Additional Fathers: Public-Domain Translations

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_pe_15_book15.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 15

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 15

BOOK XV

CONTENTS

I. Preface concerning the whole argument p 788 a

II. On the philosophy of Aristotle, and his personal history. From Aristocles the Peripatetic p 791 b

III. On the doctrines of Aristotle, who was at variance with the Hebrews and Plato concerning the final good p 793 d

IV. Atticus the Platonist against Aristotle, as at variance with Moses and Plato; in the discourse On the end p 794 c

V. The same against the same, as at variance with Moses and Plato; in the discourse On Providence p 798 c

VI. The same against the same, as at variance with Moses and Plato; in the discourse denying that the world was created p 801 b

VII. The same against the same, as assuming a fifth corporeal essence, which neither Moses nor Plato recognized p 804 b

VIII. The same against the same, as at variance with Plato also in his theories as to the heaven: matters about which Moses does not concern himself p 806 c

IX. The same against the same, as at variance with Plato and the Hebrew Scriptures also on the subject of the immortality of the soul p 808 d

X. Plotinus, from the second Book On the immortality of the soul, against Aristotle's assertion that the soul is an ' actuality' (εντελέχεια) p 811 b

XI. Porphyry on the same, from the answer to Boëthus On the soul p 812 d

XII. Against the same, as at variance with Plato in the argument Concerning the universal soul. From the same p 814 a

XIII. Against, the same; for ridiculing the Platonic Ideas, of which the Hebrew Scriptures also have already been shown not to be ignorant p 815 a

XIV. On the Stoic philosophy, and the account of First Principles as rendered by Zeno. From the seventh Book of Aristocles On philosophy p 816 d

XV. What kind of opinion the Stoics profess concerning God, and concerning the constitution of the universe. From Arius Didymus. p 817 b

XVI. Porphyry, against the opinion of the Stoics concerning God, from the answer to Boëthus On the soul. p 818 c

XVII. That true Being cannot be body, as the Stoics teach. From the first Book of Numenius On the good p 819 a

XVIII. What the Stoics think concerning the conflagration of the universe p 820 b

XIX. What the Stoics think concerning the regeneration of the universe p 820 d

XX. What the same sect think concerning the soul p 821 c

XXI. The disputation of Longinus against the opinion of the Stoics concerning the soul p 822 d

XXII. In answer to the Stoics, that the soul cannot possibly be corporeal From Plotinus On the soul, Book I p 824 a

XXIII. Opinions of the physical philosophers concerning the sun; from Plutarch p 836 a

XXIV. On the magnitude of the sun p 837 a

XXV. On the figure of the sun p 837 b

XXVI. On the moon p 837 c

XXVII. On the magnitude of the moon p 837 d

XXVIII. On the figure of the moon p 838 a

XXIX. On the illumination of the moon p 838 b

XXX. What is the substance of the planets and fixed stars p 838 d

XXXI. On the shapes of the stars p 839 c

XXXII. How the world was constituted p 839 d

XXXIII. Whether the All is one p 841 d

XXXIV. Whether the world has a soul, and is administered by Providence p 842 b

XXXV. Whether the world is imperishable p 842 d

XXXVI. From what source the world is sustained p 843 a

XXXVII. From what God first began to create the world p 843 b

XXXVIII. On the order of the world p 843 d

XXXIX. What is the cause of the cosmical obliquity p 844 b

XL. Concerning the outside of the world, whether it is a vacuum p 844 d

XLI. Which is the right and which the left side of the world p 845 a

XLII. Of the heaven, what is its substance p 845 b

XLIII. Of daemons and heroes p 845 c

XLIV. Of matter p 845 d

XLV. Of form p 846 a

XLVI. Of the order of the stars p 846 b

XLVII. Of the course and motion of the heavenly bodies p 846 d

XLVIII. Whence the stars derive their light p 847 b

XLIX. Of the so-called Dioscuri p 847 c

L. Of an eclipse of the sun p 847 d

LI. Of an eclipse of the moon p 848 b

LII. Of the appearance of the moon, and why it appears earthy p 848 d

LIII. Of its distances p 849 b

LIV. Of years p 849 c

LV. Of the earth p 849 d

LVI. Of the figure of the earth p 850 a

LVII. Of the position of the earth p 850 b

LVIII. Of the earth's motion p 850 c

LIX. Of the sea, how it was formed, and why it is salt p 851 a

LX. Of the parts of the soul p 851 d

LXI. Of the ruling part p 852 b

LXII. That even Socrates, the wisest of the Greeks, used to declare that those who boasted greatly of the Natural Science of the aforesaid matters were silly, as wasting time about things useless to life and incomprehensible p 853 c

PREFACE CONCERNING THE WHOLE SUBJECT

I THOUGHT it important in the beginning of the Preparation for the Gospel to refute the polytheistic error of all the nations, in order to commend and excuse our separation from them, which we have made with good reason and judgement.

Therefore before all else in the first three Books, I thoroughly examined not only the fables concerning their gods which have been turned into ridicule by their own theologians and poets, but also the solemn and secret physical theories of these latter, which have been transported by their grand philosophy high up to heaven and to the various parts of the world; although their theologians themselves declared that there was no need at all to talk gravely on these matters.

We must therefore carefully observe that the oldest of their theologians were proved on the highest testimony to have no special knowledge of the history, but to rely solely on the fables. Hence naturally in all cities and villages, according to the narratives of these ancient authors, initiatory rites and mysteries of the gods corresponding to the earlier mythical tales have been handed down by tradition; so that even to the present time the marriages of their gods and their procreation of children, their lamentations and their drunkenness, the wanderings of some, the amours of others, their anger, and their different disasters and adventures of all kinds, are traditionally received in accordance with the notices recorded by the most ancient authors, in their initiatory rites, and in their hymns, and in the songs composed in honour of their gods.

But nevertheless, as a work of supererogation, I also brought out to light the refinements of these later authors themselves which they had pompously exhibited in physical explanations, and the subtleties of the sophists and philosophers. Moreover, as to the account of the renowned oracles, and the false opinion concerning fate so celebrated among the multitude, these I laid bare by evidence as clear as day in other three books following next after the first three; and for the proof against them I made use not only of my own dialectic efforts, but also especially of the sayings of the Greek philosophers themselves.

Passing on thence to the oracles of the Hebrews, I showed, in the same number of books again, by what reasonings we accepted the dogmatic theology contained in them, and the universal history taught by them and confirmed by the testimony of the Greeks themselves.

Next in order I refuted the method of the Greeks, and clearly showed how they had been helped in all things by Barbarians, and that they bring forward no serious learning of their own, making also a comparative table of the times in which the celebrated Greeks and the Hebrew prophets lived. Again in the next three books I showed the agreement of the best-esteemed philosophers of the Greeks with the opinions of the Hebrews, and again made their own utterances my witnesses.

Moreover in the book preceding this I clearly detected those Greek philosophers who differ from our opinions as being at variance not with us only but also with their own countrymen, and as having been overthrown by their own disciples. Throughout all these discussions I show to my readers that the judgement of my own mind is impartial, and by the very facts and deeds, so to say, I have brought forward my proofs, that with no want of consideration, but with well-judged and sound reasoning, we have chosen the philosophy and religion of the Hebrews, which is both ancient and true, in preference to that of the Greeks, which result was also confirmed by the comparison of the statements of the Greeks.

As we have been deferring up to the present time our final discourse hereon, which is the fifteenth Book of the treatise in hand, we will now make up what is lacking to the discussions which we have travelled through, by still further dragging into light the solemn doctrines of the fine philosophy of the Greeks, and laying bare before the eyes of all the useless learning therein. And before all things we shall show that not from ignorance of the things which they admire, but from contempt of the unprofitable study therein we have cared very little for them, and devoted our own souls to the practice of things far better.

When therefore by God's help this book shall have received the seal of truth, my work on the Preparation shall here be brought to a close; and passing on to the more complete argument of the Demonstration of the Gospel, I shall connect the commencement of my second treatise with the consideration of the remaining charge brought against us.

Now the fault alleged against us was this, that though we honoured the oracles of the Hebrews above those of our own country, we did not emulate and choose a life like that of the Jews. Against that charge I shall, with the help of God, endeavour to make answer after the completion of my present discourse. For in this way I think that the second part being connected in one bond, as it were, with the first, will unite and complete the general purpose of the whole discussion.

As to our present task, however, in the preceding Books we have seen the philosophy of Plato sometimes agreeing with the doctrines of the Hebrews, and sometimes at variance with them, wherein it has been proved to disagree even with its own favourite dogmas: while as to the doctrines of the other philosophers, the physicists, as they are called, and those of the Platonic succession, and of Xenophanes and Parmenides, moreover of Pyrrho, and those who introduce the 'suspension of judgement,' and all the rest, whose opinions have been refuted in the preceding discourse, we have seen that they stand in opposition alike to the doctrines of the Hebrews and of Plato and to the truth itself, and moreover have received their refutation by means of their own weapons.

It is time then to look down, as it were, from a raised stage upon the other vain conceit of the Aristotelian and Stoic philosophers, and also to survey all the remaining physical systems of the supercilious tribe, that we may learn the grand doctrines taught among them, and on the other hand the objections urged against them by those of their own side.

For in this way our decision to withdraw from these also will be freed from all reasonable blame, for that we have preferred the truth and piety found among those who have been regarded as Barbarians to all the wisdom of the Greeks, not in ignorance of their fine doctrines, but by a well examined and thoroughly tested judgement.. To begin with Aristotle. Other authors, and among them philosophers not otherwise undistinguished, have defamed his personal life. But for my part I cannot willingly endure even to hear the man evil spoken of by his own friends. Wherefore I shall the rather set forth the defence urged on his behalf in the works of Aristocles the Peripatetic, who in his seventh book On Philosophy writes of him as follows:

CHAPTER II

[ARISTOCLES] ¹ 'FOR how is it possible that, as Epicurus says in his Epistle concerning moral habits, when a young man he squandered his patrimony, and afterwards, was forced into military service, and being unsuccessful in this had recourse to selling drugs, then, after Plato's walk had been thrown open to all, joined himself to him?

'Or how could any one accept what Timaeus of Tauromenium says in his Histories, that when advanced in years he kept the doors of an obscure surgery, or any others?

'Or who would believe what Aristoxenus the musician says in his Life of Plato? For he states that during his wandering and long absence from home certain strangers rose up against him and built a Peripatos in opposition to him. Some therefore think that he says this in reference to Aristotle, whereas Aristoxenus always speaks of Aristotle with reverence.

'One may also say with reason that the memoirs by Alexinus the Eristic are ridiculous. For he makes Alexander when a boy converse with his father Philip, and pour contempt upon Aristotle's doctrines, while approving Nicagoras, who was surnamed Hermes.

'Eubulides, also, in his book against Aristotle manifestly lies, first in bringing forward some frigid poems as written by others concerning his marriage and his intimacy with Hermias, and secondly in asserting that he offended Philip, and did not come to visit Plato when dying, and that he had corrupted his writings.

'As to the accusation of Demochares against the philosophers, why need we mention it? For he has reviled not Aristotle only, but all the rest as well. Moreover, any one glancing at the calumnies themselves would say that the man talks nonsense. For he says that there have been discovered letters of Aristotle against the Athenian state, and that he betrayed Stageira, his native city, to the Macedonians; and further, that, when Olynthus was destroyed, at the place where the booty was sold he pointed out to Philip the most wealthy of the Olynthians.

'Foolish also are the calumnies which have been brought against him by Cephisodorus, the disciple of Isocrates, saying that he was luxurious and a gourmand, and other things of this kind.

'But all are surpassed in folly.by the statements of Lycon, who says that he is himself a Pythagorean. For he affirms that Aristotle offered to his wife after death a sacrifice such as the Athenians offer to Demeter, and that he used to bathe in warm oil, and then sell it: and that when he was starting for Chalcis, the custom-house officers found in the vessel seventy-five brass plates.

'These are nearly all the chief detractors of Aristotle: of whom some lived at the same time with him, and others a little later, but all were Sophists, and Eristics, and Rhetoricians, whose very names and books are more dead than their bodies. As to those who came after them, and then repeated their statements, we may put them aside altogether, and especially those who have not even read their books, but invent for themselves, of which kind are those who say that he had three hundred dishes: for nobody could be found among his contemporaries, except Lycon, who has said any such thing about him. He, however, has said, as I mentioned before, that there were seventy-five plates found.

'But not only from the dates and from the persons who have reviled him might one infer that all the things that have been stated are false, but also from the fact that they do not all bring the same charges, but each says some things of his own: in which if there was any one word of truth, he deserved surely to have been put to death by his contemporaries not once only but ten thousand times.

'It is manifest therefore that it has happened to Aristotle, as to many others, to be envied by the Sophists of his time, both for his friendships with kings, and for his superiority in argument. But those who are right-minded must look not only to the detractors, but also to those who praise and emulate him: for these will be found much more in number and in worth.

'Now all the other stories are manifestly invented: but credit seems to be given to these two things for which some blame him; one, that he married Pythias, who was by birth the sister, and by adoption the daughter, of Hermias, to flatter him. For instance Theocritus of Chios wrote an epigram of this kind:²

"To Hermias, eunuch and Eubulus' slave,

This empty tomb by empty sage was rais'd,

Who left the groves of Academe, and dwelt

By Borborus' streams, his ravenous maw to fill."

'The other charge was that Aristotle was ungrateful to Plato.

'Now among many authors who have written of Hermias and Aristotle's friendship with him, the chief is Apellicon, and any one after reading his books will soon cease to speak evil of them.

'But with regard to his marriage to Pythias he has himself made sufficient defence in his Epistles to Antipater. For after the death of Hermias he married her because of his affection for him, she being also a modest and good woman, but in misfortune by reason of the calamities which had overtaken her brother.'

Then afterwards he says:

'But after the death of Pythias, the daughter of Hermias, Aristotle married Herpyllis of Stageira, by whom a son Nicomachus was born to him. And he, it is said, was brought up as an orphan by Theophrastus, and when a very young man was killed in war.'

But enough of these extracts from the aforesaid book of Aristocles: for it is time now to consider the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle.

CHAPTER III

WHEREAS Moses and the Hebrew prophets laid it down that the perfection of a happy life is the knowledge of the God of all the world and friendship with Him accomplished by piety, and taught that true piety is the pleasing God by every virtue (because this is the source of blessings, for all things depend on God only, and all are procured from Him for the friends of God), and whereas Plato gives definitions agreeing with these, and declares virtue to be the perfection of happiness, Aristotle took the other path, and says that no one can be happy otherwise than through bodily pleasure and abundance of outward means, without which even virtue cannot profit. How the friends of Plato opposed him and refuted the falseness of his opinion, we may learn from what follows: ³

CHAPTER IV

[ATTICUS] 'FOR whereas by the common judgement of philosophers Philosophy as a whole makes promise of human happiness, and is divided into three parts according to the distribution which makes up the universe, the Peripatetic will be seen to be so far from teaching herein any of the doctrines of Plato, that, though there are many who differ from Plato, he will himself be shown to be his strongest opponent.

'And in the first place he departed from Plato on the point of universal and chief importance by failing to keep the measure of happiness, and not admitting that for this virtue is sufficient; but having missed the power that is in virtue, he thought that it needed the goods of fortune, in order to gain happiness with their help; but if it were to be left by itself, he complained that it was a powerless thing incapable of attaining to happiness.

'Now this is not the time for showing how ignoble and mistaken was his opinion both on this and on the other points: but I think it is manifest, that whereas the object aimed at and the happiness are not equal nor identical according to Plato and according to Aristotle, but the one is ever crying aloud and proclaiming that the most righteous is the most happy man, while the other does not admit that happiness is a consequence of virtue, unless it be fortunate also in birth and beauty and other things, and so

"To war he came, decked, like a girl, with gold," ⁴

according to the difference of the end the philosophy leading thereto must also be different.

'For a man who walks only on one way which naturally leads to something that is petty and low, cannot reach to greater things that are set on high.

"See'st thou where yonder hill stands up aloft

Rugged with overhanging cliffs? There sits

The bird that lightly mocks thy feeble threat." ⁵

'Up to this lofty hill that shrewd and crafty beast is not able to ascend: but in order that the fox may come close to the eagle's brood, either they must meet with some ill luck and fall to the ground through the destruction of their own nest, or the fox herself must grow what it is not her nature to grow,

"and circle on light wings,"

and so soaring from the earth fly up to the lofty hill. But as long as each remains on his own level, there can be no communion between things of earth and the offspring of heaven.'

After other statements he adds:

'Since then this is the case, and since Plato's endeavour is to draw the souls of the youths upward to the divine, and in this manner he makes them the friends of virtue and of honour, and persuades them to despise all else, tell us, O Peripatetic, how wilt thou teach these things? How wilt thou guide the lovers of Plato to them? Where in thy sect is so lofty a height of argument as to acquire the spirit of the Aloadae and seek the path to heaven, which they thought might be made by piling up mountains, a thing which, as Plato says, is to be done by removing "the objects of human ambition." ⁶

'What help then canst thou give the young men towards this end? And whence find any argument as an active ally of virtue? From what letters of Aristotle? From whom of his followers? Out of what writings? I give thee leave even to forge, if thou wilt, only let it be something spirited. But in fact thou hast neither anything to say, nor would any of the leaders of thy sect permit thee.

'At all events the treatises of Aristotle on these subjects, entitled Eudemian and Nicomachian and the Great Ethics, have a petty, and low, and vulgar idea of virtue, and no better than an ordinary and uneducated man might have, or a lad, or a woman. For the diadem, so to speak, and the kingly sceptre, which virtue received from Zeus, and holds inalienable,

"For ne'er his promise shall deceive, or fail,

Or be recalled, if with a nod confirmed," ⁷

this they dare to take away from her.

'For they do not allow her to make men happy, but set her on a level with wealth, and glory, and birth, and health, and beauty, and all the other possessions which are common to vice. For as the presence of any whatsoever of these without virtue suffices not to render the possessor happy, so without these virtue, according to the same system, is not able to give happiness to its possessor.

'Is not then the dignity of virtue dethroned and cast down? Certainly: yet they say virtue is far superior to all the other good things. Of what avail is this? For they say also that health is better than wealth: but it is a fault common to all, that apart each from other they suffice not for happiness.

'If ever therefore any one, starting from these doctrines and this sect, should teach that he who seeks all that is good for man in the soul alone is happy, they say that he never mounts the wheel, nor could he who is oppressed by "misfortunes such as Priam's" ⁸ possibly be happy and blessed.

'But it is not unlikely that the possessor of virtue may fall into some such misfortunes. Hereupon it follows, that happiness neither results from every condition to the possessors of virtue, nor remains always with them if it does come.

"Of leaves one generation by the wind

Is scattered on the earth; but others soon

The teeming forest clothe....

So with our race, these nourish, those decay." ⁹

Thy similitude, O poet, is still narrow and timid:

"The Spring-tide comes again."

It is a long time that intervenes, and in which nothing grows. If thou would'st give an exact similitude of the mortality and decay of the human race, compare it with Aristotle's happiness. This springs up and passes away more lightly than the leaves, not continuing through the circling year, nor within the year, nor within a month, but in the very day, the very hour, it both springs up and perishes.

'And many are the causes which destroy it, and all of them results of chance: for there are the body's "various dooms," ¹⁰ and these are myriads, and there is poverty, and disgrace, and all things of this kind; and against none of these are dear virtue's resources sufficient of themselves to give help; for she is without strength to ward off misery or to preserve happiness.

'In what way then can any one who has been reared in these doctrines and delighted with them either himself assent to the teaching of Plato, or ever confirm others in it? For it is not possible that any one starting from these principles should accept those other Herculean and divine dogmas, that virtue is a strong and noble thing, and never fails to give happiness, nor is ever deprived of it: but though poverty and disease and infamy and tortures and pitch and the cross, yea, though all the disasters of tragedy come in together like a flood, still the righteous man is happy and blessed.¹¹

'In fact, as with the tongue of the most loud-voiced herald, he proclaims the most righteous man, just as some victorious athlete, saying that he is the happiest of all men, who reaps the fruit of happiness from righteousness itself. Distinguish then, if you will, and variously distribute good things in threefold, fourfold, or manifold order; for this is nothing to the point before us; you will never by them bring us near to Plato.

'For what, if among good things, some, as you say, are worthy of honour, as the gods; and some worthy to be praised, as the virtues; and some are powers, as riches and strength; and others are beneficial, as the healing arts? Or what, if you distribute them with less division, and say that of good things some are ends, and some are not ends, and call those ends, for the sake of which the others are taken, and not ends those which are taken for the sake of others?

'Or what, if one were taught, that some are absolutely good, and others not good for all? Or that some are goods of the soul, and others of the body, and others external? Or again, that of goods, some are powers, and others dispositions and habits, and others actions; and some ends, and some matter, and some instruments? And if one learn from thee to divide the good according to the ten categories, what are these lessons to the judgement of Plato?

'For as long as you on the one hand, either equivocally or as you please, speak of the good things of virtue, and combine with it certain other things as essential to happiness, thus robbing virtue of its sufficiency, while Plato on the other hand gets from virtue itself what is complete for happiness and seeks for the other things only as a superfluity, there can be on this point nothing common between you. You want one set of arguments, Plato's friends want others. 'For as

"Lions and men no safe alliance form,

Nor wolves and lambs in friendly mind agree," ¹²

so between Plato and Aristotle there is no friendship in regard to the very chief and paramount doctrine of happiness. For if they have no evil thoughts one towards the other, yet it is evident that their statements concerning what is important on this point are diametrically opposite.'

CHAPTER V

AGAIN, whereas Moses and the Hebrew prophets, and Plato moreover in agreement with them on this point, have very clearly treated the doctrine of the universal providence, Aristotle stays the divine power at the moon, and marks off the remaining portions of the world from God's government: and on this ground also he is refuted by the aforesaid author, who discusses the matter as follows: ¹³

'Whereas, further, the most important and essential of the things that contribute to happiness is the belief in providence, which more than aught else guides human life aright, unless at least we are to remain ignorant

"Whether by justice or by crooked wiles

Mankind from earth may scale the lofty height," ¹⁴

Plato makes all things connected with God, and dependent on God, for he says that "He, holding the beginning and the middle and the end of all things, passes onward in a straight course to the accomplishment of His purpose." ¹⁵ And again he says, that "He is good, and goodness can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, He makes all things as good as possible, bringing them out of disorder into order." ¹⁶ And while He cares for all things, and orders all as well as possible, He has taken thought for mankind also.'

And after a few words:

'Thus speaks Plato. But he who puts aside this divine nature, and cuts off the soul's hope of hereafter, and destroys reverence before superior Beings in the present life, what communion has he with Plato? Or how could he exhort men to what Plato desires, and confirm his sayings? For on the contrary he surely would appear as the helper and ally of those who wish to do injustice. For every one who is human and constrained by human desires, if he despise the gods and think they are nothing to him, inasmuch as in life he dwells far away from them, and after death exists no more, will come prepared to gratify his lusts.

'For it is not impossible to feel assurance of being undetected in wrong-doing, if indeed it be necessary to avoid detection by men: it is not necessary, however, on every occasion even to seek to avoid detection, where a man has power to overmaster those who have discovered him. So the disbelief in providence is a ready way to wrong-doing.

'For a very worthy person indeed is he, who after holding out pleasure to us as a good, and granting us security from the gods, still thinks to provide a plan to prevent wrong-doing. He acts like a physician who, having neglected to give help while the sick man was yet alive, attempts after death to devise certain contrivances for curing the dead man.

'In a similar manner to him the Peripatetic acts. For it is not so much the eagerness for the pleasure, as the disbelief that the deity cares, that encourages wrong-doing. What then, some one may say, do you put Aristotle in the same class with Epicurus?

'Why certainly, at least in relation to the point before us. For what difference does it make to us, whether you banish deity from the world and leave us no communion therewith, or shut up the gods in the world and remove them from all share in the affairs of earth? For in both cases the indifference of the gods towards men is equal, and equal also the security of wrong-doers from fear of the gods. And as to our deriving any benefit from them while they remain in heaven, in the first place this is common also to things without reason or life, and further, in this way, even according to Epicurus, men get help from the gods, 'They say, for instance, that the better emanations from them become the causes of great blessings to those who partake of them. But neither Epicurus nor Aristotle can rightly be reckoned on the side of providence. For if according to Epicurus providence disappears, although the gods according to him employ the utmost solicitude for the preservation of their own goods, so must providence disappear according to Aristotle also, even if the heavenly motions are arranged in a certain order and array.

'For we seek a providence that has an interest for us, and in such that man has no share who has admitted that neither daemons, nor heroes, nor any souls at all can live on hereafter.

'But therein Epicurus, in my judgement, seems to have acted more modestly: for as if he despaired of the gods being able to abstain from the care of mankind if they came in contact with them, he transferred them, as it were, to a foreign country, and settled them somewhere outside the world, excusing them from the charge of inhumanity by the removal, and by their separation from all things.

'But this our super-excellent discoverer of nature, and accurate judge of things divine, after putting human affairs under the very eyes of the gods yet left them uncared for and unregarded, being administered by some force of nature, and not by divine reason. Wherefore he himself cannot fairly escape that other charge which some imagine against Epicurus, that it was not according to his judgement, but through fear of men, that he allotted room in the universe to the gods, just like a spectator's place in a theatre.

'And they regard it as a proof of. the man's opinion, that he deprived the gods of their activity towards us, from which alone a just confidence in their existence was likely to be derived. For this same thing is done by Aristotle also; for by his both putting them far off and giving over the proof to sight only, an operation too feeble to judge of things at so great a distance, it may readily be thought that from shame he admits the existence of gods there.

'For as he neither left anything outside the world, nor gave his gods access to things on earth, he was compelled either to confess himself altogether an atheist, or to preserve the appearance of allowing gods to remain, by banishing his gods to some such place as that. But Epicurus, by excusing the higher powers from diligent care because of the want of communication, seems to throw a decent veil over his disbelief in the gods.'

Such are the remarks of Atticus against Aristotle's repudiation of the doctrine of providence. The same author further adds to what has been quoted the following remarks, aiming at the same philosopher's unwillingness to admit that the world was created.

CHAPTER VI

WHEREAS again Moses decided that the world was created, and set up God as Maker and Creator over the universe, and whereas Plato's philosophy taught the same doctrines as Moses, Aristotle, having travelled the contrary course on this point also, is refuted by the aforesaid author writing as follows word for word:

'In the first place then Plato speculating upon the origin of the world, and considering that every one must necessarily seek after this great and very beneficial doctrine of Providence, and having reasoned out the conclusion that the uncreated has no need either of a maker or of a guardian for its well-being, in order that he might not deprive the world of providence, denied that it was uncreated.

'And we pray that we may not at this point he opposed by those of our own household, who choose to think that according to Plato also the world is uncreated. For they are bound in justice to pardon us, if in reference to Plato's opinions we believe what he himself, being a Greek, has discoursed to us Greeks in clear and distinct language.

''For God," says he, "having found the whole visible world not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly manner, brought it out of disorder into order, because He thought that this was altogether better than the other." ¹⁷ And still more plainly he shows that he did not adopt creation in an enigmatic way, nor yet for need of clearness, in the discourse which he has made the Father of all hold upon this point after the creation of the universe.

"For," says he, "since ye have come into being, (and he is speaking to the gods) though ye are not altogether immortal nor indissoluble, nevertheless ye shall certainly not be dissolved, since ye have gained my will." ¹⁸

'But, as I was saying, with those who talk to us at home, as being our friends, we will discuss the matter in a friendly way and quietly with gentle arguments. For Aristotle seems to have brought them also over, as haying been unable to resist his attack upon the doctrine, and unwilling to impute to Plato what seemed to have been detected as a fallacy.

'But according to our hearing, whereas Plato claims for the world that it is the noblest work made by the noblest of Creators, and invests the Maker of all with a power by which He made the world which did not previously exist, and haying made it, will if He please preserve it ever in safety, and whereas according to him the world is in this way supposed to be created and imperishable, who among the Peripatetics gives us any confirmation of these doctrines?

'We must gently admonish their ally, that it is not absolutely necessary that whatever has been created must also perish, nor conversely that what will never perish must necessarily be uncreated. For we must neither admit that the sole cause of the imperishable is derived from its being uncreated, nor must we leave the passing of the created to destruction as admitting no remedy.

'Whence then are we to get any help on these points from the doctrines of Aristotle, a man who pursues the argument on these subjects, not indirectly, nor merely as stating his own opinion, but sets himself in direct opposition to Plato, and both brings the created under a necessity of perishing, and says that what is imperishable maintains its imperishable condition only from the fact of not having been created, nor even leaves any power in God, which He can use to do any good. For what has never existed before now, this, he says, never can come into existence.

'And so far is he from supporting Plato's doctrine by these statements, that he has ere now frightened some even of Plato's zealous disciples by what he said, and led them to reject his doctrine, because they were not able to perceive, that although, according to the nature of things alone without the will and power of God, neither the created is imperishable nor the imperishable created.

'Yet when one has established as the chief cause that which proceeds from God, one must take this as guide in all things, and show it to be a cause on no point inferior to any others. For it is ridiculous that, because a thing has come into existence, it must therefore perish, and yet not perish, if God so wills; ridiculous also that, because a thing is uncreated, it has strength to escape from perishing, and yet that the will of God is insufficient to keep any created thing from perishing.

'The builder is able to set up a house not yet existent, and a man can make a statue not previously existent, and another frames a ship out of unwrought timber and gives it over to those who want it, and all the other artificers, who pursue the constructive arts, have this power to bring some non-existent thing into existence; and shall the universal King and Chief Artificer not so much as share the power of a human artificer, but be left by us without any share in creation? Not so, if at least we be able in any small degree to form an estimate of a divine cause.

'But though competent to create and to will what is excellent, (for He is good, and the good feels no envy about anything), is He yet unable to preserve and guard what He has made? ¹⁹ Yet surely even the other artificers are competent to do both. The builder, for instance, and the shipwright not only build new ships and houses, but are able also to repair those which are wearing away from time, substituting in them other parts in place of those which have been damaged.

'So that surely so much as this must be conceded to God also. For how can He who is able to make a whole thing be unable to make it in part? So then why need it be made new, if one who is a maker in general is also to preserve his beautiful work against every accident? For to be willing to undo what was well made is the part of an evil one.

'But there is no stronger bond for the preservation of things created than the will of God. Or, while many things which shared in the zeal and will of man, as nations and cities and works, after existing an enormous time still remain when he who willed them is no more, shall the things which have had a share in God's purpose, and have been made for Him and by Him,----shall these then pass away and no longer remain while their Maker is still present?

'What cause can have done violence to the purpose of God? Can it be the necessity proceeding from the things created themselves? But this by accepting the orderly arrangement confessed itself overcome by God. But can it be some cause from without acting in antagonism to God? Yet neither does any such cause exist, nor is it right to make God inferior to any in matters in which He has before prevailed and made order, unless indeed we altogether forget that we are discoursing about the greatest and most divine power.

'But enough, for perhaps we are carried away by zeal into this argument concerning the truth. One thing is plain which we set forth, that they can be no teachers concerning the creation of the world who do not allow it any creation at all.'

Further, concerning the fifth essence in bodies introduced by Aristotle we must quote the following statements:

CHAPTER VII

'For instance, with regard to the so-called elements, which are the primary constituents of bodies, Plato, like those before him, following the clear evidence concerning them, said that they were these four which are generally acknowledged, namely, fire, earth, air, and water, and that all other things are produced from their combinations and changes. But Aristotle, as it seems, hoped to appear extraordinarily wise, if he could add another body, and counted in with the four visible bodies the fifth essence: and he thus made a very brilliant and bountiful use of nature, but failed to observe that in physical inquiry one must not lay down laws, but search out nature's own facts.

'To the proof then that the primary natures of bodies are four, which is what the Platonists want, the Peripatetic would not only give no help, but would even be almost its only opponent. For instance, when we say that every body is either hot or cold, or moist or dry, or soft or hard, or light or heavy, or rare or dense, and when we find that there can be nothing else to partake of any of these conditions besides the four elements,----for if anything is hot, it is either fire or air; and if cold, either water or earth; and if dry, fire or earth; and if moist, water or air; and if soft, air or fire; and if hard, water or earth; and light and rare, as for instance, fire and air; and heavy and dense, as water and earth; ----and when from all the other simple forces we perceive that there cannot be any other body besides these, this man alone opposes us, asserting that there can be a body which partakes not of these, a body, that is, neither heavy nor light, neither soft nor hard, neither moist nor dry, almost calling it a body that is not a body. For though he has left it the name, he has taken away all the forces by means of which it naturally becomes a body.

'Either, therefore, he will withdraw us from Plato's opinion by persuading us of his own statements, or by confirming those of Plato he will himself withdraw from his own opinions. So that in no way is he of any use in regard to Plato's doctrines.

'Further, Plato will have it that all bodies, inasmuch as they are regarded as formed upon one similar kind of matter, turn and change one into another. But Aristotle claims absolutely an essence in all other things which is impassible, and imperishable, and unchangeable, lest forsooth he should seem to be the inventor of something contemptible: yet he says nothing at all extraordinary and original, but transfers Plato's fine intuitions in other matters to such as are unsuitable, just like some of the more modern sculptors.

'For they too, when they have copied the head of one statue, and the breast of another, and the waist of another, sometimes put together things which do not suit each other, and persuade themselves that they have made something original: and indeed the whole, which any one would blame as being unsymmetrical, is their own; but the contributions which are brought together in it, and have some beauty, are not theirs.

'In like manner also Aristotle hearing from Plato that there is a certain essence intelligible in itself abstractedly, and incorporeal colourless and intangible, neither coming into being, nor perishing, nor turning, nor changing, but always existing in the same conditions and manner, and hearing again at another time of the things in heaven that being divine and imperishable and impassible they are yet bodies, he combined out of both and stuck together things not at all congruous: for from the one he took the property of body, and from the others the property of impassibility, and so framed an impassible body.

'In the case then of the statues, even if the combination of the different parts was not beautiful, it was at least not impossible to be made. For instance, even Homer shows us such combinations, for he says,

"In eyes and head

Like Zeus the Lord of thunder, with the girth

Of Ares, and Poseidon's brawny chest." ²⁰

But the body could never be impassible: for being combined with a passible and changeable nature, it must necessarily suffer with its yokefellow. And if there were anything impassible, it must be separated and free from that which suffers; so that it would be without the matter, and when separated from that it must necessarily be acknowledged to be incorporeal.'

Further, let us give our attention to these other points in which he proves that Aristotle is at variance with Plato. ²¹

CHAPTER VIII

'THEN these are followed by many points in which they are at variance. For the one says that the things in heaven have most of their character from fire, while the other says that the heavenly bodies have nothing to do with fire.²² And Plato says that God kindled light in the second circle from the earth in order that it might as much as possible illumine the whole heaven, such being his declaration concerning the sun.²³ But the other, not willing that the sun should be fire, and knowing that light is pure fire, or something of fire, does not allow that light is kindled round the sun.

'Further, the one, attributing formal immortality to all the heavenly bodies, says that there take place certain secretions from them and equivalent accessions; and he is compelled to say this, in regard to the secretions, by the rays of the sun and the heat produced in the efflux from him; and, in regard to the accessions, by the equality in his apparent magnitude: for the bodies would not appear equal if they received nothing in place of what they emit: 'but Aristotle maintains that they continue altogether the same in substance, without either any secretion from them or any accretion.

'Further, the one, in addition to the common motion of the heavenly bodies, in which all move in the spheres to which they are confined, both the fixed stars and the planets, gives them another motion also, which indeed happens to be otherwise most admirable, and congenial to the nature of their body; for as they are spherical, naturally each would have a spherical motion of rotation: but the other deprives them of this motion also, which they perform as liviag beings, and leaves them only the motion which results from other bodies surrounding them, as if they were without life.

'Moreover he says that the appearance presented to us by the stars as if they were in motion is an affection of the feebleness and quivering, as it were, of our sight, and is not a reality: as if Plato derived his belief in their motion from this appearance, and not from the reason which teaches that as each of these is a living being, and has both soul and body, it must necessarily have its own proper motion (for every body whose motion is from without is lifeless, but that which is moved from within and of itself is animated); and when moved, as being divine, it must move with the most beautiful motion, and since motion in a circle is the most beautiful, it must move in this way.

'And the truth of the sensation would be in part confirmed by the testimony of reason; it was not, however, this sensation that caused the belief in the motion. With regard to the motion of the whole, he could not contradict Plato's assertion that it takes place in a circle, for he was overpowered by the clear evidence: yet here also this fine invention of the new body gave him room for dissent.

'For whereas Plato attributed the circular motion to the soul, inasmuch as there were four bodies and all naturally moved in a simple and straight course, fire towards the outside, and earth towards the centre, and the others towards the intervening space, Aristotle, as assigning a different motion to each different body, so also assigned the circular as a sort of bodily motion to his fifth body, easily deceiving himself in all.

'For to bodies which move in a straight line their heaviness or lightness supplied a source of motion; but the fifth body, partaking neither of heaviness nor lightness, was rather a cause of immobility, and not of motion in a circle.

'For if to bodies that move in a straight line the cause of their motion is not their shape, but the inclination of their weight, a body, not only when placed in the centre of any like body, will have no inclination in any direction, but, also, when set in a circle round any kind of body whatever, will have no cause of inclination towards anything,

"Move they to right towards the rising sun,

Or move to left," ²⁴

whether forward or backward.

'Further, when other bodies have been thrust out of their proper places, the rebound towards these gives them a motion again of themselves; but as that fifth body never departs from its own localities, it ought to remain at rest.

'And with regard to the other bodies, when this fifth is put out of the question, it is evident that Aristotle out of contentiousness does not agree with Plato. For Plato had inquired whether body, is heavy by nature or light by nature, and, since it was evident that these terms are used according to the relation towards up and down, he had considered whether there is by nature any up and down or not, and had exactly shown that according to the affinities of the bodies to their places, the direction towards which they severally tended would be called "down," and the other direction from which each would draw back be called "up." And "heavy" and "light" he disposed according to the same relation, and further proved that neither their centre nor their circumference is rightly called "up" or "down." But Aristotle makes objection, thinking that he must overthrow the other's doctrines on every side, and urges us to call that which tends to the centre "heavy," and that which tends to the circumference "light," and the place in the centre he calls "down," and the circumference "up." '

Thus widely do they differ from each other in regard to the world, and its constituents, and the heavenly bodies. Such are the opinions of these two. But Moses and the oracles of the Hebrews trouble themselves about none of these things; and with good reason, because it was thought that those who busied themselves about these matters gained no benefit in regard to the right conduct of life.

CHAPTER IX

'Now concerning the soul what need we say? For this is evident not only to philosophers but also to nearly all ordinary persons, that Plato allows the soul to be immortal, and has written many discourses concerning this, showing in many various ways that the soul is immortal.

'Great also has been the emulation of the zealous followers of Plato's teaching in defence both of Plato and of his doctrine; for this is almost the one thing that holds his whole school together.

'For the hypothesis of his ethical doctrines was a consequence of the immortality of the soul, since it was through the divine nature of the soul that virtue was enabled to maintain its grandeur and lustre and high spirit; in nature also it was in consequence of the soul's direction that all things gained the possibility of being well ordered.

'"For soul," he says, "as a whole has the care of all soulless being, and traverses all heaven, appearing at different times in different forms." ²⁵

Moreover, science also and wisdom have been made by Plato dependent on the immortality of the soul. ²⁶ For all kinds of learning are recollections, and he thinks that in no other way can inquiry and learning, out of which science springs, be maintained.

'Now if the soul is not immortal, neither is recollection, and if not this, then neither learning. Whereas therefore all the doctrines of Plato are absolutely attached to and dependent on the divine nature of the soul and its immortality, he who does not admit this overthrows Plato's whole philosophy.

'Who then first attempted to oppose the proofs, and rob the soul of immortality and all its other power? Who else, I say, before Aristotle? For of the rest some allowed that it has a continued existence, and others, if not granting so much as this, yet assigned to the soul a certain power and movement and works and actions in the body.

'But the more Plato tried to magnify the importance of the soul, declaring it to be the beginning of creation, and the pupil of God, and the power presiding over all things, so much the more contentiously did Aristotle seek to destroy and to dishonour it, and prove the soul to be almost nothing.

'For he said that it was neither spirit, nor fire, nor body at all, nay, nor yet an incorporeal thing such as to be self-governed and to have motion, nor even so much as to be in the body without motion, and, so to say, soulless. For see how he ventured, or even was forced, so far as to rob the soul of its primary motions, deliberation, thought, expectation, remembrance, reasoning!

'For this secretary, as they say, of nature says that these are not movements of the soul. Surely this man may be quite trusted to have understood anything about the things outside him, who has made so great a mistake about his own soul, as not even to understand that it thinks! For it is not the soul, he says, but the man that performs each of these acts, while the soul is motionless.

'Dicaearchus therefore following him, and being able to discern the consequence, took away the whole substance of the soul. It is manifest indeed that the soul is a thing invisible and concealed, so that, through the clear evidence at least of our senses, we could not grant its existence: but though concealed, its motions seem to compel us to acknowledge that the soul is an existent thing.

'For almost every one seems to understand that the following are acts of the soul: to deliberate, to consider, and to think in any way whatever. For when we behold the body and its powers, and reflect that actions of this kind are not proper to the body, we grant the existence within us of something else which deliberates, and that this is the soul. Since from what other source came our belief concerning soul?

'If therefore any one take away these acts which are the chief evidences of the soul, and assign them to something else, he has neither left us any evidence of its existence, nor any purpose for which it would seem to be of use. What help therefore can he who would have the soul to be immortal derive from him that deals death to the soul? And what is the explanation of the manner of its motion, according to which we call it self-moved, to be obtained from those who attribute to it no motion at all?

'True; but in regard to the immortality of the mind some one may say that Aristotle agrees with Plato. For though he will not admit the whole soul to be immortal, yet he acknowledges the mind at least to be divine and imperishable. What therefore the mind is in its essence and its nature, whence it comes, and from what source it separates itself and enters into man's nature, and whither it departs again, himself alone may know; if at least he understands anything that he says about the mind, and is not avoiding the proof by wrapping up the difficulty of the matter in the obscurity of his language, and, just like the cuttle-fish, making it difficult to catch him by means of the darkness he creates. 'But even in these matters he is altogether at variance with Plato. For the one says that mind cannot subsist without a soul, while the other separates the mind from the soul. And immortality the one gives to it in partnership with the soul, as being otherwise impossible; but the other says that this survives in the mind alone when separated from the soul. And that the soul goes forth from the body he would not allow, because this thought pleased Plato: but he insisted that the mind is severed from the soul, because Plato judged such a thing as this impossible.'

These are the statements of Atticus: and I will add to them the views of Plotinus also, expressed in the following manner: ²⁷

CHAPTER X

[PLOTINUS] 'THE manner in which "entelecheia" is used in speaking of the soul may be considered in the following way. The soul, they say, holds in the combination the place of form, in relation to the body when alive as matter: but it is the form not of every body, nor of body as such, but as physical, organic, and potentially alive.

'If therefore it is like that with which it has been compared, it is as the form of a statue to the bronze: and if the body is divided, the soul must be divided into parts with it, and if any part is cut off from the body, a portion of the soul is with the part cut off; and the supposed withdrawal of the soul in sleep does not take place, since the entelechy must be inseparable from that to which it belongs; but in reality there is no such thing as sleep.

'Moreover if there is an entelechy, there can be no opposition between reason and desires, but the whole must be affected throughout in one and the same way, without any self-discord. But sensations may possibly exist only contingently, while perceptions cannot: wherefore they themselves also introduce the mind as another soul, and suppose it immortal.

'The reasoning soul therefore must be an entelechy, if we must use this term, in some other way than this. Nor will the sensitive soul, since this also retains the impressions of the sensible objects when absent, retain them without the body's aid: otherwise, they will be in it just like forms and images: but if they were therein in this manner, it would be impossible to receive them otherwise (than with the body's aid). Therefore, it is not an entelechy as being inseparable.

'Moreover that which desires not meats or drinks, but other than bodily things, is not itself an inseparable entelechy.

'Then there would remain the vegetative principle, which would seem to admit a doubt, whether it be in this way an inseparable entelechy. Yet even this seems not to be so. For if the beginning of every plant is at the root, and the rest of the body grows round the root and the lower parts in many plants, it is evident that the soul forsakes the other parts and is collected in some one: it is not then in the whole as an inseparable entelechy. For again, before the plant grows the soul is in a little germ: if therefore it both comes from a larger plant into a small germ, and from a small germ into a whole plant, what is to hinder its being also wholly separated? And how, being also indivisible can it become a divisible entelechy of a divisible body?

'Also the same soul from one animal becomes another: how then could the soul of the former become the soul of the next, if it were the entelechy of one? And this is evident from the animals which change into other animals. The soul then has not its existence from being the "form" of anything, but is an essence, not receiving its existence in consequence of its abode in a body, but existing before it belonged to this, so that in an animal the body will not generate the soul.

'What then is its essence? And if it is neither body, nor an affection of body, but action and production and many such things are both in it and from it, being an essence in addition to its bodies, what is its nature? Must it not manifestly be what we call real essence? For all that is bodily may be said to be generation but not substance, becoming and perishing, and never really being, but preserved by participation with being, so far as it may partake thereof.'

Now since we have related the opinions of Plotinus, it will not be out of place to observe what Porphyry also has said in his books against Boëthus On the Soul. ²⁸

CHAPTER XI

[PORPHYRY] 'IN answer to him who called the soul an entelechy, and supposed it, though utterly motionless, to be a cause of motion, we must ask what is the source of the strong excitements of the animal who understands nothing of what he sees and utters, though his soul discerns what is future and not yet present, and moves according to the same? Whence also in the constitution of the animal come the acts of the soul as of a living thing, acts of deliberation, inquiry, and will, which are movements of the soul and not of the body?'

Then presently he adds:

'To liken the soul to weight or bodily properties uniform and immovable, by which either the motion or the quality of the subject-matter is determined, was the part of a man who either willingly or unwillingly had utterly lost sight of the dignity of the soul, and had in no way discerned that by the presence of the soul the animal's body is made alive, as by the presence of fire the water placed close to it, though cold in itself, is made hot; and by the rising of the sun the air, which is dark without his shining, is made full of light.

'Yet neither was the heat of the water previously the fire nor the fire's heat; nor was the light of the atmosphere that light which is inherent in the sun: and in the same way the animation of the body, which seems like the weight or the quality in the body, is not that soul which was located in the body and through which also the body partook of a certain breath of life.'

Then afterwards he adds:

'So then all the other statements which others have made concerning the soul bring disgrace upon us. For must it not be a disgraceful doctrine which makes the soul the entelechy of the physical organic body? And is not that a shameful doctrine, which represents it as having somehow a breath or intelligent fire, kindled or quenched by the cooling, and, as it were, dipping in the air around it, and which makes it a collection of atoms, or represents it as wholly engendered of the body? '

This is what in The Laws the author represented as the impious doctrine of impious men.²⁹ All such statements then are full of shame: but, says he, no one would be ashamed for him who calls it a self-moved substance.

CHAPTER XII

[ATTICUS] 'FURTHER, when Plato says that the soul pervading all parts arranges all in order, and is that whereby the other philosophers would admit that all things are so arranged, and that nature is nothing else than soul, and evidently not an irrational soul, and when from this Plato gathers that all things take place according to providence, since they take place according to nature, in none of these opinions does Aristotle agree with us.

'For he does not admit that nature is soul, and earthly things ordered by one nature: for he says that for each several thing there are also different causes. For of the things in heaven which 'always remain in the same relations and conditions he supposes fate to be the cause: and of sublunary things, nature; and of human affairs, prudence, and forethought, and soul, showing indeed nicety in such distinctions, but not discerning the necessary truth.

'For if there were not some one animate power pervading the whole, and binding and holding all things together, the whole could not be either reasonably or beautifully arranged. It was a proof then of the same blindness, to hope that a city could ever continue in well-being without unity, and to believe that one could in argument preserve this universe in perfect beauty, such it appears, without having bound and compacted it together by participation in some one common principle.

'And something of this kind, he says, it is that arranges the several parts, such as to be a principle of motion, but he will not admit that this is soul; though Plato nevertheless shows that in all things that are moved the source and fountain of their motion is the soul. And that which would be the work of a rational and wise soul, to make nothing without a purpose, this he attributes to nature, but gives nature no share in the name of soul; as if things were derived not from powers but from names.'

CHAPTER XIII

'BUT the chief point and power of Plato's system, his theory of ideas, has been discredited, and abused, and insulted in every way, as far as it was in Aristotle's power. For as he was unable to conceive that things of a grand, divine, and transcendent nature require a certain kindred power for their recognition, and trusted to his own meagre and petty shrewdness, which was able to make its way through things terrestrial, and discern the truth in them, but was not capable of beholding the plain of absolute truth, he made himself the rule and judge of things above him,³⁰ and denied the existence of any peculiar natures such as Plato affirmed, but dared to call the highest of all realities triflings and chatterings and nonsense.

'Rather is the supreme and final speculation of Plato's philosophy that which treats of this intelligible and eternal being of the ideas, wherein verily the utmost toil and stress is set before the soul. For a most happy man is he, who has shared in the effort and attained the end, while he who has failed from want of power to obtain an insight is left without any share at all of happiness.

'And for this reason Plato too strives earnestly in every way to show the strength of these ideal natures. For he says that it is not possible either rightly to assign a cause of anything whatsoever, except by participation in the ideas, or to have knowledge of any truth except by reference to these: nay not even a particle of reason would any have, unless they should acknowledge the existence of these ideas.

'They again who have decided to maintain the doctrines of Plato lay the chief stress of their arguments on this point, and quite necessarily. For nothing is left of the Platonic system, if one will not grant them on Plato's behalf these primary and i principal natures. For it is in these that he is especially superior to all other men.

'For as he conceived God in relation to these ideas as Father of all, and Creator, and Lord, and Guardian; and as from men's works he recognized that the artist formed a previous conception of that which he was about to make, and then afterwards adapted the likeness to the conception thus formed in the case of the things made; in the same way therefore Plato comprehended at a glance that God's conceptions, the patterns of the things made, are earlier than the things themselves, being incorporeal and intelligible, ever existing in the same conditions and modes, themselves the highest and first beings, and in part the causes to all the rest of their being just such as they severally are, according to their likeness to them; and seeing that they are not easy to be discerned, nor yet able to be clearly expressed in speech, Plato himself treated of these subjects as far as it was possible to represent them in speech or thought, and to prepare those who were to follow after him; and having arranged his whole philosophy to this end, he asserts that with these ideas and the perception of them are concerned the wisdom and the science, whereby the proper end of man and the life of blessedness are attained.'

So far speaks Atticus. I might have quoted yet more than this from his book which I have mentioned: let us be satisfied, however, with what has been set forth, and pass on next to the sect of the Stoics. Among the hearers then of Socrates was one Antisthenes, a man like Heracleitus in spirit, who said that madness was better than pleasure, and therefore used to advise his friends never to stretch out a finger for the sake of pleasure.

And a disciple of his was Diogenes the 'dog,' who seemed to entertain most brutelike ideas, and attracted many followers. He was succeeded by Crates, and a disciple of Crates was Zeno of Cittium, who was established as founder of the sect of the Stoic philosophers.

Zeno was succeeded by Cleanthes, and Cleanthes by Chrysippus, and he by the second Zeno, and the rest in order. All these are said to have been especially devoted both to hard living and to dialectic. The doctrines then of their philosophy are somewhat as follows.

CHAPTER XIV

[ARISTOCLES] ³¹ 'THEY say, like Heracleitus, that the element of the existing world is fire, and that the original principles of fire are matter and god, as Plato says. But the former says that both principles, the active and the passive, are corporeal, while the latter says that the first active cause is incorporeal.

'Then, moreover, they say that at certain predestined and definite times the whole world is consumed by fire, and afterwards reorganized again. The primordial fire, however, is as it were just a seed, containing the reasons and the causes of all things past, present, and future: and that the combination and sequence of these constitute fate, and knowledge, and truth, and law of all being, from which there is no escape or avoidance. And in this way all things in the world are admirably arranged, just as in any well-ordered state.'

CHAPTER XV

[ARIUS DIDYMUS] 'THE whole ordered world (κόσμος) with all its parts they call god, and say that he is one alone, and finite, and living, and eternal, and god: for all bodies are contained in him, and in him there is no vacuum. For the name order (κόσμος) is applied to the quality of all substance as well as to that which has an arrangement of like kind consequent on the ordering (διακόσμηνσιν).

'Wherefore according to the former rendering they say that the world is eternal, but as to its orderly arrangement created and subject to change at infinite periods past and future.

'And the quality of all being is an eternal world and god; the name world (κόσμος) also means the system compounded of heaven, and the air, and earth, and sea, and the natures contained in them; and again the name world means the dwelling-place of gods and men, and of all things made for their sake.

'For in the same way as the name city has two meanings, the dwelling-place, and the system resulting from the combination of residents and citizens, so also the world is, as it were, a city composed of gods and men, in which the gods hold the rule, and the men are subject.

