, BOOK FIVE
A 151. The blessed David asserts that the most foul of all diseases is the intemperance of the tongue. And indeed he was accustomed to pray against this with these words: “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door of restraint about my lips; incline not my heart to words of wickedness.” For I would say that to choose to think wisely, whatever is fitting for those who are truly of sound mind, and indeed to use that speech which is free from reproach, is worth everything. For it is written: “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.” But as for using a loose and unrestrained tongue, and one that runs headlong into every manner of slander, who would not rebuke it, and with very good reason? And I think that everyone would say that those who are held by such grievous diseases have arrived at the very limit of wickedness. Come then, let us show that Julian is one of this number, a caviler and a fault-finder, whose whole spirit, like a restive horse, pours itself forth into slander against us. He gave himself over to reviling to such an extent that no other of those who have declared war against the religion of the Christians before him has done so. For besides those things which he B blathers with singular audacity, he most indignantly tramples upon the law of the most wise Moses, and rages excessively against the divine oracles, so that if there be any action
of ignorance, he might justly be held accountable for this very thing. He writes as follows:
JULIANUS
That Decalogue, the law of Moses, is wonderful: "Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not bear false witness." Let each of the commandments, which he says were written by God himself, be written in these words: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." After this, the second: "There shall be no other gods for thee besides me. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol." And he adds the cause: "For I am the Lord thy God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, a jealous God. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day. Honor thy father and thy mother. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet the things of thy neighbor." B What nation is there, by the gods, if you remove these, "Thou shalt not worship other gods," and, "Remember the Sabbath," that does not think the other commandments must be observed? So much so that penalties are established for those who violate them, in some places indeed more severe, in others similar to those established by the law of Moses, and in some places even more humane.CYRILLUS
It seems to me that he forgets the objection which he has made very often, whereby he contends that, among the nations, some are governed by good and most equitable laws, while others are endowed with more savage customs, as if with impunity proposed, to rush into every crime. For he said C that each of the governors of the nations, or the guardian demons of the cities, administer the empire entrusted to them by their own judgment, and prescribe to their subjects whatever they wish. But how does he here assert that every nation—or indeed that there are none—refuses a right and just manner of living? How is it, then, that he attacks a law so venerable and admirable with such extreme accusations? I cannot say. For he seems to have concerned himself with two things most necessary, and having chosen those above all others, he connects the rest, by which we may indeed correctly attain the best life of all. For he says that piety toward God is the best of all things, and it is perfected by us through our D constant and steady study of Him, and when we detest utterly falling away from Him, nor bestow honors upon others that are suitable and due to Him alone. "For I am," he says, "the Lord thy God; and there shall be no other gods for thee besides me." Since, therefore, even in our own affairs, all good men constantly strive to walk the straight path of truth, and shun falsehood; will it not be worth our while that, in order to attain the truth, we should receive an accurate and most exact knowledge of Him who truly is, and not be carried anywhere else, and to those things which are less fitting, rendering divine honor to gods of a false name, and to those who have never existed anywhere? Therefore, after we have one by natureA and truly existing God, he commanded us to become stewards of reverence toward parents, setting forth most worthy rewards for those who wish to excel. "For honor," he says, "thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thou shalt be long-lived upon the earth." After this, he rejects every kind of wickedness, and brands as counterfeit the ways of unholiness. "For you shall not commit murder," he says, "you shall not commit adultery," and the rest. B And then, who would not admire the most wise Moses, and the law given through him, and deem it worthy of all wonder, unless perhaps he considers that those who have chosen to hold the opinions of the Greeks, that it is right to live brilliantly and holily, are of no account? But he says that these things are known and observed by all nations. Are they, then, taught by some other person, who brought them forth before the all-wise Moses? But you cannot bring forward any lawgiver older than Moses. Or is it that they have received the knowledge of nature implanted by the Creator, by which they might know useful things and distinguish the worse from the good? Let that also be correct. The best institutions, therefore, are those with which the law of nature itself harmonizes. C Nevertheless, he says that human nature, by its own power, has by no means attained the knowledge of what is useful. Therefore, it was necessary for all mortals to be rightly instructed; and consequently, the law of Moses is by right to be held in the highest esteem. For it imparts to the ignorant the knowledge of things to be done, which avert punishment and repay the due rewards. But let one answer me as I inquire: does he consider those who have proposed to live a right life and to keep such commandments—"You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not covet the things of your neighbor; you shall not give false testimony, you shall not perjure yourself," and the rest—as worthy of praise or of ridicule? If he praises them, how cannot the censure of things that are most worthy of admiration be devoid of intelligence and too hasty? For they observe things which they know ought to be admired. But if he does not approve of them at all, but rather censures them, it would be evident, D surely, that he alone expects to admire those things which are forbidden by the laws of the Greeks, and chooses to honor those things which are condemned by the vote of all. For Solon and Lycurgus are said to have written the best laws for the Greeks. And Moses is older than both, and they, indeed, have lived long intervals of time later. Tell me, therefore: since the commandment through Moses clearly forbids both committing murder and lusting after the marriages of others, and condemns theft and perjury, and sets down penalties for those who transgress against the provision of bearing false witness; did not these things seem right to his own lawgivers? Or would they not be convicted of having gone by the same reasoning? For if, while they are [already] departing...
from the judgments of those whom he admires, they are condemned, then let him teach us the reason. But if it happens that the laws of Moses are in some places in agreement with theirs, and are highly approved of because they are beneficial, as are the Hebrew laws, how is it that he does not perceive that he is also condemning his own ancestors along with ours? But because the Mosaic laws are known and kept throughout the entire world, and do not conflict with anyone at all, he says that they ought on that account to be disparaged. And yet, how ought one not rather to wonder at them for this very reason, that they have been honored by the votes of all? Or let him teach us again what it is that, by right, should be considered worthy of praise: is it that which is pleasing to all, and which any person might rightly and orderly vote to have been well done, or that which is pleasing to a few, or to no one at all? I believe, however, it is that which is pleasing to all. B And this is found in the oracles given through Moses. By what manner, then, through those very things for which they ought, surely, to be admired, does he ignorantly launch the most extreme slanders against them? If his intent is to disparage those things which are worthy of praise simply because Moses proclaimed them and they are pleasing to everyone, I would say that anyone who has chosen to think the same as him would also logically be plotting against many others who have attained no ignoble reputation. Certain individuals were the first inventors of the arts and sciences for those living in this life. For some invented weaving, others metallurgy, others tailoring, and in addition to these, medicine, and many other necessities for the benefit of many were devised. Therefore, if these things are pleasing to all, and are necessarily practiced, and hold sway even to this day, shall we deprive the inventors of the praise they deserve? But that could not justly happen. For the fact that their artistic inventions are in honor among all brings them even more praise and commendation. But this obstinate and bold man has not only accused the divine oracles, but he also adds something else, and says:
JULIAN.
C But these words, "You shall not bow down to other gods," constitute what he says is the greatest slander against God. "For God," he says, "is a jealous God." And in other places: "Our God is a consuming fire." If, then, a human being who is jealous and envious seems to you to be worthy of blame, do you then make God divine if He is called jealous? And yet, how is it reasonable to lie so clearly about God? For if He is jealous, then against His will all the gods are worshipped, and all the rest of the nations worship their own gods. How then did He not stop this, if He is such a jealous being and does not wish others to be worshipped, but only Himself? Was He perhaps unable, or did He not even wish in the first place to prevent the other gods from being worshipped? But the former—to say that He was not able—is impious, and the latter is D human, and consistent with our own works. Away with these trifles, and do not draw such a great curse upon yourselves.
CYRIL.
He pretends, indeed, to have piety toward God, so that he may not seem to be absurdly contradicting the words of the divinely inspired Scripture; for he says it is most senseless, and completely...
≫ A stupid, and deserving of punishment, to call God an "emulator." Let him hear, therefore, that the divine nature is free from every passion and content in its own goods, and remains unshaken in the state in which it exists. But the theologians, explaining how He is affected by individual things, make use of human terms, since there are no others available by which they might express the matter. For emulation, and anger, and whatever things are likewise worthy of blame as these are, invade the minds of men with perturbation. Nature, indeed, suffers from infirmity, and what is born to commit injury might easily overcome anyone’s soul. But if such things are spoken also of God, then, and only then, if we are understanding wisely, and in a way befitting an ineffable nature, and not attributing our own infirmities to Him, we shall commit no impiety. When, therefore, God is called an emulator, you should consider that there are things utterly loathsome to Him, namely, the ease with which those subject to Him are led astray into baser things; for I believe one ought to love to be fixed and to lie in an unshaken perseverance of sincerity toward Him, as it is not the act of good men to waver and cast themselves away toward what is base, but rather it contains an intolerable insult against the majesty of God. For, someone might say to them, "For what reason, having despised the one God of the universe who is God by nature, have you turned aside to others, false ones I say, and ones which exist not at all?" Something of this sort He says through one of the holy prophets to those of the blood of Israel: "What injustice did your fathers find in me, that they departed far from me, and walked after vanity, and became vain?" 78 For I believe it is necessary for one who deflects in unchecked course from the true God, to expose what is being sinned in His worship, so that he may present a specious cause for his defection. But here, since there is nothing he can object, and yet he has attempted to do this, and has taken upon himself such wicked things, is he not rightly and deservedly to be punished? For either, by the penalty imposed, he himself will turn out better, or he will transmit value to others. For they will take care not to fall into the same things, if they fear the punishment. It was necessary, therefore, that the Maker of all things, being good, should not simply allow some to depart from Him, but rather, by fear, should restrain their sloth and their readiness to defect. B For this reason, clearly, God has been called by the writings of Moses an "emulator" and a "consuming fire." For that it is perilous—or rather, destructive—to those who suffer this, to defect from God, we shall see without difficulty, having considered the matter in this way: For the sure, subtle, and accurate knowledge of Him, there is nothing, I think, to be preferred: not the force of wealth, not the splendor of the world, not the pride of dignities, not the opinion of worldly, animal, and demonic wisdom. C For truly God proclaims this through the voice of Jeremiah: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows the Lord." 79 And our Savior himself said somewhere to God and the Father who is in heaven: "And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent.
80 The best property of all, therefore, would be the knowledge concerning God. That this is correct stands to reason even in the judgment of the Greeks themselves. Indeed, Alexander, the disciple of Aristotle, in his treatise *On the Providence for Each Thing*, says: "Perhaps it is necessary to state the truth: through piety toward the Divine, living happily is the greatest of all goods and the most perfect." But this is shown to lie in contemplation; and contemplation consists in the knowledge of the most excellent things. And the most excellent things, by the confession of all, are divine matters. Since these things are so, happiness is contained in the knowledge of divine things. Therefore, as I said just now, there would be nothing for the lovers of true wisdom more precious than doctrines concerning God. But being attached to falsely-named gods leads one away from this. And what is it to be ignorant of that which truly is and to be deprived of the pure and true glory regarding God? Furthermore, how is it useless for the benefit of those on earth to know that the matter offends God, who "wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? 81 Just as we say that for a man, blindness of the eyes is altogether difficult and very hard to bear, whereas for the eyes to be sound is greatly desired and prayed for, so it would be something to be avoided, and very reasonably so, to be unable to see the things concerning God and to be deprived of that intelligible light which illuminates the eye of the heart. But the exercise of the vision of God is something worthy of acquisition, and saving, and the root and origin of every good for us. And tell me, would any man not grant that living under God and according to law is far better than living without God and lawlessly? And yet, how is the better way not evident to all? Since, therefore, for those who have placed themselves outside of God A by choosing to worship gods that do not exist, it is a necessity in every way to fail both the yoke of the laws, and the good order of life, how would one not praise the Savior of all, God, for removing the causes of such ruin from those on earth? But perhaps it offends him B that God subjects rebels to penalties, and in a way cuts off the approach to impiety for those miserably perishing, while declaring himself a zealot. Let us, then, justly blame also those who sit upon the thrones of earthly kingdoms, when they are perhaps troubled upon seeing some of their own bodyguards desert their benevolence and choose the side of barbarians. But if any of their generals were to observe some of those who serve as soldiers throwing away their shield and completely neglecting the duty to toil, should he not be indignant? C And if cattle are carried off in the fields and lie exposed to the cruelty of wolves, should the shepherd sit idle? Should the farmer likewise be sluggish, while meanwhile his own orchards wither away? Should parents look on unconcerned while their children contaminate themselves with every disgrace? Indeed, should a master not be moved at all when he sees the members of his household, forgetful of his kindness, grow insolent and undertake the very things he most abhors? But no one, I think, would not say that this is the ultimate evidence of madness. And should God have neglected his own who had fallen into harm? For it was necessary that these, as if by certain bridles, should have been brought D to the right path
Something like this the divine David says to him: A "In bit and bridle curb the jaws of those who do not come near to you." B But let him answer me as I question him: Does he confess that those whom he calls and thinks to be gods are angry or indignant if those who are not willing to be subject to them prudently turn themselves to better things and, having embraced the religion of the Christians, submit themselves to the true God, or are they not moved by this at all? If therefore they do not care much even for this, why does he vainly get angry at those who transfer themselves from the error of the Greeks to the truth? Why does he not rather side with his own gods? For if they do rightly when they are unwilling to be indignant, he thinks less honestly of them, or he indeed in some way reproaches them for neglect of the honor due to them. But if he thinks correctly when he reproaches them and is indignant, can it not truly be said that he himself surpasses the most wise gods in counsel and wisdom? But he says they are indignant at this. Therefore, let them be understood to be affected by jealousy as well. But now, how insanely he has railed against the writings of Moses, when he contends that God ought not to be indignant if any of his own are fickle and inconstant, and having rejected the saving knowledge, cast themselves headlong into the abyss of destruction. But for what reason, he says, has he not forbidden it, although it was permitted to him to do so? But I shall answer this to you, my good man: Why does he keep men from wickedness, both by threatening wrath, and prescribing punishment, and calling himself a fire, and restraining sloth with fear? But it would have been better, he says, to compel them by force and necessity. What then? Where would the freedom of human will and choice be? For virtue is a free thing, just as even the wise men of the Greeks themselves teach, so that praise may deservedly follow the good, and punishment may necessarily follow the wicked; for when it was permitted to them to achieve glory through right actions, they have of their own will perished, having fallen into the basest things. Furthermore he adds and says:
C
JULIANUS
If he wishes no one to be worshipped, for what reason do you worship this Son, whom he himself never knew or considered his own? And I shall easily demonstrate this. You, however, from I know not where, attribute a supposititious one to him.D
CYRIL
The God of all, indeed, denies that other gods are to be worshipped, since he alone is by nature and truly the Creator of all things and Lord. But as for Julian calling the Son supposititious, he does not know what he is saying, or rather, he is fighting against God.A and lets loose a petulant and intemperate tongue against such exalted mysteries. And indeed he proclaims that he will demonstrate this with no effort, as one for whom the path of lying is well-trodden. For that we do not put forward a supposititious or bastard son to the most holy God, but rather confess that His own proper God the Word proceeds from Him by nature, to whom alone divine honors are fitting, we shall easily demonstrate at the appropriate time and place. Julian, however, everywhere defending the writings of Plato and preferring his rhapsodies to the Holy Scriptures, accuses us again with these words: Why, he says, have you abandoned Greek eloquence and betaken yourselves to the discourses of the truth? We answer, because we have acknowledged the God who truly exists by nature, even if Moses, as he says, wrote of divine things less magnificently than is fitting. For he calls Him an emulator and wrathful, although He is most mild and goodness itself. But of these things we have disputed to excess and very often, I think. Nevertheless, since he indulges in insults, come now, let us examine them.
JULIAN.
Ecquid indeed does God appear in no way indignant at these things, nor angry, nor wrath-filled, nor swearing, nor inclining quickly in one direction or the other, as Moses says regarding Phinees? If any of you has read Numbers, he knows what I say. For after he had slain with his own hand him who had been initiated into Beelphegor, and the woman by whom he had been enticed, with a shameful and most painful wound through her womb, God is introduced, saying: B "Phinees, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has quieted my fury from the sons of Israel, because he was zealous with my zeal among them; and I did not consume the sons of Israel in my zeal" (Num. xxv, 11). What is lighter than the cause for which God is introduced by the writer as being truly wrathful? What is more absurd? If ten or fifteen, or add even one hundred—for they will not say one thousand (but let us suppose even that many)—had dared to transgress the commandments of God, was it necessary for six hundred thousand men to perish because of just a thousand? How much more preferable does it seem to me, surely, to save one wicked man together with a thousand upright men, than to destroy the thousand with the one. C Later, he weaves a long context of words to prove that the Creator of heaven and earth ought not to have been so ferociously wrathful as to wish often to destroy the entire race of the Jews. For if the wrath of one hero and obscure demon is unbearable to regions and whole cities, who would have stood against God if He were angry, or demons, or angels, or even men?
CYRIL.
He believes, then, as I said, that the supreme and immaculate nature differs little from D the affections that one might perhaps perceive in each of the things. For let it be said, if it seems...
A more humanly, that such things are and are no different from those that occur in us. And if anger is named in reference to God, one might perhaps think that some inflammation, a bitter and unrestrained movement of the heart, has befallen Him; or if He is called a jealous God, one will not shrink from saying that he is affected in the same way as men, and withers away in the fire of envy. But, I think, to think in this way would be the sign of a deranged and utterly insane mind, and of one who is totally ignorant of those things that are inherent in the divine nature. For just as we say that He stands above and is exalted over all things, not by local elevations, but by the superiority of His nature and His incomparable excellence; in the same way, I think, God is placed above human things and is understood as being outside of every affection. For He steers human affairs with an equal balance; and to those who offer an easy neck to His yoke, He distributes the gifts of the highest B rewards. But those whose heart is hard and unyielding He visits with penalties lighter than they deserve. For we do not say that the wicked should be honored in the same way as the good, nor yet that by excessive patience a path should be opened to apostasy, so that they might go wherever they will with impunity, and—leaving Him aside and bidding farewell to noble things—be swept down into every evil. For where would the all-good Creator of all things be, if He did not provide for His own creatures, and if He did not render some, who have been subdued by fear, more firm by His aid to embrace the good, and recall others—the impious despisers of sacred oracles—to health, and restrain them with fear, further adding the scourge as the best kind of protection: "For whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." When, therefore, He determines the punishment for some on account of the wrongs they have committed, then He is said in our language to be angered, even though the turbulence of anger does not fall C upon Him. And if He is unwilling that certain good people be torn from His bosom and turned to the worship of false gods, then we say that He is jealous, signifying the matter with a word familiar to us, and being unable to express the power of the love with which He pursues us in any other way. For He does not take pleasure in the destruction of men, but rather desires that His own—and indeed all mortals—should shine with the glory of virtues. And if He is said to swear to some, let Him take it up with those who have not believed, whose incredulity brought about the necessity of an oath. He swears, however, by His own glory. "For I will lift up my hand to heaven," He says, "and I will swear by my right hand." And again, "By myself I have sworn, says the Lord." For He could not swear by another who was higher and more excellent and superior to His own glory. For since He was comforting some of the saints D regarding their faith, because He was going to bring the promises to an end, He sometimes spoke to them with the interposition of an oath, for this was His purpose: to establish the firmness of faith for His worshipers by every means. But now, since he considers it a charge of the utmost gravity, that God sometimes [turns] from anger to mildness
come, let us say to him: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." For he mocks foolishly what it would have been better and wiser to deem worthy of all account. For God of all is indeed slow to anger, A or to imposing deserved punishments upon the wicked, but toward allaying anger and imparting mercy to those who are entangled in crimes, He is certainly very prompt and ready. For Israel cast a calf in the desert, and, forgetful of the wonders that happened in Egypt, they began to perform worship to the calf. Indignant at this, God compels Moses, the priest of things sacred, with these words: "Go, descend quickly from here; for your people, whom you led out from the land of Egypt, have sinned. They have quickly departed from the way you commanded them; they made for themselves a molten calf, and they have bowed down to it, and have sacrificed to it, and have said: These are your gods, O Israel, who led you up from the land of Egypt. And now leave me alone, and being inflamed with anger against them I will wipe them out, and I will make you into a great nation." But when the all-wise Moses besought Him to be merciful to those who had sinned, "The Lord was propitiated," it says, "so that He might save His people." Yet one might sometimes see some of those kings upon the earth, sharpened with unmitigated anger against those who have offended them through arrogance, and yielding to none of those who beseech them, even though those kings are established in the greatest dignity—not to leaders, not to B others adorned with the badges of highest honor. But this God, who is so great and above all, accepts the prayers of one righteous man. But the adversary will perhaps say: "Does He therefore take counsel late at last, and having changed His mind, turn to better things?" Yet surely one who is aware of the future ought to perceive in his mind that anger will be stilled, and therefore to avoid it from the beginning. But when he has brought this into his mind, he seems without doubt forgetful of his own ancestors. And among them, perhaps, is Homer, who writes thus concerning his own gods: C "...even the gods themselves are changeable."
Furthermore, it is easy to see that those things which ought to be admired are seized upon by him through extreme folly for the sake of accusing God, if one wishes to understand the order of events. For it was necessary for God to declare the wicked to be liable to punishment. For this reason He is said to be angered. But we, the descendants of Moses, ought besides to learn the supreme clemency of God, and how much virtue avails with Him, and the power of the prayer of the holy ones. For does not this matter fill life with good hope? For if He receives the prayers of one righteous man, when D the masses are sometimes bound by such grave sins, ought not all to be of good courage, even though they be caught in human weaknesses?
and by offending against the holy laws, should see the judgment hanging over their own heads? A For it will suffice for their salvation, if they are disposed to repent, to have the prayer of one righteous man. But since he makes the zeal of Phinees a pretext for speaking against God, come, let us pass quickly over the history and by calling to mind the sacred words themselves, let us prove that he has also in this, spoken vainly and foolishly.
It is written thus in Numbers, which is a book of Moses: B “And Israel stayed in Settim: and the people were profaned by whoring with the daughters of Moab: and the people ate of their sacrifices, and they worshipped their idols, and Israel was initiated to Beelphegor, and the Lord was angered in his wrath against Israel.” Observe how small the transgression seems, and how insufficient it is of itself to be able to grieve and to stir up to indignation the beauty-loving nature. What greatness of miracles was omitted for the hardened Egyptians, when the almighty God agitated creation itself, as it were, so as to deliver Israel from unbearable slavery? For the heaven sent down hail; the earth, as it is written, sent forth frogs; the water was turned into blood; and from the furnace-like soot of the air poured out, blisters sprang up on the bodies of men. And yet, taken by the beauty of wicked women, they were most senselessly snatched into unbridled lusts: and their mind reached such a state of madness that, having impiously spurned the reverence for the one true and natural God, they transferred all worship to the idol they were culturing. But since it was fitting to repress the evil, and not to allow it to consume the whole race, having begun with a few, but soon to overcome the rest; some of those who had defected fell by the hands of the good, so that the path which had been worn smooth toward shame might be usefully made rough by the terrors of suffering. C Then indeed, then Phinees, as some had exceeded the bounds of decency, seized both those caught in the act and finished them; for he pierced through both the harlot and the fornicator with one stroke. Here observe the mercy of God toward me, how frequently, so that there may be an occasion for gentleness, He makes use of severity for a time. “For Phinees,” He says, “son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has quieted my wrath from the children of Israel, in that he was zealous with my zeal among them, and I did not consume the children of Israel in my zeal,” saying thus: “Behold, I give to him, and to his seed after him, a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.” D For since, He says, because of a God-loving impulse, and almost by having taken on my own zeal, he laid his hand upon those who had committed impious acts, He ceased from His wrath; and then He deemed him worthy of rewards: “For he made atonement,” etc. But Julian, who knows nothing of what is good or true, says that the cause for which God ceased to be angry at those who had perpetrated such things was trivial. But does he not, out of pure astonishment, fall into a degenerate and depraved state of mind, while
attempting to reproach what he should surely have deemed worthy of absolute wonder? For when he saw Phinehas, as it were armored in a zeal for godliness and sincerity, and bringing his wrath to bear upon those who were despising the worship due to God, he was pleased by this, and granted a reprieve to the others for offenses for which they might naturally have suffered the ultimate punishment. For the divine and most high nature always finds the transgressor to be abhorrent, along with him who has a wavering heart and a disposition that is effeminate and easily led into error, and into apostasy from things that are good; but it shines upon those who are firmly established, who are accustomed to walk uprightly, who refuse to deviate to either side, and who adhere with a steady mind and fixed purpose to piety toward Him. And frequently, on account of B one such man, He lavishly bestows mercy upon an innumerable multitude, even one that has been quite seriously condemned. Thus, when the whole of Jerusalem was entangled in no trivial offenses, and was provoking the mind that loves virtue—for it was in the habit of being easily swayed, and that quite readily, toward every action condemned by the Law—the righteous Judge was nevertheless willing to grant them another reprieve; but when the prophet Jeremiah was offering prayers on its behalf, he immediately heard the voice saying: "Go about in the streets of Jerusalem, and seek in its squares, if you can find a man who is doing justice, and seeking truth, and I will be merciful to them, says the Lord."
Observe, then, how God considers one man to be worth many, and prefers to save a populous city along with one righteous and good man, rather than to destroy one righteous man along with many ungodly ones. Since, therefore, some had at that time turned their backs completely on what is right, and had perished utterly, was it not necessary to take the appropriate care for those who had not yet suffered this fate, and, by inflicting C punishment on a few, to check the impulses of the rest, and to ensure that they remained steadfast and constant in virtue, being restrained by fear? Did God act unjustly, then, or is He not all-righteousness? Or what absurd thing was He contemplating when He did these things? Yet is it not impious for anyone to recklessly reproach the judgments of God? Porphyry himself says as much in his work *Against Nemertius*: "So that the discourse that has dared to become the teacher of justice to God, if it is explained, will be found to be entirely full of injustice." Therefore, the judgment of God will rightly be considered holy and altogether irreproachable in all things, and it is so in truth. To think that it is otherwise is a sickness of a corrupted mind and a crime. But since our adversary is hostile to our arguments, let him hear Porphyry writing again as follows: "Not only does He adapt one time to one thing and another to another, for the benefit of the whole and the perpetuity of its composition, D but He also exists as the guardian, savior, and physician of all. Did He not suggest to those who are physicians among men, according to the art which He Himself bestowed upon them, that they should perceive the dangers threatening the body as a whole, and should therefore cut some members, sear others, or cause others to suppurate, so that some..."
salvation may be provided for the whole. A And mothers and nurses who are present, although they know that the physician does this for the sake of the salvation of the whole, often protest and weep bitterly. But the sensible father who is present encourages the physician, and even removes food from the wailing child for its own benefit. B Does God, then, for the preservation of the universe, not permit that some things should perish and be separated from others, just as a single finger from the whole foot, for the utility of the entire body? For if it were permitted for us to investigate the divine reasons, we would certainly see that He prevents some things from coming into the light from the very beginning; that He foresees that others will be harmful; and that to others He grants death as a reward for piety. C Although Porphyry may seem to have fought with marvelous intensity against the majesty of God before Julian, I believe these points are sufficient to prove how well he agreed with what he wrote. I shall add, moreover, a certain statement of his to this effect: "Chrysippus, following Socrates, did not permit anyone to say regarding created things: 'Who knows?' but rather: 'This was absolutely for the best.' For if no better administration of the world can be conceived than the divine one, it must be completely assumed that created things, as they are, exist in the best possible way. For if you, having been called by a king to some part of the government, could not serve the utility of the state according to the direction of the laws in any other way than by punishing some with exile, others with the confiscation of property, and others with death—and you could not preserve life for all, because that would not be advantageous to all—shall we not grant to this Ruler of so great a world that He governs without reproach, by Whom it has been judged that all things are done rightly, whether He proceeds through deaths, or changes, or through an indifferent [treatment of] ages?" D Why, then, does Julian show himself to be impious, and why does he shamelessly insult divine judgments, and ascribe impiety to the Substance that weighs all things holily, and attack with loud clamor that wrath which transforms those who have neglected virtue into a better state, and places those who have been shaken into a secure and firm position? Let us grant, as to a physician—as he is called by the author of your false worship—that he may cut off some small member so that the whole body may be preserved. Permit Him, as a judge, to rule those subject to the laws of the state, having removed the wicked. For not, as I have already said, did the good perish with the wicked; but rather, with one good man, Phinees by name, an almost innumerable multitude of the wicked was saved; and Phinees was held in honor, not because the woman was pierced with a heavy wound, but because, with singular purpose, having conceived an ardor for God in his whole heart, he was more fiercely armed against the deserters. But perhaps it does not please Julian that punishments are necessarily established for deserters, for he is not ignorant that he is numbered among them. And he will not escape the ultimate punishment by having cast away his shield, being convicted by the very facts themselves, as one who, having most severely repudiated virtue and deserted his service, has fallen into the abyss of impiety. But perhaps he thinks that he can resist the laws of God, and shift [...]
A the power of divine judgments to whatever he deems fit. For by disseminating falsehoods everywhere regarding the divinely-inspired Scripture, at one time he says that the hierophant Moses, acting as a demagogue rather than speaking the truth, composed his discourses concerning God, which are neither rightly ordered nor indeed consistent with himself; and at another time he contends that Ezra added certain things from his own judgment. Now this undertaking of his is also exceedingly bitter; for he affects a show of piety toward God so that he may seem not without cause to declare the discourses concerning Him to have been poorly composed, while he also pours out disgrace upon the holy Scriptures. But the crafty one shall not obtain his prey, as it is written. For we are not ignorant of his intentions, we who have the mind of Christ, B as the all-wise Paul says. That he has reached the very limit of impiety, will again be manifest from these things as well. For he says:
JULIAN. It is proper to compare him to the gentleness of Lycurgus, and the forbearance of Solon, or to the leniency and kindness of the Romans toward those who have done wrong.
CYRIL. Then with what countenance does the audacious man dare to compare the supreme God of all things in a comparative assessment with petty men, or rather, not even to say that the Creator of heaven and earth is superior to men, contending that the wisdom which is the artisan of all things has been surpassed by the fairness of men, and that He who with authority distributes to existing things those C through which they might be what they are, has almost been cast behind the goods that are in us? For all understanding and every manner of virtue, and indeed the striving for good things, has been implanted in nature by the Artificer of all. Therefore, the wicked and God-hated spirit has most clearly spoken through him, and perhaps there is nothing absurd if one should choose to liken him to the serpent, the author of all evil, or rather to the serpent in paradise, who was a minister of the devil’s words, and that only in appearance; for the voices were not of him so much as of the one speaking through him. But that one deceived one weak woman only; while this man, a most excellent imitator of that one’s perversity, strives to corrupt the whole world, lifting up his horn on high, and speaking injustice against God, D as it is written. Since, however, he says that Solon and Lycurgus were the most gentle of men, and has borne witness to their forbearance, it is necessary that we now say this in response: for Solon at Athens and Lycurgus among the Lacedaemonians were legislators. Did they, therefore, while providing for the cities or regions what was for the common benefit, and establishing laws for each, fail to say that those who were convicted of shameful crimes ought to receive punishment, and did they wish for it to be unpunished if someone chose to live a life full of crime and injustice? Or did they perhaps, by appointing a penalty appropriate to each of the transgressions, recall the worst of men to a better life, and those who were upright and ho-
- B nest, make them diligent in moderation and gentleness? If then they had little concern for such things, let him admit it, and I shall cease. But if they were truly zealous with the most necessary focus, to restrain the wicked and to rebuke their low behavior by their ways—for there was no other way for the sluggardly to be conquered by those who despise the best life—would they not be considered, for this very reason, mild and long-suffering? Although they themselves removed the laws of Draco, they judged it necessary for those who kill to be restrained, praising them, I suppose, and in no way feeling displeased. For when it was possible to dissolve them, they commanded them to be kept and ratified. But if I must say something about the legislators, they are indeed mild and gentle, but no one will deny that they must also be haters of evil. Therefore, even if they define very severe penalties for the wicked and the corrupt, and for those who choose a life beyond the laws, one would not say that they came to this decision as if tyrannized by passion, but rather as champions of justice, from a deep hatred of vice, condemning what is shameful and directing men toward better things, separating what is prone to commit injustice from the things accustomed to provide benefit, raising up fear as a most useful remedy for those wishing to be slothful, and holding it over them like a certain rod of punishment. But I think that anyone who has considered the disposition and thought of those who established each of the laws, when he sees them already measuring out brilliant rewards to the upright and bestowing upon each the fitting praises, would not be mistaken in saying that they took great pleasure in them and deemed worthy of every account the duty to live blamelessly. And when he sees them rebuking vice by their deeds, he would not fail of the truth if he says that they condemn wickedness in very fact. For just as the laws are, such generally, one might see, are the characters of the legislators inscribed within them. Wherefore, to match penalties to shameful and dishonorable things carries with it a certain suspicion of anger, even though the legislators are far removed from it. The same must be thought of God, and indeed of much greater things, since He is placed far above human affairs and beyond everything that has been made. Is it true, then, my good man, that if someone should attempt to abrogate the laws of Solon or Lycurgus—or even those of Draco—he would, as the saying goes, plant his foot in the mud, and undergo the penalty established for transgressors; yet if one neglects the divine commandments, C if penalties are required of him, is he punished unjustly? Since, therefore, God says: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," and "There shall not be to thee other gods beside Me," were those who had been initiated into Beel-phegor, and who had been sold almost into apostasy by the impure pleasures of dissolute women, not to be punished with death? D I add furthermore: that Solon and Lycurgus, whom he confesses to have been most excellent lawgivers, established with singular care that the Greeks should hold the gods they worshipped in special reverence and honor. I do not doubt that this is most true. For it is of such care and study to them, that they established extreme punishments for those who were found guilty of negligence. For what need is there...
for me to speak of the laws against those who commit sacrilege, as if they were insulting the gods? When, therefore, it is laid down among them, in a way that is not neglected, that one must in no manner offend against the gods—or rather, against impure demons—how is he not willfully committing injustice, who denies that punishment is justly B inflicted upon those who impiously outrage the worship of God? And yet they say that the Pythian prophetic demon, or Apollo, answered from the tripods regarding Socrates, that he was the wisest of all men. Great, indeed, was the admiration for the man among the Greeks; yet he departed this human life in prison by a draft of hemlock. The defendant, however, was on trial and was accused of the crime of introducing new gods into Greece. Why then should not the contemplators of the supreme God, and those who, having repudiated His worship, have addicted themselves to Beelphegor and other divinities besides Him, be punished with the penalty of Socrates—if not perhaps by hemlock, then by some other means—from which the laws of the Greeks, I believe, do not dissent, nor Solon and Lycurgus, or Draco before them, by whom they were enacted? Wherefore, even if there are some lawgivers who are merciful and gentle, if they punish the wicked, they do not immediately cease to be mild and humane. But when he writes that the Romans used clemency and kindness toward certain of those who had wronged them, how does it escape him that crimes committed against men are far lower than those committed against God? For to sin against a nature that is placed above all things is not the same as to offend some mortals. For by as much as He surpasses our affairs, by so much, I think, the force of the crimes by which He is offended will surpass the others. And each will be followed by a punishment in proportion to the nature and manner of the transgression. But as if Julian had clearly and indubitably demonstrated that a nature not subject to human affections, nay, that which transcends every mind, is overcome by some grave impotence of the soul and incited by motions of anger, he again pours forth, in a certain heat, I know not what old wives' tales, and such as smell of extreme insanity, and says: C D
JULIANUS.
How much better our own things are than theirs, observe from these points also. The philosophers bid us imitate the gods according to our strength. And they say that this imitation consists in the contemplation of things that are. That this is free from affection and consists in contemplation is, I suppose, clear even if I do not speak; inasmuch as in whatever measure we dwell in a-pathy (freedom from passion), being set upon the contemplation of things that are, in that measure we are made like unto God. But what is the imitation of God proclaimed among the Hebrews? Anger, and fury, and savage emulation. "For Phinehas," he says, "did stay my anger, when he was zealous with my zeal among the children of Israel." For God, having found one who, with him, was indignant...and being grieved, God is seen to express indignation. These and many other things of this kind are said to have been spoken by Moses concerning God in more than one place of Scripture.
CYRIL. A If, therefore, good sir, it is better to be subject to wicked demons, or to apostate angels, than to live under God and be ruled by Him alone, we yield the point to you. But if this is detestable to those who possess a right and sound mind and who are held by the study of true piety, and if it is indeed the occasion of every prosperity, and truly most desirable, to know without error what is that which truly exists and presides over all things, from which every kind of virtue proceeds and comes to us, and from which, as from a fountain, good things and the distribution of heavenly gifts gush forth: how then could the religion of the Greeks be superior? Or rather, how would not the religion of the Christians, fragrant with the ointment of holy worship, surpass their vanity by an incomparable interval? And indeed, since the mind of the Greeks is immersed in the mire of error and has a hope that is a lie, according to the voice of the prophet, it is worth the effort to see how high-minded our Julian thinks himself, he who believes himself to have been raised to a lofty degree of wisdom. B "The wise," says he, "have commanded us to imitate the gods as much as human weakness allows." But the thing cannot be accomplished otherwise than by the sole contemplation of realities and, furthermore, by emptiness of the passions. By this, I suppose, he means emptiness of anger, and of other virtues besides, which it is necessary to first house and have within one’s breast, and then in this way to imprint the imitation of God as far as is possible, and to practice the methods of this beautiful art. That it is necessary for those who care to attain to the true vision of God to use a leisure-filled mind, and one that has come to be free of worldly care, I for my part would maintain, as would anyone accustomed to think rightly. For the Creator and Lord of all brings us to this when He says: "Be still, and know that I am God." C But among those things that make us like unto God, one blessing—the most desirable of all—is to be free from anger, as far as is possible, and not to be stirred by its waves. Since this is confessed by all as being most true, it must now be understood that God is not irascible and harsh, but rather altogether alien to all wrath and fury. Since, therefore, Moses, a man of singular wisdom, does not call upon some one unknown and obscure god, or some particular and false one, but the Creator and Artificer of this universe, who truly exists and by His own nature and substance possesses dominion over all things; with what face did Julian dare to call that imitation of God which is found among the Hebrews "wrath and fury and fierce emulation"? D Unless, perhaps, prompted by folly, he thinks that human passions can fall upon God, and places Him in the same position and rank as us—He by whom and in whom all things were brought into existence. But the divine Scripture, when it speaks of Him, discourses not according to His nature, but in a manner accommodated to our sense and capacity. For thus, by our own terms and...
by the voices assigned to each of these things, it fixes our minds upon subtle phantasms and raises them to an understanding of things beyond speech; so much so that it very often attaches the parts of human bodies to Him, using them rather as catachreses and as derived from things that are our own, in order to raise us, as if by examples, toward a subtle contemplation in an elegant manner. Therefore, just as it composes the incorporeal, which is without size and not in quantity, simple and incomposite, out of members, sometimes as if each of the parts that are assigned to it signifies something of those things that are in it indirectly—the eye signifying the All-seeing, the ears the All-hearing, the hand, indeed, the creative energy, and even the feet a certain smooth and easily driven path in each of the things that are being done—so also, even if anger were by chance spoken of in regard to God, it permits us to think, starting from our own experiences, that if it were possible to endure that passion, it would have been endured by the quality of the things done, being moved toward this. For by its natural property, the divine is without passion. Yet, it does not follow from this cause that the one who has neglected B the master’s hand and yoke should be blameless; nor, indeed, is the leap toward rebellion unpunishable for those who are placed under his scepter, but rather I say that they ought to be punished and very justly so; for to those who are wicked, being without a ruler is unprofitable, just as, indeed, not to rebuke children who are not accustomed to live orderly is ruinous. When, therefore, according to the quality and power of the things done, things that are owed from God on account of anger—if it should seem that they have finally been brought upon them—then it is also said that He is angered, the holy ones using a voice accommodated to us, so that we might understand that, if it were possible for the things concerning God to be explained in words exceeding human capacity, the name of "wrath" would never have been applied to Him. One ought, therefore, to have reckoned the measure of the intelligence within us, and the feebleness of the tongue. And yet one might say to him: "What are you doing, my good fellow? You accuse the interpreters of divine things, as if they were accustomed to speak of divine things less correctly than they ought." Therefore, accuse your own nature, because the mind cannot strive to the summit of the divine majesty C and is left at a long interval from the glory of the Lord, since it does not have words by which it can sufficiently explain those things that surpass the mind. But to me as I ask, let him also answer this: "Does it look, for if someone were to have the goal of needing to live gently and moderately, who of his own gods would he be a follower, and not miss the mark? Or perhaps they might say, 'Ares the man-slayer,' according to the discourse of Homer (1), who is indeed also a 'bane of mortals,' and 'wall-smasher,' and, moreover, has been named 'murderer' by him, and 'mad,' as I said, and a 'fixed evil'?" But let us leave this one aside; if it pleases, let us examine Athena, the "daughter of a mighty father," the "impudent," and the "dog-fly," who always drives the gods to discord; for she also cared for tactics, and they call her the most warlike of the demons, and they glorify the discourse concerning her. For surely—
A is the matter not evident enough in itself? For those who lead their troops into battle, and this not without anger—however prudently it is said they act—how can it be that they possess within them the true and sincere beauty of meekness? Furthermore, it is not difficult to observe that Minerva, whom they admire so greatly, was of such a narrow mind that she attached herself now to these, now to those, with the utmost levity, and for this reason was mocked on the stages of the tragedians. For Euripides, in the *Trojan Women*, writes that she met Neptune and addressed him thus:
I wish to gladden the Trojans, who were formerly my enemies, but to bring a bitter return upon the army of the Greeks.
*I wish to cheer the Trojans, my former enemies, And plunge the Greek army into a bitter return.*He writes that he replied to her: *Why do you hop thus, now to one set of ways, now to another? You hate and love whomsoever it may chance.*
And that Minerva answered these things: *Do you not know that I have been insulted, and my temples too?*
Then Neptune: *I know, when Ajax dragged Cassandra by force,*
And [he writes] that she, in her grief, added these words: *And he suffered nothing for it, nor did he hear a word from the Greeks.*
B Wherefore, if the Greeks had inflicted punishment upon him who had violated Cassandra, Minerva would not have been exasperated against the whole army. How then does she accuse Phineas, if by the most just punishment of one man she restrained her wrath against all? But perhaps these things were all conjured by the poets for the stage. But why is that history held in honor among other writers who are not dramatic poets? However, these things relate to Minerva, and to that homicide, that destroyer of men and madman. But what of her who, after she had drained the wealth of Oeneus, brought every kind of evil upon the affairs of the Aetolians and the Curetes, as well as their lands and cities—I mean the arrow-gladdened sister of Apollo? Did she not, seized by a common and trivial cause—because Oeneus had not sacrificed to her the first-fruits of his threshing floor—shake his whole hearth C as if to destroy it? And her brother, likewise prompt to anger, did he not, on account of a priest held in contempt at Troy by one Agamemnon, son of Atreus, send a destructive breed of disease into the army, by which many miserably perished? If, therefore, anyone were to imitate the gods of the Greeks, will he be gentle and meek, or harsh and irascible? I certainly declare that he will be harsh and irascible. But if the matter stands otherwise, let him come forward and teach in what way one who decides to imitate the Greek gods—so savage and pugnacious—will be able to be of a tranquil and relaxed mind, empty of all anger. For if Minerva was enraged at the Argives; and Diana punished Oeneus because he had neglected the sacrifices; and the pyres of corpses were frequent among the Greeks, D because the captive maiden was taken from the tents of Agamemnon...
and yet were they not also presented with the garlands of Chryses? How was it consistent that those who had been initiated into the rites of Beelphegor, and who had impiously offended the God of all, and who had been most foolishly snared into apostasy by pleasures leading to disgrace and lewdness, should act thus with impunity, rather than by right be paying the ultimate penalties for their evils? He further adds to these remarks:
JULIAN. That God has not taken thought for the Hebrews alone, but, having concerned Himself with all nations, bestowed upon them nothing earnest or great, whereas upon us He bestowed things a little better and more excellent, consider henceforth from what follows. The Egyptians, for their part, can name not a few wise men among them, and say that many have succeeded to the tradition of Hermes—I mean that Hermes who came to Egypt third. The Chaldeans and Assyrians B point to those descended from Annus and Belus; the Greeks to countless ones descended from Chiron; for from him all became masters of ritual and theologians, on which account alone the Hebrews seem to boast of their own things. Thereafter he mocks the blessed David and Samson, and says that they were not particularly valiant in battles, but were far inferior to the strength of the Egyptians and Greeks, and that their kingdom was confined with difficulty to the borders of Judea.
CYRIL. Well then, for I shall inquire again, to which god does he say the concern for the nations belongs, by whom no earnest or great thing at all has been bestowed upon the Hebrews, while upon the Greeks, indeed, the most powerful and superior things of all have been imparted? For will he name Him C who is testified to by the all-wise Moses as being the Creator of all things, of heaven and earth, and in sum of all things that have been called by Him into existence, and who alone exercises authority and holds sway over all, having creation beneath His feet, and being worshipped by it? Or will he name him whom both he himself and the authors of his impiety, by setting him forth in discourse and through contemplation as the first cause, the Good, place beneath and call a second god, and designate as a creator close to the world? If, then, they name the God proclaimed through the all-wise Moses, how does he say that He bestowed nothing of what is advantageous, or rather of what is necessary, upon the Hebrews, although He was made known to them, and displayed His own glory and majesty to them, and allowed them to partake of the true D contemplation of divine things, and furthermore appointed a legislator for them who was older in time than the wise men among the Greeks, and in comparative differences of wisdom and intelligence, and indeed also of virtue, so far superior to them as one might conceive the distance between darkness and light? And having ordained for them laws that are most excellent, so that each of their affairs might be regulated most excellently in accordance with what is blameless, and those who have been born under them might be able, without effort, not to be ignorant of the path of the highest life of all? But what is better than these? And what do the Greeks have that can compare with them? Is there not among us one rule over all, and one majesty, and one sovereignty, than which there is absolutely nothing higher? Is not every in-
Astitution of wickedness and baseness condemned by the votes of our law? Is not the shameful thing cast away from us, while every kind of virtue is held in the highest and most distinguished honor? But let us learn from this man himself, in what things the discipline of the Greeks consists. There are very many—an almost infinite number—of gods among them, differing from one another in will and opinion, and each having obtained a sovereignty by lot, they govern the nations, and yet they do not train them by similar laws: so that we see some driven by intemperance, others acting with impunity, raging against men with the sword, plundering the possessions of others, and overturning regions and cities; while others are so ensnared by unspeakable lusts, that, as if goaded by a gadfly, they have often burned with desire for their mothers and sisters, and even for their own daughters. B These are the wise teachings of those rulers of the nations; to these, according to their own account, the Creator who is nearest to the world has entrusted the sovereignty among the Greeks. Will they not, therefore, be convicted of blaspheming the very God whom they worship? But if some, whether among the Greeks or the Egyptians, have gained no obscure reputation for worldly wisdom, this has nothing to do with the discipline of the Christians. For the doctrine of Moses is older, containing within itself accurate, most true, and unadulterated knowledge of divine and human things alike. But let him not insult the leaders or kings of the Hebrews, if they should have yielded to others in martial prowess. For warfare was not their interest; they merely resisted the incursions of enemies, wishing only to defend and preserve their fatherland, not to invade the possessions of others with ferocity. For the law which God gave through Moses set over them a master and guide of justice. Now, Julian, thinking that every kind of good thing has been bestowed upon the multitude of the Greeks by God, but upon the Hebrews absolutely nothing, prides himself on the trifling inventions of the philosophers, and says: C
JULIAN. But he gave us the beginning of science, or of philosophical knowledge. And what is that? For the theory concerning visible things was perfected among the Greeks, though its first observations began among the barbarians in Babylon; and geometry, having taken its beginning from that partition of lands which was made in Egypt, grew to such magnitude; and the science of numbers, having begun from the Phoenician merchants, at length obtained the dignity and name of a science among the Greeks. But the Greeks joined these three together into one, with the addition of music—adding astronomy to geometry, and applying numbers and modulation to both; thence they composed their own music, and defined the harmonic ratios with an unerring agreement of the ears, or at least very close to it.
CYRIL. Julian extols such things to the heights and looks up to them. But I would answer to this, that he is utterly ignorant of those matters for which it is reasonable that those who are concerned for the best glory and for true prosperity should be admired. D
For it is not merely A a person who is well-versed in speech, and graceful and rhythmic in the delivery of words, so as to be able to speak fluently and to scrutinize the depth of trivial and thin concepts, and to weave together combinations of words with precision, and to strive to search out things beyond the mind, and whatever is false to our own true perception through the senses, who will be shown to be enviable and remarkable. The wise man in truth would be, and might be called by us, the one who has enriched himself with a clear and indubitable glory concerning the God of all, and who has attained as much precision as is possible for humans regarding Him, and who has also gathered together with this, in all necessary matters, an unerring knowledge, so that he may also be able to be reckoned among the men to whom it might justly be said that they ought to be glorified for their achievements in virtue. For what need do I have to busy myself with what the subject of geometry, harmony, and arithmetic truly is, and the other sciences, which they deem to be the only ones to be honored, and upon which they raise their eyebrows so high? B And yet, as far as concerns good order and living blamelessly in customs and character, I would say that the zeal and earnestness for these things is of no consequence. For no one will be superior to base pleasures, nor will he be a despiser of the power of riches or of empty glory, nor will he be free from the waves of anger, nor far from love of talk and envy, nor will he be one who takes care of the pursuits of self-control, nor yet of other goods, which, if present and inherent in some, would show them to be most illustrious and far above the rest, but if absent and non-existent, they would be of no value at all. For it is possible, yes, it is possible to see one who is gifted and has a polished tongue and is very talkative, and as it were C Attic-crafted and most skillfully prepared for beautiful speaking, but unholy in his ways, and caught in the snares of the most shameful desires. But the wise and sensible man will not acquire the status of being such a person in mere and empty words; nor would finding the ability to devise bitter sophistries and the unassailable cleverness of distorted concepts suffice for him to gain glory. For such a one is a craftsman, as far as concerns words, but not yet by any means necessarily a good man. Therefore, geometry and astronomy and the rest of such sciences do not make the one who has trained in them glorious and enviable; rather, the accurate and lean and blameless knowledge about God, and the necessity of holding the good in study and making the opposite something to be cast away—these, I would say, are the ornaments of pure and unassailable philosophy. The things of the Greeks D are cold, and contain much that is random, and involve a waste of long sweat for nothing. And perhaps he will not believe what has been said by us; but your own, O good Plato, will be called to our assistance, having written thus in the fifth book of the Republic: "All these, then, and others like them, the curious about such matters, and the philosophers of small crafts." "But who," he said, "are the true ones?" "The studious contemplators of truth." For philosophy is not contained in the discipline of geometry, which contains postulates and hypotheses; nor in music, which is idle; nor in astronomy, which abounds in natural and transient and probable arguments; but in the knowledge of the Good itself, through science and truth, since other things pertain to the good, and are as it were paths to the good; and therefore philosophy is not contained in light artifices, which are thus a laughingstock, but in the recognition of truth, namely of that which truly is, that is, God. And in this indeed the tenets of the Hebrews are—or rather, they are—
proved by the testimony of Julian himself. For when a certain man had come to Pytho to the temple of Apollo and had asked which nations surpassed all others in wisdom, the oracle is said to have delivered this: B
Only the Chaldeans have obtained wisdom; but the Hebrews Revere the self-begotten King, God Himself.
Porphyry also makes mention of the Essenes who inhabited Judea, and he says the following about them: "From such a manner of life and from such an exercise directed toward truth and piety, it is reasonable that many among them should foresee future events, as they are trained in sacred books and various purifications and the utterances of the prophets. And it is rare for them to err in their predictions."
Now, regarding the liberal arts, in which Julian especially boasts insolently and magnificently, we shall learn that they were not free from censure—even among the very princes of worldly wisdom—either from what they themselves committed to writing or what others have written about them. For Xenophon the Athenian writes somewhere thus: "No one ever heard or saw Socrates saying or doing anything impious or profane. For he did not discuss the nature of the universe or other such things as most do, inquiring how that which the sophists call the ‘cosmos’ is constituted, and by what necessities of the heavens each thing comes to pass, but he asserted that those who curiously investigate such things are fools." And afterward: "He wondered, moreover, how it escaped them that these things are not possible for human beings to discover, especially since those who consider themselves to be most expert in discussing such subjects do not agree among themselves, but are compared to madmen. For of madmen, some do not fear even terrible things, while others fear those that are not to be feared. Thus, those who anxiously inquire into the nature of all things seem to some to hold that it is one thing that exists, while to others it seems that these are infinite in number. To some, all things are always in motion; to others, nothing can ever be moved; and to some, all things are coming to be and perishing, while to others, nothing can either ever come to be or perish." What, then, are the investigators of sublime matters going to respond to this—those who, while ignorant of things on earth, anxiously scrutinize the heavens? Shall we not praise Socrates, who in this regard compares them to the deranged, saying that they rashly seize upon superfluous little notions, and by their own inventions disagree both with one another and with themselves? C Plato, indeed, in addition to declaring the study of these things to be superfluous and vain, rebukes it still further with these words: "For when I was young, O Cebes, a wonderful desire seized me for that wisdom which they call the history of nature. For it seemed to be something magnificent and splendid,
to know the causes of each thing, why it comes to be, and why it perishes, and why it exists. And often I turned myself upside down, considering first whether, when heat and cold have taken on a certain putrefaction, as some have said, then at last living beings are formed. And whether it is blood by which we think, or air, or fire, or none of these, but that the brain is what provides the senses of hearing, seeing, and smelling; from these memory and opinion arise, and from memory and opinion, once they have come to rest, in the same way knowledge arises. B And while considering the corruption of these same things, and the events occurring in heaven and on earth, I finally thought myself so inept for this investigation that it was beyond measure. I will tell you a sufficient proof of this. For those things which I formerly knew clearly, as at least I and others once thought, I was so strongly blinded by this very investigation that I unlearned even those things which before this I thought I knew.
Therefore, if nothing of utility is added to one who searches into what is superfluous, and who wishes to investigate closely the thin and lofty matters completely inaccessible to our mind, but rather damage and blindness, and the need to unlearn the things already gathered into the mind, then let him lower his brow who has boasted against us. For the knowledge of the truth is a divine and life-giving lesson, which Moses also proclaimed of old. C But the discourse concerning it has come to us more subtly and purely, as the Savior of all, Christ, has shone upon us, with whom to God and the Father is glory with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.
A fragment follows which Cardinal Angelo Mai edited in volume II of the *Nova Patrum Bibliotheca*, p. 492, which, as its title bears, pertains to Book V; but from which place in this book it has been taken is not so easy to define.
Of blessed Cyril of Alexandria, from the fifth book Against Julian.
In the marketplace, sellers sometimes mix a few good things with many bad ones, catching the buyers with these few, and persuading them to acquire the worthless things along with the useful ones.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE HOLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN, BOOK SIX.
A Once again we shall opportunely use these words produced by divine inspiration: "Death and life are in the hand of the tongue; and those who control it shall eat its fruits." For although those who are prudent are able to derive benefit from the goods of the tongue, if they arrange their speech as is proper and express things which might cause one to admire him who uses his tongue well, nevertheless some transfer their eloquence to absurd and improper things; and they are carried along by such malice and wickedness that they count extreme depravity as nothing, and with a petulant tongue challenge God, and move their weapons against His ineffable glory. B Whence it happens that they must necessarily be caught in extreme evils. Such a one has our illustrious Julian become; for although he was endowed with a fluent tongue and a not unadmirable grace of speech, he has decried the sacred Scripture, and rails against the multitude of the saints quite frequently, so that it may be said to him through the Holy Spirit: "Why do you boast in malice, you who are powerful in iniquity? Your tongue has plotted all day long against justice." And again on these matters: "You have loved all words of ruinous downfall, O deceitful tongue." He has certainly railed against very many things in the writing of the all-wise Moses. But behold, now adding other things to what he has already said, he speaks thus:
JULIAN: Shall I therefore, in order, examine individually whether men, such as Plato, Socrates, Aristides, Cimon, Thales, Lycurgus, Agesilaus, Archida—
Archidamus, or rather the race of philosophers, of generals, of craftsmen, of legislators? For we shall find that the most wicked and most abominable of generals have treated those who had harmed them most far more kindly than Moses treated those who had committed no offense at all. B CYRIL. Julian again, I think, complains that the Moabites had to suffer punishment because they had sent harlots to the Israelites, who by the beauty of their bodies ensnared those who belonged to God in the meshes of lust, and because, having entangled them by fraud in the crime of defection, they were the authors of their being initiated into Beelphegor. But he claims that those who dared these things had committed no fault at all, holding impiety toward God, it seems, of no account. And therefore he writes that Moses, the high priest, was cruel and inhuman. For, as I said, he thinks that to lead men away from the God of the whole universe is a trifling fault, and by no means intolerable; and he considers it a glorious thing to be the author of someone’s inclination toward the false worship of idols. But let him learn from us that there is no one who would be accustomed to do such things, ...whom a mother bears in her womb, nor one who might escape. For I declare it a holy thing that those who have prepared a snare of death for others should be utterly destroyed, as a certain not ignoble tragic poet says, C *They should not suffer heavy things who have wrought heavy deeds.* For is it not truly a heavy and intolerable thing to insult the divine majesty so desperately, and to offend the ineffable nature, to whatever extent the power of wicked endeavors may go? And can this truly be a matter of doubt for anyone? But since he greatly admires the supporters of his opinion from among the ancients, and compares them with the saints, come, let us also bring forward consistent arguments and oppose the truth to his slanders. For the men he admires, he surely considers far superior to our own; but he strays from the truth and misses the mark. D For, first of all, let us see who the famous Socrates was among them, and let us weigh what kind of man he was. He was indeed admired for worldly wisdom, and they say he held the first place among the most learned men; but as regards his morals and conduct, one would see that he proved no better than the common, vulgar people who have passed their life in a low and mendicant manner. And perhaps no one would believe these things, but no one will contradict the writings of Porphyry, who recorded the lives of the ancient philosophers, in which this goal was proposed to him, and he put much labor and study into it. Thus, therefore, he writes concerning him: Aristoxenus, narrating the life of Socrates, says that he had heard the history of Socrates from Pintharus, his auditor. He says that he had scarcely ever met with anyone else who was...
A of those encountering him; and he says that he had met with few others who were as persuasive, that such were his voice, his mouth, his outward appearance, and, above all things mentioned, the distinctiveness of his look; and that this would somehow be the case when he was not angry; but when he was inflamed by this passion, his indecency was terrible; for he would refrain from neither word nor deed. Then what is more shameful than anger? Or how is an uncontrolled rage, a wild movement, and a terrible bitterness not the worst disease of the soul? For the sea, even when a violent wind has settled upon it and it is dashed against the rocks and the earth by the impetus of a tenth wave, does not rage as much as the soul of a man agitated by the force and helplessness of anger. Therefore, the divine Scripture commands, saying: B “Cease from anger and forsake wrath” (Ps. xxxvii, 8). For anger destroys even the prudent. And certainly, an irritable man is not becoming. For what bold deeds will such a man refrain from? Or how will he not let loose every bridle on his tongue, or rather, even lash out with unruly words, perhaps even against those who have done him no injury or offense? For just as a stone, if it falls down a precipice, rushes with great impetus against whatever it encounters, and is carried wherever it may happen; in the same way, I think, if a man is bold and bitter, and tyrannized by beastly anger, he will spare neither word nor deed, but will assail even God, just as he would any man, with the unrestrained nature of his own tongue and the onset born of anger. Where, then, shall we place Socrates, who suffered from the most shameful of all evils? C But the divine Moses was very meek above all men; for so it is written about him (Num. xii, 3). And the Savior and Lord of all also says to us somewhere: “Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matth. xi, 29). And certainly, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matth. v, 4). Since He declares that it is worth everything to have a composed character, and to be adorned with the serenity of meekness, and furthermore to have a demeanor toward speech that is not uncultivated, let us criticize Socrates—and quite rightly, for he failed in both. But if anyone praises irascibility and the licentiousness of the tongue, and finds fault with meekness; if he blames honesty and approves of vices, this person should quite rightly be laughed at. Was Socrates then D vehemently tempted by the disease of irascibility, while we shall find him to have been free of other crimes? Not at all. For he was so woman-crazed, and so entirely carried away by this, that he considered nothing to be preferred to that love. For Porphyry writes again about him in this manner: “In other ways of life he was otherwise easygoing, and content with little, living day by day; but in sexual matters he was immoderate, yet without injury to anyone; for he had intercourse either with wives or only with common women. He is said to have had two wives at the same time: Xanthippe indeed, a citizen and somewhat more common; and the other, Myrto, the granddaughter of Aristides, the son of Lysimachus. Having had secret intercourse with Xanthippe, he had a son by her, Lamprocles; and from the legitimate marriage with Myrto, Sophroniscus and Menexenus.” What is the admirer of Socrates going to answer to these things? For even by their own admission, he was more inclined toward sexual matters; but by the very facts themselves, his lasciviousness and unbridled lust are found to have been so great,
and that he knew no satiety concerning such most loathsome pleasures; since, having two wives, perhaps not even lawfully joined [in accordance with a decent order], he associated with others as well—with base, and evidently mercenary, women, who offered the beauty of their bodies for sale to those who would pay for their company. And yet, how are these things not alien to a life of philosophy and practical virtue? Did he then rebuke young men if they chose to live contrary to what is right? And what sort of argument could he have effectively employed toward them, when he was flowered with white, gray hair, and yet appeared to be not only caught by, but even completely mastered and tyrannized by his own mind in the midst of such most filthy undertakings, without a struggle? I have learned, moreover, through the writings of Plato, that one of his acquaintances said to him: "Whence, O Socrates? Is it from hunting for the beauty of Alcibiades?"
So much, then, for the matters of Socrates. Let us examine the ways of Plato himself, to see whether he does not also admire the ways of Socrates, and whether he is not convicted by his own words of having shared in his incontinence regarding the passions. B For in the *Philebus* he says: "Pleasure is the most arrogant of all things." And consistent with his argument, he says that even in pleasures relating to sexual matters—which seem to be the greatest—perjury has obtained pardon from the gods, on the ground that these pleasures are like children, possessing not even the slightest particle of reason. And again, in the *Symposium*: "But the most terrible thing, as the many say, is that to one who swears and breaks his oath, there is pardon from the gods; for they say there is no such thing as an ‘oath of love.’ Thus, both gods and men have given all license to the lover." He feels ashamed, as is proper, that these things should appear to have been said by himself, and he attributes them to others; yet who would doubt that the matter itself is approved by him? For he does not rebuke those who hold such views in the slightest. C O, what a philosophical discipline! How much utility is in it, which restrains the pleasures of the young and persuades them to live temperately and justly! For if they understand that the gods are propitious to lovers, even if they serve the unbridled desires of small women or boys, they are permitted entirely the license to perjure themselves. But there will never be a time when it is permissible to neglect piety toward God with impunity. Should then a philosopher—who reached such celebrity of fame and such height of reputed wisdom—have preferred the defilement of a base and shameful pleasure to the fear of God? D Let him who boasts so greatly of Cimon observe what kind of character he possessed. He took Elpinice, his sister and his kin, as his wife, and following the custom of the Persians, or perhaps that of supreme Jove himself, he lived with his sister; he was prosecuted by Cleon for attempting tyranny, was condemned on that charge in Athens, and paid the penalty according to the laws. Furthermore, Theopompus writes of the same man that he was most rapacious, and was more than once convicted of being inferior to base profit; and finally, that he was the author of bribery and corruption for the Athenian leaders. But is it not a most base thing and the ultimate disease of the soul to yield to unjust gains, to burn with such a desire for money, to be inflamed toward the marriage of a sister, and to yield a little to barbarian madness, such that he even violated the very laws of nature? Aristides, however, having been openly accused of embezzlement, paid the penalty. Yet he labored under such bitterness of spirit and envy; such impo-
- A tence to bear the glory of others, that when the Athenians once asked him how the republic could best be managed and how the affairs of the city might proceed with a fair wind, he replied that it could not happen otherwise than if he himself, together with Themistocles, were cast headlong into the pit. This perhaps stung him, because Themistocles had won the naval battle and had carried off the palm of matchless virtue among the other commanders.
I omit a great many things regarding others, which I could most truly recount; I turn my discourse to the notable deeds of the saints. B Whom of their own will they compare with the most excellent Moses, whom even the historians of the Greeks have recorded as having been the first lawgiver and a man altogether admirable, and whose virtue is also known to everyone from the Holy Scripture? For having received authority from God, he turned the rivers of Egypt into blood, and with the intolerable force of hail and long-enduring, dark gloom, he vexed the Egyptians; and he opened a path for his own people through the midst of the sea and freed them from the tyranny of Pharaoh. C His successor, Jesus, having been proclaimed leader, after he took over the command, became famous through similar deeds. For he restrained the Jordan flowing with a violent rush of waters and led the Israelites across almost with dry feet, and, having offered prayer to the Lord of the universe, he even slowed the course of the sun and the moon. Since there are many such things most worthy of memory available, I pass them over at last. I shall use only the words of the blessed Paul, who, writing to the Hebrews, speaks thus: "Regarding Gideon, Samson, Barak, Jephthah, David, and Samuel, and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, performed righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were strengthened from weakness, became mighty in war, turned back the camps of aliens, and women received their dead by resurrection. D Add to this: They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, oppressed, afflicted, of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens, and in the caverns of the earth." What, I pray, is more glorious? What is more illustrious regarding the splendor of virtue? The world was not worthy of them; it yields its place of prerogative, overcome by the magnitude of their noble deeds. For indeed, by the name of the world, worldly men are to be understood.
A Since he says that the most disgusting of the Greek commanders treated those from whom they had received the greatest wrongs more mildly than Moses treated those who had done no wrong, let him hear our reply. You consider the crime of impiety towards God to be a matter of no importance, my dear friend; yet you deem the casting off of His worship, the throwing off of His yoke, and the voluntary surrender to impure spirits to be, as I have said, a most trivial offense. But if he himself were not caught in these same crimes along with the deserters, he would surely judge the matter to be something truly grievous and worthy of the severest punishment. Since, however, he has fallen into the devil's snare and has dishonored the ineffable glory of God, he perhaps thought he might be able to exculpate himself and others, saying that those who had impiously and nefariously raved against the divine glory had committed no offense. Yet it was provided by the laws of the Greeks that no one should add strange gods to those who were known and recognized as gods, nor speak anything shameful or discordant about them; and as for those who were accustomed to do so, they did not think they were acting piously if they imposed a mere fine, but rather if they exacted a penalty that reached as far as blood. And so, when Anaxagoras said that the sun’s disk was a red-hot stone, the judges at Athens condemned him to death. They brought an indictment for impiety against Diagoras for writing about the gods what did not seem right to his hearers; he B would have perished, had he not made haste to depart, abandoning Greece. Indeed, they say that Diagoras of Melos, having once mocked the initiations, public festivals, and mysteries that were among them, so exasperated those who were in charge of the sacred laws, that they decreed a talent of silver as a prize for those who would kill him. I pass over Socrates, who—because he claimed that a certain daemon predicted things to him, and because he swore by the oak and the dog—was, as I said before, accused and condemned for that very reason. Therefore, the Greeks took such great care of their empty gods that, having become more vehemently exasperated against the philosophers, they sharpened all their laws against them. But you criticize Moses and call him harsh and unmerciful because he allowed punishment to be inflicted upon the few who, having cast off the fear of God, had surrendered themselves entirely to the worship of Beelphegor, so that he might keep the countless multitude in check by the punishment of the few; whereas, for this very reason, he ought to be adorned with the highest praises as an example of piety and charity toward God. This Julian by no means did; but rather, he attacks the leaders, or kings, of the Hebrews with these words:
JULIAN
D What kingdom, then, shall I describe to you? Whether that of Perseus, or of Aeacus, or of Minos of Crete, who purged the sea, which was infested by pirates, by expelling and driving away the barbarians as far as Syria and Sicily, and, having pushed the borders of his realm to either side, held sway not only over the islands, but also over the seacoasts? Having brought his brother Rhadamanthus into a share of the kingdom, he committed to him the care of men, not of the land; D
A he dispensed justice receiving the laws from Zeus, while he allowed that one to carry out the judicial portion.
CYRIL. Now I had already said that the kings among the people of Israel throughout the ages, having been very wisely instructed by the institutions of Moses, and having practiced every kind of justice not ungrudgingly, had no desire to carry off or plunder the property of others, nor did they arm themselves against neighboring or distant cities and lands; but, preserving their own and presiding over their native country, they wished to stay home, and the mere thing was a matter of prayer for them. But yours, O excellent Minos, although you say he received his laws from Zeus, was not content to govern only the Cretans, of whom he had taken up the rule, B but was so unhesitatingly driven towards greed, and was so frenzied against those who in no way belonged to him, that he captured the islands by right of war, and counted free men among the number of his slaves, and in actual fact and wicked deed he far surpassed the wickedness innate in him. Wherefore Homer calls him "savage": C For I saw Phaedra and Procne, he says, and beautiful [Ariadne, Daughter of Minos the savage. And Callimachus: And Minos laid a heavy yoke upon the necks of the islands. But if there had been in him a just desire for ruling, the prince of poets would not have called him savage, nor would he have been reproached for laying upon the islands the heavy and intolerable yoke of tyranny. But so much for these things. Yet what his domestic affairs were, it is worth the effort to observe. He had Pasiphae for a wife, and daughters, Phaedra and Ariadne. And his little wife, having gone mad with a love contrary to nature, and having mated with a bull, is said to have brought forth a monster. His daughters fill the stages of the tragedians, branded with infamy for their lust. Let the things told about Perseus be passed over, as full as they are of trifles and fabrications. After these things were brought forward about Minos, Julian steps into a vast field of histories, and repeats them from the Greeks, saying that Dardanus, born of Zeus and Electra the daughter of Atlas, led a colony to Dardania, and after he died reigned with Zeus: and other things of this sort filled with futile trifles. Then, having inserted a mention of our Savior Jesus Christ, he again lifts up the horn of his pride on high, and speaks of him thus:
JULIAN. D Jesus however, having persuaded these few of yours, and those the worst of them, is celebrated for three hundred years or thereabouts. Throughout his whole life he did nothing at all worthy of note, unless someone considers it to be among the greatest of deeds to heal the lame and the blind, and to conjure away those possessed by demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.
A Now, as regards Dardanus, he was unable to produce anything very great or worthy of mention, although he was an egregious artificer of lies and a magnificent ostentator of them. By saying that only a few have been won over by Christ our Savior, he diminishes the inhabited world and thinks the number of those who are anywhere on earth is small. But where shall we find many, if all are few? That those who have accepted the word of the Gospels have by no means been deceived, but have rather shifted their anchorage from the falsehood of the Gentiles toward the truth, the facts themselves will cry out, even if we remain silent. But as for the divine signs, which were wrought through Christ, because he dares to rail against them with insults, he knows not how to marvel at what ought to be marveled at. For how else could it be known that He was God, even when He had become man B and had remained what He was? Was He perhaps to rotate this vast and incomprehensible heaven, and to command another earth to rise up for us out of the waters besides the one that already exists? Was He to contrive some novelty concerning the sun and the moon, and the rest of the stars? But this was not His purpose in the incarnation; rather, He took pity on man, who through the deceits of demons had been brought down into the uttermost misery, and who had come to be ignorant in like manner of who is by nature and in truth God and the Creator of all, and who had been carried away toward an ignorant and counterfeit mind, having chosen to worship the creature rather than the Creator, and to kindle worship for wood and stones. Therefore, so that they might turn their minds toward the need to know the truth, Christ appeared in a form like our own, saying that He was the Son of Him who framed this whole universe through Him. And since a miracle is always, in some way, C an attraction toward faith, He healed those in sickness, and infused sight into the blind; He commanded the unclean spirits to betake themselves, as quickly as possible, into the recesses of the abyss, and there was a necessity for them to see what was commanded; and He freed those who were harassed by them. Chiding the seas and the winds, He commanded them to be calm. Nor was the creation ignorant of the authority of Him who commanded such things. He summoned the dead from their tombs, even those already stinking and decaying. By divine nods He prepared to make life return. Tell me, what is more brilliant than these things? Or what is so magnificent? Therefore, if the working of wonders were a display of medical skill, let it not be considered sacred, and let it be blameless not to marvel at it. But since it is clear that D this is a work of power of a most divine nature—how is what I said not true? For his judgment that one ought to marvel at it is—as it seems—unpracticed and, as it were, neglected, and ought, I suppose, to be deemed worthy of no account. And yet, my good sir, we shall find your supreme Jove, and with him the others whom you claim to be gods, too weak to snatch those who have been caught in the snares of death. In this matter, the prince of poets confirms us with these words:
"Verum enimvero mortem omnibus communem neque [dli ipsi Etiam ab amato viro possunt arcere, quandocunque tandem Fatum perniciosum corripuerit asperæ mortis."
Having finished the trivialities about Dardanus as he pleased, Julian immediately passes on to the flight of Aeneas, and clearly recounts his departure from Troy for the nations of the Italians, and makes mention of Remus and Romulus, and of how Rome was founded; and having spent many words on this subject, he says that the most wise Numa was given to them by the immortal gods, and he speaks of him thus:
JULIAN.
But after many wars from all sides surrounded the city once it was founded, and it overcame and conquered them all, and being itself increased by these very evils, it stood in need of greater security, then again Zeus set the most philosophical Numa over it. For this was the good and noble Numa, who dwelt in deserted groves, and was always conversing with the gods according to his pure meditations. And after other things: This man established most of the priestly laws.CYRIL.
Since, therefore, as he himself says, Numa was good and noble, having pure meditations, and established most of the priestly laws, let us inquire in due time what that mode of worship and religion was. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote the history of the Romans quite well, wrote concerning him that he founded shrines and temples, but that there was no statue in them. For since he deigned to praise the philosophy of Pythagoras, and was entirely of his tenets, he believed that the Divine was without form and totally devoid of shape; and he maintained that It is appeased by spiritual sacrifices, not by material ones. Therefore, having erected the temples, he named them temples of "Faith," through which alone, as far as is possible for men, the Divine is contemplated; and he commanded the citizens to take their oaths by this Faith, so that they might be held by its religion. C But Julian, on the contrary, as a great admirer and herald of Numa, while attacking faith in God through the utmost impiety, does not shrink from making gods of all kinds of shadows of idols, and wood and stones, and he does not cease to sacrifice droves of oxen to them, so that he even fights against the laws of Numa himself. Then, adding other cold, grandmotherly, and nonsense-filled fables, he says again:JULIAN.
These things, then, seem to have been given to the city by Zeus from divine inspiration and prompting, and from the Sibyl and others who, in our native tongue, are called prophets. But the shield that fell from heaven, and the head found in the hill, D from which, I think, the seat of the great Jupiter received its name, shall we count these among the first gifts, or the second? And so, you most miserable of men, while you refuse to adore and worship the shield that is preserved among us, the most certain pledge of the eternal city, fallen from heaven and sent down by great Jove or father Mars, you adore the wood of the cross, and form its signs on your foreheads, and carve them in the vestibules of your houses. Should one righteously hate those among you who are most prudent, or pity those who are most demented?who, following you, have come to this point of destruction, so as to abandon the eternal gods and turn to the dead man of the Jews? B
CYRIL
That he was possessed by an impious spirit, and one that is certainly a foe to God, when he conceived these things in his mind and let loose a most petulant and wicked mouth against the glory and majesty of Christ, I for my part shall not deny. “For no one,” as the all-wise Paul says, “speaks by the Spirit of God and says ‘Jesus is accursed,’ except in Beelzebul.” But as for what he says—that the shield sent down by Jupiter, and the skull or head (whichever it was) were discovered—this is ridiculous and mere childish trifles and nonsense, and nothing more. However, we do not dwell very long on such things. But we shall demonstrate without any difficulty that his speech, conceived in a wicked mind, savors of extreme ignorance when he says that those for whom there is nothing more prior or ancient than to mark their foreheads and houses everywhere with the sign of the precious cross are wretched, even if he surely exerts himself to constantly inscribe and carve that sign upon houses and foreheads, he who lets loose words reeking of the extreme ignorance of evil reasonings. For the Savior and Lord of all, although it was within his power to be seen in the form and equality of the Father in every respect, and to display his majesty on the throne of divinity, “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” C And he also endured the cross, despising the shame, so that he might abolish the power of corruption; one having died for all and been raised, so that he might deliver the human race from the snares of death; so that he might overthrow the tyranny of sin that was oppressing us; so that he might tame the law that was raging in the members of the flesh and make us spiritual worshippers; and, having mortified the disposition of the flesh within us, make those who believe in him sons of God, and sanctify them through the Spirit; so that he might drive away from his kingdom, which he had seized over all, Satan—that original author of evils and pestilent beast—and the wicked powers under him, whom this slanderer of ours calls gods, princes of cities, and guardians of the nations. D The saving wood brings to our memory all these things, and it leads us into the further realization that, as the inspired Paul says, “one has died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and rose again for them.” And that to live for God—this is to live in a holy and godly manner—and that this brings the highest happiness to those who have chosen to do so, is clear to everyone. Therefore, we, as I said, make the wood of the precious cross a reminder of every good and every virtue. But since the matter does not seem to him to be free from ignominy and reproach, let him answer my inquiry again: Do you wish that we should hang tablets on the walls of our houses and summon an excellent painter, and in this way force him: “It is our purpose, O painter, to display to beautiful youths…”
that intemperance is a A provider of destruction for them; and to show the women who manage the household that to be immodest is for them not without penalty.” But perhaps the speech of those accustomed to instruct them is not sufficient to lead them to the duty of choosing to live rightly and blamelessly. Let there be set before them also a visible painting, acting as a shield for the arguments of the teachers. B Let there be painted upon the tablets, and before all others, Jupiter, the highest of the gods; and let there be placed beside him, if you please, the Phrygian boy, Ganymede, I say, that venerable and admirable delight of Jove, and the proof of his intemperate lust. Let Alcmene also be painted, with whom he spent nine nights, not having found satiation even in extreme debauchery. Let Semele be present, and a great crowd of women besides. Let Neptune be seen as well, with the maidens he impiously defiled—Amymone, Alope, Hippothoe, and the others. And indeed let the Lydian boy be painted with him, I mean Pelops. Let the laughter-loving Venus be prominent in the paintings, consorting with a large group of lovers. It almost escaped me, O painter, to mention that most fragrant tree—Daphne, I say—and all the legends that circulate about her. Paint for me Apollo, defeated by a maiden of singular modesty; let the young girl flee, hating the defilement, but let Phoebus pursue, and even if he cannot attain the beloved, let him be crowned with the branches, that the crime might not be hidden. Do you wish, then, O noble one, that we should abandon and cast aside the Wood that brings to our remembrance every virtue, and instead set your tales before C children and women? Or perhaps the lascivious gods and goddesses, and indeed the debaucheries of women and youths, might not be without utility for those who see them? Are these things not, then, a cause for laughter, and a clear proof of the madness that has reached its end?
Yet he says that we perish utterly because we have abandoned the eternal gods and taken up the dead man of the Jews. But tell me, how can you call those who are created and produced in time "eternal"? Did not your Plato teach that the invisible and intellectual gods were created? How, then, is that which is brought forth in time and moved into generation, and which, according to the laws of nature, is subject to corruption—if it be true that everything which comes into being must necessarily perish—how is that eternal? He calls Christ a "dead man"; and it is no wonder, for he errs and does not perceive the holy mystery of the Incarnation. For he would not have called Him a dead man, who, in order to dissolve death, tasted death according to the flesh. For how could He be overcome by death, who has called many others back to life? By an D admirable plan, He allowed the flesh, which He had united to Himself through a dispensational union, to have dealings with death. But He rose again to life and trampled down death, so that in Him and through Him the victory over death and corruption might also be easy and accessible to the human race. Therefore He is called the "firstborn from the dead" and the "first fruits of those who have fallen asleep."
For as the inspired Paul says: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." A Yet his mind has reached such a state of ignorance and extreme infirmity that he even glories in those very things for which he ought to have expected the greatest reproach. "I pass over," he says, "the mysteries of the mother of the gods, and I praise Marius." Fine, indeed; for it is no mere trifle of Dardanus. He himself has established the frenzies of the Corybantes, and the nocturnal rites in the caves of Ida, and the unchaste mysteries. Yet how could they not utterly and entirely defile those who hear them, teeming as they do with faded and impious tales? And he counted this among the good things from the gods, that Marius was given to the Romans, who reigned in his times, but (having become) most superstitious and cruel, and moreover so possessed by a savage disposition that he slaughtered his own well-bred daughter, who was most beloved to him, and was charming and sweet, upon the altars of the demons. For he knew that the "good" gods were vehemently affected by this worship, and that they were most pleased by those worshipers who, having advanced beyond all wickedness, deemed nothing better than that parents themselves should be parricides of their own children, whom they held most dear. Wherefore, if he praises and admires Marius, let him bring a charge against those who choose not to do the same as him; let him persuade the worshippers of the gods, whom he says preside over nations and cities, to seek offspring, not so that children might prattle by their hearths and their race might extend to children’s children, but so that they might appease the "most gentle" gods with their own blood; for perhaps these are the choice offerings for them; and let them be released from the law, and may one become the slaughterer of his own children. B Since, however, anyone would, I think, and with complete justification, call such a person untamed and savage-hearted, and more cruel than the very beasts, and since it is also written in the common law of nature that any act of cruelty and impiety is to be shunned, why does he admire and declare it to be a special gift from the gods, one which, if anyone should choose to emulate, he would be impious and hateful to every human being? Is this the gift of the gods, tell me, or is it perhaps worthy for us to agree with what he said? For the gift is appropriate to them, and they bestow upon their own what they themselves have deemed to be of value. In fact, he says that not only was Marius given by them, but furthermore that the methods of false divination were also discovered. He writes as follows:
JULIAN
D For that divine spirit which descends upon men occurs rarely and in few, nor can any person easily become a partaker of it, nor at any time. Hence it has ceased among the Hebrews, nor does it persist even now among the Egyptians. But indeed they seem to have genuineA oracles yielding to the revolutions of time. And our lover of men, the Lord and Father Zeus, having considered this, that we might not be altogether deprived of communion with the gods, has given us the investigation through the sacred arts, by which we shall have sufficient aid for our needs.
CYRIL
He calls the instinct of false prophets a divine breathing, for it was their custom to feign enthusiasm, and to appear as if they were possessed by a mantic spirit, so that their falsehood might be the more easily accepted. Very many were these, and manifold was their manner of sorcery. B For some were observers of birds and diviners by fire; others were diviners by flour; and in addition to these, there were those who inspected livers and those who were curious about the smoke rising from sacrifices into the air; others, too, were necromancers, ventriloquists, and interpreters of omens. He says, then, that the demonic spirit in these has ceased. I indeed commend his words; yet he has ignored the cause why the lying ceased, and why the "genuine" oracles, as he calls them, became silent. For after Christ shone upon the world, all that tyranny of the demons was shaken, and the imposture was dissolved like some stage-play full of childish toys, and the most impure and execrable demons were confined to the gates of Hades, although they had long wandered over the earth that is under the sun. C But in what way does he say that the "genuine" oracles have been silenced, being subject to the revolutions of time? And yet, if there were any who was truly God, attempting to make known to those of old the things that are to be, how does he thus yield to times, so that his knowledge is more august than it was before? Or how does Julian assert that they are eternal, when they are inferior in time and all but wax old, so that they differ little from our own condition? Since therefore he says: "The oracles have been silenced, and perhaps the Pythian, growing old, is delirious, and no longer knows the methods of trickery by which he might weave his frauds; [so] Zeus has given us knowledge and aid through the help of the sacred arts." What are you doing, Julian? Do you call execrable prophecies and the illusions of magicians "holy and sacred arts," and [say] that it is becoming for mortals to know how to perform them? Do you say that these have been given to men for aid, and as a most useful help proceeding from Jove? D Rightly indeed, my friend; for it was fitting for your king and father to be so disgracefully liberal, as if he appeared to give things that are at variance with established laws, and for the practice of which, or even if one were merely to forgive others who perform them, one would be worthy of extreme punishment. But as to his statement that the prophetic spirit has ceased even among the Hebrews themselves, we reply that Christ has become the end of the law and the prophets. For all the saints who were in their times, and who had knowledge of things to come, proclaimed the mystery of Christ, the knowledge being sent into them by God through the Holy Spirit. But after He Himself arrived and appeared to mortals, the grace of the ancient prophecy indeed ceased, but God even now inspires the future to the saints according to His own will, and in the san-
sanctified souls He dwells. Therefore, let no one say that the Spirit has failed, but rather that our affairs have been moved into the renewal of grace. And since the argument has already flourished in the preceding points, he brings in another and says:
JULIANUS. It nearly escaped me, the greatest of the gifts of the Sun and Zeus. And it was not without reason kept for the end. For it is not the property of us alone, but, I think, common to the Greeks, our own kin. For Zeus, among the things that are perceived by the mind, begot Asclepius from himself; but on earth, he caused him to appear through the generative life of the Sun. He, having made a progression from heaven to earth, appeared uniquely in the B form of a man around Epidaurus. Advancing further from there with his processions, he extended his saving right hand over the whole earth. He came to Pergamum, to Ionia, to Tarentum, after that, later he came to Rome. He journeyed to Cos, from there to Aegae. Then he is everywhere on land and sea; he does not consort with each of us privately, and yet he restores souls that are disposed to vice, and bodies that are laboring under infirmity.
CYRILLUS. He exults, therefore, when he says that Asclepius was born of Zeus among the things perceived by the mind, yet appeared in the form of a man. For the account C held by all wishes him to have been born of Coronis and Apollo, she having been seduced, as is probable, by one of the priests in the temple of Apollo. But this man thinks and speaks of him as something august and great, being always a liar; although among the leading men of the Greeks, very many and discordant things have been written about him. For Apis the Egyptian, who is not obscure among those who were ministers of the temple there, is said to have understood the knowledge of natural philosophy. They say he was the first to take up the medical art and to have handled and D discovered it better than those who went before him; and that he handed it down to Asclepius, who, when he had become highly skilled in the art, endured no longer to remain in the cities of the Egyptians; but, overcome by a wondrous desire for money or base gain, he traveled over every region, so to speak, collecting money, and proposing his art for sale to the sick. Wherefore, puffed up and swollen with pride, he called himself a god, and foolishly imagined that he had the power to raise some from the dead. But having arrived at Epidaurus, and having snatched for himself no small glory among them, of even being some god, he was struck by a thunderbolt, God sending upon him a most fitting punishment, and by this act declaring him to be nothing at all other than earth and dust. But it is worth the effort to see what that lyric poet Pindar sang about him;
A
He turned that one also by a great price Of gold, appearing in his hands, And by his hands the son of Cronus Hurled and from both sides of his chest Took away his breath, and the burning thunderbolt Descending, brought death.
And indeed, the tragic poet Euripides also insists that Apollo said: For Zeus is the cause, who killed my son Asclepius, by casting flame into his breast.
How then did the God,—the One by whom all human affairs are weighed with just judgment, and who knows how to distribute either rewards or punishments proportionately and reasonably according to the character of each—burn with fire the greatest and most excellent of the gifts of Zeus and the Sun, as he [Julian] himself calls them? But, he says, he benefited life through medicine. Shall we therefore deem it right to proclaim those who were skilled in this to be gods? Yet one might observe that other sciences and even manual arts were not discovered in vain, but are rather far more useful for the affairs of this life. Shall we, then, bestow the honor of divinity upon those who originally cultivated them, or at any rate upon those who exceeded others in any one of them? If, therefore, the son of Coronis performed anything god-befitting; if he cast light upon the eyes of the blind; if he ordered the dead to return to life; if he restored the function of walking to the lame and commanded them to return home rejoicing on straight feet, let this secure for him our admiration. But if he merely became distinguished in the healing of certain sick persons, let him be praised indeed as one who practiced the art of medicine most excellently, but let him not on that account disparage the saying, "Know thyself." Thus, this excellent man has made a greedy and arrogant physician into a god, and in doing so, with an uplifted and haughty eyebrow, he speaks again thus: B
JULIAN.
What, then, do the Hebrews boast has been given to them by God, to whom you have been persuaded to desert from us? If you had given ear to their discourses, and had not been written off as altogether unfortunate, you would indeed have been in a worse state than before when you were among us, yet you would have endured things that were light and tolerable. For instead of many gods, you would be worshipping not a man, but rather many wretched men. And by using a hard and rough law, full of wild and barbarous character, in place of your own easy and kind ones, you might have been worse in other respects, but more holy and pure in your religious rites. Now, however, it has happened to you just as it happens to leeches: you draw the most corrupted blood from there, and leave behind the purer part. C D
CYRIL.
That very many excellent things, and those not to be repented of, have been given to the Hebrews by the Ruler of the universe, any person could easily demonstrate: yet there is nothing such as those who have departed from the truth boast that they received from the Sun and Zeus. For it was fitting, it was fitting, that those whom they themselves call the guardian deities and national rulers of cities and peoples—being, namely, demons—should bestow gifts consistent with their own abominations. But the Ruler of the universe and
≫ King A, who is by nature and in truth God, assigned those who worship him to take charge of the bodies and souls of mortals on earth, as though they were his own genuine lieutenants and healers. Such was that Thesbite, Elijah, and Elisha, and the others who flourished in that time with the illustrious glory of their virtues. As for those who lived in the time of Christ—I speak of Peter and John and the others, whose very shadows alone sufficed to heal the sick of their maladies—and the preeminent Paul, and those who came after them (whom I shall not recount one by one), it is possible even today for those who wish it to see holy and venerable men, in the power of Christ through the Holy Spirit, rebuking impure demons, and crushing by the power of prayer—and tormenting by the touch of their hand—those whom they [the pagans] believe to be gods and saviors, and furthermore, having the power to free those oppressed by various diseases.
But since he attacks those who have discerned the falsehood and, as it were, cried out against the deceit of the Greeks, and who have wisely embraced the truth and recognized the God who is by nature the Creator of all, he intrudes by saying: “You have been deceived by paying attention to the words of the Christians; and you no longer worship one God, but rather a man B and many other wretches, who are shackled to a harsh, savage, and barbaric law.” I think it necessary to raise up arguments capable of helping to refute these charges as well. He calls Christ a man; and by "many wretches" he means the holy martyrs, whom he also says were subject to a harsh law, because our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matt. x, 28).
We, however, O most excellent one, would say to you: we have not, as you imagine, deified a man, and we do not think it right to worship one who is not God by nature. Rather, we say that the Word himself, who went forth from the Father, through whom all things were brought into existence, decided to save the human race, was incarnated and became man, and came forth in the form of a man from the holy Virgin, in order that—since his divine and ineffable glory is inaccessible and in no way able to be comprehended or perceived—by living for certain appointed times among those on earth as one of us, in that he appeared as man, he might set forth under the divine dispensation to convince them to recognize who is the God who is by nature and alone the Ruler of the universe; and having made them proficient in all virtue, he might join them to himself through sanctification, having destroyed all rule and all authority and power of the wicked, and having delivered them from the falsely named gods. Therefore, it is not—as you think and say and deem it proper to believe—a matter of man-worship; but recognizing the Word of God who appeared as man, we approach him as God, in as much as he is also God C, and went forth from God the Father, existing immutable and incapable of change. This mystery was predicted subtly and accurately by the most wise Moses, and by the holy prophets who spoke in harmony with Moses. Furthermore, we do not say that the holy martyrs are gods, nor [do we worship them] with divine worship, naturally
but rather relatively and honorifically. Indeed, we crown them with the highest honors as having struggled bravely for the truth, and as having so preserved the sincerity of their faith that they spared not their own souls and bade farewell to the terrors of death, having mastered every danger and set up their own lives as it were as images of such B admirable manliness. There is nothing absurd in this; rather, it was surely necessary that those who excelled in such brilliant deeds should be adorned with everlasting honors. We shall find that this practice is blameless, even among the most ancient of the Greeks themselves. For at Athens, in the case of those who at Marathon first risked their lives for the whole of Greece, and of those who later fought bravely against the army of Xerxes, it was the custom, since they had met a glorious death, to celebrate their praises every year, having gathered at their very monuments. How then is this most excellent man [Plato] not reproachable for saying that it is not right to honor the holy martyrs? And yet Plato himself says, concerning C those who have chosen to live well and who have died nobly: "For the remaining time, we shall worship the dead as if they were certain spirits, and we shall kiss/adore their tombs. We shall decree the same when anyone of those who have been judged to have excelled in goodness during their life shall have died of old age or in any other way." And this is your teaching, good Plato. But we, as I said, do not say that the holy martyrs are gods; but we are accustomed to pursue them with every veneration, and we honor their tombs, bestowing upon them, as a sort of prize and unfading memorial, this honor in return for such brilliant manliness.