'There is, however, a community between them, because they partake of reason, which is nature's law: and for their sakes all other things have been made. From which things it follows that we must suppose that the god who administers the whole takes thought for mankind, being beneficent, and kind, and friendly to; man, and just, and possessed of all virtues.

'For this reason indeed the world is also called Zeus, since he is the cause of our life (ζῆν): and inasmuch as from eternity he administers all things unchangeably by connected (εἰρομένῳ) reason, he is also called Fate (εἱμαρμένην): and Adrasteia, because nothing can escape him (ἀποδιδράσκειν) and Providence, because, he arranges things severally for good.

'Cleanthes would have the sun to be the ruling power of the world, because it is the greatest of the heavenly bodies, and contributes most to the administration of the whole by making the day and the year and the other seasons.

'Some, however, of the sect thought that the earth was the ruling power of the world. But Chrysippus thought it was the ether, the clearest and purest as being most mobile of all things, and carrying round the whole course of the world.'

Let this extract then suffice from the Epitome of Arius Didymus. But with reference to the opinion of the Stoics concerning God it is sufficient to quote the words of Porphyry in the answer which he wrote to Boëthus On the Soul, in the form following: ³²

CHAPTER XVI

[PORPHYRY] 'THEY do not hesitate to call God an intelligent fire and allow Him to be eternal, and to say that He destroys and devours all things, being such a fire as that which is known to us, and to contradict Aristotle who deprecates saying that the ether consists of fire of this kind.

'But if they are asked how such a fire lasts so long, though they do not say that it is fire of another kind, yet after describing it as of such a nature, and claiming credence for their own assertion, they add on to this unreasonable belief that it is also an eternal fire, though they assume that even this etherial fire is partially quenched and rekindled. But why should one spend time in pursuing any further their blindness in regard to their own doctrines, and their indolence and contempt for the doctrines of the ancients?'

CHAPTER XVII

[NUMENIUS] ³³ 'BUT what then is "being "? Is it these four elements, earth and fire and the other two intermediate natures? Are then these the real beings, either collectively, or any one of them singly? But how can they be, since they are both created and destroyed again, for we may see them proceeding one out of another, and interchanging, and subsisting neither as elements nor as compounds? These cannot thus be a body with true being.

'But though not these, yet it is possible that matter may have true being? But for matter also this is utterly impossible, through want of power to continue. For matter is a running and swiftly changing stream, in depth, and breadth, and length undefined and endless.'

And presently he adds:

'So it is well stated in the argument that, if matter is infinite, it is undefined; and, if undefined, irrational; and, if irrational, it cannot be known. But as it cannot be known it must necessarily be without order, as things arranged in order must certainly be easy to be known: and what is without order, is not stable: and whatever is not stable cannot have true being.

'Now this was the very point on which we agreed among ourselves before, that it is not permissible for all these things to be associated with true being. I should wish this to be the opinion of all men, be it at all events mine. I deny, therefore, that either matter in itself, or material bodies are true being.

'What then? Have we any thing else besides these elements in the nature of the universe? Yes, certainly. And this is not at all a subtle thing to express, if we would together try to discuss the following point first in the case of ourselves.

'For since bodies are in their own nature inanimate and dead, carried hither and thither, and not abiding in one stay, have they not need of something to hold them together? Most certainly. And if they should fail to find this, would they continue? Certainly not. What is there then to hold them? If on the one hand this also were a body, I think that being liable to be dissolved and dispersed it would need a Zeus Soter to sustain it. If, however, it must be freed from what bodies suffer, in order that after they have been generated it may be able to avert their destruction, and hold them together, to me it seems that there is nothing else left, except only the incorporeal. For of all natures this alone is stable, and compact, and not at all corporeal. At all events it is neither created, nor increased, nor subject to any other kind of motion, and for these reasons the incorporeal was rightly judged worthy to take precedence.'

CHAPTER XVIII

[ARIUS DIDYMUS] 'But the oldest of this sect are of opinion that all things are changed into ether, when at certain very long periods all are resolved into an ethereal fire.'

And afterwards he adds:

'But from this it is manifest that Chrysippus has not accepted this confusion in reference to substance (for that was impossible), but only that which was meant as equivalent to change. For the term destruction is not properly understood of the great destruction of the world which takes place in long periods by those who hold the doctrine of the dissolution of the universe into fire, which they call conflagration, but they use the term destruction (fqora&n) as equivalent to change in the course of nature.

'For it is held by the Stoic philosophers that the universal substance changes into fire, as into a seed, and coming back again, from this completes its organization, such as it was before. And this is the doctrine which was accepted by the first and oldest leaders of the sect, Zeno, and Cleanthes, and Chrysippus. For the Zeno who was the disciple and successor of Chrysippus in the School is said to have doubted about the conflagration of the universe.'

CHAPTER XIX

'THE common reason having advanced so far, and a common nature having become greater and fuller, and having at last dried up all things and absorbed them into itself, finds itself in the universal substance, having gone back to the condition first mentioned, and to that resurrection which makes the Great Year, in which takes place the restitution from itself alone to itself again.

'And when it has returned, because of an arrangement such as that from which it began to make a similar organization, it according to reason follows the same course again, so that such periods go on from eternity and never cease. For it is not possible for all things to have a cause of their beginning, nor of that which administers them. For under things created there must lie a substance of a nature to receive all the changes, and the power that out of it created them. For as there is in our case a certain kind of creative nature, there must of necessity be something of the same kind in the world also, something uncreated, for there cannot be a beginning of creation in the case of this nature: and in the same way as it is uncreated, it is also impossible for it to be destroyed, either by itself, or by anything external that would destroy it.

CHAPTER XX

'THE seed, says Zeno, which man emits is breath combined with moisture, a portion and fragment of soul, and a blending of the parents' seed, and a concrete mixture of the various parts of the soul. For this, having the same laws as the universe, when emitted into the womb is caught up by another breath, and made a portion of the female's soul and grows into one with it, and being there stirred and kindled by it grows in secret, continually receiving additions to the moisture and increasing of itself.'

And a little further on he adds:

'With regard to the soul, Cleanthes, in setting forth the doctrines of Zeno for comparison with the other physicists, says that Zeno calls the soul an exhalation endowed with sensation, just as Heracleitus does. For wishing to make it clear that there is a perpetual production of intelligent souls by exhalation, he compared them to rivers, speaking as follows: "Though men step into the same rivers, the waters that from time to time flow over them are different": and souls likewise are exhaled from moisture.

'So then Zeno, like Heracleitus, represents the soul as an exhalation. And he says that it is sensitive for the reason that the ruling part is capable of being impressed through the senses from real and substantial objects, and receiving their impressions. For these are special properties of soul.'

After other remarks he adds:

'And they say that there is a soul in the universe, which they call ether, and air surrounding the laud and sea, and exhalations from them; and that to this soul are attached all the other souls, both those in animals, and those in the surrounding air; for the souls of the dead still continue.

'Some say that the soul of the universe is eternal, but that the others at death are absorbed into union with it: and that every soul has in it a certain ruling faculty, which is life, and sensation, and appetite.'

And a little further on he proceeds:

'They say that the soul is created and perishable, but does not perish immediately when freed from the body, but abides for some time by itself; the soul of the good until the resolution of all things into fire, but the soul of the foolish for certain periods of time.

'But the continued existence of souls they thus describe, that we ourselves on becoming souls continue to exist, having been separated from the body and changed into the smaller substance of the soul. But the souls of the foolish and of irrational animals perish together with their bodies.'

Such are the doctrines of the Stoic philosophy collected out of the Epitomae of Arius Didymus. But in answer to their absurd opinion about the soul, it is sufficient to quote the refutations briefly stated in the following words in Longinus, one of our own age: ³⁴

CHAPTER XXI

[LONGINUS] 'To speak briefly, it seems to me that all who represented the soul as a body have strayed, one after another, far away from right reasoning. For how is it at all admissible to assume that what is proper to the soul is similar to any of the elements? Or how refer it to the compounds and mixtures, which occurring in many ways are of a nature to generate forms of countless other bodies, in which, if not continuously, at all events at intervals one may see the cause of the elements, and the advance of the primary elements towards the secondary and tertiary compounds? But of properties pertaining to the soul not a trace nor a sign is found in bodies, not even if one should strive, like Epicurus and Chrysippus, to turn every stone, and examine every power of body for an origin of the functions of the soul.

'For what help would the subtilty of the breath give us for sensible presentations and reasonings? Or why has the shape of the atoms so great power above all else and such facility of change, as to beget wisdom, whenever it is mixed up in the moulding of another body? I think indeed that not even if one chanced to be one of Hephaestus' tripods and handmaidens, of whom the former, Homer says, went self-moved to the assembly,³⁵ and the latter helped their master in his work, and lacked none of the advantages which living beings possess, much less those of the fortuitous motes,... and on the other hand it is like the stones upon the sea-shore, in regard to being able to do anything remarkable towards producing sensation. For one might justly be indignant with Zeno and Cleanthes for arguing so very contemptuously about the soul, and saying both alike that the soul is an exhalation of the solid body. For what, in heaven's name, is there at all in common between an exhalation and a soul? And how is it possible for them, if they think that both our nature and that of other animals is like this, to be able to preserve either sensible presentations and remembrances permanently, or, on the other hand, instincts and desires of things conducive to understanding? Shall we then indeed degrade the gods also, and Him who pervades all things alike in earth and heaven, into an exhalation, and smoke, and such nonsense as this? And shall we not feel ashamed even towards the poets, who although they have not an exact understanding of the gods, nevertheless partly from the common conception of mankind, and partly from inspiration of the Muses, which is of a nature to stir them hereto, have spoken more honourably concerning them, and not called them exhalations, or airs, or breaths, and such nonsense?'

This is what Longinus tells you. But listen to Plotinus also, aiming against the same sect such remarks as follow: ³⁶

CHAPTER XXII

[PLOTINUS] 'Now whether each of us is immortal, or wholly perishes, or whether parts of him will pass into dissolution and destruction, while parts remain for ever, which are the man himself, this one may learn as follows, by examining it in the natural way.

'In the first place, man cannot be a simple thing, but he has in him a soul, and has also a body whether as our instrument, or as attached to us in any other way; at all events let them be thus distinguished, and let us examine closely the nature and essence of each.

'The body then, being itself compound, cannot, from the reason of the thing, be permanent; and our senses perceive it dissolving, and wasting, and suffering all kinds of decay, while each of the parts in it follows its own course, and one wastes another away, and changes into another, and destroys it; and this especially when the soul, which harmonizes them, is not present with the atoms.

'And even if each be isolated in coming into existence, it is not one, since it admits of separation into form and matter, of which even simple bodies must be constituted; moreover having also magnitude, inasmuch as they are bodies, and can be divided and broken into small fragments, in this way also they would be liable to destruction.

'So if this is part of ourselves, we are not altogether immortal: but if it is an instrument, it must be of the nature described, as having been given only for a certain time. But the dominant part, even the man himself, would be either like the form in relation to the body as matter, or like the agent in relation to an instrument. And in either way the soul is the self.

'Of what nature then is this? Either it is body, and must certainly be soluble, for every body is compound. Or if it were not body, but of some other nature, this also we must examine either in the same way or some other. And first we must consider into what this body, which they say is soul, must be resolved.

'For since life is an inseparable property of soul, this body which is the soul, if it consisted of two or more bodies, must either in each of the two or in every one have life innate, or one must have it and the other not, or neither have it. If then the life were attached to one of them only, this itself would be soul.

'What then would a body be, which derived life from itself? For fire, and air, and water, and earth, are without life from. themselves: and to whichever of these soul is attached, the life which this one enjoys is adventitious. But besides these there are no other bodies. And by those who think that there are elements different from these, they were not said to be souls but bodies, and not to have life. But if, though none of them has life, the assemblage of them is said to have produced life, this is absurd.

'If, however, each has life, even one is sufficient: but rather it is impossible that a collection of bodies should produce life, and things unintelligent beget intelligence. Moreover they will not assert that these are produced by any and every mode of combination. There must then be the power that is to arrange, and the cause of the combination: so that this would hold the place of a soul.

'For there would not be even a simple body, to say nothing of a composite body, in the world of being, if there were not a soul in the universe; since it is the accession of reason to matter that makes body, and reason can come from no other source than soul.; 'If any one should deny this, and say that a soul is made by a concurrence of atoms or indivisibles, he would be refuted by its oneness and community of feeling, and by analogy, since there can be no unity that does not extend throughout the whole, nor can a common feeling come from bodies which are without feeling and incapable of union; but the soul is conscious of feeling; also from things which have no parts there can come neither body nor magnitude.

'Moreover supposing the body to be simple, if they say that all that is material has no life of itself (for matter has no qualities), but that what is classed as the form (εἶδος) adds the life----then, if they say that this form is the essence, only the one of these and not the union of both will be the soul; and on the other hand, there is no body, for even this is not produced from mere matter, or else we must resolve it again in the same manner.

'But if they say that the form is an affection of the matter, but not the essence, they will have to state the source from which this affection and the life have come into the matter. For certainly the matter does not give itself form, nor infuse into itself a soul. There must, then, be something which provides life, whether it be provided for the matter or for any of the bodies, and this must be outside and beyond any bodily nature. Since otherwise there would not even be any body, as there would be no animal force.

'For its own nature is in flux and motion, and if all were bodies they would perish very speedily, even though the name soul should be given to one of them: for it would be affected in the same way as the other bodies, they all having the same matter. Or rather nothing would ever come into being, but all things would remain as matter, if there were nothing to give it form.

'But perhaps even matter would not exist at all, but this universe would be dissolved, if any one should entrust it to a combination of body, giving it in mere name the rank of soul, though it is only air and breath that is most easily dispersed, and has no unity of itself. For since all bodies are capable of division, how can any one who makes this universe depend on any of them, fail to make it unintelligent and moved at random?

'For what order, or reason, or mind can there be in breath which needs a soul to give it order? But granted the existence of a soul, all these are subservient to it for the constitution of a world and of every living thing, a different power from each contributing to the whole: whereas if there be no soul present in the universals, they will not merely be without order, but will be nothing at all.

'These men are also themselves led by the truth to testify that there must be something prior to bodies and superior to them, a species of soul, since they suppose that breath is endowed with mind and that fire is intelligent, as without fire and breath the better part cannot exist in the actual world, but seeks a place where it may be settled; whereas they ought to be seeking where to settle the bodies, as it seems these must be settled in powers of the soul.

'But if they assume that life and soul are nothing besides breath, what becomes of their much boasted phrase "in a certain state," in which they take refuge when compelled to assume some active nature besides bodies? If then they say that not every breath is soul, because countless breaths are inanimate, but the breath that is "in a certain state," they must say that this "certain state," and this condition, is either something real or nothing.

'But if they say it is nothing, there will be breath only, and the "certain state" a mere name: and so it will result in their saying that nothing else exists but matter, and that soul, and god, and all things are a mere name, and that matter alone exists. But if the "state" is something real and additional to the substratum and the matter, existing in matter but itself immaterial because it is not compounded again out of matter, it must be not body, but a kind of reason, and a different nature.

'Moreover from the following considerations it is not less evidently impossible that the soul should be a body of any kind whatever. For then it must be either hot or cold, either hard or soft, and liquid or solid, and black or white, with all other bodily qualities differing in different bodies. And if it is hot, it will only give heat, if cold it will only chill, and the additional presence of lightness will make things light, and of heaviness heavy, and blackness will make black, and whiteness white.

'For it is no property of fire to chill, nor of cold to make hot. But the soul both produces different effects in different animals, and also contrary effects in the same animal; making some parts solid and others liquid, and some thick and others thin, black and white, light and heavy. Yet it ought to have produced only one effect according to the quality of the body in colour and other respects: but in fact it produces many.

'And how then will they explain the fact that the motions are diverse instead of one, since every body has one motion only? If they allege choice as cause of some motions, natural laws of others, so far they are right: but choice is not a property of body, nor laws, at least if they are different, while the body is one and simple, and has no participation in any such law, except what has been given to it by that which caused it to be hot or cold.

'Also the power of causing growth in periods of time and up to this or that measurer----whence can the body itself get this? For it is natural to it to be increased, but to have no power in itself of causing increase, except in as far as it may be taken into service as a mass of matter by the power which by means of it effects the increase. Even if the soul were a body and caused increase, it must also be itself increased by an addition evidently of similar body, if it is to advance equally with that which receives increase from it. And the addition will either be soul, or soulless body.

'And if soul, how and whence does it come in, and how is it added? But if the addition is soulless, how is it to become animated, and to agree with what was there before, and be one with it, and share the same opinions with the first soul? Will not rather this soul, as a stranger, be in ignorance of what the other knows; and just as with the other mass of our body, one part will pass away from it, and another be added, and nothing will be the same?

'How then are our remembrances formed? And how our knowledge of our own selves, if we have never the same soul? Moreover if it is body, and the nature of body is that, when divided into several parts, each of the parts is not the same as the whole, and if a soul is of a certain size, then whatever is less than that will not be soul, just as everything of a certain size by any subtraction changes from being what it was.

'But if anything possessing magnitude should remain the same in quality when diminished in bulk, it is altered as body and as quantity, but may retain its sameness in quality as being different from quantity.

'What then will they say, who assert that the soul is body?

'First as to each part of the soul that is in the same body, is each a soul such as the whole is?

'And so again the part of each part? Magnitude then contributed nothing to its essence; yet it ought to have done so, as there was, a certain fixed quantity; and it was whole in many different places, which cannot be the case with body, that the same should be whole in many places, and the part be the same as the whole.

'But if they say that each of the parts is not a soul, they will have a soul consisting of soulless parts. And further still, if the magnitude of each soul be limited in each direction, then if it become either less or greater it will not be a soul.

'Whenever therefore from one connexion and the same seed twin children are begotten, or even many, as in the case of the other animals, the seed being parted into several places, where each is a whole, does not this teach those who are willing to learn, that where the part is the same as the whole, this whole in its own essence transcends the quantitative existence, and must itself be without quantity? For thus it will remain the same when quantity is withdrawn, inasmuch as it is independent of quantity and bulk, as its essence is something different therefrom. The soul therefore and its laws are independent of quantity.

'But that, if the soul were body, there would be neither sensation nor thought, nor knowledge, nor virtues, nor anything noble, is evident from the following reasons. Whatever is to perceive anything by sensation must itself be one, and must apprehend everything by the same sentient power; even if there should be many impressions that enter through many organs of sensation, or many qualities of one thing, and even if through one sense there should enter a complex object, such as a face.

'For there are not different powers that perceive the nostril and the eye, but the same perceives all at once. And if one impression comes through the eyes, and another through hearing, there must be some one power which both reach: or how could one say that these are different, if the sensations did not reach the same sentient power at the same time? This, therefore, must be as it were a centre, and lines converging from the circumference of the circle must convey the sensations from all sides to it, and the percipient power of this kind must be really and truly one.

'For if this were to be extended, and the sensations were to strike upon both extremities, as it were, of a line, either they must run together again to one and the same point, as the centre, or to some other: and each different point will have a sensation of one of the two objects, just as if I were to perceive one object and you another.

'And if the sensible object be one, as a face, it will be contracted into one, as is evidently the case; for contraction takes place in the very pupils of the eyes (otherwise how could very large objects be seen through them?): so that there is a still further contraction in passing on to the ruling faculty, in such a way that indivisible notions are produced. And this faculty will be indivisible, or, if it were a magnitude, the perceptions would share its divisibility, so that one part (of the soul) would perceive one part (of the object), and another another, and nothing in us would perceive the sensible object as a whole.

'But in fact the whole sentient is one: for how could it be divided? For there can be no correspondence of equal to equal, because the ruling faculty cannot be equal to each and every sensible object. Into how many parts then shall the division be made? Or shall it be divided into as many parts as the number of varieties in the object of sense that enters? And so then each of those parts of the soul will also perceive by its subdivisions, or the parts of the subdivisions will have no perception; but that is impossible. And if any part perceive all the object, since magnitude by its nature is infinitely divisible, the result will be that each man will also have infinite sensations for each sensible object, infinite images, as it were, of the same thing in our ruling faculty.

'Moreover if the sentient be body, the sensation cannot take place otherwise than as seals impressed on wax from signet-rings, whether the sensations be impressed upon the blood or upon the breath. If then the impressions are made as in liquid bodies, which is probable, they will become confused, just as if made on water, and there will be no remembrance of them.

'But if the impressions remain, either it is impossible for others to be imprinted while the former occupy the place, so that there will be no other sensations: or if others are made, the former will be obliterated, so that the remembrance will come to nothing. But if it is possible to remember, and to receive sensations one upon another, without hindrance from the earlier, it is impossible for the soul to be body.

'And the same may also be seen from the sensation of pain. When a man is said to have a pain in his finger, the pain of course is about the finger, but the sensation of the pain, they must evidently admit, arises in the ruling faculty. While the suffering part therefore is different, the ruling faculty perceives the (animal) spirit, and the whole soul shares the same feeling.

'How then does this result? By transmission, they will say, the animal spirit about the finger having first suffered, and imparted the suffering to the next, and this to another, until it arrived at the ruling faculty.

'Necessarily, therefore, if the first had a sensation of pain, there must be another sensation for the second, if the sensation came by way of transmission, and another also for the third, and the sensation of one single pain must become many and infinite, and afterwards the ruling faculty must perceive all these sensations and its own in addition to them.

'But the truth is, that each of them is not a sensation of the pain in the finger, but that which is next to the finger is a feeling that the wrist is in pain, and the third is a feeling that another part farther up is in pain, and so there are many pains: and the ruling faculty does not perceive the pain in the finger, but the pain close to itself, and knows only this, and dismisses the others, not understanding that it is the finger which is in pain.

'If, therefore, it is not possible for the sensation of such a pain to be produced by transmission, nor possible that in the body as being a mass, when one part suffers, another part should be noticed (for in every magnitude one part and another part are different), we must suppose the sentient power to be of such a nature as to be everywhere identical with itself. But to effect this is the property of a different kind of being from body.

'That it would not be possible even to think, if the soul were any kind of body, is to be shown from the following reasons. For if the meaning of sensation is, that the soul apprehends the objects of sense by making use of body, it cannot be that thought also means perception by means of body, or else it will be the same as sensation.

'If, therefore, thought is apprehension without the aid of body, much rather must the thinking faculty not be body, since sensation is of sensibles, but thought of intelligibles. But if they will not admit this, at all events there must be both thoughts of some intelligibles, and apprehensions of things without magnitude.

'How, then, if it be magnitude will it conceive in thought that which is not magnitude, or by that which is divisible conceive that which is not divisible? Will it be by some indivisible part of itself? But if so, the thinking faculty will not be body. For there is certainly no need of the whole in order to touch; for any one part is sufficient.

'If, therefore, they should admit, as is true, that the first notions are those of the things which are most entirely free from body, that is of absolutes, the intelligent faculty can form notions only as being or becoming free from body. But if they should say that the notions are of forms embodied in matter, yet they are only formed by abstraction from the bodies, the mind making the abstraction.

'For certainly the abstraction of circle, and triangle, and line, and point has nothing to do with flesh, or matter at all. In such an operation, therefore, we must separate the soul itself also from body: it must not therefore itself be body. I suppose too that beauty and justice are things without magnitude, and therefore the conception of them also. So that as they occur the soul will receive them with its indivisible faculty, and they will abide in it as indivisibles.

'Also if the soul be corporeal how can prudence, justice, fortitude, and other virtues belong to it? For then temperance, or justice, or fortitude must be some kind of breath, or of blood; unless perhaps fortitude were the uneasiness of the breath, and temperance its right temperature, and beauty a certain elegance in forms, because of which, when we see them, we call men goodly and beautiful in body.

'To be strong and beautiful in form might indeed be suitable to breath; but what does breath want of prudence? Nay; but, on the contrary, it wants to find enjoyment in embraces and caresses, wherein it will either be warmed, or will desire a moderate coolness, or attach itself to things soft, and tender, and smooth. But for assigning to each thing its due worth, what would it care?

'And is it because they are eternal that the soul fastens upon the conceptions of virtue, and the other objects of the intellect, or does virtue begin to exist in one, and must it perish again? But then who creates it, and whence? For thus there would again remain that former question. It must be, then, because they are eternal and abiding, such as are the conceptions of geometry: and, if eternal and abiding, not corporeal. Therefore also the soul in which they are to exist must be of this same nature; it must not then be corporeal; for everything of the nature of body is non-abiding and transient.

'If, from seeing the operations of bodies, in imparting heat and cold, and thrusting, and weighing down, they put the soul in this class, as if seating it in a place of activity,----then in the first place they are ignorant that even these bodies work these effects by means of the incorporeal powers contained in them, and then that these are not the powers which we claim as belonging to the soul; but the powers of thought, sensation, reasoning, desiring, managing wisely and well, all require another kind of essence.

'So by transferring the powers of the incorporeal to the corporeal, they leave none for the former. And that bodies can only produce their effects by means of incorporeal powers is evident from the following reasons. For it will be admitted that quality is one thing and quantity another, and that every body has quantity, and yet not every body has quality, as for example mere matter. But if they admit this, they must admit that quality, being different from quantity, is different from body.

'For if it have not quantity, how can it be body, since every body has quantity? Moreover, as was said somewhere above, if every body on being divided, and every mass, ceases to be what it was, but when the body is cut small the same quality remains entire in every part,----if for example, the sweetness of honey is none the less sweetness in every drop,----sweetness cannot be a body. The same is true of all the other qualities.

'Then further, if the powers were bodies, the strong powers must necessarily be great masses, and those which can effect but little, small masses. But if when the masses are great the powers are small, and a few very small masses have the greatest powers, their efficacy must be attributed to something else than magnitude, therefore to something without magnitude. 'The fact too that matter, being as they say body, is itself the same, but produces different effects when it has qualities added to it,----does not this make it evident that the things added are actually rational powers and incorporeal? And let them not reply that, when breath or blood has departed, the animals die. For it is impossible to exist without many other things besides these, and yet the soul can be none of them. Moreover neither breath nor blood extends through all parts, but soul does.

'Further, if the soul being body had pervaded every part, it would also have been mixed, in the same way as the mixture takes place in all other bodies. But if the mixture of the bodies leaves none of the components in actual existence, neither will the soul retain an actual existence in the bodies, but only potential, having lost its existence as soul. Just as if sweet and bitter be mingled, the sweet no longer exists. And so we have no soul.

'And the fact that, being body, it is mingled with body, the whole throughout the whole, so that wherever either may be there the other is also, both having a mass equal to the whole, and that no increase has taken place by the addition of the other,----this will leave nothing that it does not divide. For the mixture is not made in large portions alternately (for so they say it would be a juxta-position), but having passed through the whole, the addition being superimposed upon the less (a thing impossible, that the less should be found equal to the greater)----but nevertheless having so passed through, it divides the whole in every part.

'Therefore if this occurs at any point whatever, and there be no body between, which has not been cut, the body must have been divided into points, which is impossible; and if the division be carried on to infinity (for whatever particle of body you take, it may be divided), the infinities will have not only a potential but an actual existence. Therefore it is not possible that body should wholly pervade the whole: but the soul does pervade the whole: therefore it is incorporeal.

'As to their saying that the same breath is an earlier nature, and when it has come into a cool place (ψυχρῷ) and been sharpened, it becomes soul (ψυχή), being made finer in the cool, ----this certainly is absurd; for many animals are born in warm places, and have a soul that has not been cooled. But at all events they say that there is an earlier nature of the soul produced by external contingencies. The result, therefore, is that they make the inferior first, and before this another still less, which they call habit (ἕξις). And the mind comes last, as produced of course from the soul; or if mind is before all things, they ought to make soul next, then vegetative nature; and the later always the worse, if it is a merely natural product.

'If, therefore, even God in respect of His mind is regarded by them as later, and as generated, His intelligence also being adscititious, it would be possible that neither soul, nor mind, nor God should exist. For if the potential could exist without the previous existence of the actual, and of mind, it would never attain to actuality. For what would there be to bring it on, if there exist not besides itself something prior? But if it is to bring itself into actuality (which is absurd), yet at least in so bringing itself forward it must have something to look to, which must exist not potentially but actually.

'And yet if the potential is to have the power of always remaining the same, it will of itself have attained to actuality, and this latter will be better than that which has only potentiality, as being a state desired by it. The better therefore will be the prior, both as having a different nature from body, and as always actually existent: mind, therefore, and soul are prior to mere nature; soul, therefore, does not exist as breath, nor yet as body. However, though other arguments might be stated, and have been stated by others, showing that it is not body, yet even what I have now said is sufficient.

'But since it is of a different nature, we must inquire what this nature is. Is it then, though different from body, yet something belonging to body, as it were a harmony? For although the Pythagoreans used this word "harmony" in a different way, they supposed that it was something of the same kind as the harmony on the strings of the lyre.

'For as when the strings of the lyre have been stretched tight there conies a certain kind of effect upon them, which is called harmony, in the same way also in our body, when a mixture is made of unlike elements, they thought that a mixture of a certain quality produces both life and soul, which is the effect upon the mixture. But many arguments have ere now been urged against this opinion to show that it is impossible.

'For it has been argued that the soul is the prior element, but the harmony subsequent: and that the former rules and presides over the body, and in many ways contends with it, but could not do so if it were a harmony: and that the one is an essence, but the harmony is not an essence: and that the mixture of the bodily elements, of which we consist, if it be in due proportion, would mean health: also that in each part differently compounded there would be a different soul, so that there would be many souls: and, as the chief argument, that prior to this present soul there must be another soul to produce this harmony, as in the case of musical instruments there is the musician, who puts the harmony into the strings, having in himself the reasoning faculty in accordance with which he will modulate it.

'For neither in that case will the strings of themselves, nor in this case the bodily particles be able to bring themselves into harmony. And speaking generally, these philosophers also make animated things out of inanimate, and things casually brought out of disorder into order, and instead of order from the soul they make the soul itself to have received its subsistence from the self-made order. But this cannot possibly take place either in the single parts or in the wholes. The soul, therefore, is not a harmony.'

These extracts are taken from the work of Plotinus against the opinion of the Stoics concerning the soul, who say that it is corporeal. But since I have set forth sufficiently for a summary statement the arguments against Aristotle and the Peripatetics, and those against the sect of the Stoics, it is time to go back again and survey the wonderful physical theories of all their noble philosophers together, seeing especially that all the Greeks in common believed in and worshipped as visible gods the Sun, and Moon, and the rest of the luminaries, and the other elements of the world, and have transferred the fabulous and nonsensical tales about their polytheistic error by more seemly physical explanations to the primary elements and the divisions of the whole world.

Wherefore I think it necessary for me also to collect their opinions on these subjects, and to review their disputes and their vain conceit.

These matters also I will quote from the work of Plutarch, in which he collected the opinions thereon of all the philosophers both ancient and modern, writing in the following manner: ³⁷

CHAPTER XXIII ---- OF THE SUN.

[PLUTARCH] 'ANAXIMANDER: that there is a circle twenty-eight times as large as the Earth, having its circumference like a chariot-wheel, hollow, and full of fire, and partly showing the fire through an opening, as through a bellows-pipe: and this is the Sun.

'Xenophanes: it is formed from the sparks which are seen to be collected from watery vapour, and which compose the Sun out of burning clouds.

'The Stoics: a flame out of the sea, endowed with intelligence.

'Plato: out of an immense fire.

'Anaxagoras, Democritus, Metrodorus: a fiery mass of metal or stone.

'Aristotle: a globe of the fifth corporeal element.

'Philolaus the Pythagorean: a disk as of glass, which receives the reflected radiance of the fire in the cosmos, and transmits the light to us; so that the Sun's fiery appearance in the heaven is like the light which comes to us dispersed by reflexion from the mirror: for this light also we call the Sun, being as it were an image of an image.

'Empedocles: there are two Suns; the one archetypal, a fire in the other hemisphere of the cosmos, which, has filled that hemisphere, being always opposite to its own reflected light; and the other which we see is the reflected light in this other hemisphere which is filled with air mixed with heat, formed by reflexion from the spherical surface of the Earth and failing upon the crystalline Sun, and carried round with the motion of the fiery Sun: but to express it more shortly, the Sun is the reflexion of the fire that surrounds the Earth.

'Epicurus: a compact mass of earth, resembling pumice or sponge in its pores, and kindled by the fire.'

CHAPTER XXIV ---- OF THE SUN'S MAGNITUDE.

'ANAXIMANDER: the Sun itself is equal to the Earth, but the orbit from which it breathes out its fire, and by which it is carried round, is twenty-seven times as large as the Earth.

'Anaxagoras: many times as large as Peloponnesus.

'Heracleitus: the breadth of a man's foot.

'Epicurus again says that the aforesaid descriptions are all possible: or else that it is of the same size as it appears, or a little greater or less.'

CHAPTER XXV ---- OF THE SHAPE OF THE SUN.

'ANAXIMENES: the Sun is flat like a plate.

'Heracleitus: like a boat, concave.

'The Stoics: spherical, like the universe and the stars.

'Epicurus: the aforesaid descriptions are all possible.'

Such is their Sun, the mighty god of all things visible in heaven. But Moses and the Hebrew oracles waste no labour on any of these matters.

CHAPTER XXVI ---- OF THE MOON.

'ANAXIMANDER: it is a circle nineteen times as large as the Earth, full of fire, as in the case of the Sun, and is eclipsed in consequence of the rotation of its disk. And it is like a chariot wheel, having its circumference hollow, and full of fire, with only one vent.

'Xenophanes: a cloud condensed.

'The Stoics: a mixture of fire and air. 'Plato: of earth for the more part.

'Anaxagoras, Democritus: a fiery solid, having in itself plains, and mountains, and ravines.

'Heracleitus: earth surrounded with mist. 'Pythagoras: a mirror-like body.'

CHAPTER XXVII ---- OF THE MOON'S MAGNITUDE.

'THE Stoics represent it as larger than the Earth, as they also say of the Sun.

'Parmenides: equal to the Sun, for it is illumined from it.'

CHAPTER XXVIII ---- OF THE MOON'S SHAPE.

'THE Stoics: it is spherical, as the Sun.

'Heracleitus: like a boat.

'Empedocles: like a disk (or quoit).

'Others like a cylinder.'

CHAPTER XXIX ---- OF THE MOON'S ILLUMINATION.

'ANAXIMANDER: it has light of its own, but somewhat scanty.

'Antiphon: the Moon shines by its own light; but the portion of it which is partially hidden is obscured by the Sun's light falling upon it, as it is the nature of the stronger fire to obscure the weaker: which happens also with the other heavenly bodies.

'Thales and his followers: the Moon is illumined from the Sun.

'Heracleitus: the Sun and Moon are affected in the same way: for the heavenly bodies being boat-like in shape, and receiving the products of the watery evaporation, become luminous in appearance; the Sun more brilliantly, because it moves in a purer atmosphere, but the Moon moving in a turbid atmosphere therefore also appears more dim.'

CHAPTER XXX ---- WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PLANETS AND FIXED STARS?

³⁸ 'THALES: the heavenly bodies are of earth, but on fire.

'Empedocles: of fire, from the fiery element, which the air contained in itself and thrust out at the first separation of the elements.

'Anaxagoras: the surrounding atmosphere is in its substance fire, but by the energy of its revolution catches up stones from the earth, and having set them on fire has made stars of them.;

'Diogenes: the heavenly bodies are porous like pumice, and are the breathing-holes of the universe. But again the same author thinks that they are stones, which, though at first invisible, often fall upon the Earth and are extinguished, just as the stony meteor which fell in a fiery form at Aegospotamoi.

'Empedocles: the fixed stars are fastened to the crystalline sphere, but the planets are free.

'Plato: for the most part they are of fire, but partake also of the other elements as a cement.

'Xenophanes: they consist of clouds on fire, but are extinguished every day, and re-kindled in the night, just like live coals: for their risings and settings are their kindlings and quenchings.

'Heracleides and the Pythagoreans think that each of the stars is a world, including an Earth, and an atmosphere and an ether in the infinite space. These doctrines are introduced in the Orphic Hymns, for they make each star a world.

'Epicurus rejects none of these opinions, but adheres to his "possible."'

CHAPTER XXXI ---- OF THE SHAPE OF THE STARS.

'THE Stoics: the stars are spherical, like the universe, Sun; and Moon.

'Cleanthes: conical.

'Anaximenes: like studs fastened in the crystalline sphere.

'But some say that they are plates of fire, as it were pictures.'

Such are the discoveries of the wonderful philosophers concerning what they call visible gods. But learn also from the same Plutarch's voice, what decisions they have pronounced concerning the universe: ³⁹

CHAPTER XXXII ---- HOW THE WORLD WAS CONSTRUCTED.

'THE world, therefore, has been fashioned in a rounded form, in the following manner. As the corporeal atoms have an undesigned and fortuitous motion, and move continuously and very swiftly, many of them were collected together, and from this cause had great variety of shapes and sizes.

'And when these were all gathered in the same place, all the larger and heaviest settled down: but as many as were small, and round, and smooth, and easily moved, were thrust out in the collision of the bodies, and carried up on high.

'When, therefore, the propelling force ceased to carry them upward, and the propulsion no longer tended towards the height, while on the other hand they were prevented from sinking downward, they were compressed into the places which were able to admit them; and these were the places around them.

'So the multitude of the bodies were turned round towards these places, and becoming intermingled one with another in the turning they generated the heaven. But the atoms retaining the same natural tendency, and being of various kinds, as I have said, were thrust out towards the upper region, and produced the nature of the stars.

'But the multitude of the bodies which were exhaled kept striking upon the air and thrusting it away; and the air in its motion being turned into wind and encompassing the stars carried them round with it, and maintained the revolution which they now have on high. Afterwards out of the particles which settled down the Earth was produced, and out of those which were carried upward the heaven, and fire, and air.

'And as there was still much matter included in the Earth, which became condensed in consequence of the blows from the winds and the currents from the stars, all of its shape that was formed by minute particles was further compressed, and generated the watery element.

'And this having a fluid tendency was carried down into the hollow places which were able to receive and hold it; or the water settled down of itself and gradually hollowed out the places below it.'

Such is their wonderful cosmogony! And with, this is connected much other disputation, as they started questions about problems of all kinds; whether we ought to regard the universe as one or many; and the cosmos as one or more; and whether it has a soul, and is administered by a divine providence, or the contrary: also whether it is imperishable or perishable; and from what source it is sustained; and from what kind of material God began to make the world: also concerning the order of the world; and what is the cause of its inclination; also concerning what is outside the circumference of the world; and which is the right and which the left side of the world; also concerning the heaven, and, besides all this, concerning daemons and heroes; and about matter, and about ideas: about the arrangement of the universe: yet more, about the course and motion of the stars: and besides this, from what source the stars derive their light: also about the so-called Dioscuri, and the eclipses of the Sun and Moon, and her aspect, and why she has an earthlike appearance; also concerning her distances; and moreover concerning the years.

Now all these questions have been treated in numberless ways by the philosophers of whom we speak, but since Plutarch collected them in a few concise words, by bringing together the opinions of them all and their contradictions, I think it will not be unprofitable to us if they are presented with a view to their rejection on reasonable grounds. For since they stood in diametrical opposition one to another, and stirred up battles and wars against each other, and nothing better, each with jealous strife of words confuting their neighbours' opinions, must not every one admit that our hesitation on these subjects has been reasonable and safe?

Next in order to the aforesaid subjects I will add all their disquisitions upon matters nearer to the Earth; concerning the figure of the Earth, and its position and inclination: also concerning the sea; that so you may know that the noble sages differed not only about things high and lofty, but that they have disagreed also in matters terrestrial. And to increase yet more your admiration of this wisdom of the wise, I will add also all the controversies they waged about the soul and the ruling faculty therein, unable as they were to discover what their own nature was. But now let us go back to the first of the aforesaid subjects.

CHAPTER XXXIII ---- WHETHER THE ALL IS ONE.

⁴⁰ 'THE Stoics then represented the world as one, which they also affirmed to be the All, including the corporeal elements.

'But Empedocles said that, though the world was one, yet it was not the All, but only a small part of the All, and the rest useless matter.

'Plato derives his opinion that the world is one, and the All one, by inference from three arguments: from the notion that it will not be perfect, unless it comprehends all things; that it will not be like its pattern, unless it be unique; that it will not be indestructible, if there be anything outside it. But in answer to Plato it must be said, that the world is not perfect, for it does not include all things; for man also is perfect, but does not include all things: and there are many examples, as in the case of statues, and houses, and pictures: and how can it be perfect, if it is possible for anything to revolve outside it? And indestructible it is not, and cannot be, since it is created.

'But Metrodorus says it is as absurd that there should be but one world generated in infinite space, as that there should be but one head of corn in a great plain: and that the world is one of an infinite multitude is manifest from the infinity of causes. For if the world is finite, while the causes from which the world has come are all infinite, the number of worlds must be infinite. For where they all have been causes, there must also be effects: and causes they are, whether the atoms or the elements.'

CHAPTER XXXIV ---- WHETHER THE WORLD HAS A SOUL, AND IS ADMINISTERED BY PROVIDENCE.

⁴¹ 'THE others all say that it has a soul, and is administered by providence.

'But Democritus and Epicurus, and all who are for bringing in the atoms and vacuum, say that it neither has a soul, nor is administered by providence, but by some irrational kind of nature.

'Aristotle says that, as a whole and throughout, it has neither a soul, nor reason, nor intelligence, nor is it administered by providence. For while the heavenly regions partake of all these properties, because they include spheres which are endowed with a soul and life, the terrestrial regions have none of them, but share in the orderly arrangement by accident and not directly.'

CHAPTER XXXV ---- WHETHER THE WORLD IS IMPERISHABLE.

'PYTHAGORAS, and Plato, and the Stoics say that the world was created by God; and that, so far as it depends on its nature, it is perishable, because it is perceptible by sense through being corporeal; nevertheless it will not be destroyed, through the providence and support of God.

'Epicurus says that it is perishable, because created, like an animal or a plant.

'Xenophanes: the world is uncreated, and eternal, and imperishable.

'Aristotle: the part of the world beneath the Moon may be affected by change, and the things terrestrial therein are doomed to perish.'

CHAPTER XXXVI ---- FROM WHAT SOURCE THE WORLD IS SUSTAINED.

'ARISTOTLE: if the world receives sustenance, it will also perish; but in fact it needs no sustenance, and therefore is also eternal.

'Plato: the world supplies its own sustenance out of its waste, by a change.

'Philolaus: the decay is twofold, sometimes by fire fallen from heaven, and sometimes from the water of the Moon being thrown off by the revolution of its atmosphere: and the exhalations from these are the sustenance of the world.'

CHAPTER XXXVII ---- FROM WHAT MATERIAL FIRST GOD BEGAN TO FORM THE WORLD.

'THE physicists say that the creation of the world began from Earth, as from a centre; and the centre is the beginning of a sphere.

'Pythagoras: from fire, and the fifth element.

'Empedocles: the ether was first separated, and next the fire, and after it the Earth, out of which, when very closely compressed by the rush of the sphere, the water gushed up, and the air was formed from it by evaporation. Then the heaven was produced from the ether, and the Sun from the fire: and the terrestrial parts were formed by condensation out of the other elements.

'Plato: the world was made visible according to the pattern of the intelligible world: and of the visible world first the soul, and after this the corporeal element, first the part produced from fire and earth, and secondly that from water and air.

'Pythagoras says that, whereas there are five solid figures which are also called mathematical, out of the cube the earth was produced; out of the pyramid the fire; out of the octahedron the air; out of the eicosahedron the water; and out of the dodecahedron the sphere of the universe.

'And herein again Plato follows Pythagoras.'

CHAPTER XXXVIII ---- OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORLD.

'PARMENIDES: there are wreaths twisted round one upon the other, one of the rare matter, and the other of the dense; and between them others of light and darkness mixed; and that which surrounds them all like a wall is solid.

'Leucippus and Democritus extend a tunic and a membrane in a circle round the world.

'Epicurus: the boundary of some worlds is thin, and of others dense: and of these part are in motion, and part immovable.

'Plato: fire first, then ether, after that air, next water, and earth last: but sometimes he combines the ether with the fire.

'Aristotle: first impassible ether, that is a fifth body; after that passibles, fire, air, water, and earth last. Of these the celestial portions have the circular motion assigned to them: and of the portions ranged beneath them the light have the upward, and the heavy the downward motion.

'Empedocles: the places of the elements are not entirely fixed and limited, but they all in a certain way partake one of another.'

CHAPTER XXXIX ---- WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE INCLINATION OF THE WORLD.

'DIOGENES, Anaxagoras: after the world was established, and had brought forth the living beings out of the earth, the world was somehow spontaneously inclined towards its southern side, perhaps from design, in order that some parts of the world might be uninhabitable and some habitable, in consequence of cold, and torrid heat, and a temperate climate.

'Empedocles: when the air yielded to the impulse of the Sun, the polar Bears became inclined, and the northern regions were elevated, and the southern depressed, and the whole world accordingly.'

CHAPTER XL ---- OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD, WHETHER IT IS A VACUUM.

'THE Pythagoreans: outside the world there is a vacuum, into and out of which the world breathes.

'The Stoics: infinite (vacuum), into which the world is also dissolved by the conflagration.

'Poseidonius: not infinite, but sufficiently large for the dissolution.

'Plato, Aristotle: no vacuum either outside the world or inside.'

CHAPTER XLI ---- WHICH ARE THE RIGHT AND WHICH THE LEFT SIDES OF THE WORLD.

'PYTHAGORAS, Plato, Aristotle: the right parts of the world are the eastern, from which the motion begins, and the left are the western.

'Empedocles: the right is the region of the summer solstice, and the left the region of the winter solstice.'

CHAPTER XLII ---- OF THE HEAVEN; WHAT IS ITS SUBSTANCE.

'ANAXIMENES: it is the circumference of the outer zone.

'Empedocles: the heaven is solid, formed from air compressed by fire into a crystallized form, and encompassing the whole elements of fire and air in each of the hemispheres.

CHAPTER XLIII ---- OF DAEMONS AND HEROES.

⁴² 'IN connexion with the discourse concerning gods we must inquire into that which concerns daemons and heroes.

'Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics: daemons are beings of the nature of souls: heroes also are souls which have been separated from their bodies; and the good souls are good daemons, and the bad souls evil daemons.

'But Epicurus admits none of these opinions.'

CHAPTER XLIV ---- OF MATTER.

'Matter is the substratum to generation and decay and the other changes.

'The Schools of Thales and Pythagoras, and the Stoics: matter is wholly and thoroughly subject to change and alteration and flux.

'The School of Democritus: the primary elements are impassible, namely, the atom, the vacuum, and the incorporeal.

'Aristotle and Plato say that matter is corporeal, without form, specific character, shape, or quality, so far as it depends on its own nature, but receptive of the specific forms, as it were a nurse, and a mould, and a matrix. But those who say that matter is water, or fire, or air, or earth, no longer speak of it as without form, but as body: while those who say that it is the indivisible bodies and atoms, do regard it as without form.'

CHAPTER XLV ---- OF THE IDEA.

'AN "idea" is an incorporeal entity (οὐσία), subsisting itself, and by itself, but giving its image to portions of formless matter, and becoming the cause of their manifestation.

'Socrates and Plato suppose the ideas to be separable from the matter, subsisting in the thoughts and in the presentations of god, that is, of the mind.

'Aristotle allowed the specific forms and ideas to remain, not however as separate from the matter, having freed himself from the notion of its being done by god.

'The Stoic followers of Zeno said that the ideas are thoughts of our own.'

CHAPTER XLVI ---- OF THE ORDER OF THE STARS.

'XENOCRATES thinks that the stars move on one superficies.

'The other Stoics that some are before others in height and depth.

⁴³ 'Democritus puts the fixed stars first, and next to these the planets, after which the Sun, the Day-star, the Moon.

'Plato next to the position of the fixed stars sets first the planet called Phaenon, that is Saturn: second Phaethon, that is Jupiter; third the Fiery, Mars; fourth the Day-star, Venus; fifth Stilbon, Mercury; sixth the Sun; seventh the Moon.

'Of the Mathematicians some agree with Plato, but some put the Sun in the centre of all.

'Anaximander, and Metrodorus of Chios, and Crates think that the Sun is placed highest of all, next to him the Moon, and beneath them the fixed stars and planets.'

CHAPTER XLVII ---- OF THE COURSE AND MOTION OF THE STARS.

'ANAXAGORAS, Democritus, Cleanthes: all the fixed stars pass from east to west.

'Alcmaeon and the Mathematicians: the planets move in an opposite direction to the fixed stars; for theirs is the contrary course from west to east.

'Anaximander: they are borne along by the circles and spheres on which they are each set.

'Anaximenes: the stars do not revolve beneath the Earth, but around it.

'Plato and the Mathematicians: the Sun, the Day-star, and Stilbon (Venus and Mercury) have equal orbits.'

CHAPTER XLVIII ---- WHENCE THE STARS RECEIVE THEIR LIGHT.

'METEODORUS: the fixed stars are all illumined by the Sun.

'Heracleitus and the Stoics: the stars are fed from the exhalation of the Earth.

'Aristotle: the heavenly bodies have no need of nourishment; for they are not perishable but eternal.

'Plato: there is a common nourishment of the whole world and of the stars from themselves.'

CHAPTER XLIX ---- OF THE SO-CALLED DIOSCURI.

'XENOPHANES: what appear like stars upon the ships are little clouds which shine in consequence of a certain kind of motion.

'Metrodorus: they are flashes from the eyes which look at them with fear and amazement.'

CHAPTER L ---- OF AN ECLIPSE OF THE SUN.

'THALES was the first who said that the Sun is eclipsed from the Moon (which is of an earthy nature) coming perpendicularly under it; and that by reflexion in a mirror she is seen situated beneath the Sun's disk.

'Anaximander: from the closing of the orifice of the breathing-hole of the Sun's fire.

'Heracleitus: in consequence of the turning of the boat-like figure, so that the concavity is above, and the convexity below facing our eyes.

'Xenophanes: by extinction, and then again there rises another Sun in the east. But he has incidentally mentioned an eclipse of the Sun lasting over the whole month, and again a total eclipse, so that the day seemed like night.

'Some say that it is a condensation of the invisible clouds coming over the Sun's disk.

'Aristarchus sets the Sun among the fixed stars, and makes the Moon move round the Sun's orbit, and the Sun's disk to be overshadowed in consequence of these inclinations.

'Xenophanes: there are many suns and moons, corresponding to the climes, and sections, and zones of the Earth: and at a certain season the Sun's disk falls into some section of the Earth which is not inhabited by us, and thus, as if stepping into a hole, suffers eclipse. But the same author says that the Sun goes forward into infinity, but seems to revolve because of its distance.'

CHAPTER LI ---- OF AN ECLIPSE OF THE MOON.

'ANAXIMANDER: from the closing of the orifice of its circumference.

'Berossus: because of the turning of the dark side towards us.

'Heracleitus: because of the turning of the boat-like figure.

'Of the Pythagoreans some say that it is an outshining and obstruction by our Earth or the counter-earth: but the more recent say that it is in consequence of the spreading of a flame which is gradually kindled in an orderly manner, until it produces the complete full moon, and decreases again in like manner until the conjunction, at which it is entirely extinguished.

'Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Mathematicians agree that it effects its monthly obscurations by travelling round with the Sun and sharing its illumination; but the eclipses by falling into the shadow of the Earth when that comes between the two luminaries, or rather when it obstructs the light from the Moon.'

CHAPTER LII ---- OF THE MOON'S ASPECT, AND WHY IT HAS AN EARTHLIKE APPEARANCE.

'THE Pythagoreans say that the Moon has an earthlike appearance, because it is inhabited like our Earth, but by larger animals and more beautiful plants. For the animals upon it are fifteen times as large, and emit no bodily secretion; and that the day is longer in the same proportion.

'Anaxagoras: on account of an unevenness in the mixture, because of its being both cold and earthy: for the misty part is mingled with the fiery, whence the Moon is also said to shine with false light.

'The Stoics: because of the admixture of air in its substance its composition is not pure.'

CHAPTER LIII ---- OF THE MOON'S DISTANCES.

'EMPEDOCLES: the Moon is distant from the Sun twice as far as from the Earth.

'The Mathematical School: eighteen times as far.

'Eratosthenes: the Sun's distance from the Earth is four millions and eighty thousand stades: but the Moon's distance from the Earth seven hundred and eighty thousand stades.'

CHAPTER LIV ---- OF YEARS.

'A YEAR of Saturn is a period of thirty years: of Jupiter twelve; of Mars two; of the Sun twelve months; and the same for Mercury and Venus, for they run an equal course. But the Moon's is thirty days: for this is the complete month from first appearance to conjunction.

'The Great Year some suppose to consist in a period of eight years, but others in nineteen years, and others in fifty-nine. Heracleitus makes it consist of eighteen thousand solar years: Diogenes of three hundred and sixty-five years, as many as the year has days according to Heracleitus: but others of seven thousand, seven hundred, and seventy-seven years.'

So widely do the aforesaid persons differ from each other in regard to things in the heavens above. But now look also at their opinions about the Earth.