Since he attacks those who believe in Christ in vain with reproaches, as if they foolishly preferred a multitude of men, in whom there is nothing divine, to the worship of the one God, I shall attempt to demonstrate the charges of Greek ignorance, which have been impiously poured out upon the worshipers of the truth. D For they themselves have offered sacrifices to men, and these were disgraceful and licentious men, laboring under every vice: such as was that most celebrated Hercules, whom they say was born of Zeus and Alcmene, to whom they attribute a great and extraordinary contest—that in one night he debauched fifty virgins. Others, too, have obtained among them the honor of divinity: the Theban Hermes, the Memphite Asclepius, the Dioscuri in addition to these, and Apis and Osiris. And I pass over the impure and profane son of Semele; I shall add to these Cleomedes, whom they relate to have been cruel and inhuman in boxing, yielding little to wild beasts. For which cause the Pythian [oracle], praising him from the sacred tripods, uttered this, as they say: "Last of the heroes, Cleomedes of Astypalaea, Whom you honor with sacrifices as though he were no longer mortal." You bestow noble rewards for cruelty upon wrestlers,
O Pythie; O clemency of the gods! O liberality! The wicked man and the murderer is inscribed among the gods! A For it was fitting, it was fitting for them, indeed. And it pleased the men of that time to name Alexander, the son of Philip, the thirteenth god. Moreover, Alexander himself declared one of his own intimates, who had been a minister to his base desires for women (this was Hephaestion), to be a god, and commanded that he be honored with an altar and sacrifices. But if anyone were to choose to recount these things individually, he would spend long speeches; for those who have stolen the name of divinity would be found to be beyond number. B And that they were accustomed to name as gods whomsoever they wished, by their own authority, one might learn from this: for Clement, who follows the holy apostles everywhere, and who through hearing had received an infinite number of the histories of the Greeks, relates in his *Stromateis* that the history of Sanchoniathon, written in the Phoenician tongue, was translated into the Greek language by Josephus the Jew, a man most distinguished for his learning, and not without admiration. This Sanchoniathon, therefore, although he abounded in the superstition of the Greeks, says: “The most ancient of the Greeks, but especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of men received it as if by hand, held as gods of the greatest order those who had discovered things useful for life, or had in any way been well-deserving towards the nations; and them, certainly, because they were persuaded that they were the authors of many good things, they worshipped with divine honors, and having turned the use of temples to this service, they consecrated columns and boundary stones in their names; and pursuing these with the greatest veneration, the Phoenicians also dedicated to them the most widely celebrated festival days. C But especially to the elements of the world, and to some of those to whom they attributed divinity, they naturally imposed the names of their own kings. Furthermore, they acknowledged as gods only the sun, the moon, and the remaining wandering stars and the elements, and those things joined to them; and they thought that some were mortal, while others were immortal.” Wherefore, not we, but rather the Greeks, will be caught to have attributed divine honors to men, and to have rashly bestowed the glory of God upon whomsoever they wished in times past. Furthermore, the wise Julian adds other things to these, everywhere carping at the Christian religion. He writes thus:
JULIANUS.
D As for holiness, you do not even know whether any mention of it has been made by them; but you emulate their fury and bitterness, overturning temples and altars. And you have slaughtered not only those who remained in the customs of their fathers, but also heretics, the sectaries of the same error as you, who did not mourn the dead one in the same manner as you do. But indeed, these things are rather yours. For nowhere did Jesus hand down such things in his commands to you, nor did Paul. The reason is that they never even hoped that you would ever come to that degree of power; for they were satisfied if they could deceive slave-girls or servants, and through them, wives and husbands, such as Cornelius and Sergius; one of whom, if he should appear among the illustrious men of his age...
A (though these things happened in the times of Tiberius or Claudius), you would think that I am lying about everything.
CYRIL. This noble fellow is using insolent speech again with singular confidence, and he claims that those who have been freed from Greek deceit and have crossed over to the truth are devoid of holiness. Are these things not, then, laughable and old wives' tales? Come, let us compel him with the words of those to whom he attributes the leading place among the learned: "You are raving, Menelaus, foster-child of Zeus, nor does it befit you / This madness: but restrain yourself, however much you may grieve."
We indeed, searching out the reasons for true holiness, embrace the cultivation of all virtue, and we are accustomed to pursue with no ignoble zeal the fame that comes from every noble deed. But you are so far removed from our practices that you admire your own lustful gods and offer divine honors to goddesses who shamelessly whore themselves. But he says that we are of an impotent spirit and that we commit unjust homicides. But where shall we find this to have happened? For the contrary, I think, is true, and this is made known by the very facts. For the blessed martyrs have been slaughtered by them, having been convicted of no crime at all, but they were made guilty because they kept their faith in God whole and loved Him. And why does he accuse those who invade the shrines and altars, and pull down the workshops of impiety? For we heard him saying a little before that one God alone is to be worshipped. For whom, then, did you build temples, and erect altars in them? B For they would not even say that God is endowed with human shape: but I do not know how they contradict their own opinions on this matter. For by setting up images in the temples of many forms and kinds, they rashly commanded them to be worshipped with divine honors, though they were not ignorant that these honors are bestowed upon corrupt corpses.
What face does he have now, then, to call Christ, the Savior of all, a dead man, even though He suffered in the flesh and tasted death for our sake, so that He might reform the nature of man unto incorruption? For He did not remain among the dead, but rather He came back to life, having destroyed the power of death, and having taken away the corruption which, from the transgression in Adam, was pressing us down with tyrannical rule. But he finds fault with the Savior's clemency because women C have believed, and slaves and some obscure persons have been called. But is it not better to think that man, insofar as he is born a man, does not excel man in any way, but one account of substance proceeds through all, "For there is one entrance into life for all, and a like departure," as it is written? Nevertheless, some sometimes abound more than others in external goods, such as an abundance of riches or the eminence of status, and one man serves while another is served. But however these things may be, one D
A nature belongs to all men; and it is so fashioned that it is suitable for anything worthy of praise. For it is wise, and is able to distinguish better things from worse. Nothing, therefore, hinders a man of the lowest station from being wise, or from practicing justice even when destitute of money, or from showing himself upright and orderly while in a condition of servitude. Why, then, does he vainly find fault with those who have been caught by the net of divine preaching for the sake of true and blameless contemplation of God, and for the knowledge of every good, if they do not enjoy the delights of wealth or excel others in external honors? For my part, I would say that a man in need, if he chooses to live rightly and lawfully, is incomparably superior to the greedy rich man and the master who raves like a servant. For it is written, "A wise servant shall rule over foolish masters." B One may also see among the contests of the Greeks that those who were the most respectable of others were craftsmen at the beginning, having practiced a common and menial art which they received from their parents, yet they were not without admiration for their wisdom. I pass over many, but I come to Socrates himself, the son of Sophroniscus, who was born of a midwife mother, and a stonemason father, and indeed they say he attained the pinnacle of that craft, and deemed it no disgrace. Porphyry writes thus about him in the third book of his C History of Philosophers: "Having made these things clear, let us speak of Socrates, lightly touching upon what is worthy of mention among others, and passing over whether he himself practiced stonemasonry with his father, or whether his father did so alone. For this contributes nothing to his wisdom, for having labored in it for a while. But if he was a stonemason, he is all the more praiseworthy; for that art is refined, and it certainly would not have been a disgrace to him." And after other things: "That Socrates was a craftsman, and used his father's stonemasonry art." And Timaeus, in the ninth book, says that Socrates learned the art of cutting stones. But if the former is less trustworthy on account of envy, and Timaeus on account of age—for Aristoxenus is younger—we must use Menedemus the Pyrrhonian, who was a disciple of Plato and older than Aristoxenus, who reports in his Philocrates that Socrates never ceased speaking of his father as a stonemason, and of his mother as a midwife. Did, then, tell me, the stonemasonry injure Socrates, or his having been born from a stonemason father, in regard to his ability to achieve what he considered to be honorable, or did the fact of being born of a hired-midwife mother make D the pursuit of philosophy seem ignoble to him? For she was a midwife, as I said. But that clever and famous Plato among them, had he not associated with gymnastics teachers and frequented wrestling schools in the beginning, and [having] from the sweat... of athletic exercises passed over to philosophy? For Porphyry also writes about him: "Plato studied letters under Dionysius, and under Ariston the Argive wrestler, the art of physical training." Some even say that he competed in the Isthmian and Pythian games. But what could be more ignoble than that? For no sane man, I think, would endure to appear naked in public among such a great multitude to do an indecorous thing, and that perhaps for the smallest of wages. But indeed [is the] entrance to philosophy for slaves... [index: entries preserved]
nor does he smile if they are said to be called to the truth. And yet A Zamolxis the Thracian was indeed a slave of Pythagoras, but he was held in admiration among them as one who had reached the summit of all knowledge. Porphyry also makes mention of these things, and he speaks thus: "There was also another youth with him, whom he had bought from Thrace, whose name was Zamolxis; and Pythagoras, becoming fond of him, taught him the contemplation of the heavens." Does it then prevent slaves from being wise and good, who have chosen to endure the sweat on behalf of virtue, and to be very brightly illuminated by the rays of true knowledge of God? But he takes an occasion to find fault because women also receive the fruit of the divine preaching; although Plato himself, having landed in Sicily, invited the wife of Dionysius to the study of philosophy. And Porphyry says that he B admired Marcella for her study of philosophy beyond measure, and that he gladly took her into his house and lived with her as a wife. In his *Life of Pythagoras*, he writes that the city of the Crotonians was so animated by him that, when he had soothed the old men, who were useless by reason of their years, by discoursing many good and right things, he gave, at the bidding of the magistrates, age-appropriate exhortations to the young men, and after this to the children who came in a crowd from their school-rooms; then to the women, and a gathering of women was organized for him. When these things had happened, a great reputation for them increased, and he received many disciples from this city, not only men, but also women. Do you blame, then, why the disciples of the Saviour, if they set forth the divine preaching to all without distinction—to women and to men, renowned and unknown, those in wealth and those in poverty, and indeed even calling some from among the slaves—have summoned them to learn who is by nature the God and Creator and Lord of all? C And returning again to his abuse against us according to his own desire, he says:
JULIAN.
But I know not whence, as if inspired, I said this, or from where I digressed: Why is it that you have not obeyed our gods, but have deserted to the Jews? Is it because the gods gave the empire to Rome, but to the Jews only a short time of liberty, and for the rest perpetual servitude among foreigners? Consider Abraham; was he not a stranger in a foreign land? Jacob, did he not serve first the Syrians, and thereafter the Palestinians, and in his old age the Egyptians? Did not Moses lead them out of Egypt D with a mighty hand from the house of bondage? But when they inhabited Palestine, did they not change their fortunes more frequently than they say the chameleon shifts its color, being now subject to judges, and now serving foreigners? But after they began to be under kings (in what manner this came to pass, we let go for the present; for God did not willingly grant them
A to be governed by royal power, as Scripture says, but was constrained by them, and having previously warned them that they would assuredly be ruled badly; yet, at any rate, they dwelt in their own land and cultivated it for little more than four hundred years. From that time they served first the Assyrians, then the Medes, later the Persians, and then now us.)
CYRIL.
But that he who wrote such things was possessed by a worldly and impure spirit, no one, I suppose, who is of sound mind would deny. For no one who is endowed with a right mind and is free from the breath of a diabolical spirit would argue against the ineffable and supreme majesty of God. B To one asking why we have inclined ourselves to the blameless customs and laws of the Jews, and have deserted to them, and who also wishes to learn the reasons why we are ungrateful to his gods, we respond of necessity: We find among the Jews—that is, in the divinely inspired Scripture—a refined and exact sentiment concerning the true and one Godhead, full of every blessing; we have found laws and a discipline of virtue leading one directly to every good thing, exhortations of saints bringing one to temperance, promises of rewards, the true hope of life everlasting, the remission of sins, the gift of the divine Spirit, the grace of adoption, and why speak of things beyond mind and word? C "For the eye," it says, "has not seen, and ear has not heard, and it has not entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love Him." 1 Cor. II, 9. By the desire for these things we have been most cheerfully enmeshed, so that we must choose against the toys of the Greeks and love those things which are in the divinely inspired Scripture. We are very strongly averse to those who I know not how are thought to be gods. For although they were once conspicuous among the choirs of the holy angels, nevertheless, having become wicked and deserters, and not having kept their own principality, they fell from the dwelling-place of God, and, being entirely bereft of friendship with Him, they have led the world that is under heaven into error, D and they have scattered men, and, having plunged them into abysses of ignorance, they have made them exchange honorable things for base ones, and have instilled a love for all wickedness. They have persuaded [men] not only to ascribe divine honors to themselves, but also to the elements of the world, and to the likenesses of irrational animals, of winged creatures, and of sea creatures. Are we not, therefore, with justice saying that it is necessary to renounce them? And truly, should anyone say that we are hostile to them not because they have been the destroyers and corrupters of the whole world, but because we are deprived of an abundance of wealth, he would be wrong; rather, it is because they have injured our wretched soul, and we are in danger regarding it. We have therefore departed from those who are only gods in opinion, having found nothing at all among them that is not worthy of the utmost vituperation. For the intercourse of males, and the prostitution of women, and the study of every sort of licentiousness, are among them a matter of story, laughter, and mysteries of prodigies, and
A in the place of virtue they set falsehood, and every kind of perceptible and intelligible impurity. Nor is the demonstration of these things at all difficult to find; rather, it is evident of itself, as I have said. For behold, behold! while God, who is all-powerful, confirms the Roman state by His own nods, they claim that the gods, who are nothing, have bestowed splendor upon the Roman name. But, tell me, you excellent man, those who could attain such munificence that they could grant empire to others, how have they themselves been stripped of their own glory and honor? For the honor which they had once snatched through fraud and falsehood, they have utterly lost, now that Christ has stripped bare their falsehood. How, then, have they given empire to others, when they themselves are, as if by some necessity, bereft of the power to rule, and are all but buried in underground caverns, awaiting the time of the inevitable judge? B "For God," he says, "did not spare the angels who did not keep their own domain, but committed them to Tartarus in chains of gloom, to be kept for the judgment of the great day." But since he says that those who are of the divine Abraham were foreigners and subject to the authority of others, let him tell us again what that state might cause them to suffer, or how it would force us to think and speak of them as not being good in every way and altogether. They have not yet shown if they were base in their ways, if they were slaves to unjust gain, or given over to reviling, calumnies, and greed; whether they were traducers, impostors, or sharp in wickedness, pests, and villains. Such men are brought before judges; such men are punished by all laws; it is right that these should be held guilty and pay the penalties for their crimes to the judges. But to be subject to the authority of others, and to be foreigners and newcomers, does not at all make them evil. C Contemplate the Roman empire, propagated far and wide throughout the whole world. It subdued not only the Jews, but every nation and race of men. Shall we, then, because they were subdued and endure to be governed by a legitimate ruler, call them base and of no value? Or was being subject to another's empire the cause of an unexpected calamity for them? No one would judge that such is the case. For now, indeed, more than ever before, they surpass every hope and enjoy the greatest tranquility; and we shall reckon this to be to their glory rather than to their disgrace. Let him not, therefore, any longer accuse or find fault with those who are of the divine Abraham, even if they were newcomers, and having left their fatherland, migrated into a foreign region, and in this way, D by the will of God, took possession of the whole of Judea. Yet the Israelites were enslaved to the Persians and Medes, and even to some of the bordering nations. Do you know the reason for this, or do you desire to learn it? For when, having abandoned the pious and true worship of God, they offered sacrifices to the gods whom Julian adores, then, having left no place for mercy, they experienced the cruelty of the Barbarians and underwent the heavy yoke of servitude. It is worthwhile, therefore, for that reason to turn away from the gods of the Greeks, for they do not at all protect their subjects. I shall also add this useful point to what has been said already.
A Does it seem shameful and unseemly to him that the Israelites were subject to the rule of Saul, against the desire of the God who is over all? For it was necessary—nay, it was far better—he will perhaps say, and it would have been incomparably better to be ruled by Him alone. Correct! He understands this right well, and I shall agree with his words. Therefore, it is against the will of God that any should be withdrawn from under His yoke and should bow the neck of their mind to others instead of to Him. How then, tossing everything up and down, does he say that God distributed dominion over all things to certain national and tutelary demons, while at the same time he does not concede that the rule over things on earth belongs to others, but rather reserves it for Himself, according to His own good pleasure? For He was displeased when Saul was requested; and indeed, He said through one of the prophets: "And I gave them a king in my anger." B Julian speaks foolishly, beyond all doubt, and prides himself rashly on putrid fictions, and in accordance with his own lust blames things that are beyond all reproach. And as if he had not raged against the saints with sufficient impiety, nor was he sated by his desire to disparage anyone, he attacks Jesus himself with boldness, and speaks as follows:
JULIAN
Jesus, whom you preach, was one of Caesar’s subjects. But if you do not believe it, I shall demonstrate it a little later—or rather, let it be said now. For you say that he was enrolled with his father and mother under Quirinius. But once he was born, of what good things did he become the author for his own kinsmen? For they did not want, he says, to obey him. But what of it? Was that stiff-necked and hard-hearted people any different in how it obeyed Moses? C But Jesus, who commanded spirits, and walked upon the sea, and cast out demons, and—as you wish to have it—made heaven and earth (for no one of the disciples has dared to say these things about him, save John alone, and even he not clearly nor explicitly, but let it be granted that he said it), could not change the minds of his own friends and kinsmen for their salvation.
CYRIL
"A fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will imagine vain things," D according to the voice of the prophet. If, therefore, someone else from the Greek flock had been confident in such cold and childish arguments, I would perhaps have said that he, lacking knowledge of the divine Scriptures, wandered from the truth and was entirely ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation of the Only-begotten. But since Julian thinks something great and extraordinary of himself, and fancies that he has acquired an admirable knowledge of divinely inspired Scripture, let him hear from us: You pretend to be wise, my noble friend, and do you imagine that what is highly valued among us is perhaps also of great importance to God? You are utterly ignorant of the distance between the height of divine glory and the lowliness of our thought. For if it were necessary for Jesus altogether...
being God, to take care A that he should not appear to succumb to human reputation, and to covet with us these fleeting little glories, and measured prosperity, and empty boasts; how would it not have been better for him to avoid the dispensation, and not become man as we are, he who sits on the same throne with the Father, who is adorned with the highest glories, and is resplendent with divine dignities? Therefore, if anyone, out of a desire to find fault, objects and says, “Why was it not rather as the son of one of the kings on earth that he appeared, and indeed, born of a queen as his mother, according to the flesh, clearly?”—let him also find fault with the fact that he became man, and emptied himself, B taking the form of a servant. For if the lack of renown was altogether heavy and intolerable to him, when time and the matter itself called for it, it would surely have been better for him not to accept the dispensation. But inasmuch as he is God, human things were absolutely nothing to him; the measure of an earthly kingdom was small to him, even though it is very highly crowned with honors by us. And, in fact, when he was speaking to Pilate, he declared the supreme preeminence of his own glory, saying: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Why, then, do you reproach him who, being God by nature, nevertheless chose to suffer the emptying for the sake of the dispensation? But how could anyone doubt that we are surpassed by divine wisdom as much as we are inferior in nature? And he himself says this through the voice of Isaiah: “For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways; but as the heaven is distant from the earth, so are my ways distant from your ways, and your thoughts from my thought.”
But he says, “After he was born, of what good did he become the author to his own kinsmen?” Of all, certainly, even if some are disobedient. For it is for this reason that he even became man, so that we might be called his race. Then what is equivalent C to this in the power of glory for those on earth? We have been shown to be partakers of the divine nature, we have been filled with the Holy Spirit, gaining through him an intelligible familiarity with God; he lowered himself to our brotherhood, although he is God by nature, and the Creator and Lord of all, and we are called sons of God. Do you still ask of what good he has been the author to us? Does a thing so magnificent, so thin, and so worthless in value seem to you? If someone is the son of some earthly king, or is reckoned among his brothers, this person will seem to you to have attained the highest peak of glory; but will it profit us nothing at all to be called gods, and children of God, and brothers?
But why, he says, did he not appear to mortals seated on the thrones D of an earthly kingdom, and conspicuous in supreme honors? But let him attend, as much as he can, to the mystery of the incarnation. For the whole earth had been led into deceit, and whatever pleased each person, that was his god and his worship. For some indeed worshipped the creature, and offered divine honors to the elements of the world; others fashioned for themselves peculiar gods. The only-begotten Word of God appeared, therefore, from heaven in the form of man, so that to all
A he might persuade them to pass over to the truth, and, as if from the mist and darkness of the ignorance that was in them, to arrive at the light of pure vision of God. Since, however, the Creator of all things wishes man to be his own master, and to be steered by his own will in the things he must do, it seemed—and very rightly so—to Christ, the Savior of all, that it would be better for men to be released from the shameful things on earth, to choose the better things instead, and to effect their own improvement, by persuasion rather than by the imposition of necessity. If, indeed, being crowned with the glory of a king and possessing power that could not be contested, he had ordered men to believe in him on earth, then belief would no longer have been the fruit of conviction, but rather of necessary and inescapable commands; and perhaps he would have been, in the view of one of those who are irrationally honored as deities by human dogmas, just such a one. But since, as one of us, he used a moderate and humble frame of mind, and having nothing to do with human fame, he leads men B by all-wise teachings and by wonders that surpass speech to choose the better things and to be convinced of them, an indictment against the dispensation is no longer left—nay, Julian is proved to be babbling nonsense against Christ, the ruler of all. For let him not cast the census/registration in our teeth as a reproach, but let him also consider this: he who endured to be registered with us under Caesar has become the achiever of works that surpass the power of Caesar, and indeed of all mankind. He raised the dead from their tombs, he rebuked the violent winds, he crushed Satan by his word, and he performed works of miracles. Caesar, therefore, was recognized by the insignia of earthly rule and by external goods that were not innate to his nature; but Christ, the Master of all, having his majesty from within and not acquired from without, was renowned for the excellence of his good deeds, and is to be understood as being the God even of Caesar himself. C For no one will take away from the King of all and Lord the authority he has to rule over all, just because some of his subjects have kicked against the goad and raised their necks in arrogance; rather, for such people, the insubordination is an accusation. But he glories in his own advantages, and he would have the glory of his supremacy over all things unshaken. But it is very childish to say, as he does, "He was not able to change the choices of his own friends and relatives"; for he seems to me to have forgotten, although he has heard it very often, that man is self-governed, and goes of his own free will toward anything he pleases, a view which is seen to be well-pleasing to the Creator of all. D And so it has pleased the Creator of all that those who choose to do right should receive praise, and those who take another path should rightly be laughed at by everyone. But that the only-begotten Word of God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and, to speak concisely, of all things that are in them, the most wise John declares abundantly in these words: "All things were made through him, and without him was nothing made." Nor will the agreement of the other apostles contribute less to this. For having once confessed him to be God, they were clearly not ignorant of the dignity of the virtue and excellence that is in him. For the most holy Paul [acknowledges] Christ to be from the Jews according to the flesh also
that, for those who have chosen to perform good deeds, praise may follow, and for those who travel the other path, that justly being dashed to pieces may follow from everyone. A That He is also the Creator of heaven and earth, and in short of all things that are within them, the only-begotten Word of God, suffices even for the all-wise John, saying: "All things were made through Him, and without Him not anything was made." And the agreement of the other apostles on this point will contribute nothing less. For once they acknowledged Him as God, they surely did not ignore the dignity of the power and excellence that resides in Him; for the most holy Paul calls Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, God over all, and says that He is blessed for ever. But the other disciples, seeing Him walking upon the sea itself, stood in awe of the miracle, and made their confession with an oath, saying to Him: "Truly, You are the Son of God." Since this is so, how could He not be the Creator of all? While divine Scripture asserts this, the matter itself does not disagree, not even for the cultured among the Greeks, as our discourse has already demonstrated for us through what has been said beforehand.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, FOR THE PIOUS RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN, BOOK SEVEN.
B The most excellent Julian has accused the holy Scriptures; he speaks so boldly, and has been driven to such a love of censure, that, as far as he was concerned, there is nothing of our teachings that he did not charge with calumny. He perhaps thought that this business would be to his glory. But if there are any who are of the same opinion, we will rightly say of them: "Whose glory is in their shame." And furthermore—this too, I suppose—that which is said by the voice of David: "Why do you boast of wickedness, O mighty man? Your tongue has plotted injustice all day long, like a sharp razor. You have loved all words of destruction, you deceitful tongue." But taking no account of any of these things, he insults the holy
A One and rises up even against our Savior Jesus Christ himself, saying:
JULIANUS
These things, then, we shall examine a little later, when we begin to inquire privately into the prodigies and guile of the Gospels. But for now, answer me this: which is better, to be forever free and to have ruled for two whole thousand years over the greater part of land and sea, or to serve and live under another’s command? No one is so shameless as to choose the latter. But will anyone think that to conquer in war is worse than to be conquered? Is anyone so senseless? But if we say these things are true, show me one general among the Hebrews to compare with Alexander or Caesar. For there is truly none among you. And yet, by the gods, I know that I am treating those men unfairly. But I have mentioned them because they are well known. For those who are inferior to them are ignored by many, whereas each one of them was more admirable than all the Hebrews who have ever lived put together B.CYRILLUS
He does not perceive that his speech is wandering off the mark and is being carried away most foolishly into matters that are not relevant. For he had proposed to show that the Christian religion is not pure, and that the interpreters of our sacred dogmas had not attained a pure knowledge of God, whereas the wise men of the Greeks had accurately perceived necessary matters and had subjected both divine and human things to subtle investigation. Then, I know not how, departing from the straight path and, as it were, bidding his purpose farewell, he floats along on putrid fables that have nothing to do with the matter. But, O excellent sir, I would say, if the affairs of others do not seem to be a match for the glory and empire of the Romans; if there have not been among them men who are noble and skilled in generalship, and who are disciplined and trained in tactics, and able to carry through wars and battles, and to overcome the hand of those who resist, is this enough, I ask you, for you C to heap insults upon the pious and most worthy dogmas of the Hebrews, or rather, of the Christians? And yet, how is it not evident to all that the argument concerning both is entirely different? For if it were proposed to inquire which of the empires any one observing them might admire—the Roman or the Hebrew—one would not err from the mark; for it would be possible to answer immediately and without any doubt, in accordance with the truth of the matter, that God, who governs all things and who was not ignorant of things to come, granted to the Roman authority the power to rule over all, so that every land and city, and along with the others, those who are conspicuous on the sacred thrones of the empire, might worship Him—a fact which, that it has already been brought to D completion, can be seen from the events themselves. But since, as I said, our discourse is about our divine dogmas, and the effort is to investigate among whom the truth, which is simple and beyond reproach, might be found—whether among us or among them—why does he mix things that cannot be mixed, and attempt to bring into one things that in no way agree with each other?For A what if the affairs of the Hebrews have been conquered and submit to the laws of the Romans? Would this declare them wicked and led astray, and not having an upright opinion concerning God? But if living according to the prescription of the laws, and the necessity of submitting to those who have the upper hand, is regarded by some as a reproach, have those who desire to rule not done an injustice to those who have been conquered? Although, having himself become one of those who rule, why did he not put an end to greed, if indeed it is an evil for those who are subjected to be under authority? One must lay the blame where it is due, but certainly not on the laws. To hold those who have accustomed themselves to cast off being under them guilty of impiety is, I say, not at all absurd, but rather even necessary. Therefore, if it is to one's advantage to be guided by laws toward a life worthy of all praise, why does he find fault with living according to commandment? For it was not likely that all upon the earth should B be exulting in the kingly scepters; for where then would the subjects be? But he makes the matter a pretense for reproach even against Christ. Then, how has he remained ignorant that for the sake of the economy in the flesh, even He was made subject to the laws given through Moses, although He was Himself the lawgiver, and had spoken the commandment through Moses by means of angels? He says, indeed, through one of the holy prophets: «I myself who speak, behold, I am present.» But He who in time and by necessity yielded to the laws of Moses, He who—as he says—endured the very servile census under Caesar Cyrenius, has reigned over those under heaven, and is worshipped even by those very scepters of Caesar, and He crowns those who have been allotted to possess them.
The Macedonian was a most valiant general and was admired by all, and after him Caesar, and indeed some others also. I do not begrudge it. But they C had not become pious, nor were they trained in the doctrines of the true knowledge of God; but they themselves also were led astray, honoring a multitude of unclean spirits greater than can be numbered, and worshipping gods established in shrines, made of wood and stones. Why then, he says, did the God of the universe allow them—especially since His attitude was hostile toward them—to advance to such glory and to prevail over many? Do you then reproach His gentleness, and do you persecute Him for bearing patiently, and do you call His clemency a crime? Shall you therefore find fault with Him regarding other things as well? For He did not prevent the sun from rising, He sent down rain upon those who did not know Him, He gave forth the flow of fountain waters, and established the earth as the mother of fruits. For He knew, He knew the turning back of all that would take place in the last times.
When, therefore, the accuser of the Christian religion asks with the utmost foolishness, saying: "Show me one among the Hebrews to compare with Alexander the general, or with Caesar," then indeed, then with all good reason, he shall hear the retort from us: "My good man, our discussion is not regarding generals and those who have reached such fame D by bodily strength, but rather regarding the divine and true religion." But that he boasts of his gods and contends that it is by their hand that the aforementioned generals arrived at such virtue and fame, the argument labors under the greatest weakness from every side. For he cannot prove it by the facts themselves.
But he would be A at a loss for a ready reply to this point—or rather, he would be very easily answered—by the fact that those gods have not even been able to defend themselves, with their sanctuaries torn down, their altars demolished, every sacrifice abolished, their statues burned, and they themselves reduced at last to nothingness throughout the whole world under heaven. And that the terrible and invincible phalanxes of enemies have very often been defeated by the God who rules over all, it is easy for anyone, if he should choose to examine it, to see from the Holy Scriptures. For Samuel, that saintly man, when foreigners had invaded the land of the Jews and were making a harsh and difficult assault, lifted a prayer to God and caused a great hailstorm to come down from heaven, so heavy and unbearable that the infantry, having fallen along with the equestrian phalanxes, surrendered the victory to the Israelites without a struggle, while heaven itself stirred like weapons on behalf of the worshipers of God. Moreover, the Assyrians, who dwell to the East, along with the Persians and Medes, once besieged Jerusalem; and as they surrounded the holy city with countless troops, they insisted that they could destroy it all at will. But since the general—this man was Rabsaces—spoke profane words against the ineffable glory, Hezekiah, a pious king, was vexed, and he supplicated God to avenge the insult; and so, in one night, B one hundred and eighty-five thousand men of the Assyrian army fell. What did the gods of Julian do that is similar to this? If indeed they are gods, as I have said, who have not been able to defend even themselves—and this has been proven by the facts themselves. C But since he defends the doctrines of the Greeks with every method and attempts to show that they have been well-established, bringing forward into the discussion the noble deeds of men—although some among them may have been sordid craftsmen and, like Julian himself, superstitious—nothing would have prevented him from using this to prove that the victory should be granted to his own cause, although it suffers from much disgrace and wanders far from the true knowledge of God. But, turning his discourse aside from the straight path, he immediately mentions other matters by which he thought he might most easily demonstrate that the Christian religion is outperformed by Greek superstition, and he says:
JULIANUS
D But when it comes to the constitution of the government, the form of the courts, the administration of cities, their beauty, the progress in the sciences, and the practice of the liberal arts, that of the Hebrews was nothing but miserable and barbaric—even though that industrious Eusebius wishes to maintain that there were some hexameter verses among them, and contends that there is a certain logic practiced among the Hebrews, the name of which he has heard from the Greeks. What kind of medicine
appeared among the Hebrews, such as that of Hippocrates among the Greeks, and of certain other sects that emerged after him?
CYRIL. B Although it has been demonstrated by many arguments, which we have already addressed, that the writings of Moses are indeed more ancient than all the books of the Greeks and all their legal codices. For he is seen to have been the first of all to legislate; and those who came after him, and who established laws most useful for the state, are highly esteemed whenever they happen to agree with his own. For what divine or human matter has he passed over in silence? Did he not set forth the principles of piety toward God, the path of integrity, and the irreproachable knowledge of things to be done or avoided? Does he not embrace every kind of virtuous action, and appoint fitting punishments for each of the vices? Does he not condemn theft, and turn away from adultery, lust, and nefarious and impure pleasures? Does he not regulate the character of those who are called to magistracies? For he commanded that they should be upright, wise, and diligent, superior to gain and every kind of hatred, accustomed to conquering their soul and anger, not inclining to one side or the other, but weighing justice for their subjects with an even balance, and following the straight path of the laws in his footsteps. Why, then, C leaving behind such holy and ancient institutions, does he prefer the latter to these? And can this, indeed, seem false to anyone? For it is fitting that the descendants should imitate and follow the deeds of their ancestors, not that the ancestors should imitate the deeds of their descendants.
But since he admires to the highest degree the study of the liberal arts and the progress in learning in which the sages of the Greeks have excelled, while calling the erudition of the Hebrews rustic and barbarian, even though they received from God a law that is the wise arbiter and regulator of all human affairs; I would say, not without reason, so far as concerns the sound and quality of the voice, if you look only at the pronunciation, that while the sweetness of language is indeed praised among the Greeks, their native language is praised—I believe—in the same way among the Hebrews. But if he reproaches them for this, he should also reproach the Roman tongue for its different and discordant sound. For it does not harmonize with the language of the Greeks in any way. However that may be, let this point, which is full of much folly, be dismissed, and let us look at the other. D For if some appear to have attained the height of eloquence, and can speak with articulate and magnificent words, are they immediately going to have correct thoughts about God, and will they be honest in their character, equitable, modest, holy, just, and diligent in living well? Or is it possible for many to be eloquent, but not for them to have correct thoughts about God and to excel in virtues? That this is true, I believe, will be proven by the facts themselves. Why then does he marvel so greatly, and honor with the highest praises those who possess an Attic and highly developed language, but whose heart is steeped in darkness and destitute of the true knowledge of God? Yet he is accustomed to carp at and accuse those who, while unskilled in the Greek language, are nevertheless illuminated by the divine laws, and laudable [in their deeds].
For does God seek from us nothing but the mere brilliance of words, and is he pleased by thin and polished expressions? Or does He rather look to a man endowed with honest manners and living rightly, and does He draw him to Himself? Furthermore, I am very pleased that [Julian] makes mention of Hippocrates, and accepts the reputation of other physicians to aid in his victory—as he thinks—and to bring infamy upon the Christian religion. For let us grant that there were some physicians who were most skilled in that art, and both experienced and practiced in curing sick bodies; what, O most excellent sir, would this contribute to the discussion of religion? Were there not physicians among the Hebrews, since there was a Hippocrates among the Greeks? Away with your foolishness. But since he is once and for all puffed up with this, and raises his eyebrow against us for no necessary reason, I will try to answer even this with arguments. For the Creator, taking thought for the infirmity of our bodies, brought forth medicines from the earth—a fact which the sacred Scripture also mentions. Yet our physicians had no need of these earthly medicines; but by using divine and ineffable power and activity, they recalled to life some who were entangled in the snares of death, freed lepers from such a bitter disease, and performing other remarkable deeds besides these, they are B worthy of all admiration. But what of such a nature is your Hippocrates, or any other of the Asclepiadae later than he, seen to have accomplished? For the present, I omit to speak of the things wondrously performed through the hands of the holy apostles: the lame man at the Beautiful Gate, Aeneas at Lystra, and other things besides these which are beyond all speech and wonder. But I return to that point: for women who are accustomed to prostitute their bodies, even if they are ill-favored, remove what is displeasing by painted adornments and the arts of hairdressers; he, however, when our holy religion presses upon him, perhaps blushes at the errors of the Greeks, but gathering together from every side what might contribute to their defense, he walks every path: now he boasts of physicians, now he turns himself to others whom he thinks to have been wise, and for that reason to have attained fame; and indeed he says: C
JULIANUS.
Is the most wise Solomon to be compared with the Greek Phocylides, or Theognis, or Isocrates? How so? If then you compare the Exhortations of Isocrates with his Proverbs, you will find, I well know, the son of Theodorus to be more excellent than the most wise king. But, they say, he was practiced in the worship of God. What then? Did not this Solomon also worship our gods, having been deceived, as they say, by a woman? O magnitude of virtue! O wealth of wisdom! He did not overcome pleasure, and the words of a woman led him astray. If, therefore, D
A you believe him to have been wise, do not suppose that he was deceived by a woman, but rather that, by his own judgment and prudence, and being persuaded by the teaching of God who appeared to him, he worshipped also the other gods. For envy and jealousy do not reach even the best of men; how much less do they fall upon angels or gods? You, however, wander about B in connection with the particular powers, and if anyone were to call them demons, he would not be wrong. For here there is ambition and vainglory; but there is nothing of the sort among the gods.
CYRIL. Most craftily, then, omitting all those who were illustrious for sanctity, he turns himself to the life of Solomon. For as those who intend to destroy a most strongly fortified city move their siege engines against the lower towers, so also he, having passed by the renowned chorus of the saints, comes to this one alone. C «But the deceitful man shall not obtain his prey.» For in no way shall the religion of the Christians be faulted if one has slipped and is convicted of some unusual vice. But since he contends that Solomon was inferior and more unrefined in wisdom than his own teachers, let him learn, first of all, that he was contemporary with Homer. For one hundred and sixty years after the fall of Troy, Homer was composing his poetry and singing tragically of the Trojan calamities. But Solomon was held in admiration D as he was weaving the book of Proverbs and building the temple in Jerusalem. Then, after a long interval of time, in the fifty-eighth Olympiad, Phocylides and Theognis were born. They too wrote useful, simple, and polished things, such as nurses might say to children, and indeed tutors when they are admonishing young men. We do, indeed, acknowledge that Isocrates was a sophist of superior talent; and if he brought forth anything useful for the young, let him be praised on this account; yet let him yield the prerogative to Solomon, by whom were written before him things which, in my judgment, suffice for young and old alike, that they might understand the principles of integrity, or might perceive the manner in which to live life clearly and skillfully, and in accordance with divine and human laws. But if, by reason of pleasure, Solomon lapsed into things that were not allowed, let not the accuser provoke us with great guffaws; but let him rather consider that we are not accustomed to place him in the number of the holy prophets, apostles, or evangelists. For he was indeed sharp-witted and wise, and possessed of the highest glory among all the Jews; moreover, he was reared in wealth and luxury, as is the custom for men in that station, and was distinguished by Sybaritic tables and other types of fortune. Those who enjoy such prosperous circumstances are stung more keenly by the desire for pleasure, and when passion is moved, their soul is borne toward it as if by a downhill slope, with no one to rein it in. For, almost always, the love of pleasure accompanies these delicacies, as the sophist himself also
A says, Isocrates. Riches, however, are rather ministers of vices than of virtue. It followed, therefore, that he whom he decided to accuse—existing in that splendor of life and highest pinnacle of dignity, being a rich man—should live luxuriously. Why, then, if he was tossed about in some way, and allowed himself to be overcome by pleasures, by delicacies and wealth, and the abundant insolence that proceeds from these, is it so wondrous, Julian? Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, educated in philosophy, although somewhat poor, and having first practiced a manual craft, used to living sparingly, and perhaps pressed by necessity and extreme penury, and "crawling upon the ground," to use Homer’s words, was accustomed to consort with wives—Myrto, I mean, and Xanthippe—and in addition to these, he was also entangled with harlots, and burned uncontrollably with obscene and abominable lusts. Come then, let us also say this same thing regarding Socrates: O the magnitude of his virtue! O the riches of his wisdom! He did not overcome pleasure. But let him answer me as I inquire: Whom does he consider to be gods? Does he say they are wise, or B truly foolish and narrow-minded? If, therefore, he contends that they are not wise, he accuses his own gods of ignorance; but if he says they are wise and most prudent, why do they commit fornication? Why do they rage with the lust not only of women, but also of males? Wherefore, regarding them also, one might reasonably say this: O the magnitude of the virtue of Julian’s gods! O the riches of their wisdom! They did not overcome pleasure and the lust of the flesh. O how worthy of all admiration do I deem that to be! If, therefore, anyone, wallowing in delicacies, lapses from virtue, even though he might be exceedingly wise, the Christian religion should not on that account be mocked. For he who is brought into accusation is not for us, as I said, a prophet, nor certainly an apostle or evangelist, but rather a man nurtured in luxury, with a mind that sometimes gave way easily and rashly to the impulses of nature on account of these delicacies. Furthermore, Julian takes pleasure in the case of Solomon, and says that he worshipped the gods of the Greeks, being carried away by the blandishments C of foreign women. Then, in his own fashion, he adds something sharp and malicious: "If he was deceived," he says, "he should certainly not be called wise; but if you say that he was wise, then it will surely be manifest that his decision to worship other gods was a work of that wisdom which gained him admiration." But we certainly understand and call Solomon wise from the things that he wrote. That he clearly sinned when he worshipped falsely-named gods, no one will deny. But we say that he was carried away by foreign women. For a woman is a persuasive thing, and those whom she has once entangled in her snares she has the power to bewitch, with pleasure as her assistant, by which the mind is conquered. He was carried away, moreover, when he was almost on the threshold of old age, with his mind by then as if growing old together with his body, and no longer retaining that former vigor of his. But just as a youthful spirit does not love hardship, so neither does an aged one; and as adolescents D undertake anything strenuously and are carried toward all things inconsiderately,
A so too is the mind of a man who is not of the right age. When Solomon was still young, and, as it were, in the flowering of his mind, he built that famous temple in Jerusalem and strove with great zeal to fulfill things for the glory of God. But after his age was at the very end and decline of life, and his strength and mind alike failed, Satan, having at length prepared a snare for him through women, drew him away from what was right. But that he did not—as he himself contends—fall into apostasy and rush into every vice at the prompting of God, will be easily manifest from the fact that God was vehemently incensed against him on that account and immediately pronounced punishment for the crime. For it is written in the Third Book of Kings: "And it came to pass in the time of the old age of Solomon, his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father; and B strange women turned away his heart after their gods. And the Lord said to Solomon: Because these things have been done with you, and you have not kept my commandment and my precepts which I commanded you, I will tear asunder your kingdom from your hand, and will give it to your servant." What, then, was the commandment given to him and to all who lived under the Law? Not to contract marriage with a foreigner. For He said: "You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. For he will make your son depart from Me, and he will go and serve other gods." Having forgotten such a commandment, he became intertwined with the daughters of foreigners. "Since, therefore," He says, "you have made of no account the commandment given to you, and having slipped into apostasy, have worshiped the gods of the foreigners, and have bestowed upon the creature, which you knew to be my servant, the honor and glory which befits Me alone, I will tear asunder your kingdom and give it to your servant, that you may learn your crime from the event itself." Where, then, did He indicate to him that other gods were to be worshiped, He who was so incensed against him on that account? For let him not say—seeking credibility for his arguments on all sides—that envy and emulation do not belong to good men, much less to gods and angels. That was not envy, my good man. What then? We maintain that it is not the work of envy that the divine and immortal mind does not tolerate those who are wandering, and who somehow or other bestow divine honors upon others, but rather [the work] of one who observes that:
C "A government of many is not a good thing; let there be one ruler, one king."
Since, therefore, as he himself says, envy does not reach even to good men, let it be a matter of indifference to those who rule on earth, even if someone might be carried outside the kingdom under them, or rather, even if he should choose to seize their honors. But he was not of that mind, when he was in command, but if he was in possession of the scepter, he would have punished with great bitterness the one who was caught in the act. Therefore D
what we are permitted to possess without fault, another might also possess without envy from anyone. For envy will rightly be condemned as spiteful in these matters and that, too, with good reason. But it is surely fitting that those who are subject to the empire of God, yet insult His majesty, should be punished justly and without question; and no one of sound mind would think that the God of all things is driven to this by envy or jealousy, but rather by necessity and for the greatest benefit, so that the truth may not remain unknown. For that the knowledge of the Lord and Creator of all is life-giving, the Savior Himself taught, thus calling upon the Father who is in heaven: A "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Since, therefore, it is acknowledged by all that the clear knowledge of the natural and true God is a life-giving thing, no one will doubt that it is a very bad thing to stray from the truth and to fall away from life-giving worship. But I am surprised that, while Julian himself is a worshiper of impure powers, that is, of demons, he says—I know not how—that we linger over such things. And it seems to me that the following line, uttered by one of the wise men among the Greeks, may most correctly be applied to any person whatsoever:
A hard thing, Pamphila! For a freeborn woman to fight with a harlot.
For since they cannot in any way call into question a life that is freeborn and noble and beyond all reproach, they smear the filth of their own crimes onto women of good character, attacking them with a railing and disgusting tongue. I believe that the excellent Julian chooses to emulate and even to perform this very thing. For he commends his own ways, while at the same time he rails against the divinely inspired Scripture, and even dares to say: B
JULIANUS. For what reason do you feed upon the learning of the Greeks, if the reading of your own Scriptures is sufficient for you? Yet it is better to keep men away from those things than from the eating of things sacrificed to idols. For from the latter, as even Paul says, the one who eats is harmed in nothing; but the conscience of the seeing brother is scandalized, according to you. C O most wise men! Through these studies, however, whatever was born noble by nature among you has departed from impiety. Therefore, whoever has had even a small portion of natural talent, it has happened to him most quickly that he has departed from your impiety. It is better, therefore, to keep men away from studies than from sacrifices. But you also know, as it seems to me, the difference in intelligence D as regards those among you... nor could a man of noble character exist, nor yet one of decent conduct. But from those among us, every man might become better than himself, even if he were by nature altogether slow-witted. But whoever is endowed with a good nature and has drunk in our literature, surely as if by the gift of the gods
A to men, he will be seen, either by kindling the light of knowledge, or by establishing a way of life, or by putting many enemies to flight, and by traveling over much land and much sea, and by this means appearing heroic. And after other things: This is a clear sign. Select from among yourselves certain children and prepare them to meditate upon the Scriptures. And if, when they have reached maturity, they should prove no better than slaves, consider me to be raving and insane. And yet you are so wretched and foolish B as to think those divine discourses are such that no one could become wiser or stronger, or even better than himself, by them. But you assign to Satan and to the worshippers of Satan those [discourses] from which it is possible to acquire virtue, prudence, and justice.
CYRIL
A "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth."