CHAPTER LV ---- OF THE EARTH.

'THALES and his followers say that the Earth is one.

'Hicetas the Pythagorean says that there are two, this and the antipodal earth.

'The Stoics: the Earth is one, and finite.

'Xenophanes: from the lower part its roots reach into infinity, and it is composed of air and fire.

'Metrodorus: the Earth is the deposit and sediment of the water, and the Sun of the air.'

CHAPTER LVI ---- OF THE FIGURE OF THE EARTH.

'THALES and the Stoics: the Earth is spherical.

'Anaximander: it is like a stone pillar supporting the surfaces.

'Anaximenes: like a table.

'Leucippus: like a kettle-drum.

'Democritus: like a disk in its extension, but hollow in the middle.'

CHAPTER LVII ---- OF THE POSITION OF THE EARTH.

'THE followers of Thales say the Earth is the centre.

'Xenophanes: the Earth first, for its roots reach into infinity.

'Philolaus the Pythagorean: first, fire in the centre; for this is the hearth of the universe: second, the antipodal Earth, and third, the Earth which we inhabit, opposite to the antipodal both in situation and revolution; in consequence of which the inhabitants of the antipodal Earth are not seen by those in this Earth.

'Parmenides was the first to mark off the inhabited parts of the Earth under the two tropical zones.'

CHAPTER LVIII ---- OF THE EARTH'S MOTION.

⁴⁴ 'ALL the others say that the Earth is at rest.

'But Philolaus the Pythagorean says that it revolves round the fire in an oblique circle, in like manner as the Sun and Moon.

'Heracleides of Pontus, and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the Earth move, not however by change of place, but by rotation, turning like a wheel on an axle, from west to east, about its own centre.

'Democritus: at first the Earth used to change its place, owing to its smallness and lightness; but as in the course of time it grew dense and heavy, it became stationary.'

After the utterance of these different opinions by the noble philosophers concerning the Earth, hear now what they say of the Sea.

CHAPTER LIX ---- OF THE SEA, HOW IT WAS COMPOSED, AND WHY IT IS SALT.

⁴⁵ 'ANAXIMANDER says that the Sea is the remnant of the original moisture, the greater part of which was dried up by the fire, and the remainder changed through its burning heat.

'Anaxagoras: when the water, which in the beginning was a stagnant lake, was burnt up by the Sun's revolution, and the greasy part evaporated, the remainder subsided into saltness and bitterness.

'Empedocles: the Sea is the sweat of the Earth when scorched by the Sun, because of the increased condensation.

'Antiphon: the sweat of the hot part, from which the included moisture was separated, turned salt by being boiled down, which happens always in the case of sweat.

'Metrodorus: from being drained through the earth it has partaken of its density, just as liquids which are strained through ashes.

'Plato and his followers: of the elementary water the part formed out of air, being condensed by cooling, became sweet; but the part formed from earth, being evaporated by heat and burning, became salt.'

So much, then, concerning the Sea. But as to those who professed to give physiological explanations about the whole world, and things celestial and ethereal, and the conception of the universe, how little they knew even of their own nature, you may learn from their discordant utterances on these points also, as follows.

CHAPTER LX ---- OF THE PARTS OF THE SOUL.

⁴⁶ 'PYTHAGORAS, Plato: in the first analysis the Soul has two parts; for it has one part rational and another irrational. But in close and exact consideration, its parts are three: for they distinguish the irrational into the irascible and the appetitive.

'The Stoics: it is composed of eight parts; five senses, sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch; and a sixth, speech; a seventh, generation; and an eighth, the actual ruling principle, from which proceeds the extension of all these through their proper organs, in a similar manner to the tentacles of the polypus.

'Democritus, Epicurus: the Soul consists of two parts, its rational faculty being settled in the breast, and the irrational diffused over the whole complexity of the body.

'But Democritus thought that all things, even dead bodies, naturally partake of a certain kind of soul, because in an obscure way they have some warmth and sensation, though the greater part is dissipated.'

CHAPTER LXI ---- OF THE EXILING FACULTY.

'PLATO, Democritus: it is in the head as a whole.

'Straton: between the eyebrows.

'Erasistratus: about the membrane of the brain, which he calls the epicranis.

'Herophilus: in the cavity of the brain, which is also its base.

'Parmenides: in the breast as a whole.

'Epicurus, and all the Stoics: in the heart as a whole.

'Diogenes: in the arterial cavity of the heart, which is full of breath.

'Empedocles in the composition of the blood.

'Others in the membrane of the pericardium: and others in the diaphragm. Some of the more recent philosophers say that it reaches through from the head to the diaphragm.

'Pythagoras: the vital power is around the heart; but the rational, and intelligent faculty in the region of the head.'

So far, then, as to their opinions on these matters. Do you not think therefore that with judgement and reason we have justly kept aloof from the unprofitable and erroneous and vain labour of them all, and do not busy ourselves at all about the said subjects (for we do not see the utility of them, nor any tendency to benefit and gain good for mankind), but cling solely to piety towards God the creator of all things, and by a life of temperance, and all godly behaviour according to virtue, strive to live in a manner pleasing to Him who is God over all?

But if even you from malice and envy hesitate to admit our true testimony, you shall be again anticipated by Socrates, the wisest of all Greeks, who has truthfully declared his votes in our favour. Those meteorological babblers, for instance, he used to expose in their folly, and say that they were no better than madmen, expressly convicting them not merely of striving after things unattainable, but also of wasting time about things useless and unprofitable to man's life. And this shall be testified to you by our former witness Xenophon, one of the best-known of the companions of Socrates, who writes as follows in his Memorabilia: ⁴⁷

CHAPTER LXII

[XENOPHON] 'No one ever yet saw Socrates do or heard him say anything impious or unholy. For he did not discourse about the nature of the universe or the other subjects, like most of them, speculating upon the condition of the cosmos, as the Sophists call it, and by what forces of necessity the celestial phenomena severally are produced: rather he used to expose the foolishness of those who troubled themselves about such things.

'And the first point he used to consider in regard to them was, whether they go on to study such matters, because they think that they have already an adequate knowledge of human affairs, or deem that they are doing their proper work in neglecting human interests and speculating on the divine.

'And he used to wonder that they did not clearly see that it is impossible for men to discover these things, since even those who pride themselves most highly on the discussion of these matters do not agree in opinion with each other, but are just like madmen in their mutual feelings.

'For as among madmen some have no fear even of things fearful, while others are afraid where no fear is; so some of these think it. no shame to say or do anything and everything even in a crowd, while others think it not right even to go out among men: and some honour neither temple, nor altar, nor anything else belonging to the gods, while others worship any casual stocks and stones and wild beasts. Also of those who study anxiously the nature of the universe some think that "being" is only one, others that it is infinite in multitude: some too think that all things are in perpetual motion, and others that nothing can ever be moved: and some that all things are being generated and perishing, but others that nothing could ever be generated or perish.

'He also used to ask the following questions about them: whereas those who study human affairs think that whatever they have learned they will be able to practise both for themselves and for whomsoever they may wish, do those who search after things divine think in like manner that when they know by what forces of necessity phenomena are severally produced, they will be able whenever they please to make winds and rains and seasons, and whatever else of this kind they may need? Or, without even hoping for anything of this sort, are they satisfied merely to know how such phenomena are severally produced?

'Such, then, was the nature of his remarks about those who busied themselves with these matters: but he himself was always discoursing of human interests, inquiring what was, pious, what impious; what noble, what base; what just, what unjust; what sanity, what madness.'

These, then, were the opinions of Socrates. And next after him Aristippus of Cyrene, and then later Ariston of Chios, undertook to maintain that morals were the only proper subject of philosophy; for these inquiries were practicable and useful, but the discussions about nature were quite the contrary, neither being comprehensible, nor having any use, even if they were clearly understood.

For it would be no advantage to us, not even if soaring higher in the air than Perseus,

'O'er ocean's wave, and o'er the Pleiades,'

we could with our very eyes survey the whole world, and the nature of all 'beings,' of whatever kind that is.

For we certainly shall not be on that account wiser, or more just or brave or temperate, nay, not even strong, or beautiful, or rich, without which advantages happiness is impossible.

Wherefore Socrates was right in saying that of existing things some are above us, and others nothing to us: for the secrets of nature are above us, and the conditions after death nothing to us, but the affairs of human life alone concern us.

And thus, he said, he also dismissed the physical theories of Anaxagoras and Archelaus, and studied only

'Whate'er of good or ill our homes have known.' ⁴⁸

And he thought besides that their physical discussions were not merely difficult and even impossible, but also impious and opposed to the laws. For some maintained that gods do not exist at all, and others, that the Infinite, or Being, or the One, are gods, and anything rather than those who are generally acknowledged.

Their dissension again, he said, was very great: for some represented the All as infinite, and others as finite; and some maintained that all things are in motion, and others that nothing at all moves.

Moreover the following words of Timon of Phlius in his Silli seem to me the best of all on these very subjects:

'Say then, who urged them to the fatal strife?

Echo's attendant rout: who filled with wrath

Against the silent, sent upon mankind

A fell disease of talk, and many died.' ⁴⁹

Do you see how at last these noble sages scoff at each other? For instance, the same author, besides what I have quoted, describes their mutual jealousy and their battles and quarrels in the following style:

'There baneful Discord stalks with senseless shriek,

Of murderous Strife the sister and ally,

Who, blindly stumbling round, anon her head,

With ponderous weight set firm, uplifts to hope.' ⁵⁰

Since, however, we have now exhibited the dissension and fighting of these sages among themselves, and since the wholly superfluous, and unintelligible, and to us utterly unnecessary study and learning of all the other subjects in which the tribes of philosophers still take pride, have been refuted not by our demonstrations but by their own; nay more, since we have also plainly set forth the reason why we have rejected their doctrines and preferred the Hebrew oracles, let us at this point conclude our treatise on The Preparation for the Gospel; but the more complete treatise on The Demonstration of the Gospel it now remains for us to consider from a different basis of argument, which the question still needs for those who are to deal with its teaching.

It remains, therefore, to make answer to those of the circumcision who find fault with us, as to why we, being foreigners and aliens, make use of their books, which, as they would say, do not belong to us at all; or why, if we gladly accept their oracles, we do not also render our life conformable to their law.

[Footnotes moved to end and numbered]

1. 791 b 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

2. 793 a 6 Theocritus of Chios, Bergk, Poet. Lyr. p. 676

3. 794 c 1 Atticus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

4. 795 a 1 Hom. Il. ii. 872

5. 795 a 7 Archilochus, Fr. vi

6. 795 d 2 Plato, Phaedrus, 349 D

7. 796 a 3 Hom. Il. i. 526 (Lord Derby)

8. 796 c 1 Cf. Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics, VII. xiii. 3

9. 796 c 7 Hom. Il. vi. 147-9

10. 797 a 1 Cf. Hom. Il. xii. 326

11. 797 b 3 Cf. Plato, Republic, ii. 361; x. 613 A

12. 798 a 7 Hom. Il. xxii. 262

13. c 9 Atticus, Fr. iii

14. d 3 Pindar, Fr. Incert. 129 (Boeckh)

15. d 6 Plato, Laws, iv. 715 E

16. d 8 ibid. Timaeus, 29 E

17. 801 d 3 Plato, Timaeus, 30 A

18. d 10 ibid. 41 B

19. 803 b 7 Plato, Timaeus, 29 F

20. 806 a 1 Hom. Il. ii. 478

21. c 1 Atticus, Fr. vi

22. c 2 Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 40 A

23. c 5 ibid. 39 B

24. 808 a 1 Homer, Il. xii. 239

25. 809 b 3 Plato, Phaedrus, 346 B

26. 809 b 5 Plato, Phaedo, 72 E

27. 811 b 1 Plotinus, Ennead. iv. lib. 2: a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

28. 812 d 4 Porphyry against Boëthus On the Saul, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

29. 813 d 2 Cf. Plato, Laws, x. pp. 885, 900, 907

30. 815 b 1 Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 248 B

31. 816 d 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius: cf. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, p. 464, n. 9.

32. 818 c 1 Porphyry, On the Soul, in answer to Boëthus

33. 819 a 1 Numenius, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

34. 822 d 1 Longinus, Fr. vii

35. 823 b 6 Hom. Il. xviii. 376

36. 824 a 1 Plotinus, Ennead. iv. 7, p. 456 (Volkmann)

37. 830 a 6 Plutarch, On the Opinions of Philosophers, 889 F

38. 838 d 4 Plutarch, 888 D

39. 830 d 6 Plutarch, 878 C

40. 841 d 2 Plutarch, 879 A

41. 842 b 7 ibid 886 D

42. 845 c 2 Plutarch, 882 B

43. 846 c 2 Plutarch, 889 A

44. 850 c 4 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, 896 A

45. 861 a 1 ibid. 896 F

46. d 3 Plutarch, ibid. 898 E.

47. 853 c 1 Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, I. i. 11

48. 855 a 3 Homer, Od. iv. 392

49. b 6 Timon, Fr. 9 (Mullach I. p. 84); cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. V. 325 Sylb., Homer, Il. i. 8-10

50. c 5 Timon, Fr. 5; cf. Homer, Il. iv. 440-3

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_01preface.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Preface

E U S E B I U S

BISHOP OF CAESAREA

ON

THE THEOPHANIA

OR

DIVINE MANIFESTATION

OF

OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES, FROM AN ANCIENT SYRIAC VERSION OF THE GREEK ORIGINAL NOW LOST; TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A VINDICATION OF THE ORTHODOXY, AND PROPHETICAL VIEWS, OF THAT DISTINGUISHED WRITER.

INSCRIBED BY PERMISSION TO

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,

CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

BY SAMUEL LEE, D.D.

D.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE; MEMBER OF THE SOCIÉTÉ ASIATIQUE OF PARIS; OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF RHODE ISLAND, AMERICA; CANON OF BRISTOL, RECTOR OF BARLEY, HERTS., REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, &c.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

DUNCAN AND MALCOLM, 37, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.

M.DCCC.XLIII.

TO HIS GRACE

HUGH DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,

&c. &c. &c.

CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, THIS ENDEAVOUR TO RESTORE TO THE Christian Church A LONG LOST WORK, AND TO VINDICATE THE OPINIONS, OF ONE OF ITS MOST LEARNED AND LABORIOUS PRELATES, IS, IN TESTIMONY OF A DEEP SENSE OF OBLIGATION FOR THE MANY MUNIFICENT FAVOURS CONFERRED ON THE UNIVERSITY, IN WHICH HE HAS THE HONOUR OF BEARING OFFICE, BY HIS GRACE'S PERMISSION, MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, BY THE TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR.

PREFACE.

HAVING now to discharge the very agreeable duty of presenting to the Christian Church (in a translation), a long lost work of one of its most learned and laborious Pastors, my first duty will be, to give the best account I can of this Work; my second, to describe the Manuscript from which it has been taken; my third, to lay down the principles by which I have been guided, both in editing the Syriac text of this Manuscript, and in making and illustrating my English Translation of it. When I shall have done these things, I shall,--because some of the opinions of my author have been branded as heretical, and some others will in all probability be considered as groundless and untenable, I mean those which contain his views on Prophecy,--give as brief and candid a review of these opinions as I can: leaving it to the reader to make the conclusions for himself, which he shall deem right and just.

I am well aware of the responsibility attaching itself to an undertaking so perilous, as that of offering to the learned of Europe, for the first time, a work coming from a man so learned, so celebrated, and so often eulogized and condemned, as was the Bishop of Caesarea and Father of Church History. But, for the purpose of satisfying this responsibility to the best of my power, I now proceed, in the first place, to give all the account I can of the Work which I have the honour and pleasure of presenting to the public.

The first, and probably the only, mention of this Work which occurs in any ancient Father of the Church, is to be found in the catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers' by |4 Jerome. And in this, all that this Father says,--after speaking of some of Eusebius's other works,--is, "qeofanei/aj libri quinque," i. e. Of the Divine Manifestation, five books. After him, Suidas says "qeofanei/aj lo&goi e/," which is a mere echo of the words of Jerome. Harles, in his edition of the Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius, speaks of it in this manner. (Vol. vii. p. 408). "Eu0aggelikh_ qeofa&neia, bis citatur in catena in Lucam in cod. Vindobon. caesareo xlii., teste Lambecio comment, tom. iii. p. 166. not. 4. conf. supra nr. 8. Harl".--" Fragmentum ex Eusebii opere deperd. Theophania Evang. e cod. Coislin. Gött. 1740. 4". And again, p. 395, nr. 8, speaking of the work of our author against Marcellus, he says: " Hos quinque Libros adversus Marcellum Labbeus putat innui ab Hieronymo in Catalogo cap. 81. et Suida, quando inter Eusebii Scripta memorat libros quinque peri\ qeofanei/aj. Videtur enim hoc idem illi esse quod qeofanei/aj. Sed id tamquam incertum omitto, quum Hebed Jesu quoque in catalogo Librorum Chaldaicorum memorat Eusebii librum de ortu divino"

The Catalogue of Hebed Jesu, here referred to, will be found in the Bibliotheca Orientalis of Asseman, tom. iii. pt. 1, and the place in p. 18 of this: where, after speaking of the Ecclesiastical History of our author, Hebed Jesu says, [Syriac], i. e. and the Book on the Divine Manifestation. Asseman refers us, in a note, to Cave's Historia Literaria, p. 95, where mention is made of this work of Eusebius, entitled peri\ qeofanei/aj, libri quinque; but Cave tells us nothing more about it, than that it is a work not now extant.

But the thing most worthy of remark here, is Asseman's referring us to Cave at all; when, if the work had existed in the Library of the Vatican, he would, in all probability, as he has done in many other places, have given us a detailed description of it. It may be added that, although Asseman has given us very extensive lists, in this work, of |5 Syriac books deposited in the Vatican, he has never once spoken of this as being there. And the same might be said, with respect to the present very learned librarian of the Vatican, who has, in his erudite and laborious work entitled, "Scriptorum Veterum nova Collectio," said much, and edited some works, of Eusebius, and even given several fragments from our Theophania; yet he has nowhere informed us, that either the Greek text, or the Syriac version, of this Work is to be found there. I may perhaps conclude therefore, that it is not known to exist in that library.

The Citations as noted above in Fabricius, will be found in the following Work, pages 216, 321-2. The Fragment printed at Göttingen in 1740, also mentioned by him, will be either reprinted or noticed hereafter in this Work, if it can be obtained before the last sheet goes to press.

It must be evident, I think, from what has now been said, that the work of our author entitled the Ecclesiastical Theology, noticed above, could not be the same with that entitled the Theophania, or Evangelical Theophania,--for by this latter title is our Work designated in the Catena of Vienna:--while it must be equally certain, that a work by Eusebius bearing the title assigned to it by Jerome, did exist in the Syrian Church: and, as no reason can perhaps be assigned why the Syrians should forge such a work, it is probable, that this is the very work so described by Jerome.

Again, from the fragments of this Work hitherto brought to our notice, (see the places referred to above,) it seems sufficiently certain, that this is the work of Eusebius so described by Jerome. I would add, let the reader also examine in the following pages, the very many places marked as corresponding word for word, with several in the undoubted productions of our author. In our Second Book, for example, a very considerable number of the Sections or Paragraphs, are found to be identically the same with many |6 occurring in the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini:" while in our Fifth Book, the far greater part is also found word for word in the " Demonstratio Evangelica;" not to insist on several others, found either in the "Praeparatio Evangelica," the Ecclesiastical History, or some other work of our author, as shewn in the Notes.

There are also certain peculiarities in the writings of Eusebius which may be mentioned here; they are these: It is customary with him, though not constantly, to commence a subsequent book with the matter, and occasionally with the words, which closed the preceding one. The close and commencement of the First and Second, and of the Second and Third books, respectively, of the "Praeparatio Evangelica" will supply examples of this; as will the corresponding ones of our following Work, and more particularly those of the Fourth and Fifth.

To this may be added the Style of Eusebius, which is universally allowed to be any thing but simple and obvious. His periods are often long, and his style both inverted and involved. He seems moreover, to have been studious to avoid the language in common use, and often to have be-iaken himself to that peculiar to the poets. This latter consideration could not have affected our original text, which is only a translation; while the former has, to a very considerable extent. For our Translator, anxious to shew himself faithful in the discharge of this his duty, has so closely followed his original by endeavouring to render it word for word, that his translation may occasionally be considered as obscurity personified; the Syriac very ill admitting of either inversion, or involution, of style. Several instances of this sort,--to which many more might have been added,--will be found in the Notes attached to the English Translation. Another consideration is, his Platonic manner of speaking of the Deity as a self-existing Being, and with reference to which, no other can be said (properly) to exist, |7 of which we shall speak more particularly a little farther on. His manner of speaking of the Son has too its peculiarities; His being God of God, begotten of God, proceeding from the Father; hence complete, and in all respects like Him; His having ever been, and still being, with, and in, the Father; extending Himself nevertheless throughout all things, and meekly lowering Himself to converse with men, and the like; which will be more particularly noticed hereafter. His occasional allusions moreover to the things passing under his own eyes, as the sufferings of the Martyrs (p. 50); the state of the Church of Caesarea over which he presided, may all be considered, I think, as genuine evidences that Eusebius was the author of this Work; and to these may be added his reasoning generally after the manner of Plato, and in many instances, his adopting the terms used by that philosopher.

From these considerations, I think it must be sufficiently evident, that our Work is a copy of the genuine Greek work of Eusebius, so long lost.--But if not, let it be supposed for a moment that it is a forgery, and that some Syrian was the author of it, who, the better to secure its reception, attached the name of Eusebius to it. I would now ask, Where are we to look for the man, among the writers of the Syrian Church, equal to this task? Philoxenus of Mabug, and Jacob of Edessa¹, had, no doubt, ability sufficient to compose a work on the same subject; but neither of them, |8 nor yet any other Syrian writer, of which I have any knowledge, had any thing like the vigour and learning evinced in this. Much less likely is it, that in such an attempt the Syriac language would have been subjected to the unnatural contortions and involutions so visible in this Work, or that it would be found to have copied Eusebius word for word, to the extent noticed above.

Nor is it in any degree probable, that such an imposition could ever have been practised upon the learned of the Syrian Church. Besides, the original of the Theophania must have been in existence when this Syriac work first made its appearance, and indeed for a long time after; which would have effectually given the lie to any attempt of this sort had it been made. And to this, its unquestioned reception in the Syrian Church, affords full and sufficient testimony.

Having then disposed of this question, let us now approach our second, which is to give some account of the Manuscript from which our Work has been taken.

Sometime in the year 1839, the Rev. Henry Tattam of Bedford, who is an excellent Coptic scholar, formed the resolution of visiting Egypt for the purpose of procuring Coptic manuscripts, in order to complete, if possible, an edition of the Coptic Scriptures. At the suggestion of his friends a subscription was set on foot, for the purpose of assisting in defraying the expense of this undertaking, and this subscription was headed by a contribution of £300. by government. Individuals contributed to a small extent: and Mr. Tattam accordingly set out for Egypt. In a short time he returned, having procured some good Coptic manuscripts, of which a list has been printed and circulated; and also about 50 volumes of Syriac manuscripts², some of which were of an extreme age, and very valuable. |9

These manuscripts Mr. Tattam sent to me, with the request that I would give him some account of their contents; and, at the same time, say what I thought their value might be: which I did as soon as my other engagements would allow. It was in looking over these manuscripts that I had the extreme pleasure of discovering that of which the following Work is a translation. Knowing then, as I did, the extreme rarity of this Work; in other words, that no other copy of it was known to exist, I requested Mr. Tattam to allow me to take a copy of it before it should leave my hands, in order that the Work might not be lost, whatever might happen to this MS. Mr. Tattam, with the disinterestedness for which he is so remarkable, instantly gave his consent, allowing me moreover to retain the MS. as long as I might want it: and, although he soon after disposed of the collection generally to the trustees of the British Museum, he was so obliging as to make this stipulation, that I should be allowed to retain this MS. as long as I might deem it necessary.

My first business now was, to make a correct copy of this very rare and valuable Codex, as far as our work was |10 concerned; and I accordingly copied it out myself with all the expedition I could command. Soon after I had done this, I applied to the Society lately established in the Metropolis for printing Oriental Texts, requesting they would print it, and thus multiply the copies, so as to ensure the safety and permanency of the work. To this request the Committee of that society very graciously acceded. The work was accordingly put to press, and printed by Mr. Richard Watts, a tradesman long and well known for his ability in printing Oriental works generally³. In his hands it had moreover the advantage of being printed in a Syriac type, which was made some years ago under my own inspection, for the purpose of printing a Syriac Bible for the use of the Syrian churches in Malabar. I will add here, that during the passing of the sheets through the press, I collated every one of them with the MS., so that I do trust the Syriac text, now some time completed, will be found as neatly and correctly printed, as the greatest care on the part of both the editor and printer could be expected to insure.

The MS. containing our Work, is very neatly written in the Estrangelo, or old Church-hand-writing of the Syrians, on very fine and well prepared skin. It is of the size of large quarto, each folio measuring about 14½ inches by 11½, and containing three columns each of the width of 2¾ inches, as may be seen in the fac simile prefixed to this Work. The exterior margins average 2½ inches in width, the interior 1¼; and the space between the several columns is about 5/8 of an inch. The MS. contains 245 folios; 71 of the first of which contain a Syriac translation of the Recognitions of St. Clement, as they are called. The 83 |11 next following, the work of Titus Bishop of Bostra⁴, (or Bozrah) against the Manicheans; the next 76 folios contain our Work of Eusebius; the next 14, Eusebius's account of the Martyrs of Palestine, as published in the th book of his Ecclesiastical History; and the last folio, Encomiums on their excellencies, entitled, [syriac]. This last work is incomplete, some leaves having been lost from the end of the MS., and on this account the original date of the MS. has not come down to us in its close, as is usually the case.

We have nevertheless on the reverse of the fourth folio, after the conclusion of our Work, written on the outside margin of one of the folios of the Tract on the Martyrs of Palestine, the following Inscription in a bold, but rather unsightly hand, and in the common Peschito character;

[Syriac]

See, my brethren, if the latter part of this ancient book has been cut off, and has perished together with that (with) which its writer closed and completed it; it was thus written at its end, viz. that "This book was written in the city

|12 of Edessa of Mesopotamia, by the hands of a man named Jacob, in the year seven hundred and twenty and three, (and) was completed in the month of the latter Teshrin." (February). And, just as that which was written there, I have also written here without addition. And the things which are here, I wrote in the year 1398, in the (aera) of the Greeks (i. e. the Seleucidae).

If then we are to take the first of these dates, as given in the aera of the Seleucidae, and this Note as containing a true statement respecting the age of our MS., A. D. 411 will be its date, and its age 1432 years! The date of this Note is, we are told, that of the Greeks (or Seleucidae), that is, A. D. 1398, corresponding to A.D. 1086, just 757 years ago, when, as its author tells us, this manuscript was such as to merit the appellation of ancient!

I was once inclined to think that our MS. could not be so old as this first date made it, and that the year 723, must be that of our common aera; which would give 1120 years for its age; and that this, both from the appearance of the MS., and from some other considerations, was nearer the truth. Yet I must confess, as I have never seen, or heard of, a Syriac MS. bearing a date in our common aera; and, as all Syriac MSS. said to be written at Edessa, do,--as far as I know,--always bear dates according to the aera of the Seleucidae; I do not see how this date can be given in our common aera.

As to the appearance of the MS., although it certainly is in very perfect and clean condition, yet as the climate of Egypt, in which it has been kept probably for many centuries, is extremely dry, it is by no means impossible that the fresh appearance of the MS. is anything more than the nature of the case requires. There certainly are MSS. in the same collection bearing a date, making them but little short of 1300 years old, and yet appearing in quite as sound a state of preservation as this does, but which, as written on |13 skins of a description greatly inferor to this, do not present so clean and bright an appearance. Asseman too, gives us an account of a Syriac MS. of a gospel, preserved in the library of the Vatican, which was written in the year of our Lord 78 ⁵: and this he affirms was, in his day,--about 100 years ago,--as plain and perfect as ever it was.

From this it should seem, that it is impossible to say how long a MS. written on good skin and well preserved may endure; and consequently, how unsafe it is to pronounce positively on the age of any MS., merely from its appearance. The colour of the ink must in all such MSS. as Montfaucon and others have well remarked, necessarily have faded; but to what precise extent, it must, as before, remain undefined for many reasons. The ink in our MS. is so faded though not, I think, to so great an extent as is observable in the Beza MS. at Cambridge. But this might have been occasioned by the place, or manner, in which that MS. was preserved, which was apparently less favourable than that of ours. This question therefore, I am disposed to leave in the state of uncertainty, in which I found it.

I said, in my Preface to the Syriac edition of our Work, that the MS. from which it was taken was, probably not less than a thousand years old. I was not then aware that |14 a date was to be found in it. I am not sorry however to find, that I had greatly underrated its age, as this must be a good evidence to my readers, that I had no disposition to exaggerate.

It may be suggested however, that this very early date might be that of the MS. from which it, or some other prior to it, was copied: it being no uncommon thing with copyists to transcribe, with MSS. which they copy, their dates also; so that a MS. of very modern date, may, in its epi-graphe, carry with it one of the highest antiquity. To this I would answer: If we are to ascribe any credit to the Note given above, this MS. must have been considered an ancient one 757 years ago: and to such a MS. we cannot, perhaps, ascribe an age less than 600 or 700 years: if we take the least of these, the age of our Codes will be 1357 years: if the greatest, 1457: while the date, actually ascribed to it by the Note, makes it 1432 years old, just twenty-five years less than this last computation would make.

There are however some considerations, which would at first sight seem to prove the contrary, and which indeed operated forcibly on my mind in this way, when the very early date given to our MS. first occurred to me: they are these: First, Eusebius died about A.D. 340. If then our MS. was written A. D. 411, this must have happened 71 years only after the death of the author of the original Greek work. We shall now have therefore 71, or a few more years, for the period within which our Syriac translation was made, and, as it appears to me, must have been copied⁶ out several times |15 before our MS. could have been written; which might seem too little. I see no reason however, why this Work of Eusebius,--which must have been a popular one,--could not have been translated into Syriac very soon after it was published: and if so, the Syriac version might have been copied out times innumerable, before the date of our MS.

When the school of Edessa was first founded, I have not been able to discover. It is certain however that it was, and had been, a considerable time in vigorous operation before A. D. 411, the date assigned to our MS⁷. Our Work might therefore have been translated into the Syriac at Edessa, even during the lifetime of its author, or at least early enough to have allowed of our MS. being copied there in A.D. 411, after innumerable copies had been taken from the autograph of the translator, and from one another.

But there are, I think, better reasons for supposing that our translation was not made at Edessa at this early period, but rather in Palestine. We are told by Asseman (l. c. p. CMXXV.), that there were, both at Caesarea and at |16 Scythopolis, (the Bethshan of the Old Testament) in Palestine, schools of sacred literature; and that at Scythopolis the business of interpreting from the Greek into the Syriac language, was vigorously carried on; and, that to this fact our author himself has given his testimony⁸: as also have both Socrates and Sozomen the historians.

If this may be relied on, it is not improbable that our translation was made during the lifetime of Eusebius, and it might be under his inspection, and that of Patrophilus who was then Bishop of Scythopolis. And I think there are certain peculiarities of language in it, tending to shew that it was not made at Edessa, which are these: We never find the form of the feminine plural in verbs⁹, as we constantly do in the works of Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and other writers of that school. The pronoun of the first |17 person plural is rather of the Hebrew, than the Syriac, form. The pronominal forms, [Syriac], never occur in the language of Edessa; nor does the adverbial [Syriac], nor the impersonal [Syriac], nor the combination [Syriac] in the sense of immediately, nor the occasional redundancy, and even defect, of the relative pronoun [Syriac], as far as my knowledge goes: all of which will be found marked in the Notes. I am therefore inclined to believe, that our translation was not made at Edessa, but in Palestine.

The language of this translation,--allowing for the instances just mentioned,--appears to me to be the purest Syriac¹⁰, and such as might be well expected in a work of so ancient a date. I have already remarked, that its order is very greatly inverted, and its collocation involved, from its having been made servilely to follow the Greek original. Of this any one will satisfy himself, by comparing any of its sections with the places pointed out, as found in Greek, in some of the still existing works of Eusebius: which,-- although it has had the effect of giving me a great deal of trouble, as it will any reader of the Syriac text,--is nevertheless a circumstance of infinite value in other respects; and particularly, as it has preserved to our times a most exact copy of an original Greek work of our author, which has, no doubt, been long ago lost.

There is another advantage arising from the circumstance of so much of this work's being still found in the |18 Greek of its author, which is this; we are hence enabled to judge of the extent of Greek learning possessed by the translator. And this, I am induced to believe, was very considerable. I have pointed out in my notes, some instances in which I think he has erred; I am nevertheless bound to say, that I believe his translation to be, upon the whole, quite as accurate as are the best translations hitherto published of the Greek works of Eusebius.

It has been stated above, that our MS. is written neatly and correctly for the most part, and in the ancient character termed Estranghelo. I have now to say that it is entirely without vowel marks, and that the interpunctuation is frequently such, as to supply nothing whatever towards a just conception of the construction of the text. That the Syrians had a system of interpunctuation answering, in some respects, to that afforded by the accents of the Hebrew Bible, I have no doubt; yet I must say, that hitherto this has not been satisfactorily developed. Mr. Ewald has indeed endeavoured to do this, in a work published at Gottingen in 1832, entitled "Abhandlungen zur Orientalischen und Biblischen Literatur;" in which, at p. 103 and following, he has treated on the "accentuationssystem" of the Syrians according to some MSS. found in the Royal Library at Paris; and this, I have no doubt, he has done with all good fidelity. Yet I must say, the system made out by him, receives but very little countenance from any ancient MS. hitherto seen by me. The older writers seem to have adopted a system much more simple, and less encumbered with marks; the more modern ones, particularly the Maronites,--to whom we owe the interpunctuation of the greater Polyglotts,--appear to me to be the real authors of his system. However this may be, all I have done in printing our Syriac text has been, to follow the MS. as closely as I possibly could; I say this, because cases occur in which it is scarcely possible to say, whether the Copyist intended the |19 point to stand on the line of the text, above it, or below it. Some remarks will be found, in my notes, on the use of Ribbui, ( [Syriac] ) the mark commonly attending the plural number in nouns, and occasionally in verbs, in which our MS. seems to be singular. In this case too, I have rigidly adhered to the MS.

The rules, under which I have proceeded in making my translation from the Syriac, are the following. As I professed to undertake the office of a translator, and not of a commentator, I thought it right to confine myself as closely to my original, as the nature of the case and my best endeavours would enable me. If therefore, I have followed my original as closely as I could, I trust I have not done this to such a degree, as to have made my English either harsh, or difficult of apprehension. Where I found the Syriac greatly obscure, I generally added a note, and referred to the Greek, if accessible. And, for the better understanding of the mind of my author, I have occasionally pointed out parallel passages occurring in the Fathers, who were either prior to him, and therefore probably imitated by him, as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others; or, who succeeded him, particularly Theodoret, who was evidently a great imitator of him. I have also cited such passages from the classical, and other writers, as my author either referred to, or commented upon, as Herodotus, Thucydides, Diogenes Laer-tius, Plato, Aristotle, Josephus and others; which cost me much time and trouble. I did not however deem it necessary to make a collation of all, or of any, of the Greek or Latin Fathers for this purpose: all I have done, or intended to do, was, to mark down such coincidences as occurred generally in my reading, during the time in which I was engaged in this work. Many other similar passages might doubtless be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and particularly in Justin |20 Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, Lactantius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, which I leave to the greater industry and time of others, who may choose to follow out the enquiry. Such illustrations and notes as are given on the Syriac text, were intended for the use of students who may be induced to read that work. I trust I have, in this way, provided a very useful Chresto-mathy for the advancement of Syriac literature.

The divisions, i. e. the paragraphs, or sections, which I have made in my text, both of the Syriac Edition, and of my English Translation, are in all respects exactly what I found them in the MS. I have however added numerals for the purpose of facilitating reference, either from the Syriac Text to my Translation, or from either of these to the original Syriac Manuscript. I might indeed have made a more equal distribution of these paragraphs or sections, but I thought it would be best, for the reasons just now given, to abide by the old one. I thought too, that, if the original Greek should be discovered hereafter, it might be as well not to alter this division of the text,-- particularly as it is one of a very ancient date,--for the purpose of affording the fullest opportunity for seeing what its ancient state was, and thence the more easily to verify the identity of such work, should it indeed ever be found.

I will now add a few remarks on the Work itself, and as to the period at which it was probably written. I think I may say, that the Work itself is worthy of the piety and learning of the deservedly celebrated Father of Church History. As a brief exposition of Christianity, particularly of its Divine authority, and amazing influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed. The work of Theodoret, entitled "Graecarum affectionum curatio" lately reprinted by Dr. Gaisford, is certainly more full on the particular points which it was intended to illustrate: but then it owes much to the industry and learning of our author, and is less comprehensive in its |21 context. The Stromateis of Clemens of Alexandria, and the "Civitas Dei" of Augustine, are perhaps more abundant on particular questions; while the work of Clemens is less orderly, and both of these take a less extensive range of inquiry, and are not so well adapted for general reading. When we consider the very extensive range of enquiry occupied by our author, the great variety both of argument and information which it contains, and the small space which it occupies; we cannot, I think, avoid coming to the conclusion, that it is a very extraordinary work, and one which is as suitable to our own times, as it was to those for which it was written. Its chief excellency is, that it is argumentative, and that its arguments are well grounded, and logically conducted. If it once or twice appeals to the power of Christianity in inducing many to devote their lives to a state of virginity, and to some other things quite unessential to vital religion; we should bear in mind, that this was the foible of his day, and that, of the thousands who may be found both able and willing to deprecate and blame this, not so much as one perhaps will to follow his virtues, or give any thing like such evidences of real learning, and of Christian piety and zeal.

As to the period at which it was written, I think it must have been, after the general peace restored to the Church by Constantine, and before either the "Praeparatio," or the "Demonstratio Evangelica," was written. My reason for the first of these suppositions is: Our author speaks repeatedly of the peace restored to the Church; of Churches and Schools restored, or then built for the first time: of the nourishing state of the Church of Caesarea; of the extended, and then successfully extending, state of Christianity: all of which could not have been said during the times of the last, and most severe persecution. My reasons for the second of these suppositions are, the considerations that whatever portions of this Work are found, either in the "Praeparatio," |22 the "Demonstratio Evangelica," or the " Oratio de laudibus Constantini," they there occur in no regular sequence of argument as they do in this Work: especially in the latter, into which they have been carried evidently for the purpose of lengthening out a speech. Besides, many of these places are amplified in these works, particularly in the two former as remarked in my notes; which seems to suggest, that such additions were made either to accommodate these to the new soil, into which they had been so transplanted, or, to supply some new matter, which had suggested itself to our author. And again, as both the "Praeparatio" and "Demonstratio Evangelica," are works which must have required very considerable time to complete them, and which would even then be unfit for general circulation; it appears probable to me, that this more popular, and more useful work, was first composed and published, and that the other two,--illustrating as they generally do, some particular points only,--argued in order in our Work,-- were reserved for the reading and occasional writing of our author during a considerable number of years, as well for the satisfaction of his own mind, as for the general reading of the learned. It appears probable to me therefore, that this was one of the first productions of Eusebius, if not the first after the persecutions ceased.

Of the authors cited in the following pages, I have not always had it in my power to quote either the latest or the best Editions. In many cases I could consult those only which happened to be in my own possession, not only because it is not always in my power to be within the precincts of the University, and to avail myself of its Libraries; but also, even when there, its Libraries are neither large nor rich in this respect.

I have in some instances written the proper names as I found them in my Syriac original, which I could hardly avoid, both as it appeared to be my duty to represent this |23 rather than any other exemplar, and also because the nature of the passage occasionally required this.

If I have in any instance failed to seize the sense of my author, I can only say, by way of defence, that I have done the best in my power to ensure accuracy in this respect. I have spared no pains, and have thought no inquiry too great, to do justice to him. Still, as Syriac Literature is but in a state of infancy among us, whether as it respects the character of the Grammars, Dictionaries, Authors, or other helps of this sort; if I have any where failed, I may perhaps hope for the indulgence which the nature of the case requires: and nothing beyond this do I wish. In all such cases, I shall be most happy in receiving suggestions which may improve my Work, and shall be as ready both to adopt these, and to be thankful for them. Of the Work itself I may say, If it has cost me much labour and research, and crowded upon me an increase of labour, depriving me in many instances even of necessary relaxation and exercise; it has nevertheless brought with it pleasures, which I shall ever remember with the greatest thankfulness. To have had the privilege of restoring to the Christian Church, a Work of one of its brightest ornaments as a Scholar and Theologian in the best of its days, is indeed an honour of which few can boast: while the satisfaction of hoping, that it may be instrumental for ages to come, in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth, is more than sufficient to repay any labour which its restoration might have cost.

I have now to express my thanks to the Syndics of the University Press, for their liberality in taking upon themselves the principal part of the expense incurred in printing this Work; and to add, that I hope this will not have been thrown away on the present occasion.

Note on the electronic text: The preface given above is then followed in the book by 5 'Preliminary Dissertations', taking up pp.xxiv-clix: over 130 pages! These are somewhat diffuse, but not without interest. They deal with topics such as Eusebius' opinions on various theological issues, but I believe most people will not find them interesting, and it would take more time than I have to spare to transcribe them. If anyone really wants them and is prepared to share in the labour of proofing them, by all means contact me. Otherwise I will save myself the labour. RP.

[Selected Footnotes: some were omitted which required transcribing Syriac but were of no interest to the non-Syriac speaker]

1. ¹ If we may rely on the date of our MS. however, presently to be noticed, this Translation must have existed long before the times of either of these writers.--It is worth remarking too, that not only was this work written long before the appearance of Mohammed, but, the MS. itself was written nearly 200 years before he was born!--which may be considered as supplying tolerably good matter for proof, that no expectation was then entertained of the coming of such a Teacher as he was, or that the Scriptures underwent any alteration afterwards for the purpose of opposing him. This argument has been stated more at length in the latter part of my "Martyn's Persian Controversies."

2. ¹ These he purchased at the monastery of the Blessed Virgin in the desert of Nitria (or Askit. The Coenobium Scetense of Asseman.), situated on the west of the Nile, and somewhat more than 80 miles from Cairo. Asseman visited this Monastery in 1715, when he tells us its Library did not contain more than about 200 Volumes. Of these he requested to have a hundred, but could not get more than nine or ten good authors, with a few others. (Bibl. Orient. Tom. i. Pref.) But in his Catalogue of the " Codices Nitrienses," ib. pp. 561--572, he gives an account of 34 Codices. Some of which were perhaps obtained on a former occasion by his Cousin Elias (ib.); from which, according to Peter Benedict their Editor and Translator, were the Works of Ephrem Syrus published at Rome, in 1737--43. I am greatly rejoiced to find, that Mr. Tattam has just returned from a second visit to this same Monastery, and has brought with him another collection of Syriac Manuscripts, from which, I trust, much valuable matter will be extracted and brought before the public.--It is evident that many of the MSS. brought to England by Mr. Tattam, had passed through the hands of Asseman, from certain marks found in them: and this I think is true of ours, as certain pencil-marks are found in it, which could hardly have been placed there by an Oriental.

3. ¹ London, printed for the Society for the publication of Oriental Texts, sold by James Madden and Co., 8, Leadenhall-street. 1842. To this I prefixed a short Preface, referring the reader to the more ample one intended to go forth with this Work.

4. ² The Metropolis of Arabia Petraea. Syr. [Syriac] or [Syriac] Gr. and Lat. Bostra. Arab, [Arabic] Basra. Assem. Bibl. Orient. Tom. iii. p. ii. p. DCCXXX. Not to be confounded with the Bozrah, [Hebrew] of Jerem. xlix. 13, of the Idumeans, nor with that of the Moabites, ib. xlviii. 24. Reland's Palestine, Lib. in. p. 666. Edit. 1714. Where we are told that this Bishop was present at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 363. This work of Titus was printed by Canisius, in the original Greek: the text, however, is any thing but good and exhibits many Lacunae, which this very ancient Syriac translation would well supply.

5. ¹ Assemani. Bibl. Orient. Tom. ii. p. 486. His words are: " Erat quoddam Evangelium Edessenum (hoc est Syriacum Edessae exaratum) pervetustam quidem, sed clarum ac dilucidum, ex quo ne jota quidem unum deletum fuerat, legebatur autem clarius quam libri recens exarati, et unus dumtaxat prior quinternio prae antiquitate ex eo exciderat. Ad ejus vero calcem ita scriptum erat." (I omit the Syriac,. and give Asseman's translation of it.) "Absolutus est sanctus iste liber Feria quinta, die 18. Canun prioris (hoc est, Decembris) Anno Graecorum 389. (Christi 78.) propria manu Achaei Apostoli, socii Mar Maris Discipuli Mar Adaei Apostoli, cujus Oratio nobiscum sit Amen." If any reliance is to be placed on this document, it will follow, that this Syriac Gospel (and it does not say which Gospel is meant) was translated from the Greek probably before the death of the last Evangelist!

6. ¹ My reason for this opinion is grounded on the fact, that many of the proper names found in this MS. are so deformed by the mistakes of the Copyists, as to make it extremely probable that many Copies had been made from the Translator's Autograph, before our Copy was written: e.g. p. 71, we have [Syriac] for [Syriac] or the like: p. 131, [Syriac] for probably; a corruption so great as to bid utter defiance to critical conjecture, had we indeed had nothing else to rely upon: p. 148, [Syriac], Herododus, for Herostratus: to which many others might be added. There are also some other errors, such as [Syriac], for [Syriac] see pp. 187, 223, 302, 276, &c.,--all of which, as far as they have occurred to me, I have corrected in the notes.

7. ² According to Asseman (Bibl. Orient. Tom. iii. p. ii. p. lxix.) it had been established from time immemorial: his words are, "In urbe Edessa Scholam fuisse Persicae gentis, ab immemorabili conditam, in qua sacras literas Christiani Juvenes......docebantur." And ib. p. CMXXIV--v. we are told, that Eusebius of Emesa studied during his infancy at Edessa, but finished his education under our author in Caesarea of Palestine. His words are (after Socrates, Lib. ii. cap. 6), " Eusebium Emessenum Episcopum testatur ab infantia imbutum fuisse literis in schola Edessenae urbis, quae illi patria erat, humaniores deinde hausisse literas, sed tandem reversum esse ad scripturas sacras sub magisterio Eusebii Caesareae Episcopi, et Patrophili Episcopi Scythopolitani."

8. ¹ L. c. quoted by Asseman. His words are, " Scholae sacrarum literarum in utraque urbe erant. Caesareae nimirum, ubi Pamphilus martyr bibliothecam, ut supra dixi, instituerat et Scythopoli, ubi officium Interpretis de Graeca in Syriacum linguam vigebat, ut in Actis Martyrum Palaestinae ab Eusebio Caesareensi collectis de S. Procopio martyre legitur," &c. "Socrati suffragatur Sozomemis," &c. Lib. in. cap. v. The martyrdom alluded to, occurred in the first year of the persecution of Dioclesian, and it is the first in our author's work on the Martyrs of Palestine. The passage is, as found in our MS., in these words: --

[Syriac]

His family was of Baishan (Bethshan), and he ministered in the appointment of the Church in (three) different particulars. First he was a Reader: in another appointment, he interpreted the Greek Language in the Aramaic (Syriac.) And (in) the last, which was superior to the former ones, he was opposed to the powers of wickedness, and the Demons trembled before him.-- Asseman gives, " Hic genere quidem Hierosolymitanus erat; in Basan autem urbe.--morabatur": differing considerably from our MS.

9. ² As [Syriac]

10. ⁷ It partakes in no respect of the corrupt dialect, termed by Adler "Hierosolymitana," as noticed in his work on the Syriac Versions of the Scriptures, and as found in a MS. discovered by him in the Library of the Vatican.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 18th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_02book .htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Book 1

THEOPHANIA.

THE FIRST BOOK OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA ON THE DIVINE MANIFESTATION.

1. THOSE who say on the constitution of the whole of this great and beautiful world, and on the diversified subsistence and manifold structure of the heavens and the earth, that it has neither beginning nor governour; and that there is no Lord, and no Providential care (existing); but that it has arisen of itself, casually, undesignedly, and by blind (lit. foolish) accident, however this may have, happened, are altogether impious and godless¹: on which account they are excluded from the divine assemblies, and with propriety shut out from our holy temples. Because, neither can they themselves possess a house without contrivance and care; nor can a ship be well constructed with its appurtenances, without a shipwright; nor a garment be woven, without the art of weaving; nor a city |2 be built, when the science of the architect is wanting. And, as they themselves confess these things, I know not by what estrangement of the intellect it is, that they do not consider the courses of the sun (as being) according to their manner; the changes of the moon, according to their appointments; the (several) orders of the stars, as in their due course; and the revolutions of the curvatures of the heavens, and the recurrence and changes of times and seasons². And again with these, that (they do not consider) the weight of the mountains (as regulated) by the balance³; the equalization of days and nights; the unimpeded production of the animals; the traditionary and unchanging succession of life of long duration; the herbs of every sort of flower which spring out of the earth; the provisions for all the animals, as suitable for each; their several senses; the members of the body; their properties of excellence, and as located in their (several) situations, so that (men) see with their eyes, and feel with their hands: which they also say, is obvious to the blind. So that with atheistical affirmations, and injurious wickedness of mind, |3 (they assert) that there is no work either of wisdom, of the WORD OF GOD, or of Providence (evinced in all this); but they imagine on the contrary, that (all) is of blind fortune, and happens just as it may be, without object or end. These same therefore are, as being atheistical, driven far away from the Divine hearing (of the Word), and entirely from the society of those who fear God.

2. The company too of the Polytheists, on the other hand, set in order against the preceding, seems to me to be in extreme error;----that they err, as children in intellect, who change the worship of the Maker of the world, the Governour of all, the God who is over all, for (that) of the things which are of Him; and (hence) honour the sun, the moon, and the rest of the parts of the universe, the primary elements, the earth, water, air, and fire, with the name due to Him, who is their Maker and Creator; and call those Gods⁴ which never existed; nor had existed, nor had been (so) named, had not the Maker⁵ of the universe, THE WORD OF GOD, willed that they should exist. Nor do they appear to me better than those who leave the chief Architect, to admire the excellency of workmanship (visible) in the houses of kings; the wrought cielings⁷ and the walls; their many coloured and flowered pictures; their roofs variegated with gold and sculpture of precious stones; and attribute to these the praise and wisdom due to their Artificer; which they ought to ascribe, not to the things seen, but to Him alone who is their chief Architect; to confess Him to be the cause of their wonder, and of these many works |4 of wisdom. For He alone is wise who supplied the cause, that these many things should thus be. These differ, therefore, in no respect from mere infants. Nor do those whose admiration is expended on the lyre with its seven strings,----the (mere) instrument of music,----but not on him who is the inventor of its structure, nor on him who knows its use, nor yet on his wisdom. Nor (again) do those who leave him who is eminent in war, to adorn his spear and shield with the crowns of victory. Nor do those who honour the streets, squares, buildings, temples, gymnasia----things inanimate----with the admiration due to the great king, who caused the erection of such chief city of his kingdom: when it was right they should admire, neither the pillars nor the stones, but the great maker and lawgiver⁶ of these instances of wisdom.

3. In⁷ conformity with these (considerations) also, we make this same (Being) the (efficient) cause of all which we see with the eyes of the body; not the sun, the moon, nor any other of the things in the heavens. It is becoming too, that we should confess them all to be the works of wisdom: but not, that we should honour or worship them by means of any similitude of Him, who is their Maker and Creator. From the contemplation of these too, we both praise and worship, with the whole affection of the soul, Him who again is known, not by means of the bodily eyes, but only by the mind which is pure and enlightened; |5 Him (I say) who is the King of all, THE WORD OF GOD. For no one ever graced the (mere) body of any wise and intelligent man, (or) his eyes⁸, head, hands, feet, or the rest of his flesh, much less his external clothing, with the title of wisdom; nor yet has termed the vessels in the houses, nor the service-vessels, of the philosophers, wise; while every thinking person has expressed his wonder at that concealed, and unseen, mind which is in man.

4. Thus, and more particularly,----before these visible ornaments which are (but) the bodies of this whole universe, and which have been fabricated from one (species of) matter,----let us express our wonder at that unseen and invisible WORD, that Maker and Adorner of the exemplars⁹ of all things, who is the ONLY (begotten) WORD OF GOD: whom, the Maker of all, He who is beyond all, and above all being, generated of Himself as a ray of light from His own Godhead, and constituted Him both the Leader and Governour of this whole (world). |6

5. For it was impossible that this perishable being of bodies, and this Nature of reasonable creatures (such) as it now is, could be brought near to God the Governour of all, on account of its exceedingly great imperfection. For He is an Essence beyond and above all, which can neither be described, comprehended, nor approached; and (which) dwells in the glorious light, to which nothing can be compared,----as the Divine words declare¹⁰. For this had no existence, and out of nothing did He send it forth. And (hence) it was greatly different, and very far removed, from the nature of (His) Essence. Well therefore did He, the fulness of all good, the God of all, first appoint a Mediator¹¹, the Divine Power, His ONLY (begotten), who should be sufficient for all¹²; who could accurately, abundantly, and as present, hold converse with His Father⁴, receive of His inward and secret (nature), and be meekly lowered to the form and manner of those who were (so) far removed from His princely state. In no |7 other way could it be either glorious or right, that He, who is beyond and above all, should be mixed up with matter that is perishable, and with a body. On this account, the DIVINE WORD entered by a (sort) of commixture into this whole, and bound together the bands (as it were) of all things, by means of the Divine power which is incorporeal: leading on and carrying forward, and governing (the whole) by every species of wisdom, as it seemed good to Him.

6. The proof then, of this conclusion is obvious. For, if those which we usually term the primary elements of all,----the earth, water, air, and fire, were themselves the constituent portions of the universe, and are constituted of a mixed nature, which we even see with our eyes is the case,----and, if the essence of all were one, and that comprehending the whole, and were (as) the Mother and Nurse (of all these things), as those who are subtle in these matters love to term it; and were without figure and visibility, and wholly destitute of soul and of reason;---- Whence, one may ask, was it, that this world was made to consist of that of which it now does? Whence also the distinction of the (several) elements? And whence the |8 concordant course of those things which were adverse to agreement? And, Who commanded this heavy element of earth, to ride over that of humid matter?

7. And, Who is He that has caused water, the nature of which is to run downwards, to take an opposite course, and to ascend to the clouds?

8. And, Who is He that has so constrained the power of fire, that it shall insinuate itself into wood? and has made it to mix itself up with things which are in their natures opposed to it?

9. And, Who has attempered this cold air with the power of heat; has released these from their (natural) contentions with one another, and has reconciled them (as it were) to love?

10. Who is He that has distinguished the race subject to mortality with the character of extension, and drawn it out to the length of the life which is immortal?

11. Who is He that has so formed the Male, fashioned the Female, and associated them both as one compound, and (thus) discovered one source of generation for all animal life?

12. Who is He that changes this fluent generating seed from its fluid, perishing, and senseless state, and makes it (that) of the generation of animal life?

13. Who is He that performs even to this time all these things, and innumerable others beyond them, and which exceed all wonder and astonishment?

14. Who is He that daily and hourly, secretly and by a power that is invisible, effects the generation and changes of these things?

15. But, the efficient Cause of all things is justly said to be that worker of miracles, THE WORD OF GOD. For THE WORD OF GOD who is Almighty, has in truth |9 extended himself into every thing: above into the heights, and beneath into the depths, has He drawn out His incorporeal soul. He also holds, as it were in His hands, the breadth and length of all in (its) extent. This whole has He brought, and bound up together; and has (thus) set up for himself this (immense) vessel filled with every sort of compound. He too, by every species of wisdom, and by means of the power which is rational, has made well to combine and to harmonize, according to their several measures, this essence of bodies destitute of reason, form, and visibility; governing by words unutterable, and directing for the advantage of all¹³, the Sun, the Moon, and those (other) luminaries that are in the heavens.

16. This selfsame WORD OF GOD too brought himself down also upon the earth, and (there) set up all the various kinds of animals, and every beautiful form of plant.

17. This selfsame WORD OF GOD also immerged even into the depths of the sea¹⁴, and determined those swimming natures: and here again he made the myriads of forms which are innumerable, with every various kind of living creature.

18. The selfsame also completes, by the effectuating art of nature, those (beings) which are inwardly |10 conceived in the womb, and forms (them) into animals. The same too makes to ascend to the heights as light, this humid, heavy, and naturally descending, matter (of sea-water¹⁵), and thus, completing the course of his government, changes it to sweetness, and brings it (again) in due measure, and at determined seasons, upon the earth: and, like the excellent husbandman who waters his land well, and attempers the wet with the dry, he changes (things) into every sort of form: at one time, into beautiful flowers; at another, into the forms peculiar to each species; at another, into delightful scents; at another, into different and diversified sorts of fruits; at another, into every kind of taste which gives pleasure.

19. But why need I take upon myself to discuss the powers of THE WORD OF GOD? or, venture upon a thing, the doing of which is impossible, and, it is clear, greatly surpasses all mortal mind?

20. Others indeed name this same (Being) Universal nature; others, the Universal soul; others, Fate; and others say, that He is the God who is beyond all. But, I know not how they confound together the things, which are so greatly and widely different; and (thus) cast down to the earth, and mix up, that Governour of all, that Power of (eternal) existence which is above all, with bodies, (and) |11 with perishable matter; affirm, that He is the medium both of irrational and rational animals, and is comprehended both in those that are mortal, and immortal. But these things they (do).

21. The Divine doctrine, however, declares that He who is above all that is good, the same is the (efficient) Cause of all, and is beyond all comprehension; and that on this account He cannot be described, enounced, or named: and, not only that He is elevated above all verbal description, but also above all mental apprehension; that He is neither contained in place, nor existing in body, neither in the heavens, nor in the aether, nor in any one portion of this whole. But that He is at once within, and independent of all, reserved in the unseen depth of (His own) knowledge. The Divine declarations teach us to recognize Him alone as the God of truth, who is far removed from all essence of body, and a stranger to all service of government. It has, therefore, been delivered to us, that all is of Him, but not that it is by (or through) Him¹⁶.

22. But He, as a king within the concealment and privacy in which He is incomprehensible, sits in the elevation of His own splendour, governing and ordering (all) solely by the power of His own will. For, by His will exists whatsoever does exist; and, had He not (so) willed, neither had it (so) existed. He wills, however, every good thing, because He is also good in His own essential being. |12

23. He therefore, by whom are all things, THE WORD OF GOD, proceeded forth from above, from His good Father, as a river ever flowing from an unlimited fountain, and distilling as rain, in words unutterable, to those who were perishing, completely furnished for the common salvation of all. And, as in the case with ourselves, that secret and invisible mind which is within us, no man ever knew, either how, or why, it exists in its own essential character, but (which) sits as a king within the secrecy of its chambers, and considers of the things to be done; so the only word then proceeding from it, begotten as it were of a Father in the privacy of retirement, and being the primary angel (messenger) to all, of the mind of its Father, openly publishes those things which its father considered in secret; and, passing on into the hearing of all, brings to full effect the will (so made known). These (hearers) then receive the benefit of the word, while the secret and invisible mind, this father of (such) word, no one had ever seen with the eyes. So also,----that is, (in a manner) surpassing all examples and comparisons, that completing WORD OF GOD, the King of all,----was, as being the only (begotten) Son of His Father, established, not by any mere emanating virtue; nor constituted in his nature by the enunciation of names and words; nor designated by any sound produced by the percussion of the air: but THE WORD is living, and is the minister of God who is |13 over all, and in His essence, He is "the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God." He proceeds moreover from the Godhead and rule of His Father; and is the¹⁷ good offspring of the good Father, and the common Saviour of all. He also waters all, pouring out from his own fulness upon all, life, and reason, and wisdom, and light, and every good thing. He waters too, not only the things that are before Him and near Him, but those also that are removed far away on the earth, and in the sea; and if there be any other creature, in any thing that exists. He too keeps in order, by His justice and the power of His rule, every border, place, law, and possession: to each and every thing does He distribute and give that which is suitable: apportioning (this) to some who are in the sphere above the world; to others, who reside in the heavens; to others, whose habitation is the aether; to others, that are in the air; and to others, on the earth. Then passing on from these, He again well distinguishes, in other quarters, the lives of all; carrying forward with due discrimination, their customs and various observances. He also provides the food for the animals, not only for those that are rational, but also for those that are not so: (and this) for the advantage of those that are.

24. To some he gives the comforts of a mortal and temporary life; to others, that they may partake of immortality: and of every thing, as THE WORD OF GOD, is He the Doer. And, being near to every thing, and |14 pervading all with a power which is rational, and, looking up to His Father, He governs the things that are below according to His intimations, and after Him accordingly as the Saviour of all. And thus, mediating and bringing near to the (eternal) Being this essence of things, He constitutes the bond which cannot be severed. THE WORD OF GOD (I say), which is in the midst, which binds together those which are diverse, and suffers them not to fall off (and) away, He is the Providential care which is watchful over all, He is the Director of all: He is "the Power of God, and the wisdom of God": He is the only (begotten) Son of God; the God which is begotten of God, THE WORD. For, "In the beginning was THE WORD, and THE WORD was with God, and THE WORD was God. Every thing was by Him, and without Him was not any thing:"---- the glorious words of the divine men (so) teaching.

25. This is the common Saviour of all, on whose account this universal essence is productive, and rejoices that it ever drinks from his dewdrops; is always youthful in its stature, and ever presents the appearance of beauty. He therefore holds its reins, and, at the intimations of His Father, rightly guides the mighty ship of this universe, |15 (and) with His own helm He governs it. This (Being) excellent of art, did He who is God above all, as a good Father beget as good Fruit, the ONLY (begotten) SON, and give (him) to this world (as) a most excellent gift; did cast as a Soul into a body destitute of soul, and into the nature of irrational bodies, His own rational WOHD: and (so), by virtue of the DIVINE WORD, did He both enlighten and enliven this (otherwise) shapeless, unsightly and colourless, being ----by Him, (I say) whom we ought, both to know and to worship, as being ever near to the matter and elements, of (all) bodies. Thus, that which was immaterial, bodiless, and unconscious (lit. unwise), became, as from others, endued with consciousness (lit. became wise). But He is THE LIFE, and He is THE LIGHT; the intelligent offspring of THE LIGHT which cannot be described. He too, is ONE in His Essence, even as He is |16 from ONE Father. He possesses however many powers (virtues) within His own person. For, we should not suppose that, because the (constituent) parts of the world are many, they therefore constitute many powers¹ (Demons): nor, because the operations are many, we ought therefore, to set up for ourselves many Gods.

26. Those therefore who follow many Gods, commit, as children in soul, a grievous mistake when they make into Gods the (constituent) parts of the Universe, and (virtually) divide the one world into many¹⁸. As if one should take from the person of a man the eyes only, and then affirm that these were the man; and again, that the ears were another; and so again, the head (another); or, should gradually sever the neck, the breast, the shoulders, the feet, the hands, or the rest of the members; or, that he should (so) divide the faculty of sense by |17 process of reasoning, and then affirm on this one man, that these (portions) really were many men: he would deserve nothing better of the wise, than the ridicule due to folly. Such as this man would be, would he likewise be who fabricated for himself many Gods out of the (constituent) parts of the one Universe, and would sever into many sections those Bodies of all, whose nature is fleeting and dispersive, and which are fabricated out of one primary material; and then again, would by an effort of reason make these his Gods?.

27. Much worse than this would he be, who would also imagine that this entirely made world,----constituted as it is wholly and altogether of many parts,----is God: not considering that the Divine nature could never subsist of parts or be complex, or could stand in need of some other to compound it: nor again, that if it consisted of parts, could it be Divine. For, How can it consist of things different and dissimilar, faulty and excellent? Because that which is compounded, must also be dissoluble; and that which consists of many parts, is of necessity dissimilar¹⁹: while that which is equal in all and unchanging in all, is simple and incomplex. That too which is complex, is compounded of things dissimilar. And that which is dissimilar has in itself something faulty, opposed to that which is excellent. For if the whole were excellent, it would (then) be equal and similar. And, if it were so in the whole, it would in the whole be consistent with itself: and thus would it be in essence simple, |18 and without parts. But this nature (of things) does not shew itself to be such, since this world is viewed as wholly subject to sense: for it is constituted of many parts, and is (therefore) compounded; it is too, in many of its parts, changing. And where it is thus, there is also the capability of a nature of an opposite description. And hence this world associates beings, at once both mortal and immortal, rational and irrational; in matter too, both cold and hot; wet and dry. From all which, God is (necessarily) free. For, if the nature of God be simple, it is also without parts, and is uncompounded; (placed) beyond, and far removed from, every ordinance of this visible world. On this account the Preacher of Truth thus openly says: "The Word of God proclaimed, He who is before all, is alone the Saviour of all rational beings.'' But God who is beyond all, is the head (source) of the generation of THE WORD. He alone is the Cause of all; and, of His ONLY (begotten) WORD, He is truly styled THE FATHER. Above Him therefore, no other Cause can be assigned. He therefore is God alone²⁰; and from Him proceeded forth, by (virtue of) His own secret will which is unutterable, the ONLY (begotten), the Saviour of all, the one WORD of God, who (is) through all.

28. This sensible world is therefore, not unlike the lyre of many strings, consisting of many dissimilar portions:|19----of acute and grave, lax and intense; and of others between these, all well combined together by the art of the Musician. Such then is also this (universe), collected (as it is) into one compound, consisting of many parts, and many compositions; of cold at once, and warm its opposite; and of matter, wet and dry. It is moreover a mighty vessel, and is the work of the God of all.

29. But the DIVINE WORD has not been constituted of parts, nor has it been compounded of any opposing (nature), nor does it consist of (either) part or compound; but both wisely and well does He in every thing resemble His Father; and to the King of all does He give back the praise, which to Him is both suitable and due. (And) as in one body there are many parts, members, viscera, and bowels, collected together, and one invisible soul (only) is diffused through all; and one is the mind which (consists) of neither body nor parts; so also (we say) of this one world, which is constituted of many parts. So also the WORD OF GOD, manifold in power and Almighty, is one extended into all things, and is invisibly diffused throughout them: and of all, in which He (thus) subsists, He is the (efficient) Cause.

30. Do you not see with your eyes, that one heaven surrounds the whole world? and that many orders of stars revolve in this? And again, (that) there is one sun, not many? and that this eclipses the splendour of them all by its superior light? So likewise is there one Father, the WORD of whom also is one, who must be the good |20 offspring of the good Father. If therefore any one complain, that there are not many Sons; so should he also complain, that many suns, moons, and worlds, are not established, and at many other things, after the manner of madmen, who endeavour to subvert those of nature which are right and good. But, as in things visible, one sun gives light to the whole sensible world; so also in things intellectual, the one WORD OF GOD, filled with all power, secretly and (in a manner) imperceptible to us, gives light to all. For Why should many suns be required, when one is sufficient to effect every thing? And again, What need can there be of many Sons of God, when the ONE, the only (begotten), is sufficient to effect the will of His Father? For, if there were many, then would they be either similar, or dissimilar²¹. And if they were similar, then would their multiplicity be in vain; because one Effectuator, and this Almighty, would be sufficient for the performance and due ordering of all. But the WORD OF GOD, and the WISDOM OF GOD, which is ONE in its essence, brings along with it the light, and the life, and (indeed) all the fulness of goodness. The multitude (then) of those who were (thus) vainly, and not well joined together in a power that were similar, could have no advantage. But, if it were necessary they should be dissimilar, How then could that which were dissimilar, or incomplete and defective in its nature, be on the |21 other hand an Effectuator, and that sufficient for all? But nothing which is horn of God is incomplete. The only (begotten) of God is therefore complete (the Efficient). Nor are there many WORDS OF GOD. On the contrary, THE GOD who is OF GOD is sufficient for all, and is Almighty; is the one Image of the light of His Essence, as the divine words declare; who, for the convenience of governing and healing all existing beings, was necessarily appointed; who is also in His essence one, but in His powers manifold. And Him alone do we declare to he sufficient for the adorning of all things.

31. Because too, there is in man (but) one Soul and one reasoning faculty, and this at the same time capable of comprehending many things; whether (for example), it cultivate the earth, or fit up a ship, or guide it, or build (a house), still it is one and the same: or, whether it learn and do many things, still there is but one mind and cogitative faculty in man. It is moreover capable at once of many sorts of knowledge: the same man will be the geometrician, or will be skilled in the courses of the stars, or be perfect in the precepts of the grammarians and rhetoricians; or, he will become a leader in the science of healing, or in its manual operations. Nor has any one ever yet imagined, that there are many souls in (any) one body: neither has it been made matter of wonder, that there exists many essences in man, because of his |22 capability of many sorts of knowledge. For, should a man find a shapeless piece of clay, and afterwards so model it with his hands, as to impress upon it the forms of certain animals; on one figure, the head; on another, the hands, the feet, or the eyes (of a man); and again, that he otherwise imitate by the art of the modeller, the cheeks, ears, mouth, nostrils, breast, and shoulders, Would it be right also to suppose that, because many forms and members had been (so) wrought in this one body, many were therefore their makers? We ought rather to bestow the full meed of praise on the one artificer of the whole, who had by one train of thought, and the exertion of one executive power, (so) disposed the whole:----

32. So also, of this universal world which is one, consisting nevertheless of many parts, it cannot be right to erect the many powers (visible within it) into makers; nor again to call these many Gods: but rather, to bless the ONE who abounds in every species of wisdom, and every sort of compounding (power): Him (I say) who is in truth "THE POWER or GOD, and THE WISDOM OF GOD;" who, by means of one (almighty) power and virtue, pervades, and remains in, the universal whole; who also gives establishment and life to all: and who, for the whole and singular of |23 these bodies and elements, in their several situations, produced at once from himself, the several and various means of subsistence.

33. So also the light of the Sun is one; yet, by its one incidence, it at once illuminates the air, affords light to the eyes, warmth to the touch, ripens the (produce of) the earth, gives growth to the plant, and fixes the several periods of time. It also precedes the stars (in its course), makes the circuit of the heavens, rises upon the world, and clearly establishes the power of God with respect to all things²². All these things it completes in a momentary period of nature. Thus too, the nature of fire (is such) as to purify gold, to melt lead, to dissolve wax, to dry (wet) clay, and to consume dense (bodies): by means of one burning power, it effects all these things.

34. So likewise THE WORD OF GOD, the King of all, He who is extended throughout all, is in and pervades all, that is both in the heavens and the earth; He is the governour of the things which are invisible and visible, and He directs by powers unspeakable", the Sun, the Heavens, |24 and the whole Universe. He is present to all things in His effectuating power; and He remains throughout all. He also makes to distil as rain, from His own resources, the never-failing light to the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. He has established, and perpetually holds fast, the heavens (as) an image of his own greatness. He also fills from the treasury that is with Him, those hosts of Angels and Powers of intelligent and rational spirits, at once with life, light, wisdom, and all the abundance of every species of beauty and of goodness. And by one and the same effectuating art, He never fails to supply substance to the material elements, and to Bodies (their) commixture and concurrence; (their) forms, appearances, and characters. He otherwise varies also and time after time, (His) innumerable operations, (whether) in the animals, the plants, or in the beings rational or irrational: at once He provides every thing for all, by (His) one power; and clearly shews, (that this) is not a mere Lyre (as it were) of seven or many strings, but is the one universe of manifold composition, the workmanship of the ONE WORD, the Maker of the world²³.

35. Such therefore, is the common Saviour of all, THE WORD or the GOD of all, of whom one discoursing on God²⁴ thus mysteriously speaks: "He²⁵ was in the world, and the world was (made) by Him; and the world knew Him not" For, from ancient times (and) hitherto, it knew Him not, until He manifested Himself, in the latter times, to those who were holden in the darkness of vice. But He, the Maker of the whole world, He, who is the common Saviour of all, has been directly made known to us, as thus existing; and as affording to this whole, all this assistance. But, as to this whole world which is |25 governed by one Ruler, (and) which consists of the heavens, the earth, and of the things therein, it is now necessary we should shew in a few words, what the nature of the being is which He has assigned to it.

36. This (universe) then, partakes of two natures; of the essence which is more excellent and is allied to THE DIVINE WORD; which, being intellectual and rational, is perceived by the mind, and apprehended by the reason: and to this is possible all that is superior to (material) Bodies. (It partakes) also of that which was necessarily brought forth for the use of this; which is matter,----is the offspring of Bodies, and is understood by the sense of reason, both to exist and to be perishable: and which, as I think, has been well said never to have had any (independent) being²⁶. But this, which is visible to the bodily sense, designates the one Universe. This same (too), the whole of which is visible, as well as that which is invisible, may thus be well said to constitute one family of rational beings; just as in the things that are visible, the nature of bodies is one; while of tin's, some are in the heavens and the aether²⁷,----those among these being distinct, and different;----some in the air and on the earth; and of which, the things visible are the animals and plants. So also, in the essence which is intelligent and invisible, the common kind of them all is one. One also is the nature of the generation of the rational and intelligent faculties, while many and various are the distinctions existing in this²⁸.

37. This same therefore, which has been fabricated out of matter, and (material) bodies; this, which we usually |26 name the sensible world, which consists of the heavens the earth and of the things therein, may be likened to an imperial city in which there are many citizens, the houses of some of which have been distinguished (as) apartments of the state. Of these, the inner ones are neither entered into, nor trodden, by the many. Some again are for stations without, (set apart) for the keepers of the middle portions. Others again, are far distant from the court, and are left for the inhabitants (generally) and their various assemblies²⁹. Many are (thus) the stations in the heavens, and many are those inferior to these in the sether, and in the air above the earth. The habitable |27 part of the earth, (assigned) to those who walk upon it, is this broad space known to us all. Those (places) however which are beyond the heavens, are (exalted) above all mental apprehension, as are those also which are distinguished as inner apartments of the divine house of rule. But those (beings) who surround the King of all, and exult at the side of THE DIVINE WORD, are both enlightened and upholden by means of the rays which are drawn forth from Him, as from unfailing fountains of light; and are established in the fulness of light. (Thus) too all the enlightened, with the incorporeal assemblies of light, hold that rank of station which is beyond the heavens, and honour with the highest praises, (and) which are worthy of God, the God who is King of all. ³⁰ In the midst moreover, has He cast (spread) forth the vast heavens, the curtains (as it were) of the azure threshold, which exclude those who are without from the mansion of rule; while the keepers of the intermediate part perform (their) rounds in this, as being without the gate, with those who in the heavens are |28 invested with light and holding lamps, as the sun and the moon, honouring Him who is beyond all, the King of all. And, at his intimation and word, these supply light by means of lamps which cannot be extinguished, to those whose lot it is to be in the place of darkness, and without the heavens. Thus are brought near to Him the powers of the air, which are invisible to bodily eyes, as also the animals and other earthly things (which are visible): so is man also the chief of them all, whose race was no stranger to that intelligent and rational Essence which is invisible, and who was created on the earth to render praise to the Godhead and rule of Him who is the Cause of all things. Like as on earth therefore, there is spread over the whole world but one, and that the same human nature; and, as many nations have arisen out of this, and the manner of life of every race, its fashions, modes, and governments, are different, not only of the barbarians and wild, but also of the peaceable, fashionable, and wise; and, (as) there are among these both slaves and freemen, poor and rich; those also who differ in colour, as the Scythians, and those whose lot it is to dwell without, in the west; the Hindoos also, at the rising of the sun, and the Ethiopians at its setting; Greeks, too, and others whose destiny it is to reside among princes; and, among all these again, some bear rule over portions of the nations, and others are wholly subject: with the great king of all moreover, some are considered as in the place of friends, some are elevated to the greatest honours, others are more especially ennobled for their virtuous deeds: some, again, fill the rank of slaves; and others, bearing spears and shields, surround the sovereign: others again, are military officers in the cities, while others fill the situation of rule in these: others too, have met the fate of the |29 vulgar; and others are considered as in the place of enemies and haters: still, the whole of these are men, and one is the common species of them all. Over them all too, is there one king, one only power, vested with his own authority which is all-supreme. And to this same, according to the law and edict of the state,----to him alone, the Father and Lawgiver,----is (the title of) great king ascribed: while He (the WORD) descending from above, and running (as it were) throughout the whole of the governours and governed, subjects to the one yoke of rule every race (placed) under his hand; elevating some to the highest honour, and to others rendering that which is their due³¹.

38. As it is with these things, (so) one is the generating, intelligent, and rational Essence which is over all. And well might it be said, that one is the kind (genus) even of these, and that they all are nothing more than brethren (derived) from one, as made of Him who is the Father of THE WORD OF GOD³². There are then, multitudes of nations, and of kinds (of these); and there is a portion the more virtuous, and the contrary. The differences too of these, as to mind (opinion) are innumerable, as are the fashions, modes of life, constitutions, and the contrary; but not as to their natures, for the nature of them all is one, and the kind is one. It is of the variety of their wills, that they have found out many and different fashions and modes of life. Hence, are the companies of angels, of spirits, and of incorporeal and invisible powers; some of which are resplendent and glorious, as enlightened by the splendour of THE DIVINE WORD; others are dark, blacker than any Ethiopian, and |30 destitute of all rational light. This kind is quite deserving of the middle place, as capable at once of both the excellent and the base. But the King is one, that ONLY power which is God above all, both of those who are in the heavens, and above the heavens. And He it is who holds by the law and edict of sovereign rule, the things that are in the air, on the earth, and under the earth, and which are of all, and in all. This law and edict is moreover one, (viz.) He who lives in all, THE WORD OF GOD, the minister, (lit. agent): not as that dying (utterance) which is sent forth from the mouth of mortals into the air³³; but is,----as it has now been made known to us (by the Gospel)----of things (in their nature) possible, the Governour of all in all wisdom and power. He (I say) who, as THE WOED OF GOD, distributes fully and in justice to all, the things which are most suitable to them; and gives to each, and to every one of them, the stations which are suitable: to those which are near, (those) of happiness; but those of the contrary, to them who have fallen from virtue, as they may have (severally) deserved. He at once gives to all---- like those who are on the earth,----to reside in different localities; to some, to exult at the side of the heavenly sovereignty; to others, to keep watch without; toothers, to dwell beyond (these), and at a distance: while all with one mouth, and according to the doctrine and instruction of each, celebrate the praise of the King and God of all: ----(all I say) who bear this law in their hearts and in the mind of their nature, that they should confess that ONE, who is the likeness of the image of sovereign rule, who is the only (begotten) WORD,----Him " who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature³⁴,"----as the divine words mysteriously teach.

39. And to the honouring of Him are all, whether the rulers or the ruled in every house and city, at once devoted: not, with inanimate colours variously set forth in pictures (or images,), but within, on the hearts of their |31 intellectual faculties as upon intelligent tablets, is the worship of His Godhead inscribed. Thus do all those, who are subject to His power, tender their worship, irrespective of those vicious Demons, and wicked Spirits, and "Rulers of this world," who consider themselves as in the situation of enemies and haters; those who have assimilated themselves to the image of fraudulent rule³⁵, and put forth various books in the place of others³⁶; that is, innumerable false scriptures (ascribed) to that fearful name, and to that expressed name, which governs the Law. But far superior to the Law is the name (which) they have surreptitiously assumed to themselves. Thus do they succeed in casting down to the earth among bodies, elements, and the portions of the world, the (whole) race of mortal men. Hence have men feared and served the creatures, more than the Creator of these³⁷.

40. And again, they named (as gods) for themselves, these very powers, contenders and rebels against God, which in their perverseness so became gods; these (I say) which never existed (as such). And well may those be considered as enemies and haters, from whom the law of truth has commanded us to flee, and to take refuge in Him alone who is the WORD, the Saviour of all;----Him, who has cast forth the seed which is of Himself, in order that it may produce, not only in the heavenly places, but also on the earth; and has assigned both to those that are in the heavens, and to those that are in the elements of |32 the earth, one and the same portion of kind. So that the rational mind which is in man, (and) is of that incorporeal intelligent essence, and of the kind of the DIVINE WORD which pervades all that has hitherto been generated, is nourished on earth by its meditations on Him, and previously trained for its transition (conversion) to virtue. Hence too, is it previously instructed and taught, to provide for its passing to the children of its own kind. Wholly therefore is this alone, of those that are on the earth, through its participation with THE DIVINE WORD, worthy of the name of rational. He has then, necessarily assigned a place on earth (to) the mind and rational soul; so that a small image of the great City of God, mentioned in the example a little while ago (given), has been set up on earth: nor is there in the whole empire of God, nor even a place on the earth, exempt from this lot. And it was right, that praise should be ascribed in every part of the universe to THE WORD, the common Father of all, by those who had been generated of Himself. Hence, even the element of earth is not exempt from being entrusted with this rational portion. Not only by those who are beyond the world, and in the heavens, and the rational (beings) that are in the air; but also by those that dwell on the earth, is that just praise sent up to the Maker and Father of all: which indeed the Divine Word teaches, when it thus commands every man to sing the praise which is due to God³⁸: " Praise ye God from the heavens; praise ye him in the heights. Praise him all ye his angels; praise him all ye his hosts. Praise him sun and moon; praise him all ye stars and light. Praise him ye heavens of heavens." After the things which are upon the earth, he (the Sacred Writer) reasons thus: "Praise ye God from the earth (all)" other things. He then also (reasons upon) this rational family of man,----this (I say) which divides itself from every thing else into various companies and orders of rank,----in this manner:----" Praise him, ye Icings of the earth, and all |33 people: ye great, and all ye judges of the earth: young men and maidens: old men with children. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for great is his name alone; and his praise is in the earth, and in the "heavens."³⁹

41. With these (words) therefore, he leads over against and along with the companies that are in the heavens, those also that are on the earth, to the praise of the King of all. For to Him alone in truth, and to no other God,----(to) Him who is beyond all the heavens above,---- do the companies that are above the curvatures of the heavens ascribe honour and praise. To Him (as) their Father do the hosts of angels and spirits, the offspring of the light which is intelligent, render the praises which are unutterable. To Him also the sun, the moon, and the stars which are in the circuits of distant worlds, and run their lengthened courses in the spaces of aether, and form a crown (as it were) to Him;----the invisible powers also, which wing their way in the free expanse of air,----proclaim the meed of praise and blessing which is (both) due and becoming.

42. How then, after (the detail of) these things could it be becoming, that the element of earth alone should be wanting in the provision which (prevails) in all? Or, that this nature which is generative of all these fruits, |34 should stand alone, in withholding its meed of praise? Or, that the life which is (passed) on the earth, bearing every sort of fruit, should be barren as to (that of) the intelligent creature? Would it not rather appear that this would seem good to Him,----who is the fulness of all wisdom, the Maker of all,----that He should for His own sake, sow this locality of earth with beings intelligent and rational? and should, for the use of these, provide the rest of the creatures, as also that which is generative of fruits and flowers? And that He should here also join the praise of men, to that which is rendered by the companies of all (else), to His own Father? And this was so done in former times:----this, that man, who had been made in the image of God⁴⁰, honoured with hymns and songs THE WORD, his Father, together with the divine and rational assemblies, and with the several orders of angels. His mind had not then erred in the setting up of inanimate images under the phantasms of demoniacal deception, nor under the stories of error common to polytheism: for these things recently, and after a time, became known through the vain babblings of the poets. Those primitive chiefs of our race, who hitherto had not learned the arts of modelling, hewing, and carving, and had made no use of this extreme metal-working art of evil deeds, called upon the Maker of the whole universe and their Lord, in the simplicity of their souls, and in the mind of their (unsophisticated) nature: and Him alone did they confess, in their instruction which was mental⁴¹, to be the Lord and God of all. And as these did, so did the chief of our nature (Adam), as also did the Hebrew race, which was in ancient times beloved of God, and received, |35 as a son from his father, the good inheritance of the observances of the fear of God. But these honoured nothing with purity of life, and with the observances of the fear of God, except the one God, the King who is above all, and His WORD who is the Saviour of all. On this account, they were considered worthy of the revelation of the Word of God, of prophecy, and of the doctrines of righteousness.

43. Thus therefore, THE WORD OF GOD, the Maker of all things, fills, with His seed of intelligent and rational being, all parts and places that are above the world, that are in the heavens, and on this element of earth. That seed then, which falls upon the earth, constituting the intelligent and rational plant, is itself the knowledge which belongs to man, (and) which is now contained in the multifarious stem and herbage (as it were) of an earthly and perishable body: many stars of the life which is mortal surrounding it. If then, an enlightened cultivation meet it, so that it be cleansed from the obstinacy of matter, and recognize the Sower, THE WORD, who is above the heavens, and henceforth render praise to Him, meditating as a child on His primitive teaching, and in due time rendering the corn-ears of its superiority, the complete fruit of its rational nature; it shall as in the time of harvest lay down, by the death of the life which is mortal, those luxuriances of the stem that are without, together with the earthly and corruptible clothing of the body, which it shall have now well employed for the growth and perfection of the fruit. And happily shall it put off this in due time. The same too, as he becomes more excellent, and collects the powers of his superiority into the treasury of things that are good, is preserved (as) the perfect, that with the perfect he may be led on. To Him also, who is the Sower and the Cultivator of all, he renders the perfect fruit of that praise which is due to God. And, because he has in this- life recognized Him alone as his Father, King, and Lord, and has, together with his relative and sister beings (already mentioned), confessed Him alone to be God, his Maker and Creator; He will,----that he also may (as) in the place of the society which is more excellent, exalt and honour Him with the |36 honour that is becoming and just,----not name any other thing God, which it is not right should be called God, but Him alone to whom all things give (a similar) testimony; Him, whom all creation, visible and invisible,----even as He alone is the efficient Cause of all,----names its God, and whom it worships.

44. These things then being such, let us now again approach our subject afresh, as already laid down. These heavens then, and places in the heavens which are viewed by the bodily senses; this earth also, and air, as well as this whole constitution (of things) which is of them, (and) which may be likened to a great city, differ in no respect in their nature from those inanimate elements which are in its portions, the earth, the waters, the air, and fire. But it is not necessary, that the denizens of this great city should be considered as of the same material; nor is it, that we should affirm the seed of the rational soul, and of the perishable body, to be one and the same. For the mind, the reason, the rational soul, and the whole of the nature which is intelligent, may accurately and well be affirmed to be the seed of THE WORD OF GOD, the Creator of all. Nor were these any part of the earth, or of the air; nor, of any essence cold or hot; but, of those superior faculties, by which they were made worthy to partake in things most excellent. Because things prior in order, are the causes of those which succeed them. And the first things were those generated of THE WORD: after these, those that are irrational. After the primary essences therefore, were those latter ones, which followed (these as) causes. But these primitive ones,----the origin of production,----exist (only) in intelligent souls; on whose account it was, that the seed of passive bodies was also prepared. For it was necessary, that a sufficient house or residence should be prepared for these. Hence the primary heavens appeared to be a place suitable to the people of this city, who were both above it and in it; and the curvatures⁴² within the heavens, for those |37 inhabitants who should be distinguished accordingly. But thou (reasonable soul), wouldest never designate as denizens of the city on earth, either the sensitive being of the fierce animals, or any kind of reptile refusing instruction; or indeed, any of all those that partake in the nature and name of irrational. For these are thy slaves, which have been subjected by the law of nature; and they necessarily render the service which is due to rational beings, as to their lords. For the agricultural ox places his neck willingly in the yoke, for the purposes of agriculture for man; the carrying ass too, confesses his own nature; the horse also, on which his lord rides, exults⁴³; and the hunting dog fondles on him who feeds him.

45. The flocks too, and herds, (and) again, all sorts of possession (in animals), are given to men; even the fierce beasts are (at his ready) service. These same too, we kill and reduce to subjection. We also take, by means of reason, the bird that flies in the heights. We also bring up those (beings) which are beneath in the depths of the sea, and (otherwise) within it. And nature plainly teaches, that all these things have been established for the sake of man. Man is therefore the progeny of the DIVINE WORD; not for the sake of any other thing, but |38 for that (only) of his Father, THE WORD; in order that he might see, and by his knowledge distinguish, all the wisdom of his Father, which (consists) in the workmanship visible throughout all creation; and that he should assimilate himself to this same, while hitherto youthful, and should in every thing emulate his Father, as to law, reason, knowledge, and wisdom; should live as taught, (that he is) the image of excellence; and should learn that, together with the companies that are in heaven, he should, as a prophet and priest, send up from the earth those praises which are due to the King of all, and to God who is the Cause of all.

46. In representations not unlike these therefore, does THE WORD, the instructor of all nature,----wondering at the various excellency of the nature that is in man,----cry out, and say in the divine praises, " What⁴⁴ is man that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the Angels: with honour and glory hast Thou clothed him, and hast given him dominion over the work of thy hands, and hast placed all beneath his feet: all flocks and herds; even the wild beasts of the desert, and the birds that are in the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, which dwell in the paths of the sea."

47. It is this rational species alone, beloved of God, of those that are on earth, respecting which another prophet speaking of God, teaches, thus plainly (but) mysteriously, that in his essence he is in the image of God: " And God said, Let us make man in our Image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fishes that are in the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." And to the word He also added the deed: " So God made man," and said that He made him in the image of God. And again more particularly, He established (the fact) that the image was in the likeness of God, from |39 the Divine inbreathing, when He said, " And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul⁴⁵." He also teaches, that He gave to him the more excellent authority and rule, in these words when saying, Let them have dominion over all that is on the earth, over the beasts, the fowls, the creeping things, (and) the animals. And, to all these words does that nature give (its) testimony, which has put every thing under his hand, and has subjected all (things) to this rational creature. But, if the Divine words can obtain no hearing with thee, still, I cannot think that thy mind is so entirely darkened, that thou canst not think within thyself, How it is, that bodies and bodily substances,----or, whatever other divine thing it is which moves the body,----should consist of this possible excellence,----this, I say,----that (such body) should know how to avail itself of a discriminating reason, as to what its own essence is?----this, that it should deliver instruction by memory?----this, that it should extend itself to the contemplation of all things? But, be thyself and ask, whether the nature of the body can understand the constitution of the world; the operations of the primary elements; the beginning, the end, the middle portion, enumeration, and succession of the seasons; the changes of times; the revolutions of the year; the appointed order of the stars; and (I know not) how many other things, which men have by the experiments of geometry, computation, and enumeration, pointed out. For these (results) are incorporeal, and the contemplation of them is (purely) rational: that any one should make them adjuncts of the bones, the flesh, or the blood, would be folly infinitely great. And, well might they be asked, who thus think of these things, since these five senses comprehend all the faculties of the body, Which of them is it that can teach man the contemplation of any doctrine? Is it the sight of the eyes? But this distinguishes between colours and forms only. If you say, The hearing; you (only) name the recipient of sounds acute and grave, but not of any rational perception. And again, in like manner, the taste is the sense discriminative of sweetness, or of food, as it might |40 be. The smell too, is the trier of scents, but not of doctrines. And again, this sense which is extended over the whole body, will touch (and discriminate) things cold and hot, hard and soft; but not virtue, nor (yet) that wisdom which is much more excellent. And, How is it with the irrational animals? Have they not eyes, ears, and nostrils? the sense of taste, and of touch? But nothing of these can be brought near to the efficiency of reason: because the doctrines, which philosophy alone can apprehend, are not of the body, nor of the sense that is irrational: they belong solely to that superiority which attends the rational soul; which is superior to the nature of the body, and which takes up its abode in mankind alone. If however, any one wish impudently to persist by way of reasoning, and affirm, That we possess nothing beyond these irrational animals; that like these we are born, and are subject to corruption; because the one provision of us all, is of the earth: the passive nature of the body is the same; the sense is in nothing superior; the labour again, and rest is, in the same manner, one; as is the blood of us all, the corruption of the body, and (its) dissolution into the primitive elements. Hitherto however, you do not say, that any one of these can, like the rational animal, be brought near to the contemplation of things incorporeal; can bear about it any rational instruction, or lay up learning in its memory; can consider discourses about virtue and vice; and, as to philosophy, that it ever even entered its mind. But all these things I might omit, because all men do not possess them. I (only) ask your reason these things: Was there a city ever (yet) constructed by beings destitute of reason? Or, is there in these the mind of the Artificer, of the Builder, of the Weaver, or, of the Agriculturist? Or, has a ship ever been fitted up by them? Or, has the astonishing art of governing (such vessel) so much as even entered their minds? When, |41 behold! the things which are bodily (only) are with them, far more excellent than with us: because, of all animals, man is the most defective, and, as the Poets sing, "The human race is infirm⁴⁶," Nor can we say how much he is inferior, in magnitude of body, to the Elephant; or, to be thought of, as to strength and abundance, with the Camel species. And, to many other animals must he cede the victory, both as to power, and swiftness of foot. What can they scent better than the tracing dogs, which are taught to course by the smell? or, be said to see better than any Antelope; which, because they see (well) are, in the Greek, named "the Seers?" And, is it necessary we should hence say, how much weaker the body of man naturally is, than that of the Bear, the Lion, the Panther, and of many other animals? or, how quickly or easily he is deceived and overcome by those that attack him? Nevertheless, this diminutive (creature) will, whenever he pleases, subdue any of those already mentioned; not by bodily or corporeal |42 strength, for (in this respect) he is greatly the inferior, and is insufficient to fill the stomach of even one Bear. But there is a certain nature within him, more excellent than the body, the power of the mind, and of the intelligent soul. And it is by the superiority of wisdom that he effects these astonishing things. By means of these (things) hast thou, as a dear child, been honoured of God. Why (so) despisest thou thy greatness as to think, that this thy whole is (mere) flesh? and likenest this body, with the divine and rational knowledge which is within thee, to these irrational beings, the whole of which is perishable? Will then, neither the irrational nature of the animals, nor this common name irrational, nor (yet) the openly apparent useful servitude, under which these have never sought excuse from the bearing of burdens or of labour, suffice to persuade thee, (that all is thus) because God has given to thee the dominion and sovereignty over them all⁴⁷?

48. Man alone therefore, of those that are on the earth,----he who is in the image of God, carries on and introduces (his matters) wherever he pleases: at one time, he trains the animals that are suited to the chace; at another, he pastures the flocks that are adapted to this: at another, he avails himself of the tame animals for (his) service; reducing (their) fierce nature to peaceable subjection: at another, having so reduced them, he brings them into peaceable proximity with himself: at another, having brought them together by the multifarious means of reason, be confines them to the house. And not (this) alone, but he will also take into his hands the injurious reptiles, and play with them: and of those that breathe out death, and reject instruction, will he make his sport.

49. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, is not to be persuaded to take up his residence in the caves that are in the deserts, or in the heights. He accordingly builds cities with walls, and adorns (these) with streets, palaces, mansions, and other edifices.

50. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, considers not of (his) provision after the unchangeable manner and |43 usages of the irrational animals. For these, destitute (as they are) of knowledge, avail themselves of the aid of nature alone, and receive their provision from the stem, unprepared by agriculture, and uncleansed from the weed. He however, by his knowledge cleanses (this); thus too does he pulverize, fully season, and make it well to pass the fire. Of the wheat also he will, whenever he pleases, make bread. He is moreover, careful so to provide, that a healthy provision of food may be secured. And every profitable commodity, either of the vine, the olive, or of the fruit tree of every flavour, does he appropriate; and these does he alone apply to the sanative uses of the body.

51. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, has, by means of rule and reason, discovered that mode of life which is regular and orderly:----has become a leader of armies; has engaged in the public conflicts, and in the subsidiary arts: and these very many (things), pertaining to doctrine, has he, by his rational superiority, put forth.

52. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, preserving (in himself) the model of excellence, has determined the measure, the weights, the extents, and several sorts, of justice. He too, distinguishes,----governing (all) by reason,----the things which should, and should not, be done: and (hence) he knows, how to give to every one, as it shall be right. The fishes however, the birds, and the animals, will devour one another: because no law (prevails) among them. But to men has (God) given justice, which is their supreme excellence, as says one of the poets⁴⁸, (and) according to my opinion, extremely well. |44

53. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, evincing within himself the image of THE WORD OF GOD, erects on high a house of judgment; and, acting after the manner of God's just Judge⁴⁹, duly determines (the award) of life and of death; apportioning life to some, and assigning death to others.

54. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, will confide his life to the small section of a tree⁵⁰. He has also discovered the science of ship-building. He too will guide the ship on the back of the sea; will commit his person to the depths of the humid element, and beat back the death that stands at his side. He (alone) looks up to the heavens, and to that Governour of all, who binds together all distances, as to the safety of those who navigate (the seas).

55. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, has discovered the doctrines of astronomy: has, while moving below in the body, and clothed with the weight of mortality, ascended up in his mind on high; and, making the circuit of the sun, the moon, and the stars, foretells¹ what shall come to pass, as he also does the eclipses of the moon, the vicissitudes of the seasons, and the changes of times. |45

56. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, is viewed (as) the assistant of nature; has discovered the means of healing; and has, by his understanding, applied (to this) the powers of roots, and of drugs, with their combination and mixture by weight and due proportion. He too has become skilful in the healing of infirm bodies, and the helps of the life of man.

57. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, not having arrived at the manner of life of the graminivorous (animals), has well applied (himself) to (the requirements of his own) nature. In the winter season he accordingly casts the seed into the earth; and, applying the sweat of his labour to agriculture, is repaid in the autumn with the fruits consequent upon his toil.

58. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, collects together, by (his) rational knowledge, the doctrines relating to all (things); the science and composition of music, as well as (that of) investigation by discussion. He also proceeds on to the manner of life, and to the fame attendant on philosophy; and (thus) he hastens forward the love of that superiority, which is vested within him: availing himself, not of the bodily sense, but of the faculty of knowledge, and of the stimulating power of reason.

59. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, bears about him, by means of his memory, the histories of things done in former times; converses with those who are (now) no more, as with those who are at hand: examines the opinions of the wise who have existed at any period; and from these, rather than from those who are his contemporaries, does he receive profit. And (thus) by the faculty of reason,----cognate with that of thought,----does he exist with those who have long ceased to be.

60. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, duly regulates the voice of the chant, by the divisions |46 of the chord. He also has divided the primary letters (of the alphabet) by the grammatical art, and has discovered the powers and province of reason. He too, has determined the combination of verbs and of nouns, as well as the precepts of rhetoric and grammar. All these moreover, does he bring together, preserve in his memory, and bring forward, as stores filled with every sort of treasure. In one mind too, does he comprehend both the events and histories of former times; and these will he bring forth whenever he pleases, as a river from an unfailing source, and inundate (therewith) the hearing of all present.

61. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, is, in his works, like unto God who is over all. Any thing which he pleases will he form into animals; even this inanimate matter will he change into the form, figure, and fashion, of every sort of creature. By means of this instructive nature, (and) the reasoning faculty, will he set about emulating (even) the Maker of all things; and man will make man, at one time in stone; at another, in wood; at another, in flowers of (many) colours; as well as in the forms that are impervious to change: and (indeed) every sort of animal and of plant, will he, by the same means, imitate: shewing forth fully, by his works, the power (vested within him) of the image of God.

62. This (being) alone, of those that are on the earth, will imitate on the earth whereon he walks, the celestial sphere, and will engrave on the matter of brass the likeness of the very heavens, and on this will he impress a copy of the stars, both wandering and fixed. He will also appoint, by the modeller's art, the limits both of times and of seasons; and will surround the exterior (of his sphere) with the images of (various) animals. By the abundance of (his) knowledge moreover, and the means of (many) observations, will he imitate the heavenly sphere; and,----like God,----will allow the heavens whose revolutions |47 are above the earth, and with the universal whole,---- and whose revolving is an unceasing miracle,----to revolve with the things that are on the earth, (in) the similitude which is of earthly material. The angel of the seasons too, will shout (as it were) with a loud voice, and all, at once and in a moment, are in motion; the doors, too, at the coming in of the seasons⁵¹, throw themselves open (as it were) of their own accord, and the inanimate images of the birds, placed round about it (the sphere), speak out in chirpings⁵². The moon also which is on the earth, runs its course with that in the heavens; and the (mere) brass of itself, changes its fashions, after the manner of the moon; shewing itself now dichotomized, now on the wane, and now in its full light. Thus the images of the seasons follow the analogy of those in nature, and the human-made world contends with (that of) the workmanship of THE WORD OF GOD!

63. Man alone, of those that are on the earth, can, by means of words not to be uttered, of prayers acceptable to God, and by virtue of the fear of God, (evinced) both in word and life, drive far away the invisible nature of concealed demons⁵³. But further, when he had even departed |48 from the right way, he could effect all this by a power, such as would, by songs and incantations, subject the kind of these which flies in the air; and, again, would seize, by means of force, and the appetencies restrictive⁵⁴ of nature, those unembodied powers which fly over any part of the earth, just as they would the flying sparrows. He would lead on, or bind, (these), whenever he chose: and, sitting upon the images of fabricated gods, would shew by these his doings, that his own power was far superior to that of the fabricated deity of such.

64. Man alone shews of what kind the superiority of (his) intellectual and incorporeal being is, and establishes (the fact) that (this) his power is impervious either to subjugation or deterioration by calamity. For, he will prepare his body for the fire, the sword, the fierce beasts, (and) the depths of the sea; and he will approach every species of torment. He knows too, this his nature, that it is perishable and fleeting, transient and dissoluble. But that which resides within, is unyielding; and, that this is different from that which perishes, he proved who cried |49 out, "Bruise, bruise the form⁵⁵; but me thou wilt not bruise." And again another, proclaiming with freedom of speech: " Burn or roast the body, and be satisfied with me when thou hast drunk my blackened blood; but, before the stars descend to the earth, and the earth ascends to the heavens, I will present to thee no one conciliating perturbed expression." One of the friends of God moreover, when suffering evils, put forth these words: " What shall separate me from the love of God? (shall) tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or hunger, |50 or nakedness, or cold, or the sword ⁵⁶?" I myself too have seen, in these times, some whose eyes were digged out; others, who were deprived of their legs by the cautery; and others who were crucified; their whole bodies hastening to dissolution, and their mortal nature subject to rebuke; while the conscious mind residing within them, attached to God, was immoveable, impervious to subjection, and unyielding to these hardships³; clearly proving to those of sound minds, that their faculty of excellence was a thing altogether different from that which was perishable.

65. This alone, of the animals that are on the earth, partaking of the divine inbreathing⁵⁷, is worthy of the favour⁵⁷ of the Deity. He too, will hold converse with the Angels of God, and will apprehend the foreknowledge of things to come to pass; at one time, by means of dreams; at another, when so invested by the power of God with the Spirit, that he will even enounce the prophecy of things future; and, by the manifestation of deeds such as these, he will confirm (the fact of) his fellowship with Deity.

66. This (animal) alone recognizes in every thing, something greater and more excellent than any that is visible;----Him who is invisible to the eyes, and imperceptible to the touch, as well as to every faculty of bodily sense; but is visible to the mind and understanding alone. Him does he, by His (special) teaching, and the learning of which his nature is capable, confess; and Him does he call God: to Him also does he render praise; and shews, by means of this (his) knowledge, his relationship with the Deity.

67. This (being) alone has arisen (to be) the spectator of the great works of THE WORD OF GOD, and is |51 fitted to worship his Father----Him (I say) who is higher than the heavens,----with the praises which are proper for the Deity; and to be assimilated to the company of the Angels in heaven. Because to him alone, of the animals that are on the earth, has this superiority been assigned. By means of this he recognizes, from the mind of his nature, Him who is the cause of every good; and is enjoined to render, as the return due to a Father, the praises of thanksgiving and blessing which are becoming.

68. The testimonies to all these things, does that word of the doctrine and erudition which is divine, confirm: (viz.) that of this undying nature, and equal of the citizens that are in heaven, is this (being) alone of those that are on the earth; this intelligent and rational essence (I say) which is in man: and, that he is the dear child of THE DIVINE WORD, the common Saviour of all; and that in his nature, he agrees both as to image and form with (this) his Father.

69. For if this rational animal,----this, who has become partaker in all this superiority; this, which alone of those that are on the earth, is in the image of God; this Brother of the divine hosts, and of the Angels, which are in heaven,----had been duly led by his nature, and had from ancient time adhered to the divine law; he would indeed have been freed from this earthly and corruptible (mode of) life⁴, and would have continued in his conversation on earth, as in a state of migration. Had he first (of all) studied divine things (only), he would indeed have effected his departure hence to those things which belonged to him; and would have been registered (as) among those that were perfect, apart from this his state of defect, and of infantine constitution. Thus therefore has man, of necessity, put on a corruptible and dissoluble body, (and this) through the mercy of his Father, that calamity may not be his permanent lot, and that he may not be tied interminably to corruption. Soon therefore, shall this corruptible be |52 dissolved, and shall receive a participation with those who are incorruptible. For, just as that which is conceived in the womb, puts on the clothing of its locality; and the infant to be born, when the period of its destined months has arrived, casts this off, and accordingly comes forth into the light, inhales the purer air, and henceforward is considered as of the nature of man; so also is this perfectible species, (as) believed to be among men, (and as) opposed to the (still) superior one,----a mere infant, and as yet a foetus (only) conceived on earth,---- clothed in this corruptible skin; which, by the mercy of the great gift of God, it is necessary it should cast off, in order that it should not be for ever harassed with these defective things, but should, in due time, go forth into the light, and pass on to the life, which is impervious to corruption. On this account, well have the companies of the wise, the attached to God, pressed (as) they have been by a participation in these corruptible bodies, desired their change for the better, and followed after their equals, the children of their city which is above, even as he was (circumstanced) who said in the divine word, "Wretched⁵⁸ man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" And again, "Even⁵⁹ if we live in the body, still we labour not in the flesh." He adduces his reason too, and says, "For our labour (of culture) is in heaven⁶⁰; and we⁶¹ draw near to the city of the living God which is in heaven, and to the assembly of myriads of angels, and to the church of the firstborn who are written in heaven.''----These are the words of a notable man, and of (all) those who love God.