Behold, for behold the tongue of Rabsaces is again let loose against the majesty of God, and speaks injustice against the Most High, as it is written; and he thinks nothing better, it seems, than to attack us with this prurience of the tongue. But divine Scripture is sufficient for those who have been nurtured in it to turn out wise, upright, and endowed with the most complete prudence; and for this purpose we are in no way in need of foreign teachers. But since it is sweet to know all things, we also for this reason examine with singular care the opinions of the Greeks, which they have gathered together concerning every matter, and above all things, concerning God. From this we take occa- C sion to laugh at those who venerate many thousands of gods, and worship an innumerable multitude of unclean demons—perhaps unknown even to their worshippers—and who possess in their temples likenesses of various kinds and forms, fashioned not only into the likeness of men and women, but even of wild beasts, cattle, and creeping things, birds and creatures of the sea. I pass over the created things, namely heaven, the sun, and the moon, and the remaining stars, to which they have accorded divine and supreme honors, confounding all things topsy-turvy. Furthermore, we find among them certain interpreters of divine things who have written such things concerning their gods as would, by the hearing alone, immediately fill the mind with obscenity and impurity. We therefore first tasting the Greek literature, to use his words, D and having found much fraud therein, then truly all the more vehemently do we admire the sacred and divine discourses, that is, the divinely inspired Scripture. For what of beneficial things does it not embrace? In the first place, and that which is the most noble of all, one may see in it the discourses of the true knowledge of God shining forth. These are subtle, accurate, and sublime, and they elevate the mind of those who are initiated above everything that is created, and for this reason they establish, as it were, that one and supreme nature in such a way that it is conceived as being beyond all that is thinkable by sense, or graspable by science or intellect, that is, beyond all creation, visible or invisible.It has kept very well for itself the attribute of being able as the only one to rule over others, and moreover, the power to create and bring into existence things that were never before, as some brilliant and exceptional prerogative, or rather as an intrinsic and natural dignity, which has attached to no other being. A Furthermore, in addition to these things, it introduces to us the ways of a virtuous life, directs us toward righteousness by holy and divine laws, and clearly establishes for us the path of all moderation. I will speak of the holy prophets, who were entirely without instruction in Greek learning, yet were nonetheless holy, most pleasing to God, and workers of wonders beyond description. I come now to Moses himself, the interpreter of sacred things. Come then, let anyone who is wiser than he, or who has even approached his level by the slightest degree, tell us so. He was indeed a Hebrew by language, but in the contemplation of things and in the skill of discourse, he was not undistinguished. At any rate, the historian Eupolemus, writing about him in his book *On the Kings in Judea*, says clearly that Moses was the first wise man and that he handed down grammar to the Jews, which perhaps is still in use among them today; and that the Phoenicians received the art from them, being as they were neighbors to the Jews; and that they handed it down to the sons of the Greeks, B since it was evidently Cadmus who lived among them and taught them the first elements themselves. Clement, a learned and studious man who had investigated the depths of Greek literature as few perhaps had done before him, mentions this story specifically in his *Stromata*. Since, therefore, even the science of the first elements came to the Greeks from the Hebrews through the mediation of Cadmus, let Julian, who dared to ask, "By what reason do you nibble at Greek learning if the reading of your own Scriptures is sufficient for you?", lower his pride. But perhaps someone will say: "The holy Scripture contains a common, plebeian, and trite style of speech, whereas the writings of the Greeks have sweetness and furthermore abound in the grace and beauty of diction." C We reply, therefore, that the prophets, and the writings of Moses himself, spoke in the Hebrew tongue so that they might be known to small and great alike, and were aptly translated into a style that is familiar and in no way difficult to grasp. But if the speech of the Greeks is very elegant and sonorous, with a singular choice of words, yet they seem alien to what is proper and destitute of the truth; for they fabricate thousands of gods, while being entirely ignorant of the one God by nature and in truth. But whoever is wise will praise, not him who knows how to speak eloquently and is skilled in ornate words and boasts of the mere brilliance of them, but rather him who, even if he does not have the most ready and prompt pronunciation of words, D yet has a right opinion, I mean of God, who is ruler of all, and who cultivates every manner of moderation. Therefore, from divine Scripture anyone will become a better person than himself, and will certainly not be useless to others either. But whoever has acquired only an ornate and elegant style of oratory from Greek learning will receive no other benefit for holiness, integrity of character, or the pursuit of modesty and gravity. As
I have said already many times, I find that the gods among them shun no kind of vice, but cast aside every shred of decency through foul and shameful pleasures. I will omit asking what sort of person he will become who knows that those to whom divine honors are paid are guilty of the foulest crimes. But if he awards the palm to Greek writings because they abound in much urbanity, while our own do so little, let him answer to one who asks: If someone were to pour hellebore into a golden cup, but into another vessel—not golden, indeed, but made of the lowliest material—were to pour the labor of bees, and then commanded one to drink whatever he pleased at his own discretion; would the one about to drink, looking at the material, prefer the worse, or would he rather, judging correctly, prefer the useful to that which is by nature harmful, even if it were contained in the lowliest vessel?
B Since, however, he contends that we ought to keep the faithful away from Greek letters just as we do from things sacrificed to idols, let him hear again that we are accustomed to forbid the faithful from eating things sacrificed to idols, and very reasonably so, but we are far from forbidding them to engage with Greek literature. And if anyone should wish to learn the reason, we state that because there is one God only and in very truth, we have made it our habit to abhor the very name of others, and we believe it to be detestable and in every way worthy of execration. And this the all-wise Paul teaches when he writes: “We know that there is no God but one, and that an idol is nothing in the world.” C For even if some people prate, or rather are deranged and have lost their minds, and as they see fit name as gods whomsoever they happen to choose, and are led into error by the images erected in temples, it is not necessary for us to go mad along with them, nor to be affected in the same way, and to think that there are truly other gods besides the one, natural Creator of the universe. Having therefore completely removed idols from our midst, we say that an object sacrificed is nothing; furthermore, we eat with a pure conscience, giving glory to God, who has granted us the free and harmless use of all food. But if anyone is weak in these matters and does not yet have a sound and firm mind, but thinks that those things sacrificed to gods are truly something, since he has not yet arrived at the sincerity of faith, we raise him up, like a trainer with boys, little by little to the most perfect knowledge of the matter. Most wisely, therefore, Paul says: D “If I by grace partake, why am I blasphemed for that for which I give thanks?” Therefore, if the occasion arises to encounter things that have been sacrificed to idols, there will be nothing at all to offend those who are confirmed in the faith. For if an idol is absolutely nothing, then what is sacrificed to it will also be nothing. Examining, therefore, the writings of the Greeks, we praise the composition of their words and the elegance of their oratory; but having rejected their tenets, we turn instead to the holy Scriptures, in which the beauty of truth shines forth, and accurate do-
dogmatic knowledge is stored up, and every kind of good counsel, by which anyone of a certainty might become filled with every virtue A and be highly distinguished by the glories of good works.
Regarding Julian, who sets himself against this and mocks the holy and divinely inspired Scripture because it is composed in the Hebrew tongue, someone might say, I suppose: “Therefore, most excellent sir, will you also despise the other tongues along with the Hebrew, those which differ from the Greek, and will you include in their number your own, which you obviously value so highly—I mean the Ausonian [Latin] tongue?” And yet, if we wish to think rightly and fairly, is it not true to say that we would not at all reckon the Greek tongue as an invention of piety, but rather consider it as one of those languages which were once divided into manifold sounds by the ineffable power of God, at the time when those who were building the tower reaching to heaven set themselves to the task? The learned men of the Greeks, as is to be expected, B thought that they themselves were the inventors of eloquence, and they have attributed the works of ineffable power to their own heads. But blessed David curses them, saying, “The Lord shall destroy all deceitful lips, and the boastful tongue, who say: ‘Our tongue we will magnify, our lips are with us;’” that is to say, “We have become the inventors of eloquence.” Therefore, the tongues were given by God, and each one has, perhaps, its own peculiar excellence and beauty; but we say that, compared to the others, the Attic tongue is marvelous in the sweetness of its sound. But this has contributed nothing to the sanctification of morals or to the path of learning how to live righteously for those who cultivate it. Do you not see in the theaters the flute-players and the lyre-players, who are accustomed to charm those who are avid for song with the sweetness of their voices, yet sometimes labor under vices and lead a life bound C to wickedness? Therefore, no one would fail to praise them because they have reached the height of eloquence; but whoever is a stranger to right studies, anyone would rightly blame them. Yet, children who are reared in the sacred Scriptures immediately become most beloved of God, even if they are not thought to be well-versed in speech. But he [Julian] says that such people are in no way superior to slaves, because they lack eloquence, thinking this alone to be excellent and counting every other virtue as nothing, by which one might come to the knowledge of God and to the highest degree of glory. Let him teach, therefore, whether you should admire a man of distinguished talent and singular eloquence, even if he is of impure morals; or rather one who is frugal and honest, even if he should excel less in eloquence. From the sacred books, then, of the divinely D inspired Scripture, we are instructed in every manner of virtue; we use the books of the Greeks, however, as a kind of preliminary exercise for true doctrine; and since we are less instructed in the Hebrew tongue, we have put forward the Attic for the preaching of the dogmas of piety. For language is a gift from God, along with others, nor can it be said to be an invention of pagan superstition. For “All wisdom is from the Lord,” as it is written, “and from Him all”
reason proceeds, for He is the giver of both mind and speech. He also attempts to assist the ineptitude of the Greeks in another way, speaking thus: A
JULIANUS.
Esculapius heals our bodies; the Muses, together with Esculapius, Apollo, and eloquent Mercury, instruct our souls; Mars and Bellona are our allies and helpers in war; Vulcan assigns and distributes the things pertaining to the arts; and Pallas, the virgin without a mother, along with Jove, presides over all these things. See, therefore, whether we do not surpass you in each of these matters; in the arts, I say, in counsel, and in wisdom; whether you consider those arts that are directed toward utility, or those that are imitative for the sake of some beauty, such as sculpture, painting, economics, and medicine, which comes from Esculapius, whose services are everywhere on earth, which that god grants us to enjoy perpetually. For Esculapius has often healed me when I was sick, by suggesting remedies. And Jupiter is a witness to these things. If, therefore, we, who have not surrendered ourselves to the spirit of desertion, are better instructed in soul, in body, and in external goods, for what reason do you abandon these things and turn to those? BCYRILLUS.
It is evident, therefore, that among those gods whom he so admires, some profess medicine; others excel in eloquence, just as the most excellent sophists do; others teach men to commit murder, are skilled in slaughter, and are promoters of cruelty; others are the inventors of base arts: in short, to say it once, each of those whom I have named is most suitable for that to which he is said to be naturally adapted. And since the tasks of fulfilling a single office are distributed to each individually, they would, I think, be idle in these other matters. But how could such beings be gods? For who would dare to say that a god is someone who is destitute of any good? Since he possesses all things in abundance, he is also most powerful and most perfect, and perfectly embraces those things which befit the supreme nature. C For what reason then, O excellent sir, would anyone not say—if the son of Coronis is truly God—that he does not also heal the sick, and by adding the rest, demonstrate that his nature is most powerful? But they each operate in their own turn, and make a specific display of the experience that resides in them. For some, as I have said, are doctors by profession, others are base, others excel in the beauty of education and speech, and others are skilled in military affairs. D Then, in what way would the nature of man be surpassed by them, or how could the things that are among us be inferior to theirs? For there are very many masters of arts and sciences among us who are most excellent; nay, if it is right to speak the truth, not a few among us are even superior to the gods of the Greeks themselves; if indeed it is possible that someone should not be ignorant of the medical art, and [yet] in the knowledge of military matters—and, in addition to these, be distinguished and not unadmired in other pursuits. How then is it not necessary to cast the gods behind, regarding the natural aptitude in us, if they themselves are suited for one single thing only, while in one man, as I said, A one might observe all their gifts gathered together in the aggregate? He further devises something else, setting it up as an invincible rampart against the simpler sort, and asserts that the trifles of the Greeks are superior to the holy religion of the Christians, bringing forward as proof that there are some among them who know how to paint, carve, and practice medicine excellently. Tell me then, are you not ashamed to have written these things? Would, then, excellent painters and most skillful stone-cutters demonstrate that those are gods who are not gods at all, but rather unclean demons, or else corrupted men? For it seems to me that he has forgotten that Asclepius was burned with fire and struck by lightning at Epidaurus, as we have said previously. B Perhaps he thinks that no Christian has ever flourished in the medical art, or in eloquence, or in the study of military affairs. But nevertheless, O excellent man, if it is necessary to set gods over all the institutions of life, arts, and sciences, as their inventors or teachers, how great then would the multitude [of gods] have to be? For there are myriads of things in life, and ways of pursuits, extending even to the most trivial of them. But if to anyone a wise mind is implanted, he sees, of course, the unpleasantness of the Greek doctrines. He admires Asclepius, because, as he says, he suggested remedies to him when he was sick; and he says that Zeus was aware of this. And for what reason was he brought in as a witness for us [concerning] doctors, and does C he not rather heal the sick himself? Or perhaps, since he is ignorant of that art, does he admire those who are skilled in it along with you, while meanwhile Asclepius the doctor suggests a remedy like someone sitting in a chair? Was it not more fitting that he himself, being a god, as you say, should, according to his majesty, deliver [men] from diseases, not by suggesting what remedy each person should use, but rather by commanding with authority that the person lying [sick] should recover? Therefore, anyone who says that those are gods who have attained to some dexterity or moderate skill in human arts or pursuits would rightly and deservedly be laughed at. But we, my good sir, have worshipped the one true God, and we say that it is from Him that wisdom, prudence, and the use of every reason have been given to human nature; and furthermore, we say that the state of being naturally suited for anything praiseworthy, the discoveries of the mind, the sciences, D and the arts, are [from Him]. Therefore, the Creator of all things would rightly be confessed by us as the cause and giver of all good things. But Julian wanders from the truth when he assigns things individually, separately, to Mars, Vulcan, the Muses, eloquent Mercury, and Asclepius, and says that they have divided the knowledge of things among themselves as if by lot. Furthermore, as if he had sufficiently demonstrated that the achievements of the Greeks should be preferred to ours, because they know very well the art of painting and sculpting, he adds: "If therefore we, although permitted to be enslaved to the spirit of defection, are better instructed in goods of the soul, body, and external things: for what reason do you leave these and turn to those?" Lay aside your arrogance, excellent man; you grow insolent in vain, and you have made an objection worthy of laughter. Nevertheless, that we may yield to your words, the painters, doctors, and sculptors of the Greeks...
well, let us confess, are superior to ours, because they are skilled in painting, and truly also in stone-cutting. If, then, he says, you who have devoted yourselves to the spirit of apostasy, are better off regarding the soul and the body, and the outward things, why do you abandon these and turn to those? Lower your brows, most excellent sir; you have an empty pride in this, and you have made your objection worthy of ridicule. But in order that we might concede, for the sake of your argument, that the painters, physicians, and stone-cutters among the Greeks are better than those among us—will that suffice you as a proof that Christians have missed the truth, and have not known the one who is by nature and in truth God, or, in other words, the ways of the most excellent life? But let there be unto him many and fine painters, and stone-cutters, and physicians; for us, it remains that we should conquer, being crowned by the truth itself in knowing clearly the Maker and Lord of all. But he, deeming none of these things worthy of consideration, inquires and says:
JULIAN
For what reason do you neither persist in the Hebrew doctrines, nor love the law which God has given to them? And why, abandoning your ancestral customs and handing yourselves over to those whom the prophets preached, have you departed further from them than from ours? For if anyone wishes to examine for your sake what is true, he will find your impiety composed of both Jewish audacity and the indifference and vulgarity of the nations. For drawing not the best, but the worst from both, you have fashioned a tapestry of evils. For among the Hebrews, the laws and rites regarding religion are precise, as are the countless observances, which require a most holy life and disposition. But whereas the lawgiver forbade serving all the gods, saying only: A *whose portion is Jacob, and the cord of the inheritance of Israel* B, and not only this, but also adding, I suppose: *You shall not revile the gods*, that detestable wickedness and audacity of later times, wishing to strip all religion from the multitude, deemed it to follow from not serving them that one must revile them. And this one thing, clearly, you have borrowed from there; otherwise, there is nothing else in which we are in agreement with them. Therefore, from that Hebrew striving for innovation you have seized upon blasphemy against the venerable gods; but from our religion you have abandoned both the reverence toward the more excellent nature and the love for ancestral customs; you have retained only the promiscuous eating of anything, as if it were herb fodder. And if one must speak the truth, you have endeavored with great zeal to increase your own confusion. This, I suppose, and very reasonably, befits all nations and the lives of other men—innkeeps, tax-collectors, dancers, and others of that kind—and you have thought it fitting that your affairs should be confirmed thereby.
CYRIL
See again how rashly he chatters, and heapeth up absurd accusations against us, as if it were permitted to him to pour forth against us with impunity whatever he pleases. For he says C that we have departed from the Hebrew writings, and have despised the law handed down by God D, and the utterances of the prophets.
Let him come, then, and show that the voices of the prophets dissent from the Mosaic writings. Then let him reproach us for apostasy, and let him make an indictment of our having departed from the holy laws. But if there is absolutely no disagreement among them, but rather these and those speak the same things, and one may see them everywhere in agreement with one another, let this fault-finder not pursue us in vain; rather, let him lay aside his blame and his writing against those who are condemned by no one at all. And yet it is possible to see that the holy prophets, in very many discourses, cried out B up and down against those from Israel, as having advanced to every measure of arrogance, to the point of setting at naught the law defined for them through Moses, and of turning toward the teachings of the precepts of men. But it is entirely incredible that the same persons should be thought to be, and should be accused by some as being, those who despise the laws of Moses, while they are also seen to be caught in this very thing. Therefore, as I said just now, the prophets and the law agree with one another. But since, as the divinely inspired Scripture says, Christ is the end of the law and the prophets, we have been led to faith in Him from the things written about Him in the law and the holy prophets. And we continue even now C to honor such proclamation of the law and the prophets, and through the worship in types we proceed to the very beauty of the truth, and we arrive directly at the goal, and we have acknowledged the Savior and Redeemer of all. But Julian, since he has nothing more cherished than a zeal for calumniating, says: "We shall find your impiety, composed of Jewish temerity and Greek confusion." If, therefore, he deems that to cavil and to accuse rashly those who are worthy of all praise is a thing worthy of admiration, then I say he has done rightly. But if he thinks it right that everyone's words be weighed by careful examination, whence did it come into his mind to call the Christian religion impiety, I do not understand; nor in what way could we have been rivals of Jewish temerity or lovers D of Greek confusion? "Yes," he says, "for accurate are the statutes and observances among the Hebrews, and they indeed require a most holy life." But when the law forbids sacrificing to other gods besides the one and only God, having rejected and cast off the just and legitimate way of living, you have taken from this only insults against the gods, even though the law has said clearly: "You shall not speak evil of gods." That our life is therefore lawful and accurate, and polished unto the straight path, and indeed full of every virtue, even if it might not be enacted in the Jewish way through worship in types, we shall demonstrate clearly as our discourse progresses a little further, when we discuss these things with him. Nevertheless, let him know that the law, or rather the Lord of the law, commands those from Israel to destroy [page break in output, continuing text]
A in the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every leafy tree; and you shall overturn their altars, and break their pillars, and cut down their groves, and burn with fire the graven images of their gods, and you shall destroy their name from that place. Does He, who incites the Israelites against the altars and temples, and says that the gods who are worshipped in them must be burned, also say, I pray you, concerning them: "You shall not speak evil of gods"? For is it not unworthy to think that the divine and most perfect mind would deviate from those things which are most consistent with itself, let alone that it would dissent from itself, or that contrary laws enacted by Him could be found? This is considered shameful and ridiculous among us. What then does the power of this legal precept signify? Must it not be understood that what He says, "You shall not speak evil of gods," concerns the nature of man, which that supreme God, to whose image and likeness it was made, adorns with the title of god? The law, treating the priests of the divine altars, and those who far excel the rest in dignity, with reverence and supreme honors, calls them gods as if established in a most honorable, holy, and perfect life. That this is indeed true, and free from all reproach, we shall recognize from the very words of the law, if we join to the verse what follows. For it is written: "You shall not speak evil of gods." But in order to make the power of the oracle manifest, He immediately adds, saying: "You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people." I say that this is what is meant by, "You shall not speak evil of gods." How indeed would the Israelites have restrained their tongue, if they had been forbidden by divine oracles, they who had been ordered by the same to deliver temples, and whatever was contained in them, to the fire? But since he reproaches Christians for the promiscuous use of food, it is necessary to respond to this.
B The laws pursue with every praise whatever is excellent, and they highly value every kind of right action, and those who have embraced the best manner of life; but they reprove every kind of wickedness, and by proposing deserved punishments to those who live a criminal life, they endeavor to recall them to a better fruit. Whom, therefore, I pray, do they correct? Adulterers, or those who eat certain foods? Upon whom do they inflict punishments? The plunderers of others, vexers, impostors, buffoons, and those accustomed to perpetrate all the worst things; or those who, if the occasion arises, freely touch fish or meat? But you will say: They are ungodly toward the gods; for they are defiled when they eat with them. Whom, I pray, do you mean? Is it therefore sufficient, in order for the mind of man to be purified and rendered altogether noble, to abstain from certain foods, even if he be not freed from wicked and nefarious perturbations, and lives a life condemned by the judgment of the laws? And who would dare to say this, and not expose himself to ridicule from those who possess some measure of soundness of mind C D
Then let him also answer this: Who is the Creator of all things, who brought forth into existence terrestrial, swimming, and aquatic animals? For we profess that the living, active, and subsistent Word of God is the Maker of all things, and one would not see any of the things that have come to be from Him as capable of polluting, or as naturally defiled in its being, insofar as it is what it is. "For God saw," it says, "everything that He had made, and behold, everything was very good." A They themselves, however, might perhaps say that the immediate Creator of the world commanded the gods who had come into being from Him to fashion the three mortal genera; for this is how it seems to the wise men of the Greeks. And then how could they introduce into existence things so abominable, B and by which it was likely that those who would come after them would be genuinely polluted? For it were surely better to have prevented the birth of things that would be of no benefit to mortals, but rather bring destruction, corruption, and harm. And what is still more foolish than these: for those who inquire into the positions of the stars, just as they think and dare to say, map out in heaven a certain Capricorn and Fishes, and other animals, which they themselves abhor and condemn as being among the most impure. C We, therefore, do and act most wisely, since, while we prioritize nothing more than a right and blameless manner of living, we condemn the mode of wickedness; but we consider that adultery, fornication, falsehood, slander, and greed—and besides these, the other evils—are to be pursued with hatred, and we know that these alone are what pollute those who are held by them. We reject no food as impure; but by calming bodily pleasures with frugality, and blunting the prick of lascivious flesh, we are accustomed to eat sparingly, and we declare that to indulge in luxuries is altogether an evil. But Julian does not fear to liken us to tavern-keepers, D dancers, and publicans, being ignorant of the freedom of the Christian religion, and the exact discipline which we use in all things we do. For we do not construct our way of life based on random human traditions, as those who are accustomed to prattle foolish and inept things do, which is worthy of ridicule, but, being instructed rather by divine and sacred laws, we have cultivated the manners of a truly blessed life. We remember Paul writing: "Food will not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we better off, nor if we do not eat are we worse off." And again in another place: "Every food is good, and nothing is to be rejected; for it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer." But hear and understand the Master of all and Legislator, Christ himself: "Not what enters into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, thefts, fornications. These are the things which defile a man." But perhaps he will reject these voices, although the matter is most strongly confirmed by necessary arguments. Let him then teach the causes for which those things are justly to be condemned which, I know not how, he reproaches, although by the estimation of all and by their own nature they are for eating, and are reckoned in the number of foods.
A For example, there are many differences among terrestrial animals, as there are also among birds and aquatic creatures; but nature defines the use of each: some indeed contribute nothing to life, while others contribute greatly. Therefore, when they disapprove of something in them which by nature is not to be reprehended, let them come forward and bring forth the true causes of the matter: or at least let them understand that, since they oppose customs to us without reason, they are suffering from an extreme lack of reason. Furthermore, I wonder that there are very many among them in the opinion of divinity (for I would not call those gods who nevertheless disagree among themselves in their opinions, nor do they agree upon things honorable or sinful. Nay, one may see them in a certain way fighting amongst themselves, and what some avoid, others approve and accept. But who would not acknowledge that what is in reality impure is not held as such by some, but pure by others, although exact knowledge escapes the human mind? But surely it behooved them, since they are gods, as these men babble, not to err from the truth, nor to be held by ignorance of the truth. What cause is there, therefore, why there should not be one rule for all, but varied and discrepant opinions, which argue their madness? But forsooth, they will say, we abstain from every animal, moved by the trifles of Pythagoras, and by that which was foolishly written by Empedocles: B C "For I have been erewhile both a boy and a girl, A bush and a bird and a gleaming fish in the sea." But if they entertain such opinions about themselves, there is nothing absurd in thinking or saying that they themselves have perhaps been boys and girls, and likewise birds and fish: but it is possible, in my opinion, that they may have been girls of ill repute, or indeed mimes, such as are brought out dancing on the stage, or even thieves condemned for theft, and accustomed to perform such things as it is neither lawful to mention, nor could enter the mind of any good man without penalty. And that teacher of renowned dogmas says that he was Euphorbus at Troy. But as to whom they themselves say they were among the ancients, or which creature, whether a bird or a beast, let them also, if it pleases them, recount such things in vain, and fill their lives with wretched and putrid and most foul stories, with which wailing nurses might perhaps soothe the fretful babies. Therefore, there are very many among us, as I have said, who tend toward the summit of every good, and have progressed to such a degree of continence that, while they shine wonderfully with the praise of equity, they sometimes even refrain with a brave spirit from things most useful for life—namely, bread and oil—and they appease the inexorable necessity of the belly with herbs and pulse, using pure water; the meditation
A of these ascetic labors is so profound that they consider nothing better than them. And they do not disparage any of the foods B themselves, but rather, as I have said, they endure, subduing the mind’s tendency toward baser things, chastising the leapings of the flesh, and refining the eye of the understanding so as to be able to gaze upon that which is blameless and not at variance with the sacred laws.
But those who are ensnared by the ignorance of the Greeks, saying to themselves and others, with utter lack of understanding, “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” leap upon the rest; whereas they ought, of course, to have kept such things far from their own minds, if indeed they had any regard at all for true goodness of life. For by calling lust “Aphrodisia,” they take great care not to give offense to Venus; meanwhile, they commit other sins with impunity—I mean sorceries and sodomy—and this even within the shrines, with the gods as witnesses. C
And that which has been attempted in our own times, experience of events has demonstrated. For in the temples of Saturn, sacristans were caught having done violence to matrons, the god himself hunting for them those whom they might ravish. Oh, what or how many tears from those who were hunted! A woman, educated honorably from her earliest age, was called from her maidenly bedchamber to the workshop of licentiousness, as they themselves claimed, by the god's command, the god desiring a union outside the laws. And that which is most intolerable in these things, and the most shameful of all evils—that such a grave and detestable crime was held in honor through long custom and license—was such that those who were deprived of legitimate marriages did not even wish to keep it secret. A man would gladly send his wife to be debauched, being a procurer of her to others, likely attributing his own nature to the god, because he might not see the things of the body. For the demons are always disgusting and profane. D Should anyone, then, justly rebuke those who touch swine or eat fish, or rather those who hunt for adultery and perform illicit acts in the very shrines themselves? He further attempts to slander the Christian religion in another way, writing thus:
JULIAN.
For that not only those who live in this age, but also the first ones who from the beginning received the word from Paul, were such persons, is evident from the things that Paul himself testifies as he writes to them. For he would not have been so shameless, I think, as to include so many reproaches in letters sent to them, had he not found them to be true. Whence, even if he had written such praises of them, even if they were true, he ought to have blushed; but if they were false and feigned, he ought to have hidden them to avoid the reputation of soft flattery and illiberal sycophancy. Now these are the things which Paul writes to those very people concerning those who heard him: “Do not be deceived; neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And you are not ignorant of these things, brothers, that you too were such; but you were washed, but
you were sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ. A You see that he says that these men also became such, and that they were sanctified and washed, having found water capable of cleansing and thoroughly purifying, which penetrates even to the soul. And while baptism does not take away the leprosy of the leper, nor lichen, nor alphos, nor acrochordon, nor gout, nor dysentery, nor dropsy, nor paronychia, nor any small or great bodily defect, it does, however, take away adulteries, robberies, and absolutely all the lawlessness of the soul.
CYRIL. Paul is not accustomed to use blandishments or flattery, my good friend; for he was a minister of the truth. But those who received the preaching of the faith and obtained him as their teacher and initiator were idolaters and worshippers of wicked demons, and they were unholy and abominable in their ways, and enslaved to every pleasure. They were fornicators, sodomites, B effeminate, drunkards, and servants of every plain impropriety. For they could not be seen as holy and purified, who, following their own gods, had admitted every kind of vice, lest they should seem better than those whom they worshipped if they attempted to live temperately and justly and to cultivate innocence. As long therefore, my good friend, as they were enslaved to your gods, the wretches continued wallowing like pigs in the mire of sin. But after they had left the deceit of the demons and, having driven away the shadows of error, were enriched with the light of the knowledge of God, and recognized the King of the universe and Lord, namely Christ, then, C having washed away all filth and replaced their base ways with virtues, they were called to the Christian and holy life—I mean, the evangelical one. Since, therefore, the all-wise Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, having caught many in the net of faith and rescued them from the snare of the devil, he made it a necessary lesson for their benefit that one must make virtue the companion of faith, and together with error put off the things that belong to error—I mean fornication, adultery, pederasty, and the other evils. For he firmly asserted that the kingdom of heaven would thus be made accessible to them. But if Julian thinks that he should vainly accuse our Lord Jesus Christ because He admits the wicked and idolaters D into His presence, let him answer to one who asks: was it better for them to progress ever further into vices and in no way seem better, having rejected such wicked ways, or to wish to return to better fruit and with all effort arrive at the most honest way of life? Everyone, I think, will say that it was surely better for them, having rejected base things and despised vices, to turn themselves to better things and cultivate a life in Christ worthy of emulation. What, then, is the cause for accusing Christ, if He saved those who were perishing, and by stretching out a saving hand to them lifted them up as they lay on the ground, and healed the sick, and grants the remission of internal vices? For He said: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." And again:
A "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." For whom should the practitioners of the medical art be expected to treat? Those who are in the midst of illnesses, or those who are beyond the need of being sick? And whom among those in cities or regions are the best of generals accustomed to protect? Those who have already been captured and are ranked among the spoils of war, or those who are surrounded by walls and have not yet become prey to barbarian cruelty? And whom would it truly be fitting to wash? Those who are in a state of defilement, or would he say that it should least of all be them, but rather the clean? Yet how would one not be justly laughed at if he claimed that aids were more appropriate for those who are healthy than for those who are actually suffering? Why then, as I said, does he dare to accuse the kindness of our Savior and cast blame upon His philanthropy? He relieved mortals on earth of infirmities, freed them from passions, tore away the tyrannical power of the devil from them, and made those who were filthy B and polluted appear clean and wiped away. Honor Him with hymns of thanksgiving, and say yourself, according to the prophet Habakkuk: "O Lord, I have heard your report and I feared; O Lord, I have considered your works and I was amazed." But this wise man finds an occasion for laughter in the very things over which he ought rather to have rejoiced most wisely. For since he is entirely ignorant of the power of holy baptism, he quibbles over the most sacred things, and says that those who believe in Christ are cleansed, having obtained water, forsooth, which has the power to wash away stains. To these things he adds I know not what cold and old-wiveish fables, and says that lustral water is utterly useless to those who labor under bodily diseases: and that we are delirious to think and say that it cleanses the defilements of the soul. But I reply to you, most excellent sir, that to us the saving baptism is by no means accepted for the curing of bodily diseases, nor does the mystery of Christ pertain to those things which are perceived by the senses or sight, as you suppose; C its understanding is subtle and deep, and it cannot be comprehended by the minds of those who wander in error. Whence the prophet Isaiah says: "Unless you believe, you shall not understand." For faith is the beginning of understanding. And our divine and holy mystery has this entrance; so that, therefore, I may not report hidden things to the ears of the uninitiated and give offense by repeating what Christ said: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." Renouncing the deeper things, I will turn rather to those matters through which the adversary rashly carries himself, being more studious of quibbling than of understanding the truth. The saving D baptism does not promise that bodily diseases will be removed. Wherefore, if it does not grant this, do not be much surprised. For if Christ should consent, even for this the water will suffice us, nor will we see anything as an obstacle, if we consider its power to be ineffable and placed above all nature. For what kind of miracle is there that has not been performed by Him? What proof of His divinity has He not provided? By His all-powerful nod He cleansed lepers, freed the hydropic from their disease, restored the power of walking to the lame by His will alone, and caused them to leap like deer in a swift race.
A He commanded the blind man to wash his eyes in the waters of Siloam; and when this was done, an unusual light shone upon him, and the deep darkness of his eyes was removed. Therefore, He who so effortlessly achieves such remarkable things, and who imparts to the waters themselves the efficacy of His own power, is it not clear that He would have rendered the grace bestowed through holy baptism more powerful than any bodily ailment? But we contend that it is given to us for other purposes. B For having cast away from our mind the darkness of Greek delusion, and having renounced the throngs of demons, and having rejected all their pomp and worship, then, opening the spiritual eye of the heart with the light of truth, and acknowledging Him who is by nature truly the Author of birth, the King of all, and the God of the universe, we confess faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And as though led to the beginnings of another life, and having entered upon the path of true piety, we are justified by the consent of Christ. For through Him the Father is propitious to us. But when the Lawgiver justifies us, and delivers us from every crime, and remits the penalty due to our sins, and furthermore sanctifies us in a spiritual way through the Holy Spirit, and reforms us by the manner which He alone knows, leading us to a newness of life characterized by sobriety and gentleness—who then is to condemn us, or what filth could yet remain in us, I would not be able to say. I could say many other true things regarding these matters, and prove with the most certain arguments that the mystery was typologically declared through Moses and the prophets, and that it is not something new, or recently produced, or discovered by us, were I not, as I previously said, fearful of the ears of the profane. C For things that cannot be commonly grasped are usually mocked, because men do not see the weakness of their own minds, and what is worthy of being pursued with every admiration, they count for nothing—just as this outstanding man also does. For he measures that mystery by the mere inspection of the waters, even though John spoke clearly and plainly to those who came to the baptism of repentance: "I indeed baptize you with water, but He who is stronger than I is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." For he compares, I think, the power of the Holy Spirit to fire, and the purging efficacy which is perfected in us by Him. D For just as when some filth adheres to silver vessels, the applied fire consumes it, so, I think, the power of the Holy Spirit, if it seizes our souls like fire—in a spiritual and divine manner, that is—liberates us from every stain. But Julian, turning the nature of our affairs, as it were, to the exactly opposite...
A point, contends that those who through faith in Christ have been led to the knowledge and worship of the true God are like slaves, who, departing from their master's house and bearing the yoke of slavery very grievously, think that their flight will turn out prosperously for themselves; but if they are disappointed in their hope, they consider that their lot will be no worse than it was before.
To these points, however, I would reply that it would be more fitting to compare them to household servants who, having disregarded the benevolence of their master, and having even made their departure in a most rash manner, and having thirsted for a freedom beyond the laws at an unseasonable time, then, having been caught in heavy and inevitable calamities and being tormented by incessant terrors, having fallen into bitter and unadmonished poverty, and being pressed by the lack of necessities, and being compelled to serve certain others, at last and with difficulty take thought for better things; and they choose again the things that were in the beginning, and they revert to the Lord who is the first and good master. B Can it not truly be said that He is the Creator of all things and the Lord, who alone is truly and by nature God? Therefore, those who have served demons, if they should choose to repent, would rightly be judged not to have departed from their own lords, but to have come under the power of the Lord of all, being led thereto by most shining hopes. For grace is set before them in the promise of adoption, and they hope also to obtain resurrection from the dead in Christ.
This, indeed, the enemy of truth mocks most of all, among all other things, as if God who is all-powerful could not make man—who is subject by his own nature to the law of corruption—superior to death, even though Plato has clearly stated that the Creator of the world said to certain gods of the gods: That they are indeed not immortal, nor entirely free from dissolution, yet they will not be dissolved if He wills it; and moreover, he wrote of a certain Er the Armenian, who had died and come to life again. For perhaps he himself even considered that what is handed down concerning the resurrection of the dead should be admitted as right and true. For He who in the beginning brought man out of nothing into existence could easily restore to life one who has suffered the dissolution of death. For it would be, I think, the work of the same power and a clear proof to have brought him out of what is not into being, and to reform again into its former state one who has fallen into corruption; or at least the second would be less than the first, if we reason correctly. For I think it is a greater thing to produce something out of nothing than for one who is already produced and has suffered something humanly to be reduced again into what it was in the beginning. But since God is above all mind, being Life according to nature and life-giving, He undoubtedly infuses life into whom He wills, in no C D ...
From the same, from the seventh book of the work against Julian (a)
He blames in vain those who pray to God on behalf of those who are in injustices, and he thought that one sins against what is fitting, and he calls those who pity evildoers, evil. And yet, how does he who says this not accept the harsh and the ungentle (b)? Does he admire those who are at once both unyielding and misanthropic? For I say that those who have once been taken...
in their own transgressions, and are paying the penalty to the laws that punish them, ought the rather to be pitied as ones who have fared miserably, as ones who have fallen into this through human weakness, as ones who have become prey to diabolical perversity. And one should not smile at those who have fallen, nor, so to speak, gloat over those who lie prostrate, nor show toward them an unfeeling indifference; B but rather that feeling ought to be expressed against those very [senses of theirs]. From the same book. It is a manifest and enviable goodness, clearly, to extend mercy to those who have chosen to hate us, and to reach out a helping hand; to desire, moreover, to save them, not trampling upon them, but rather, as it were, stretching out a hand to those who have fallen, and looking with compassion—not with hard-heartedness—upon the misery that clings to them; but rather to be intent upon those things through which they might escape the snare, and to offer prayers to God who has authority over all things on their behalf.
A treatise of our holy father Cyril on the pious religion of the Christians against…
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL FOR THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN BOOK EIGHT
A The war is waged by the wise man against the ineffable Majesty, and he hurls the darts of his own intellect at things that transcend the mind; yet all of them miss the mark. For he speaks falsehoods, and he boasts, and while he makes mention of the divinely inspired Scripture, he feigns that the things contained in it are known to him. Although he is clearly found to be ignorant, and the very test of the facts will prove this to us. For but a moment ago, he called those who have been gathered into the holy people through faith in Christ—men who have brought forth good and noble deeds and have been renowned for wondrous pursuits—wicked, execrable, miserable, abject, base, and—what is there of such names that he did not use? Furthermore, not content with this invective against us, he tries in other ways to convince us that we are uncertain of mind, and ignorant, not adhering to the straight path of truth, but having swerved in a way from the beaten track, and that we neglect the Mosaic precept in its entirety, and that we differ in opinion from him and the holy prophets who came after him. And he writes again as follows:
JULIAN. Since they say that they differ from the Jews of this time, and that they are truly Israelites, according to their prophets, and that they believe Moses most of all, and those prophets who subsequently arose in Judea, let us see in what they mostly agree with them. B We must begin from the writings of Moses, who, as they say, also predicted the future Jesus...
A Now that Moses, not once, nor twice, nor thrice, but very many times, bids us worship one God alone, whom he calls supreme over all things, while he never calls any other divine being God—though he does call others angels, and lords, and even many gods—is clear. Yet he deemed the first to be preeminent, and he did not conceive of any other as second, nor similar, nor dissimilar, in the way that you have fabricated. But if there is anywhere among you one utterance of Moses that supports your view, it is only right that you should bring it forth. For as for the saying, "The Lord your God shall raise up for you a Prophet from among your brethren, like me; him shall you hear," B this certainly was not spoken concerning Him who was born of Mary. But if, for your sake, one were to grant it, he says that He would be similar to himself, not to God: a prophet just like himself, and from among men, but not from God. And that saying, "A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins," C was certainly not spoken about Him, but about the kingdom of David, which seems to have come to an end in King Zedekiah. And indeed the Scripture is read in two ways: "Until those things which are laid up for Him shall come," whereas you have twisted it in this way: "Until He comes for whom it is laid up." That neither of these fits Jesus is obvious; for He is not from Judah. For how, as you wish, was He not born of Joseph, but of the Holy Spirit? For when you draw up the genealogy of Joseph, you refer it to Judah, and yet you have not been able to fabricate even this very well. For Matthew and Luke are convicted of disagreeing with one another regarding His genealogy.
CYRIL.
Therefore, that we are truly Israelites who have been justified by faith in Christ, Paul, who was steeped in the law, will show by these words: "For not all who are of Israel are Israelites; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall your seed be called; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." D We are, therefore, according to the promise, children of the patriarch Abraham, inasmuch as we follow in the footsteps of his faith. Since, then, only the children of the promise are counted as the seed of Abraham, it is consistent and indubitable that we are in reality and are called Israelites.
That the dogmas of the Christians are in harmony with the decrees of Moses and the holy prophets regarding God, anyone who wishes to see may discern with no difficulty. For we draw from thence, as from fountains, the knowledge which leads us to all excellent things. This, then, the God of all actually promised to us through the voice of Isaiah, saying: "You shall draw water with joy from the fountains of the Savior." For by the life-giving water He denotes the sacred and divine word, which the fountains of salvation pour forth; this is Moses, and the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists. Therefore, no one will ever see us as contrary to the decrees of Moses or the holy apostles. For we have taken these as our teachers of piety and of both dogmatic and moral instruction. Now, Moses professed that there is one God by nature and in truth, Creator of things visible and invisible...
and revealed Him to us; no one could deny this. For he introduces Him saying clearly: “There shall be no other gods for you besides Me.” A And again: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of those things that are in heaven above, and those that are in the earth below, and those that are in the waters under the earth.” And indeed, through the voice of the prophets, he says thus: “Say to them: Let the gods who did not make the heaven and the earth perish from the earth, and from under this heaven.” And in addition to this: “And you shall know no god besides Me.” And David the divinely inspired also sings somewhere: “All the gods of the gentiles are demons; but the Lord made the heavens.”
Following, therefore, the oracles well-delivered through Moses B and the prophetic proclamations, we confess that there is one God by nature and in truth. Furthermore, we know and have believed without doubt that all the gods of the gentiles are demons. Where then do we differ from the saints? Or how do we oppose their opinions, as if we thought or said different things? Let that vehement adversary and accuser of the truth come forward and show us; let him not pour forth empty words against us. But it seemed to me a very strange thing that, although he affirms not once, but very often, that the excellent Moses confesses there is one God, and absolutely no other besides Him, he yet does not fear to say that angels are called lords C by him, and indeed multiple gods, while regarding the first one as excelling the others; yet the fact that he excels others will not suffice to do away with the others. But if He alone is and is called God by nature, then surely there will be no one else truly divine with Him. Why then does he corrupt the words of Moses, when he says plainly: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord your God, the Lord is one”? For he did not intend to think of or speak of one God as merely the foremost among others and above all, but rather as one raised high in a manner of incomparable preeminence, spiritually D and beyond all that is grasped by the mind, and he knew Him to be self-originated and the only unbegotten One.
How then, or from where, can there be any doubt that, although God and Lord is one and alone, even if certain ones are called gods and lords, they have received that honor merely in name, since they are of a nature other than His, and evidently one that is inferior, and which at one time was not, but was brought into existence by Him? And indeed, the God of all bestowing this very thing even upon us ourselves says: “I have said: You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” Shall we then, who have honored and have had the gift of kindness to be called gods, be ignorant of the measure of our own nature? By no means. For we are diligent and careful to be wise. But that even if Moses speaks of one God—meaning the Father—he necessarily confesses with Him the Word who is from Him and in Him, and is His own God the Word, always co-
-existent and subsisting without time with Him, and the Son who is to be worshipped together, and indeed also the Holy Spirit, we shall demonstrate a little further on, though we have already dealt with these matters with him at length. For we have not, as he himself says, introduced anything by way of innovation, nor have we rashly added to the Mosaic writings whatever seemed good, but rather we have set these before us as a rule and a standard. Since, however, he investigates the birth of Christ and B fruitlessly torments himself over the Law of the most wise Moses (for he somehow contends that Moses said nothing about these things), let him learn from us that the purpose of the Mosaic treatise looks toward Christ’s mystery, and that Christ is described in it in many places. The divine Paul knew this, and said: "For Christ is the end of the law and the prophets." 78 And he himself—a wealthy witness to these C things—would be sufficient when addressing the throngs of the Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me." 79 Come then, since it is possible to bring forward many true testimonies with no trouble at all, let us put the others aside and examine those that were brought forward by him, and thus convict him of falsehood even in this.
That interpreter of sacred things, Moses, said to the Israelites: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen D to him. Just as you asked from the Lord your God in Horeb, on the day of the assembly, saying: 'We will not continue to hear the voice of our God, and we will not see this great fire any more, lest we die.' And the Lord said to me: 'They have spoken well all that they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them according to what I command him. And the man who will not listen to whatever that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance upon him.'" 80 See, then, how very opportunely the mystery of Christ was signified at that time. For the God of all descended in the form of fire upon Mount Sinai, and the voice of the trumpet resounded greatly, as it is written; but that spectacle could not be endured, and the sound of the trumpets was altogether unbearable. And so they said, seized by vehement fear: "We will not see this great fire any more, and we will not hear the voice of the Lord our God." 81 For they thought, as they were still fresh from the delusions of the Gentiles, that the God of all was a sensible and visible fire, and that they had heard a voice uttered by him. But that they, through folly and slowness of mind, were ignorant of the truth, they learned late and with difficulty at last, when Christ said to them regarding God and the Father: "Neither have you ever heard his voice, nor have you seen his form." 82 Since, therefore, the spectacle of those things which were for the glory of God
A were figurative, those men who were being instructed at that time could not bear them; eventually, the mode of the incarnation of the Only-begotten was necessarily foretold. For he could not otherwise dwell with men, since he is God by nature, than by appearing as a man having become similar to us, while remaining God, inasmuch as the divine and supreme nature itself boasts in its stability and immutability. He is also named a Prophet, although he is the Lord of the prophets. For it was necessary—it was necessary that, having descended into a self-emptying and having taken on the measure of humanity, he should not treat human things as contemptible. Indeed, the matter of prophecy is highly congruent with the measure of humanity, and it is also thought to hold the highest place of dignity in human affairs. B But, he says, this is clearly not said about him who was born from Mary. But if someone, for the sake of your argument, were to concede it, he says that he would be similar to himself, and not to God—a prophet like himself, from among men, but not from God. That the Son is God and from God by nature, we shall show not long hence. But since he says that these things were not written concerning him who was born from Mary, let him show us another who has come into being according to Moses, and not according to the ways that he himself might choose; for he is entirely ignorant of the truth. For he thinks that the one foreannounced will be raised up as a prophet and a man—this and this alone—and he has missed the truth. For one might immediately say in response to this: Although there have been very many prophets after Moses, and they were men, according to him, C about whom, then, are these things said? Therefore, there is every necessity, as I do, that it be understood by us in many ways. Let us, therefore, set the ministry of Moses alongside the dispensation of the Savior, in so far as it is possible, and come, let us endeavor to clarify the power of the prophecy that is about him.
Surely Moses delivered those of the blood of Israel who were oppressed by unbearable slavery, and he led them through the midst of the sea, while those who had formerly ruled over them were drowned in it; he fed them in the desert, with manna being sent down; he presented them to God, having become a mediator between Him and men, and he was an administrator of the Law, wisely shaping them for all individual actions. We must proceed from this, as from a type and shadow, at last to the very beauty of the truth itself; Satan played the tyrant over us out of greed, and he bound the human race with the yokes of sin. D And no one at all was free from his waywardness; consequently, he was also supercilious, and he thought highly of himself, and he acted with audacity against the weakness of all, saying: "I will grasp the whole world with my hand like a nest, and I will take it like eggs that are left behind; and there is no one who will escape me, or speak against me." 83 But his boastfulness regarding this matter was futile; for he thought that there was no one who would speak against him as he plundered the earth, but rather that he would, without effort, place all that is under the heavens beneath his own feet. But the wretch fell short of his hope; for Christ did speak against him and did resist him; he loosened his snares, rescued us from the slavery of the soul, and [delivered those] immersed in sin.
he set outside of evil; he led us across the Jordan, which indeed becomes destruction for the enemies and for those who desire to pursue those who have chosen to live well, but provides life and saves those who are under God and who strive to observe His will. He has given us not the sensible manna, B but rather Himself, as holy, life-giving, and truly all-holy food. We have been brought through Him to God and the Father, and He has become the mediator between Him and men. Furthermore, He has prescribed laws, not such as exist in types and shadows, but those which would lead to the best and most excellent way of life. For there is, indeed, in the Law itself a foreshadowing of the truth, but the truth itself has finally dawned. C See, moreover, how Moses was not unaware that the only-begotten Word of God, having assumed humanity, would give to men laws far better than the ancient command. For although he had written concerning the laws given through him that it is forbidden to add anything to them or to take anything away from them, afterward, considering the eminence of the Lord’s majesty, the loftiness of His glory, and the magnitude of His divine power, he commands with these words: "Him you shall hear according to all that He shall speak to you." For if, he says, He Himself should wish to set down those laws which would render the command handed down through me void, let there be no account of this. Let Him legislate with authority; for He is God and Lord, and to Him and to Him alone does it rightly befit to legislate. And so that Moses might not appear to be the only one to have delivered the prophecy concerning Him in these matters, the Father Himself has confirmed this D and declares him to have spoken rightly with these words: "All that he has spoken is right. I will raise up for them a prophet from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I will put my word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them according to all that I shall command him." But what, my friend, is the meaning of these words? For no one of even moderate intelligence would say that He gave a word to all the holy prophets, who, conveying the words received from Him from above, used to say, "Thus says the Lord." What then would He mean by saying, "I will put my word in his mouth"? Understand, noble sir, the most eminent dignity of our Savior above all things. For the divine prophets, fulfilling their ministry with the reverence that best befits servants, used to say, "Thus says the Lord." But He, not so, in no way: for He Himself was the Lord. Rather, He used the Father's own words in every matter, saying to the leper: "I will; be cleansed"; and ordering the dead to return to life: "Young man," He says, "I say to you, arise." And: "Lazarus, come forth." And when He rebukes the creature, and represses the impulses of the raging winds, and with a voice and word most befitting God, He calms the insane waves of the sea: "Peace," He says, "be still." This, I think, is that: "I will put my word in his mouth." For as the most wise Paul writes: "He upholds all things by the word of His power,"
A that is, of the Father. This is what also most especially demonstrates that the power of prophecy does not belong to any one of the prophets, but clearly to Him who is begotten of God the Father by nature—as God in an ineffable manner—and who did not disdain to be born also in the flesh from the holy Virgin. Yet he turns again B to that which perhaps he thinks, rashly and without examination, belongs to him alone: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, and a leader from his thighs, until He comes for whom it is reserved," or, "for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the expectation of the nations." He says that these things were not written of the Savior of us all, Christ, but of the kingdom of David, which he claims ceased under King Zedekiah. That the prophetic word here indeed makes mention of those from the tribe of Judah who reigned over Israel, I myself would also say. But that he is lying when he declares that the kingdom of David ceased under Hezekiah, and C that of Zerubbabel—who, as I mentioned, sat on the throne of the kingdom after the time of captivity—anyone may see from this. For first, Saul reigned; then, after a long time had passed, the rule arrived at Zedekiah. But when Jerusalem was captured and the land of the Jews was ravaged, the Babylonians making war upon them, Israel was led away captive along with its own king—I mean, of course, Zedekiah. But when the seventieth year had passed, God released them from captivity through Cyrus. When they were brought back to the land that had borne them and were again striving to be instructed by the law through Moses, then, indeed, then did Zerubbabel, son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Judah, receive the scepter among them. How then does he claim that the kingdom of David ceased with Zedekiah, even though Zerubbabel, as I said, was established in the seats of the kingdom after the time of the captivity, and was from the tribe of Judah and David, and transmitted the scepter through his successors until the kingdom of Herod, who was born of a Jewish mother but a foreign father? D For when those from the tribe of Judah who had held the rule had thus failed, Christ was born, who also became the expectation of the nations; for they too have been called through faith. And this was surely that which was spoken about them by the voice of the Savior of us all, Jesus Christ: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd." Our Lord Jesus Christ was born, therefore, as I said, when the kings from Judah had completely failed, and He became the hope of the nations; for this was reserved for Him. For they were not called through any one of the holy prophets, nor indeed through the most wise Moses, or any other person at all; but rather it was reserved for Him, as I said, not for Judea alone, but rather for the empire of all nations. For the prophet Zechariah also says somewhere about Him: "And the Lord shall be one, and His name one, encompassing all the earth." David also sings somewhere: "The Lord has reigned, let the earth exult." But again that clever fellow of ours, Julian, says: "But that none of these things applies to Jesus is manifest. For He is not from Judah: for how..."
A can He be, according to you, since He was born not of Joseph, but of the Holy Spirit?" Now, that His most holy body was not born of Joseph, but was fashioned by the Holy Spirit, anyone, I imagine, of sound mind will admit: but in this way, too, He was of the tribe of Judah, and of the blood of David, having indeed His birth according to the flesh from the holy Virgin, as I said, while having Joseph ascribed as His father. Both, however, were of the tribe of Judah, from which Jesse and David were.
"But," he might perhaps say, "you cannot demonstrate that the Virgin who bore Him was of the blood of David, or at least of the tribe of Judah." You shall hear, indeed, what the holy Scriptures have handed down regarding this matter. The Israelites were careful lest anyone should take to the companionship of marriage a woman from just any tribe he wished, and they were compelled, even against their will, to take wives from their own tribe; and this was confirmed by divine law. For it is written thus in what are called the Numbers, which is one of the books that the most wise Moses edited: "And Moses commanded the children of Israel by the commandment of the Lord, saying: Let them be wives to whom it is pleasing before them; only let them be wives from the tribe of their father; and the inheritance shall not be transferred from tribe to tribe to the children of Israel: for each one of the children of Israel shall be joined in the inheritance of the tribe of his family. And every daughter taking possession of an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of those who are of the tribe of her father, so that the children of Israel may each take possession of their father's inheritance." B
Does it seem to you, even through this law, that it is proved that both were of one tribe, Joseph and the Virgin, I mean that of Judah and David? "But Joseph was not from Judah," he says. He puts off the examination of this point, but I shall discuss it with him in due time. Yet his discourse reaches such a pitch of insolence that he dares to strike at the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, and furthermore at the existence of the Word Himself. For he says that the interpreter Moses, and his successors the holy prophets, recognized one certainly and only God the Father, and that they enumerated no one at all with Him. He writes as follows: C
JULIAN
"But we shall diligently investigate the truth of this matter in our second book, and we waive it for now. Let there be a prince from Judah: he is not 'God from God,' as you say, nor 'All things were made through him, and without him was nothing made.' But it has been stated also in the Numbers: 'A star shall rise from Jacob, and a man from Israel.' That this pertains D to David and his successors is certainly manifest. For David was the son of Jesse." ([alt-version omitted])
If then you are allowed to conclude from these things, demonstrate it by drawing forth one citation from there, since I have drawn very many. That he considered the one God to be the God of Israel, he says in Deuteronomy: "So that you may know that the Lord your God, this one is, and there is no other besides Him." A And furthermore, on this point: "And you shall turn in your mind that the Lord your God, this one is God in heaven above, and on the earth below, and there is no one besides Him." And again: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." And again: "See that I am, and there is no God besides Me." These things, then, Moses said, asserting that there is only one God. But they perhaps will say: "Neither do we say there are two, nor three." But I shall demonstrate that they do say this also, having cited John as a witness, who says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You see that he who was born of Mary is also said to be with God, B or whoever else he might be—so that I may answer Photinus at the same time; it matters nothing now, I abandon this contention to you—but since he says "with God," and "in the beginning," this is sufficient to bear witness. How, then, does this agree with the writings of Moses? "But," they say, "it agrees with the words of Isaiah." For Isaiah says: "Behold, the virgin shall have in the womb, and shall bear a son." Let this indeed be said concerning God, although it is by no means said. For she who had married, and who before she brought forth had lain with her husband, was not a virgin. But let it be conceded that this is said concerning Him. Does he say that a virgin is about to bear God? C Yet you do not cease to call Mary Theotokos. Or does he say that the one born of the Virgin is the only-begotten Son of God and the firstborn of all creation? But can anyone show among the words of the prophets what is said by John: "All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing"? But hear now what is produced by us from those same scriptures: "O Lord our God, take possession of us; besides You we know no other." And Hezekiah the king is introduced praying by them: "O Lord God of Israel, who sits upon the Cherubim, You are God alone." Does He leave any place for another?
CYRIL.
D It is sufficient, indeed, as I think, that what has been said before—namely, that "The prince shall not fail from Judah, nor the leader from his loins, until He comes for whom it is reserved"—is to be understood as concerning Christ, and that it most especially befits and applies to Him. But since he also touches upon another prophecy, namely the Balaamite one, in which it is said: "A star shall rise from Jacob, and a man from Israel, and He will crush the leaders of Moab, and will despoil the sons of Seth, and Edom shall be an inheritance," and he says that these things must be applied to David, or to the ancient kings of Israel, let him understand again that he is altogether...
A unsuccessful in attempting to overthrow things which are held by all to be sound, by those who are not ignorant of the divinely inspired Scripture. For the kings of Israel did not defeat the nations mentioned; rather, they were perpetually either slaughtered or slain, possessing an irreconcilable hatred of brotherhood and a spirit hostile to one another at all times. And in another way: if, as he says, the power of the prophecy brought in mention of David, or of the other kings, why was it not more fitting to say: "Stars shall arise out of Jacob, and leaders out of Israel"? But it looks to One who is chosen and is as it were preeminent among stars, it is manifest that this is Christ, who arose from Jacob, that is, from Israel according to the flesh. To add many other things to these would be B no difficult task, but I pass them by for now, reserving the more perfect explanation for the appropriate time. Since, however, as I said before, he dares to overthrow utterly the ineffable generation of the Son from God and Father, and actually claims that He does not exist at all, nor is God, and furthermore ridicules the manner of the Incarnation, I think it necessary to speak for the dogmas of piety, and to examine the argument concerning both very thoroughly. Let the test, however, be applied to that point for the time being. For I think it necessary to declare clearly first that the Word is God and from God. Then, in regular order thereafter, that He became man, not casting off what He was (for He is immutable and inconvertible by nature), but by the assumption of flesh and blood He underwent the likeness to us, to demonstrate this from the holy and divinely inspired Scripture. C He has collected many sayings from the history of Moses and from the proclamations of the prophets, and heaped them into his own discourses, which make mention of one and only one God. But he thinks, perhaps, that we are at odds with the opinions of the saints, and that we acknowledge three gods, because we, having followed the right faith, decree that He who is from Him and in Him, and His own only-begotten God the Word, always coexists with God and Father, and indeed the Holy Spirit too, as consubstantial with Him. For that one nature of the Godhead is understood in three subsistences: in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; but it is in no way cut by us into a diversity of natures; nor do the things named depart from one another substantially into otherness, but one and the same Word D comes through the entire holy Trinity, gathering into one nature of the Godhead, even if each is understood to subsist according to its own hypostasis. So that even if one speaks of one God, he will never conceive of the Father without His own Offspring, nor indeed without the Spirit that proceeds from Him according to nature, which is also His own. For just as he who speaks of a man will everywhere and entirely remember things that are substantially in him, which, if they are present, make him a man, but if they are absent, no longer so; in the same way, I think, the signification of other names brings necessary observation to the subject. Therefore, he who says that the Father is God, indicates with Him also His own and He who is from Him and in
Son according to nature. For if it is not a lie that the Father did not come into being in time (for nothing at all happens to Him, but He is perfect from Himself), it must altogether be said that there subsists together with Him that which is His own, by which He is Father. And if He is Creator always, and did not acquire this state in time, then He through whom He creates all things—the radiance of His glory and the character of His substance—must certainly co-exist with Him. For He has been named thus by the voice of those who speak of God. When, therefore, is light understood apart from radiance? And when was not the character of the Father’s substance? B Therefore, we also confess indeed that there exists one Creator and Lord of all; but we know that there subsists together with Him His own God the Word, begotten from Him by nature in an ineffable manner, and as light emitted from light, or as a word in the mind and from the mind. For this generation is very subtle and God-befitting, and far beyond corporeal imagination. He, therefore, who denies the Son, takes away the radiance from the light and separates the mind as being destitute of a word. And the citing of examples is very slight, yet it is enough to raise the mind to things beyond our reason. For since, if anything is brought forward for the generation of the Substance that is supreme over all, it falls short of the glory, and there is nothing at all essentially C like unto it, or undistinguishably possessing this, we very reasonably beg the need from examples, gathering one thing from many and, with difficulty, a small portion for a faint and moderate illustration of the things sought. And thus the all-wise Paul says: "For now we see in a mirror and in an enigma" (I Cor. XIII, 12). That it is completely impossible for the Father to be understood by us apart from the Son, the Son Himself confirms to us, saying: "He who denies the Son, has not the Father" (I Joan. II, 23). And indeed, to the crowds of the Jews: "Neither do you know me, nor my Father. If you knew me, you would also know my Father" (Joan. VIII, 55). For the Father could in no way be truly thought of, unless He have the Son as the fruit of His own nature. D For just as, according to the power of things said to be relative, a son would never be if a father were not certainly conceived; in the same way, a father would not be conceived if there were no son. Again, the divine and ineffable generation of the Word is exalted on high and beyond the measures of creation. For there was no time in which we might conceive Him not to have been; rather, He is Himself the Creator of the ages, and possesses an existence that is elevated above all time. And thus He said to Moses: "I am who am; this is my name" (Exod. III, 14). Therefore, the existing Word should rightly be conceived as subsisting together with the existing Father, as being from Him, and in Him, and consubstantial with Him. For the fruit of the substance of an existing being could not be a non-existing thing. Although of the creatures that are here, those that have received the power to beget do not use to beget things of a different substance, but rather those that are like unto them in everything that is essential to them: how then would it not be among the most absurd things for the creatures to be surpassed by their own...
A Maker? Therefore the Father has begotten from Himself the Son, who is His Word, and Wisdom, and Power. Through Him, indeed, He creates all things and brings them into being; He implants wisdom in those things that are capable of wisdom, and strengthens those that are weak. For the property of the Father is very well and clearly discernible in the Son. And just as the Son expresses in His own nature the One who begat Him, so does He exist in the Father, and is one with Him by the identity of nature, differing only in that He is the Son. He is, therefore, the Being who is from the Being, and this is a most fitting name for Him. Whence the divine David shows that He is ever in the same and like manner, saying: “The heavens shall perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.”
Nor indeed should you marvel if those inspired by the divine Spirit have set forth these things concerning Him. For the most eminent of the Greeks appear to share these same sentiments. Thus Plutarch says that God should be addressed in a special manner by the words “Thou art” and “One.” To these he adds: “Therefore, neither number, nor order, nor copula, nor any other fragment of an imperfect sort do I think the letter signifies; but it is a perfect designation of God, and a title which, to the one who pronounces it, conveys simultaneously with the voice a thought of the divine power.” And elsewhere he says again: “But God is, if one must say it, ‘is,’ with no account taken of time, but of eternity, C which is devoid of motion and time and end; and prior to whom there is nothing, nor subsequent, nor future, nor past, nor older, nor newer; but being one, He has filled the eternal duration with one ‘now,’ and He alone is one who truly is ever in the same way, neither having been, nor being about to be, nor having attained a beginning, nor being about to have an end.” Thus, therefore, one ought to address God, namely, “Thou art,” and as some of the ancients did, “Thou art one.” For God is not many, as each one of us is, from a thousand differences; but that which is, must be as one. There is, therefore, one nature of the Godhead, and that term “Being” is most fitting to it. And indeed Plato in the *Timaeus* begins: “Have we then rightly said that the heaven is one; or was it better to posit many or infinite ones? One, at any rate, if it is to be fashioned according to the exemplar.” For that which comprehends all things discernible by the intellect will not ever be a second. But the reason is one that knows one God. One, therefore, as I said, is God, and He is not indeed within created things, but is distinct from all, and is conceived of and exists in a supreme nature. For if He contains all things, how is He not Himself outside all things? But here, perhaps, the adversary will clap his hands at this very thing and will say: “Ho, there! You have fallen into what I was saying. For I said that Moses, the master of your doctrines, whom you reverence, makes mention of one and one only God.” For he says: “Before me...
there was no other God, and after me there will not be.” And again: “Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord,” and other things akin to these. Whom then, O worthy one, do we say, and whom do you mean to be signified by these words to those who believe in the holy and co-essential Trinity? But he will surely say: the Father. For he denies outright the existence of the Son, and the scope of his argument tends precisely toward this. Now, Moses prophesied in the Holy Spirit, B and so did the holy prophets who came after him. And it is absolutely necessary that the words of the holy ones not be falsified. Since, therefore, Moses wrote thus: “Hear, Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one,” and added other things akin to these, another one of the holy prophets also said concerning the Savior of us all, Christ: “This is our God; no other shall be reckoned against him. He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards he appeared on earth and lived among men.” Was the Son not a man who became such by living among those on earth, even though he had C discovered every way of knowledge to the ancients? For he gave the Law through Moses. Who can doubt this? But since, as the prophet says, “this is our God,” and “no other shall be reckoned against him,” what shall we do, O worthy one? Shall we deny the Father, seeing that the Son is indeed the only God? Shall we not accept the Son, seeing that the Father is one and only God? Where, then, at last will the faith of those who have been called take refuge? One nature of the Godhead is therefore worshipped, in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.
Since he says that we must produce at least one quote from Moses concerning these very things—for he thinks perhaps that he will have not one to produce—let him receive many; and those which, I suppose, he himself marvels at as if they conflicted with the existence of the Son, we demonstrate rather to agree with what I have just said. Behold then, behold Moses, the priest of holy things, pointing out to us the fullness of the holy Trinity in many places. D For he brought in the God of all saying: “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” Now, in the word “Let us make,” the declaration of the co-existing Son and the Holy Spirit is introduced. And in the saying, “in our image,” the immutability of natural identity might be perceived, and most correctly. For if the subject were one thing and alone, how could the nature of diverse things receive its image? But God did not even say to the angels, or to rational powers: “Let us make man in our image,” since no creature is substantially and immutably the same as He. Otherwise, nothing perhaps would prevent us from saying inconsiderately that God and the creature are in no way divided into diversity of natures. Similarly, when the men of old [dealt with] the building of the tower, acting impiously as those of that time thought, He said again...
A that the God of the universe spoke: "Come, let us go down and there confuse their languages." Having then commemorated the sin of the Sodomites, He said again: "And the Lord rained from the Lord fire and brimstone upon Sodom." He says also that three men appeared at one time to Abraham, as he was sitting by the oak of Mamre, holdng the type of the holy and consubstantial Trinity; then that the inspired Abraham said to them, not "Lords" in the plural, but "Lord" in the singular: "If I have found favor in thy sight." And these things have indeed been written for us in another book; we have now of necessity touched upon them in passing. I believe, however, that it is necessary, even from the words brought forward by him [Julian], to make clear the darkness of the mind that is in him. Now, therefore, God, raising up Israel—who had been recently delivered from the error in Egypt (for they had served there the falsely-named gods, whom Julian calls governors of nations and guardians of cities)—to the knowledge of the truth, manifests Himself to them, saying: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one Lord," and again: "That thou mightest know that I am God, and there is none besides me," and indeed also: "There shall be no other gods for thee besides me." We maintain that these things were said wisely, for the refutation of the Greek delusion. For by calling Himself the one God everywhere, He does not allow them to think that there are many B. But if He says that He is one, He does not exclude the Son from being and being called God. For He [the Son] is in Him, as I said, and from Him by nature, as His own Word, and wisdom, and power, through whom and in whom He exercises dominion over all things. For you have heard Him saying everywhere: "The Lord thy God is one Lord," and again: "That thou mightest know that the Lord thy God is Himself God in heaven and on the earth." And Paul, learned in the law and a minister of divine mysteries, wrote to us somewhere: "For to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we from Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." Understand, therefore, how he names the Father as one God, but the Son as one Lord. But while the Son is one Lord, the Father might also be understood as Lord, as He is God; and indeed, while the Father is spoken of as one God, the Son is God, seeing that He also exists as Lord by nature. For lordship will always follow naturally upon divinity, and the glory of divinity upon lordship in truth. Wherefore no one would doubt that the Word was in the beginning, and God, and the Word was with God. And that phrase, *was in the beginning*, would signify that which is without time. For since, as I said, the Father is always Father—for He did not come to be in time—it is absolutely necessary that He who is in Him and from Him by nature should exist together with Him. And that phrase, *with God*, is not to be taken in terms of place, C since the Divine is positioned beyond all corporeal imagination, but that He was with God, that is, in the nature of the divinity. For He who has been ineffably begotten from God by nature must be God. But he who is unbelieving toward the words of the saints will rush headlong... D
nature. For it is necessary that He should be God, who is ineffably born of God according to nature. A But if he will not grant faith to the voices of the saints, Plato himself rises up against him, who wrote thus concerning his own gods: "To speak of the other gods, whom we call demons, or to acknowledge their origin, is greater than our powers. But we must believe those who have spoken before us, who were, as they said, children of the gods, and who clearly knew their own ancestors." It is impossible, therefore, not to believe the children of the gods, even though they speak without probable and necessary demonstrations; but since they profess to report things related to themselves and known to them, one must obey the law and custom, and place faith in them. B Being men, He does not permit us to inquire into those who surpass both mind and speech: but He says that faith must be accorded to them without inquiry, even though they have brought forward such things without probable and necessary demonstrations. But if, regarding those who falsely establish a multitude of gods, and speak from their own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, but rather are led to this by a diabolical spirit, He does not permit us to disbelieve, and says that to do otherwise will not go unpunished—what extreme madness is it to contend against the voices of the saints, to carp at them, and to accuse the words of the Holy Spirit of falsehood? For those inspired by the Spirit have proven themselves both saints, and reliable, and C sons of the truth, as much by the holiness of life that was in them, as by the miracles which they themselves wrought.
God, therefore, was the Word, and indeed was with God, as I have said, subsisting clearly, both living and active, and not different from the Father, according to the standard of divinity, even though He is the Son. He is living, and the life-giver, and through Him all things have been moved into existence. We say that He is invisible, impalpable, incorruptible, immutable, self-sufficient, all-perfect, and beyond every mind and speech. We know, furthermore, that those who are most puffed up and proud because of worldly wisdom have indeed investigated such things minutely, but not, however, entirely without error: for the light of truth did not shine upon them. For Christ says somewhere: D "No one knows who the Son is, except the Father; and who the Father is, except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." And then, in what way could they have understood such refined and secret theorems, when the Son had not revealed them to them? Nevertheless, while they themselves also posit three primordial hypostases, and claim that the essence of God extends as far as three hypostases, and sometimes even use the name of the Trinity, they coincide with the opinions of the Christians; nor would anything be lacking for them in this regard, if they were willing to apply the term of consubstantiality to the three hypostases, so that one nature of the divinity might be conceived, not having that tripartition that leads to natural difference, and whereby the hypostases appear as inferior one to the other. For they place the first cause in a higher place, standing, motionless, and entirely inert. This, they say, is the Good. From it, [they say, has sprung the] Mind,
B or rather it comes to be, perfected by contemplation of it, whom they call the second God and the immediate creator of the world; and him they set lower, and reckon him in the second order after the first. And furthermore, they also create a third, the Soul of the world, which by no means obtained perfection from itself, but in respect to the superior Mind, it is rendered more divine and, moreover, stronger in its ability to give life. I shall also recall their very words, and bring into the middle what they have written, so that those who read may see the sharpness of the Christians' opinion concerning God, and that those among them who are best and most wise—having obtained a bright and famous name on this very account—though they might be convicted of falling behind our dogmatic accuracy, yet they have not failed altogether in following our opinions.
Porphyry writes, therefore, in the fourth book of his *Philosophical History*: "For Plato said that the substance of God proceeds up to three hypostases: that the supreme God is the Good; after him, another, the Creator; and the third, the Soul of the world: for the divinity extends as far as the soul. But whatever remains beyond that is void of divinity, having taken its beginning from bodily difference." C But those mentioned above disagree with this, saying that the Good ought not to be numbered with those things that are from it; for it is exempt from all communion because it is altogether simple and incapable of any composition; but from the Mind (for this is the beginning), one Trinity is preserved. Therefore, we by no means confess three gods, but we altogether deny the multitude of gods. We do, however, believe in one and consubstantial Trinity, which is in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; and thus, gathering the aforementioned things into one nature of divinity, we pursue a straight and error-free path. Nor do we think the Son is in any respect inferior to the Father, nor the Holy Spirit to the Son, but we profess them to be equal and in every part similar. For how could one nature receive difference into itself? But for us, it is entirely sufficient not to lie if we say that even the chiefs of the Greeks are of this mind and opinion, that the divinity—or indeed the divine and ineffable nature—extends up to three hypostases, and thus they have made mention of a Trinity. D And that they believed in the Word of God, and call the Father God, we shall very easily see. For thus Plato said in the *Epinomis*: "And let us render honors, not allotting to one a year, to another a month, to others no portion at all, nor any time in which it completes its own circle, perfecting the world, which the Word, the most divine of all, has established as visible. Which the blessed man first admires, then burns with desire to learn whatever things are capable of being grasped by a mortal nature." He also wrote in the epistle to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus: "I judge that this epistle should be read by you three, especially when all are present together; if not, then by two of those present, in common, and as much as possible, and..."
A by a firm compact and law—which is just—calling upon those who are joined together with unrefined zeal, and with the sister of that zeal, education, both the God of all things, the Ruler of things that are and of those that will be, and the Lord who is Father of the Ruler and Cause, whom, if we philosophize rightly, we shall know. Behold, he clearly states that the world is ordered by the divine Word. For He creates all things, and imposes upon them order and harmony, being the Power and Wisdom of the Father. He rules, together with Him, over those things that came to be through Him. He names as happy and blessed the one who admires Him, and who longs to learn who and how great He is. That, indeed, the human mind would be inferior to the exact contemplation of Him, he indicated by saying: “Then he felt a desire to learn as much as is possible for a mortal nature.” For we see divine things as though in a mirror and in a riddle, according to the voice of blessed Paul. He clearly declared Him to be Lord and even Father of the Word, whom we shall also know, he says, if we philosophize correctly. If anyone, therefore, does not know Him, he does not philosophize correctly, but is puffed up in vain; he is out of his mind and does not know it, and has reached the peak of ignorance without realizing it. We contend that this is what has happened to the most excellent Julian, who has dared to do away, B as far as it lay in him, with the existence of the divine Word. But it will not be laborious to add to the things we have just said other opinions of philosophers, which in no way conflict with the views of Plato.
Numenius, therefore, says somewhere as follows: "He who is about to understand concerning the first and second God, must first distinguish each thing in order and with a certain clarity; then, when they seem to be in a good state, let him undertake to speak of them in an orderly manner; otherwise, he should not." Calling upon God, then, to become the judge of our own logic and to reveal a treasure of thoughts, we begin thus: "The God who is first, existing in Himself, is simple, because He is always with Himself and can never be divided. But the second and third God is one." And after a few things intervening: "And it must be considered that the first God is the Father of the creating God." Behold, this man also says that God is one, simple, and furthermore, indivisible. As for the second and third, he says that they are one, perhaps bringing them together into the unity of nature according to our view, though he names the second and third "God" not correctly; but, as I think, he contradicts his own thoughts. For having called them one, he divides them back into three, and individually C as one; except that he said the Father must be called the God of the Creator. Plotinus also—a most studious inquirer of things, who, to use a phrase, has attained every degree of subtlety—writes somewhere thus concerning the Good: "What, then, must we say concerning the most perfect? That nothing is from Him, or the things that are greatest are after Him. And the greatest thing after Him is the Mind, and it is second." And [he says that] the mind gazes upon Him, and therefore D
A it is in need of Him alone, but He is in need of nothing from it. And that which is begotten from a superior Mind is to be [considered] Mind; and the Mind is superior to all things, because all other things are after it: for example, the soul, which is the logos of the mind, and a certain activity just as the mind itself is of Him. But the logos of the soul is dim, as an image of the mind; for this reason it must look to the mind. And the Mind in the same way [looks] toward Him, in order that it may be Mind. And He sees Him not as separated, but because it is after Him, and nothing [is] between, just as also there is nothing between the soul and the mind. For he says that the God the Word according to us is the Mind; since we ourselves also call Him Wisdom, yet not in any way inferior or second to the majesty and glory of the Father. Nor indeed do we say that He is perfected by gazing upon the Father, as if He did not have perfection from Himself; just as these men indeed B think that the Mind is in need of the first cause and contemplates it, so that it may be enriched and prosper in the most perfect state in its own affairs. And in an analogous way, [they think] that the Soul, which is called third from the first, is in need of the contemplation and participation of the Mind, which they also name the second cause, so that it too may be helped. But they, while being of this opinion, and dragging things that are to be wondered at among them into a diversity of natures, boast of frigid and puerile notions. We, however, say that the Father is most perfect; likewise the Son, as perfect from perfect; and indeed also the Holy Spirit. For the divine and ineffable nature is in need of absolutely nothing of things added from without, but abounds in perfection, and this its own nature [is sufficient] for all the dignities that befit it and it alone.
Furthermore, we shall find that there is also among the wise men of the Greeks a knowledge of the holy Trinity. For they say that they are together most proximately, and with nothing intervening, and that whatever order the Mind has toward the first, in the same way they say the third, the Soul, has toward the Mind as the second from the first. And that they admit the conceptions of both the begotten and the begetter, we shall know again from what he has written as follows: "For everything that has begotten desires and loves that which it has begotten, and especially when they are one, that which begets and that which is begotten. And when it is also infinite, that which has begotten is of necessity with it, so as to be separated only by otherness." You hear how he said that the begotten must be with the begetter in every way and altogether, perhaps because it is indeterminate, or rather because it is naturally immediate, and that there is nothing lying between; and that it is separated only by otherness, and not perhaps by that which is according to nature, but because the begetter has toward the begotten a one-fold difference, namely, that the one has begotten and the other has been begotten. And somewhere the Thrice-Greatest Hermes among them also said concerning the God who is the master craftsman of all: "For as perfect and wise, He imposed order and disorder, so that the intellectual things, as older and superior, might stand at the head and have the first place; but the sensible things, as second, might be subject to these." That which is therefore more downward C than the intellectual, and heavy, has within itself the wise Word as its craftsman. This, moreover...
A contains a creative nature, being fruitful and life-giving. For that the Word of God is in all things that are moved, as the giver of life, we also assert. But the most wise Paul shall bear witness, who wrote: "One God, who is over all, and through all, and in all." For in no other way could that which is created and produced from nothing be able to remain in its state perpetually, unless it were a participant of the incorruptible and truly existing God. He knows, therefore, that the Son is of a creative nature, fruitful and life-giving, and that He is of a different nature from all those things which receive life from Him. But He gives life to everything that lacks life in the Holy Spirit. For as the Son Himself says somewhere, "It is the Spirit that giveth life," and the entire fabrication of created things is accomplished by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Hence the divine David sings: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all the power of them."
We, therefore, are accustomed to examine such things subtly with the acute eye of the mind. But the notable men B of the Greeks, in place of the Holy Spirit, introduce a third, as I have said, a Soul, by which every animal is enlivened and given life, and they have attributed to it the virtues and operations of the Holy Spirit. Plotinus indeed writes about it in this manner: "Let every soul, therefore, first consider that it has made all living things itself, breathing life into them, those which the earth nourishes, and the sea, and those which move in the air, and the divine stars in heaven. It is this which has formed the sun, it is this which has formed this great heaven, it is this which created the world, and it is this which arranges it in order, being a nature different from those things which it fashions, and moves, and to which it imparts life." And it is necessary that this should be more excellent than these; for these things come to be and perish when the soul, which imparts life to them, leaves them, whereas this is ever C existing, in that it never deserts itself. For God and Father, as I said, accomplishes those things which pertain to creation through the Son in the Spirit; and He brings forth into being those things which were nowhere, and contains those things that are created, and has prescribed for each a most beautiful order, and harmony, and laws which they should follow. Indeed, He has placed the sun to preside over the day, and the moon over the night. It is evident, however, that the divine and life-giving and Holy Spirit is also a nature distinct from all those things which are moved through Him. For He is the Spirit of the uncreated God, His very own, and proceeding from Him, and subsistent, and living, and always existing, because He belongs to Him who is, and He Himself fills all things and is the container of the whole, since He is also consubstantial with Him who fills all things, and exists everywhere without division. For D all things are full of Him. For it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world." And Plotinus indeed says again thus concerning the soul of the world, which I suppose he calls by that name in place of the Holy Spirit: "The power and nature of the soul would become clearer and more manifest, if one were to consider how by its nod heaven...
A is encompassed. For it has given itself to this mass, however great it may be. And every interval, both great and small, is animated, with one body moving in one way and another in another, and some being at odds with others, while others have a different dependence upon one another. But it is not so. Nor does it make living by being fragmented into parts and particles for each, but it animates all as the whole, and is present everywhere, being like to the Father from whom it was begotten, both in unity and in the extent of its presence everywhere. Does this not, then, very clearly demonstrate to us the creative and vital energy of the Holy Spirit in these things? For, as I said, it moves what is moved, and contains the universe, and animates, and gives life, and B its nature is not different from that of the Father, or of the Son, but it is as He is in us, according to the identity of nature, that is to say, of substance. Anyone may easily recognize what I am saying from the things that Plotinus himself seems to think and say. For he writes thus: "Take, then, what is more divine than this divine thing—the proximity of the soul to that which is supreme, after which and from which is the soul." For although it is as great a thing as reason shows it to be, it is nevertheless a certain image of the intellect: just as a word in the utterance of the word that is in the soul. Thus also the soul itself is the word of the intellect, and the whole is an act and life, which it produces into the existence of another. For example, there is the heat which resides in fire, and that which it imparts to another. Behold, here too he calls it an image of the intellect, and wishes it to be likened to the word proceeding from the mind by way of utterance, so as to produce life even into the existence of others, just as, indeed, the heat that proceeds from fire. But they themselves use very thin examples, for it is not otherwise possible to speak of divine things, since they are greater than all mind and speech. But our discourse must be recalled to the beginning, having made a longer digression. It will not be an obstacle to the Son being God by nature that He is named the one God in the holy Scriptures; but it fights against those rather who construct the error of a multitude of gods. For it does not permit us to be led away from the natural and true God, and to pursue the creature with divine worship, and to wander far from the path that leads straight to the truth. Therefore, even if God says, "I have extended the heaven alone, and I have established the earth," the one eager to learn must know who it is that extended the heaven and established the earth. As I said before: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established," and He Himself "founded the earth upon its own stability," according to the voice of the Psalmist.
JULIANUS. But if the Word, says Julian, is God from God, as you think, and proceeded from the substance of the Father, why do you call the Virgin the Mother of God? For how could a human being, as we are, give birth to God? And in addition to this, he says, when God clearly states: "I am, and there is no savior besides me," you [claim] Him the Savior,
A for he added these things to his own words as well.
CYRIL. It is therefore worthwhile to inquire briefly, as far as possible, into the manner of the Only-Begotten’s incarnation. But since we are introducing the mystery, or the narrative of the mystery concerning Christ, to the ears of the Gentiles, we shall refrain from an examination of the more ineffable matters, and shall discuss a few things with them by gathering together plausible arguments, with the divinely-inspired Scripture assisting us in this. I think it necessary, however, and very judicious, first to set forth the reasons for which we say the mystery of the incarnation was necessarily performed. When, therefore, heaven and earth, and in a word all things in them, B had been brought into being, the human body was fashioned from the earth, and yet it was animated by the ineffable power of the Creator of all, and the living creature that emerged was immediately rational and most godlike. For it was made according to the image of Him who created it. Nor would anyone doubt that, since it is the work of a good God, it was not produced for the most shameful deeds, but for all the most praiseworthy ones. Indeed, man was made master of himself and free, and empowered by the impulse of his own will to be moved wherever he might choose, whether to the good or to the evil. Then, having received a commandment from God as a kind of exercise for obedience and the practice of virtue—namely, that he should not eat of the tree which was in the midst of the paradise—he was slothful and easily led astray. For being unable to keep what was commanded, and being overcome by such a brief pleasure, he suffered weakness regarding self-control. And thinking, in addition to this, that he would also be a God—for Satan had persuaded him of this by saying so—he became accursed, inasmuch as he had transgressed the divine law and had set his mind on things above his nature. Then he was condemned to death, and it was revealed what he was by nature; although he had been created not so that he should be held and subject to the bonds of death, but so that he should overcome that evil which was beyond his nature. But there is nothing whatever that is arduous for the Creator of all, nor would it be difficult for Him to render a thing subject to corruption, in so far as the reasons of nature are concerned, free from corruption and to preserve it for a very long life. For He Himself is the One who has prescribed laws to the very natures themselves, according to which they might be of such a kind or be otherwise, just as it seems fit to Him and to Him alone. And there is nothing at all steep or impossible for Him. Since, therefore, the first man, Adam, was convicted of the crime of disobedience, and unexpectedly entangled in the snares of death, and had indeed fallen under sin C through the impious designs of the base and primordial serpent, I mean Satan—for it was he who wove the whole trap for him—and since the evil had been distributed to the entire race of Adam, and death had reigned until Moses, or the times of the Law, the Creator inclined toward us who had been wronged, bringing aid, and He took pity on those who had acted miserably. For since He is God and good, He certainly had to bring aid to the perishing, and render vain the envy of the devil, and to transform D and reshape the perishing human being born of the earth unto immortality.
He had to cause him to be A past the reach of passions, having received oblivion for those things wherein he had long stumbled, and to demonstrate him to be a guardian of every virtue and good work. B "For there was none who did good, there was not even one," according to the voice of the Psalmist. For the multitude of the Greeks, not knowing the Creator at all, and having sinned against God who is so by nature, turned aside and senselessly wandered off, turning to serve gods that are not gods at all, and they lived a life more akin to beasts and lovers of pleasure. But the Jews, burdened by the condemning law, and having disregarded the commandment given through Moses no small amount, were liable to the punishments for their transgressions, and were in no wise better able to avoid sin. Since, therefore, all mortals had been brought into the most extreme calamities, and Moses had openly confessed that he would not suffice for their salvation, saying clearly: "I pray, O Lord, choose another who is able, whom You will send"; and since the holy prophets themselves had denied that they could do this, and the divine David had cried aloud: "You who sit upon the Cherubim, appear: rouse Your power, and come to save us"; and Isaiah again: "Lord, who has believed our report?"; and Jeremias in distress, because the goal of his preaching had not turned out according to his hope and intent, with no one repenting, and therefore crying out: "Woe is me, mother, why have you borne me a man to be judged and disputed in all the earth? I have not profited, nor has anyone profited me." What then, consequently, was the Creator of all C to do? Was He to allow the impurorum dæmonum power to lord it over men? Was the envy of the devil to have the upper hand over His own desires? Was He not to save those in danger? Not to reach out a saving hand to those who were lying low? Not to transfer those entangled in base vices to a better fruit? Not to enlighten the mind of those who were dwelling in darkness? Not to lead back those who were wandering? But how would He be good if, when it was possible for Him to do these things without any effort—and indeed very easily—He showed no regard for us? For why did He bring men into existence and life in the beginning, unless He is moved by mercy toward those who are vexed by unexpected evils, and who drag out their life not without grievous difficulties? Since, therefore, there was not even one saint among men who could help, and the cause was ready at hand—for it was His D and His alone to overthrow the savage empire of death, and to remit punishment, and to free from sins, and to recreate hearts, and to tame that pestilent beast, and to break the hostile battle-line of the demons, and to lead the wayward man into the path of right living—the Father opportunely sent His own Son from heaven, who indeed took on human form, so that by living among us as a man, He might render us most blessed and superior to every evil. For since He is immutable and devoid of change according to nature, in as much as He is God, being the living and subsisting Word of the Father, He did not form for Himself a body united from His own nature, but rather received it from us, and not from sleep and pleasure, by the act of a man, but from the holy Virgin, in a new and unusual way and beyond the laws of nature. For it was fitting, it was fitting
A that such should be his bringing forth, I mean that which is according to the flesh and from a woman, so that his passage and manifestation into the world might have a divine propriety. Yet, as I have said, nothing is at all difficult for Him who is all-powerful; nor is it without penalty to disbelieve those things which are spoken, even if it happens to appear to someone not in accordance with probability. For the matter of these paradoxes stands thus. Therefore, even if the excess of the things being done happens to overwhelm the moderation of our mind, one must not for that reason despise the supernatural and ineffable nature by attributing weakness to it. But it would be more fitting to approve with reverence, without B any inquiry, those things which are said to be accomplished; or it would be in no way absurd to deny outright that the Creator of the universe exists. For who among us is able to understand or explain in what manner this vast heaven has been raised up and appeared, or how the sun, and the moon, and the rest? Thus, having taken a most holy body from the holy Virgin, quickened by an intelligent soul, He came forth as man, not having lost being God, nor indeed having cast away the dignity of His own excellence; for He is, as I have said, unknowing of change. For as Plotinus says: "For what would he seek to take who is in a good state? Or whither would he transfer himself, who contains all things within himself?" But neither does He require growth, since He is most perfect. Wherefore all things C that are with Him are perfect, so that He is perfect in every respect, having nothing which is not of this kind; having nothing within Himself which He does not know. He knows, however, not by seeking, but by possessing; and His blessedness is not acquired, but eternal. The Only-begotten Word of God, therefore, became incarnate, but did not cease to be God. Moreover, the mode of the incarnation is paradoxical and beyond mind and speech. And this great and truly venerable mystery is not newly appeared, not new, nor indeed discovered from a spirit of contentiousness; but it is most ancient, and before the foundation of the world, it was in God according to foreknowledge. We might establish this by means of the divinely inspired Scripture. For we do not say that the divine and uncorrupt mind, "in whom are all D the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" (Coloss. ii, 3), as it is written, remained ignorant that the human race, having slipped into transgressions, would be liable to condemnation and curse, and would be subjected to death and corruption, yet would not carry the injury from this cause in itself perpetually and indelebly; but that it would put off sin together with death in Christ through faith, and would return to the state which was in the beginning, and would return to a life pure and uncorrupt. We say, therefore, that the knowledge of this mystery was given, and, before the others, to Abraham. At any rate, the Son Himself addressed the crowds of the Jews: "Abraham your father exulted that he might see my day: and he saw, and rejoiced" (John viii, 56). His sons, however, Isaac of course and Jacob, and their descendants, even up to the most wise Moses, learned the power of this mystery in many ways and by many modes, albeit obscurely. And indeed, Moses himself
A prefigured it when he commanded in Egypt that those who were of the blood of Israel should sacrifice a lamb as a type of Christ, but should be anointed with blood, persuading them that the exterminator should be appeased by the mere shadow. And this is indeed what came to pass. For they were saved and rendered unharmed by the slaughter. Moreover, a simple type of the truth is Jesus the son of Nave, who bears the name of the true Jesus. For he led the sons of Israel through the Jordan, circumcised them with stone knives, and brought them into the land of promise. After him, you may see the most excellent prophet Samuel also sacrificing lambs and consecrating them to God for an odor of sweetness, and furthermore pouring water over the sacrifices; B then, when wars were impending and an innumerable host of aliens was ravaging Judea, he won the victory without a fight and saved those who were in danger. For the mystery of Christ is salvation to those who believe in him. And the entire remaining chorus of the holy prophets proclaimed this beforehand. Therefore, the divine David, when God promised and said: "Of the fruit of thy womb will I set upon thy throne," since he trusted strongly that the promise would surely come to pass, proclaims everywhere the mode of the incarnation, saying at one time: "God shall come manifestly, and shall not keep silence"; and again to him: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a rod of equity is the rod of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." C You see that God is anointed by God. But how do we say this happened? For when he became man, while remaining what he was, then he was also anointed by God after our human manner for the apostolate. "He became high priest and apostle of our confession," as it is written. For he always was and is in heaven and in this world, and there is no place at all empty of him. For the nature of the divinity fills all things. But he, being invisible, came to us visibly when he put on our form. Furthermore, that he would rule the earth and subject the whole human race to his scepters, David himself will again afford full assurance, saying to him thus: "All the nations which thou hast made shall come D and shall worship before thee, O Lord." And again: "And let all the kings of the earth worship him; all nations shall serve him." And again: "All ye nations, clap your hands; shout unto God with the voice of exultation, for the Lord most high is terrible, a great King over all the earth." Do you perceive how he calls him God and Lord most high and King, who appeared in the flesh? Furthermore, that son of David, Solomon, not ignorant of the divine promise, says somewhere thus, directing his prayers to God: "And now, O Lord God of Israel, let thy word be verified, I pray thee, which thou hast spoken unto David my father, if God will indeed dwell with men upon the earth." Baruch also demonstrated this, saying: "This is our God,
no other shall be accounted besides him. He found out every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. And after these things he was seen upon the earth, and A lived with men." See how he very clearly and plainly says that God was seen on earth, and that He conversed with those who are therein. Isaiah, indeed, announced His wondrous birth in the flesh, saying: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, God with us." And again: "Be strong, ye slack hands and relaxed knees; be comforted, ye that are faint-hearted; be strong, do not fear. Behold our God; behold the Lord cometh with strength, and his arm with power." And again: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear: then the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be plain." And again: "The B voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God." This, indeed, the divine Baptist John has done. For when the Jews asked him who he might be, and for what he was sent, he declared it openly, saying thus: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord." And that the calling of the Gentiles was about to be made right, when the Only-begotten had become man, he testified, saying: "Nations that knew thee not shall call upon thee, and peoples that were ignorant of thee shall flee unto thee." Another, moreover, of the holy prophets: "Rejoice, and be glad," he says, "O daughter of Sion, for behold I come, and will dwell in the midst of thee, C saith the Lord; and many nations shall flee unto the Lord in that day, and shall be to him for a people." And the God of all somewhere says to the holy prophets: "Say to the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, just and saving; he is meek, and riding upon a beast of burden and a young colt." For thus Christ went up to Jerusalem, sitting upon the colt. The most wise Daniel, indeed: "And I saw," he says, "in a vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, as it were a Son of man coming, and he reached as far as the Ancient of days, and was brought before him, and there was given to him rule, and honor, and kingdom; and all tribes and tongues shall serve him." I could have heaped up very many D other sayings of holy men, as I said—for the divinely inspired Scripture is full of such things—had I not considered that anything beyond measure is wont to cause weariness to everyone. But these suffice, I think, for those who are studious of the truth. That some of the philosophers among the Greeks…
though they were unknown, yet acquired a A fame which is much envied among them, have admired the mystery, we shall know from this. Amelius, then, the Platonist, who flourished at Rome along with Plotinus and Gentilianus (for Porphyry writes thus concerning them), is said to have written as follows: "And this was the Word, by whom, existing always, what things are came into being; indeed, just as Heraclitus might judge to exist, and by Zeus, the Barbarian also asserts that [he] stands in the order and dignity of the beginning with God, B and that by him everything simply has been made; in whom that which came to be was life, and was living, and was naturally. Then he falls into bodies, and having put on flesh, is imagined as a man, while at the same time showing the greatness of his nature; and indeed, having been dissolved, he is again deified and is God, such as he was before he descended into body, and flesh, and man." He calls the divine John "the Barbarian," I suppose, because perhaps of the difference of his language. For he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and not from the region and land of the Greeks. Nevertheless, he knew that the Word had become incarnate, and he confesses this, and does not reject the message of the divine preaching. The C mystery of Christ was foretold, and a multitude of saints made the proclamation, and they did not live at one and the same time. Since, therefore, the facts agree with the voices of all, and the very experience cries out this, it is, I think, completely incredible that some choose to disbelieve, and by resisting the truth, stray not far from the delirious and those struck in their minds, although to the most eminent of the Greeks themselves the matter appears in some way not incredible. For Plato said concerning the gods among them: "But to speak of the other demons, or to know their generation, is greater than us. But one must believe those who have spoken before, being descendants of gods, as they said, as knowing their own ancestors." It is impossible, therefore, to disbelieve the children of gods, even if they speak without probable or necessary proofs; but one must believe them as stating things that belong to themselves, following the law. D Are you, then, O good sirs, so astonished at the son of Ariston, even if he says that one must crown with faith those who, without probable or necessary proofs, report things about the gods; yet do you think it right to cast aside the voices of the holy prophets, and maintain that the oracles uttered through the Holy Spirit are false? And yet, while there is no reason why one should justly believe the descendants of false gods (for they have done nothing admirable); but the very beauty of their probity and the splendor of their intimacy with God wins authority for the holy prophets, and the fact that, richly endowed by his power, they have become performers of works greater than human. But perhaps the adversaries will say: Why on earth was he made man at all, and why did he endure our flesh and filth, when it was possible for him—and most easily, if he is truly God, as you persist in asserting—to change the hearts of men to the acceptance and
A desire of performing, and indeed of thinking, those things which are pleasing to Him, and consequently to live in a manner pleasing to God?