70. If however, many are so foolish as to be attached to the lusts that are here, that they are to the present time but infants in intellect; What has this to do with right reason? For, that which is conceived in the womb, exults in this its usual locality, fears its departure from it, and lest it should be extracted from internal |53 darkness, and weeps when it comes forth to the light. Still even these, did but those things which happen to their natural birth duly take place with them, would come forth from darkness to light, well and elegantly born. Thus would they, at the due time and season, be brought forth, (each) receive the natural air and breath, and bear about him the healthy vigour of man. Thus would (each) be delighted with the provisions of the breast, and of infancy; then be placed under the hands of a nurse, and be delivered over to instructors, teachers, and doctors, until he came forth a man complete. Thus too would he pass a virtuous and honourable life, great in wealth, in the abundance of possessions, in power, rule, and the other stages (of distinction), in the increase of (all) those things which result from a happy birth; of those which multiply by means of instruction, and of those other innumerable things, which conduce to the experience of a happy life.

71. But, if any unnatural contortion should happen to that which is conceived in the womb, so that it affect such an one at his coming forth in birth; What need can there be for my saying, that the infant was distorted within (the womb)? and refused to come forth to the light? and that it must suffer,----by the iron instruments prepared for parturition, which shall violently and painfully be placed upon it,----the revulsion which is also unnatural? Nor would it be worthy even of the one birth,----even of the life of man,----or of the things belonging to this: but, on the contrary, that it should go forth from darkness to darkness, and not only be deprived of the life of man, but also of the name.

72. As are these things, so is he who passes the life which is human on earth, differing in nothing from the irrational and ignorant infant, or, from that |54 which is yet, but a foetus in the womb. Nor can he be compared with those bodies which are without, the Angels and Divine spirits. He is even (as) an ignorant child; and, because of the excess of his childishness, he exults in the clothing of the body which is about him; loves the womb his (place of concealment), and knows not the locality which surrounds him, where murder, darkness, and (all) the other species of mishap, feed, as it were, in the pastures of wickedness. One of the ancients says,----when shewing that the air, which is on the earth, is humid and unclear,----that "it consists of many compounds, (resulting) from the innumerable vapours which (arise) from the earth⁶²." One would think too that (man were such), although as an infant good. Nevertheless, if he pass the present life as it is becoming to his nature, and evince accordingly the conduct which is suitable to its law, " that he think not beyond the measure of his stature," nor spurn the nature which has borne him as a mother; nor again, remain ignorant of his Father, but recognize his Father who is in heaven, the common Saviour of all, and render to him the service of thanksgiving, because he has made him to partake in the things which are good;----be brought up in the instruction of righteousness, and previously study in his conversation which is on the earth, the life of heaven; well shall such an one, when he shall depart this mortal life, and shall put off the body, have the Angels of God for his obstetricators;----when he is to be born to the life to come, then shall both the good Powers receive him as the nurse, and the Divine assemblies teach him; that WORD OF GOD too, that teacher of the conversation which is in heaven, shall lead him on, as a dear child, to the completion of every thing that is good, and shall instruct him in the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven. And, when He shall have made him complete and wise, He shall give him up to His Father, the King of all: and shall clothe him, both in body and soul which are (now) incorruptible, with a vesture of light exceeding description. |55 So that henceforth, he shall be even for the common advantage of all. Such is the last state of such an one.---- But he who exults against the course of his nature, participates in the perversion which is not good, and despises the earth, the mother that bore him; and again, impiously recognizes not THE WORD OF GOD, the common Saviour of all, but subscribes to a multitude of fathers who have no existence, instead of that one who is; and calls those gods which never had any being, instead of that one who alone is true; and again, wholly plunges in pursuit of the things of this moist, humid and corruptible being, into the filthy and lawless lusts; and this not as the infant, involuntarily; but willingly, and of his free counsel, chooses to himself these vices, and so acts; his latter state shall clearly be but the counterpart of that pointed out by the example (above given). For no happy countenance, or smiling of good Angels, shall greet him; nor, when he goes forth into light, shall the Divine Powers receive him as fosterfathers. On the contrary, endeavouring in his extreme state to escape egress, and to hide himself within, in the concealment of the body and members:----when the dissolution of the body draws near, and he would assume the perversion which is out of nature;----(then) shall those who are appointed to this, forcibly attach themselves to him, and drag him forth. Then too, after his departure hence,----his miserable soul being reduced to sighing and lamentation,----shall he not have the light and life which is good, for his receptacle; but, on the contrary, darkness and the place of corruption. The judgment of God moreover, shall consign him (thus) impure and unclean, as filthy and abominable to the purification⁶³ and punishment which is by fire: because he would not be instructed by THE WORD (or Reason), nor |56 adhere to the Divine law, when it was in his power to do so.

73. He therefore, who, in the example (above) was, as an infant conceived in the womb, in every thing so defective, and in every respect so destitute of power, that hitherto he could make no use either of the thoughts of his soul, or the senses of his body;----that mind, indeed, which is hitherto but (as) an infant in man;----may well be said, by way as it were, of experimental comparison with those incorporeal and Divine rational (beings) that are in heaven, to be altogether a child. Even, if (such) were the wisest of men, or even more perfect than those that are on the earth; still he would, when compared in himself, with his (future) perfect state, be nothing better than an infant. For, what his state of excellence shall be when he arrives at manhood, it will be easy thus to shew:---- For if, when hitherto (as) an infant, and confined within this unyielding wall of earthly and corruptible being, he bears about him such a faculty of excellence, that he knows, not only the things that are on earth, and fabricates them by art, but also anticipates the life which is in heaven, |57 and becomes like to God himself; makes too, whenever he pleases, likenesses of the things in the heavens, and of those on the earth;----can do all these things, just as those which have already been recounted⁶⁴:----these (I say), when immersed (as he is) in all this refuse of the body and blood; What then, ought we to suppose he will do, when he shall have proceeded to the perfect measure of man's estate, and shall have been liberated from these injurious bonds of corruption?----these humid and wasting properties of the body? and is made a partaker of the life which is incorruptible, and of a body which is impervious to death? For, if this seed alone of the reasoning faculty be thus all-able and powerful on earth, when as yet it is incapable of rendering the full return (of fruit), but has even been cast forth into the moist locality of the refuse of a corruptible body; it shall henceforth be able (fully) to know, of what sort the return of perfect fruit of this seed shall be as (sown) in the soul, when it shall have been made to partake of an adequate culture; shall have been removed hence, and have been planted in a superior locality, in land good and fertile; where that heavenly WORD, that Sower of all things, and Planter of every good thing, shall receive (back) his own seed, and shall, in the pastures of incorporeal and unembodied souls, as in the Paradise of them who love God, Himself water his own plant, shall nourish it to perfection, and make it arrive at the increase of goods innumerable.

74. You will perceive therefore, the greatness of the complete state of man's superiority, from his changes and increments here, if you will consider, that the infant just born is in no respect superior to the worm; that it cannot, after the manner of the irrational animal, even make use of the bodily senses. Nevertheless this defective, lame, infirm, and thoughtless being, will, when grown in his stature, arrive at all this change and variation in the course of time, ---- will receive all this superiority, power, and beauty both of body and soul,----so, that should those who begat him see him, they could not distinguish whether this |58 were he, who was sown (by them) in the womb, and conceived in darkness:----whether this were he, who came forth out of (this) darkness, to be brought up with milk and the swaddling bands; this,----who is now the man, who in wisdom and knowledge contemplates the whole world;----this, who subjugates every thing that is on the earth. And should any one by comparison, as it were, of the Divine faculty and of the Angels, and of the child just now born, place the complete man in the midst; he would not find a perfect equality as to the child, with respect to the perfect man; and of the perfect man, with respect to the superior power; but, the inferiority of the person of the child to the man, to be much greater, than is the inferiority of the man to the faculty of the Angels. For, the human infant lately born, cannot be compared in its being even with those irrational animals, which may just now be brought forth. But he, who has come out the perfect man, and is contemplated as the friend of God, will henceforward become a partaker in the divine Spirit, and will hold converse with the Angels: will arrive at a love and attachment to the conversation which is in heaven, and will previously prepare himself by purity of life, and the fear of God,----not (placed) at any great distance of limit,----for an equality with the Angels, and will be made a partaker both of (their) life, and superiority: which the Divine Word also shewed, when it said, "What⁶⁵ is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels: with honour and glory hast thou crowned him." is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels: with honour and glory hast thou crowned him."

75. If then the child, when brought up to the (full) stature of his nature, and supplied with the provision and instruction proper for it, receives all this change and variety;----and no one can disbelieve (this) his change, on account of the openness of the experiment;---- Why need we wonder, if even this perfectible mind which is in man, such as it is when still in |59 childhood, with respect to its more complete and perfect growth, should, when it comes forth to the full growth of its stature, be in dignity as the Angels? We do see however, that the nature of man undergoes dissolution by death. But, What of this? Is it not that we are the more convinced by it, that the soul is immortal? For if, when immersed in a corruptible and mortal body, it evince all this force of superiority, which we have already shewn; How shall it not, when it shall have separated itself from its participation in corruption, and shall have laid down mortality as a bandage, then act in its own power, in a manner less impeded than it now does? Do you not perceive, that so long as it entertains an attachment to the body⁶⁶, it thence acts basely? But, if it refuse participation (with the body), it (then) subsists within itself. And hence, is its essence clearly known to be incorporeal. For, How can that which is opposed to the body, be of (its) nature? The thoughts too of the soul are healthy, so long as the bodily passions are infirm, but the same will be dark and obscure when the body labours under the lusts. Hence, so long as the soul is infatuated, its whole attachment will be to the body; and, when attached to the body, it will be shorn of its excellence. When however, it becomes strong in opposition to the body, and flies from tha lustful passions, it (then) becomes wise; and, when it has become wise, it turns away its face from a participation in mortality, and forthwith gives up itself to the knowledge which is pure, and, in a small degree, withdraws itself from the stimulating nature of the body. When moreover, it is powerful with respect to the riches which are its own, it (then) happily becomes more abundantly enlightened, directed, and stirred up. Then too, will it partake in knowledge, wisdom, and every sort of excellence, when it has ceased to countenance the motions of the bodily passions. And, so long as it counts upon (this) |60 excellence, it deigns not to draw near with the eyes of the body; nor will it act by any other of its senses. When moreover, it (thus) vigorously shuts itself up, carries itself within, and withdraws to a distance from the things which affect the senses, and are visible; and (when) near only to the body, still turns with the eye of the soul to another quarter, and is itself united with itself; then again, will it avail itself of the mind that is enlightened, and of the recollection which is pure; and will put forth, and nourish for itself, the reason which is imperturbed: and (thus) will every reasoning power exert itself without contrbul. But, should any of the things which are hurtful suddenly happen to the body, so that a mote should injure the sight of the eyes⁶⁷; immediately would the sight of the soul be disturbed: and, should remissness be given to the body, and the soul partake in the drunkenness, gluttony, lusts, and the rest of its pleasures; (thus) reduced in itself to vice----the corruptible body too domineering over it like a wild and fierce beast, and itself remaining below (as it were) in the depths,----will be filled with error, folly, and every sort of infatuation. What necessity then is there, that we should fear death, which is (only) the determination of the freedom of the soul from the body⁶⁸? And, for What (purpose) is the laying down of that which is faulty? Is it not for receiving the aid of that, which is more excellent? and, that we should confess the lives of those who loved God, then to be in truth, holy and happy, when nothing of an adverse nature shall controul them? If then, while this rational nature continues in this locality,----and resides in this vessel (as it were) on the earth, clothed with a dense and earthly body, not unlike some earthen⁶⁹ vessel, |61 (and) wholly compressed within this its vesture,----it be such that it will mount on high in thought, will mortify the members of the body together with their lusts, by means of patience, and the restraint of the desires; will be hastened, and hastening on, to the life of those that are incorporeal; will separate and deliver itself at all times, by the precepts of wisdom from an admixture with that which is vile; and will ever delight itself beforehand (with the thoughts) that it shall soon submit to death:----if indeed (such) be, at any time, released from the bonds and agitation of wing (common to) the cares and anxieties that are here, and thus fly away in his departure, and change the place on earth, and meet with that which he loved:---- how he will then be circumstanced, ask not. For, when he shall receive his body, and shall have changed his nature from corruption to incorruption; his shall be a conversation which is equal to that of the Angels in heaven: in the semblance of light, and of the sun-beam, shall he be; and of the form, in which even the Angels of God live; and, as reason with probability holds, he shall partake at once in their superiority and immortality⁷⁰.

76. For, just as the form (assigned) to the seed which falls upon the earth, is given for many: the WORD, which is called the seed, now secretly exerting itself within the same seed, but silently after the manner of a spark confined within some dense body;----and (as) this same seed, when it shall fall to the earth, and its dense clothing which encircles |62 it from without shall dissolve through corruption;----then will it shew itself to be lively (vigorous), put in motion the power that is vested within it, and take of the material which is beneath it: then too will it begin to act, and assume its lively (energetic) nature: its old dense clothing, which is without, will it also cast off, and put on the new, which is greatly its superior;----

77. So also is the nature of the rational faculty, which is in man, (circumstanced), that it is now bound up in a corruptible body, and of its own power acts but feebly. But, should it be freed from the corruption which surrounds it, and receive (as a possession) the locality which is in heaven, and henceforth be sown and planted (as it were) in the society which (is far) beyond it, and be fitted for the clothing of heaven and of the Angels;----of what sort it shall be, when it shall partake of the life that is pure, and shall be freed from a participation in mortality, it is neither becoming in me, nor necessary for me, to say: for this will be obvious to all who can see, from the example (given). For the whole of the wheat (seed) is not subject to corruption: it is only the part that is without which perishes, when it falls to the earth: while that concealed WORD and living power which is within it, lives and remains; and the excellence which is of this is such, that it will give forth vigorous corn-ears. Of plants too, the same is the WORD (invigorating cause), and so it is with every sort of seed. And, Shall man alone be wholly and in every thing subject to corruption, when released by death⁷¹? And, Shall the clothing which is without, at once and together with that WORD which resides within him, cede to corruption? And, as to the knowledge which is incorporeal,----that which partakes in all these powers; that, which on account of its superiority, is likened to God himself;----Shall it not be (considered) even as one of those seeds which fall to the earth? or: rather greatly (their) superior? for it is not the beard, nor yet the blade, but those mature and fat corn-ears of his superiority, which he shall give forth. Then, when he shall be taken away |63 from the corruption which is of the earth, and shall have been delivered as from bonds, and shall not imprudently have bartered the conversation which is in heaven, for that on the earth; and, when he shall be at the side of God; (then) shall he in truth render as the Angels do, the fruits which are acceptable to God: those (I say), the seed and power of which he possessed from ancient times in a mortal body, and contained as it were in an oven⁷².

78. All these things having been said for the purpose of shewing, that the essence which is in man is intelligent and rational; let us now proceed in our discourse to those consequent upon them. Had man then, brought up as he is in the conversation that is on earth, (but) known his own greatness, and continued careful of the teaching which is of God; there could have no impediment happened to him, that when taken hence, he should not delight himself in a conversation like that of the Angels, and take part in the life which is in the kingdom of his Father who is in heaven. But, because it is not one man, nor two, nor is the multitude small;----on the contrary, it is the whole rational family on earth which has received the potwer to govern self----(and) because his nature, which has received the seed of the kingdom from the DIVINE WORD the King, is free; (nevertheless) he has not well availed himself of his power; but has, by means of the subsidiary arts, laboured in all vain glory, |64 after those other things, which impel men to the bodily desires, and are advantageous to life; has become skilful in agriculture, in the building of ships, in merchandise, and in the purchasing of possessions: nor (this) only, but he has also become great from every quarter, in the abundant increase of the wealth which puts forth no zeal against any kind of lust. All these things however, which conduce to the salvation of the soul, and to that life of righteousness which is well-pleasing to God; all these, (I say,) has he annihilated in his mind from their very roots; has disregarded his own excellency, and that of the race of his brethren who are in heaven, and has honoured, through the freedom of his will, those abominable bodily lusts, more than (this) his own greatness: of the righteousness of his Father who is in heaven, and of His praise, he has also been unmindful. These irrational itchings and delusions of childhood has he chosen: these which the fools of childhood usually do, who fly from the instruction and careful training of those who would enlarge their minds; extravagantly to honour the things which are sweet for the present, but which corrupt at once both the body and soul; and to hunt out for themselves the error and foolish knowledge of that voluptuousness, which is too vain to be conceived. All mankind being then, thus (circumstanced), the Increment of wickedness, that envious (being), the hater of every good, and deceiver as to every thing lovely, in conjunction with the wicked Demons, became their waylayer: this same, in his wicked zeal, prepared the nets, and snares, and riches,----the abundant means of every sort (of sin,)----against the salvation of all; and so drove them down from above into the depths of evil, that none on earth could see, but transgressed the law of their nature: and (thus), the germ of wickedness, instead of the seed of excellence, sprung up within them; and he that was more peaceful, more wise, and more rational, than all that were on the earth, so fell into the last stage of brutality and irrationality, that one of those beloved of God |65 wept over this overthrow of their fall, and cried out saying; "Man understood not his own honour; but was given up to be as the brute⁷³, and became assimilated to it."

79. On these accounts therefore, a mighty Saviour, greater than any son of man, was evidently needful to them. And such is He who anxiously undertook to provide for all, THE WORD OF GOD: He who has, like a good and loving Father, shewn by deeds His providential care over the rational souls that are on the earth; and who hastened, in the mission of Himself, to the call, and for the healing, of those who were thus fallen and perishing.

The End of the First Discussion (Book) of (Eusebius) of Caesarea.

[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac have been omitted]

1. ² "Cujus sententiae," says Lactantius, de falsa religione, Lib. i. cap. ii., "auctor est Democritus, confirmator Epicurus, sed et antea Protagoras, qui Deos in dubium vocavit; et postea Diagoras, qui exclusit," &c. These are the Atheists, a qeoi, of the ancients, on whom some excellent remarks from Plato's xth Book of Laws will be found quoted, Pref. Evang. Lib. xii. cap. 1. p. 621. Edit. 1628. ---- But more on this subject when we come to our second Book. It does not appear that this exclusion took place, except at the celebration of the Lord's supper.

2. ¹ This argument is also used by Athenagoras. Legat. pro Christ. p. 60. seq. and by Theodoret in the place just cited.

3. ² Alluding to Isai. xl. 12. Theodoret's comment on the place is, [Greek]: "nihil enim otiosum, nihil redundans, in lucem productum est." The Mohammedans----who borrowed most of their early notions from the Christians, (see my Persian Controversies, p. 124. seq.),----tell us, moreover, that the mountains are placed as studs on the earth, for the purpose of giving it stability, and of restraining one part from moving off to another. See M. de Sacy's Notes on the Pandnamah of Attar, p, 35. sen. Some beautiful remarks on this subject generally, will be found in Theophilus of Antioch, addressed to Autolycus, near the beginning. Among our own writers, Paley, Tucker on the Light of Nature, and the authors of the Bridgewater Treatises, will be read with interest.

4. ⁵ Not unlike this, our Author in his "Oratio de laudibus Constantini," cap. vii. p. 512. D. Edit. 1695: and particularly cap. xi. p. 524. A. seq. which is identical with it.

5. ⁶ It is common with our Author to consider Christ as the Maker of the World, and Father of the intelligent creature man.

6. ¹ Syr. [Syriac] which is an error, for [Syriac]. And here I may inform the reader, that where I have supposed an error to exist in the Syriac text, I have generally proposed its emendation in brackets thus [].

7. ² See Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. p. 524. C. D. from which our text slightly differs.

8. ³ Imitated apparently by Theodoret,----Graec. affect. curat. Edit. Gaisford, p. 183, &c.:----who, it may be remarked, is a very constant imitator of our Author.

9. ⁴ The Greek text (I.e.) of the Orat. de laudd. Constant, (p. 525. A.) has no term corresponding to this. Syr. [Syriac].

10. ¹ Alluding to 1 Tim. vi. 16.

11. ² Our Author argues in his tract against Marcellus, pp. 8, 9, that even before the incarnation, Christ was a Mediator between God and the angels, and this he grounds on Gal. iii. 19,----"ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator." His words are: "[Greek]." He has misunderstood the Scripture here.

12. ³ This sentence is not found in the Greek, Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. p. 525. B. See the note of Valesius on this place. It is, however, in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. vi. p. 155.

13. ⁶ Alluding to Job xxxvii. 7. See my Translation and Notes.

14. ⁹ Alluding to Job xxxviii. 10.

15. ¹ It is evident, from what follows here, that the sea-water is meant: for, in no other case, can we suppose the water spoken of to be changed into sweetness. Syr. [Syriac] This argument is also beautifully and powerfully urged by Theodoret. Serm. de Provid. i. Tom. iv. p. 330. C.

16. ¹⁰ By this is meant, that all is OF the Father as the great source of Divinity; but is BY the Son as the Creator, Upholder, and Governour of all things.

17. ⁵ So Didymus on the Holy Spirit, as preserved in the works of Jerome: " Bonus Dominus uoster Jesus Christus ex bono Patre generatus est."

18. ² This place may be adduced to shew how literal our Syrian translator has endeavoured to be, and how very greatly he has distorted the order of his Syriac, in order to suit it to that of his Greek original. The Syriac stands thus: [Syriac]. Than which nothing can be more preposterous. The Greek is this: [Greek] Which is not a bad specimen of Eusebius's want of simplicity. ---- This argument is also given in the Demonst. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. v. p. 150. D. seq.

19. ⁵ Anaxagoras imagined that the origin of all things consisted of similar parts. (Plutarch, p. 876. Vol. ii. Edit. 1620.). His theory is manifestly taken from the Bible. He says, [Greek] All things were (confused) together: but MIND divided and adorned them: i. e. the " Spirit" of the Bible. Zeno too, according to Aristotle, argued thus, (cited at § 30. infra.)

20. ³ It may perhaps be supposed that our author shews his Arian propensity here. But the same might be said of Justin Martyr, and, indeed, of the Fathers generally, if this were allowed. See Whitby on Eph. iv. 6. and the note on Book ii. sect. 3. below.

21. ¹ There is much reasoning of this sort in Aristotle's Tract on Xenophanes, Zeno, and Gorgias; and which cannot but be read with interest here, particularly the part on Zeno. See also Diog. Laert. Life of Plato near the end. This same argument is also urged by Lac-tantius, Lib. i. cap. iii. A little lower down, cap. v., he shews how some of the greatest poets and philosophers taught, that ONE supreme God formed and governed all things. Among the poets, Orpheus, Virgil, Ovid, &c.: among the philosophers, Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Antisthenes, &c. See also Prep. Evan. Lib. ix. capp. ix.----xiii. Ib. Lib. in. capp. ix. xii. xiii. &c.

22. ⁷ Alluding to Ps. xix. 4----6.

23. ² Our Greek (Orat. de laudd. Constant.) leaves us here, and does not join us again till we come to Book 11. Sect. 3.

24. ³ Syr. [Syriac], a paraphrase for Theologian: a title very applicable to St John, who spoke much of the

Lo&goj tou~ Qeou~.

25. ⁴ John i. 10. with the Peschito.

26. ⁶ Alluding to the reasoning of Plato, see Book ii. § 33. seq.

27. ⁷ See the Note to sect. 41. below.

28. ⁸ So also Aristotle, Lib. de Juventute et Senectute, cap. ii. "Necesse autem est, ut anima vegetatrix in haben-tibus, actu simplex unaque sit, potentia multiplex ac plures."

29. ² Our Author knew how to accommodate his reasoning to the class of readers whom he was addressing, who were the classical scholars of his day.----Homer's councils of the Gods gave the first outline perhaps of the sketch given here: so Ovid----

Mac iter est superis ad magni tecta Tonantis,

Regalemque domum; Dextra laevaque Deorum

Atria nobilium valvis celebrantur apertis.

Plebs habitant diversa locis: a fronte potentes

Coelicolae, clarique suos posuere Penates.

Hic locus est; quem, si verbis audacia detur,

Haud timeam magni dixisse Palatia coeli.

Metam. i. 1. 170. seq.

The Stoics in like manner affirm, that the world is a sort of city, consisting both of Gods and men: the Gods being the rulers, men the subjects, &c. [Greek]. From the epitome of Arius Didymus. Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xv. so also Philo, ib. Lib. xiii. cap. xviii. Ed. Viger. p. 704. making the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, &c. a sort of ministry to the whole. A passage similar to this is also to be found in the Oration of our Author, "de laudibus Constantini," cap. i. near the beginning. The most complete discussion on this subject is, perhaps, cap. vi. of Aristotle's Liber de mundo. See also Plato's heavenly earth. Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxxvii.

30. ³ This passage has been introduced into the Oratio de laudd. Constant. cap. i. p. 409. C. D. And, as it is extraordinary, and not very clear, I give both the Syriac and Greek of it: [Syriac, Greek] Matt, xxvii. 51. &c. The place is apparently an imitation of Job xxvi. 9. Sec my Translation and Notes, and the Greek of the LXX.

31. ² Much to the same effect though not so full, Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. vii. p. 704. who compares the all-pervading power of Christ to that of a magnet acting upon a series of iron rings, and affecting at once both the least and the greatest.

32. ³ The Syriac is ambiguous here [Syriac], which may mean, either as given in the text, or, as being made by its Father, who is the Word of God: ascribing the creation of all, as is frequently the case in this work, to Christ. I think the former, however, more likely to be the true meaning.

33. ¹ To the same effect, our Author in his work against Marcellus, Lib. i. cap. i. p. 4. C. seq.

34. ² Col. i. 15.

35. ³ Syr. lit. who have assimilated to themselves the Image of fraudulent rule. [Syriac], which is only a peculiar way of making the comparison: the Person meant is Satan, as opposed to Christ.

36. ⁴ The Syriac is peculiar here, and stands thus: [Syriac]: a practice common to many of the early heretics.

37. ⁶ Alluding to Rom. i. 25.

38. ¹ Cited from the cxlviiith Psalm, with a few variations from the text of the Peschito.

39. ¹ Syr. [Syriac], lit. In the Stadia: i. e. places appointed for racing. The aether has been usually supposed to constitute that portion of the upper regions which approximates to that of the fixed stars: by some it has been thought to consist of fire, by others of a very subtile fluid. Aristotle's opinion may perhaps, be taken here as the most authoritative. He says, then, (Lib. de Mundo, cap. ii.), [Greek] "Coeli porro siderumque substantiam appellamus setherem: non quidem ideo quod ignita flagret ipsa, ut aliqui censuerunt, plurimum utique aberrantes circa potentiam illam maxime ab ignea natura abhorrentem: origine vero hujus vocabuli inde ducta, quod semper aether currat motu circumductili: cum sit illud elementum a quatuor illis diversum: tum divinum, tum interitus expers."

40. ¹ Gen. i. 27, 1 Cor. xi. 7. The argument shewing that revealed religion is much more ancient than the vanities of idolatry is admirably prosecuted in the Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. iv. Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. I. p. 302. A. seq.

41. ³ Syr. [Syriac], lit, in the doctrine of their mind: which, as it is intended to be opposed to image worship, seems to me to imply doctrine mentally received and applied.

42. ¹ This expression will be understood, when it is considered that the ancients supposed the heavens to consist of sphere upon sphere, encircling each other, like the coats of an onion.

43. ³ " Shares with his lord the pleasure and the rifle."----POPE. This argument is similarly urged by Plutarch, (De Fortuna,) p. 98. Edit. 1620.) [Greek, Latin]

44. ¹ Ps. viii. 5. varying in some respects from the text of the Peschito.

45. ³ Gen. ii. 7.

46. ² Syr. [Syriac]. Similar, though not identical, sentiments will be found in extracts given by Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. v. p. 492. Edit. 1029; by Theodoret, Gr. Affect, curat. Serm, i. p. 477. Edit. 1642. Ib. Edit. Gaisford, p. 193. The nearest is, perhaps, to be found in a Fragment of Menander preserved by Plutarch, (De consolat. ad Apoll. p. 103. Edit. 1620.)

..... "a0sqene/staton ga_r o n ( zw~|on )

Fu&sei."

......"cum sit infirmissimum (animal)

Natura."

Another not unlike it is (ib. p. 104) cited from Homer:

" Ou_de\n a0kidno&teron gai~a tre/fei a0nqrwpo&io."

" Nil homine in terris infirmius aetheris aura vescitur."

47. ¹ Matter, in some respects similar to this, will be found in the Orat. de laudd. Constant. Cap. v. p. 509. B. seq. and Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxviii. p. 556. seq.

48. ³ There is a passage in Plutarch very nearly allied to this, who probably has in view the same poet (Pindar), it is as follows: [Greek] "Medicinam enim animae, quse Justitia cognominatur, omnium esse artium maximam, praeter sexcentos alios etiam Pindarus testatur, principem et dominum omnium deum appellans Aristotechnam, id est, artificum praestantissimum: quippe justitise administratorem, quae jus habet determinandi quando, quomodo, et quatenus quilibet malorum sit puniendus." It is not improbable, I think, that our author had this place in his eye when he wrote the above paragraph. Clemens Alexand. also cites the place in Pindar, Strom. Lib. v. p. 598. B. but in a different sense. Plutarch, de his qui sero, &c. ib. p. 550. A.

49. ¹ That is, considering Christ as appointed the final Judge of all, man here acts like him.

50. ² i. e. the section of a tree formed into a boat, as was much the case in former times. See the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. x. p. 35. A.

51. ² Syr. [Syriac]. lit. hours, a literal translation, in all probability, of the Greek w[rai, signifying seasons.

52. ³ One would think from this, that the ancient Astrolabes were furnished with an apparatus for the purpose of exhibiting animated nature, while they presented the places and groups of the stars; not unlike, perhaps, our modern Orreries, supposing them accompanied by a sort of cuckoo-clock. Lactantius thus describes the sphere of Archimedes, Lib. n. cap. v. p. 115. Ed. 1698. "An Archimedes siculus concave sere similitudinem mundi ac figuram potuit machinari, in quo ita solem, ac lunam composuit, ut inaequales motus et coelestibus similes, conversionibus singulis quasi diebus efficerent: et non modo accessus solis, ct recessus, vel incrementa, diminutionesque lunae, vel etiam stellarum, vel inerrantium vel vagarum, dispares cursus, orbis ille dum vertitur exhiberet," &c. According to the Greeks the sphere was invented by Anaximander: Diog. Laert. in the life of this philosopher.

53. ⁴ So Porphyry, Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. [Greek] "Qui...nec oculis, nec alio quovis humano sensu attingi omnino possunt." Eusebius, perhaps, first alludes here to the practice of Exorcism, as had recourse to in the primitive Church: see Suiceri Thesaurus, sub voce, Ecorkismo&j --There was moreover, a very general belief that a sort of magic virtue consisted in the pronunciation of certain words. Origen (contra Cels. Lib. v. pp. 261----2) tells us that any name, or word, having effect in incantations, if changed or translated into any other language, immediately lost its whole magical efficacy. His instances are, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: the names Israel, Adonai, Sabaoth, &c. Nor does he restrict these usages to the professors of the true religion. See also ib. p. 374, and Spencer's very curious note on pp. 17. C. 41: notes, p. 16----19, where we have every thing we can require on this subject.

54. ¹ This is perhaps, an instance of hypallage, as occasionally met with in the Scriptures (see the note to §. 57 above.) So Rom. vii. 24. [Greek] Syr. [Syriac]. Here, the [Syriac], by the desires of the bonds (the lusts) of nature. Our author probably means, (by hypallage) the mortifications to which persons of this sort usually submitted, just as it is the case with the devotees of Hindustan at this day; all of whom generally hold, that they have power over demoniacal agents. A belief however, in these things as expressed here, must be classed among those, which more enlightened times have very properly rejected. Our author might, however, have intended this as a sort of argumentum ad hominem, it being religiously held by the heathen of his times, as may be seen Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. C. xxii. seq. Where (p. 173. D.) he tells us that in this ease he used not the testimony of Christians, but of the heathen Philosophers themselves, [Greek]. See ib. cap. xxiii. on the means used for expelling and opposing these Demons, from Porphyry. See also Sect. 12. Book ii. below.

55. ² According to Celsus (Origen contra Cels. Lib. vii. p. 367,) Anaxarchus was thrown into a mortar, and, when beaten there, uttered these remarkable words. The tyrant who reduced him to this, was Aristocreon of Cyprus (ib. p. 368.). Epictetus is here also celebrated for a similar act of fortitude. This account, moreover, of Anaxarchus will be found at length in Diogenes Laertius, under his life.

56. ¹ Rom. viii. 35. differing considerably from the text of the Peschito and Philoxenian Versions.

57. ³ See §. 47, above.

58. ¹ Rom. vii. 24, as in the Peschito.

59. ² 2 Cor. x. 3, differing considerably from the Peschito.

60. ³ Phil. iii. 20, as before.

61. ⁴ Heb. xii. 22, cited from memory, apparently.

62. ¹ Several passages similar to this, though not identical with it, are to be found in Plutarch, and other writers.

63. ² The views of some of the Fathers on this subject were extremely dark and perplexed, out of which evidently grew the Purgatory of the Roman Catholics. How far our author partook of this, I have not been able to ascertain. Origen tells us in his 24th Hom, on Luke, that, as John baptized with water, so shall Christ baptize in a river of fire all who shall pass to Paradise; but here, the baptism by water must first have taken place. In this case all must submit to this second purifying baptism. Again, near the end of his th book of ex planations of the Epist. to the Romans, he says, that he who spurns the purifications of the Word of God, and of the Gospel-teaching, will reserve himself to the sad and penal purifications of the fire of hell: in conformity with the Scripture, "I will purify thee with fire even to purification." (Is. i. 25. Sept.) He goes on to tell us, that, how long this purifying by fire with sinners shall continue, He only, to whom the Father hath delivered all judgment, can know: evidently inclining to the notion that it is not eternal. This is however, according to him, one of those things which the Apostle considered as a mystery, and to be held as such by the faithful, secretly within themselves: and, for this he cites "Mysterium Regis (ut ait Scriptura) celare bonum est." (Prov. xxv. 2?). But, who does not see that all this is a miserable perversion of Scripture? See Spencer's Notes on Origen contra Cels. pp. 47-50: it. p. 77. The Bishop of Lincoln's Eccl. Hist, illustrated from Tertullian, p. 342. seq. Camb. 1826. Out of this also grew the Mohammedan purgatory, styled [Arabic]. Elaraf. They have also a Bason (pond), styled [Arabic] out of which all the faithful are to drink before they enter Paradise. Our author however, does speak also of earthly plagues sent as purifiers. See Book ii. §. 80, below: and so does Origen contra Cels. Lib. iv. p. 173, where Plato is cited as using similar phraseology.

64. ¹ See §. 62, seq. above.

65. ¹ Ps. viii. 5, 6, differing slightly from the Peschito.

66. ² Similar reasoning will be found in the Phaedo of Plato, Edit. Lond. p. 170; and in Plutarch de consolat. ad Apollonium. (p. 107. seq. Edit. 1620) beginning with, [Greek]

67. ¹ Alluding to Matt. vii. 3, 4, 5: and meaning apparently that, should light be impeded by any means from passing through the natural inlets to the soul, so far must the soul remain unenlightened, and in intellectual darkness.

68. ² Plato's [Greek] Phaedo. Edit. Lond. p. 183. And so a Poet cited by Plutarch, (de consolat. ad. Apoll. 108. E.) [Greek]

69. ³ Alluding to 2 Cor. iv. 7.

70. ⁴ Much to the same effect Plato, Phaedo. Edit. Lond. p. 178. seq. So also Clemens Alexand. (Strom. Lib. v. p. 740.)... [Greek]... "Quinetiam precatur cum Angelis, ut qui jam sit etiam aequalis Angelis, neque est unquam extra sanctam custodiam, et licet oret solus, habet chorum Angelorum una assistentem."

71. ¹ It was one of the errors of Tatian, that he believed the soul partook of the matter of the body: Orat. contra Graecos, p. 169. B. seq. Edit.

72. ² Syr. [Syriac]. Ovens in the East are not unlike large stone jars, as may be seen in Mr. Taylor's Fragments to his Edition of Calmet's Dictionary, No. cix. Plate 38. fig. 5. Edit. 1838. The allusion, made to the spark of fire, in the last section, is perhaps intended to be kept up here, with the notion of a silent process going on, as in baking any thing in an oven.

73. ² Ps. xlix. 21. according to the Peschito, except that we have [Syriac] instead of [Syriac]: but differing slightly from the Septuagint, as it also does from the sense of the Hebrew.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 18th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_03book .htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Book 2

BOOK II.

THE SECOND BOOK AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHERS.

1. THE human race, O my friends, stood (thus) in need of God the Saviour: and God alone was the helper, who, could give abundance to those who had suffered loss, and life to them who had become subject to death. The advent therefore of God, and the divine manifestation of the common Saviour of all;----of him who arose (as the sun) upon mankind was necessary, because all that was upon the earth, had, through the insanity (inculcating) a plurality of gods, and the envy and solicitation of demons, become corrupted to the last stage of vice, and (immersed) in the depth of ungodly error.

2. But again, that the cause of the Divine manifestation of the common Saviour of all among men, might the better be known, let us first of all speak on the great fall of the human race, on their lawless wickedness and iniquity: and then let us pass on to the hidden mysteries of the doctrine of this divine Revelation.

3. For, it was not as some disease which (lay) on man, and was mighty as opposed to every other; but it was, that the evil ¹Demon so led, and ruled over, the whole human race, like a pestilence that is mortal, (and) far surpassing every thing that is (generally) evil and hateful, that he drove him who was more peaceful than any other being, to the last stage of brutality; and him who was rational, to that of being the most irrational of all. Hence² it was that men, in the blindness of their souls, recognized not the God who is over |67 all; The Cause and Maker of all; The Reverend Name of that nature of the ONLY (Begotten) which had no beginning, Him who was before all³, THE WORD OF GOD; The Father of the essence which is intelligent and rational; Him who rules both in heaven and earth; Him who is at all times present to this world, and is in it, and is the (efficient) Cause of every good to all; That providential care; That Saviour; That Upholder; That Giver of rain, and Dispenser of light, and Prince of life; That Creator of this whole (they recognised not, I say), but gave that Reverend Name to the Sun, the Moon, the very Heavens, and the stars; nor did they confine themselves to these⁴,----

4. But also, to matter warm and cold, wet and dry, to the very waters, the earth, the air and fire;----things which we perceive with our eyes, have neither soul nor reason;----and to the rest of the (constituent) portions of the world, they likewise gave the names of Neptune, Vulcan, Jupiter, Juno, and of others, and honoured them with the title of god: nor did they confine themselves to these,---- |68

5. But, they also made Gods of the earthy nature of the fruits of the earth, and of the provisions intended for the bodies of every kind (of animal, and named them) Ceres, Proserpine, Bacchus: and, of other things allied to these, they made Idols: nor did they confine themselves to these,----

6. But, they hesitated not to call the cogitative faculty of their minds, and their reason, which is the interpreter of of these, also Gods. Their faculty of thought they named Minerva, and their speech Mercury. The powers inventive of moral doctrines, they called Memory, and the Muses: nor did they confine themselves to these things,----

7. But, increasing in manifold impiety and the excess of wickedness, they made themselves Gods of their own passions; which it was becoming they should have put away, and have cured by the effort of pure reason:----of their lust, their baser infirmities and passions; of their grosser members also fitted for corrupt acts, and of the different parts of the body. And again, the appetency to the intemperate |69 lusts, they named Cupid, Priapus, ⁵Venus, and other things allied to these: nor did they confine themselves to these,----

8. But, they also prostrated themselves to that which was born⁶ of the human body, and to the life which is subject to death; they made men into Gods; and published of these, after undergoing a common mortality, that they were Gods and Demigods; imagining that the divine and immortal essence moved about the sides of graves, and among the monuments of the dead: nor did they confine themselves to these things,----

9. But, they also honoured with the Reverend name, every species of irrational animal, and noxious reptile⁷! nor did they confine themselves to these ",---- |70

10. But, they also cut down trees⁸, and hewed the rocks: the metals too of the earth, brass, iron, and other matter, they sought out, and formed into the appearances of women, forms of men, and into the likenesses of wild beasts, and of reptiles; and to these again they gave the name of Gods! nor did they confine themselves to these,----

11. But, they also ministered, by means of libations and the fumes of sacrifices, to the evil demons which had insinuated themselves into these same images⁹, which had been set up in the innermost recesses of darkness; and to them they gave the name of Gods! nor did they confine themselves to these,----

12. But, they also drew over to themselves, by means of the ties¹⁰ of those who used abominable incantations, by |71 songs and other forcible and lawless enchantments, tho se invisible Demons¹¹ and Powers which fly in the air: and again, they availed themselves of these, as abettors of the error of the deities, which they had (so) fabricated. And thus did they set up mortal men, as the Gods of Others. For the Greeks honoured Bacchus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Apollo, and other men, with the names of Gods and Demigods; while the Egyptians¹² imagined of Horus, Isis, Osiris, and again of other men such as these, that they were Gods. Nor did their wise men, who are boasted of for their excessive wisdom, and the invention of Geometry, Astrology, and Arithmetic, know or understand how to weigh or to discriminate in their minds, between the distinguishing measure of the Divine power, and that of irrational mortal nature. On this account, they hesitated not to give the name of Gods, to every frightful image of the animals; to every sort of untamed beast, and reptile; and to the fiercest animals. The Phoenicians too, named ¹³ Malkuthrudun, |72 ¹⁴ Ousurun, and other mortal men more contemptible than these, Gods; while the Arabians did the same to ¹⁵ Dusarin, and ¹⁶Oubadon; the Getas (Goths), to ¹⁷ Zalmacusin: the Cilicians, to ¹⁸ Mopsus; the Thebans, to ¹⁹ Amphiaraus. And with others, again, others,----who differed in no respect from mortals, but were in truth men only,----they also honoured with the name of Gods. |73

13. The whole of the Egyptians, therefore, at once with the Phoenicians and the Greeks, (thus) availed themselves, contrary to humanity, of every mortal species,----even as the rising of the sun illuminates (all) the portions of the universe,----of the very elements, of the fruits²⁰ which grow out of the earth, even of their own passions²¹; and again, even of the madness of demons, and (other) delusions; and before these, of mortal men²²! Nor did they set up, during their lifetimes, the doctrine which is excellent; nor did they point out to men, the instruction which attends purity of life; nor did they shew forth the requirements of (true) philosophy, or discover the practices favourable (to this): nor did they leave behind themselves any disciples of their superiority, or deliver either precepts or writings conducing to happiness of life²³. On the contrary, they busied themselves with women, and the baser lusts; and, as it happened,----I know not by what error of the participation in the deeds of Demons,----they named (these) Gods and Demigods, and honoured (them) with sacrifices, and services (connected) with the error of enchanters! They also built Fanes and Temples (to these) both in the cities and villages: but Him who alone is beyond the universe, THE WORD OF GOD in verity, the King of all, and Maker of all, they set at nought! |74 These same multiplied all this, in the madness and corruption of (their) mind, to such an extent, that they forthwith called any men, with whom they happened to meet, Gods; and immediately attached themselves to these same passions of mortals! And to these did they ascribe lawless adulteries, abominable deeds, and perverse lives and deaths. Nor did these things come from others, so that they could say these were their calumniators; but they themselves are the witnesses of these things, confessing the error, the sorrows, the deaths; and prior to these, the adulteries, the corruptions, of men (with men), and the rapes of women²⁴. Nevertheless, they filled all their cities, villages, and (other) places, with the Fanes, Images, and Temples (of these)!

14. Nor²⁵ was it this only, but also, from the speeches which they made about their Gods, they received every provision for the life which was lawless and base; and, in the first place, corrupted by every sort of abomination, at once both their souls and bodies. And, that such were the things which they did, when assimilating themselves to their Deities, we can readily shew from this, that the Phoenicians our neighbours, as we ourselves have seen, are busied with these things, even now, in Baalbeck; the ancient injurious excesses and corrupting paths of vice, being persevered in there, even to this time; so, that the women there enter not into the bands of lawful marriage, until they have been first corrupted in a way contrary to law, and have been made to partake in the lawless services of the mysteries of Venus²⁶. Now indeed, this city alone |75 remains in this sickly state of folly, by way of proof of these ancient vices; when, from ancient times, many thus suffered while the disease inflicted by Demons had more abundant hold.

15. Nor was it this only, but also, the very men who rejected the gods mentioned (above), preached up, by means of hymns, elegies, sacrifices, mysteries, books, and votive offerings to Idols, that Father and Leader of all the Gods, who was overcome by bodily lust, and fell in love with Ganymede²⁷: and, as it were in emulation of their Gods, they transgressed the bounds of nature, and remained in this excess, at a distance not to be described, or (received) as real into the hearing. They fearlessly abused each other, as the Divine declarations affirm: "Man with man working that which was shameful, and receiving in themselves the return of reward, which was due to their error²⁸''.

16. Nor was it this alone, but they also subverted |76 the common mind of all, placing under an irrational Fate, and natural necessity, the constitution and essence of every thing. They led too, the lives of beasts, even the life which was no life. Nor did they enquire into the essence of the soul, or think on the righteous judgments of God. The victory attendant on virtue, they never called to mind, nor again, the punishment due to a wicked life.

17. Nor was it this alone, but they also ran as herds into the midst of the theatres, old and young together; mothers with their sons and daughters; and, conformably with the doings (there), they contracted every base and intemperate disposition. Men and women too, being (thus) congregated together, became at once filled with intoxication (as it were) and lasciviousness! How then, could they do that which was good, when they stored not their hearing by listening to words that were pure, inculcating the fear of God? and applied not their eyes for the advantage of their souls? but (the hearing), to the instruction of sentiments that were base; and the sight, to the representation of every (sort) of lascivious-ness? For, things such as these, were those which (were presented) to the sight; (and), on which whole multitudes so fixed their attention, that in them (was evinced) the maddened excitement of the stallion, the vile pleasure (felt) over those devoured by wild beasts; (the |77 excitement) of grains of corn parched²⁹ (by the fire); (or over) those killed in the lion-hunt; but not (any feeling) belonging to human beings! And again, the impudent laugh (set up) at the vilest things; the intense and foolish desire excited by the music; the lascivious shows personating women; and the loud uproar set up at the songs! For these, indeed, and such like things, were immense multitudes of the ignorant inhabitants brought together, with those who were their Princes, their Generals, and their Governours, and became saturated (as it were) with the corruptions which debase the soul³⁰.

18. Nor was it this only, but they also built seminaries of the precepts of ungodliness both among the (country) people, and in the cities³¹. Instead of the precepts of righteousness, and those which were advantageous to the world; and, instead of the doctrine which was pure, and the love of God; they received into the memory,----through the impious babblings of the poets, in which there were |78 corrupt recitations, and stories about their male and female deities,----passions filled with every thing shameful, as well as hard sufferings³², differing in nothing from (those of) mortal nature; (I say), through the instruction and study of the lying writings of the Dramatists, both tragic and comic, these things, corrupting and injurious (as they were) of life, they first sowed in their own souls, and afterwards in those of the young. And accordingly, (through) the iniquity, which was the first and last of every other,----which was, at once and entirely, that of all men, of Princes and Subjects, of the Sovereigns of nations, of Lawgivers, of Armies, of the Inhabitants both of villages and cities, among both Greeks and Barbarians;----the praise which was due, and was suitable to Him alone who is King of all, they perversely gave to that which was adverse (to Him), and called the demons that had corrupted them, (their) Gods! They sang hymns moreover, to earthly and wicked spirits, to the inanimate elements, and to the sensible portions of the universe! And (thus), the companies of the rational animals which were on the earth, rendered not the praise of the officiating priest; nor, with their brethren who are in heaven, the holy Angels and Divine Spirits,---- those who praise the King of all,----did they render praise, the praise (I say) which is proper for such: but, on the contrary, they sang, both in their feasts and festivals, that which was foreign to propriety, and was unsuitable, to those seducing Spirits which had led the world astray! To them, too they gave the honour of worship; insomuch, |79 that henceforth, the whole element of the earth, uniformly with all nations throughout the whole of creation, became nothing better than the vessel in the storm, whose entire and violent wreck in the extreme depths of perdition, is momentarily threatened!

19. Much therefore, on account of all these things, was God the Saviour and (only) helper, needed by mankind. Had some societies only been led to this state of error, the evil would indeed have been (but) small. But now, the Princes of cities, the Leaders of the nations, the Kings of countries, the Heads of territories, and the Honourable of the nations, had at once become fully, and completely, diseased in this same error of Demons, and of a plurality of Gods. And behold! again, even those,---- who boasted themselves among the Greeks of (their) philosophy, and made the profession, that in them was knowledge superior to any that was in the many; were pompous in the streets, swelling with pride, and casting their mantles loosely about them; had wandered in the great and wide earth; had freely taken from other nations this magnificence of doctrine about things; from this place, geometry; from another quarter, arithmetic; and again from another place, music, the art of healing, and those other things, which have their being in rational experiment³³: for, these things, and others like them, they |80 got together from every place:----these fell (nevertheless), into a deadly and ungodly state of mind! By the mere discovery of persuasive words moreover, some of these set it up,----as if they would make no experiments even after the truth,----that indivisible³⁴ bodies (atoms), having no extent, or having projecting parts, and infinite, were, forsooth, the origin of all things! These same too, determined ³⁵Rest to be the extreme good: that which is, and |81 evidently (so), a greater corruption than all the (other) vices. For, What could be more worthy of honour than Rest, with those who laid it down, that there is in this something which exists, neither Providence, nor God, nor soul that is immortal, nor intelligent essence, nor WORD OF GOD which is above all, nor (yet) beginning, nor end? and, that the things alone that are irrational and inanimate, which are indivisible and subtile bodies (atoms), and fall not, on account of their excessive smallness, under the (observation of the) senses;----that they should predetermine these very things, which are inanimate, irrational, as being without beginning, ungenerated, and in their multitude infinite, and as having, from times not to be comprehended, been dispersed just as it has happened?---- still, things being thus, have affirmed, that these were the cause of this universal order; and, that there was neither God, nor Providence, nor Reason which viewed, or which governed, the whole? But, even if there were, that He would not possess the being of any one thing; neither would He give it to others³⁶! And, as my judgment is, the "Rest" which was (so) lovely to them, and which they also attributed to God Himself³⁷,----just as the doings |82 of those were who arose as Philosophers of the school of Epicurus and Democritus, and as was the whole traditionary (doctrine) of those amongst the Greeks,----was that of (this) life. And, being thus eminent, they approached the multitudes; at one time, walking to the temples with the inhabitants (generally); at another, shewing themselves to be those who feared the Gods; because of the fear of punishment (otherwise to be expected) from the law³⁸. But such were these, who contended for Rest (as the extreme good).

20. Others too, fixed the limits of Providence as far off as the moon³⁹; the company of those too, who were of the school of Aristotle, excluded it from every other portion of the world: which same also, determined the extreme good to be, neither Virtue, nor Philosophy, unless indeed, it happened to be attended by wealth of possession⁴⁰, abundance of gold and of silver, Family, and and the glory which takes with the many! And, What could hinder such from boasting themselves in these things? ---- men, who had shut up, as with bolts and doors at the distance of the moon, the Providence which is over all? or, that they should affirm, that the intelligent and |83 rational soul⁴¹ which is in man, is mortal; and, that it is nothing, but even as the body, or as its colour, or its form? They usually term it moreover, Entelechia⁴². Nor did they, by any means, place in apposition with the chief good, either the life of Philosophy, or the superiority of rule: on the contrary, they lapsed into the things of accident, riches, greatness, and family: (affirming), that with these existed the superiority that was worthy of reason; and that, without these things, it was nothing! Nor had the wise man any thing superior, unless he were also rich: nor had he, who was careful about purity of life, any thing good about him, unless he were a person of family! nor, would justice itself, or the complete |84 beauty of virtue in the person of any one, be sufficient for the life of happiness, unless he happened to have a complete symmetry of bodily limbs! These men then, considered these things as being apart, in a place (removed) from the things pertaining to men, (and) higher than the moon: that a Godhead existed; but affirmed, that the providence of God looked not to the things on earth. Nor did they recognize the common Saviour of all, THE WORD OF GOD, the Preserver of all things; but drew near for the purpose of reverencing those Deities, that were in certain places, and in the cities⁴³: professing themselves to be wise in some things, with those who knew them; but performing others in their deeds. In their writings and common conversation, they made the oaths of their Gods: but, in their minds, no such thing existed. On the contrary, they submitted to this for the sake of the applause of the many⁴⁴. So that hence these same were Demons, rather than men, (and) to be despised by every sort of sound Philosophy.