To these matters, I would say: Does the divine and incorruptible mind, then, wander from its goal, and are we to say that it in some way deviates from what is right? Shall we then surpass that solid Wisdom with our own prudence? Shall a lamp compete with the sun? Shall a single drop be compared to the whole of this vast and immeasurable sea? Who would not marvel at the inspired prophet Isaiah, crying out clearly and most wisely: «Who has measured the water with his hand, and the heaven with his span, and the whole earth with his grasp? Who has fixed the mountains by weight, and the valleys by a balance? Who has known the mind of the Lord?» B For just as it is one of the impossible things to measure the heaven with a span, and the whole earth with a grasp, and to place mountains and valleys upon balances, so it is impossible for all of mankind, and indeed for every rational creature, to discern and measure out the supernatural and supreme Mind. If there is anyone who dares to claim that he can see better than the whole of Wisdom, let him be rebuked by God; but let him also know that he has been speaking folly. For this is indeed madness, and the utterance of a man who has lost his wits and is wandering in mind. But if everyone would agree that the human mind is as much inferior to the total Wisdom as it is seen to be lesser by nature, would it not be the mark of a wise man to concede to that Wisdom alone the knowledge of what is most suitable for Itself? For God would not do anything that ought not to be as it is, and in the only way it has been done.
There is also another C reason which I consider necessary to examine and assert. For every rational and intellectual creature in the heavens is impelled by free impulses to do whatever it chooses, and has an inclination in every matter that is exempt from all necessity. For it has been made, precisely, so that those who are good may justly be deemed worthy of praise and be presented with rewards, while the wicked may be judged worthy of censure. In order, therefore, that we ourselves might also reach toward any good thing of our own will, God permitted man to live on earth with a mind free from force. And so it happened in the beginning. For man himself holds the reins of his own volitions and is moved by self-directed impulses toward both—toward the good, that is, and toward that which is not so.
If, then, by employing some ineffable and divine power and efficacy, He had transferred the mind of each one to the performance of good works, and had made the good D impenetrable to him even against his will, the achievement would no longer be a fruit of the mind, nor worthy of praise, but rather the result of necessity and unwilled compulsion. How, therefore, shall we free the Creator from blame and accusation if He permitted man in the beginning to be steered by the impulses of his own desires, but afterwards subjected him to compulsory changes, binding him as if with certain inevitable cravings to the accomplishment of what seems good to Him? For if it were better for things to be so, why was it not done from the beginning, but rather late, as if with a changed plan, did He turn them toward a state of salvation, and translates them not freely, but of necessity rather, to the profession of the faith? Is it not, then, already doubtful—nay, is it not evident to all—that those who would criticize the divine and ineffable counsel [are mistaken]?
in that it did not arrange our affairs well, but rather, as it were, discarded them somewhere outside of what was fitting, and did not foresee from the beginning what was blameless? Away with such ill-counsel! For it is pious to hesitate to speak on these matters. It was necessary, therefore, not by force, but rather by persuasion, to bring over to a gentle way those who had neglected the holy studies, and who were, so to speak, stiff-necked and haughty, stiffening their necks against God. For this reason the only-begotten Word of God appeared in B a paradoxical manner, and one surpassing human understanding, and associated with those on earth; on the one hand, by signs and wonders exceeding human nature and power, persuading them to realize that He was God, having in a most useful way become in the form like us, as I said; and on the other hand, by exhortations setting forth the principles of true probity, which are greater than the Law, and leading them away from the Jewish observance, and irradiating the knowledge of true piety into the hearts of those who believe. For He is Himself the Truth, the genuine offspring of God and the Father. If, then, we say that a man who was common has been deified, and introduce another God in addition to the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the implication is merely the worship of man, and nothing else. But if the divinely inspired Scriptures proclaim that He who is C naturally and truly the Son, the Word shining forth from the substance of God and the Father, the Creator and Artificer of all things, both visible and invisible, sensible and intelligible, has undergone in an ineffable manner and beyond human understanding the likeness of us, and yet has remained God (for He is immutable according to nature)—what is incredible, or worthy of censure, or even entirely incomprehensible in our dogmas? But they say, the human body is small and full of filth. This is true, and I will not deny it. But consider this: He was made, as I said, in the likeness of men, according to the Scriptures, and truly in our form. We do not, however, say that He who cannot be contained was contracted, nor certainly that He was comprehended by the measure of a body. For it is altogether very foolish and absurd to say any such thing D of the natural and true God. For since the Son is one and alone, and entirely exceeds all corporeal imagination, He is whole by participation in all things and everywhere, and relative to each individual, not divided, not cut, but God is outside of all things by nature, and in all things. In that most pure and holy body, the fullness of the divinity indeed dwelt bodily, as it is written, and it was as if in His own flesh, yet even so He filled all things. And just as a sunbeam, if it falls into mud or other filth, nevertheless suffers no stain from it; so also that uncontaminated and incorrupt nature, although it may be involved with earthbound bodies, helps them rather than derives any stain to itself from them. To these things I think it must also be added. Our bodies are both overcome by passions, and in the pleasure
of sin they have grown weak with a law within themselves. But we deny that any such thing was stirred up in the divine and holy body of Christ; rather, all passions were vanished and most remote, and as if it had become the property of the Word joined to it and dwelling within it, it was enriched with sanctification. For it was the holy temple of Him who also sanctifies all the rest of creation. A
I have noted that the dogmas and discourses of Porphyry and Julian are greatly admired among the sons of the Greeks, while they laugh at those of the Christians, even though they [the former] themselves bear within them the truth of all things laboring to be born. For we, as we have said before, believe that the only-begotten Word of God became man, in order to save that which is under heaven. But Porphyry insists that there is a certain race of gods, who he says also change into men at certain times, as if they were taking pleasure in our life. B Indeed, Julian, thinking I know not what regarding Asclepius, writes thus: "It escaped me by little, the greatest of the gifts of the Sun and Zeus." And logically I have kept this for the end. For it is not the property of us alone, but, I think, common to the Greeks, our own kinsmen. For Zeus indeed produced Asclepius from himself among the intelligible [realms]; but he manifested him through the generative life of the sun. He, having made his departure from heaven to earth, appeared once in human form around Epidaurus. C And multiplying from thence by circuits, he extended his saving right hand over the whole earth. Although, who does not know that, having perfected the medical art very well, he was admired—and for this thing and this alone—among those who knew him, yet he performed nothing worthy of admiration? For what of Asclepius has become famous? Or rather, who has perished so miserably? For he was burned up by a thunderbolt, and he even now lies dead, with not even his own worshipers knowing where on earth he is. D That he is lying, when he says that he proceeded from heaven and that he extended his saving hand to all the earth, the very facts themselves would cry out, even if none of our people were to speak. For where are his deeds, and what monument has he been deemed worthy of remembrance? For his genealogy is celebrated among the sons of physicians, as one who excelled in that art; yet they say he was born of Coronis, a miserable and ignoble woman indeed. Is it then permitted to Julian to fashion myths as he wishes, and this with impunity, and to record for us struggles that are very sick, lacking all beauty, and crudely constructed, and stripped of proofs from truth and accepted facts, while taking the occasion for impudence from that most excellent and truly august mystery which was indeed foretold through the law and the holy prophets, yet was led to its completion after the Only-Begotten became man? If therefore the outcome of events did not verify those things that were said before, then unbelief would have fallen to them very conveniently; but if it is permitted to conjecture from the very facts that all things which were formerly foretold have reached their completion, and that Israel—inasmuch as they who [rejected] the Lord
have fallen away from the intimacy [they formerly had] with God, while the multitude of the nations has been gathered in through faith, I cannot understand what it is that persuades them to remain in unbelief. Or rather, as the inspired Paul writes, “The god of this age” (that is, he who is thought to be god in this age) “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of his glory.” Through whom, and with whom, to God and the Father be glory with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL FOR THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN. BOOK NINE.
B Abundantly, as I think, have we resisted the foolish railings of our detractors while defending the dogmas of the truth. But since our adversary sails with full canvas, as they say, against the ineffable glory, and dares to oppose us with, as it were, unendurable blows of impious thoughts, and deems it a work of great importance to assert that the nature of God the Father is barren, and that the Son who truly proceeded from Him in no way subsists (for he removes His existence and adopts such pernicious errors), come then, let us once again put on the breastplate of righteousness and, extending the shield of faith C and drawing against him the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, let us show him to be a liar and, in his excessive arrogance, almost kicking against the goads and casting himself headlong into the deep abyss of perdition. And so, as I said before, having not slothfully D
we have demonstrated by the continuous A argument that the Word subsists with the Father, being by nature from Him and in Him by the unity and identity of essence, the very Word through whom all things were brought into existence. But since Julian has constructed another cold and feeble disputation against the Only-Begotten, although he considers it sharp and vehement, it is still incumbent upon us to resist his words with fortitude and to beat back this insane itching of his against Christ. He writes again in this manner.
JULIAN
B “But that Moses calls the angels gods, hear from his own words: ‘And the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.’ And briefly lower down: ‘And after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they begat to them. Those were the giants from of old, the men of renown.’ That he therefore means angels is manifest; and this is not metaphorical, but it is clear from the fact that he said not men, but giants were born from them. For if he had supposed their fathers to be men, and not of some more excellent and powerful nature, he surely would not have said that giants were born from them; for it seems to me that he means the race of giants came into existence from the mingling of mortal and immortal. C He who calls many the sons of God, and those not men but angels; if he had known the Only-Begotten Word of God, or by whatever name you call Him, would he not have revealed Him to men? But since he thought this to be great, he says concerning Israel: ‘My son, my firstborn, Israel.’ Why then did Moses not say these things also concerning Jesus? He was teaching that there is one and only one God, but many sons of His, among whom the nations are distributed; but the firstborn Son, or the God Word, or anything of those things that have been falsely put together by you at a later time, he neither knew in the beginning, nor did he teach clearly. Hear Moses himself, and the other D prophets. This man repeats many things of this kind everywhere: ‘Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’ How then is Jesus handed down in the Gospels as commanding: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ if they were going to worship Him also? But you, establishing things consistent with these, call the Son God together with the Father.”
CYRIL
He is, in truth, hunting for a reputation of multiform erudition, and is wholly intent on appearing to have grasped the true and analyzed knowledge of our doctrines. But in this matter, he is truly unlearned and, in extracting the meaning of the sacred Scriptures, entirely ignorant, without effort—
A of proof. The goal, therefore, proposed to him, as I have said, is to assert many gods. But perhaps he thinks that this argument will be his greatest defense, and he is not without the hope of being able to demonstrate, quite clearly, that one and only one God was named by the most wise Moses, and that the word concerning the Son is by no means included therein. And his whole goal of perversity tends toward this very thing. Now, it has already been demonstrated at great length in the discourse we have held that the Son exists together with God the Father, and that He can never be conceived apart from His own Word. But now we shall demonstrate the same thing from the very things that Moses himself has handed down. For the adversary contends that he made no mention at all of the Word, and that he did not know the Son as coexisting with God the Father, but rather that he commemorated many other gods, or tutelary angels of cities to whom nations have been assigned, as he himself says. Since, therefore, O most excellent one, you hear the sacred Scriptures B naming some among those who are born as gods, know that the natural and true God has adorned every rational creature with an appellation of this kind. For the divine Paul asserts that he knows that «though there are many that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,» yet they are not truly so: but rather that there is one Father and God by nature and above all, and with Him His own Word, innately and inseparably coexisting, whom we also say is named the firstborn of all creation, inasmuch as He has assumed into a fellowship, which is understood to be by grace, the rational creature, as having been fashioned according to His likeness and image. Thus, as images of the true Son and God, they are designated gods and sons, not only angels, but we ourselves as well. For He says: «I said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.» C Therefore, even if the name of sonship is applied to some of those brought into existence, still there is one who is God by nature and in truth, according to whom we have been fashioned, receiving from Him such a noble and illustrious appellation by way of grace. But I shall endeavor to show that Moses did not know the Father and God who is in the heavens to be unfruitful, but that he makes mention everywhere of the Word who proceeded from Him, invoking Him by various names, as do the holy prophets who came after him. He knew Him, therefore, to be the image of God and the Father, and, as the most holy Paul says, «the express image of His substance.» For he wrote clearly in the book of Genesis: «And God made man: in the image of God He made him.» Do you hear how D he states quite clearly in this passage that God fashioned man in the image of God? For we have been fashioned, as I have said, toward the Son, with the Spirit marking upon us, through sanctification, that divine and excellent beauty, visibly and spiritually, in an intellectual manner. But that the Son is the image and likeness of God and the Father, anyone can see from those things which He Himself says in a certain place: «And whoever sheds the blood of man, for his blood shall his own blood be shed, because in the image of God I made man.» For the murderer, inasmuch as he sins against the divine image, justly and deservedly pays a penalty equal to his crime.
A That Moses knew that he was also named the Word, you may understand even from the voice of the Father. Israel was dwelling in the wilderness, overflowing with the delights of manna; but after a yearning for the meats eaten in Egypt had taken hold of him, they began to rage against the excellent Moses. He, however, approached God, saying, «Whence should I have meat to give to this people to eat?» When God promised this, and indeed said that it would be supplied in abundance, Moses was still sad even so. Then the God of the universe said to him, «Shall the hand of the Lord not suffice? Now you shall know whether my word will overtake you or not.» For through Him, as I have said, is every operation of the Father; hence He is also named His power, right hand, and arm. Indeed, Moses remembers God saying in Deuteronomy, «I will lift up my hand to heaven, and I will swear by my right hand.» For by hand and by right hand here, He says, is signified the Son, through whom are all things and in whom are all things. B And that the Son, who is from Him and in Him by nature, is not someone other than He, will be confirmed by what is said elsewhere: «By myself I have sworn, says the Lord.» For when He swears by His right hand, which is the Son, He is swearing entirely by Himself. For there is absolutely nothing intermediate, insofar as concerns the unity, I mean, and the physical identity that is understood in both, except only for this: that the one is the Father and has begotten, while the other has shone forth from Him by way of generation, and is coeternal with Him, seeing that the Father ever is, and was not brought to this in time.
That the Son is the Father’s right hand, the divine David also knew, when he said, «The right hand of the Lord has wrought power, the right hand of the Lord has exalted me.» And indeed Moses himself says, «Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorified in strength; thy right hand, O Lord, has broken enemies.» And again, C «Let fear and trembling fall upon them; by the greatness of thy arm let them be turned to stone, until thy people pass over.» He has also addressed the crowds of the Jews somewhere: «For just as the Lord our God did for the Red Sea, which the Lord our God dried up until we had passed over—so that all the nations of the earth may know that the Power of the Lord is strong.» Another of the holy prophets likewise says to the Father in the heavens: «Be exalted, O Lord, in thy power; make strong, O God, that which thou hast wrought in us.» For we are made strong in the Son. And the Son Himself commanded the holy apostles not to depart from Jerusalem until they should be clothed with power from on high. And Paul will make clear what this power from on high is understood to be, saying, «Put on our Lord Jesus Christ.» I hear also that Moses has written thus: «You shall not fear other gods, D and you shall not serve them anymore, but the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt in His great strength and powerful arm...»
A But to these things of which Moses spoke, as one who understood and spoke what accorded with them, the divine David sings: «He sent His Word, and healed them.» Thus, through the divine Word, the ancient Israel was redeemed and freed from the diseases of the soul.
That Moses also names the Son as Lord, knowing Him to be Lord even as the Father is, one may clearly see from what is written in Exodus. It is as follows: «And Moses rose early and went up to Mount Sinai, as He had commanded him; and Moses took the stone tablets. And the Lord descended in a cloud, and stood there, and spoke in the name of the Lord; and the Lord passed by from before the face of the Lord.» Who, then, is the Lord that spoke in the name of the Lord, and who is the Lord that passed by from before the face of the Lord? Is it not clear that we must believe that the Father appears and speaks in the Son? Are there, then, two Lords, and these divided B as two men would be understood? By no means. For the Lordship and the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one; nevertheless, the holy Scripture demonstrates everywhere that each of those named is understood in His own hypostasis, teaching that the properties belonging to the one nature are also perfectly innate to each. Consequently, the Son, since He possesses the entire natural property of the Father in Himself, and is Himself in the Father along with those things which He is understood to have, says clearly to Him, «All mine are yours, and yours are mine.» And again, «All things that the Father has are mine.»
Since, therefore, the all-wise Moses designates the Son in many places and in more than one way, let the adversary cease saying: «If he names many sons of God, and these not men but angels, would he not have pointed out to men the Only-begotten of God, or the Son, or by whatever name He may be called, if he had known Him?» He did point Him out, O learned one, and that very often and clearly; but you yourself understand less, even though he wrote quite correctly: «You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve,» and other things consistent with these. Now, thinking that these C things were said to abolish the Son, and not rather to overthrow your gods, you have not feared to write: «Moses therefore says many things of this kind and in many places: You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.» How then is Jesus handed down in the Gospels as commanding, saying: «Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit»? You shall hear, therefore, from us yourself. Tell me, when Moses and the prophets confess the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and those wise men of yours were not ignorant of the matter, how, I pray you, do you not perceive that you are suffering from a hard and unteachable arrogance, so as not to realize that you are laboring under it? For they themselves also granted that there are three primary hypostases, but they separated them from one another, and subjected one to another; for they did not know how to speak purely about God, although they were not entirely devoid of the notion of the truth once discovered. But again, I perceive that some of those who to Julian adhere D
A might perhaps say in response to these things: "My good sir, Moses called the Son the Word, and indeed the Power, and the Arm, and the Right Hand of the Father; yet he was ignorant of the manner of the incarnation." Observe then, observe what that truly all-wise man has written even regarding these very things. For he says that Jacob departed from the house of Laban, desiring to return to his homeland. "And when he had come to Jabbok (this is a torrent), he sent over his children, but Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until morning." And after other things: "And Jacob asked him, and said: Tell me thy name. And he said: Why dost thou ask my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of that place, the Species of God. For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." And to these the divine Moses adds: B "And the sun rose for him, when he had passed the species of God." O, for a wonderful, refined judgment and for the power of understanding the mystery of Christ most subtly! Being a man wrestling face to face, he says he saw God, and he names Him the Species of God. For the Word was and is truly God, even if He became flesh, according to the Scriptures. Yet He remained the character of the essence of the Father, although He put on the form of a servant by way of dispensation; for He is immutable and without alteration according to nature. But that the man who wrestles with Jacob is the only-begotten Word of God, who long ago was showing himself to the holy fathers in the form that would be ours, any one could understand quite easily from those things which Moses wrote. For he says: "And the Lord said to Jacob: Arise, go up to the place Bethel, C and dwell there, and make there an altar to the Lord who appeared to you when you were fleeing from the face of Esau your brother." Would anyone, therefore, still claim that Moses was ignorant of the manner of the incarnation of the Only-Begotten?
Furthermore, since that most excellent Julian also mentions the angels, and asserts that they were driven to such intemperance that they were somehow captivated by the beauty of women and were grievously ensnared by bodily lusts into pleasures abhorrent to their nature—a notion which wanders far from every mark—come, let us demonstrate that in this, too, he is utterly mistaken. And we, I know full well, are straying outside the proposed subject; but since the exposition has once been brought into the open, it will not be burdensome to defend even the nature of the holy angels, surrounded as it is by slanders: D especially since it cannot be said without damage to the hearers that the holy angels themselves have perished for the form of bodies, or that they are delighted by such impure and insane pleasures. For is it not likely that many will be troubled by this, and despising virtues will embrace the love of pleasure, when they have brought into their minds that the intolerable and arduous—
A struggle of resisting the motions of the flesh is entirely useless, if we believe that the holy angels themselves were subject to this perturbation? That he is ignorant of the meaning of the things written, I shall demonstrate with no difficulty. For the divine Moses has written to us: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." And they begat, he says, giants. Yet Julian asserted that "angels of God" were added from outside—although the more truthful Scripture, which is in our hands, has "sons of God." But it must be known that after the publication of the version of the Seventy interpreters, others who interpreted the same passage have said, instead of "sons of God," "sons of the powerful." What, therefore, is the aim of the things written, I shall endeavor to B explain clearly. Two sons were born to Adam, Cain and Abel. But Abel, by the fury of Cain, departed from human affairs, no offspring yet having been conceived. For he was slain, according to the faith of the sacred Scriptures. But the race of Cain was propagated even to Lamech, who was a homicide. For in these words he confessed it: "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." Then Eve brought forth Seth, from whom sprang Enos, of whom it is written: "This man hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God." For since he had attained to the height of all goodness, he was deservedly admired, and was honored with the appellation of God by the men of that time; for he was called god, being a student of justice and of every virtue. And his race was propagated until the times of Noah, who was just; for he pleased God, as it is written concerning him. Therefore, the race from Cain, following the habits of its ancestor, established an impious and wicked C life. But the descendants of Enos, by the name of God, following the footsteps of their ancestor's probity even until the time of Noah, were seen to be good and just and endowed with every virtue. Moreover, they did not mix their race with them, and being pure, they separated themselves from the profane; and in the times of Noah, they were called "sons of God." "The sons of God"—that is, the descendants of Enos—"seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took them wives of all which they chose." Therefore, when the races had been mingled with one another, and goodness had been blotted out by the entanglement of evil, and justice and integrity of life were no longer among the inhabitants of the earth, the God of the universe sent the flood, decreeing one death for all alike. For He weighs our affairs holily, and cannot bear impiety. "The women," he says, "brought forth 1 giants," the divine wrath itself D adulterating the very beauty of their bodies, because justice had been trampled underfoot for the sake of base perturbations and most impure pleasure. Now those giants were perhaps vast and very robust, but they labored under much deformity. For the divine Scripture is accustomed to call ferocious and very robust men "giants." For the God of the universe indeed said concerning the Persians and Medes, who were about to war against the Jews: "They come as giants to in-"
- A pleat my fury, rejoicing at the same time and behaving insolently." For we do not say, according to the poets of the Greeks, that they were of immense size, nor that they were carried to such a height in their bodies that they could snatch islands from the midst of the sea and hurl them into the sky; but rather that they were deformed and monstrous in appearance, and very ferocious, yet not to such an extent beyond the measures of humanity as it pleased the leaders of the Greeks to invent in their lying poetry. Far be it, therefore, that we should accuse or censure the holy angels, and attribute impure pleasures to them.
B Furthermore, that we have not stood apart from the dogmas of the most wise Moses, but have embraced a view that is consonant and very well harmonized in all respects, we have already demonstrated clearly and abundantly. He thinks, however, that we by no means agree with him, or wish to hold the same views, having—though he has trifled in vain and raved against us with many words—supposed that he has proved it sufficiently and more than sufficiently. For he says that Christian institutions do not agree with the Mosaic laws, nor do we wish to live according to the customs of the Jews, even though the laws of the Greeks may agree with them. For he says that both the former and the latter have used not different customs and laws, but rather the same ones, except for two or three, perhaps: namely, the not acknowledging of other gods, and the matter of that sacrifice among them called hepatoscopy; for he maintains that the other things are common and unchanged for both. For with the Jews, circumcision is a fine thing, but he says that the most holy of the Egyptian temple-custodians, and in addition to them the Chaldeans and Saracens, do not reject it. He says also that the modes of sacrifices have been held in equal honor, such as first-fruits, whole burnt-offerings, confessions, thanksgivings, and, according to what he sees fit, votive offerings, expiations, and sacrifices for ignorance. C For having collected the names of the Mosaic sacrifices, he inserts them into his own discourses, so that he might perhaps be thought to have left nothing relating to us uninvestigated. For he desires vehemently to make a name for himself as a wise man, and eagerly pursues a reputation for great learning. But he does not know, as it appears, that while to occupy oneself with the letter of the law is a matter of no difficulty, the power of the understandings within them is entirely inaccessible to him and to those with him. And so God said somewhere D through one of the holy prophets: "Who is wise, and will understand these things? And prudent, and will know them? For the ways of the Lord are straight, and the just shall walk in them; but the ungodly shall stumble in them." Therefore, even if he sets before us very many citations from the divinely inspired Scripture, let him know that he understands nothing. For he actually thought that Moses, the interpreter of the sacred mysteries, performed sacrifices to impious and abominable demons, and, what is more intolerable, he said that the lawgiver himself permitted him to do this, so that he might be convicted by us of bringing in contrary laws for himself. For he did indeed say: "He who sacrifices to gods
other than the Lord alone shall be utterly destroyed." But if, as he himself says, he is seen to have commanded that those things which are customary be offered even to averting demons, in what way does he lead us away from evil, and not rather set us clearly upon the paths that lead to it? It is necessary to see what sort of argument he has again concocted against God. For he says [that one must measure out] the modes of the sacrifices. B
JULIAN. But listen again to what he says concerning the averters: "And he shall take those two goats from the goats for sin, and one ram for a burnt offering; and Aaron shall present the bull for the sin, which is for himself, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his house. And he shall take those two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony. And Aaron shall put lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and one lot for the averter, so that he may send him away, he says, as an averting offering, and let him go into the wilderness." The one, therefore, that is sent to the averter is sent away in this manner. "And the other goat, he says, he shall also slaughter, that goat which is for the sin of the people before the Lord; and he shall bring of its blood within the veil, and shall sprinkle the blood upon the base of the altar, and shall make atonement for the holy places because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their injustices, and because of all their sins."
CYRIL. He calls the averter (the *apopompaion*) by that name, having invented a term unknown to the sacred laws, but perhaps familiar to himself. And truly it occurs to me to marvel at this. For he thinks that the Law, which exists in shadows and in enigmas, adhering only to the clearer things, has nothing hidden within it. And yet, surely it is manifest to everyone that a parable and an enigma must signify things other than those which they appear to be. C For example—for we must also proceed through those things which are held in no small admiration by him—they say that among the worshippers of idols there were those who were masters of enigmas, and in fashioning these they were gifted with singular industry and skill; those who are commonly called hieroglyphics. These men, in engraving inscriptions upon temples and obelisks, did not use our letters, but rather, by other figures representing the natures of things, they imparted a certain hidden knowledge to the more intelligent. For when they wished to signify God, or that nature which is supreme and surpasses all things, they would paint an eye, placing a straight rod beneath it, so that by the same means one might understand His power of seeing all things, and likewise His royal majesty. For a scepter is almost always a symbol of kingship; and the erect rod signifies that the divine nature can be bent in no way, D but is in a certain sense always straight, and, as it were, sustains and strengthens all things. Moreover, they say that they paint an asp, in order to designate the heavens.
A because of its circular motion. And a serpent, for time, since it is long and winding, and crawls along without making a sound. Furthermore, by way of riddles indicating anger, they engraved a gridiron in which fire was kindled, and then hung a heart upon it. Pythagoras, however, did not despise this enigmatic mode of expression, but considered the matter to be of great importance. For Porphyry has written thus concerning him in the first book of his Philosophical History: "There was also another kind of symbol of this sort, and those which are carried about as Pythagorean riddles: not to pass over a balance, that is, not to grasp at what belongs to others; not to stir fire with a sword, that is, not to provoke an exasperated and angry mind with sharp words; not to pluck a garland, that is, not to violate the laws, for these are the garlands of cities. In addition to these there were other things: do not eat your heart, that is, do not torment yourself with grief; do not sit upon a peck-measure [choenix], that is, do not live idly; do not receive swallows into your house, that is, do not make companions of talkative men and those who are incontinent of tongue. And, 'take up a burden together, but do not lay it down together,' by which he admonished that one should not lend help to anyone towards sloth, but towards virtue and the performing of labors. Furthermore, do not carry the images of the gods in rings, that is, do not have opinions and discourse about the gods in a common manner, nor publish them to the masses."
Now, if anyone were to cast their eyes upon the hieroglyphic letters, or the Pythagorean riddles, and were to say that there is nothing at all clear or superfluous in them, would not he who restricts the Mosaic Law to the letter alone immediately exclaim in great indignation: "What are you doing, fellow? Do not direct your attention only to those things which are manifest, nor disparage the use of figures, which is absolutely necessary in the affairs of life, but rather investigate the abstruse things and those which are indicated obliquely through them." Let him understand, therefore, that he does injury to the law if he is not willing to establish the same rule for himself as he does for others. C
For we, thinning out the coarseness of the history and investigating the secret power of the concepts, say that the mystery of Christ is obscurely figured in the letter. And this the Apostle Paul very clearly sets before our eyes, saying: D "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." For although he had it in his power to exult in the dignities of his own nature, and to delight himself in a divine manner in the incomparably superior excellence he possessed over all—for this, we say, was the joy set before him—he emptied himself, letting himself down into our condition, so that having endured death in the flesh for all, and then having trampled it underfoot through his resurrection from the dead, he might make to us ourselves also a plain and easy [way]
A way to return to life. For as the interpreter of his own mysteries says again somewhere: "For as by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead; and as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly." Nevertheless, having been raised from the dead, he bestowed himself upon the multitudes of the nations, forasmuch as Israel had treated him with monstrous contumely, and had plunged headlong into the abyss of folly. "For the beloved kicked," as Moses wrote, that is, he recoiled in a certain manner, and fleeing altogether from love for him, remained destitute of divine blessings.
Consider, then, consider the mystery, even as it is clearly B adumbrated in the two goats. For one goat, or rather a buck, was slain for the sins of the priest and the people according to what seemed right under the law. But since Christ was offered for our sins, he is likened to a goat. For as the prophet Isaiah says: "All we like sheep have gone astray; every man has turned to his own way, and the Lord has delivered him up for our sins." For two goats are taken, not as though there were two Christs, or, according to some, two Sons, but rather because it was fitting that the same one should be seen both being slain for us and dying indeed in the flesh, yet living C according to the spirit.
There are lots and names for the goats: for the one, "the Lord"; but for the other, "the emissary" (the *apopompaion*). For it is not the case, as that distinguished fellow Julian says, that he commanded the one who remained outside the slaughter to be sent away to some *Apopompaion* and averting demon; rather, he was himself called the *apopompaios*, inasmuch as he was sent away from the slaughter, just as the one being slaughtered was also identified as the Lord. For by both, as I said, one and the same Christ was described, both dying for us in the flesh and being revealed as superior to death, I mean, according to the nature of his divinity.
And he was sent out into the desert, the desert and untilled land D forming a type of the barrenness of the nations. For we shall find it so named by the holy prophets. It is written, then: "Be glad, thou thirsty desert; let the desert exult, and blossom as the lily." And again: "Rejoice, thou barren that dost not bear; break forth and cry, thou that dost not travail, for more are the children of the desert than of her who has a husband." And furthermore: "And I will make water in the desert, and rivers in the dry ground; I will make the desert into pools, and the thirsty land into watercourses. I will set in the dry land the cedar, and the box, and the myrtle, and the cypress, and the poplar." The Synagogue of the Jews, having been as it were joined to the Law as to a husband, bore fruit from it, and was indeed fruitful; nevertheless, as the holy Scripture says, "More are the children of the desert than of her who has a husband." For far more numerous were those who believed from among the nations than those from the Synagogue of the Jews. Yet, though the desert was dry and arid, it brought forth high heads of saints, like unto the cedar and the box and other trees. There also existed therein rivers and streams, that is to say, the apostles and evangelists, and the interpreters of sacred dogmas and doctors, who celestial...
and divine A word instill into the minds of the initiated, and as it were with spiritual waters irrigate the hearts of believers. We can also understand the figure of the goats in another way. For it is certain to everyone that the goat is taken as an offering for sin, and according to the law is sanctified to God; yet it signifies at times those also who are in sins. For the sheep, as it is fruitful and wool-bearing, designates the person of the saints. But since there is nothing of the sort in goats, they for the most part signify those who labor under spiritual sterility. And the Son does not permit us to doubt of this, saying that he will surely come from the heavens as Judge, and "sitting on the throne of his majesty, he will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." B And that he likens the just to sheep, but the others to goats, he will show by saying to those who stand on the right: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." To those, however, on the left: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." Since matters stand thus, let us briefly set forth the manner of the incarnation.
"Therefore there was none that did good, there was not so much as one," according to the voice of the Psalmist. And we were all in sins, since neither the law could justify C the Israelites, nor the multitude of the Gentiles know the path of a blameless life. Since, therefore, all were sinners, the only-begotten Word of God, without any change or alteration, became flesh, that is, man. And he committed no sin, yet "in the likeness of sinful flesh" he appeared to us, "and was reckoned with the wicked," in that he became flesh and was named man. And thus the all-wise Paul wrote somewhere regarding God and the Father, and the Son himself: "Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin for our sake." For he became a sacrifice for sin. Now those things which were sacrificed for sins were called sins, and D above others especially kids and goats. Wherefore, regarding the divine ministers of sacred things, to whom portions of the victims were assigned, God said somewhere through one of the prophets: "They shall eat the sins of my people," that is, the victims which are offered for sins. The Only-begotten therefore appeared to us in our own form, as I said, and was reckoned with the wicked, and if we look at the sense of the legal figures, he became a kid among kids, or a goat among goats. The law therefore ordered two kids or goats to be taken, so that from this Christ might be understood as one of us, according to the likeness of nature and species of man to man, just as, indeed, of goat to goat. And having become man like us, he also underwent the death that hung over us, that is, the death according to the flesh,
A in order to deliver us from death and corruption. You may see this very thing fulfilled also in that pair of goats, of which one was slaughtered and offered to God as a sweet-smelling savour, but the other was set free from slaughter. For that one, most worthy of all, died for all, and Christ's death was the undoing of death. And this is what the power of the legal riddles indicates to us. But as for those who remain entangled in the bare letter and perceive nothing of the hidden meanings—because they are far removed from the truth and pose an objection worthy of laughter—we shall demonstrate, without any difficulty, by taking our starting points from the very thoughts that occur to us. For Julian himself says: "The one that is sent as the scapegoat is dismissed thus. B But as for the other goat," he says, "he shall also slaughter it for the sin of the people before the Lord; and he shall bring its blood inside the veil, and he shall sprinkle the blood upon the base of the altar, and he shall make atonement for the holy place, for the uncleannesses of the sons of Israel, and for their injustices, for all their sins." If, then, he thinks there is such great power in the blood of the slaughtered goats, that it could set free from all uncleanness and injustice those for whom they were being slaughtered, why were penalties and punishments decreed by the law for those who sinned? For he commanded that adulterers and murderers, and in addition to these, boy-molesters, sorcerers, and enchanters, and furthermore apostates, C be punished with the death penalty without mercy. And how would those who had sinned have been in peril, if the slaughter or blood of the goat itself were sufficient for the washing away of any sin? For you will not say that there was a shortage of goats for those who were in danger! But as the most wise Paul says—since he had Christ within him, who is the truth: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebr. x, 4). Are we then to attribute a lie to the law? For if the blood of bulls and goats did not suffice to wash away sin, why does the Lawgiver say that it would make atonement for the holy place, for the uncleannesses of the sons of Israel, and for their injustices? Did he err in his words, then? Far from it! What, therefore, was the meaning? It is manifest and clear to all that the truth glimmers not in the figures, D but in the things signified through them. For Christ is that unblemished sacrifice, that clean victim, by whose death for us according to the flesh we have become those released—that is to say, we have departed from death and corruption. For we have been redeemed by his blood and set free from all uncleanness, "being justified freely by his grace" (Rom. iii, 24), as it is written, and we have attained the grace of the blotting out [of sins] through the mercy of God. But this man, perceiving nothing of such holy mysteries, thinks that Christians have altogether renounced the oracles of Moses and have decided to withdraw from them because they are accustomed to pollute, and for that reason they have an evil reputation, even though Paul clearly writes: "Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and"
good." A And our own Saviour of all, Christ, also says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." But he [Julian], as I said, understands nothing.
JULIANUS. That Moses recognized the rites of sacrifices, it is manifest from what has been said. But that he did not regard these things as unclean, as you do, hear again from his own words: B "But the soul that shall eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall even be cut off from his people." Moses indeed was truly observant regarding the eating of sacrificial items.
CYRILLUS. He who attacks those who believe in Christ with such frigid accusations must in turn hear from us: We do not abstain from legal rites as from things unclean, but rather we advance from types to the truth. For to everyone, I suppose, it is clear that what is adopted as a type of something else does not exist for its own sake, but in order to introduce to the beholders some pre-indication C of a future reality. But when the truth is seen, then the type is somehow already superfluous, and to proclaim it beforehand is useless. Yet because the law given through Moses begets the form of the truth, it is itself also holy; for the truth, that is to say Christ—or rather, His mystery—is holy. But he again accuses us of not considering the worship that is in spirit and in truth to be superior and better than that which is contained in shadows and types, and says:
JULIANUS. It is right at last to remember the earlier points, for the sake of which these things were also said. For why, when having fallen away from us, D do you not embrace the law of the Jews, nor stand by its precepts? Perhaps someone a bit sharper might say: "For neither do the Jews sacrifice." But I shall convict that person of being terribly short-sighted: first, because you do not observe even the other things customary among the Jews; and second, because the Jews do sacrifice in their homes, and even now still partake of all holy things, and pray before sacrificing, and give the right shoulder as first-fruits to the priests; but being deprived of the temple and the altar, or, as they habitually call it, the sanctuary, they are hindered from offering to God the first-fruits of the victims. You, however, who have invented a new kind of sacrifice, since you have no need of Jerusalem, why do you not sacrifice? Yet I said this to you as a superfluity, since I wished from the beginning to show that the Jews agree with the Gentiles, except that they believe in one God alone. For that is peculiar to them, and foreign to us. Otherwise, as for the rest, they are in some way common to us: temples,
altars, lustrations, and certain observances, in which we differ from one another either not at all, or but very little.
CYRIL.
A If, therefore, he wishes to be an associate of Jewish frivolity and considers it to be a matter of the highest praise to be ignorant of those things which it is necessary to know for one’s benefit, let him have his booty, and let no one envy him. We, however, will walk the royal road and keep to the straight path of truth, having rejected the vanity of both. B But since he raises this question, saying: "For why, having abandoned us, do you not embrace the law of the Jews, nor persist in its precepts, and why do you not sacrifice?" we answer that he, being destitute of the light of truth, has presumed that those who are accurate observers of the law act against the law by employing sacrifices to God, and by not offering to Him a worship that is invisible, but rather one that is carnal and bloody; or perhaps he has thought that the natural and true God is delighted by the slaughter of animals. Although some of those who lived before him, being caught in the same superstitions, teach most clearly that their own gods also hate bloody supplications. For Porphyry, in the second book of his *On Abstinence from Animal Food*, writes thus: "That it was not to the gods, but to demons, that those who had explored the Powers in the universe offered bloody sacrifices, this has also been confirmed by the interpreters of divine things themselves." He further adds a sentiment of a poet of this kind:
Who is so foolish, and so shiftless, So credulous, as to think the gods Are delighted by bones stripped of flesh and burnt gall, Such as not even starving dogs would feed upon, And take this as an honor? C
And elsewhere, saying that the gods abhor bloody victims, he writes again thus: "Although in ancient times holiness did not institute these things in this way, but they worshipped each of the gods with fruits. For by these sacrifices, both nature and the entire sense of the human soul were delighted." To these he also adds the verses of a poet:
But the altar was not watered with the promiscuous slaughters of bulls, But this was held to be the greatest crime among men, To feed upon the limbs of those whose soul they had taken away. D
And it is possible to perceive this from the altar which is still preserved today at Delos; to which, since no animal was brought, nor was any animal sacrificed upon it, it is therefore called the Altar of the Pious. Thus not only did they abstain from the slaughter of animals, but those who had erected it, as well as those who used it, were partakers of piety. Since, therefore, that Altar of the Pious, which was among the Delians, is so named because no animal was slaughtered upon it, why does he vainly pick at a gentleness which is greater than the legal, and find fault with us because we say that bloody...
sacrifices do not delight God, but that he seeks rather worship and service in spirit and in truth? But perhaps he will say: How then does he appear to have commanded such things? Or has Moses perhaps deceived the ancients, placing before each of the laws the words, "Thus says the Lord"? To this we shall reply that Moses was no falsifier, but rather a sincere minister of divine oracles. A And the law indeed, which was contained in the letter, was a corrector of the unwise and a teacher of infants; for so spoke Paul, who was learned in the law; and, as if using certain elements and primary lessons, he commanded that they be used, telling them to meditate on the truth in types, and to be occupied for a time with exercises suited to infants. For it was in some way impossible for the Israelites, who had a mind only newly formed toward piety, to be able to fulfill the worship and service in spirit and in truth, and to bear the sweat of such a holy and most pure life, I mean that of the Gospel. For virtue is not brought to completion easily, nor is it acquired by meager labors. And it seems to me that someone among the Greek poets spoke most excellently: How could one grasp great things with small Labors? It is ignorance even to desire this.
But that that most accurate way of living and that subtlety of dogmas was almost an intolerable burden to the minds of the Jews, the lawgiver himself will teach through the voice of Isaiah, saying thus: "You did not know, you did not understand, nor from the beginning have I opened your ears. For I knew that you would act disobediently." B For that ancient Israel labored under such stupor, stubbornness, and levity, that while Moses was receiving the law from God and lingering on the mountain, they turned to defection and dared to offer divine honors to a calf, and even to extol it, saying: "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." C Having such a feeble mind, and one easily broken toward evil, how could they have accepted the evangelical teachings, so as to consecrate to God intellectual worship in the place of spiritual sacrifice, and in place of the slaughter of animals, the fragrance of virtues? Therefore they sacrificed sheep, oxen, goats, turtledoves, and pigeons. But the singular rationale of the divine counsel in this matter must be considered and pursued with all admiration. For when he allowed them to sacrifice, because they were accustomed to doing these things in Egypt, and as if gradually elevating them toward perfection, he delineated the modes of sacrificing, not in the rite to which they were accustomed, but so skillfully and wisely prepared that they might even bear within themselves the form of spiritual worship. D Such, in every respect, is this: The lamb was sacrificed in Egypt for the Israelites observing the Paschal feast; yet it was sacrificed not rashly, but by a singular plan, as I said. For it was taken from the tenth of the first month, and was slaughtered on the fourteenth toward evening at the lighting of the lamps. Further, the habit of the guests was—by the law...
as it seemed good. A “For thus,” he says, “you shall eat it: Let your loins be girded, and your sandals on your feet, and your staves in your hands, and you shall eat it with haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.” And in each of the sacrifices there was a certain rite, not heedlessly ordained, but possessing something of the mysteries outlined within it. And to go through the rite of each one individually would be long; but we must now pass on to that matter. For I think it necessary to persuade you that the matter of the worship under the Law, in so far as it relates to the letter, I say, and the types, was not particularly pleasing to God. For you may hear Him very often through the voice of the prophets speaking these things clearly: B “For who has required these from your hands? You shall no longer trample my court. If you bring fine flour, vain is incense; it is an abomination to me. Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hates, and the great day I do not tolerate. Your fasting and leisure and feasts my soul hates.” And again: “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices have not pleased me.” And through the divine David: “I will not accept calves from your house, nor kids from your flocks. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise.” And again: “For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” C And indeed, the Son Himself is introduced speaking to the Father and God who is in the heavens: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Then I said: Behold, I come, O God, to do your will.”