21. Others also, besides these who boasted themselves (as being) the best of Philosophers, dared with ungodly |85 mouth to affirm, that God is a body; and, that His nature differs in no respect from fire. And this is the extreme error of the Stoics, who say of this sensible world, that it is God: and (so) set up a doctrine, which is impious and all-corrupting. For (they affirm), that the operative Cause, and the passiveness⁴⁵ of matter, are of one and the same essence; and, that the maker and the made, are both bodies: and also, that the King of all, God who is above all, differs in nothing from sensible fire; but, that he mixes Himself up at once, with every thing,----just as fire does in (its) progress,----at the appointed times. But great is the |86 sin (to affirm), that God is subject to change; and again, to combustion! This therefore, is the doctrine of the Stoic Philosophers, that all being, even the whole world, shall in time be mixed up with God⁴⁶ in fire: and, (that) the whole shall effect a change, as in seed; and, that out of this, universal order shall again be produced, just as it was at the first: and that all these are Gods, as are all the portions of the world; and, because the whole consists of all its parts, the entire universe itself wholly constitutes the Deity⁴⁷! These same again affirm, that this intelligent and reasonable soul which is in man, is corruptible, just as it is corporeal. What then, could hinder such from daring to speak against God, the King of all? or again, from determining, that these souls (consist) of matter, and body? and, that they are nothing else but the dense smoke, and fumes of bodies⁴⁸? and again, that after the close of life, they |87 shall continue, during the times destined for them? and (this) not of all, but only of the souls of the Philosophers

49? and, that at last, with the general conflagration, these also shall burn together with God, and the whole universe? and, that at the same time, the souls of the wicked and of the just shall be dissolved; the thing's also of the just, together with those of the atheists, shall be fused, as it were, by one and the same fire? and again, that the worlds shall be reborn from this consumption of universal fire, differing in nothing, but in every thing, similar to the former; so that again, as from a beginning⁵⁰, these (worlds) shall in those be reproduced; as shall this same traditionary (life). Modes of life again, such as shall in all respects be similar, and not differing: the same fashions too, customs, regulations, and passions, shall exist within these. In the same manner also, the same sorrows, honours, recreations, oppressions, shall subsist among these, and happen to the same individuals. So that Helen⁵¹, and the calamities of Ilium, (Troy) may again be expected: and again, |88 Anytus ⁵², and Melitus, and the deadly poison of Socrates: again too, the contentions of the Philosophers themselves: the same divisions on the same subjects; and, at last again, shall the whole be consumed by fire; and again, after it has been burnt, again shall it be restored anew: and again shall consist of the same reducible materials⁵³. And indeed these, adhered thus violently to their error!

22. The descendants however, of the Philosophers, who were named the "primitive (students of) Physics"⁵⁴, (and) who preceded all (others), laid the origin of all upon the inanimate Elements, and recognized neither God, nor Providence, nor Creator, nor Maker of any thing; but vainly, emptily and falsely, arrogated to themselves the name and show of Philosophers: some of them affirming the earth, and dry substance, to be the origin of all; others the ocean⁵⁵, the Parent of all; for thus they named the humid substance and waters: others, fire⁵⁶; others, the |89 air⁵⁷; and others, a compound⁵⁸ of these. They also introduced many male, as they likewise did, female Deities. Marriage too, and the bringing forth of children, they perverted by natural metaphors, and the specious diction of the fictitious stories of the Poets, to the adorning of (this their) vain glory⁵⁹. So that these also, fell down again, as it were by perverseness, from the heights above, upon the material elements and sensible portions of the universe!

23. Others however, exclusive of these, determined the reverse of all those mentioned;----that there was nothing divine in (all) this which exists; neither God that was over all; nor the (Deities) which were in certain places, nor that superior name, nor the imposition of (plastic) hand upon matter, were things really existing: so that they proceeded to the greatest extent of impiety⁶⁰.

24. Plato alone, of all the Greeks, (as) it seems to me, adhered more eminently to (the true) Philosophy; and held correctly, respecting that good Being who is the First, and Cause of all; and became truly wise, respecting the Second (⁶¹ Cause), who is the Creator of all. |90

25. He also established (it) justly and well, that the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars, and wholly and at once, the whole world, were made by the God of all⁶². |91

26. He also affirmed of the essence of the soul, that it is incorporeal and foreign to corruption. He was also cognizant of the intelligent Essences; and confessed, that the mind which is over all, (and) which we call THE WORD OF GOD, is King of all. To the same he gave the Rule over all, after the manner of a shipmaster, who well and duly provides for all: Him he also shewed was Governour⁶³. This man alone, of all the Greeks, confessed----just as we do,----of THE WORD OF GOD the Creator of the world. But, he is at hand, and we may hear (this) from himself, when discoursing of God thus:----

27. "⁶⁴ Let us render honour, neither to that (heavenly body) which is of the year, nor to that of the month. Nor let us cut off to these indeed, any portion: neither the time in which it proceeds in its orbit, and completes the visible world, which THE WORD OF GOD has set in order. Of all who are in it, he who is happy will have wondered |92 (at Him), and afterwards acquired such love, as to investigate (Him) as far as mortal nature is able.

28. This man moreover, now calls THE DIVINE WORD, the Father, the Lord of all, and also Governour of all, in the very same words, and names Him just as we do; expressing himself thus:----

29. "This⁶⁵ Epistle, all you who consist of three should read, particularly in society: but, if not, between |93 two in common, as each may be able. As often as ye shall be able, avail yourselves of compact (together), and of the Law; and, by that Lord, who is justice (itself) swear ye, at once with care;----not without wisdom,----and with erudition the sister of care; and, by that Governour of all, of the things that are, and of those that shall be; and, by the Father of the Governour and of the (efficient) Cause, the Lord, swear ye:----Him, whom, if we are truly Philosophers, we shall all clearly know, as our power (may be, being) of those who are happy men."

30. This (philosopher) also taught, that there was a just Judgment of God, and that He would render to every man as he should deserve: he very divinely shewed too, that the extreme good was this, that (men) be like to the Godhead⁶⁶; be attached, and made (as it were) twin brothers, to virtue. Nevertheless, he also fell justly⁴, (and as it was) likely, more than they all under reprehension. Why? Because he knew God as He was; but honoured Him not as God. He concealed the truth too, and put forth falsehood to the many. To those whom he loved, he spoke openly and well, as a Philosopher, of the Father and Creator of this whole. But, with the inhabitants of Athens, he conducted himself as no Philosopher; and went down to the Pirasus to Socrates, at his word, to pray to the Goddess, and, at once, to complete the festival of Bendis⁶⁷, together with all the inhabitants. And again, |94 he himself said of his master, that, when the end of his life drew near, he commanded them to sacrifice a cock! Nor did the best of Philosophers blush;----nor was it concealed:----that, the Father of his philosophy commanded them to propitiate the Deity, by means of fabricated earthly matter, and a little blood;----the body of a dead bird⁶⁸! And again, he called those (Deities) that were honoured in the cities, Demons: and this he did well. But, he further confessed, that these same were, and that they were formerly known as being, mortal men. And (here) he spoke the truth. Nevertheless, he advised that (men) should worship these same as Gods! And, because he submitted himself, with the multitudes, to the error of these, he may well have been memorialized as (implicated) in their pretences, because he concealed the word of truth under the show of Philosophy, and attached himself to |95 falsehood. Hear therefore, the things that he has said in the Timaeus:----

31. " To speak of the other Demons, and to know their power, is too great for us. We assent however, to those who have said before us, that they were the sons of the gods, even as they have affirmed: and they well knew their own fathers. It is impossible therefore, we should not approve of the sons of the gods, when behold, they advance neither probabilities nor strong proofs⁶⁹. But, as they affirmed, that they narrated respecting those who were their own (fathers); (so) we, adhering to the law, believe. Thus therefore, as these affirmed a generation respecting these gods, (so) let it be; and be affirmed, that the Ocean and |96 Tethys were the sons of the Earth and the Heavens; and of these same, Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea (Ops): and of Saturn and Rhea, Jupiter and Juno: and those others, whom we know were all of them brothers of those mentioned: and others again, the children of these."

32. You (now) view the very Philosopher----who is from above⁷⁰, and of the exemplars that are above the world, and of the intelligent essences which are incorporeal,----beneath on the earth and on the ocean, immerged as it were in the depths of error⁷¹! He has moreover, introduced a generation of the gods,----him who could himself alone, say with a mind, the voice of which was more elevated than that of man,----

"What is that which always is, but that it might |97 exist, has no being? And it is this same which is apprehended by knowledge together with reason, and exists in all time according to itself. But, that which is to be considered by the sense that is irrational, and was, and is corruptible; that it might fully exist, it never had even being."

34. This selfsame Combatant therefore, now honours this identical (something,)----this which was, and is corruptible, but never fully existed, on account of its elemental and dissoluble character,----with the name of gods! And again the very same, (virtually) reprehending the expositors of this story of the gods, says of them, that it was neither from probabilities nor from strong proofs, that they spoke and put forth the error of these Deities. And, having accused them in this manner, he afterwards says, "We give our assent to them, and approve;" when, behold! they had said nothing truly! Besides, when he called them the sons of the gods, |98 he clearly knew, that he was introducing their fathers who were, like all (other) men, subject to mortality! And again, he memorializes mortal gods, and mortal sons, who were like to their fathers, and who plainly said that they knew their own fathers. Nor does he conceal himself when he says, "It is impossible therefore, that we should not believe the sons of Gods;" still, he immediately accuses them, that they had advanced neither probabilities, nor strong proofs, and adds, "We approve of them, as saying that they narrated respecting their own" (fathers.) He says not----and (this) fully and carefully,----that they narrated; but, as "they said that they narrated;" and, we "assent to them as saying, that they were the sons of the gods." And, Whence had he learned this, that he should affirm just as they had said? For (says he) they said this: It was not I. That is; Still to them, when speaking of themselves, and unable to establish (the assertion) respecting themselves, either by probabilities or strong proofs, we nevertheless give our credence! He says too after this: " Thus therefore, as these affirmed the generation of the gods, (so) let it be;" necessarily, says he, just as these say! Not indeed as my opinion is, but as theirs (was,) let these things be affirmed⁷²!

35. You perceive therefore, that he advises it as proper, that we should adhere to error! And, For what cause does he set this up? Not because of any other thing, except the Law: that is, because of the death that was suspended on the Law! And this he openly acknowledges when he says, " We, adhering to the Law, believe." The fear then of man, and of the Law, dismissed from the Philosophers, that Fear, and Law, which (were) of the truth! Where then, are those excellent and wise things, |99 which the same elegant tongue,----(and) wholly for the sake of which,----said in astonishing language, and thus magnificently?----

36. " For⁷³ there is neither law, nor any one ordinance superior to erudition; nor is it just, that the mind be subservient or subjected to any thing: it is, on the contrary, Prince of all, if indeed it be free in its nature." This same too, is he who said, that "Wheresoever⁷⁴ a man places himself, thinking it to be best, there he ought, as I think, to remain, (even) in the storm; making no account of any thing, neither of death, nor of any other thing, before things hateful." He also said afterwards; "For⁷⁵ this, that one should fear death, O men, would be nothing else, but that we should suppose him to be wise when he is not so."

37. How then can you, O Philosopher! be moved by death after these expressions? or, draw near to |100 honour" mortal Gods, on account of the Law? And, How can you dignify these, as sons of the Gods, in order that we might approve, and give (our) assent to them? In your own words you both reproach, and chastise (them), as having said nothing soundly, or by way of proof, respecting (these) their own Fathers. How then, having thus accused them, can you now advise men to approve of them? But, of these their Fathers, let us make inquiry:----

38. Of the Earth, you say, and the Heavens, the Ocean and Tethys were the progeny: and again, Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea. And so after all these, Jupiter and Juno! Jupiter, after the Earth and Heavens! Jupiter, after Saturn! and Rhea, after the whole of these! What say you, O Combatant?----Where is the great Jupiter, who drove the flying chariot in the Heavens? Or, Is not that a sentiment of thine, over which every body cries out and wonders, when thou thus sayest:----

39. " The same great Jupiter therefore, drove and guided the flying chariot in the heavens, and to the same adhered the hosts (both) of the Gods and of the Demons⁷⁶?"

40. But, I know not whence Jupiter is to be viewed, after these (viz.) the Earth, the Sea, the Ocean, Rhea, and |101 Saturn, mortals! or How, according to this sentiment of thine, we can give our assent to that of those who said before us, that " they are the sons of the Gods, just as they affirmed; as they clearly knew their own Fathers. It is impossible therefore, we should not approve of the sons of the Gods, when, behold! they advance neither probabilities nor strong proofs." And he adds; "Thus therefore just as they affirmed a generation, respecting these Gods (so) let it be, and be affirmed." After this he makes a long story, which is that of the generation of the Gods, (as) related by the Poets. And, upon this He assures us and says, that from Saturn and Rhea were Jupiter and Juno, and all those whom we know; and the brothers of these, are they all said to be; and others again, who were the children of these.

41. Do you observe then, how this man goes on stating, ---- stating too not things that are not difficult, but impious, and those which are directly opposed to his own Philosophy? For this is he who in the Republics, drives |102 away contemptuously (and) entirely from his commonwealth, those whom he here calls the sons of the Gods! ----those ancients (I say) who spoke of the Divinity of these; Homer himself, Hesiod, and prior to these, Orpheus! But now, the same Philosopher advises, that we give credence to these; calling them the sons of the Gods! He supplicates too,----subsequently to the earth and the heavens, and to that humid substance which he names the Ocean, (implicated) in generation and corruption!----that Father of all, both of men and Gods; and Juno, with those others succeeding them, who----as he affirms----are said to be their brothers; and confesses, that they are the sons of those who are of the Earth, and of the Ocean: and he afterwards advises, that we should worship these as Gods⁷⁷! Where then is that multitude of intellectual Essences? And, Where that incorporeal Form which is beyond the world? or, that Divine story about the nature that has neither colour nor form⁷⁸? And, if indeed every soul be immortal, Why dost thou subject to mortal beings, those that are immortal? And, to the bodies of Demons, that which is Incorporeal? The intelligent and rational Essence too, to those that are of sense, and subject to corruption? It seems right to me therefore, to consider this man more reprehensible than (all) the rest; since an attachment, on account of the kindred character of his doctrines, drew me to him. For, as it appears to me, this man alone of all the Greeks, attached himself to the outward portals of the truth, and shewed, in many (of his) sentiments, a relationship with us. Nevertheless, such cannot be honoured by the truth; because he is, as it appears to me, more reprehensible by it than all |103 others. For he,----whose (main) desire was to live, while those things which attached themselves to his doctrine (virtually) effected his condemnation to death; and, while his opinion was that, (these) were no Gods;.----he did nevertheless submit himself (to them), as if he recognized no other life, but that only which was present.

42. The Peripatetics⁷⁹ too, so attached,themselves to a belief, similar to that of the Originator of this Philosophy, that they supposed the soul which is in man to be mortal; and affirmed, that its form and body, was (what they termed) the Entelechia. For the sake of the present life,----which alone they acknowledged,----they submitted to the many. They believed too, that those were never Gods, which were (made) such by the law of the commonwealth: they submitted themselves (nevertheless to these) through the fear of death, and of the punishment of the Law.

43. The Stoics again, who taught that all was body, and that this sensible world alone was God, and that the (constituent) portions of this were Gods, persuaded themselves to do the things----although these might be odious,---- which were conformable to these their precepts! And, because they called the (constituent) portions of the world Gods, and worshipped the earthy substance, How could |104 they escape severe reprehension? These too, as they determined that the Elements were the origin of all things, worshipped the Elements accordingly.

44. He however (i. e. Plato) determined, as by divine revelation, what that is "which exists in all time, but which could not be (of itself);" and what that is "which is apprehended by knowledge together with reason, and (is) in all time according to itself." He also said, in what way it exists; stating openly, well, and wisely, (and) in plain terms, the true account of the Deity, as (its) nature is, in these words: "God⁸⁰ therefore, according to our former discourse, holds the beginning, middle, and end, of this all which exists: and, proceeding according to nature, He rightly disposes (it). And to Him does justice ever adhere, awarding punishment to those who swerve from the Divine Law." But, How came he to swerve from the Divine Law, and to think defectively of the justice which is over all? and to put forth for us, these laws of mortal men? this Philosopher too,----this (I say), who could send the soul above the curvature of the heavens,----to fear Death? Besides, I cannot think that this same man held soundly of |105 the immortality of the soul, because he made the notion of the vulgar his own. For, it was not (according to this) that the souls of men only were immortal; but also, (those) of dogs, hedgehogs, ants, horses, asses, and of the rest of the irrational animals; and, that (these) differed in nothing, as to their essence, from the souls of the Philosophers! He (also) affirmed after the Egyptian manner⁸¹, that these same eiFected a change into every sort of body; those of men being transfusable into the beastly nature. On these accounts, he is as worthy of reprobation in this case, as in that in which he gave his approval⁸², but lied on the other side! And, although this was (such) an astonishing man, that he could apprehend the Maker and Creator of this whole; nevertheless, as he put not forth the word of righteousness, he is particularly deserving of the reprehension of every man: because " he knew God⁸³, but honoured Him not as God; but worshipped and served the creature, exclusive of the Creator." He also named those Gods, and worshipped them (as such), which were (supposed to be) fixed in visible bodies; the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, confessing at once, and at the same time, that they were made, were perishable, and compounded in their nature of fire, earth, and at the same time, of the rest of the elements! And these same he worshipped, he honoured, and called them Gods! And then again, he afterwards |106 confessed that these very same (Deities) were both dissoluble, and subject to corruption! But we may hear him,----as the thing said is at hand,----saying in the Timaeus:----

45. "Gods⁸⁴ of the Gods, of whom I am the Creator: every thing therefore, that has been bound together, is dissoluble; hence, because you came into being, in order to exist, you are not immortal: neither (are you) wholly indissoluble." And again (speaking) on their being, whence this is, and how to be determined, he says: "What fire is to air; such the air is to the water; and the water to the earth: out of which He bound up and established the visible and sensible heavens. And, by means of these things, and out of them, which are thus and |107 the number of which is four, the body of the world came into being." After this he says: "And, as to the existence of time, in order that time might be, the Sun, the Moon, and the five other Stars, which have the title of wandering (planetary), came into existence; (and this) for its determination, preservation, and calculation. So God made each one of these bodies, and placed them (each) in (its) course." And again, he says of the heavens, how they existed in all time; there being no beginning of the essence (of these) not even one: or being, of what sort this was in its primitive commencement. He then turns his discourse to his soul, and says, "it became existent, is visible, is subject, to sense, and has a body: and, that all such things are thus subject to sense, and, that those which are subject to sense, are apprehended by thought, and (so) perceived to be existences".

46. Was it not therefore, lapsing far from soundness of mind, that he, who spoke so orderly and well of these things, should call them Gods? that he should confess also, that they were made out of the perishable and corporeal matter of fire, water, air, and earth? and affirm that they were subject to dissolution, and in their nature corruptible? and, again, should name these selfsame beings Gods to be honoured⁸⁵? For, What participation can that Name and Honour have, which is the Cause of |108 all things, with bodies that are subject to sense, and to dissolution? Or, What sort of companionship of the WORD, inseparable from Him who is in all time, but cannot be⁸⁶, (i. e. as we are, subject to corruption), with that which always was, but never had an existence (of its own), so that he should call these Deities God? For, if He is truly God, He who exists in all time, but has not that he might be (as we are); so far as He existed not thus, He was no God. But if he be God, who was at all times, but never existed (of himself): whatever he might otherwise be, he is no God. And, What sentiment can be more impious than this? For, the two things are opposed in their natures;----this, which is apprehended by reason and knowledge; and that, which is to be considered by irrational sense:----this too, which is capable of action: and that, which is passive. How (I ask) can such opposites deserve one (and the same) name? For, this would be, as though a man should wonder at the science of the architect, but should attach the honour (due to him) to the work that was by him; and (so) invert the order (of things)! And, should any one name the ship, the shipmaster; or the coachman, the chariot with its horses; so likewise, would he act most foolishly, who should dare to name the Creation of God, Gods; when behold! it had not escaped him,----but he had openly confessed,---- that they were bound up in the bands of God the Creator of all, and (affirmed, that they) were constituted out of the inanimate elements, fire, water, air, and earth! Nevertheless even this man thus (taught)!

47. But, What necessity can there now be, that I should bring to light, how the wise men collected themselves together in ranks, as it were, sectioned themselves off, separated, and mightily armed themselves against one another, just as in battle array, and met |109 with shields, spears, and hosts,----as one of the Poets says, "Behold the abundance of the uproar thickened----of the destroying and the perishing?"----for Plato termed their warfare with one another, the conflict of Giants when he thus spoke,----

48. "And behold! the conflict between them might be assimilated to that of Giants, because of the contention they had with one another about matter."

49. Nevertheless, Plato himself said these things either against the Philosophers who were before him, or against those who were his contemporaries: and, that these also,----(as) he also afterwards cries out,----were those who took up arms against him, the evidence is clear. For Aristotle, who arranged himself against Plato, went off with his whole school from his doctrines. |110 Others again, the Juniors⁸⁷ afterwards arose, who attacked the philosophical notions of Aristotle; and, on the other hand, animadverted on the Stoics. Others, the Sceptics, put forth Pyrrho⁸⁸ and the reserve⁸⁹: and, at once, ridiculed every body! For, they all fully equipped themselves for a mighty war of soul against one another: and (this) by means of words, fell moreover, but little short of arming themselves, fighting, and attacking one another, with spears and shields! Where it was any thing but right, they divided: but, where it was necessary they should contend with all their power,----I know not how it was,----they agreed; and particularly in the error of a multiplicity of Gods! They agreed (I say) in that, which before all men, and more than all men, they knew was a non-entity! That is to say, the Epicureans, (agreeing) with the Stoics: the followers of Aristotle, with those of Plato: the professors of Physics, with the Sceptics; (these) one and all, together with their wives, their daughters, and the ignorant crowd, going to the Temples, and presenting themselves for the purpose of worshipping with (their) vows, as Gods, the inanimate Idols, (formed) |111 in the likeness of men: and these they honoured with libations, fumes, blood, and the sacrifices of irrational animals: shewing by this means,----and in this one thing only did they relax their enmity towards one another,---- that they all studiously gave their assent to this their error. And (again), when the truth was laid open to them, they opposed it! For it was right, that where their knowledge was correct, there should they have shewn their character to be firm: that they should have contended and warred for the truth; and, had it been necessary, they should have even died for it: (and) should have received it readily in the love (thereof), as men boasting themselves that they were Philosophers. These same persons were therefore, friendly to one another in this, that they brought themselves together for the sake of falsehood: and, about those things, on which it was unbecoming they should contend,----because of the hidden and unknown properties of these,----they contended as if it had been for the truth; readily too was their contention carried on about shadows, while they attacked and reproached one another, with innumerable wounding expressions. But, What need can there be, that (I should record) the contentions of the Philosophers against one another, their controversial expressions, and the common warfare which they set up, and in which they fell; since they availed themselves of human wisdom (only), and of the reasoning of the mortal mind: God the Teacher not having presented himself to them? |112

50. How was it then?----How, that those who contended about these things, had no God; when, behold! there was a multitude of Deities among them?----since that of Delphos⁹⁰, and that of Lebadia⁹¹, was (each) a Diviner? ----that of Colophon⁹² gave responses?----'that of Miletus⁹³ was also a Diviner?----and another was crying out from another quarter? Nevertheless, not even one of these could so teach these wise men, that they could apprehend the truth! All of them too worshipped these, as did their Fathers; and all the Greeks confessed, that they were gods: yet, they were not the more assisted in the discovery of the doctrines which are divine; when, behold! there was nothing hindering them from being forthwith (so) instructed in the truth, (or) from availing themselves of the Gods, who were on the earth and at hand, as (their) Teachers. Nor should they have injured, and reviled one another; but, should have ceased from dispute, and have enquired of the Gods about the matters of contention; and so have learned the truth, as it were from Physicians, and (thence) have received advantage. And first, it was |113 the duty of the school of Epicurus to have learned not to be godless, and not to have subjected themselves to "Rest"⁹⁴ (as the chief good): nor so to have infatuated themselves with ridiculous (notions), as to ascribe to subtile and indivisible bodies⁹⁵ the power of making the universe; but to have persuaded themselves from the Gods, when (so) taught of the things respecting them. It was also the duty of the school of Aristotle,----who saw with their own eyes the Temples, Fanes, and Idols (that were) on earth: not one (only) but myriads (of these), in every city and place,----to have examined them as to their power: and, from the fact, no more to have confined their discussions about Providence, either to the (regions) above the heavens, or even to (those) above the moon⁹⁶; but, to have persuaded themselves, that there were Gods also on the earth, and that they exercised a providential care over the men among whom they resided. And, as it was in their power to learn from these same their own (Deities), they should no more have contended with those that were arrayed against them, as to whether the soul was mortal, or immortal. They should therefore, have asked the God who was at hand, and (so) have received, as from the Gods, the true decision (of this question). Thus also, (it was the duty) of the Stoics; and thus too, of the Platonists: thus also, of the Sceptics who are termed Pyrrhonists: and thus also, of those who were in former times styled the Philosophers of Physics, that they should not have desisted from inquiry as to the truth, nor have supposed, as those do who play at chess, that every thing coming into their mind was truth. They should, on the contrary, have asked the Gods who were residing among them about every thing that was unknown: but not even one of the Wise Men has done this, nor did it even |114 enter his mind! Was it then, that they were godless, and evil-minded towards the Gods, that (the task) was unwelcome to them, and (that) they acted thus? But, thus were they all at once godless; and the Philosophers appear to have been particularly so, and much more wicked than those who were unintellectual: those (I say), who made it no unwelcome task to enquire of the Gods about the taking of wives; the taking of a journey; blindness, or the infirmity of the body:----these too, were readily heard: and to those, who so sought did (the Gods), not in.vidiously, give their divinations. But, behold! it was any thing but becoming in the wise, to have enquired of those Gods who were among them, and to whom they rendered worship and honour, respecting their bodies (only); but not about the healing of their souls. And, as not even one of these marvellous Philosophers did this; it remains, that we assure ourselves of one of two things; (viz.) Either, that these men were no Philosophers; or, that those (Deities) were no Gods. For if, when (these) were really Gods, they set them at nought; they were no Philosophers, but were fools and ignorant men: but, if they had in truth made any approach to the love of wisdom, and abounded in knowledge more than the many; it is clear that they would, with pure conscience, have laughed at the folly of the many; and it is likely (they did so).

51. But, if those who have been mentioned, were really Gods; Why was it, that the conversation which is on earth, happened to be that of their lives? Was it for the common advantage of all? If indeed this was the case; Why did they not give up those (their) vain stories, and preach to all men the things, that would aid in the acquirement of virtue? And, Why did they not give themselves to the enacting of laws for man, corrective of the common conduct? and (to the performance) of deeds, pointing out the life of virtue to all? And, Why was not their care more particularly exerted for healing the passions of the soul, than (the sufferings) of the body?----rather to deliver those who fled to them, from foolishness and ignorance, than from the loss of possessions, when they saw that men desired wisdom; that they were labouring night and day |115 for the discovery of the truth; and were seeking (both) by labour and contention, for a decision as to the reverence due to these same Gods? And again, (these) went in among the Diviners, and offered sacrifices just as their Fathers had done; and honoured those (Gods) with the honours which they had by custom retained. Why then, did they not receive these with terms of affection? praise them for their labours? and, so delivering them from the contention which they had with one another, give them such aid from their labours, that they should become truly wise in God, and be (real) Philosophers?----and (thus) teach them the science of that true Philosophy, which is free from falsehood? But, as they did not this, they made it plain to every man's perception, that they were no Gods: and, that those who boasted that they were Philosophers, were unworthy of that name! For, had they been truly wise, they never could have supposed that these were Gods: inasmuch as they had afforded to them nothing worthy of Deity, nor had it in their power to teach those, who were anxiously careful about the knowledge respecting them, the things pertaining to Deity.

52. Thus these (Philosophers) became in (appearance) what they (really) were not: besides, they presented themselves to the many, and called those Gods, which they knew more accurately than all (other) men, were no such things! What sort of name these deserve, it is not necessary for me further to say, except, that those who made their locks to flow down⁹⁷, frequented the Temples together with |116 tavern-keepers, with men the refuse (of society), and harlots! And, Did these wise men (then) ask of the Gods the things advantageous to the Philosophers? There is no one who will say this of them!----nor, in like manner, how it was, that no instructing Deity presented himself to afford the erudition which would aid them. But (the things asked) were,----as the Diviners (themselves) say,----the commodities and helps of life generally; the discovery of a slave, if one had happened to run away; of a broken vessel; the purchasing of an estate; merchandise; the taking of a wife; or, other things similar to these. About these it was, |117 that their admiration and reverence were called forth to their Gods; (and this) in the little blood of a cock, the immolation of a ram or of a bull; the (offering of) cups and bowls, or of a little wheat flower, or of purchased crowns! And, Had they any truth----teaching Deity, as to the things (comporting) with virtue, or to those which respected the healing of the soul? No, not (even) one! On this account, these Philosophers appear to me, to have laboured insolently in (their) warfare against one another, greatly to have aggravated their mutual differences, and to have departed (willingly) from the real knowledge of God: and accordingly, one might hear from them in words, of the Gods, the sons of the Gods, of Demigods, and of good Demons: but in deeds, every thing was adverse: and in opposing, they boasted themselves of opposition! Just as if one should he willing to point out the sun, with the luminaries that are in the heavens; but be unwilling to lift up his eyes to Him who is above (these): should cast down both his hands and soul to the earth, and seek among the clay and mud, the Powers that are in the heavens! In this manner therefore, had the whole race of men persuaded themselves, together with their Philosophers, and Kings,----through an estrangement of the intellect, and the error of wicked Demons,----that the rational and Divine Essence which is above the heavens, and beyond the universe, existed in place, below, among material bodies, and subject to the passions of both mortals, and immortals! And, since this entire estrangement of mind had infected the whole human race, Have we not soundly affirmed that God the Saviour, a Divine Revelation, and a common Helper of all, was required for this our state of life?

53. And⁹⁸ again, all had been led to such a state of insanity, that they even sacrificed their friends to those who were thought to be Gods: nor did they spare their own nature; on the contrary, they put to death, through |118 the madness and bondage of their minds, even their only children⁹⁹, and the friends of their children! And, What madness can be greater than this, that (men) should sacrifice human beings, and pollute all their cities and houses with their own blood? And, behold! Do not all the Greeks bear testimony to these same things? And, Is not the whole of their histories filled with the records of them¹⁰⁰?

54. For, the Phoenicians annually sacrificed (some of) their friends, and their only children to Saturn¹⁰¹! To the same again, was a man also sacrificed in Rhodes on the sixth of the month Conun (March)¹⁰²! This same custom too |119 greatly obtained, and was thus changed: They kept one of those, who had been publicly condemned to death, until the feast of Saturn; and, when the feast arrived, they brought the man out beyond the gate, over against the Image of Aristobule (Diana): they then gave him wine, and put him to death.

55. In the (place) also which is now called Salamis¹⁰³, but formerly Coronea, was a man sacrificed in the month named among the Cypriots Aphrodisius¹⁰⁴, to Argaula the daughter of Cecrops and daughter-in-law of Argaulis! And this custom continued to the time of Diomedes; and was (then) so changed, that they sacrificed the man to Diomedes! And in one (and the same) inclosure was the Temple of Minerva, of Argaula, and of Diomedes. He then, who was to be sacrificed, was accordingly----when his equals in age had led him three times round the altar, ----stricken on the stomach with a lance by the priest. He was then wholly burnt on a fire that had been got together. This law however, Diphilus,----who was king of Cyprus in the times of Seleucus the Theologian¹⁰⁵,----abrogated: He also changed this custom for that of sacrificing a bull. |120

56. The law too, whereby men were sacrificed in Heliopolis (a city) of Egypt, was abrogated by Amosis, as Manetho attests in what he wrote about primitive justice¹⁰⁶.

57. Men were also sacrificed to Juno, and were chosen just as immaculate calves were sought after, and were slain! There were three moreover, sacrificed in one day! But Amosis commanded that equivalents of wax, resembling these, should be substituted for them¹⁰⁷.

58. They also sacrificed a man to the Omadian Bacchus in Chios, when they had torn him (to pieces)! and also in Tenedos, as Euelpis the Carystian affirms! |121

59. The Lacedemonians also, as Apollodorus affirms, sacrificed a man to Mars! The Phoenicians too, in their greater calamities, whether wars, pestilences, or famines, sacrificed one of their friends, who was selected (for this purpose), to Saturn. The history too of the Phoenicians ----composed by Sanchoniatho in the language of the Phoenicians, and (which) Philo Biblius translated into the Greek, in Eight Books,----is full of this, (viz.) as to those who were (so) sacrificed.

60. Ister¹⁰⁸ also says, in (the) collection of select sacrifices, that the Curetes formerly sacrificed boys! And Pallas, who collected abundantly on the mysteries of |122 Mithra¹⁰⁹, affirms, that the sacrifices of men entirely ceased every where, in the days of Hadrian the Emperour.

61. A Virgin was also annually sacrificed to Minerva, in Laodicea of Syria; but now a hart is.

62. The Carthaginians also, who were of Libya, made the same sacrifice; which Iphicrates¹¹⁰ caused to cease. The Dumatians¹¹¹ too, of Arabia, sacrificed a boy annually: him they buried beneath the altar, and this they used as an Idol!

63. Philarchus too has left it on record, that all the Greeks commonly sacrificed men, before they went out to battle!

64. But I omit the Thracians and Scythians; and also the Athenians, who put to death the daughter of |123 Erectheus and Praxithia¹¹². But, Whom has it escaped, that even to this time, a man is sacrificed in the Great City¹¹³ (Megalopolis) at the feast of Jupiter Latiaris? For even up to this time, it was not only to Jupiter¹¹⁴ in Arcadia, nor to Saturn in Carthage, that they all commonly sacrifice men; but, through the remembrance of the law, they shed their own blood upon the altars every year¹¹⁵! The most select Philosophers also attest, that things were thus: for Diodorus¹¹⁶ who abridged the Bibliotheca has affirmed, that the Libyans¹¹⁷ publicly sacrificed two hundred of the sons of the nobles to Saturn! Nor did they add to the sacrifices, fewer than three hundred others¹¹⁸! He |124 too, who wrote the history of the Romans, whose name is Dionysius (of Halicarnassus) has said, that Jupiter and Apollo required upon a time, human sacrifices from those in Italy who were called the Aborigines. These however, had sacrificed to the Gods that select part (Tithes) both of their fruits and flowers, which was required of them. But, as they had offered no human sacrifices, they fell into every sort of calamity. Nor did they obtain any relief from these evils, until they had decimated themselves¹¹⁹! Thus therefore, having selected a tithe of the |125 men, and sacrificed them to Jupiter and Apollo, they became the cause of (their) country's ruin! And, so far had this entire corruption of soul destroyed human life, that no other hope of salvation could be prescribed, except that which was from God the Saviour: this alone, and no other, was wanting to the race that is mortal.

65. And thus, in these (distresses) of soul were all men, in every place: nor, was it enough for them, after these things, to act basely; but, they were also harassed by innumerable other incurable calamities from without, in every place and city. For, all nations at once, throughout the whole creation, Barbarians and Greeks, were so inflamed by means of the maddening deeds of Demons,---- |126 were so stirred up by the grievous and calamitous disease (of these), that neither intercourse nor agreement existed among men,----that so far,----and farther,----was the great body of (our) common nature forcibly urged on, that, in every corner of the earth in which men lived, they were, both from their usages and laws, in a state of warfare with one another. Nor was it this only, but they were also so fierce in the commotions and wars, in which they opposed each other, that, always and throughout their whole lives, they so engaged themselves that no one who desired (this), could take a voyage for the purpose of merchandize to any place, unless he (first) armed himself as for war. In the villages and fields too, the Agriculturists put on swords, and furnished themselves with an excess of equipment, over and above that of the implements necessary for the cultivation of the earth. Men considered it (also) a virtue to rob, and steal from, their neighbours¹²⁰: and, to our affirmation do all the writings, both of the Greeks and Barbarians, give testimony. The Books also, which are among the Jews, teach (us), that, from times prior to Augustus and Tiberius¹²¹,----in whose days our Saviour appeared,----there were in the world, in every city and village, kings and Toparchs fully (established) from the earliest times.

66. The Jews therefore, immediately after the egress from Egypt by Moses, when they had come into Palestine, expelled the Kings, thirty¹²² in number, from their cities. Those however, who were not extirpated, remained and availed themselves of their population, local residences, and |127 kings: those (I say), who resided apart in Gaza, Ashkelon, Joppa, and Azotus, again rebelled among themselves. Scythopolis¹²³ too, and the cities about it, were accordingly so governed, that hence it happened, that their study was in contention and wars with their neighbours. And also, when in Jerusalem the wonderful Temple was built, (and) which Solomon erected, What necessity can there be for saying, how many subsequent wars (happened) and dealt vengeance even on the Jews, on account of their dissimulation in the worship of their God; and on which account, they became divided from each other? They also arose against themselves, and availed themselves of (the aid of) various Kings and enemies; some of whom took the metropolis formerly called Samaria, but now Sabastia¹²⁴; others again, resided in Jerusalem, and were always engaged in wars with their own people, and these with them¹²⁵.

67. Not unlike these too, did those suffer who resided in Arabia: for, among these also, there was a multitude of local Princes¹²⁶. The same also was the case with the Syrians, who were in subjection to their (many) kings. The Phoenicians again, so guarded their territories, that no one could mix himself with them, or pass through them: while they were continually desolating the lands of those who resided on their borders, and were constantly engaged in the reduction of cities, and in making captives of one another. Nor was it this only, but also the |128 whole of Libya and of Egypt, subjected themselves to all these Princes and Kings, as if they had been Gods! They had too, thousands of different Gods, both in the villages and cities, as they also had of kings, who enacted laws adverse to them, and were the inventors of every form of Deity. These were they, from whom many places in Egypt received their names, as well as laws; which they still retain. These Deities moreover, and Laws, so affected those who were subject to them, that they made them at once, both enemies and haters to those who were in their neighbourhood; and that hence, they gave up the whole period of their lives to contention! And they were as much excited against one another, as if they had employed the many princes of the vilest Demons! Hence also, the error of a multiplicity of Gods¹²⁷ began and obtained dominion,----like some evil and destructive disease of soul,----over the rest of the countries of the heathen! The Egyptians were moreover, (occupied) more than all other men in the worship of the Gods; and more able were they than all others, scientifically to honour them. But, that such fruits were the recompence of their worship, Do not thou (now) enquire. For, the causes of peace and mutual agreement, now so visible to the eyes, had no existence in former times; on the contrary, every thing opposed to these. On this account they were, during the whole period of their lives, harassed with wars and contentions against one another; and (hence), they filled their lands with their own blood, and with the slaughter of themselves; these very Deities apportioning to them, as a recompence for their worship, these and similar doings!

68. If however, these things are not known to all; yet Who, of those that are fond of reading of the affairs of the Greeks, can be ignorant of them?----of the war (for |129 example) of the Peloponnesians and Athenians, of which Thucydides is the writer?----how Greeks warred with Greeks?----how they subdued the Potidaeans?----how they trampled on the Thebans and Plataeans?----how the Thracians and Macedonians at one time assisted the Athenians, and at another became their enemies?----how the Athenians reduced Corinth, and desolated the country of the Epirotae and Traezenii?----how they wasted the Lacedemonians; and these again, suffered in like manner from the Lacedemonians when they invaded Attica, and depopulated the country of the Athenians? At another time, the Olynthians¹²⁸ made war on the Athenians; and these again, on others: and these, on their neighbours! Every species of warfare moreover, abounded among them: fights in ships (by sea), fights by land, and fights with cavalry! All these innumerable things did the Gods,----as one may affirm,----fully bring to pass at that time among the Greeks! Nor was it (this) only, but they were also conversant among men; they were honoured, and they were served: not as is now the case; but,----as (all) affirm, ---- as their fathers worshipped those ancient (Deities), and gave themselves up to them, so as to be their friends and to converse with them, as being Gods (present) with them, and residing with them on the earth. And in many things, both by divinations and revelations, did these assist them. Nevertheless, the fruits of honouring these Gods were these; wars, contentions, desolations, and captivities!

69. But, if you wish to investigate things more ancient than these, contemplate with your mind him who was in |130 Delphos, and held his seat (there) in the presence of the Greeks. I speak of the Pythian; of him who was preached to all the Greeks, and who proclaimed to the Lydian (Croesus),----but was infirm when he did so,----¹²⁹" I know the number of the sand, and the measure of the sea: the deaf I understand, and the dumb I hear." He therefore, sent to this same (as) a reward for this song, the bricks of gold of two talents (weight), the phials of gold, and bowls in like manner¹³⁰. Nevertheless, Croesus was, with this his declaration, all infirmity: nor did this Deity in any way help those descendants of his house, so that they might live happily and soberly. On the contrary, Pisistratus¹³¹ became embittered against the Athenians, while this Pythian was seer among the Greeks, and the rest of the Gods had dominion over them, and were even partakers in (their) wars! The people of Argus accordingly, fought against the Corinthians; the Lacedemonians, against the Traezenians; the Locrians again, waged war with the other Greeks, and the Corcyreans with others. Messena too, was taken four times by the Lacedemonians; and the Arcadians were reduced! The walls of the Orchomenians¹³² were also |131 rased to the foundations, and the Athenians: overcame the people of Aegina: and again, the Megarians, the Corinthians; the Lacedemonians, the Athenians; the Athenians, the Boeotians; and the Locrians, the people of Phocis! These things therefore, (did) all the Greeks to the Greeks; the Gods nevertheless, sitting at the side of Jupiter while all these came to pass! The Clarion Pythius; that of Dodona, which was in Epirus, did----since they were Demons filled with fumes,---- very gladly receive the sacrifices which were of Demons, both the sacrificial bestial hecatombs of bulls, and those human sacrifices, which were of their own friends! And, while they were inflamed with this vile delirium and love of war, and were (even) rabid against one another; these Grecian Gods,----behold! when with them; these friends, (I say) and provident beings, these lovers and guardians of the Greeks,----restrained them not! But, if we must speak truly, these were the friends of war; these the haters of mankind; these the contenders with God! For, they were the cause of all these things, because they delighted in the slaughter of mankind. And when they had it not in their power to delight in war, they forthwith did so in human sacrifices, and in the libations of human blood, with which they glutted themselves in every city!

70. One of two things is, therefore (the case): Either, they were nothing; and it was grievous error that had then so taken hold of mankind, as to induce them to honour inanimate images as Gods, and vainly, emptily, and by a sort of madness, to sacrifice their own friends |132 (to them): or, if they were possessed of power, it is likely that this would be fully effective, either of good, or of evil. Now, if they were in their nature beneficent Deities, remaining too on the earth, and occupying the middle part of the cities; they would not have evinced this sufficiently, unless for the advantage and safety of those among whom they lived. But, if they were wicked Demons, they would be engaged in every thing opposed to goodness. What then, can constitute a surer proof as to these things, than the fruits which (grew) out of their government; for, "from its fruits is the tree known¹³³."

71. It is time therefore, that we enquire whether the wars and contentions----not of enemies, nor yet of Barbarians who arose against the Greeks, but of the Greeks themselves, who subscribed to the Gods of their fathers, and were infuriated against one another; ---- were these fruits: the Gods too being within (their cities), and nearer than the (very) gates, and daily honoured by their citizens. What (then) did they give, worthy of this worship, to those who so worshipped them? Was it, first of all, peace? that they might live a life of ease and comfort? ---- and thence, laws that were efficient, arid preservative of every thing good? If indeed, the things just now said were of this sort; there is no necessity we should doubt of the existence of good governours. But, if the extreme of evils had taken hold of the whole family of the Greeks:----the Gods being more numerous than the inhabitants: nor was it, that they were honoured in every city only, but also in every house:----and, (if) when they were (so) honoured, they supplied nothing more to those who honoured them, than the slaughter of wars, the desolation of villages, the rasing of cities, captivity, and spoil; the Greeks being inflamed against the Greeks by these things:----What can there be wanting to our knowing, and (thence) affirming, one of the two things supposed (above)? For, either these Gods could do nothing, because they were nothing: and thus, were far from being the cause of the evils: or, they possessed some |133 power, and were the cause of these: or, that they permitted these things to be so: or, that they themselves did them. If then, they were the doers of these evils, it would thus seem, that they should be styled the Princes of evil. But if, when these evils were done by others, they connived (at them), they were again, the betrayers of their Friends: they were not (their) helpers: but (their) deceivers; and were therefore, vicious.

72. For, if they were no Gods, and in their nature by no means superior to ourselves, but, were otherwise men who had realized sincerity through their excellency and wisdom; Would they not have interposed themselves, and have relieved their Friends from contention?---- either persuading them by reason, or, saving them by power, and severing them to a distance from each other? counselling them also in the things which were becoming?---- when acting (I say only) as good men; and, as being their Friends, relieving them from their (mutual) enmity, and bringing them together for peace?

73. How then;----for good men would have done this, had they happened (to be circumstanced as just mentioned): ---- did the Gods (act), being present with the Greeks and conversant among them, and honoured by all? Did they neglect their Friends, giving them up to bloodshed, desolation, and mutual slaughter? and, Why? Because they were unable to help them? or, being able, were unwilling? For if, when able, they were unwilling; it was no office of helpers which they performed for those who honoured them, but of enemies and deceivers! For those, who can deliver from calamities, but do it not, are in nothing better than enemies. But if, when willing, they were unable; they merited desertion on account of their weakness. And, if they were thus circumstanced, the reputation of their being Gods was superfluous: nor did men truly ascribe to these the title of helpers; inasmuch as they did not help them to salvation, because of the weakness of their own nature.

74. But, if they advance a superintending fate¹³⁴, such |134 as to take hold of every thing, and even of the Gods themselves, and (affirm), that this was the cause of the wars, and of every thing which came to pass among men; this will overthrow the whole course of our life, as it will make every thing that is (virtuous) among us, vain; and a doctrine false and vicious will, instead of this, make its ingress among us. And thus also, will the purposes of the Gods themselves be rendered vain, since they can do nothing hut that which has been fated. The things, which this makes it necessary should happen, (shall happen) even when the Gods will (them) not! And thus again, will the anxiety of those who reverence these Gods become vain and empty, since they render honour to beings who can effect nothing.

75. But in this were these astonishing (Deities) caught, that they had not the power to help against the evils of mankind; that they were openly seen delighting in base and abominable stories about their own divinity, and in the wicked and unlawful sacrifices of men. From these things therefore, it becomes us to judge of these same Gods, as doing such things among the men of those times; because, as their nature was attached to evils and to wars, they were convicted by their own deeds.

76. But now in our times, every anxiety about the Beings just mentioned has suddenly lost its power; and the things belonging to this ancient disease have been cut off: every city, region, and locality, among the heathen, now remaining in the profoundest peace! The whole of Asia, Europe, Lybia, and Egypt, which were formerly not better than a ship in a storm, on which the violent winds and tempests had fastened from every quarter, and had thus far, ---- and still farther by the northern blast, ---- contributed to her immersion; are now so righted by the happy guidance of the helm of peace, in a serenity that is peaceful and a calm that is resplendent, that they subscribe to the ONE Ship-governour of all things. Such are all things now, |135 since he that was in Delphos has been desolated; since that Pythian, (I say) has been extinguished, and since the recollection of the rest of the Gods has been wholly withholden from the hearing of mankind. Nor have such things as that necessity of fate, or (those) war-loving Demons, agitated the cities. For, since the doctrine of our Saviour has obtained throughout the whole creation of man, in every city, village, and place; and again, since no race of Demons, but He alone who is the King of all, God, and that Creator of the whole world, THE WORD OF GOD, has been made known and honoured by all men, Barbarians and Greeks; every word about fate has been rendered unavailing: every war-making necessity too has been removed far away: the Divine peace-making WORD is hymned throughout the whole earth: the race of man is reconciled to God its Father; and peace and love have been restored to all nations! The things, which pertained to the Gods, are now no more done; ----nor are those which set up the system of warfare (that men carried on) against one another, when those (their) ancient temples occupied the highest positions throughout the whole earth,----(now that these) have fallen under the extremity of desolation, and all those Gods, which formerly uttered their cry in every place, have either from shame or fear, been reduced to silence¹³⁵: every city too, nation, and region, have by means of the right hand of love, been made at once to enjoy peace, and are delighting |136 themselves under one government in the deepest established order and agreement. In what manner of life all, both among the Greeks and the Barbarians, existed formerly, when they honoured the Gods far more than their own friends, there is now no need we should shew at length, having shortly laid these things open already, except (to say) that these ancient things are, as such, matters of record.

77. But, Why should any one say that these are things of recent occurrence? since, as far back as (the death) of Alexander of Macedon, not long before the manifestation of our Saviour, many governments arose. For Arridaeus¹³⁶, the brother of Alexander, received the Kingdom of Macedon: of those that were in Europe, Antipater took possession; Ptolemy, of Egypt and Alexandria; Seleucus became Governor of Phoenicia and Coelo-Syria: Philotos, of Cilicia; Antigonus, of Asia; Casander, of Caria; Leonatus, of the Hellespont; Eumenes, of Paphlagonia; and Lysimachus, of those parts that bordered upon Thrace. From this time these, with those who had received their governments, poured forth as rivers against one another in war. For, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, marched fifteen times out of Egypt. Seleucus too, met Ptolemy King of the Macedonians, and was killed. Perdiccas also, entered Egypt with an army. Ptolemy took Cyprus, and Demetrius seized upon Syria. Another too, went forth to another place, and, with the violence usually attendant on robbery, seized upon those who resided on his borders.

78. Thus therefore, during this same time, were things brought to pass one after another in every quarter of the world. When the worship of many Gods prevailed, there was neither peace nor agreement; while mutual enmity abounded. Sacred places, Fanes, and Temples too, were abundantly appropriated to these in every city. With |137 many votive offerings were these temples adorned. Much talk too was engaged in respecting these Gods, by the kings of those times, as was also by the people, the inhabitants of villages, and of every (other) place; so that they honoured with images and altars these (Deities) of their fathers, in their houses, their very treasuries, and inner chambers. Nevertheless, when thus circumstanced, they were no better than demoniacs whose souls had been perverted by madness, (and) that during their whole lives, they polluted themselves with the blood of their own countrymen! And truly demoniacal were they in their wars with one another, and in their pertinacity in the reduction of cities: the demons, the leaders astray of the world, being their helpers in these matters!

79. Those too who were thought to be Gods, who gave out divinations, and foreknowledge (of things to come) to their worshippers, were not so discerning as to foreknow, or to foretel, their own destruction¹³⁷: which happened to them all, at the manifestation of our Saviour among mankind! This too is a mighty proof of their inferiority, as it is a well grounded reproach on the divinations which were formerly published among all the Greeks. Nor did any one of the Diviners indeed, foretel that manifestation of our Saviour¹³⁸, which (has taken place) among men; nor yet, the |138 new doctrine which has been given by Him to all the nations. Neither did that Pythian (Apollo), nor any other of the great Demons, foreknow his own destruction; nor did he prophesy respecting Him who was to come (to be) the destroyer and uprooter of them all; nor yet, did he foresee respecting all those of the nations, both Greeks and Barbarians, who should leave the error of a plurality of Gods, and acknowledge the God who is over all.

80. What Diviner¹³⁹ then, or Enchanter? What Demi-god, Demon, or God, has foreshewn by divination, that these their beauties should be extinguished, when He should be manifested, who was to be a new thing¹⁴⁰ in the life of man, and (is) the "knowledge¹⁴¹ of God" who is above and over all, and whose worship has now been communicated to all nations? Who is he (I ask), that has prophesied of the destruction of their Temples, and of their own utter ruin? and, Who,----supposing of these Images of gold and silver which are every where, whose fusion was by fire, and whose change as to appearance was quite useless, were supremely serviceable to man;----that, as (these) their Gods were (but) molten, they should, by way of contempt and derision, be afflictively cut to pieces? Which (I ask) of the Gods has ever put (this) on record? And, How was it with their supporters, that they lent no aid to their Temples, when these were rased to the ground by men? And, How were those circumstanced who, in former times were engaged in creating wars, that in their own calamities they should look with complacency on their uprooters, who were in the profoundest peace¹⁴²? But, the |139 wonder of the matter is this, that, when their Temples were subjected to destruction, a peace, administering increase to every excellency and good, had taken firm hold on the life of men: every thing happening to the contrary, when the Gods were in peace! For, during their prosperity, wars, conflicts, commotions, and the reducing of cities,----as shewn in history, and as we have already said,----(prevailed) among men: but, in their desolation, an entire peace with every good thing without drawback. Whence it must be evident to every one capable of reflection, that these were no Gods, as it also must, that they were not good Demons, but on the contrary, vicious ones. Those must also have been destroyers, whose prosperity was the cause of calamities to mankind, and whose ruin led the way to the bringing in of every good to all. But, how (all was) formerly in commotion among the Greeks, and how the nations throughout the whole earth were agitated, we now know, as to a few things:----

81. And hence we may perceive why appointments, the character of which was varying, subverted the lives of all. For the Egyptians had a law, allowing them to take their own sisters as wives¹⁴³: the Persians, to hold shameful and sinful converse with their own mothers¹⁴⁴: others, to |140 pollute their own daughters in unlawful wedlock¹⁴⁵: and of these, the extent was such, that ("the natural use of) the woman was interdicted. The wickedness too, of the Philosophers themselves, as also the intercourse with men which is out of nature, had reduced all the Greeks to insanity¹⁴⁶. Besides there were some, by whom it was thought right to conceal (their own while living) in the earth in Sepulchres¹⁴⁷; and by others, to deliver (these) to the flames! Others however, gave up these things as impious¹⁴⁸, and exposed their dead |141 (only) to the dogs and birds of prey. Others murdered those who came to them as guests¹⁴⁹! Others too, feasted themselves on human flesh¹⁵⁰! And again, there were those who, when their friends were in the agonies (of death), sacrificed them and feasted on them, before they expired¹⁵¹! Others, who were approaching old age, they threw from rocks¹⁵²! Others they gave up to strangulation¹⁵³! Others¹⁵⁴ they threw |142 to the dogs, while still living; and others, while dying¹⁵⁵! Others they buried with these (alive¹⁵⁶)! while others put the living to death on the funeral pile; those (I say), whom those (now) dead had loved

157!