But an adversary might perhaps say: Of course, since God is such by nature, He ought not to have changed His mind, but to have established from the beginning what was better, and not even to have let enter into the minds of those subject to the law that which He now rejects as sacrifice. But we shall answer you, D O good man: He did indeed ordain, as I said, through the wisest Moses, shadowy and typical rites, knowing that types are suitable for the molding of the minds of those who were then being educated, not, however, so that, by lingering forever in such coarse things, they might fall away from the worship in spirit and mind; but so that, having received in the shadows a foreshadowing of the truer things, they might well and thoroughly recognize the manner of approach, skillfully and intelligently traversing the path of true well-being. For just as those who are skilled in the copper-smith’s art, and among them all the most celebrated, first manifest in molten wax the shapes of the images they are about to make—not so that their art might progress only as far as that, but so that in them, as I said, the beauty of that which is on the verge of being made might first shine forth; yet once the work has been brought to completion, we will no longer rightly find fault with the craftsman for neglecting the types—in the same way, I think, and by the same logic, now that Christ has shone forth, who is the truth, and the Christian worship has been introduced
and of the worship introduced through Him, we rightly determine the futility of the types; for they were images of the intelligible realities. Come then, let us consider in what God might take pleasure, and what might be acceptable to Him: whether a calf kneeling for the slaughter, and a sheep brought for this purpose, and clouds of smoke from frankincense rolling upwards, or a soul distinguished by manifold virtues? Let us suppose, if you will, one of those who live under the Law of the Jews, circumcised and addicted to sacrifices, yet not withal good in his ways, not seasoned with gentleness, but rather wanton, filthy-minded, petulant, and given to every vice. B And let there be another, not of the blood of Israel, uncircumcised in the flesh, and not using bloody sacrifices, but not unadmirable in his ways, temperate, gentle, superior to greed, yielding to none of those things condemned by the Law, and, in a word, full of every virtue. Which of the two, then, will surpass the other, and carry off the palm, crowned by the votes above? The second, I think, and very reasonably so. But if anyone thinks and asserts that these things are not so, let him know that he is opposing his own ancestors and attempting to disparage that which they value with all admiration. Porphyry, at any rate, following the opinions of the ancients, says somewhere: "One must, therefore, having purified the character, approach to sacrifice to God, offering to Him victims that are well-pleasing, and not costly." But now, if we are clothed in a bright garment, though it be not pure, it is thought sufficient for the holiness of the sacrifices. C And as for the fact that some, being clean in body and dress, but not having a soul pure from evils, approach the sacrifices, they think it makes no difference; just as if God did not delight most of all in that which is most divine in us, if it be purely affected, especially since it is akin to Him. Indeed, at Epidaurus, it was inscribed before the temple gates: "Pure must he be who enters the fragrant temple; And purity is to think holy thoughts." You perceive, then, how he says that the purity of one's character is most dear to the all-pure God. He confirms this also by other means. For he says again: "For is it indeed the case that in temples consecrated to gods by men, one must have slippers that are clean and unspotted, D but in the temple of the Father, this world, it is not fitting to keep the outer and last tunic we have, the tunic of skin, pure, and to live with a pure one in the temple of the Father?" For if the danger lay only in its being defiled, one might perhaps overlook it and be negligent; but as it is, since every sensible body carries with it certain defluxions of material demons, together with the impurity that comes from flesh and blood, there is present the power that is friendly and accessible to it by reason of similarity and kinship. And again: "Whatever some of the Platonists have published, we are permitted to set forth to the intelligent in order to shed light on our immediate subject." They say it thus: "The first God, being incorporeal and immovable and indivisible, and not being in anything, nor enclosed in Himself, has need of nothing from without, as has been said. But to the remaining gods, and to the world, and to the unwavering and the wandering ones, which are soul and
body, and are visible gods, thanks must be rendered in the manner already spoken of, through inanimate sacrifices. A
Since, therefore, God, Who is incorporeal, has absolutely no need of anything from without, and since the offering of blood is reprobated even by his own teachers, why then does he [Julian] indict those who know how to offer sacrifices acceptable to God? For it is written: “Honor the Lord from thy righteous labors, and offer to Him of the fruits of righteousness.” And the divine David says: “Sacrifice a sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord.” And again: “I have gone around and sacrificed in His tabernacle a sacrifice of praise and shouting.”
B That the power of a blood sacrifice would be completely useless to any who lack the brilliance of good deeds, the Lawgiver Himself will confirm, saying to the prophet Jeremiah when Israel had offended: “And do not you pray for this people for good, because if they fast, I shall not hear their entreaty; and if they offer whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, I am not pleased with them.” And again: “And upon whom shall I look, if not upon the meek, and quiet, and trembling at my words? But the wicked who sacrifices a calf to me is as one who kills a dog; and the one offering fine flour, as swine’s blood.” Moreover, that most patient Job declares: “For the Lord, he says, will not reject the innocent, nor will He accept any gift of the ungodly.” And another of the wise men has said somewhere: C “A sacrifice from an unjust man is a ridiculous offering.” And again: “The Most High does not approve of the offerings of the ungodly.” For the holiness of life, and the pursuit of every good thing, and an inclination toward virtues and an aversion to vices, would be a sacrifice of most sweet odor to the most holy God, just as the blessed David says: “It shall please God more than a young calf, putting forth horns and hoofs.” And to this, the all-wise Paul incites us, saying: “I beseech you therefore, brothers, present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, your rational service.” Therefore, since Israel has ceased from sacrificing, we have refrained from sacrificing; but even if they were to sacrifice, and even if they were to choose to fulfill those things which were foretold of old as if in shadows, we, walking the royal road, shall proceed directly to what is fitting, certainly performing the worship that consists in spirit and in truth.
D Since, however, he says that the Israelites have ceased from the sacrifices according to the Law, as if it were not permitted for them to do this if they are separated from the city of Jerusalem, let him learn from us what providence God has used in this very matter. For why, someone might say, did He not command that sacrifices be performed for Him everywhere in the world, rather than where they were bound by the Law, and—as if it were a matter of great moment and necessity—only in Jerusalem? Is it because the Supreme God is only in that city, or indeed because He does not wish to be worshipped everywhere
A That the former is frivolous, no one would doubt. For the Divine is not limited to any place, nor is it contained anywhere, since It is incorporeal; rather, It is diffused everywhere, and all things are full of It. But as for the second point, that He does not wish to be worshipped in every place, this will suggest no mean reproach to the present state of affairs. For He is worshipped by us everywhere, and as the Prophet says: “My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice.” And it is written also concerning us: “They shall worship the Lord, each from his own place.” Since, therefore, God is glorified in every place, and does not cast away that practice, but rather finds the neglect of these things to be not without guilt, why should it not seem free for the Israelites themselves, if they wish, to perform their sacred rites according to their ancestral custom everywhere? Most wisely, therefore, the Lawgiver, as one who had foreseen what was to come, ordered them to sacrifice only in Jerusalem, so that, as if by a certain necessity, departing from B their ancient customs, they might be turned toward better things. For they were to be driven from their homeland, having slain the Lord, and were to dwell in the regions of the nations. But it was in a way incredible that they would sacrifice in every place, nay, it would perhaps even have been a cause of harm to those who were converted from the nations. For if those who were called through faith were to cease from their ancient rites, while these men were to offer bloody sacrifices as being most pleasing to God, they would have offended not a little those who had recently been brought to the truth and were being instructed by evangelical teachings in a spiritual and immaterial worship.
C Since, therefore, things have been led to the truth, and those things which were in types and riddles have obtained a change for the better, we do not say that the law has been abolished, but rather that it was fulfilled at the season when the truth, that is, Christ, shone upon us. But if he brings a charge against the Christian religion because we abstain from the types, and having beheld with the keen eyes of the mind the light of truth, have chosen to achieve a way of life neglected by the Jews, embracing a spiritual worship—let him likewise accuse other sciences and all those who apply themselves to them, because, leaving behind the beginnings and rudiments of the disciplines, they strive with the greatest zeal for their perfection. The same is to be observed in manual arts as well, in which there truly has been a great progress D for the better; which, however, no one reproaches. The first painters formed their pictures on tablets in one way; the later sculptors fashioned statues more skillfully than the earlier ones; and the most precise artistry that the later ones possess was once lacking to the craftsmen. What should I say of the weaving art, or sculpting, or the discoveries of builders? Would you not see that these are far superior to the first? If, therefore, he contends that the law of the most wise Moses has been transferred by us for the worse, he assumes that we have acted against the law, have despised the divine precepts, and have held the excellent things of the ancients as nothing. But if, with the thickness of the legal shadow thinned out, it has been brought to the beauty of truth...
A, and if that which was once proclaimed obscurely in enigmas now possesses a clearer contemplation, let the adversary on the opposite side hear from us: "Do not be accusatory," for it is a heavy thing, "nor even desirous of finding fault," for it breeds irritation. Yet the discourse he directs against us does not stop at this, as he strives up and down to reconcile the practices of the Greeks with the customs of the Jews, with one exception. For he says that the former worship one sole God, whereas the latter say there are many. He thinks we have strayed from the opinion of both, because we neither admit to many gods nor yet confess one according to the law, but rather three in place of one. For perhaps he thought the holy and consubstantial Trinity, or that nature of the one divinity, was being divided by us into three gods. But that we have brought into our mind and heart a correct and altogether irreproachable opinion on these matters, and that, having been delivered from the madness of both these and those, we strive directly toward the goal of truth, has, I think, been demonstrated by us in no feeble discourse previously. But those things which he objects to us beyond what has been said, I shall soon recall, not without reason. For he adds again to these B:
JULIAN
Why are you not pure in your diet, just like the Jews, but say that all things are to be eaten like the herbs of the field, trusting in Peter, since he said: "What God hath cleansed, do not thou call common"? What sign is this, that what God once deemed unclean, He has now made pure? For Moses, speaking of quadrupeds, says that whatever divides the hoof and chews the cud is clean; but that which is not of this kind is unclean. If, therefore, from the vision of Peter, the pig now possesses the ability to chew the cud, let us believe him; for it is truly a prodigy if it received it after the vision of Peter. But if he [Peter] fabricated that he saw this revelation, to use your word, at the tanner's house, why should we believe so quickly in such a great matter? For what would it have been difficult for you to be commanded if, besides pork, He had wished you to eat also birds and aquatic creatures, C affirming that these also, in addition to the others, were rejected by God and have proved to be unclean?
CYRIL
You marvel, therefore, I beg you, at the institutions of the Jews, and you say that they have been practiced in purity regarding their diet, and that in the selection of foods they have surpassed Christians? Let us see, then, if you please, by what foods the Mosaic law has forbidden them, and what it has permitted them to eat. It is written in Leviticus: "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: Speak to the sons D
of A Israel, saying: These are the animals which you shall eat from among all that are upon the earth. Every animal that divides the hoof into two claws, and chews the cud among the animals, these you shall eat. But of these you shall not eat: of those that chew the cud, and of those that divide the hoofs and chew the cud, the camel, because it chews the cud but does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the hare, and the rock-badger, and the swine, because it divides the hoof and cleaves the cleft of the hoof, and yet it does not chew the cud, it is unclean to you." And thus much concerning these B matters. But transferring the discourse to those things that are in the water and to the winged creatures, and indeed also to the kinds and species of some others, he says again: "And these you shall eat of those that are in the waters. All that have fins and scales in the waters, and in the seas, and in the torrents, these you shall eat. And all that have no fins and scales are an abomination to you, and, an abomination they shall be to you." And after other things: "And these you shall abominate among the birds, and it shall not be eaten: the eagle, the griffon, the osprey, the vulture, and the kite, and those like them; and the ostrich, and the gull, and the raven, and those like it; and the hawk, and the night-raven, and the cormorant, and the ibis, and the porphyrio, and the pelican, and the swan, and the owl, and the heron, and the plover." And after other things again: "And these are unclean to you among the reptiles that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the land-crocodile, the shrew-mouse, and the chameleon, and the gecko, and the lizard, and the mole." O how great is the marvel of the purity of the Jews, and indeed also of their refined diet! For they do not deem the camel, the rock-badger, the eagle, the vulture, the cormorant, the hoopoe, or the owl worthy to be taken as food; moreover, in addition to these, they reject ravens, ibises, night-hawks, the heron, and the field-mouse, the weasel, and the shrew-mouse, the gecko, and the mole. And why would they not have held such things as of no account, out of reverence for the law? C Amazing is their restraint! It is as if, for them, it were nothing to subdue the belly and to exchange such delicate feasts for a miserable diet, so that they might not offend the lawgiver. But the practices of the Christians might be rightly and deservedly reprehended, who, although the law has commanded that these things have force, have been unwilling to leave any of the things mentioned untouched, but have received everything as food, as if they had made the corv**es**, and the ibises, and the rest, into garden vegetables and table delicacies. Let us therefore praise the law, because, while it accurately prescribed to those from Israel the things that pertain to a peculiar diet, it commanded them to abstain from things which no one would not reject, or rather, things that are so hateful to every man that, if they were merely set before him, he would vehemently abominate them. D But while these things may be foul among all people, and not without reason, yet you would praise the followers of the law, and admire their temperance. For they abstained from swine's flesh and many other things, both winged and aquatic, such as the ostrich and those that lack scales or fins. For the law forbade the touching of these things. Therefore, if it is proven that these things are naturally less good,
A or if they are not preferred by experienced epicures over all other things, then let it bear the label of "vile" along with the others. But if they are good in their usage, yet marked as counterfeit by the Law, let us investigate what charges the Law brings against those that are not in themselves vile. It rejects the pig, it says, because it divides the hoof into two claws, yet does not ruminate. It also condemns certain aquatic creatures because they lack scales, nor are they provided with fins. Is it enough, then, that the properties which exist by nature in things we praise should be condemned? What, I ask, if a pig does indeed divide the hoof into two, yet does not ruminate? What, truly, of those that live in the waters and are deprived of fins and scales? Has the law, therefore, erred and mistakenly declared those things to be unclean that have no filth? We do not say this. It is of no little help to those who can contemplate, with the sharp gaze of the mind, the depth of the inner meanings hidden within it. For since it has been the purpose of the Legislator to teach those whom He instructs which things they ought to use familiarly and whose company they ought to avoid, He takes each of the named things as an example of those that have a certain similarity of character with them. I shall demonstrate further what is understood by these things. He forbids the eating of the camel and the pig: the former because it ruminates, but does not have a cloven foot; the latter, because it divides the hoof into two fissures, but does not ruminate. And yet, someone might say that in one there is what is lacking in the other. For the pig, as I said, divides the hoof but does not ruminate. Conversely, the camel has the opposite. Did the Law, therefore, measure the impurity in them so that they are half-evil and unclean? Yet how is this true? What is the matter, my good man, what is the enigma? Let us investigate, if you please.
B The divinely inspired Scripture is accustomed to take the step of the foot, and sometimes the whole foot, to signify figuratively the path of every action to be performed. Such is that which is in the book of Proverbs: ‹Make straight tracks for your feet, and direct your ways.› Likewise by the voice of David: ‹And I turned my feet to your testimonies.› Behold, therefore, the foot is a type of the path of each action. And this is, in a way, twofold among us: for either we are accustomed to benefit ourselves with virtues, always acquiring something better and enclosing a sincere knowledge of God in the treasuries of the heart; or we spend our study on these things, going by very many ways. Therefore, to be endowed with a cloven foot denotes the ability C to pass to and fro; but to ruminate is a symbol of erudition. For I say that holy and wise men, and searchers of true doctrines, ought not once, but many times, to turn the meanings of questions up and down, and to ruminate upon them similarly, and with tireless study D to investigate the most difficult of matters.
A For that which is received simply and without examination, and not ground down by investigations, might sometimes even be harmful. The law, therefore, rejects one who knows how to be useful in practice to himself and to others, but who does not possess learning in addition to this; and conversely, it declares him polluted to whom learning is of the greatest concern, yet who is not yet conspicuous for acting well. "For whoever shall do and teach," says the Savior, "this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." For it is necessary that he who desires to be in study and in word should be excellent in both, in order that he may be admired.
Those things, however, that live in the waters, which have neither scales nor the growth of fins, are accustomed to wallowing always in the lowest mud, and they hate swimming up; they are sluggish and difficult to move. These would be types of those who are wallowing in the mires of dissipation and are buried in the pits of pleasure, and who are accustomed to doing everything almost nakedly and without covering. For this would signify to us that those things which are condemned by the Law are devoid of scales and natural covering. Furthermore, being deprived of fins again signifies that they are unfit for swimming up and emerging even a little from the evils in which they are. These are corrupt and desperate men, serving the pleasures of the belly, and, as I said, accustomed to adultery and wantonness, soft and impure, and a race of effeminates hated by all, and as many as have upon themselves an indelible mark of every obscenity. The Law desires that His worshippers abstain entirely from such B men; and furthermore, from others whose whole life consists of rapine, greed, and monstrous desire for gain, whom eagles might well designate, and hawks, and indeed also cormorants, griffins, and vultures. In the same way, the raven and those like it designate those who are shifty. Moreover, as for those who are in ignorance, as it were in darkness and night, and who have hated the light of understanding, the hoopoe and the owl, and in addition the bat, and whatever else flies by night and in darkness [designate them]. The weasel and the mouse, however, adumbrate the timid and unwarlike kind of thieves, which fears whatever noise it hears.
Finally, it would be no difficult task for anyone to adapt the true and necessary reasons for each of these things through the Law. For the Law is spiritual, and does not stop its interpretation at the most manifest meanings. Therefore, while the blessed Peter still wished to linger in the customs of the Jews, and was, as it were, hesitant to proceed to better things because he was excessively devoted to types, God lowered a sheet from heaven with animals depicted upon it, which were, as I said, enigmatically condemned as unclean by the decrees of the Law; and He commanded him to slaughter them and eat if he wished. But when the disciple recoiled, and indeed protested Judaically with these words: "By no means, Lord, because I have never eaten anything common or unclean, nor has any unclean flesh entered into my mouth," C God answered him, almost rebuking him and speaking clearly: "What God has cleansed, do not call common." Then he immediately understood that the time had arrived when, toward the truth D
A the shadows must be transformed. Yet the passage of types into the truth rather perfects them, and it would not show them to have been established in vain, as some think. Therefore, the Lawgiver does not consider the pig or other things to be now pure and at other times not, but knows them to be good. For it is written: "And God saw all things that He had made, and behold, they were very good, and He blessed them." For whatever things have been made, by reason of their nature and their origin, have within themselves the quality of being good. Therefore, although the pig may not happen to chew the cud, it is not an unclean animal but is rather fit for consumption; nor will it contaminate anyone, as far as the quality of its nature is concerned. For the law and the shadow, as I have said, "were imposed until the time of reformation." For so the most holy Paul wrote to some. But perhaps Julian thinks that we are raving, we who say and feel these things. He shows off magnificently, and foolishly insults the Holy Scriptures, and says: B
JULIANUS. But why am I lengthy in recounting those things which are said by them, when it is possible to see if they have any strength? For they say that God has given a second law besides that former one: it had been circumscribed for a time by fixed periods; but this one later appeared because that which had been in the time of Moses was overshadowed by a type. That this is said falsely by them, I shall clearly demonstrate, bringing forth not only ten, but many thousands of testimonies from Moses himself, in which he calls the law eternal. But hear now from the book of Exodus: "And this day shall be a memorial to you; and you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord in your generations; a perpetual statute you shall celebrate it. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; but from the first day you shall remove the leaven from your houses." After Julian has accumulated other sayings to these, C and has shown that the law is called eternal in all of them (for I think long circumlocutions of words ought to be removed from the discourse), he adds further: "Now, many things of this kind being passed over, from which I was unwilling to say that the law of Moses is eternal on account of their number, show you, where that which was later uttered with singular audacity by Paul is said: namely, 'Christ is the end of the law.' Where did God promise to the Hebrews another law besides that which was given? Nowhere at all; nor, furthermore, did He promise the emendation of this law that was given. For hear Moses again: 'You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God, whatsoever I command you this day, and cursed is everyone who does not remain in all.'" D
A Yet you thought it a small thing to take away and subtract from what is written in the law, but that to transgress it completely is something truly spirited and magnanimous, not at all regarding the truth, but what is approved by the crowd.
CYRIL. Therefore, he thought, as I said, that we lie in vain, even though we speak the truth, or perhaps that we use clever arguments, since the law is not spiritual, and that we attempt to shift the mind from what is written in it, so that we may rid ourselves of the charge of transgression. But the matter is not so, in any way. For we do not stupidly say that the divine law is to be altogether rejected by us, as though it had no utility in it; but rather that it was delivered to the ancients so that it might instruct them in the mystery of Christ, and through riddles show them the truth. For so we define Christ as the fullness of the Law and the Prophets, and very correctly so; for would not the truth be understood to be the fullness of any obscure riddle whatsoever? Can this be a matter of doubt for anyone? Therefore, that things shadowed forth are brought over to the truth does not abolish the Mosaic laws, but renders the understanding of the law itself clearer. Thus we say it is called an eternal law. For it has not ceased, since it is fulfilled by us in the manner of spiritual worship. For Christ came, not to dissolve the law or the prophets, but rather, as He Himself says, to fulfill them. And in order that, by explaining the law which is in our hands, and which He Himself brought, I may, as I said, demonstrate the matter more clearly, these things must necessarily be added: It is written concerning the day of unleavened bread: C "And this day shall be for you a memorial: and you shall celebrate it a festival to the Lord in your generations: you shall celebrate it as a perpetual ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." And these things, indeed, God ordained through Moses. But through the voice of Isaiah, He speaks to those of the blood of Israel and says: "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your festivals my soul hates. You have become a satiety to me." How then, tell me, shall we say that festivals hated by God are perpetual and never to cease? Shall we then say that God has changed His mind, and that those things which at the beginning were deemed good, and were established through Moses, He has mocked through the prophets, straying from what is right, and suffering some human frailty? For deliberately to hate what you have praised would surely affix a mark of fickleness upon you. What then shall we say, in order to free God from such a reproach? He rightly established through the all-wise Moses that the typical festivals were to be fulfilled; but He hates them as they were to be in the future and degenerated, since it was for the benefit of the ancients that they should not be bound to the types, and He preferred that, advancing from type and shadow to the beauty of the truth, they should perform the worship most pleasing to Him, namely, intellectual and spiritual. For He commanded that those who kept the feast day should prepare bread, but without leaven. When the Jews did this, and nothing more, they thought they were fulfilling the law. What fruit, then, came to them from this?
A And how could God be pleased by this? But you will say that they were, of course, required to be purified in order to celebrate the festival. Yet, if leaven is known to defile those who have eaten it, ought they not to have been kept from it completely, rather than for only seven days, if indeed any were devoted to God and diligent in the way of life pleasing to Him? But, as I have already said, even in this law, just as in others, the B indication of an intellectual reality is introduced enigmatically for those who have a sharp and purified mind capable of contemplating such matters. Certainly, the law regarding unleavened bread is fulfilled most of all by us, who have been justified in faith and sanctified in the Spirit, and who perform a spiritual worship. In this way, divine Scripture is accustomed to take leaven as a symbol of wickedness. Therefore, He commanded that those who were cleansed and purified should keep the festive days, being at the greatest distance from all vice, possessing no leaven of carnal impurity or of vain occupation in foolish things. For whoever is such, he will surely be a brilliant observer of the celebration. C Therefore the divine Paul writes: "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The law, therefore, is eternal: it was formerly with the Jews enigmatically, but the same law is now among us intellectually, spiritually, and in truth. And indeed, that time which preceded the advent of the Savior was appropriate for figures; but that which followed, when the truth shone forth, is appropriate for the true realities. For it was necessary—it was necessary for the Israelites to be schooled by the all-wise Moses, as they were still infants and possessed a ruder D mind; but through Christ, the Lord of all, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," as it is written, true and most perfect knowledge should be brought to us—not that it should overturn the Mosaic law, but rather that it should translate it to a clearer understanding of realities. Wherefore, when Moses spoke with the Jews, he veiled his face, by this act all but declaring that they were unable to see the true face of the law. But if the adversaries say, "If the second things were more desirable than the first, and indeed far better, why did the lawgiver not establish them from the beginning?" I shall bring forward here what I have often said: since the Israelites did not yet have a mind sufficiently firm in the knowledge of God, they quickly departed from their duty and were very prone to apostatize from God, and they did not cease to incite others. For they fashioned a calf and dared to say: "These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt." Therefore, as they were fickle and ruder, a dark law was given to them, which would only with difficulty lead them by a shadow to the understanding of true things, yet it did not clearly lay open the path of a holy life. But as to why God gave a law set in letters and shadows to the foolish Israel, who was guilty of sin and ignorant of what was right—as it were to infants—you shall learn from Him through Isaiah.
A His voice saying thus: “And I lifted up my hand over them in the wilderness, that I might scatter them in the regions, because they had not performed my justifications, and had rejected my precepts, and had profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after the thoughts of their fathers. And I gave to them precepts not good, and justifications, wherein they shall not live in them.” For it was fitting, it was fitting that those who had leapt away from the benevolence of God, and were held guilty of the crime of calf-making—for this I think is what is signified by “to have eyes after the thoughts of their fathers”—should fall away entirely from fellowship with God, and wander in the regions of the nations, deprived of all mercy. But since He is good and regarded the prayers of most wise Moses, He gave them B laws to instruct them, yet not good, as He Himself says, nor indeed able to afford life to those who fulfilled them. But how are the precepts not good? If, I say, you look to the beauty of the truth. For the truth is incomparably superior to the riddles. For if it is not a lie that to those from the blood of Israel there was no benefit at all, insofar as it was necessary to eat unleavened bread, yet God grants as a singular gift to those who cast away the leaven of wickedness, and have a purged heart, and desire nothing impure or profane, that they should be partakers of eternal life. But that it was not possible to obtain true honor through the legal shadow, nor further to proceed straight toward God, one may notice from Isaiah speaking C as a person of the Israelites to God in this manner: “You have seduced us, O Lord, from your way”; and from blessed David: “You have turned our paths from your way.” For the path which is, as I said, flat and easily driven, leading to God, is not the type, my good man, but rather the truth inscribed within it. And since that accuser of the Sacred Scriptures says that the God of all neither promised another law to those from Israel anywhere, nor added any correction to the Mosaic precepts, I shall try to show that he lies in both regards by bringing forward the voice of a Prophet, which is as follows: D “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will consummate upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I arranged with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because this is the covenant which I will arrange for them in those days, says the Lord: giving my laws into their mind, and I will write them upon their hearts.” And since most wise Paul knew this very well, he writes to some and says: “You are our epistle, which is known by all men: manifested that you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” For when God sends us notification of His will, and by knowledge inscribes it upon the hearts of the faithful, through which they become most holy, how can it be that the shadow is not useless? Furthermore, the law suffers neither addition nor diminution; but it shall be the same.
A fulfilled not now in a conspicuous way, but rather in an intellectual and spiritual manner.
And these things, I think, anyone would say have been correctly said and thought by us. But he, B with what feeling I know not, approves the rites of the Jews; then he again censures them, as if they were separated from all others, and out of sheer stupidity ceased to sacrifice, when Elias, he says, sacrificed in Carmel, and not in that holy city, Jerusalem to wit. I will add that the divine David also sacrificed in the threshing-floor, by name Orna, although the law says clearly: "Whoever shall sacrifice a calf or a sheep in the camp, and at the doors of the tabernacle, that soul shall be cut off from among its people." But, O good sir, someone might say, I think, a temple existed at the time when Elias sacrificed; while with the divine David, it did not. But what prevented him from sacrificing in the tabernacle in accordance with the law? However, I say that this has been clearly demonstrated: that even among the saints themselves, it was not counted as a fault that they did not look very minutely into the laws set down in the letter, C nor did they effect their most exact fulfillment.
He makes mention also of that epistle which the apostles wrote by way of dispensation to those who had been called from among the nations, and who were still possessed of a youthful mind. "For it seemed," they said, "to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from the sacrifices of idols, and fornication, and what is strangled, and blood." D It is signified, he says, that it did not seem good to the Holy Spirit here that the Mosaic law should be dissolved. Did it seem good, I pray, that it should be kept, and did He command this? Or is it true to say that He ordered those who had been called through faith to the truth to finally make nothing of the shadow of the law? For what was fitting for those who were still as children to accomplish, He prescribed through the voice of the holy apostles. But by saying that, "To lay upon you no greater burden," He was teaching that the law was heavy and almost intolerable even to the Israelites themselves, which they did not impose upon them. It therefore seemed to the Spirit in no way that the law should be observed by them, but that they should strive to perform things that were bearable and easy, since they were not yet able to bear sweats for even greater things with a weak spirit, and one recently and scarcely growing toward the Christian discipline and life.
To these things, that bold and confident man cavils at Peter, the chief of the holy apostles, and calls him a hypocrite.
he says, and was rebuked by Paul because he wished to live at one time according to the customs of the Greeks, and at another according to those of the Jews, being utterly ignorant of the very skillful economy in these matters. For the disciple held no double-minded opinion, but by employing the appropriate economies at the proper time, he strove in every way to benefit those who came to him. And since the blessed Paul was of a single mind, he approached and admonished him. For he feared lest the reasoning should be misunderstood, and the manner of the economy should cause offense to some.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, FOR THE HOLY RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS, AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE ATHEIST JULIAN. BOOK TEN.
B Accurate indeed, as I think, has been the discourse we have made concerning the shadow of the Law, for I know not how the enemy of the truth has attempted to pursue us, and absurdly brings against us a charge of lawlessness, us who know above all how to fulfill the divine laws, more wisely and more accurately than those who occupy themselves with naked and bare types alone. But since nothing among us is entirely free from his censure, behold, he now entangles us in other charges, and says that we have resisted the holy guides of the mysteries themselves, and have held the apostolic tradition as naught, and have rather turned aside—and this, uncensored—wherever our own will might lead us. He writes again in this manner:
C JULIAN. So unfortunate are you, that you have not even remained in those things which were delivered to you by the apostles, and these have been turned by their successors into something worse and more impious—
A For neither did Paul dare to call that Jesus God, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark. But that good John, having already perceived that a great multitude in many of the Greek and Italian cities had been captured by this disease, and hearing, I suppose, that the monuments of Peter and Paul were being honored—secretly, it is true, but yet he heard that they were being revered—was the first to dare to speak it.
Having said a few things about John the Baptist, he returns again to the Word, who is preached by him: "And the Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." But how, he was afraid to say; and he nowhere calls Him either Jesus or Christ, until he invokes Him as God and Word, while stealing, as it were, softly and secretly into our ears, and saying that John the Baptist bore this testimony concerning Christ Jesus, namely that this is He whom one ought to believe to be God the Word.
CYRIL.
And what, I ask you, of the apostolic mandates, whether small or great, has not been kept by us? What has been perverted for the worse by their successors, to whom the service of the word was entrusted by God, and who have not sluggishly fought for the sacred dogmas? B For if it is to be permitted to attack with insults those who are guilty of no crime, and to do so with impunity, let him triumph in his insults against us; since nothing is easier for a man for whom the desire to slander is nothing, than to lie and rashly detract from the reputation of another. But if he thinks that faith ought to be consistent with words and deeds, let him not insult rashly, but rather convict with arguments. For thus will faith be attached to his words.
I marvel, however, that while he turns the words of Divine Scripture up and down more often, and hunts for no ordinary reputation for learning, he has yet fallen altogether from the truth: for he [claims] that neither Paul, nor Mark, nor Matthew, nor Luke said that Christ is God. C But if any wish to weigh their writings, it is certainly possible to see clearly that He is adorned by them with the dignities of divinity, and that whatsoever things are fitting for that one supreme and most excellent nature, these the same are everywhere attributed to Him, and so He is even called God Himself. Whence that most wise Paul: "I could wish," he says, "that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption of sons, and the legislation, D and the testament, and the promises: whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen."
What other voice, indeed, will you require beyond this? For behold, behold, he saith that He who is from the Jews according to the flesh, that is to say Christ, is both God over all and also blessed for ever. Amen. He said also in another place: "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit
A of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his." And again: "I remind you," he says, "on account of the grace that has been given to me by God, that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God." Since, therefore, those who are enriched with the Spirit of Christ have the divine Spirit, and moreover he says that he has been appointed as a minister among the Gentiles as of the God of Christ, and he calls the preaching concerning him the Gospel of God, and designates him as the Lord of glory: "For if they had known, he says, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; how then does the adversary not clearly slander you, and how would he not justly be held guilty of manifest lying? B And yet the effort or aim of the theologians was, even though they knew that he is God by nature and in truth, to designate him as the Son of God and the genuine offspring of the substance of the one who begat him, as one who is coeternal and co-exists with the one who begat him, and is perceived to be in the one nature of the Godhead, and is subsistent. For this reason the wise John also declares that in the beginning the Word was, and was God with God; then after this, that he also became flesh, that is, man. One, therefore, and not unwise, is the aim of the theologians, to say that he is the Son of God by nature, because it is thus absolutely necessary for him who is from God by nature to be God in truth. We have already brought forward the statements C of the divine Paul, who clearly and indubitably names Christ, the Savior of all, as God. But I think it is necessary also to set forth the statements of others, through which they make mention of Christ as God.
Matthew therefore said concerning Joseph: "But as he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins.'" He said also that the much-admired John used these words: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire; whose winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor." And furthermore, he asserts that the Lord himself calls out to us somewhere: D "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you." And when he was predicting the things concerning the end of the age, he said again: "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age: the Son of Man will send out his angels." Is it then, O most excellent one, to be able to free from sins
A and to save the people, something that would befit any other rather than Him who is the only true God? For the masters of the laws would be those who established them, and no others besides them. But in what manner is He also said to save His own people, seeing that God alone holds authority over those on earth? I say, moreover, that it is beyond the measure and power of man to be able to baptize in the Holy Spirit those who believe in Him; and furthermore, that to possess the threshing floor—that is, those on earth who are understood as ears of grain—is alien to any man, but would befit Christ alone. For He was God who had become flesh, that is, man. But whose yoke, tell me, could those on earth have? B Would one not reasonably say that they are yoked to God alone? Then how did Christ command us to take His yoke upon ourselves, unless He is God and from God by nature? And how could the angels who are in heaven be His? For He says, "He will send His angels." And this indeed we have from Matthew, while passing over a great many other things, for fear that we might seem to have piled up an unnecessary heap of testimonies for this discussion. Mark, moreover, follows the same line of thought everywhere, and agrees with the writings of Matthew. Indeed, he writes: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." That He who is the natural and true Son of God is also, by all means, God Himself, how could this be anything but evident to all? And He said further that the Lord told His holy apostles that "He would be C delivered into the hands of sinful men, by whom He would be mocked and crucified," and that the divine Peter exclaimed to Him, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall never happen to You." And to this Christ replied, "Get behind Me, Satan; you are an offense to Me, because you do not savor the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." For Peter did not savor the things that are of Christ, when he spoke contrary to them. Therefore, even He who said that Peter did not savor the things of Christ—as being of God—but rather those of men, surely named Christ God. And He said again: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." But unless He knows Him to be God, how is it that He says He will arrive in the glory of the Father, having the holy angels as His escort? D How is the Son of Man in the splendor of divinity? How is Jesus Christ—that is, He who was born of a woman according to the flesh—held in the highest honors and placed above every creature? Is there then any room for doubt for those who are clearly desirous of discovering the truth, that, knowing the Lord to be God in truth, they declare Him to be manifest in the prerogatives of divinity once the time of the dispensation has passed? At which time it was fitting that He who was made in our likeness should not hold the measure of humanity in contempt. That the divine Luke also thought thus about Him will certainly become evident quite easily from the things written by him. For he relates that an angel of God said to that Zacharias, the father of John: "And there will be joy to you, and exultation, and many will rejoice at his birth." And afterward: "And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord"
A his God." Whom, then, was this divine Baptist announcing throughout all Judæa? Was it not Jesus, whom he pointed out, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"? Whom was he turning back as to the Lord God? Was it not by saying of Him: "I have seen, and have borne witness, that this is the Son of God"? And indeed he says that even Zacharias himself prophesied concerning his own child: "And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people, for the remission of their sins." And again he says that the holy angel spoke to the holy Virgin concerning Christ: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High." B The father prophesies, calling Jesus the Most High, and the divine angel also names Him the Son of the Most High. For the Son who has shone forth from Him would rightly be considered to be of equal glory with Him who begot Him, and in every respect whatsoever to possess a perfectly equal measure. For it is not because He became man by way of economy that He is in any way, or at all, inferior to Him; but the mode of the economy shall be discussed in its own proper arguments. And since the Word from God the Father is by nature unchanging and immutable, He has suffered no injury to His nature from having become one of us in the way that our humanity is, but, as Paul says: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever."
I believe it is also necessary to convict our adversary of having fought against the utterances of John in a way that is not pious. For it is not, as he himself says, because he had seen that the memorials of the saints—I mean those of Peter and Paul—were held in high esteem by some, that he was led to say that Jesus Christ is God. For it is not credible that he was led to preach Him as God for that reason, but rather that he was impelled by the Holy Spirit. C For at one time Christ said to His holy disciples: "It is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who is speaking in you." Furthermore, he was not the first to say that Jesus is God. For those who wrote before him—I mean Luke, and Matthew, and indeed also Mark—named Him Lord and God, everywhere attributing to Him supreme glory. D But this man, perhaps counting the telling of lies among his most excellent achievements, insists that the divine evangelist said: "And the Word became flesh," yet he does not add how, being ashamed, I suppose. And he says that nowhere does he call Him either Jesus or Christ until he calls Him God the Word. Yet how is his argument concerning these matters not excessively thin and tenuous and refined away from the truth? For in order that no one might suppose that the Word who became man was coeval with the birth of the flesh, or say that He was a God who had appeared only recently and lately, he necessarily prefaces that "In the beginning was the Word," being God, and that [He is] with the Father.
For He is one with His own Begetter by natural identity, though He exists and is understood according to His own proper hypostasis. "And all things were made by Him." Having spoken all these things simply at the beginning, he proceeds in such a way to expound the mystery of the Incarnation. For he says A that "The Word became flesh," that is to say, man, not having undergone change into that which He was not; for God is exempt from change, and that He is not subject to change in these things, he possesses not from another source, but rather substantially within Himself. That He appeared as man, having assumed flesh from the most holy Virgin, and remained what He was, he clearly proved, saying: "And He dwelt among us"; which indicates that He did not pass over into the nature of flesh by change and conversion, but that He dwelt in it, or, as it were, in a holy temple, namely in His own body. B But this man, being utterly raw concerning the things said, rages most impudently against the Theologian, and says that he, inconsiderately trusting in the words of John, made his remarks about the Only-begotten, and did not thereafter name Him Christ or Jesus. But that Julian is now again talking nonsense, and instituting an altogether inconsiderate accusation, it is possible to see from the Holy Scriptures themselves. For he accepts most truly the words of that holy Baptist, which he uttered concerning Christ, the Savior of us all. For after he said C that "The Word became flesh," then indeed, then most opportunely he names Christ, and Jesus, and says He is endowed with the dignities of divinity, although He has become like us by way of the dispensation. He himself therefore wrote in this manner: "Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His name, seeing His signs which He did upon those who were infirm. But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all things." Also: "When therefore it was evening on that day, the first of the week, and the doors were closed where the disciples were gathered for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you." He says also that the Lord Himself somewhere says to the Father and God who is in heaven: "And D this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ." That He has preserved things befitting divinity even when He was made man, will be evident from his own words. For most often he calls Him Life and Light, and so equal to the Father in power and glory, and endowed with an incomparable eminence above all things. But this fault-finder, who ever turns evil in his mind, and is always hunting and prying for something whereby he might, as he thinks, harm the Christian religion, proceeds by another path, as it were, and says:
JULIAN
But that John says this concerning Jesus Christ, not even I myself deny. Although it pleases someof the impious that Jesus Christ is one thing, and the Word preached by John is another. Yet it is not so. For he himself says that the one whom he calls God the Word, is the same one acknowledged by John the Baptist to be Christ Jesus. Mark, therefore, how cautiously, calmly, and stealthily he introduces the conclusion of his impiety into the drama, and is so crafty and deceitful that he again backs away, adding: "No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." A Is then this the God the Word who became flesh, the only begotten Son, "who is in the bosom of the Father"? And if he is the very one, as I suppose, then you too have surely seen God; for "he dwelt among you, and you saw his glory." Why then do you add that no man hath seen God at any time? For you indeed saw him, if not God the Father, then certainly God the Word. But if the only begotten God is one, and God the Word is another, as I have heard some of your sect say, it seems that not even John dares to assert this. B
CYRIL. Perhaps, then, one might think that he, due to the docility of his mind, was yielding to the arguments of right faith, so as to say that Christ Jesus himself is that incarnate Word of God. But that this design of his is, even now, crafty, can be seen from what I have said. For he thought he would easily be able to show that the excellent Evangelist was contending with his own statements, and speaking things that conflicted with himself. "But the deceitful man shall not catch his prey," as it is written. For he [the Evangelist] said most prudently: "No man hath seen God at any time." C For the Divine is admittedly invisible; but we have seen the Son with the eyes of the mind, conspicuous in the glory of God and the Father, and refulgent with the beauty of his Begetter. And this is demonstrated by the very effects. For he is the "character and splendor of his glory"; and he is not like to him by reason of our outward form (for God, as I have said, lacks body and shape, and is devoid of quantity and magnitude, and, to say it in one word, is beyond mind and speech); but insofar as he is understood to be God, he is all that the Father is, with the sole exception of being the Father. And, therefore, when one of the holy apostles somewhere said: "Lord, show us the Father, D and it sufficeth us," he answered, saying: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Now how could one not very rightly infer, I ask, that if his purpose had been to say that the Begetter was similar in bodily form, he would have said instead: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works"? For if the efficacy is in all things absolutely equal, the ratio and nature of these, therefore, must also be equal. And so I would say, most excellent man: We shall not find the divine Evangelist contradicting his own words.
Even if he says, A "No one has ever seen God," he would not be a liar, nor would he be a counter-witness to the truth, even if we have seen Jesus in the ways that have already been explained; rather, the truth holds in both respects. For by the nature of His divinity the Son is invisible, but He is visible in glory befitting God, and also when He became man. "For we have seen Him, and His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Thus, the inspired David had proclaimed the mystery of the Incarnation, saying: "God shall come manifest, our God, and He will not keep silence." And indeed, the prophet Isaiah, as if extending his hand, points out that He has become incarnate, and says: "Behold our God, behold the Lord comes with power, and His arm with dominion." I shall add also the blessed Baruch, confirming the words of Isaiah. For he himself also said somewhere: "This is God; no other shall be accounted besides Him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel whom He loved; and after that He appeared upon the earth, and conversed with men." We have seen, therefore, the Son living on earth for men as a man, being invisible with the Father according to the nature of His divinity, but visible—intellectually and by the excellence of His divinity and mighty works—together with the Father. For He performed divine signs by a mere nod. But Julian, B quick to invent anything and an accuser of every saint, blames us for being addicted to the veneration of the holy martyrs, and says:
JULIAN.
"But this evil received its beginning from John. And whatever things you have invented next, adding to that ancient dead man these new dead, who could sufficiently detest according to their dignity? You have filled everything with sepulchers and monuments, although it has never been said among you that one should loiter about sepulchers or venerate them. You have proceeded to such a depth of wickedness that you think you should not even hear the words of that Jesus of Nazareth on this matter. Hear, therefore, what He says concerning monuments: 'Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed sepulchers; on the outside the sepulcher appears beautiful, but inside it is full of the bones of the dead and all uncleanness.' If, therefore, Jesus said that sepulchers are full of uncleanness, how do you call upon God over them?" He adds to these that when a certain disciple said, "Lord, C allow me first to go and bury my father," He Himself replied: "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."
A We have already discussed many things with him on this subject, and a long speech has been expended by us on these matters previously. Yet, I think it necessary to say a few things to him even now. We do not indeed say that the tombs of bodies are free from uncleanness; but for this reason it is not worth forgetting the virtue of those who have died. Nor, because by natural law the body of those who have led a most excellent life is dissolved from earth into earth, do we consider the obligation to honor them as of no account, since everyone, in some way, praises those who have chosen to live the best and most glorious life, and who have often disparaged even the state of being dead, so that something worthy of hearing might be recorded about them in the memories of those to come. For I heard someone saying in the poems of Homer:
May I not perish meanly and without glory, But having done some great deed, even for those yet to be born to hear of.