82. Thus therefore, had the whole human race been led on to the last stage of brutality, so that he, who was (once) rational, became the most irrational of all. Nor was there any other (being), of those that were on the earth, more vicious than man; who had been (so) led into every vile affection, and had (so) corrupted his mind with every species of wickedness, that he readily forsook even the reflection which belonged to his nature, and did nothing well, either of the things pertaining to the soul, the body, or of those, which were external to him; but, he every where became subject to vice upon vice!----For, the lives of men are divided among the things which are of the soul, of the body, and of those which are external (to both). But, the error of the Demons had (now) so possessed in every form, and had so corrupted, the lives of men, that the things of the soul were at war with them, through the madness of the Demon-worship which had (so) seized upon them, and through their foolishness and blindness as to the truth,---- about which (truth) even the family of Philosophers was in a state of agitation. And, as to the things of the body, (they consisted) in the human sacrifices which (prevailed) throughout the whole earth; and again, in the base, lawless, and corrupt practices, which were foreign to nature. The things too, which were external (to both, consisted) in this, |143 that in the cities, localities, and nations, all were, at one time, divided into parties; at another,----when they were brought together,----they contended against each other, by means of the desolations and reductions of cities, in which they mutually laboured. And, the length of the day would be insufficient for me, were I to relate all the things pertaining to this ancient disease, which had (so) seized upon the whole race of man. And, on this account more particularly, was God the Saviour necessary to this our (mortal) life, as to those who had been cast down to the last extremity of evil: nor was there any other cure or aid (for this), except by means of the glorious and divine manifestation (of Christ).

83. What, then, was it right that THE WORD, the Father of rational beings, the Saviour of all, the Guardian, the providential Care, the Shepherd of the rational flock which is on the earth, should, after (the occurrence of) these things, do, in order to raise to great honour the rational and intelligent Essence which is in man, (and) which had (so) fallen into the vast depths of evil? And that he, who had with his own hands (so) dragged upon himself the cause of his ruin, might see (and know Him as) his friend? Would it have been well, that (even) a man should pass over the safety of his friends, and unpityingly neglect them when thus perishing, who had the highest claim to his providential care? No Captain indeed, would ever be termed wise, who should give up his ship with its crew to go down, having by him that which (would secure) the safety of those who sailed with him, but not applying it. Nor was there ever a General so merciless, as to give up, unavenged, the soldiers of his army to their enemies. Nor is there any good Shepherd, who unfeelingly neglects the (single) sheep |144 that has strayed from his flock; but, he leaves those that are not lost and in a secure place, and undergoes every thing for the discovery of that which has strayed; and, should it be necessary, he will even engage with the wild beasts¹⁵⁸ (in its defence). The providential care, however, of THE WORD, the Saviour,----of Him who has provided every thing for (His) rational creatures,----was not put forth (merely) for a flock that is irrational. For, it is man (only) of the creatures that are on the earth, who is (thus) beloved of God; and it is man also, to whom He has, as a Father, given up every kind of irrational animal in subjection. It is to man too, to whom He has assigned the navigation of the seas; and for whom He has adorned the earth with every sort of plant. To him He has subjected both the (various) kinds of beings that swim in the unseen depths, and of the birds that fly in the heights. It is man moreover, to whom He has granted the faculty of knowledge for receiving every sort of learning. To him likewise, has He made plain the observation of things in the heavens, the (annual) courses of the sun, the (monthly) changes of the moon, and the progress of the stars both planetary and fixed¹⁵⁹.

84. How then, after (the occurrence) of these things, could it have been becoming, that the fatherly anxiety and providential care which is over all,----which had (so) rightly exerted its care for those other things of the body, and of this sensible world,----should be so crippled as to become inactive, as it respected the healing of the rational Essence vested in man? It had afforded every sort of provision for man, every sort of remedy, and (means) of health, for the body, growth also, strength, beauty, riches, delights, and the increase of possession for (his) convenience. And, Would He put forth not so much as one effort of care, that they might become acquainted with the things which are |145 most excellent in them, with their own souls, and the Essence which is intelligent? But thus, it is likely one would rather blame the imbecility (or) carelessness, not of the sheep wandering from the flock, but of the shepherd: and again, not the infirm of soul, or those calamitously circumstanced; but the contempt or imbecility of the physician, if he gave not every sort of medicine for the healing and aid of those, who (so) needed (it). Every necessity would therefore call upon Him, who is the Guardian and Saviour of all, for the healing of his (rational) flock.

85. It is likely therefore, that the compassionate WORD OF GOD would, as a good Shepherd, Saviour, and Guardian, when His rational flock on earth was (thus) implicated in the greatest evils, deign openly to make a Divine manifestation of Himself; since, behold! He had never allowed even a period to pass, in which He did not fully exert His providential care, for the supply of every good thing to those who were in need. At every period therefore, in all ages of the world, He both looked, and engaged Himself, upon the things belonging to the earth; and gave freely in times of necessity, of the things which were (laid up) with Him: and so without upbraiding, evinced He the promptness of His providential care towards all men, that He even afforded instruction to those among mankind who were worthy (of this), by revelations of Angels, and by raising up holy Ministers of God: by Prophecy also, and familiar intercourse, He preached the Godhead of His Father, and the life that was most excellent, to those who were capable of being taught in the mysteries of the worship of God: at that period, too, he gave the instruction which was from Himself to our Fathers, as to those who were still infants, and inexperienced in evil.

86. Because then (men) had by a perversion which |146 was not good (growing) out of their liberty, and from the will of their minds, set themselves up, and (hence) had fallen from the life that is excellent into (many) evils; it is likely, that the same WORD OF GOD, would again,----as the Physician of souls,----by adequate aids succour those who suffered this malady, and bring back by bitter medicines, those who had not benefited by these His gifts¹⁶⁰. On these grievous diseases of vice therefore, He took vengeance by pestilences, famines, wars, conflagrations, and inundations (of waters); and thus turned back to Himself, those who stood in need of these things. At one time He purged the entire life of all, by destructions of waters: at another, He punished the wicked by excessive rains in (certain) places, by strokes of the lightning, by burnings, or by withholding the (necessary) rains. And again, in the abundance of His mercy, He made certain by these same deeds, both (his) rebukes and teachings against the errors of Demons. The Temples too, of those who were thought to be Gods, and (their) Fanes, together with the images and Gods themselves, did He desolate by destructive strokes of lightning; and thus He put to shame those follies. Nor was it (this) only, but He taught them to distinguish by their own reason, that these never were Gods, and, that it was not in their power even to help themselves: and also, that they were neither of the household of God the King of all, nor friends of Him, who (thus) waged war against them. For, How could He who is the cause of every good thing, give up to destruction by fire, the Temples which (men) had built to His own honour; unless (indeed) He did this for a reproof of their error? For, if it was His will that the Demons which resided in these should be honoured, Why did He destroy their Temples together with their images? By means of the arrows which were sent from above from God, He drove far away from their eminences those who resided in these (Temples), and fully preached, in this way (and) by these doings, in the hearing of all men, crying out (as it were), Cease ye from the error of Demons, and (from affirming) that there are many |147 Gods; and acknowledge that Lord of heaven and earth and of the whole universe, who is God (indeed): that Saviour, that Nourisher, that Preserver;----Him, who, (as) they may see with their own eyes, has openly shewn His providential care over them; at one time, in the supply of seasonable rains, of fruits borne of all (that springs) out of the earth, of wealth, and of comforts, unsparingly: at another, by the chastisements sent from God, and by the modes of discipline which were from Himself, has He brought back as with a bridle, those who were insensible of the good things, with which He had furnished them. Nor was it (this) only, but He also so cured the error of those who supposed these to be Gods, by a continuance of the lightnings and conflagrations which (came) upon them, that the Temples of the Gods were even burnt, together with those who had fabricated Gods for themselves, by ambushments of men: plainly exhibiting to those who could see, the rebuke which was due to the error of these. Nevertheless, when these worshippers of the Gods witnessed these early (occurrences), they entertained no greater a disposition towards the correction of their impiety!

87. And¹⁶¹ again also, when they believed in these Gods, who had (virtually) confessed by their divinations, that they could effect nothing beyond what had been fated;----for Fate is the cause of all (in this acceptation);---- they understood not, nor did they consider, that, as (this) Fate took hold both of themselves and of the Gods, vain must be (every) trust put in these, as they could neither help, nor injure mankind in any thing. And, Only so? ----If it were right to honour Fate, as the cause of every thing; still this, as being a necessity impervious to change, could have no power even over itself! But, He has put forth the knowledge of Himself,----in order that (men) might know Him to be Lord of this (fate), and also of every (other) thing;----at one time, by the supply of every sort of good thing; at another, by chastising the error of a plurality of Gods in thunderings and in |148 lightnings. And it has accordingly been made matter of history, that the Temple of Delphos,----of that Pythian (Apollo) who was (so much) preached¹⁶² of formerly,----underwent upon one occasion (an entire) conflagration; but these, remaining in their error, raised it up a second time; and God the second time destroyed it! They renewed it also a third time; and He again, expelled entirely from its place, not the Temple, but the Demon that resided within its chamber, by his Divine manifestation! so that now, this is no more a house of divination; nor does he, who formerly led the Greeks astray, (any more) practise there.

88. The Temple of Diana too at Ephesus, came to (its) destruction three several times. On one occasion, the Amazons¹⁶³ burnt it; on another, Herododus¹⁶⁴ (Herostratus), one of the inhabitants of Ephesus; and lastly, on another, (it was ruined) by God who is over all. So that now, after the manifestation of our Saviour, nothing more |149 is visible even there, except the great (and) signal mark of the victory of (its) overthrow.

89. They have recorded moreover, that the Temple of Juno in Argus was destroyed on one occasion by fire¹⁶⁵; as was also that in Abas¹⁶⁶, in like manner, when the Thebans made an incursion and burnt it, and with it five hundred men!

90. It is also said, that on one occasion, lightning struck the statue of Jupiter¹⁶⁷ in Olympia.

91. The Roman histories likewise inform us, that the Temple of Vesta¹⁶⁸ which is in Rome, and which is called |150 the Pantheon¹⁶⁹,----(all) the Gods being assembled together there, as it should seem,----was again, destroyed by lightning.

92. And again, on one occasion, lightning fell from heaven on that which is called by them the Capitol, and destroyed that house of every Temple¹⁷⁰. |151

93. With all these modes of discipline therefore, has the Providence which is over all, THE WORD OF GOD, put to shame from all time, those who worshipped Demons. Nor was it (this) only, but He also taught them, from ancient times by doctrines worthy of God, that they should worship His Father. He has likewise, cast forth (as seed) among mortal men, the doctrines conducive to life; divine laws, and precepts of righteousness, as herbs (productive) of things that are good, and as medicines for the salvation of reasonable souls. Thus (did He) in ancient times with the Hebrews through Prophets, men who partook of the Divine Spirit. And again, from a long extended antiquity, through other Friends of God¹⁷¹: and again afterwards, through those who were vested with the Divinity, did He call those who had been cast off to death, to (the means of) recovery. He also sowed (as it were) in the souls of men, the rudiments of the Divine laws;----of various kinds of instructions; of doctrines of every kind; of predictions, and of prophecies of things to come; as also the love of that life (which is devoted) to the worship of God. Hence poured forth as from a fountain, even in every part of the creation, the seed, (and thence) the rational observances (of life): and hence, laws and lawgivers were seen among all the nations; and the name of virtue and of philosophy became known among men. (Now) came into being the love of things most excellent; and, the desire to discover the truth was in such active operation with the many, that the error of their forefathers came into utter contempt, and, with the intelligent, those things which belonged to the worship and love of God, into repute. The truth too had been wanting; and great had been the differences respecting this with the many, as had the contentions and divisions of those, who disputed about doctrines. And thus did these things shew, that the Providence (exerted) over mankind, was from |152 all time great, (and) evincing the care for every man, which was both suitable and sufficient.

94. Because then, great would be the change for the better in every one, upon human life's becoming tranquillized, and the common conduct (of all) being changed from its former wildness to something approaching to benignity; it is likely, that the common Saviour of all, the compassionate WORD OF GOD, would more particularly, and the more readily, make his Divine manifestation at a time that would be (most) suitable¹⁷². He accordingly came in by the mission of himself, and shewed forth to men,----who could by no other means arrive at the knowledge of the truth, by the instrumentality of a human vessel,----the God of truth. The God of truth did then, through the divine operations and astonishing miracles which were evident to all, shew forth the doctrine of heavenly teaching which respected His Kingdom; in order that by these, He might henceforth,----even as He had formerly afforded aid by means of the things already mentioned,----instruct the whole human race in the doctrine which is heavenly. It was impossible indeed, in ancient times, to make those who had been driven to the last stage of vice, pure by words (only), inviting (them) to the perfect knowledge of God, and to the better life of purity and of righteousness. On this account, just as Physicians prescribe their remedies to those who are sick and debilitated by pains and sufferings, not the healthy food proper for the robust, but things that give uneasiness and pain; and, should it be |153 necessary, do not excuse themselves from applying cauteries and bitter draughts, to coerce the disease:----not the aliments proper for the healthy, but those suitable to the sick: but, when they have become convalescent, they will henceforth allow them to partake of wholesome and strengthening food:----

95. So likewise the common Saviour of all, as the Shepherd and Physician of His rational flocks on earth, taught those----who had previous to His last divine manifestation entered into the many follies of a plurality of Gods, and had been maddened by the evils and fierceness attending (this) corruption of mind,----by bitter punishments, by pestilences, famines, and the continuance of wars against each other. And again, by excessive rains, by the withholding of the rains, and by calamitous strokes of lightning, did He annihilate these instances of obstinacy: besides, He afforded opportunity to the worshippers of the Demons to see, by the vengeance taken in the strokes of lightning sent upon the Idols, the reproach due to the error of a plurality of Gods.

96. He again as a good Father, thus also afforded instruction to the foolish; for He imparted to them ungrudgingly, the gifts which were from Himself, in the provision of every good and rich thing: rains in their seasons; the production of fruits; the changes of the seasons; and the carrying forward of animal life. The rational means also of all kinds of art; the seeds of these, and the (due) consideration of them, He cast forth into the souls of men. Again also He sowed (as it were), by means of the Prophets who are preached of among the Hebrews, the rudiments of the Divine precepts; the instruction pertaining to the fear of God; the entrance, the stages, and principal things, attending the Divine laws; such (I say) as were suitable to the men of those times. He again from his providential care, (and) by means of many others, also gave the aid which was convenient for men as then (existing).

97. Because therefore, the life of man had henceforward undergone a change, by means of these things, to a state of peacefulness and rest, and was prepared to receive the perfect doctrine relating to God; well again, did |154 the common Saviour of all, the only (begotten) WORD OF GOD, the King of all, shew forth at a time that was suitable, and by these same operations, the Divine manifestation of Himself. But, as these things have been largely set forth already, it is (now) time we should proceed to those that (should) follow them.

The End of the Second Book of (Eusebius) of Caesarea.

[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac and large chunks of Greek have been omitted]

1. ¹ This, according to our author, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. ix. is the person spoken of, Is. xiv. 12. That the king of Babylon is here primarily meant, there can be no doubt: but whether the " common enemy" of man is secondarily, may be matter of debate.

2. ² We now come again to certain passages in the Orat. de laudd. Constantini, identical with some in this work. Cap. xiii. pp. 531, D. 632, &c. See also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x.

3. ³ It must, I think, be sufficiently certain from this place, that Eusebius was no Arian. A passage, similarly strong, is to be found in his Orat. de laudd. Constantini, (cap. ii. p. mihi 501. A----D.) in these words: [Greek] "Et ille quidem unigenitus Dei Sermo, a saeculis principio carentibus, ad infinita usque et interminata saecula regnat cum Patre." See above Book i. §. 4, 30: also iii. 19, 39: iv. 8: v. 51. and, above all, Theodoriti Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. capp. xi. xii. in the latter of which a Copy of the Nicene Creed is given, as emanating from Eusebius, and this for the specific purpose of shewing, that he was no Arian. See also his Eccl. Hist. Lib. i. cap. ii. also the Introduction to this Work. See also, generally, the two Works of our author against Marcellus. In Lib. ii. Eccl. Theolog. cap. xiv. he speaks, indeed, of His having a beginning, but this is with reference to his proceeding from the Father: in other words, bis being revealed to created rational existences.

4. ⁴ This argument is admirably prosecuted in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. xiii. p. 117. seq. as it is also in the "Graecarum affectionum Curatio," by Theodoret, Sermo. I. seq.

5. ¹² See also, De laudd. Constant, cap. vii. p. 513. B. where we have a similar recension of these Deities. Our passage, however, is found ib. cap. xiii. 532. A.

6. ¹³ See also the Homilia Clementina Quinta. xxii. xxiii. seq.

7. ¹⁵ Cicero (de Natura Deorum in. 15, 16) has admirably depicted this state of things: " Piscem Syri venerantur: omne fere genus bestiarum Aegyptii consecraverunt. Jam vero in Graecia multos habent ex hominibus Deos; Alabandum Alabandi; Tenedii Tenem; Leucotheam, quae fuit Ino, et ejus Palaemonem filium, cuncta Graecia; Herculem, Aesculapium, Tyndaridas; Romulum nostri, aliosque complures, quos, quasi novos et ascriptitios cives, in coelum receptos putant...Haec igitur indocti. Quid vos philosophi? qui meliora?... Quare igitur plures adjungimus Deos? quanta autem est illorum multitudo?... singulas enim stellas numeras Deos; eosque aut belluarum nomine appellas, ut Capram, ut Nepam, ut Taurum, ut Dionem; aut rerum inanimatarum, ut Argo, ut Aram, ut Coronam. Sed, ut haec concedantur, reliqua qui tandem non modo concedi, sed omnino intelligi possunt? Cum fruges, Cererem; vinum, Liberum dicimus, genere nos quidem sermonis, utimur usitato: sed ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, Deum credat esse?"

8. ¹ Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. B. See also Clemens Alexandr. Admonitio ad Gentes, p. 34. seq.

So Horace Serm. Lib. i. Sat. viii. 1. "Olim truncus eram," &c. Athenagoras Legat. pro Christ, p. 66, gives an admirable account of the first Images, and Image-makers, among the Greeks.

9. ³ So Tertullian, Eccles. Hist, of the second and third centuries, by the Bishop of Bristol, Cambridge, 1826, p. 216. An Image among Idolaters is nothing, until consecrated and a Deity supposed to reside within it. They are then considered as Temples. ([Arabic], Pocock. spec. Hist. Arab. pp. 91, 144, seq.) or Chapels of the Deity. From the following passage of Lactantius (Lib. it. cap. xviii. p. 103,) it is obvious, that Images could not have had place in the Church:..." non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubicunque simulacrum est. Nam si religio ex divinis rebus est; divini autem nihil est, nisi in coelestibus rebus; carent ergo religione simulacra, quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re, quae fit ex terra."...Quicquid enim simulatur, id falsum sit necesse est: nec potest unquam vere nomen accipere, quod veritatem fuco et imitatione mentitur.

10. ⁴ See sect. 63. Book I.----Gr. (Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib.) " katade/smoij;" which, as Valesius shews, ib. notes, p. 255, is a term applied to magical usages. See this note. See also the Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. cap. ix. p. 271. C.

11. ⁵ Lactantius (Lib. ii. cap. xiv.) says of these, that they were originally Angels sent from Heaven to protect and govern men; but, falling into lust through the temptations of Satan, they at length became his ministers: which has evidently been taken from the Jews. See the Targums on Gen. vi. 2. He further tells us, that the Grammarians say they are so called, as being dah&monej, i. e. knowing. Such is, I think the Boot ([?] originally Boodhi, wise) of the East, to this day. ---- Hesiod also makes them the guardians of men, "fu&lakej qnhtw~n a0nqrw&pwn." (Oper. et Dies. Lib. 1. 122.). This opinion prevails still in the East: and it is affirmed, that whole regions are subjected to their controul, as may be seen in the Dabistan, the Hakk olyakeen ( [Arabic] ), and many other Persic and Arabic works. Lactantius tells us, a little lower down, from Hermes Trismegistus, that piety, consisting in the knowledge of the true God, was sufficient to save men from their evil influence. Porphyry tells us (Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. x. p. 197. and Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford. p. 131.) that they are all evil Demons: their Chief being Sarapis, i.e. Pluto, or Hecate: and (Prep. Evang. ib,) much the same is said by Anebo the Egyptian.

12. ⁶ See Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. x.: ii. cap. i. Diodor. Sicul. Lib. i. x ---- xiii. Lactant. Lib. i. cap. viii ---- xv. who prosecutes this argument at much length, and gives us even the philosophical Cicero deifying his own daughter!

13. ⁷ Syr. [Syriac], Gr. Meli/kamqoj, the Phoenician Hercules according to Sanchoniathon, Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. x. p. 38. In the

Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 532. it is written Melka&qaron. The word has been greatly deformed by the Copyists in our text. See the note of Valesius to the above place, cap. xiii. p. (notes) 255.

14. ¹ [Syriac] Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. Ou!swron. Prep. Evang. p. 35. Ou!swron.

15. ² Syr. [Syriac], Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533, Dou&sarij: the Dusa&rhj of the Greek and Latin writers, as noted by Bochart, and, after him, by Pococke, Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 106, and which he thinks is the Arabic [Arabic] Dhushara, or Bacchus. See also the note of Valesius ad cap. xiii. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 255.

16. ³ Syr. [Syriac]. Probably the 0Obo_d, Uranius of Stephen of Byzantium, as cited by Pococke Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 137, &c. and variously accounted for by him. The passage is found in "Euseb. Orat. de laudd. Constant." p. 532----3. Obdon. But see the note of Valesius on this place, ib. p. 255, which is full and valuable.

17. ⁴ Syr. [Syriac] Gr. Za&lmocij, or Za&molcij. See Vossius de Idololatria, Lib. i. cap. xxxix. Herodot. iv. 94. and Photius. The Zalmoxis or Zamolxis, of the Getae. The Syriac does not support the conjecture (pai~dej) of Valesius here. In these cases, the Syriac Translator seems to have taken the termination of the Greek accusative case.

18. ⁵ Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. Mo&yoj. Ovid. Metam. viii. 350. termed Ampycides, as being the son of Ampycus. It. ib. xii. 456. 528. See also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. Mo&yion, and the note of Valesius.

19. ⁶ Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. 0Amfia&rewn. Laudd. Constant, ib. See the Odyss. O. 244. Hor. Od. iii. 16. Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 3. Ovid. Ex. Pont. Epist. Lib. in. 1. 52. &c. Euseb. laudd. Constant. 0Amfia&rewn. Valesius. note ib. 0Amfia&rew. The Trojans also, according to Athenagoras, worshipped Hector and Helen, the Lacedemonians Agamemnon, and Phylonae: and so of others. Legat pro Christianis, at its commencement, So ib. p. 60. Again, ib. p. 63, he gives us the story of the mundane egg; which identifies this mythology, with that of the Brahmins of Hindustan. So also Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. ii., who refers to the "Aves" of Aristophanes as his authority: p. 116. it. Clemens Alexand, Admonitio ad Gentes. p. 35. seq.

20. ⁷ The Greek text, Orat. de laudd. Constant, is defective here, as Valesius has properly remarked, and as some of the MSS. have intimated by inserting the word " lei/pei ". (p. 533. and 255 notes).

21. ⁸..."Quod si ita est, Coeli quoque parentes Dii habendi sunt, Aether, et Dies, eorumque fratres et sorores, qui a genealogis antiquis sic nominantur, Amor, Dolor, Metus, Labor, Invidia, Fatum, Senectus, Mors, Tenebrae, Miseria, Querela, Gratia, Fraus, Pertinacia, Parcae, Hesperides, Somnia; quos omnes Erebo et Nocte natos ferunt. Aut haec monstra probanda sunt, aut prima illa tollenda." Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 17."

22. ⁹ "Ergo hi Dii sunt habendi, mortalibus nati matribus? (sc. Apollo, Vulcanus, Mercurius, Hercules, Aesculapius. Bacchus. &c.) Cic. ib. c. 18. Comp. Clemens. Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 18. seq."

23. ¹⁰ "Jam vero quid vos illa delectat explicatio fabularum, et enodatio nominum? exsectum a filio Coelum, vinctum itidem a filio Saturnum? &c., Cic. ib. iii. 24. From passages of this sort, occurring in the profane authors, it should seem, that the best informed of those times were growing weary of the follies of heathenism. Nevertheless they adhered to these errors, and even defended them: for which Lactantius, very properly castigates them, and Cicero in particular, Lib. ii. ii.

24. ¹ Gr. [Greek] the stealing of women, which proved the cause of so many wars in ancient times. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. A. B.

25. ² The Greek text of the Orat. de laudd. Constant, leaves us here; but. recurs to this passage, ib. p. 534. D.

26. ³ The most famous instances of this sort was. perhaps, afforded by the Temple of Venus in Cyprus; to which people resorted from all quarters. A similar usage obtained among the Babylonians. Herodot. i. 199.

27. ⁵ The well-known rape of Ganymede, son of Tros king of Phrygia. Ovid. Met. x. 155. shortly details the matter thus: " Rex Superum Phrygii quondam Ganymedis amore Arsit: et inventum est aliquid, quod Jupiter esse, Quam quod erat, mallet." See also Lactantius de falsa Relig. Lib. i. cap. x. p. 34. Edit. 1698. "Illud vero summae impietatis ac sceleris, quod regium puerum rapuit ad stuprum:" seq. See also Clemens Alexand., who recites several such cases. Ib. Theodoret. Graec. affect. curat. Serm. iii. p. 520. seq. And Arnobius adversus Gentes, Lib. i. p. 165. seq. Edit. 1604.

28. ⁶ Rom. i. 27. Our text differs so much from the Peschito, as to warrant the assumption, that it was translated for the occasion. It stands thus: [Syriac]. This place occurs in the Orat. de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 535. A. That our author has not overstated this matter, is evident from many ancient writers of the greatest respectability. The following is from Cicero, De Nat. Deorum. i. 16. " Exposui fere, non philosophorum judicia, sed delirantium somnia. Nec enim multo absurdiora sunt ea, quae Poetarum vocibus fusa, ipsa suavitate nocuerunt; qui et ira inflammatos et libidine furentes induxerunt Deos, feceruntque, ut eorum bella, pugnas, proelia, vulnera, videremus; odia praeterea, dissidia, discordias, ortus, interitus, querelas, lamentationes, effusas in omni intemperantia libidines, adulteria, vincula, cum humano genere concubitus, mortalesque ex immortali procreates." Nor, according to Cicero himself, were the philosophers in any respect better. Compare the first few sections of the work, De Natura Deorum. To the same effect, Porphyry in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 172. D. And ib. Lib. xii. cap. xlix. p. 618. Origen contra Cels. Lib. vii. p. 365. Plato in his Republics, Lib. x.---- Much of this noxious sort of matter is to be found in some of the Classic authors still extant, and which are too often put into the hands of our youth, e. g. The Comedies of Plautus, Terence, and Aristophanes; the Epigrams, &c. of Martial and Ausonius, &c.----See Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. iii. p. 142. seq.

29. ³ Syr. [Syriac] should perhaps, be the reading of the second word here. The meaning of our author probably is, that the excitement received at these exhibitions was not unlike that---- together with the other things here mentioned,----witnessed in corn parched by a sharp fire: i. e. by having an unnatural stimulus applied, evinced an unnatural action. The whole place however, is obscure.

30. ⁴ So Tatian (Orat. contra Graecos, p. 176. C. seq.) [Greek] " Quid obsecro fit apud vos egregium, aut admiratione dignum? Obscoena verba naso resonante effutiunt, et motus indecentes moventur, et adulteriorum in scena magistros filias et filii vestri spectant," &c. See the notes to sect. 13 above; some good remarks on this subject will be found, cited from Porphyry, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 172. D. From Plato, ib. Lib. xii. 49. D. seq. In Theodoret, Gr. affect, curatio, Serm. iii. Tom. iv. p. 511. D. seq. See also Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. in. p. 149. D. where an admirable lesson to Christians will be found on this point.

31. ⁵ So Eph. iv. 18, 19. " Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life, of God... being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Plato seems to have held much the same opinion on these matters, see the place just pointed out. See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 39. seq.

32. ¹ Such for example, as the labours of Hercules; and, in the present day, those of Buddha, Rama, &c. as abounding in the poetic fictions of the Buddhists, Hindoos, and others. Cicero was so much impressed with the absurdities put forth by the Philosophers, that he confesses, that although he is most willing to receive the truth, yet he doubts, whether it is at all to be found without much admixture of error. His words are, (De Natura Deorum, i, 5.) " Non enim sumus ii, quibus nihil verum esse videtur, sed ii, qui omnibus veris falsa quaedam adjuncta esse dicamus, tanta similitudine, ut in iis nulla insit certa judicandi et assentiendi nota." Plato's opinions on these foolish and abominable stories may be seen in Gaisford's Edit. of Theodoret. Gr. affect. curat. p. 121. seq. Prep. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. vii.

33. ⁴ See the Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. i. seq. it. Lib. xiv. cap. ix. p. 740. Also Tatiani contra Graecos Oratio. in its outset, and Theodoret Gr. affect, curat. Serm. i. For a general account of the Philosophers and their chronological succession, see the Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. xiv. Diog. Laert. Lib. i. pref. seq. Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. Our author has shewn pretty much at length, Prep. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. i. p. 45: ib. 460 ---- 168, that the Greeks were great copyists, and even plagiarists, both from foreigners and from one another. So also Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. vi. near the beginning: and, on the succession of the Greek Philosphers, ib. Lib. i. p. 300. C. seq. Edit. 1620.

34. ¹ So Epicurus after Democritus, according to Plutarch (de Placit. Philosoph. p. 877. See also their lives in Diog. Laertius.) Atoms are, in our work, termed [Syriac] bodies that cannot be cut: i.e. indivisible. So called, according to Plutarch, [Greek] i. e. It is termed atom, not because it is very small, but because it cannot be cut, or divided. The Syrian translator has availed himself of this, and adopted it accordingly. These atoms had, according to Democritus, figure and magnitude; to which Epicurus added weight; without which, as he thought, they could not gravitate. They were supposed too, to be various in form, round, oval, angular, hooked, &c. &c. (See Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. p. 1263. Tom. i.): which, I suppose, our author intimates when he says, "without extent, or, having projecting parts," &c. Syr.[Syriac]. Matter similar to this will be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. viii. And the whole passage from Plutarch, ib. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. p. 749. A. seq. which see.

35. ² So also Numenius, Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxii. [Greek]. Plutarch ascribes the notion about Rest, to Archidamus, (Laconica Apophthegmata, p. 218. seq. Tom. ii. Edit. 1620) in these words: Kalo_n h9suxi/a: i.e. Rest is good. Again, (ib. Com. repugnant Stoic, p. 1033), he speaks of this sentiment as praised by Hieronymus and Epicurus (see. 50 below), and blames the Philosophers for adopting it, while they recommended an active life. His words are: [Greek]. And so Diogenes Laertius in his life of Democritus: [Greek]. "Finem vero esse rectum, quietumque animi statum, quam eu0qumi/an vocat, quse, ut quidam oblique interpretantur, non idem sit quod voluptas, rerum secundum quam animus magna tranquilitate constantiaque beatus est, dum nullo metu, nulla superstitione, aut alia quavis perturbatione agitatur. Eandem vero et Eu0estw_ appellat, a bonitate constantiae, multisque nominibus aliis." It should seem also, that he wrote two books on this subject, one entitled, "De sedatione Animi," and the other, " Euesto." See ib. This probably was the origin of the Epicurean tenet, of Pleasure being the chief good. See also Brucker, Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. p. 1177. seq. it. 1200: where we are told, that the pleasure of rest was the Epicurean tenet: that of motion, the Cyrenaic: and, that Epicurus has been greatly wronged, by having been thought a sensualist.

36. ³ Which is but an echo of (Diog. Laert. life of Epicurus), [Greek]

37. ⁴ And so the Hindoos of the present day. Lactantius enters fully, and eloquently on this subject, Lib. i. cap. ii. de falsa religione.

38. ¹ Such, according to Plutarch, was Euripides the tragic Poet; not daring openly to profess his notions, through fear of the Areopagus. De Placit. Philos. p. 880. Vol. ii.

39. ² Much the same thing is said by Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ, p. 71. D. and in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. v. p. 708....[Greek] To the same effect also Theodoret, Serm. de Provid. i. Tom. iv. p. 322. A. Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos, in the outset, and Diog. Laert. in vita Arist. near the end. Theodoret again, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, adds on this subject. [Greek] Inquit enim ad lunam usque Dei gubernationem deferri; quae vero sunt infra lunam fato esse subjecta."

40. ³ Plato, as cited by Laertius, (Lib. iii. segm. 78) makes health, strength, the integrity of the senses, wealth, family, glory, &c. necessary to happiness; but he does not exclude virtue. So also Aristotle, according to Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos. init.

41. ⁴ The opinions of the Ancients on the soul, are given at length in Aristotle's work, " De anima," Lib. i. cap. ii.

42. ⁵ Aristotle, De anima, Lib. n. eap. i. seq. Diog. Laert. in vita Arist. prope finem. Plutarch de Placitis Philos. (p. 875.) [Greek] " Tum ipsa forma, quam vocamus entelecheian." The origin of this he ascribes to Aristotle, (ib. p. 878.) as a principle in nature. [Greek] Aristotle made Entelechia, or form, matter, and privation, principles, &c. But, how this is said to be ascribed to the soul by Aristotle and his followers, may be seen in an extract from Plotinus, Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. x. Edit. Viger. p. 811. seq. and Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. p. 821. seq. Cicero (Tuscul. Qusest. Lib. i. cap. x. 22.), tells us that this was a fifth element with Aristotle: i. e. in addition to those of earth, air, fire, and water: his words are, "Quintum genus adhibet, vacans nomine; et sic ipsum animum e0ntele/xeian appellat novo nomine: quasi quandam continuatam motionem et perennem." See also Justin Martyr. Orat. Parenet. Ed. Steph. p. 13. 1. 15. Theodoret Graec. affect. curat. p. 195. Edit. Gaisford. [Greek]

43. ¹ Lactantius Lib. i. cap. v. 22. Ed. 1698. tells us that, " Aristoteles, quamvis secum ipsa dissideat, ac repugnantia sibi et dicat et sentiat: in summum tamen unam mentem mundo praeesse testatur," which seems to me admirably to suit this place. Brucker,----an invaluable writer on the philosophy of the ancients,----thus speaks summarily on Aristotle, (Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. I. p. 814. Ed. secund.)

44. ² Again, speaking of the Demonology of Aristotle, he says (ib. p. 831.) "Quibus (i. e. demonibus) an preces et sacrificia offerenda sint,...cautus non explicuit; verisimile tamen, Aristotelem ea inter istas fabulas, ad popellum deliniendum...excogitatas, retulisse." Athenagoras charges him with believing, that the one God consisted both of soul and body; and that this body was ethereal, or consisted of the Aether. Legat. pro. Christ. p. 54.

45. ⁴ The doctrine here had in view, is thus stated by Aristocles (Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xiv.) [Greek]. They say that fire is an element of things,----just as Heraclitus did----and that of this (element) the originators were Matter and God,----as Plato had.----But these say, that both are bodies, both the doing and the suffering: while he affirmed, that the first was the active and unembodied cause. They also say, that, after certain defined and fatally appointed periods, the whole world shall be burned, and again be set in beautiful order, &c.----It is added, (ib.) that this fire contains within it, as seed, the properties and causes of all things, past, present, and future. See also, ib. capp. xv. xvi.

46. ¹ So Porphyry, (as cited ib. cap. xvi.) God, they say, is a sort of intelligent fire, which will consume, and pervade all things, &c. which he condemns as utter folly. See also Spencer's note on Origen contra Cels. Lib. i. p. 6. lin. 52.

47. ³ So Arius Didymus (as cited Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xv.) [Greek]. They term the whole world, with its parts, God. This, they say, is one absolute, living, and eternal being, and God: that, in this all bodies are contained, and that no void (vacuum) exists in him.. that the world is eternal, and is God,----He goes on to say, that with respect to order, Etc. it is begotten, and, as to the infinite periods of time through which it has passed, or is to pass, it is subject to change; and may be considered as a sort of mansion for Gods and men: or as a city of which the Gods are the governours; men the governed.

48. ⁴ Cleanthes affirmed that Zeno, with Heraclitus and others, placed the nature of the soul in sense, or vapour. [Greek]. And again. Souls arise as vapour from things humid. [Greek] Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xx. D. See the whole of the article, with the refutation from Longinus, ib. cap. xxi.

49. ⁵ The soul, they say, is both generative and perishable; but is not dissolved with the body, but remains of itself for some time: but the souls of the studious will endure till the general conflagration; while those of the ignorant will endure only for a certain period of time. [Greek] Ib. cap. xx. p. 822. B.C. It is added, that the souls of the ignorant, as well as those of the irrational animals, will perish with their bodies. The xxii. Chapter, ib. contains a long and valuable article on these matters from Plotinus.----See also Theod. Graec. affect. Curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 195. seq.

50. ⁶ There can be no doubt, I think, that this notion, about an universal conflagration, was originally taken from the Bible, and misapplied both by heathens and believers. The first passage occurs in Deut. xxxii. 22---- 24.; the last, 2 Peter iii. 7, which, with all their parallels, cannot by any legitimate interpretation extend to any thing beyond the fall of Jerusalem, and of heathen Rome. In like manner, we have a sort of Millennium and of Antichrist, common to both Mohammedans and Christians, and misapplied by both.

51. ⁷ Syr. [Syriac]. That again Helen and the evils of Ilium. Anaximander also held, that the world would be dissolved and again produced. Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. p. 548. B.C. seq.

52. ¹ Syr. [Syriac], Anytus and Melitus. Two persons who were particularly unfriendly to Socrates, and at length brought about Ms condemnation. See Plato's Apology for Socrates, and Diogenes Laertius ii. 38: Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos, near the beginning: and Origen contra Cels. Lib. iv. p.208. seq.

53. ² On this general conflagration, see the Prep. Evang. ib. capp. xviii. xix. p. 820. In the former, Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus, are said to have been the most ancient teachers of this doctrine.

54. ³ Syr. [Syriac]. Among these Thales the Milesian, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Leucippus, Heracitus, Epicurus, and others. The person, who according to Brucker was peculiarly styled " Physicus" was Strato of Lampsaca, the successor of Theophrastus in the Lyceum. (Vol. i. p. 845. See ib. p. 458. seq.)

55. ⁴ Syr. [Syriac] So Thales, Brucker, &c. ib. p. 465. seq. So the Brahmins of India of the present, and former times. Which is probably nothing more than the Chaos of the Bible. According to Brucker however, it is very doubtful whether Thales was atheistic, grounding this on the requirements of the emanation system. He got his philosophy in Egypt, according to Plutarch; but see the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. the various opinions of this subject, as cited from Plutarch, and followed by the comment of our author.

56. ⁵ This was the opinion of Heraclitus, and Hippasus, who added, that as fire was the origin of all, so should it be the destruction. Anaximander too, according to Plutarch (de Placit. Philos.) affirmed that God was a globe of fire.

57. ⁶ This was the opinion of Anaximenes, while Archelaus made both the air and infinity the origin of all things: Anaximander, infinity only. Pythagoras----the prince of Philosophers----number, and its proportions.

58. ⁷ Empedocles held, that the Elements of all were fire, air, earth, and water; while the Principles were, Friendship and Discord: the one uniting all things; the other dissevering them. For a more particular account of these Philosophers, see Brucker, Tom. ii. Pars. ii. Lib. ii. cap. i. seq.

59. ⁸ In the abominations practised in most of their mysteries, as of Venus, the Eleusinian, &c. of the Phallus in Egypt, of the Fascinus of the Vestals, and of the Lingam of the Hindoos even at this day; many of which obtained among the Gnostics, and do now among the Druzes on Mount Libanus. See also Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Serm. i. p. 482.

60. ⁹ These were termed Atheists by the philosophers generally. See Vossius de Idololatria.. Lib. i. c. 3...Brucker, Tom. i. Index Atheus. Lactan. De falsa relig. Lib. i. cap. ii. &c.

61. ¹⁰ To our author's fondness of this philosophy, of First and Second Cause, and to the particularity with which he followed it up, may perhaps be ascribed all the bad names bestowed on him, both by the ancients and moderns. When arguing with the philosophers of his day, he would, naturally enough, seize upon those things which they appeared to hold in common with himself; and might thence be tempted also to adopt their illustrations, to an extent which would prove unfavourable to himself in the end,----a mistake more frequently committed, perhaps, than most men are aware. In his Praeparatio Evangclica he has I think, given good proof of this. In Book vii. ch. xi. and ib. Book xi. ch. xiii. he has shewn, that the Hebrews held, in common with Plato, the doctrine of One only supreme God. Again, Book vii. cap. xii. he gives us what he styles the Theology of the Hebrews on the Second Cause, the second Essence, the Divine power, the first subsistence, THE WORD ( lo&goj ), the Wisdom, and the Power, of God. He then gives (cap. xiii.) the opinions of Philo Judaeus on this subject, which are extremely curious; and then (cap. xiv.) those of Aristobulus on the same. Again (Book xi. ch. xiv.) we have Plato (ch. xv.), Philo, and (ch. xvi.) Plato again, and (ch. xvii.) Plotinus on Plato, (ch. xviii.) Numenius on Plato, and (ch. xix.) Amelius reasoning after St John, on the same subject. All of which, our author affirms, is in strict accordance with the mind of the sacred writers. And, I have no doubt, this is to a certain extent true: and, that these views originated in one common source, viz. the Sacred Scriptures. But then, several passages cited by Eusebius, have obviously been misunderstood by him, e. g. Job xxviii. 20; Ps. xxxii. 6, &c. Others have no authority, viz. Wisd. vi. 24: vii. 22: viii. 1. which are apocryphal. And again, in following out these views, (ib. Book vii. ch. xv. p. 325), he has unhappily adopted comparisons, which have brought upon him the charge of Arianism: although he has, perhaps, said nothing more than many of our own divines have, in the trite comparison, which makes the body of the Sun to represent the Father, the light issuing therefrom the Son, and the warmth the Holy Ghost. This subject will, however, be resumed in our Introduction, and entered into more particularly. This doctrine, of a Second Cause, is also to be found in Clemens. Alexand. Strom. Lib. vii. p. 708. B.

62. ¹ Cicero, nevertheless, accuses him (as our author does) of the greatest inconsistency in these matters, e.g. De Nat. Deor. Lib. 1.13. 20. Ed. 1830. p. 818. " Jam de Platonis inconstantiae longum est dieere..... quod vero sine corpore ullo Deum vult esse, ut Graeci dicunt a0sw&maton...... Idem et in Timaeo dicit, et in Legibus, et Mundum Deum esse, et Coelum, et Astra, et Terram, et animos, et eos quos majorum institutis accepimus: quae et per se sunt falsa perspicue, et inter sese vehementer pugnantia." Of this Maker of the world, Cicero likewise takes notice; and, as it was not unlikely,----circumstanced as he was,----ridicules. Ib. cap. ix. 18. "Audite......non futiles commenticiasque sententias, non opificem aedificatoremque mundi, Platonis de Timaeo Deum: nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pro&noian," &c. For a full and accurate account of Plato, his Philosophy, Writings, &c., the reader is referred to Brucker. Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. Index, with the authors cited.

63. ² See the Prep. Evang. Lib. xii. cap. li. p. 626. B. seq. ib. p. 627. B. C. seq. it. 628. B. seq. it. cap. lii.

64. ³ This passage occurs in the Prep. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. and there said to be taken from the Epimenides of Plato. But no dialogue bearing that title is now to be found among the writings of Plato, as Viger has remarked in his notes. (Prep. Evang. p. 51. notes.) It occurs, however, in the Epinomis,. 9. (p. 30. Edit. Lond. 1826.)...The place is cited (as Viger also tells us) by Cyril. Alexan. Lib. viii. against Julian, (Edit. Spanh. p. 271. 2.) and by Theodoret, Graecar. affect. Edit. 1642. Tom. iv. p. 499. Edit. Gaisford, p. 89. See also the note to the Lond. Edit, of Plato, as above.

65. ¹ This passage occurs in the sixth Epistle of Plato, (Edit. London, 1826. p. 96.) and is given by Eusebius, (Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. Edit. Viger. p. 534.) also by Cyril of Alexandria, against Julian (Edit. Spanh. p. 271.), by Theodoret----for the most part----(Graec. affect. curatio. Serm. ii. Edit. 1642. p. 498. Tom. iv. Edit. Gaisford, p. 87.) and by (Clemens. Alexand. Strom. v. pp. 436, 698: and Origen contra Celsum Lib. vi. p. 280. See ib. p. 308. [...]

66. ² The passage here imitated is cited by Laertius, Plato. Lib. in. Segm. 78. [...]

67. ³ Syr. [Syriac] The Bendidi/a e9orth_ of the Athenians, called also Bendi/deia, and Be/ndeia. In the Lexicon to the Timaeus of Plato, Bendis is said to be the same with Artemis (Diana), a Thracian word: and, that Bendidia signifies the feast of Diana, with the Thracians. [Greek] The term occurs in Plato's Polit. (Lond. Edit, p: 326. Tom. vi.----Steph. p. 354.) Eusebius had in view, perhaps, the following passage of Origeri against Celsus, (vii. p. 277.) when he wrote this: viz. [Greek] But they, who wrote such things about the, supreme good, go down to the Piraeus to pray to the Goddess Diana, and to see the celebration of the feast of Bendis. I adopt the reading of Hemsterhusius, which receives no small degree of authority from this place of Eusebius. The place of Plato, is probably that on which the Scholiast has thus remarked: (London Edit. Tom. IX. p. 89.) [Greek]. The allusion here is to the Polit. i. p. 253. Lond. Edit. It stands thus: [Greek]. See the notes here. On which the Scholiast (Tom. ix. p. 67. seq.) gives some further particulars stating, that this feast was common both to the Athenians and Thracians, and was celebrated at the Piraeus on the 19th day of the month Thargelion. [...]

68. ¹ In the Phaedo of Plato, §. 155. Lond. Edit. Vol. v. p. 409, see the notes. It, Lactantius, iii. 20, "de falsa sapientia." See also Spencer's note on Origen (contra Cels. Lib. vi. p. 277. notes, p. 74.), where we are told, that this is to be taken figuratively.

69. ⁵ So also Cicero (Natura Deorum, Lib. in. §. 6.)..." Majoribus autem nostris etiam nulla reddita ratione, credere." And again, as cited by Lactantius: "non esse illa vulgo disputanda, ne susceptas publice religiones disputatio talis extinguat." Lib. ii. cap. ii.

70. ¹ It is probable, I think, that Eusebius had a passage, in a work ascribed to Justin Martyr, here in view: viz. " [Greek]. For Plato indeed, as coming from above, and having seen and learned accurately all things in the heavens, says, that the most high God exists in a fiery essence. Paeren. ad Graecos, p. 12. Edit. Steph.

71. ² Syr. [Syriac]. The "Ideas" of Plato are perhaps alluded to here. See the Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxiii. xv. xiii. xlv. it. Lib. xii. xix. p. 593. B.

72. ¹ This argument is also touched upon by Cyrill of Alexandria in his work against Julian. (Edit. Spanh. p. 284.) The Syriac here speaks in the first person, as is usual with Oriental writers: thus, [Syriac]. For not as my opinion, but as theirs: i.e. Plato here makes the statement, not as resting on his authority, but on theirs. See also Vossius de Orig. et prog, idololatrise, Lib. i. cap. xli. p. 15]. and the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. i.

73. ² Theodoret (Graec. affect. curat. Serin, v. p. 547: Gaisford's Edit. p. 207. seq.) gives the opinion of Plato very much as it is here stated, but he does not cite this place. I have to thank Mr Professor Schole-field for pointing it out to me: otherwise I fear the work must have gone to press without it. It will be found in the London Edit. Tom. viii. p. 446. Bekk. p. 102. Legg. ix. as follows. [Greek] Our translator does not seem to have read [Greek] in his copy.

74. ³ This appears to be the passage cited from the Apology of Socrates, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. x. (Edit. Viger. p. 660. B.) thus:----[Greek]

75. ⁴ This is also taken from the Apology of Socrates, and occurs, Prep. Evang. ib. D. as spoken by Socrates:

76. ³ Justin Martyr (Param. ad Graecos. p. 27.) thus introduces a part of this passage;...[Greek]...which, he says, is copied, from the Cherubim of Scripture. This passage, occurring amongst the most fanciful and silly matter of any in Plato, and honoured probably more frequently by citation than any other, is to be found in the Phaedrus (Edit. Lond. 1826.) Vol. i. p. 78, where it stands thus: [Greek] See the notes here. It has been cited by Clemens Alexand. Cohort. ad Gentes. et Strom. v. 598. Sylb. (T. ii. p. 709. Potter) Stob. Serm. v. p. 67. v. 32. Spanheim. ad Julian. Orat. i. p. 119. and Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ, p. 69, &c.

77. ¹ The same too, and in nearly the same words, is given by Theodoret. (Ib. pp. 475, 490. seq. and 512. seq.)

78. ² Much interesting matter to this effect cited from Plato, will he found, Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. i. seq. See also Vigor's notes. The place alluded to here, is in the Phaedrus, Lond. Edit. Vol. i. p. 82. See the notes: cited also by Origen contra Cels. Lib. vi. p. 288. Edit. Spencer.

79. ³ These were the followers of Aristotle. See sect. 20 above, also Bruckeri, Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. i. p. 78, seq. Syr. [Syriac].

80. ² This is taken from the Fourth Book of the Laws [...]

81. ⁴ Allusion is, perhaps, here made to a passage in the Timaeus, (Edit. Lond. Tom. vn. p. 280. seq.)..." [Greek] " Contra vero agentes cogi in ortu secundo, sexu mutato, fieri mulirem, et qui ne tum quidem finem peccandi faciet, qua tenus depravatur, eatenus in brutorum naturam suis moribus similem permutari." Which is a full recognition of the doctrine of the Metempsychosis. See also the Prep. Evang. Lib. xm. cap. xvi. where the same question is discussed.

82. ⁵ Sect. 31, above.

83. ⁶ Passages, it. Lib. xiii. cap. xviii. to the same effect will be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. capp. xxxi, xxxii. seq. from the Timaeus, &c. The Scripture cited is, Rom. i. 21, 25, but is rather accommodated here, than exactly quoted.

84. ¹ Considerable extracts to this effect are given from the Epinomis, the Timaeus, and the Tenth book of the Laws of Plato, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. xviii.

85. ⁷ In the tenth Book of the Laws, not far from the beginning, Plato speaks very much as our author does; while he seems disposed to excuse the wanderings of antiquity as to these things. To no one, perhaps, can the words of Ovid be more properly applied; " Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor."

86. ¹ That is, came into being such as ours is. See sect. 33, above.

87. ¹ Probably the followers of the New Academy. See Brucker. Tom. i. p. 759. seq.

88. ⁴ Syr. [Syriac]. Pyrrho, who was the originator of this sect. See Diog. Laert. in his life, Bruckeri Hist. Philos. Crit. Tom. i. Pars. ii. Lib. ii. cap. xiii. p. 1317: and Tom. ii. Per. ii. Pars. i. Lib. i. cap. ii. Sect. ix. p. 627. Suidas sub. voce Pu&r0r9wn, and Pur0r9w&neioi. See also Euseb. Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xviii. seq.

89. ⁵ Syr. [Syriac] Gr. e0poxh& This is the term from which the 0Efektikoi/, Ephectics took their name: it is thus given in the Greek by Suidas: [Greek] This place in Suidas is, cited from Laertius, Lib. ix. seg. 70, who gives, le/gw de\, for the le/gw dh_; of Suidas. (Edit. Wetst.) The term (e0poxh_) also occurs Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. iv. p. 512. A.

90. ¹ Delphos, Gr. oi9 Delfoi/. In Phocis, and said to be in the midst of all Greece, and of the earth as its navel, stood this celebrated city and Oracle, near the springs of Castalia.