B Is it fitting, then, to leave the one who departed from human life not meanly and without glory, but who has accomplished some great thing upon which one might very well pride himself, to silence and oblivion, or to crown him with a most beautiful marvel, and to delight him with long and unending honor, as if we had almost struggled alongside them, and become sharers of their courage? For as for those who undertake to praise them, because they have traveled the exceptional path of life and have considered adversities of no account, shall they not justly be participants together with them in their noble deeds? What I have already said, I will say again. At Athens, they say that annual contests were proposed for the most eloquent to praise those who risked themselves for Greece, who stood against the C arrogance of the Barbarians though they were few in number, and who, being far inferior to the innumerable phalanx of the enemy, and since they could not win, having seized not to die unmanly instead of winning, have been deemed worthy of memory and praises among them; so that the matter even became an oath for some. For they would say: No, by those of our ancestors who risked themselves at Marathon, nor by those who fought at sea at Salamis, nor by those at Artemisium, nor by those who stood in array at Plataea, nor by many others who lie in the public monuments. Since, therefore, it seemed right even to the most eloquent orators at Athens, D although they were idolaters, that those who did not shun a glorious death should be deemed worthy of honor and rewards, and to proceed to the very tombs of their bodies—for it was over the very remains of their noble deeds that they delivered their speeches—why then does the most excellent Julian unjustly rail against the kindness of Christians, if they place great value on the reverence and honor toward the holy martyrs, who, all of them, changed their short-lived life through their blood for faith and the boast of their piety in Christ, established in faith? Or does he perhaps think them laughable, and cannot endure with equanimity that they were not also apostates, cowardly, and fugitives,
sluggish and discouraged, and despisers of piety towards God, just as, indeed, he is himself the accuser of the valor that is in them? B
But indeed, he says, we must flee from tombs, which even Christ himself declared to be full of uncleanness. Yet he knew the dead man to be so abominable that he did not even permit the disciple to bury his father. But regarding those who have altogether failed to grasp the power of the Savior’s words, we shall see quite easily. For he did not command men to depart from tombs, although he knew them to be full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness; rather, he intended to compare to whitewashed tombs that captious and hypocritical people, the Pharisees, who were stealing for themselves a manifest reputation for uprightness, while their hearts were filled with wickedness and every uncleanness—that is, intellectual uncleanness. Therefore, by commanding the disciple to follow him and permitting others to bury their dead, he taught us that our own affairs should rightly be cast behind our love for God, because even compared to reverence for parents, the things of God are greater. For he is the Creator and Maker of all things. That he understood, moreover, that tombs—that is, the dead themselves—could impart no defilement to the souls of men, he declares clearly by deigning to approach the dead and the monuments themselves. So he commanded Lazarus, perhaps even when he was stinking, to return to life. So the daughter of the synagogue leader was miraculously brought back to life. C "For he touched," it says, "her hand, saying: 'Child, arise.'" And again in Naim (which is one of the cities of Judea), he raised the widow’s son, having touched the bier and also crying out: "Young man, I say to you, arise." For what defilement will the remains of a dead man impart to our minds? Will it defile the mind that is within us, or will that stench which strikes the senses pervert us toward what is forbidden? And yet, how could such an argument be anything but full of folly? Besides, one might observe that the remains of those who have departed are not left bare and cast carelessly upon the earth, but are buried with great care; for they are hidden, as if in the bosom of a mother, in the recesses of the earth. One might further ask, if anyone should choose to speak for the dead: Why do you think tombs, or the dead, are to be abhorred? What harm will these things instill in those who draw near—the body, or perchance the tomb? D For will it render the lover of justice unjust? Will it render the modest and temperate man unchaste and incontinent? The liberal man avaricious? The gentle and easygoing man cruel and savage? The lover of God impious? By no means. For, in my opinion, it is not the remains of the departed that corrupt the goods of the soul, but rather the inclinations of the will toward shameful things. Do you perceive these laws by which we are directed on the path of rectitude and honor? These laws punish adulterers, the unjust, robbers, and those caught in other crimes; yet you see that they declare no one who visits tombs or approaches the dead to be worthy of punishment. But if tombs make some people wicked,
and are capable of carrying over to those who approach them things that are not fitting, and fill them with psychic uncleanness through the foul smell that is in them, then let the perfume shops and the frequenting of them benefit A the wicked and deliver them from wicked practices. And let someone caught in adultery be crowned with roses, let his body be anointed with perfume, and let him be free from every accusation. For if the uncleanness of the tombs makes people base, then the most sweet-smelling places, and flowers too, should cleanse away baseness. But perhaps they have concocted this among themselves, thinking they have conceived and uttered something of great importance. For every corpse, and indeed death itself, is a thing most hateful to the gods. But we are of one mind with these people, and we have been linked to the sense of purpose they possess. In the first place, the divinely inspired Scripture has told us that there is one God, by nature and in truth, and we have been accustomed to worship no other at all besides him. However, there are gods according to us, to whom you say that death is also hateful, and they perhaps stand by and actually feel pain for those on earth who have fallen into corruption and death. But if they are gods, and have truly felt pain for those subjected to corruption, why do they not rather rescue those who have fallen prey to it, and who have suffered miserably, even if not for everyone? But the leading poet among them knows that they fear Hades, to such an extent that it was not right to reject what had been sworn by that place. For he introduced one of the gods swearing and saying: B
“Let the earth now know this, and the broad heaven above, And the down-flowing water of Styx, which is the greatest And most terrible oath for the blessed gods.”
And he says that Hera perhaps said to her brother and spouse, Zeus:
“Most severe son of Cronus, what word have you spoken? A man who is mortal, long ago destined by fate, How do you wish to release him from mournful death? Do it; but not all of us gods shall approve.”
For why, he says, do you not perceive that you are laboring in vain, and seeking things that cannot be attained? What then? Do you think that you are not entirely and utterly straying from the path of dutiful reasoning, and indeed falling away from all praise with justice? When, therefore, those who are inspired by the Muses among them, and who have assumed the reputation of being taught by God, and who know well the affairs of the gods, say that the gods themselves are subject to death and the Fates, what reason is there for him to call Christ dead, he who is superior to death and the destroyer of corruption? D For he warded off death from others by his ineffable and god-befitting nods and by his life-giving power, but he himself also of his own will allowed his own flesh to fall into death, not so much to confirm the condition of mortality as to dissolve corruption and destroy death. For since it was the body of life, of the Son himself who gives life to all things, therefore, and quite naturally, as the Living One he did not submit to the bonds of death. How, then, is he dead, he who is living, and life-giving, and who has made the power of death inoperative? Yet nonetheless he commits an offense by calling the dead...
those who, in the hope of life, have endured the temporary death of the flesh—I refer to the holy martyrs, of whom it is written, and most clearly: "They seemed to die in the eyes of fools, and their departure was considered a disaster, and their journey away from us, destruction. But they are in peace, and their hope is full of immortality." For as the Savior himself somewhere says, "They live to God, as they are about to live; for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," for whose sake they aspired to such noble bravery. I believe, therefore, that these things have been said by us quite wisely. But he who either does not understand such exceptional matters, or does not think them worthy of wonder, resorts to falsehoods once again, and says:
JULIAN
Since these things are so, why do you roll yourselves upon the tombs? Do you wish to hear the cause? I would not say it, but Isaiah the prophet: "In the tombs and in the caves they sleep for the sake of dreams." B See, then, how this work of sorcery was ancient for the Jews: to sleep in the tombs for the sake of dreams. And it is likely that your apostles also practiced this after the death of their Master, and handed it down to you who first believed from the beginning, and practiced the sorceries more craftily than you, but openly displayed the workshops of this sorcery and detestable practice to those after them.
CYRIL
Christ, however, came to life by divine dispensation, as I have said, since he permitted his own body to taste death C for death has been made inoperative through this. But let the inspired disciples come forward and prove to us where they handed down to us that one must roll upon tombs and seek visions or dreams from the dead. But he cannot [do this] in any way. Truly, here he has imposed upon us in his usual manner. But the good man does not notice that he is pouring out those insults not so much against us as against the superstition of the Gentiles, and attacking those very things which he cherishes with love and zeal. For the Jews, and we their successors, as many as follow the sacred and divine laws, are by no means accustomed to seek visions in dreams, D nor are we childishly delighted by hollow phantoms, but we shun the interpreters of such things. And the law concerning these matters in Deuteronomy is as follows: "If a prophet or one who dreams a dream arises among you, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or of that dreamer of dreams." Therefore, we are commanded to shun vain dreams. Yet to the worshipers of demons these things are dear, and are held in great price and honor. And indeed Porphyry, explaining the life of Pythagoras, writes thus: "Antiphon, however, in the book he wrote concerning..."
those who have excelled in virtue, relates his endurance in Egypt, saying that Pythagoras, having welcomed the instruction of the Egyptian priests and having been eager to share in it, requested Polycrates the tyrant to write to Amasis, king of Egypt, who was his friend and guest, so that he might partake of the aforementioned learning.” And he clarifies what this was by adding: “Pythagoras,” he says, “arrived also among the Egyptians, and among the Arabians and Chaldeans, from whom he learned accurately the science of interpreting dreams, and he was the first to use divination by means of frankincense. And in Egypt he lived with the priests, and learned their wisdom and the language of the Egyptians.” It follows, then, that sorcery was no incidental matter to his ancestors, but was rather a matter of great concern, and was counted among the wonders that led to prominence, B so much so that many undertook journeys to foreign lands for the sake of this sorcery. But since he brings forward the words of Isaiah for the confirmation of his own lies—for he thought he could prove by them that those who have been instructed by the divine law are in the habit of resorting to tombs and seeking dreams—let him hear from us that when they bowed their necks to the holy laws, and wished to serve the one God who is truly and by nature God, and the Creator and Lord of all, they would have been found to be entirely missing from the scripture mentioned. But since they have worshipped false gods, then indeed, then you might see them dwelling in impure tombs, and become avid for divination through dreams. I shall use, as I said, the words of the prophet for proof; for he spoke as if from the person of God: C “This people, who provoke me to my face continually, they sacrifice in gardens and burn incense upon brick to demons, which are not, and in the tombs and in the caves they sleep for the sake of dreams.” (Isa. LXV, 3, 4). Therefore, when they had abandoned the necessity of clinging to the natural God, and had offered sacrifice and worshipped the gods of Julian—it is clear that these are the unclean demons—then, too, they would slumber in tombs for the sake of the visions of dreams, and made of them a form of divination and sorcery. I wonder, however, that although the history of the Greeks is set out for all to read, and it is therefore easy for anyone to see what is written in it concerning his gods, he nevertheless reproaches us with dead bodies and tombs, when he himself has both dead bodies to whom divine honors are D paid, and temples instead of tombs, for in these they are buried. And this is indeed enough to serve as proof; nevertheless, it would have been easier to demonstrate it from ancient writings and histories.
For Dinarchus, a poet of no small note, in recounting the deeds of Dionysus—all that he labored to achieve among the Indians, and also how he had slain Actaeon and Lycurgus—having related these things very thoroughly, asserts that he himself was also killed by Perseus, and buried at Delphi beside the god called the Golden Apollo. Porphyry, moreover, speaks again of Pythagoras thus: “But after these things, when Po-”
Polycrates’ tyranny had occupied the Samians, A thinking that it was not fitting for a philosophical man to live in such a regime, he determined to depart for Italy. But as he sailed and stopped at Delphi, he inscribed an elegiac poem on the tomb of Apollo, by which he made it clear that Apollo was indeed the son of Silenus, but that he was killed by Python and was buried in the place called Tripus, which received that name from the fact that the three daughters of Triopas—his sisters—had bewailed Apollo there.” That world-famous Tripus, which gave oracles to the cities and regions of the Greeks and was a source of great wonder to all, was therefore the tomb of him who was said to deliver oracles, whom the three sisters of Triopas bewailed, seeing the wretched man slain and lying dead, and, as I said, B lamenting him piteously. And Pythagoras’ account does not stop there; for Porphyry writes again about him: “Having descended into the so-called Idaean cave, clothed in black wool, he spent the customary thrice-nine days there, and performed rites for Zeus, and saw the couch that is spread for him each year, and he inscribed an epigram on his tomb with this title: PYTHAGORAS TO ZEUS, the beginning of which is: Here lies the great ZAN, whom they call ZEUS.”
Now, if they think that Pythagoras was babbling when he inscribed upon the tomb of Zeus that “Here lies Zeus,” why do they worship him? But if they consider him worthy of all veneration, he should not be understood or spoken of as having told falsehoods. For he wrote the truth, and that supreme C of the gods is dead, for whom even the Cretans constructed a tomb. And Clement, a learned man and indeed a polymath, writes as follows concerning the gods and their temples: “For we shall not be silent on this point, but we shall also demonstrate to them that while temples are indeed called by auspicious names, they are in fact tombs; that is to say, the tombs have been called temples. Do you now at least wash away the memory of superstition and be ashamed to worship tombs.” In the temple of Athena at the citadel of Larissa is the tomb of Acrisius. At Athens, in the citadel, is that of Cecrops, as Antiochus says in the ninth book of his histories. And what of Erichthonius? Is he not buried in the temple of the Polias? And Immaradus, the son of Eumolpus and Daira, is he not in the precinct of the Eleusinium, which is below the citadel? D And the daughters of Celeus are buried in Eleusis. Why should I mention to you the women from the Hyperboreans? Called Hyperoche and Laodice, they were buried in the Artemision at Delos; and this is in the temple of the Delian Apollo. Leandrius, moreover, reports that Clearchus was buried at Miletus in the Didymaeum. Here we must not pass over the monument of Leucophryne, following the authority of Zeno of Myndus, who is buried in the temple of Artemis at Magnesia. Nor, indeed, is the altar of Apollo in Telmissus ignored; they record that this too is the monument of Telmissus the seer. Ptolemy, the son of Agesarchus, in the first book of his work on Philopator, says that in Paphos, in the temple of Venus, Cinyras and his descendants were buried. Will you, then, dare to reproach us further with graves and the dead? Or will you hold back your laughter, commiserating with your dead gods, and
believing those to be graves of the dead which you regard as holy places? Furthermore, he writes that we disregard the legal A precepts, and he says as follows:
JULIAN
But you pursue those things which God clearly loathed from the beginning, both through Moses and the prophets; yet you shrink from bringing animals to the altar and sacrificing them. For fire, he says, does not descend as it did in the time of Moses, consuming the sacrifices. This happened once under Moses, and again under Elijah the Tishbite, after a long interval of time. I shall show in a few words that Moses himself—and Abraham the patriarch before him—thought that one ought to bring in foreign fire. BHaving recalled the history of Isaac, he takes up again as an example those around Abel, and he says that when they sacrificed, they did not have fire from heaven, but brought it to the altars from elsewhere. He then examines diligently what the rationale of the two is. For God approves the sacrifice of Abel, but makes that of Cain unacceptable; and what he might mean by: "If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be still." He tries to apply a rationale of this sort to these speculations. For to the living God, he says, a sacrifice of living creatures is surely more pleasing than one from the fruits of the earth.
CYRIL
In these things, then, his entire argument is completed. For he is needlessly long-winded, while promising to be brief, so that it might appear that he hates the truth in everything, for no one could see us in any way opposing the divine nods. We obey those things given through Moses, fulfilling the law spiritually, and we are steered by the proclamations of the holy prophets toward the need to know the truth C and to have that which is beyond reproach in the knowledge of the sacred dogmas. But since he says that the use of bloody sacrifices has been forsaken by us, and he thinks that perhaps we have abstained from such worship because fire does not descend from heaven, we say necessarily that he has strayed from the truth. For we have ceased from immolating oxen, not certainly because God does not send down fire, but because, since types and shadows have been transferred to the truth, we have been commanded to consecrate a spiritual and unblemished worship to the God over all. "For God is Spirit," he says, "and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Yet let him know that the fire descending upon the divine altars was a proclamation in advance of the mystery concerning Christ, being sent down evidently by that God who is the most excellent Artificer of all things, and through things D sensible and visible, fashioning those things which do not fall into the senses and are perceived by the mind. For when the tabernacle had been erected in the desert by that most excellent Moses, God gave the fire, inand commanded that it be unquenchable and perpetual; furthermore, it was forbidden, and punished by divine law, if any A should bring in strange fire. For thus perished those who were born of Aaron. Nevertheless, as I have said, the shadows bring forth the power of the mystery of Christ. For Holy Scripture generally accepts God in the guise of fire. For it says that He appeared thus to the sons of Israel on Mount Sinai. The fire of the altar was therefore select and unmixed with any other. For God, being one alone, cannot be reckoned among other gods, and is by nature supreme over all: since in what way B would the introduction of fire from without have harmed the sacred and divine tabernacle, were it not that if, perchance, one were to introduce strange fire, the type would harm the truth by not properly representing it? Since there is one and only one God by nature and in truth, and absolutely no one is reckoned alongside Him, He who truly illuminates the more truthful tabernacle, that is, the Church, with intelligible light, and receives the rational sacrifices from all. Therefore let no other god be conceived of alongside Him, but let it be rejected by us as strange fire. For C another nature of divinity besides the one which is does not exist. The same principle applies also to the sacrifices that were once made by Elijah. For the God of the universe sent down fire even then, while the prophet fulfilled the type of the mystery of Christ at that time. Therefore, because fire does not descend, we cease from sacrificing sheep. For it is enough for us to gaze with the eyes of our mind upon the portrayed beauty of the truth, as if upon a tablet, through those things which were done at that time. But we sacrifice far better now than they did of old. For there descends from heaven D not sensible fire, fulfilling an image of an ineffable nature, but the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, illuminating the Church, and receiving the sacrifices from us, namely spiritual and intelligible ones. For the children of Israel used to offer to God oxen and sheep, turtledoves and pigeons, and also the produce of the seasons and fine flour soaked in oil, cakes and incense; but we, having rejected that coarse worship, are commanded to perform a refined and exact, intelligible and spiritual one. For we offer to God for an odor of sweetness every kind of virtue: faith, hope, charity, justice, continence, submissiveness, and obedience, the constant celebration of divine things, and the other virtues. For that sacrifice is most simple, which befits the natural and simple God, and the offerings of intelligible fragrance are the principles of living honestly and rightly. For thus He Himself says somewhere: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." And even that most excellent Samuel: "Behold, is not obedience better than sacrifice, and hearkening better than the fat of rams?" David also, the divine, sings: "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise." And again: "I went about and sacrificed in His tabernacle a sacrifice of shouting." Paul also commanded in these words: "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your reasonable service."
divine David: « Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise. » And again: « I went about and sacrificed in his tabernacle a sacrifice of shouting. » Paul also has given instruction, saying, « Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, your rational service. » A That God did not allow those of the blood of Israel to linger senselessly in the shadows according to the law, we shall understand from the sacred Scriptures themselves. For He commanded the lamb to be sacrificed as a type of Christ. « But thus you shall eat it, » he says: « Let your loins be girded, and your sandals on your feet, and your staves in your hands. » Observe, therefore, how He commanded them to eat in the manner of travelers, by this almost signifying that the typical rite would not always endure, but would in some way proceed toward the truth. When the type had obtained the truth, and we had received the Spirit instead of sensible fire, we fulfill the spiritual and rational service. For thus Christ is said to baptize us in the Holy Spirit and in fire. But if a ram was pointed out to Abraham, which he also sacrificed in place of Isaac, we say that even that was a type of Christ, who endured death in the flesh for us and on our behalf, that He might deliver us from death and corruption. B And if Abraham sacrificed, using, as he says, kindled fire for the offerings, and not altogether that which was sent from heaven, this is nothing at all to us. For to those who decline to offer to God the things dictated by the law, and who make the fact that the fire does not descend from above and from heaven the pretext for such slackness—as though this were a very strong argument proving that we hold the divine laws in contempt—he brings up the fact that Abraham used kindled fire. But since we have followed a better method of worshipping God than they did, sacrificing spiritual things to God, and have been enriched with the Spirit instead of sensible fire, let him not reproach us by asking why we do not bring victims to altars. For that divine Paul will cry out against him, almost in these words: « The old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. » C For we have been transformed into the newness of the evangelical life, and have been filled with perfect doctrines, having abandoned the tutelage of the legal letter, as it is appropriate for those who are still infants, but no longer for us who have arrived at the perfect man, and have attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Furthermore, he makes mention of that pair of brothers, I mean Abel and Cain, who were born of Adam, and he says:
JULIAN
Neither this alone, but also when the sons of Adam offered first fruits to God: « God, » he says, « had regard for Abel and for his gifts; but for Cain and for his sacrifices he had no regard. And Cain was very sad, and his countenance fell. And the Lord God said to Cain: Why have you become sad, and why has your countenance fallen? D If you offer correctly, but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? » Do you wish, then, to hear what their offerings were? « And it came to pass after some days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to the Lord. Abel however also brought of the firstlings of his sheep,
and of their fat. » A Nay, they say, it was not the sacrifice, but the division, which He reproved when He said to Cain: « If you have offered rightly, but have not divided rightly, have you not sinned? » One of those all-wise bishops said this to me; but he was deceiving himself first, and then the others as well. For in what way the division was blameworthy, as he demanded, he had no way to explain, nor any way to offer a cold response to me. But seeing him at a loss, « Just this very thing, » I said, « which you say, God rightly reproved. » For the intention was equal in both, since both supposed that gifts and sacrifices must be offered to God. But regarding the division, the one hit the mark, while the other missed it. But how or in what way? Since of the things on earth, some are animate and some are inanimate; yet animate things are more precious than inanimate ones to God, who is living and the author of life, inasmuch as they have partaken of life and are more akin to the soul; therefore God was pleased with him who offered the perfect sacrifice. B
CYRIL. The calumny, therefore, with which he pursues us—that we have rejected the Jewish rite of sacrificing—he thought would be sufficiently and more than sufficiently confirmed from the fact that he shows that Abraham indeed sacrificed, yet that the fire did not descend from heaven to alight upon the sacrifices, but was brought from elsewhere, and was common fire. But we, I think, have excellently repelled those charges, and have argued that he is unlearned rather than intelligent, or a speaker of truth. Moreover, he introduces the example of Abel, and says that the very adversaries of the sacred laws sacrificed in this way, hoping that he would designate the Christians with these words. But since he twists himself in explaining the mode of sacrifice, and thinks he knows something of a mystery, come now, let us show him to be speaking coldly, to use his own words, and absurdly here as well. C For the divinely inspired Scripture reports that Abel indeed sacrificed victims, but Cain brought the fruits of the earth; and that Abel's gift-offering was honored by the gaze of God, but Cain's sacrifice was, as it were, insulted by His turning away. Then, because the holy man says that the division was the cause of what happened, he does not admit the arguments, but repeats the same things and attempts to blather what he rashly and inconsiderately suspects to be correct. For since, he says, God is life and the life-giver, He is pleased with the offerings of animate things, and not those which lack life and which the earth produces. D But surely, when he says these things, he opposes his own teachers. For Pythagoras asserts in every way that the sacrifices of living creatures are hateful to his own gods, and that those which are made with incense and fruits are most especially approved. And indeed, Porphyrius discourses upon this to the children of the Greeks in many places, saying: « The sacrifice through animals is the last and most recent; and for this reason... »
it did not originate from a grateful cause, as that which came from fruits, but from famine or some other adverse circumstance. He says, therefore, that the gods also take pleasure, not in bloody sacrifices, as they are most recent and do not have a grateful origin, but in flowers, and herbs, and the fruits of the seasons. » But these things are his. Let the law given through Moses be examined by us, and let us carefully investigate the forms of the sacrifices contained in it. A Therefore, it commanded those who were able to do so to dedicate to God the clean animals; but for those who were in lack of the greater, fine flour sprinkled with oil. « For if his hand does not have it, » he says, « fine flour shall be his gift, and he shall pour oil upon it. » And that the ancients honored God, the giver of all good things to us, with the fruits of the earth and also the fruits of the seasons, we shall know from the Mosaic laws. For he spoke thus: « And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel, and you shall say to them: When you enter into the land which I give to you, and you reap its harvest, you shall bring a sheaf as the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. And he shall offer the sheaf before the Lord, acceptable for you. » B And he said in Deuteronomy: « And it shall be, when you have entered into the land which the Lord your God gives to you for an inheritance, and you have inherited it and dwelt in it, that you shall take of the first fruits of the fruits of the land which the Lord your God gives to you, and you shall put them into a basket, and you shall go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose, for his name to be called upon there. And you shall come to the priest who shall be lord in those days, and you shall say to him: I announce today to the Lord my God that I have entered into the land which the Lord swore to give to our fathers. And the priest shall take the basket from your hands, and shall set it before the altar of the Lord your God. » C When, therefore, he has commanded the first fruits of the crops and of the ripe fruits to be dedicated, how was the sacrifice through Cain rejected on the basis that it was performed not through living things, but through inanimate things? For it has been shown from the laws, and very clearly, that God accepted offerings through living things and likewise through inanimate things. And consequently the divine David, as if it were permitted to the ancients to bring fruits together with brute animals, makes the lawgiver say to those from Israel: « I will not receive calves from your house, nor he-goats from your flocks; for all the wild beasts of the forest are mine, the cattle on the mountains, and the oxen; I have known all the birds of the sky, and the beauty of the field is with me. » D For by the beauty of the field he names the fruits of the seasons. And that it happened that Cain was frustrated in the division, I believe no one would gainsay. For it is not that he did not sacrifice lambs—it was not blameless to sacrifice to Him—but that he did not separate and offer the choice portions of the ripe fruits to God, whereas Abel did not act negligently, but prudently. « For he brought, » he says, « of the firstlings of his sheep, and of their fat, » that is, the fattest and those distended with fat. I say, therefore, that God is to be worshipped by us not by offering those things which are worse, but by the best and most excellent. And indeed the Israelites once...
offered sacrifices at the appointed times, yet not the select ones. Then God wrote of the matter, saying: "And ye bring in the raptures, and the lame, and the sick, and ye say: 'These are from affliction'; and I puffed at them, saith the Lord Almighty." Then he weaves the rebuke more heavily for them, adding: B "Offer them now to thy ruler, if he will accept them, if he will accept thy face, saith the Lord Almighty." For if anyone should choose to honor those who have obtained the right to lead, he certainly insults them by gifting them with worse things; for shameful, blemished, and rejected as well as hated things are [offered] to men. How, then, is it not necessary to present to the King and God of all, wisely, the things that are superior and select, if one has them? And so he said again through one of the prophets: "Cursed is he who has in his flock a male, and his vow is upon it, and he sacrifices a corrupt thing to the Lord: for I am a great king, saith the Lord Almighty." It was necessary, then—it was necessary for the first men who sacrificed, around the time of Abel, to be well and truly instructed as to how they ought to know the modes of sacrifices, and how it is fitting to honor God, so that those after them, that is, we, might know the way of finding favor in these things. But if the first men sacrificed sheep and fruits, what is there to prevent us, who have learned better things, from sacrificing better now than they did of old? But if he thinks that the rites of the ancients must be followed in all respects, come, let us imitate them in all other things as well. It was their custom to tend flocks, to plow the earth, and to be clothed in shaggy skins: "And the Lord God made," he says, "tunics of skins for Adam." Therefore, let us also live the pastoral life, let us work the earth, let us renounce the elegance of clothing, and let us all be clothed in shaggy garments. C There was no care for medicine among them, no use of any other science, no use of letters, no mechanical discipline, no studies of the arts; rather, time brought these things forth eventually. Therefore, they were wandering away from that correct and God-pleasing manner of sacrificing (for they did not know the modes of spiritual worship), yet it was acceptable to God, not because He looked at what was offered, but because He weighed the mind and intention of the offerer. In the progress of time, however, we have become knowledgeable of those things which please God. For we sacrifice intellectually and spiritually, as it were consecrating to Him the sweet odors from virtues. What then? Is it not shameful to mock that progress of things toward the better? You do wrong, O noble sir, and you seek pretexts for caviling, and, to speak a word, you grasp nothing to the purpose. That this is clear from the things we are about to say next, it will be made evident. For he has written thus:
JULIAN
Now, however, it must be further repeated by me against them: Why do you not circumcise yourselves? Paul, they say, said of circum-
circumcision of the heart, but not of the flesh, that it was given and that this was to Abraham; he did not, however, say that anything concerning the flesh was to be believed, and he did not believe the words preached by him and Peter, which are not pious. But learn again B that it is written that God is said to have given that carnal circumcision into a testament and into a sign to Abraham: “And this is the testament which you shall keep between me and you, and between your seed in your generations; and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be in the sign of the testament between me and you, and between me and your seed.”
He adds to these things that Christ himself also said that the law must be kept, at one time saying: “I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill,” and at another time again: “Whoever shall loosen one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Since, therefore, he says, he certainly commanded the law to be kept and has imposed penalties on those who transgress even one commandment, you, who have transgressed all of them at once, what way of defense will you find? For either Jesus will be a liar, he says, or you are certainly not observers of the law.
He accuses us, moreover, because we neither keep the Sabbaths, nor indeed sacrifice the lamb after the manner of the Jews, nor eat unleavened bread with it; and he says that there is but one excuse left for our C refraining from this, namely, that it is not permitted for those who are outside of Jerusalem to sacrifice.
And all these things have indeed been said by him in many words. We, however, having brought together the meanings of the things said, have freed the discourse from superfluous and useless quibbling. It is necessary, I think, that we should oppose the truth to each of the chilling arguments of his, and show again that the Christian cause is being mocked by him in vain.
CYRIL. D That carnal circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the faith which is in uncircumcision, the divine Paul has said. For it was his purpose to cast down the haughty pride of the Jews, and moreover to show that the justification in faith is older than the instruction in the law, which justification he says Abraham very well attained, not while he was in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. But even if, with the singular skill in which he excels, he carried the matter of circumcision over to this, yet he knows that it itself was also an image of an intellectual reality. “For he is not a Jew who is one in the open, nor is that circumcision which is in the open, in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one in secret, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God.” Come, let us examine, if you please, what kind of reason that carnal circumcision will have when we have removed its mystical sense. For how, since it was better for those who were
A men to have the organ of the body destined for procreation in the form of circumcision, and foreskin has been condemned by God, why did He not rather fashion it thus from the beginning, according to what seemed good to Him? And there is another line of reasoning: in human bodies that are not afflicted by disease, there is nothing at all to be seen that is either superfluous or lacking; everything is perfect, most useful, and necessary to nature. So that, by my own judgment, they would not even be correct if all the things that are naturally born with them were not present. Did the Creator, therefore, fail in what is useful and proper, and did He err only regarding the human body, even though He fashioned all the rest of creation in a perfect and blameless state, suited to everything, as God? B What then is the utility of being circumcised? Or perhaps some will propose that common and ridiculous argument which they say the more ignorant of the Jews and the worshippers of idols have on their tongues? For they say that, in order for the body to be seen free from defilements and natural filth, it is necessary that the member be stripped of those natural coverings. But I would say that they sin most greatly when they rebuke nature, which possesses nothing out of place or beyond need, but rather decently and honestly covers even that which is thought to be in some way shameful. Yet, if they are steadfastly fleeing carnal impurities, how do they endure the flesh, and those things which come from the flesh, and the source itself—hidden within—of the begetting of children? For it would be better for them to boldly attack the sources of impurity themselves than to injure the passages through which it comes by means of incisions. But the nature of the body does not defile the soul, even if it proceeds according to its own C laws. It is trivial, therefore, as Julian says, to be circumcised for the sake of carnal filth. What, then, is the meaning of that circumcision? Someone, I think, might ask. A good and useful thing, my friend, if it be believed to be a type of an intellectual reality. For it hints at the casting off of the wicked lusts and pleasures that weigh upon the human mind, which He works in us through the Holy Spirit. For countless pleasures deceive the human mind, driving it on one hand toward love of the flesh, and on the other toward soft and vain delights, toward monstrous greed, toward insane pride, and—to say it in one word—toward every kind of wicked thing which the divine law itself has also condemned. From all these, the grace of the Holy Spirit delivers us, dwelling in the mind and, as it were, scraping away every kind of impurity. This is the circumcision most pleasing to God. D Hence the prophet Jeremiah, speaking to the crowds of the Jews who cared little for the need to fulfill the matters ordained by law, addressed them, saying: "Be circumcised to God, and circumcise the hardness of your heart, O men of Judah, and those who inhabit Jerusalem." Wherefore let no one doubt that if anyone is entirely delivered from the perturbations of the soul, such a one is circumcised to God much more than he who is circumcised merely in the flesh: which surely, since God could not endure it to be done by the Israelites generally, He vehemently rebukes them, saying: "All the nations are uncircumcised in flesh, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in their hearts." Also somewhere else by the voice of Jeremiah: "To whom shall I speak..."
and testify, and he shall hear? Behold, their ears are uncircumcised, and they are not able to hear." Moreover, the divinely-inspired Stephen, while reproaching them for their callousness and hardness of hearing, says: "Uncircumcised in your ears and hearts." Most excellently, therefore, the learned Paul said: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." But since it is always somehow his habit to slander, and to weave malice against those who choose to think rightly, he takes A occasion and says:
JULIAN. "Circumcision shall be in your flesh," he says. Having neglected this, "We are circumcised in our hearts," they say. Entirely so! For there is no rogue among you, no wicked person; so perfectly are your hearts circumcised. Very well. "We cannot keep the unleavened bread, and celebrate the pascha," they say. "For Christ was once sacrificed for us: and then, he forbade eating leavened bread." And yet, by the gods, I am one of those who shrink from celebrating festivals with the Jews, always worshipping the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who were themselves Chaldeans, of a sacred and priestly race; although they learned circumcision, having stayed among the Egyptians, yet they worshipped the God who was gracious to me and to those who, like Abraham, worshipped him—he who is very great and powerful, but not at all well-disposed toward you. For you do not imitate Abraham, neither by raising altars to him, nor by building shrines, nor by worshipping C as he did with sacred rites.
CYRIL. Is it then, my good man, that the best of things will be blamed by you because some have not used them rightly? Can any other good be equaled or compared to the spiritual circumcision? Will you therefore pronounce it evil, which possesses so much utility and splendor in itself? Does it seem to you to be empty and worthy of blame—that which rids us of all uncleanness? But, he says, "There are very many rogues and wicked people among you." And yet, how could this accusation rightly belong to the circumcision, and not rather to those who are accustomed to live ungratefully? For do you not say that for all people on earth the benefit of medical art is most useful and necessary, taming the savageness of the passions? Yet the artisan of these things grants the aid to those who are sick; but those who abandon themselves to the intemperance of their appetites are driven toward what is harmful and therefore fight against the art, so that it may even seem that a remedy which would otherwise bring salvation is useless. Shall we, then, if we have a right and equitable mind, condemn the medical art as empty, or shall we lay the blame for the lack of healing upon those who have fought against it? For the art was capable of aiding those who are suffering, but they, being conquered by their own pleasures, have missed the fruits of the art. Why, therefore, divinitus
divinely given circumcision in the Spirit, if indeed any of those among us who perform the godly way of life in a way not like this, render useless to their own heads that which is so much desired and prayed for, and worthy of the gift from above? The Israelites slaughtered the lamb and ate unleavened bread upon it, according to what seemed to be the ancient law; but, as I said, the spiritual realities were written in shadows for the ancients: the truth has shone forth. For Christ A has been sacrificed for us, the true lamb, the truly unblemished and spotless victim. We have retreated from the types, perhaps because the time calls for this. We have made a most pure meal, I mean, one from the evangelical mandates, and we have considered it worth the effort to flee in a spiritual sense from all leaven, that is, from diabolical wickedness, in our zeal and our discourse. Therefore, as I said, we have ceased from the types, but we fulfill the true worship. For: "Christ is the end of the law and the prophets," who will not lie when He says: "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." And again: "I tell you, not one iota or one stroke will pass away from the law until everything happens." For just as when a variety of colors is opportunely applied over the shadows pre-sketched on panels, it does not at all remove them, but rather makes them clearer, in the same way we say that the shadows B of the law have not been entirely removed, but rather have been perfected as in a progression toward the truth; and when they were pregnant with its glory, they arrived at that time when Christ shone forth. Therefore, if we do not rely on types, nor occupy ourselves in celebrating feast days according to the Jewish rite, let not this be for us a matter of charge and reproach, since our affairs have advanced for the better. But if he is indignant at this and considers the progression of things to a better state as something to be censured, it would be possible in the same way to unjustifiably condemn all things relating to life that have progressed for the better; and that this is true will be apparent to anyone who weighs individual cases. Moreover, so that he may appear endowed with extraordinary piety, he pretends and professes to worship the God of Abraham, and declares Him to be great and powerful, C perhaps even saying that He is one of the particular gods who are worshipped in certain places and regions, whom he everywhere calls "city-protectors" and indeed "national leaders." Most craftily, therefore, he seems to me to take refuge in a show of piety toward Him, not believing that God is one, naturally and solely, and supreme over all, but placing Him among his own gods. But he reproaches us again because we do not sacrifice by raising altars to God as the divine Abraham did. He says, in fact, that we do not imitate him, in no way bringing into his mind that we have achieved a true and necessary resemblance to his ways. For when we were in uncircumcision, just as he was, we believed in God and were justified; for it is written: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." D We have also been counted among his sons, and we have undertaken to imitate him. Indeed, we sacrifice even better now than he did then. For in the time of the types, the types flourished,
A but now that the truth has been revealed, it is necessary to hold to the true worship. Furthermore, he disparages the divine Abraham, and indeed he says:
JULIANUS. For Abraham used to sacrifice, just as we do, frequently and assiduously. He made use of the most excellent form of divination. Perhaps this too was Greek; he was very much devoted to augury: and he even had a reader of omens as the steward of his house. But if any of you does not believe this, I shall show you clearly what Moses declared concerning these things: "After these words, the word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision during the night, saying: 'Do not be afraid, Abraham; I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.' B Abraham says: 'Master, what will you give me? I am being dismissed childless, and the son of Masec, my house-born servant, will be my heir.' And immediately the voice of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This one will not be your heir, but he who will come forth from you, he will be your heir.' And He led him outside and said to him: 'Look up to the heaven and count the stars, if you can count them.' And He said: 'So shall your seed be.' And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Tell me here, I pray, why did the One who was giving the responses—whether it was an angel or God—lead him outside and show him the stars? For even while he was inside, did he not know C how great the multitude is of the stars that always appear and twinkle at night? But, I suppose, because He wished to show him the shooting stars, so that He might provide manifest faith in his words, to bring forward the decree of heaven, which rules and settles all things.
CYRIL. The divine Abraham was indeed a lover of sacrifice and very pious; but he did not perform his sacred rites according to the custom of the Greeks. For they bestowed honors upon unclean spirits, whereas he, though still in a typical way, and as if in the rudiments of the Jewish worship, yet eagerly dedicated himself to the natural and true God, and erected altars wherever he went. But perhaps he imagines that the man made use of divination, and that he curiously examined the courses of the stars, as if they occasionally signify something D necessary and inevitable. But this charge is nothing but a piece of Greek lunacy, a childish toy, a vain imposture, and nothing more. The most wise Abraham, however, made use of no such art in any way. As for what I say, anyone will be able to perceive it even from the simplicity of the Holy Scriptures. For the old man, having advanced to old age, was mourning his childlessness, even though he had a baseborn son, Ishmael. But the all-powerful God promised him the fruits of legitimate offspring, who would rival the stars and grow into a multitude beyond count. For He showed him the stars, saying: "So shall your seed be." It is possible, therefore, to see, if one is willing, that these were to express
A to serve as a clear example of a multitude beyond count; for nowhere is it said that he observed the stars as they darted by, or—which is what the promise implies—that he understood them as they rushed along in their courses, or that he discerned, in their local movements, anything of those things that are hidden in God. For what if he was called to see them, so that it might be said to him in a timely and appropriate way: "So shall your seed be"? But this excellent fellow, wishing to give the force of truth to what he has suspects rashly, says: "But he wanted, I believe, to show him the shooting stars, so that he might produce, for the manifest proof of his words, the decree of heaven, which rules and makes firm all things." Quite so! For nothing of things to come is hidden from you, who have been thoroughly taught about the shooting stars and the decree of heaven by which all things are ruled. Do you see these people, B who have the workshops of deceit and the shops of lies? These men, always gazing with a kind of wonder at the shooting stars, sometimes proclaim the mysteries in heaven for the sake of the most meager coins; and by snatching up gullible women and bewitching the minds of the simple folk, they fill their purses; or rather, by pilfering tiny little gains, they gather wages for such frigid tales of portents, even though, as the enemy of the truth says, they perceive, from the motion of the stars, the decree of heaven by which all things are made firm. But they will be found to be impostors and liars, and utterly ignorant of the truth. "For who has known the mind of the Lord?" as it is written. We say, however, that the choir of the stars was made by Him, not endowed with the prerogative of the holy prophets, nor for any other uses than that they should shine for men, and be for signs of the times. For the sacred Scripture proves this authority. Therefore, he clamors in vain and C prattles rashly when he says that Abraham used astronomical divination. For we do not say that the shooting stars were shown to him, but their multitude. "For so," he says, "shall your seed be." Furthermore, he says that he practiced augury, having written such things as these:
JULIANUS
But lest anyone think such an interpretation is forced, I will substantiate it by setting forth the things that follow immediately thereafter. For it is written next: "And He said to him: I am the Lord who brought you out of the land of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it. And he said: Master Lord, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And He said to him: Take for me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a pigeon. And he took for himself all these, and divided them in the midst: and set them one against another; but the birds he divided not. And the birds came down upon the carcasses, and Abraham sat with them." D Observe the prediction of Him who appeared—whether He was an angel or God—being established by means of augury, not, as you suppose, as a side issue,
A but by sacrifices, the divination having been performed. He says, moreover, that by the flight of birds He showed the promise to be firm. And he approves the faith of Abraham, adding that, without truth, faith appears to be a sort of foolishness and madness; but that truth does not consist in a bare word, but it is necessary that a clear sign should also accompany the words, which will confirm the prediction made regarding the future.
CYRIL.
Again, in these passages, the faith of the B sacred Scriptures has been adulterated by him. For he transfers their power and meaning to his own mind and to an opinion which—I know not how—he has rashly and alone conceived. And yet I affirm that the same thing happens to him that often befalls those who fix their eyes on passing clouds. For those who are accustomed to doing this think that they see, at times, certain centaurs, and lions, and even men, since the mind shapes for them the things named, and as it were signifies in shadows things that have no existence at all. But I think that the sense of the divine Scripture ought to be clearly set forth to the hearers. For in this way, how cold and vain he is will again be manifest to all. For God, the Lord of all, promised to grant to Abraham the land, which was soon to be filled and inhabited by his seed. But since the magnitude of the promise C seemed in some way to surpass hope (for things that are unhoped-for are also not easily believed), seeking a sign, he added: "Lord, whereby shall I know this?" And yet, God speaking, it did not at all befit that old man to doubt. But since he was still at the beginnings of faith, God accommodates Himself to him; and establishing the stability and firmness of piety in him, and bestowing, out of His own exceeding clemency, remedies for the pusillanimity of one who was struggling, He wished to confirm the promise by an oath. But it was a custom among the Chaldeans to make the most binding oaths by passing through the midst of divided victims, and it was sanctioned by their native laws. This He commands him to do, saying: "Take me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a pigeon." The D divine Abraham, being by no means ignorant of this matter, although God commanded him to take only the things mentioned, yet adding the rest himself, as was the custom in the ratifying of covenants, dividing the slaughtered victims in two, he placed them on either side, as if God were about to pass through the midst immediately. One may see, even to this day, such oaths taken among the barbarians, or even among some of the ancients. Sophocles, at any rate, in the *Antigone*, has introduced one of the guards who had been ordered to watch the body of Polynices, speaking thus to the king who governed the power of the Thebans (this was Creon):
We were ready, even to take up red-hot iron in our hands, And to walk through fire, and to swear by the gods. For by passing through the midst of fire and taking the red-hot iron in their hands, they used to confirm their oaths. 360
A And so, as I said, the God of all accommodates Himself to the small-mindedness of the elder, and in a way consistent with the practices of the Chaldeans, He devised the oath in a providential manner. For it is written that, when the sun was setting, lamps of fire passed through the midst of the pieces. But the divine and immaculate nature was again represented in the form of fire; and the adversary has remained silent about this, fearing, I suppose, the refutation. We have usefully demonstrated, however, that the cloven victims were taken rather for the need of the oath, and not, as he says, that they had a place among the types of sacrifices in divination. But if the most loathsome birds, which are accustomed to feed on flesh, flew down upon the sacrifices, and Abraham drove them away, what is the marvel, my good man? For it was not fitting that the things which had been taken for the need of an oath should be subjected to the injuries of dire birds, and that too when the oaths had not yet been fulfilled.
But regarding what Julian says, that faith devoid of truth seems to be a kind of madness and stupidity; we answer: Certainly, good sir, that which is perceived by faith ought not to be curiously scrutinized. For that which is still being scrutinized, how can it any longer be believed? Nevertheless, truth has followed upon faith; for it was not better for the oath that the small and profane birds should fly down upon the sacrifices, but faith was more established, having the security of the oaths as an accompaniment. B He also claims that the servant was a diviner, having been led to this opinion by a certain event of this kind. For the divine Abraham had one certain steward among his household, and he ordered him to seek a bride for Isaac in Mesopotamia, and a wife from his own kindred. And he, wishing to carry out what was commanded, having set out by the nod of his master to Charran (for this city was the first of Abraham), poured forth prayers, and besought God to assist him in this matter. For he knew very well that his master was especially hospitable and kind toward strangers: and he was seeking for him a maiden of the same character and very generous, lest, if she should be found to be of a dissimilar disposition, she might hinder the glory of his master. C Another reason can also be offered. Servants desire for themselves a mistress who is kind, good, and generous; but they flee from and hate one who is stingy and malicious. Since, however, it belongs to the one supreme God to know the hearts, he prayed to Him repeatedly that He might show him a virgin who was good and hospitable, and very similar to the character of his master. Therefore, he asked that she whom he was seeking might be the one who would most generously give him drink when he asked for it. For from this he could in a certain way conjecture the character of the maiden, and take that as a kind of earnest of his hope. Therefore, He who knows hearts and reins showed him the maiden. Wherefore let him not call him a diviner, who by prayers asked to have shown to him by God the maiden who was of one mind with his master, I mean with Abraham and with D
to the child born of him, since even now we, if we are indeed A sharp-witted and beloved of God, strive in every matter to make the One who possesses supreme authority over all things our helper and guide, and we seek from Him the way for each of our actions. And one could not say that we do this to engage in symbolic divination, but rather [it is] a commendation of our piety toward God. Yet he says that even for him the cries of birds were given, teaching him that he would sit upon the royal B throne. O his most wise prophets! Did they—perhaps the cries of magpies or blackbirds, or, I shall add, of stone-curlews (for the bird is indeed the most garrulous of all)—predict for him matters so august and so exceptional? But let the flocks of birds chirp what they will to those who have chosen to hold the same opinions as he. For error is always, in a way, dear to them. But we, bidding the birds that fly over our heads a long farewell, attribute the knowledge of all things to God, who possesses supreme authority over all, and we proclaim Him alone to be King and Lord of heaven and earth, the Creator of visible and invisible things, both those perceived by the senses and those perceived by the intellect. For He brought forth out of nothingness into existence the things that once did not exist, through the Son, through whom, and with whom, glory [be] to God and Father with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.
FRAGMENTS FROM THE REMAINDERS OF THE BOOKS OF ST. CYRIL AGAINST JULIAN WHICH ARE MISSING.
NOTICE.
(Ang. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, II, 488 et seq.)There exist ten books of Cyril against the emperor Julian; yet learned men, for instance Tillemont, Dupin, and Cellerier, have long observed that only the first of Julian’s books against the Christian faith has been refuted by Cyril in the aforementioned ten. To Spanheim also, in his Preface, it does not appear that Cyril put a finishing touch to his work. Furthermore, what of the fact that among ecclesiastical authors, and in the fragments cited by Cyril himself, certain things of Julian exist which, while requiring complete refutation, do not appear in the surviving ten books of Cyril? It remained, therefore, for us to believe either that Cyril did not complete his work, or that a portion of it had been lost. But in reality, John of Damascus in his *Parallels* cites books XII, XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII of Cyril against Julian. In our possession, however, in the book of Leontius and John on sacred matters, which we have long since edited, fragments are cited from the work of Cyril from book XI up to book XIX. Therefore, there were at least that many books of this work: it is surprising that these two writers on sacred matters cite the ten earlier ones once each, but the later ones once or twice. These small portions, therefore, of the remaining books of Cyril, which we lack, we shall present here, not without a Latin translation. Nor is it a wonder if they are almost nothing but apothegms or maxims; for this resulted from the plan of the compilers Leontius and John, who collected the titles of their gnomic work from suitable authorities.
C 30. Of the blessed Cyril from Book XI against Julian.
It is truly said that a presumptuous and disdainful man achieves nothing, beyond the utterance of the prophet. For presumption cuts off advancement, according to the common saying frequent in the mouths of many.
From the same book.
Presumption cuts off advancement. For when