91. ² Lebadia, Gr. lebadi/a, and leba&deia, was near Phocis in Boeotia: it was famous for the Temple of Jupiter Trophonius, which it contained. Syr. [Syriac]. To the same effect Origen contra Cels. Lib. in. p. 131. seq.

92. ³ Colophon, Gr. h9 kolofw&n. Famous for the Clarian Apollo, who gave responses there. Syr. [Syriac] A city of Ionia.

93. ⁴ Miletus, Gr. Mi/lhtoj, an ancient and large city of Ionia, where there was a Temple of the Didymean Apollo, which was burnt down by Xerxes. Ib. cap. iii. Syr. [Syriac]. Some exceedingly interesting and valuable matter on these, and other Oracles of Greece, as well as of other places, will be found in the Prep. Evang. See the index, under Oracula. Also in Theodoret, Graecar. affect. curatio, Serm. x. Tom. iv. p. 623. seq. The latter is particularly valuable: as is also Origen's account of them, (contra Cels. Lib. vii. p. 333. seq.)

94. ⁵ See Sect. 19, above.

95. ⁶ Ib. Atoms. See also Theophilus ad Autolycum. Lib. III. p. mihi 144 seq. where we have some admirable remarks on this subject.

96. ⁷ See Sect. 20, above: Note.

97. ² [...] There is another passage in Plutarch, which speaks of nourishing the hair as commendable: (Life of Lysander, st. par.) speaking of the image of Lysander as, [Greek] well adorning the hair, after the ancient manner, and sending down a noble beard. It is added, as a saying of Lycurgus, that hair made the good still more becoming; the vicious, more frightful. [Greek]. Theodoret (Serm. i. de Providentia, p. 321. Tom. iv.) speaks thus of the beard and hair of the Philosophers, together with the white robe, (tribw_n.) [Greek] Hence we see too, that the tribw_n was white. It was probably woollen, and the same as that worn by the Soofee Philosophers of the East; and so called because made of wool ([Arabic] soof.) It should seem from a passage in Diog. Laert. that it was the moral Philosophers only, who wore their hair long and flowing. In vita Carnead...[Greek]

98. ³ Here again we have the Greek text, as preserved in the Orat, de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 533. C.

99. ¹ This clause is wanting in the Greek.

100. ² See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 27. seq. Edit. 1629. This argument is urged, Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 4. and the Gr. text found as cited above.

101. ³ This appears to be taken from Philo Byblius (Sanchoniathon,) as preserved in the Prep. Evang. cap. x. p. 40. and Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 156, in these words: [Greek]. We are then told, that Israel, who reigned in Phoenicia, and was there only another name for Saturn, had so sacrificed his son Jeud ( 0Ieou&d ); which in the Phoenician language meant "only son," ( mongenou&j ). This is apparently told as being the origin of their custom. We may observe however, that the name Israel is evidently taken from the Hebrew Bible, as is the name Jeud (Judah); for Israel certainly had such son. There is a blunder however, in the application; for, it was Abraham who laid his son on the altar for sacrifice; and that son's name was Isaac, not Jeud. There is, moreover, another blunder here, for Jahid ([Hebrew] Syr. [Syriac]) must have signified only one; or monogenh_j in the Phoenician.

102. ⁴ This is found in the Gr. as above cited, but defectively, and has been taken from Porphyry, Prep. Evang. p. 155. B. [Greek] Part of this is also found in Cyrill. Alexandr. against Julian, p. 128. seq. Edit. Spanh. [...]

103. ⁵ Syr. [Syriac], imitating the form of the Greek case in It is worth remarking here, that Porphyry,----from whom this passage is taken (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. pp. 155, 102.)----says, this place was formerly named Coronea, Korw&neia: which appears to me, generally to have escaped the Geographers. This was the Salamis of Cyprus, as the context shews.

104. ⁶ Our March.

105. ¹¹ The Seleucus who spoke of God: a periphrasis for the Greek qeolo&goj. He was, as Viger thinks, (notes ib.) a Grammarian of Alexandria, who wrote commentaries on most of the Poets, &c. and a hundred books on the Gods; and, that on this last account he was termed the Theologian. See also Suidas sub voce. This place is also cited by Cyrill.of Alexandria, Edit. Spanh. p. 128, with considerable varieties of reading from that of Eusebius. [..]

106. ¹ This is an exact translation of the passage preserved in Eusebius (Prep. Evang. ib.), so much so, that the very order, ellipses, &c. of the Greek are followed. [...] ----This Amosis was, according to some, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. x. pp. 490, 493, &c.

107. ² This too is found in Porphyry, the Prep. Evang. ib. and Viger's notes, ib. p. 11. it. Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib.

108. ¹³ A disciple and interpreter of Callimachus, and an author of many works both in verse and prose. See Vigor's note (p. 11.).

109. ¹ Syr. [Syriac] See a very curious note on these mysteries. Origen contra Cels. p. 8. line 44. Spencer's notes, p. 11.

110. ⁷ It is not very certain who this was: some attribute this to Gelo, a prince of Syracuse. See Viger's notes, ib. p. 12.

111. ⁸ Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. Douma&tioi. See Vigor's notes. Perhaps the Arabian Doumat 'l Jandal, Arab. [Arabic]. The latter word is, probably a modern adjunct, given by way of distinction. This place (See Pocock. Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 95. Ed. White) was famous for the worship of an idol named Wadd ([Arabic]), our Woden, or the Indian Bhuddha. The sacrifice of the Boy was an imitation, no doubt, of that of Isaac, as were evidently the human sacrifices of Phoenicia, noticed above. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 534. A. but defectively.

112. ¹² [...]. According to tradition, Erectheus had two sons and two daughters, all of whom were sacrificed for the good of the State. De laudd. ib., but in some respects differently.

113. ¹³ [...] It was a city of Arcadia, formed out of many inconsiderable neighbouring places, soon after the battle of Leuctra, under the auspices of Epaminondas. See Cellarius Geog. Antiq. sub voce.----Orat. de laudd. ib., omits much here.

114. ¹⁴ [...] The feast of Jupiter must therefore, I think, be meant, and not the lupercalia of Rome, which the translations given of the Greek seem to intimate.

115. ¹⁶ The citation from Porphyry ends here. The words immediately following are those of Eusebius.

116. ¹⁷ [...] This passage is also given in the Prep. Evang. but much more at length, (pp. 158----161.) and is taken from the Bibliotheca of Diodorus Siculus (Lib. xx. cap. xiv.).

117. ¹⁸ Syr. [Syriac] meaning Carthaginians.

118. ¹⁹ [...] Lactantius (De falsa religione Lib. i. cap. xxi.) refers to this in these words: "Pescennius Festus in Libris historiarum per satiram refert, Carthaginienses Saturno humanas hostias solitos immolare, et cum victi essent ab Agathocle rege Siculorum: iratum sibi deum putavisse; itaque, ut diligentius piaculum solverent, ducentos nobilium filios immolasse." He gives some other instances too, which may be added to the above: viz. " Apud Cyprios (See Sect. 55, above) humanam hostiam Jovi Teucrus immolavit: idque sacrificium posteris tradidit: quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum." Ib. cap. xx.----"Erat lex apud Tauros...ut Dianae hospites immolarentur: et id sacrificium multis temporibus celebratum est." (See Sect. 53,64, above). Ib.----"Ne Latini quidem hujus immanitatis expertes fuerunt, siquidem Latialis Juppiter etiam nunc sanguine colitur humano."----" Non minoris insania; judicanda sunt publica illa sacra, quorum alia sunt matris deum, in quibus homines suis ipsi virilibus litant;...alia Virtutis, quam eandem Bellonam vocant, in quibus ipsi sacerdotes, non alieno, sed suo cruore sacrificant," &c. which is probably the case noticed above (Note 15.) by Eusebius, and is identical with that of the priests of Baal, mentioned in 1 Kings xviii. 28. To this horrid list of vices, Theophilus ad Autolycum, (Lib. m. p. 143. seq.) adds several others too disgusting to be mentioned, and yet many of them recommended by some of the most famous Philosophers! See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad gentes. p. 22. seq. which is cited here in the Prep. Evang. p. 157. Similar practices prevailed among the Druids of Gaul and Great Britain as Caesar intimates, as also among the Nomades of Tartary.

119. ¹ The account of this is cited at length in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 158. seq. as taken from Lib. i. of the work of Hallicarnassensis: it occurs also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 534. B. with certain variations. This circumstance is said to have happened to the Pelasgi in Italy, and to have been the cause of their migrating into distant countries. We are told, ib. p. 159. B. that Myrsilus the Lesbian relates much the same things as having happened to the Tyrrhenians. The author tells us moreover, that these offerings were made to Jupiter, Apollo, and the Cabiri: [Greek] and, that this decimation of men (young men, it should seem) was called for by the Oracle, and enforced by the magistrates, ----notwithstanding the migrations which hence took place,----until Hercules put an end to it, by commanding that images of men, dressed up as for the sacrifice, should be annually thrown into the Tibur. (Edit. Steph. 1540. p. 16.) It should seem, from accounts now before the public, that human sacrifices still prevail in the East to some extent. In the district of Ganjam in Hindustan, a tribe of natives called Khoonds annually sacrifice a human victim, in order to secure good crops. The Chieftains, it is said, of the different districts, take it by turns to offer this sacrifice annually: at other times, the offering is made to avert, or remove, some evil. These Chieftains then, have a child, sometimes children, purchased, or taken, in their marauding expeditions in the low country, to bring up for this express purpose: the more full grown and perfect, the better. This victim is put to death by the blow of an axe: the blood is sprinkled on the Idol, which is the image of a Peacock,----carved in wood,----with three heads. The body is then divided into as many parts as there are districts, and again into as many small pieces as there are families, who bury each his portion cither in his house, or about his fields. It is stated in a Paper in "the Journal of the Asiatic Society," No. xiii. p. 136, that "this horrid custom...is in a fair way of being entirely rooted out by the vigorous measures of Lord Elphinstone." The writer of the same paper, tells us of mounds in Southern India, which he thinks are composed of the ashes of sacrificial victims. His words are (ib. p. 1,35.)----"I must admit, though reluctantly, the possibility of some of them being the remains of great sacrifical holocausts performed by the Rishis of old in their solitudes, since the ancient annals of the country abound in allusions both to bestial and human sacrifices... on a fearful scale of magnitude." He alludes (ib.) to the Druidical sacrifices made formerly in our own land.

120. ¹ As indeed the marauding tribes of Turcomans, Tartars, Bedouins, and others in the East still do.----Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. D. but with certain discrepancies.

121. ² This is said also in the Preparatio Evangelica, (Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 10. D.) and is there advanced with reference to the Roman Empire being consolidated under Augustus, and thence enjoying----under one comprehensive government----a peace, unknown to it before. So also here, Book in. Sect. 1. seq. and Book v. Sect. 52.

122. ³ The Kings enumerated in Joshua xii. 24. are in the Heb. Bible thirty-one, in the Sept. Greek twenty-nine, in number. Our author thought it sufficient, perhaps, to give the round number thirty.

123. ⁴ Syr. [Syriac]Cellar. Geogr. Antiq. Tom. ii. Lib. iii. cap. xiii. p. 316. The Bethshan of the Old Testament. Jud. i. 27, &c. situated not far from the Lake of Gennesaret.

124. ⁵ [...]. So named by Herod in honour of Augustus. See Cellarius. Geog. Antiq. p. mihi 112. with the authorities there cited.

125. ⁵ This paragraph was probably in the mind of Theodoret, when he wrote the passage, (Serm. x. de Oraculis, p. 633. Tom. iv.) commencing at line 10 from the bottom. Our author here refers to the wars of the Canaanites with one another, and with the Jews, as related generally by Josephus.----This place is not without its obscurity.

126. ⁷ See Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 178. D. Syr. [Syriac]. lit. Heads of places.

127. ¹ This seems to assign the origin of Idolatry to Egypt: the plains of Shinar (Gen. xi. 2. seq. comp. Rev. xvii. 5.) seem to me to lay a better claim to this. Egypt may, indeed, have adorned it much with its science: hut so did Babylon. (See Is. xlvii. 12, 13. it. ib. xiv. 12----14. with the Commentators on these places.) Greece perhaps got much of its Idolatry from Egypt, while the East was more particularly supplied with this from Bahylon. See also Vossius de Idololatria, passim.

128. ¹⁴ The places of Thucydides here referred to, will be readily found by consulting the Indexes of the best Editions of that writer.

129. ¹ This is taken from Herodotus, Lib. i. c. xlvii. who gives it thus: [Greek]. To which three other lines are added. See the notes in the best editions here. The passage is alluded to, and commented upon, by Oenomaus in the Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. xx. p. 210. seq. It is cited ib. p. 230. B. with a few variations, (see Vigor's notes in each place,) as it also is in Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 63.

130. ² The particulars here referred to, will be found in Herodotus, 1. c. et seq. On these Oracles, generally, see the Index to the Prep. Evang. (sub voce " Oracula," Viger's Edit.) Theodoret, Serm. ix. Graec. affect. curatio, &c.

131. ³ Herodot. Lib. i. lix. lxiv. Syr. [Syriac]

132. ¹² Syr. [Syriac]. The Orchomenians. But I can find no account of this in the histories. An argument not unlike this is urged at length by Cicero (de Nat. Deor. in. 32 - 33. seq.), where Pisistratus is also adduced as an instance either of weakness or wickedness in the Gods.

133. ¹ Matt. xii. 33. The reading here, as elsewhere, differs slightly from the Peschito.

134. ² On this subject, generally, see the Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. Prooem. p. 236. seq. and cap. vii. Theodoret, Graec. affect. curat. Serm. vi. p. 562. Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. iv. p. 495. C. Lactant. Lib. in. cap. xxix. Our author against Hierocles, p. 541. Edit. 1628. Plutarch, Libellus de Fortuna, and Ephrem Syrus, Tom. ii. Syr. et Lat. p. 451. seq. where our form [Syriac], is applied again and again.

135. ² According to Plutarch,----who lived in the times of Trajan, and wrote a very valuable work on the failing of the Oracles (De defectu Oraculorum),----excepting Lebadia in Boeotia alone, the Oracles had every where become silent, and their fanes ruined. His words are: (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 205.)... [Greek] This is followed (ib.) by an account from the same author, of the general decay of demoniacal influence, which, according to him, commenced in the times of Tiberius Caesar:----the very time,----as Eusebius proceeds to remark----when our Lord cast them out, and declared that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning. He tells us too, (ib. p. 164. D.) that human sacrifices, which had every where prevailed, entirely ceased in the times of Hadrian----when the Christian religion had become generally known----as noticed above.

136. ¹ Syr. [Syriac]. This is, no doubt, the Arridaeus, Ar0r9idai~oj of Diodorus Siculus: who, as he says, was the son of Philip, now received the name of Philip, and was made king. His words are:... [Greek]. (Bibl. Tom. viii. ii.) The authors, therefore, of the Universal History are wrong when they say, that this man was the Son of Roxana, and named Alexander.

137. ³ Eusebius does, nevertheless, give a passage from Porphyry, (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 204.; see also p. 238.) in which Apollo is made to speak of their failing. The context, however, in this case is sufficient to shew, that this revelation was not put forth until the thing foretold had come to pass. This is followed (ib.) by a quotation, noticed above (par. C.), from Plutarch, on the general failing of the Oracles. See Viper's notes on both.

138. ⁴ Yet it is certain that very many intimations of " the coming of the Just One" had got abroad among the heathen; and, of this, the Preparatio Evangelica of Eusebius presents many striking examples. Libb. ix. x. &c. see also the Oratio Constantini ad Sanctor. caet. cap. xviii. seq. These however, did not originate with the Oracles. ---- All this was indeed, foretold by Isaiah (chap. xvii. 7. &c.) according to Theodoret. Edit. Gaisford, p. 395, and fulfilled in the times of Constantine. See ib. p. 412. seq. where he more than intimates that ALL had been fulfilled, just as our author has done in many places.

139. ¹ De laudd. Constant, ib. p. 517. D. seq.

140. ³ This is, perhaps, an allusion to Jer. xxxi. 22, where the Syriac Peschito text has, The Lord createth a new thing in the earth, [Syriac]

141. ⁴ Alluding, perhaps, to 2 Cor. iv. 6.: or, it may be, to the term Wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i. 24., so frequently given to Christ in this work.

142. ⁵ Cicero adduces the tyrant of Sicily, when he had robbed the fane of Proserpine at Locris, and was sailing homeward with a prosperous gale, saying these words: "Videtisne, amici, quam bona a Diis immortalibus navigatio sacrilegis datur?" A similar thing is said of Gelo, and the Olympian Jupiter (ib. Nat. Deor. iii. 34.), and also of Aesculapius, &c. Lactantius too, ---- a contemporary of our author, ---- makes some pithy remarks on this subject. Lib. ii. cap. iv. p. mihi 108. seq. as also does Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 34. ---- If it be said that, neither does revealed religion put forth vindictive powers, on occasions of insult offered by unbelievers, the answer is this: Revealed religion did put forth miraculous powers vindicating its own authority, when it was necessary it should do so. To do so on every occasion, would answer no good end. Unrevealed religion never has, and never could, when it wanted it most, do this. This is the true distinction: and it is an adequate one.

143. ⁷ Most of the statements made here, will also be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. pp. 11, 48, 275 ---- 279, &c. See also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 53.5. A. B. which will enable us to ascertain the intention of our author here, where he is occasionally obscure. This first is cited from Diodorus Siculus (Prep. Evang. p. 48. D.) in these words:.. [Greek]

144. ⁸ Ib. p. 11. it. 275. C. where we are told, that the Persian laws allowed

allowed marriage with sisters, daughters, and mothers, on the authority of Bardesanes. See p. 279. ib.

145. ¹ As just cited from Bardesanes. And, in his days, many of these things were practised in Media, Egypt, Phrygia, and Galatia, as carried thither by the Magi.

146. ² See Viger's note (ib. p. 25. " para_ Pe/rsaj") Bardesanes too, (ib. p. 276. D.) charges the Philosophers of Greece with this detestable crime)... [Greek] (Ib. p. 277.) This is said to have been practised under the sanction of the laws in Gaul. That Socrates, the most virtuous of all the Philosophers, was addicted to this practice, many ancient authors of respectability may be adduced to shew: and Theodoret with others asserts, that it was recommended by Plato in his Republic. See Theod. Graec. affect. curat. Serm. ix. p. mihi 618. I). Tom. iv. Viger is certainly mistaken when he imagines that the Zerasdas of Theodoret, means Plato; it being self evident, as I think, that the Persian Zerdusht, ([Arabic]) or Gr. Zoroaster, must have been intended. Notes to the Prep. Evang. p. 25. seq. where it may be seen, that Autolycus accuses both the Epicureans and the Stoics of the same crime. Caesarius imputes the same to the Chaldaeans and Babylonians, (ib.) See also the Prep. Evang. (p. 11.) and Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 472. seq. It may be doubted perhaps, whether some of these charges can be substantiated. See Luzacii de Theodoreto judicium, prefixed to Dr Gaisford's work. ---- These abominations are again touched upon, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 361, and Origen contra Cels. Lib. v. p. 248. seq.

147. ³ These particulars seem to be resumed more specifically near the end of this section. Our text has [Syriac] here, for [Syriac] I presume. I have, therefore, translated it by in sepulchres: alluding, perhaps, to the sacrificing, and otherwise destroying, of children.

148. ⁴ So, in the Prep. Evang. (p. 11. C.).. [Greek] (See also Plutarch, Tom. ii. p. 409.) So also Bardesanes, who attributes this to the Medes, &c. (ib. p. 277.) [Greek] Theodoret says

on the same subject:...[Greek] (p. 615. see also p. 614.) See also Cicero. Tusc. Quaest. Lib. i. cap. xlv.

149. ⁵ So Bardesanes. (Prep. Evang. p. 275. B.) [Greek] See also Viger's Note, (p. 25.) where much interesting matter, to this effect, is collected together, it. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 535. B.

150. ⁶ This is applied to the Scythians, generally, in the Prep. Evang. (p. 11.) in these words [Greek] Bardesanes affirms that there is also a people in India, who indulge in cannibalism, (ib. p. 278. D.) [Greek]

151. ⁷ This seems to be applied to the Derbices of Persia, (Prep. Evang. ib. p. 11.) and the Massagetae...[...]

152. ⁸ This, according to Euseb. (l.c.) and Theodoret, (l.c.) was done by the Tibareni. Theod. [Greek]

153. ⁹ Mention is made of this (Prep. Evang. ib.) in these words, [...] Lit. Nor, as formerly, do they cast over the aged with a snare (noose, &c.) A practice, perhaps, not unlike that of the Persian hunters and warriors, who threw a sort of noose, ---- called the [Arabic] Camand, ---- over the head of the animal they wished to take. [...]

154. ¹⁰ So the Hyrcaneans and Bactrians (Prep. Evang. pp. 11, 12, and Theodoret as above.)

155. ¹ So the Caspians (Prep. Evang. ib.) and Bactrians (ib. p. 12.) Strabo Geogr. Lib. xi. p. 356. Edit. Casaubon.

156. ² This, according to Theodoret, (Graec. affect, curat. p. 615.) was done by the Scythians: [Greek] So Ibn Batuta tells us (Travels, p. 220,) that he saw, at the funeral of the Emperor of China, six favourite Mamluks, and four female slaves all buried alive with him! See also Prep. Evang. (ib. p. 156. C.)

157. ³ So the Indians, as Bardesanes tells us, burned the wives, together with the dead body of the husband, on the funeral pile (Prep. Evang. p. 277. D.), just as it is the practice still in Hindustan. See also Plutarch, Tract. [Greek] Tom. ii. p. mihi 499. See also Origen contra Cels. Lib. v. p. 254. seq. as given by Celsus himself.

158. ¹ Alluding perhaps to the case of David. 1 Sam. xvii. 34----36.

159. ² Not unlike this Porphyr. ad Boeth. Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxviii. p. 556. C.

160. ¹ See our author's Eccl. Hist. Lib. ix. cap. viii.

161. ² See Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. capp. i-iii. p. 236; where cap. iii. we have a poem from Porphyry on the conflagrations of the Temples. See also ib. Lib. III. cap. ii. p. 134. D.

162. ¹ [...] Eusebius, Prep. Evang. (p. 134. D.) This (Simson's Chron. p. 640) happened A. M. 3457; his words are, " A Pisistratidis incensum prodidit Philochorus apud Pindari Scholiastem ad Od. 7. Pyth. Non multo post ab Alcmaonidis instauratum."

163. ² Syr. [Syriac]. It has been affirmed by some, (Simson. Chron. A. M. 2948,) that the Amazons first built this Temple; others deny this, and state that one Cresus, with Ephesus the son of Carter, built it: while Strabo makes Chersiphron its first builder. I have met with no account, however, of it having been destroyed by the Amazons.

164. ³ Syr. [Syriac] Strabo, however, Lib. xiv. p. 440, tells us, that it was Herostratus, who, to secure fame to himself, burnt it the second time. See also Valerius Maximus, Lib. viii. cap. xiv. Extern. 5. This was the Temple in which the image that fell down from Jupiter (Acts xix. 35.) was said to be preserved: which image, according to Pliny, was made of ebony by one Canitia. (Lib. xix. cap. iv.) So the authors of the Universal History, and, after them apparently Rees's Encyclopedia, Art. Diana. But, I can find no such thing in Pliny, nor any statuary of the name of Canitia. The words of Pliny are (Lib. xvi. 79), "De ipso simulacro Dea? ambigitur: ceteri ex ebeno esse tradunt. Mucianus ter consul, ex his qui proxime viso scripsere, vitigineum, et nunquam mutatum septies restituto templo."

165. ⁴ So Thucydides, Lib. iv. 133; not unlike this too, Pausanias Descript. Gr. Lib. vii. cap. v. This happened (Simson's Chronicon. p. 769.) A. M. 3582----which see.

166. ⁵ This Temple was, according to Herodotus, very rich, and more ancient than that of Delphos, and was burnt by the Medes in conjunction with the Thessalians, Lib. vni. 33. Eusebius, however, speaks of an invasion and burning by the Thebans which was, perhaps, on another occasion. See also Pausanias, Graec. Descript. Lib. x. cap. xxxv. This happened A. M. 3658. (Sims. Chron. p. 905.)

167. ⁶ This was, according to Strabo, (Lib. viii. p. mihi 244.) one of the finest works of Phidias. It was made of ivory, in a sitting posture, and so large, that if standing the Temple could not have contained it, its height would have been so great. See also Pausanias, Lib. i. cap. xviii. This Temple was once destroyed by an inundation of the sea. Pausan. Lib. in. cap. ix. I can find no account of the destruction of this statue by lightning. See Prep. Evang. p. 135. A.

168. ⁷ An account of this is found in Herodian, as happening in the times of Commodus, (Lib. i. 14.) He first tells us, that the Temple of Peace suffered by lightning after many prodigies had appeared in the heavens, with pestilences, &c. on the earth. [Greek] " Maximum autem nefas cum in praesens dolorem attulit, tum in futurum pessimo augurio universos conterruit. Nam cum neque imbres ulli neque nubes, tantumque exiguus terrae motus antecessisset, seu nocturni casu fulminis, sive igni aliquo in ipso terrarum motu velut extrito, totum de improviso Pacis templum consumptum incendio est: quod unum scilicet opus cunctorum tota urbo maximum fuit atque pulcherrimum: idem templorum omnium opulentissimum...inter qua; etiam Vestae templum, sic ut Palladium quoque conspiceretur: quod inprimis colunt atque in arcano habent Romani, Troja (ut perhibent) avectum." See also Xiphilinus near the end of Commodus. The Temple of Fortune at Rome is said, by Zosimus, to have been burnt in like manner. (Lib. ii. Constantinus et Licinius.) The Temple of Vesta was also burnt in the first Punic wars. See Dion. Hallicarn. Lib. ii. p. 94. Edit. 1546, where this Palladium is also spoken of. See also Clemens. Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 30-85. seq. and Pausan. Lib. v.

169. ¹ [...] Xiphilinus tells us in his Epitome of Dion, that in the times of Titus, the Temples of Serapis and Isis; the Septa; the Temple of Neptune; the Baths of Agrippa; the Pantheon; the Diribitorium; the Theatre of Balbus; the Scena of Pompey; the houses of Octavius, with the books; the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, with the adjoining Temples, were all destroyed by fire, which the Historian thinks were Divine, rather than human, occurrences. (Edit. Sylburg. Ed. 1590. p. 827.) See also Prep. Evang. Lib. in. cap ii. p. 134. D. seq. It. Simsoni de Sibyl. Vaticin. disquis. col. 1712.

170. ² [...] This happened in the times of Domitian, of which Suetonius (Lib. xi. cap. xv.) gives the following account. [...] &c. We are told in the next chapter, that on consulting a German soothsayer concerning this lightning, he was told that it portended a change of things. Which harmonizes well with the general expectations those times. The soothsayer, however, appears to have lost his life, on account of this answer. Comp. Tacit. Hist. Lib. iv. 54, and Simson, Chron. Cathol. pars. vii. p. 1674. The Capitol was also burnt in the year before Christ, 80, together with the Chapel and Sybilline books. Simson, Chron. A. M. 3923.

171. ³ In like manner in the Orat. de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 535. C.

172. ¹ To the same effect Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 79.[...]

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 18th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_04book .htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Book 3

BOOK III.

THE THIRD BOOK OF (EUSEBIUS) OF CAESAREA.

1. BECAUSE ¹ then, human life had undergone a change, through the things already mentioned, to a state henceforth of peace and rest, and had been prepared to receive the perfect doctrine relating to God; well again, did the common Saviour of all, the only (begotten) WORD OF GOD, the King of all, shew forth the divine revelation of Himself by very deeds, and at the time which was suitable. For, immediately and at once, when He appeared in the world, those things which appertained to the ancient service of Demons, were undone by the overthrow as it were, of (some ruinous) war-engine; tidings announcing good things were preached to all nations, and God who is over all, the Propitiator of the children of men, was announced. The whole error of a plurality of Gods was also overthrown, and all the operations of demons were forthwith cast aside. Men again were no more sacrificed; nor were the slaughterings of human beings, which from former times had ruined the world, (persevered in). Nor again, were there multitudes of Rulers, Princes, Tyrants, and Governours of |156 the people. Nor again, existed those things, on account of which wars, and the reduction of cities, had been set on foot in every city and place: on the contrary, one God was preached to all men: the one empire too of the Romans had extended itself over all: and the peaceless and uncompromising enmity, which had so long been the portion of the nations, came to an entire end. And, as the knowledge of the one God, and of one just and righteous conduct resulting therefrom, was, by the teaching of our Saviour, delivered to all men; so also one king, at one and the same time, was established over the whole Roman empire, and a profound peace prevailed in every thing. At once too, and at one period, as it were at the intimation of the one God, two singular advantages sprung up among mankind; the Instruction that was in righteousness, and the Empire of the Romans. For formerly, this error of the Demons had grievously enslaved the nations: and, as the whole had been divided into many (parts), some taking Syria by way of portion; others bearing rule in Asia; others, in Macedonia; others cutting up and seizing upon Egypt; others, in like manner, upon the country of Arabia: the race of the Jews again, had possession of Palestine². And, in every village, city, and place, they were, as from madness (and) like marauders and demoniacs in reality, careful (only) about warfare and contention one against another;--of which enough has already been said.

2. But (now), two great Powers sprung fully up, as (it were) out of one stream; and they gave peace to all, and brought all together to a state of friendship: (namely) the Roman Empire, which, from that time, appeared (as) one kingdom; and, the Power of the Saviour of all, whose |157 aid was at once extended to, and established with, every one. For, the divine superiority of our Saviour swept away the authority of the many Demons, and many Gods; so that the one kingdom of God was preached to all men Greeks and Barbarians, and to those who (resided) in the extremities of the earth. The Roman Empire too,-- since those had been previously uprooted who had been the cause of the rule of many--soon subjugated all (others), and quickly brought together into one state of accordance and agreement, the whole race of (man). And, behold! it henceforth brought together such a multitude of nations, as soon to take possession (of all), even to the extremities of the earth; the teaching³ of our Saviour having, by the divine power, already prepared all parties, and established (all) in a state of equanimity. And this is indeed a great miracle to those, who set their minds on the love of truth, and are unwilling to be envious against that which is good. For at once, was the error of evil Demons put out of sight; and, at the same time, did the enmity and contention of the nations, which had always existed, lose its power: and again, at the same time, was the one God and the one knowledge of Him, preached to all men through the teaching of our Saviour: at the same time too, was the empire of the Romans⁴ established among men; and, at once, was the (state or) the whole race of man changed to (that) of peace; and all, professing a common brotherhood, betook themselves to the instructing of their own nature. Forthwith too, they became born, as it were, of one (common) Father, and as the children of the one God; of one Mother too, righteousness and truth; and so received they one another with the salutation of peace, that henceforward the whole creation was nothing less than as one household, and as a race governed by one law. It was (now) practicable too, that any desiring to send, for the purposes of merchandise, and to proceed, whithersoever he pleased, to do this with the greatest facility. Those of the West could come without |158 danger to the East: and again, those who were here (in the East) could proceed thither as to the house of their own fathers, according to the words of ancient prophecy, and of many other burdens of the Prophets, which we have not now leisure to mention, excepting these respecting our Saviour, the WORD OF GOD, which proclaimed thus: " He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the extremities of the earth⁵:" and again, "In his days shall righteousness spring forth, and abundance of peace⁶:" and again. " They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into reaping hooks⁷, and nation shall not lift up the sword against nation; nor shall they learn war⁸."

3. These things were foretold in the language of the Hebrews, (and) have been published a very long time ago: they are now in our times witnessed in their operation, confirming the testimonies of those ancient declarations⁹. If then, thou desire other proofs of the excellency of the truth, (shewing) that it is not of mortal nature, but is the word of God in truth; and (that) the "power of God," the Saviour, has been revealed in the world, not by words (only), but by deeds; accept thou of them. |159 Open the eyes of thy understanding, unbar the doors of thy mind; and let thy soul be wholly collected within thee. Consider and ask thyself, as if thou wert interrogated by another, and thus investigate the nature of the things (to be brought before thee).

4. Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, King, Philosopher, Lawgiver, or Prophet, whether Greek or Barbarian, who bore all this pre-eminence,--not after his death, but while he was still alive, and drew breath;-- and could effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing, and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth? But this, no man has done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word, and fulfilled it by deed: " Go and teach all nations¹⁰." He said (also) to them,--what He had foretold and previously revealed,--that it was necessary His Gospel should be preached throughout the whole creation, for a testimony to all nations¹¹. And, with the word, He brought the deed also to pass: for, immediately,--and not at a great distance of time,--the whole creation was filled with His words!

5. Now. What can he have to say on this matter, who dares to oppose the truth; since the testimony which is by means of the sight, is better than that which is by any sort of words? But, if thou give up this first (sort of proof), betake (thyself) to the latter: and now consider with thyself,--

6. What mortal nature has ever appeared, which appointed like Him, by word only and not in writing, laws that were just and pure, and sent these same forth by the hands of His disciples, from one extremity of the creation to another? and, Who so opened out His doctrines throughout the whole earth, that immediately and day by day, the instructions which it was becoming should be delivered by Him, were sufficiently preached in the hearing of all men, Barbarians at once, and Greeks? But, if thou seek, thou shalt find no other: for this is a work, resulting from the power of the Saviour of us all, alone.--Nor will this |160 persuade him who is not to be persuaded. Let the same then say to us, for we are willing to learn--

7. Who, of those who have been praised for the wisdom of their observances, has ever so delivered the barbarous and brutal of barbarous nations, by his merciful laws, that those who became (His) disciples among the Scythians, feast (now) no more on human beings? nor, among the Persians, take their own mothers (as wives)? others too cast not their dead to the dogs? nor do others deliver up those that are aged for strangulation? nor are other brutal and beastly things allied to these, done with others¹²? But these are only small proofs of the revelation of the Godhead of the Saviour of us all. Look now also at others, and consider with thyself:--

8. What mortal man, of all the Princes at once, and Kings, and Armies, and Companies, and Inhabitants, and Nations, ever existed during all these periods, who added this also (to his exploits), that even those who were thought to be Gods by the many, should wage war with Him,--and who at all times did wage war with Him;--but, that He shewed his pre-eminence so far to exceed that of man, that day after day there was exultation, and (that) His doctrine took effect throughout the whole world?

9. And, Who is that other (person) who, since the life of man was set up, ever sought to constitute a people after his own name;--a thing never yet heard of:--and this, not in a corner, or obscurely in some part of the earth, but in the whole earth under the sun; (and) did so settle by the power of the rule of his Godhead, and so complete his wish, that he delivered the knowledge of the one God who is beyond the heavens, the King of the whole world, together with his fear, to all men on the face of the whole earth, to the nations both Barbarian and Greek?

10. Who ever set about to teach, and, after he had so engaged himself, brought, as in this marked instance, the matter to its right effect? and forthwith, through his |161 own efforts, so made known his undertaking, that by the love of God, he closed rather the mouths than the doors of all; and proclaimed God who is over all? He commanded moreover, that all nations should truly acknowledge Him alone? And, because he willed that which was acceptable to God, He deigned to give His aid and assistance to him, who was his own ambassador? The doctrines therefore, accompanying this preaching, were delivered; they were also received into the hearing of all men, and they were by deeds confirmed!--How they were, see thou, and consider;--

11. What other person ever arose (as the sun) with his rational light to the souls of men, and so prepared them to laugh at the error of the Demons of their forefathers, that they no more attached the divine name to wood, stone, and matter that is inanimate?

12. What other, excepting our Saviour, persuaded the Egyptians,--more attached as they were to the fear of Demons than any other people, and from whom came the error of a multiplicity of Gods to the Greeks,--that henceforth they should be no more (so) infatuated, and no more give that venerable name to beasts, reptiles, noxious and irrational animals; but should acknowledge that one God alone who is above all, and contend for his righteousness in every sort of death?

13. And Who invisibly, and by the powerful means and force of his doctrine which was every where preached, drove out as evil beasts, from among his own human flock, that injurious and destructive family of Demons, which from ancient time had ruled the whole race of man; and, by means of the exciting power of Idols, had put forth innumerable errors among them, so that these Demons should no more give out their divinations at the springs and fountains? Nor again, should any earthly spirits, leading the world astray, implicate mankind in error? The fountain therefore, that was in Castalia became silent, as |162 did the other which was in Colophon¹³: other fountains of divinations also became silent; the Pythian, the Clarian, the Nemean; that in Delphos, and Miletus; that in Colophon, and in Lebadia, of which (last) so much was boasted from ancient times. To the doctrine of Christ did they all accede. Where are (now) Amphilocus and Mopsus? There is not a man in (either) place! Where are Amphiaraus and Aesculapius¹⁴? Where is that (Image) of Ammon, and (which was) in the Desert of Lybia? All these Gods have crept under the earth, being alarmed at the name of our Saviour¹⁵! not unlike those their Princes who could not, when He went about among men, bear the rays of his Godhead¹⁶, but grievously complained, crying |163 out, " What have we to do with thee, Jesus " (thou) " Son of God," and saying, " Art thou come before the time to torment me? We know thee who thou art, that thou art the Holy One of God¹⁷." The Egyptian Demons therefore, when hearing that the doctrine of our Saviour was preached in the whole of their land, confessed that they themselves were nothing! They gave up accordingly the places subject to their customs to be destroyed, together with (their) Fanes and Images, and betook themselves to flight¹⁸ and departure; driven away as they were by the Divine power. The divinations too of every place were destroyed; and the Christ of God alone, and the one only God who was preached by him to all men, became the object of divine worship.

14. What other (person) moreover, has, like this our Saviour, given such power to those who have, in purity and sincerity, arrived at the life of excellence and of wisdom which has been delivered by Him, that they should by calling on Him, and by means of pure prayers offered up through Him to Almighty God, cast out that superabundance of evil Demons from the human body?

15. What other too, except Him alone, has granted to those who draw near to Him. that they should perform the rational and unbloody services which are (offered) by means of prayer, and the secret (use of) the Divine |164 announcements? and, on which account He has appointed, throughout the whole creation of man, altars without fire, services worthy of God, the setting apart of Churches, and, that intellectual and rational sacrifices should, by means of rites becoming the Deity, be put forth to that one God alone, who is the King of all nations?

16. Who moreover, tacitly, and by means of His invisible power, has abolished those sacrifices which were completed with blood, impurity, smoke, and fire? -- those abominable shrines also for the slaughter of men; and so provided, that human sacrifices should no more be offered, and these things be no more done? -- that the writings of the Greeks also should attest, that it was not from ancient times, but (only) after the divine teaching of our Saviour, in the times of Hadrian¹⁹, that human sacrifices ceased throughout the whole earth?

17. Since then, all these are clear proofs confirming the divine power of the Saviour of us all, Who is he whose soul (partakes) so much of iron, as not to give his testimony to the truth? and to confess His divine and living (active) power? For it is of the living, and not of the dead, that these deeds are. For the visual perception of something distant is, they say, (the effect) of some thing (really) visible. |165

18. The Race therefore which contended with God, disturbed the life of man, and introduced, led on, and could effect much, has suddenly, lately, and but a short time ago--because driven out from among men,--been cast to the earth, as an object deserving of the utmost contempt, breathless, motionless, speechless, and again, bereft both of utterance and of remembrance!

19. This mortal nature therefore, and again that which has no proper existence, is (as) nothing. And that which is (as) nothing, is likewise inoperative. But, (as to) Him who acts at all times, and is every moment operative, and is more potent than any living creature, How can He be supposed to have no proper existence, although not visible to the bodily eyes? But, discrimination is not by the senses; nor do we try the terms of art, the perception of doctrines, nor yet the mind of man, by the bodily senses: much less can man ever see with the eyes the person, or the power, of God. Nevertheless, these things may be known from the effects of their (several) operations. On this account, it is our duty to inform ourselves respecting the unseen power of the Saviour of us all, to prove His works, and to distinguish, whether we ought to confess that the things which have hitherto been done by Him, are of one living; or, whether we are to affirm, that they are of some one, who had no proper existence; or, whether this same thing be foolish, and the question respecting it inconsistent. For, he who has no proper existence²⁰ in all his parts, has, it is clear, no proper existence at all, and is unable either to act, or to effect any thing. Such is the nature which is dead; while that opposed to it is living.-- But, it is now time we should investigate those works of our Saviour which appertain to our days, and to take a |166 view of the living (effective) works of the living God. For the living works of God are life indeed. Learn (then), what those things are about which thou enquirest, and Him (at the same time), who lives in His works.

20. Some²¹ of the contenders with God did, but a little while ago, rebelliously, forcibly, and with a mighty hand, so rase to the foundation and overthrow His houses of prayer, that the churches disappeared: by every means too, they made war with Him who is invisible to the eyes, attacking and reproaching (Him) with innumerable injurious expressions. But He, while unseen, secretly avenged Himself of them. And they again (felt this), not by one intimation from God (only). They (I say) who, but a short time before, were delighting themselves and happy;-- they who were worshipped by all men, as if they had been Gods, and who, during the revolutions of many years, gloriously administered the affairs of their rule: for before they made war with Him, they had the most perfect peace and friendship (with all); but when they became changed, and dared to contend with God, and arranged their Deities before them in battle array against Him who is our (God), in order that (these) might be their strength;-- (then), forthwith--in one moment--and at the intimation of God, and through the power of Him with whom they had contended, did all they who had been thus daring, suffer punishment, so that they gave in to Him on whom they had made war, turned their backs (in flight), and confessed His Godhead! They allowed also, and persuaded, that (men) should boldly do the reverse of those things which were from ancient time. He therefore quickly |167 established throughout the whole earth the signal mark of victory, and adorned (it), as from the first, with Temples which were pure, and distinguished (set apart) as for the prayers of the whole creation; so that He consecrated holy and dedicated places, in every village, city, place, and even in the deserts of the Barbarians, to the One God (and) King of all; -- to Him who is the Lord of all²²;-- that He might hence dignify the things (so) set apart, with the name of Him who was their Lord. Nor was it of man, that (this) happy appellation fell to their lot; but it was of Him who is Lord of all, that hence they were each dignified with the name of "the House of the Lord²³." Let any one who wishes then, stand forth in the midst and learn, who it was that, after all this subversion and destruction, raised up on high from the earth, buildings such as these throughout the whole creation; and who it was, that vouchsafed to afford to these things, of which every hope had been cut off, a renovation far better than they formerly had! Nor was the great miracle of THE WORD, which renewed these, delayed until after the death of those who contended with God, but (took place) during their stay in the world. Those very persons (I say) who rased (the churches), did by their words and writings preach the new birth, which directly opposed their own (former) darings: and this they did, not |168 when enjoying rest, so that any one should imagine that it was of the friendship of men; but when driven forth by the stroke of God.

21. He then, even after all these storms of persecution, did, by means of sharp calamities and His divine teaching, so enlighten and set up throughout the whole creation, men zealous of the life of wisdom, multitudes both of men and of ministering women, and of congregations of virgins, that they (all) were (thus) established throughout the whole of their lives in perfect holiness.

22. Who moreover persuaded women, multitudes of children, and of men, voluntarily to suffer the privation of food and of wine for many days? to sleep on the earth? to have recourse to a hard and robust discipline, coupled with chastity? and made them exchange the food of the body, for those spiritual and rational provisions of the soul,--the one for the other,--which are obtained by the divine reading?

23. And, Who taught men, barbarian and rustic, as well as women, children, and innumerable multitudes of heathen slaves, to despise death? to be persuaded that their souls were immortal? that the eye of justice was open, viewing the deeds of all men, just and unjust? and to hope for the judgment of God?--That it was, on account of these things, their duty to be careful as to the life of righteousness and temperance? And, that if they were |169 not so, they could not otherwise be brought under that yoke of righteousness, which hitherto had been brought into operation by Him alone whom we call God?

24. But, let us dismiss these things, and let us otherwise approach him whose mind is (as) the rock; and let us interrogate him thus, with the questions (growing) out of these things (following):--O bring thou forth the word of reason, not from a heart implicated in error²⁴, but advancing (this) as the fruit of the intelligent and rational soul; and, having meditated much, say between thyself and thy soul,--

25. What other, of those preached of from ancient times, ever did like Him who is called God by us, become known, established, and declared, by the enouncements from above of the Prophets many ages ago, among those ancient friends of God, the Hebrew family?--those (I say), who also previously delivered in writing, in the divine scriptures, the place of His manifestation, the time of His advent, the manner of His life, His power, His words, and His deeds?

26. Or, Who so suddenly appeared as an executor of vengeance against those who dared to oppose Him, that, upon the Jews acting (thus) impiously, He forthwith dealt out punishment by means of His unseen power on their whole nation? and overthrew to the foundations, both their place and rule?--For He at once levelled to the ground, both their Temple, and their sacred (things)!

27. And Who, like this our Saviour, has clearly foretold the things that respected the impious (Jews), and respecting the Church which was established by Himself throughout the whole creation, and in the very things themselves? and has shewn their confirmation in their effects?--who said of the impious (Jews), "Behold, your house is left desolate²⁵; nor shall stone remain upon |170 stone in this place, which shall not be thrown down²⁶." And of His Church He said; " Upon this rock I build my Church, and the gate-bars of Hell shall not prevail against it²⁷?"

28. And this also, that He should change men poor and rustic, from the occupation of fishing, to that of rule? and, that He should make these into Lawgivers, and Teachers, of the whole creation of man? How is it to be imagined by thee, that He then (so) made the promise by word, and brought it to pass in deed, that He made them "Fishers of men?" He gave them moreover, all this excellency and power, that they should compose and complete Books; and, that they should give such confirmation to these, that they should be received throughout the whole creation, in the languages of both the Greeks and Barbarians? and, that in all nations they should be taught, and believed, as containing the written words of God²⁸?

29. And, How does it appear to thee, that He should foretel what was about to take place? and should previously testify to His Disciples, that, because they should give their testimony to Him, they should come before Kings and Governours: and that they should be punished, and undergo grievous torments²⁹?--

30. And this also, that He should so prepare them, that they should voluntarily suffer? and, that they should |171 so firmly arm their souls with the armour of righteousness as with adamant, that they should be seen (engaged) in conflict against those who opposed them;--How does not this surpass all description?

31. Nor was it only, that He impressed on the souls of those who (immediately) followed Him such power, that when, having clone nothing worthy of death, they willingly underwent every species of punishment and torment, for the sake of the righteousness of that God who is overall; but also, on those who received (it) from them; and so again, on those who came afterwards; and on those even to this present, and (who live) in our own times;--How does this not transcend every sort of miracle³⁰?

32. Besides, Which of the kings ever remained prosperous in his rule, throughout all this length of time? And, Who is he, who so conquered after his own death, and established the mark of victory over his enemies, that he subdued every region, place, and city, both of the Greeks and Barbarians? and beat down, by the hidden and invisible power of (his own) right hand, that which opposed him?

33. But³¹, the chief of all the things that have been mentioned, is that peace which was, by His power, supplied to the whole earth; of which we have already said what was proper. And, What mouth of the calumniator would not (the consideration) close, that love and concord so ran together with His doctrine in (effective) operation, into all nations? and, that the peace which took place among the nations throughout all the world, and the word, which was sown (as seed) by Him among all nations, had formerly been so foretold by the Prophets of God? But a (whole) day would be too short, were I to attempt to collect and shew within it, the open proofs of the divine power of the WORD OF GOD, the Saviour of all, which have been put forth up to this time. So that there never was a man at any time, no not among the Greeks, who has shewn forth such transcendent and divine power as He has, who has been preached to every man, and is the Saviour of all, and the |172 only (begotten) WORD OF GOD who is above all. But, Why do I say "of men?" when behold! no such nature as His has appeared upon earth, even of those who have been named Gods by all nations? If (not so), let him who wishes shew (this): let every existing Philosopher too come forward and tell us, What God or Hero has at any period, or ever, been heard of, who delivered the doctrine of eternal life, and of the kingdom of heaven, --a thing not of recent occurrence,--to mankind, as this our Saviour (has done)? who has caused innumerable multitudes, throughout the whole creation, to be instructed in His own doctrines of wisdom? and has persuaded them to follow after the life which is heavenly, and to despise that which is of time (only); and to hope for the heavenly mansions, which are kept for the souls that love God?

34. What ³² God or Hero is it, that has ever so fully arisen (like the sun) and given light from the East even to the West by the bright rays of his doctrine, that, immediately and with the swiftness as it were of the course of the Sun, all the nations of the earth (thence) rendered to the one God, one and the same service?

35. What³³ God or Hero is it, who ever contended with all the gods and heroes both of the Greeks and Barbarians, and laid down a law, that not one of them should be thought a God? and, having so legislated, persuaded (men of this)? and who, when they all afterwards waged war against Him, being one and the same, overthrew every power opposed to Him; and shewed that He was superior to all, both gods and heroes, that ever existed, so as to be called throughout the whole creation of man, and by all people, the ONLY (begotten) WORD OF GOD? |173

36. What God or Hero was it, who ever delivered to all nations dwelling on the great element of the whole earth,--to those on the land, and on the sea³⁴,--that they should make a feast in holiness, both of the body and the soul, on the day of every week which is called among the Greeks the Sun's day³⁵? And, that they should assemble themselves together, not that their bodies should hear-- but their souls--that it was by means of the divine teaching, they should live?

37. What³⁶ God or Hero was it who, when they so made war with him, set up, as our (Saviour) has done, such a mark of victory in opposition to his enemies? For they ceased not to contend both with His doctrine, and His people, from first to last: while He, being invisible, secretly overthrew them, and advanced His own, together |174 with the houses of God, to great glory! But, Why should we wish to circumscribe by words, the divine powers of the Saviour of us all, which exceed all description? When behold! should we remain silent, the things themselves would cry out to those, whose souls have ears?

38. This³⁷ is strange indeed, and something not to he imagined; at any period too, it must be a singular thing (which) He brought to this world of mankind, and, that the only Son of God should in truth, ever have appeared to those that are on the earth:--and that the whole race of man should through Him, receive one who should in his own (human) nature, so introduce him to the righteousness which is true, that henceforth there should be set up throughout the whole creation of man, places for instruction in the Divine enouncements and teaching; and that men, barbarous and fierce, should so change their minds to peacefulness, that the rational disposition of their souls should receive of His virtue; and, by His means, acknowledge their Father who is in heaven, with the Saviour of all, the ONLY (begotten) |175 WORD OF GOD, the King of all; and that to Him, and through Him who is the Cause of every good thing, they should so render the praises that are due, and the blessings and thanksgivings which are right, that henceforth the righteous praises and thanksgivings, which are suitable to the companies of the Angels that are in heaven, should also be put up, day and night, by the inhabitants of this element of earth!

39. These acts, therefore,--pertaining to salvation, and advantageous to the world, and to the Divine Manifestation of THE WORD OF GOD among men, as well as innumerable others like them, on account of which he came into the world of men³⁸--He performed not in His usual manner, that is, incorporeally; for, He had acted throughout the whole world secretly, and, by these his works, shewed both to them who are in the heavens, and to them who are on the earth, His innumerable operations. But recently, (he has done this) in a manner foreign to His own custom. For He has, by means of a mortal vessel,--not unlike the king, who (acts) through an Interpreter,--openly declared His edicts and methods of government among men; in order that He might evince His providential care for mortals, by that which was like to themselves, (and) that they might find life. But, as it has been seen that not one, but many were the causes, why the Saviour of all made His Divine manifestation among men; it becomes necessary, that we should also say in a few words, in their order, why He availed himself of this human vessel, and came for the purpose of ruling among men. How then, could the Divine, concealed, invisible, and untangible, Essence,--that unembodied and incorporeal mind, THE WORD OF GOD,--otherwise exhibit himself to men immersed in the depths of evils, and the corporeal substances (of nature), seeking God upon earth, but otherwise not finding Him;--or, being unwilling to search after the Maker and Creator of the whole creation³⁹, --if not by means of (some) human compound, and in some form known to ourselves, and, as it were by an |176 Interpreter? For otherwise, How could the eyes of the body look upon the incorporeal nature of God? And, How could mortal nature discover Him who is concealed, (and) invisible, whom they knew not from the multitude of His works? On, this account therefore, He required a mortal vessel, a help which would comport with the conversation (had) among men; because, this would be agreeable to them; for they say, "Every thing loves its like ⁴⁰." For, just as some great king might stand much in need of an Interpreter, who could enounce his words to the inhabitants of both countries and cities, whose understanding (of languages) was diverse; so also did THE WORD or GOD,--who was about to be for the healing of souls,--that He should exhibit himself in a body, and upon the earth. He would want a Mediator, not unlike an Interpreter, and a bodily compound. And this would be some human instrument, by means of which He could make known to men, what those concealed (properties) of the Godhead were. Nor was it (this) alone, but also that He, the compassionate WORD OF GOD, should exhibit Himself to those who delighted in the sense of things seen, and were seeking God by means of inanimate Images, and carved Idols; and imagining, through (mere) material bodies, that there was a God; but, from the infirmity and deficiency of their minds were giving to men, mortal in their nature, the name of Gods. On this account, He prepared for himself a Temple more holy than all; a bodily vessel, and sensible habitation, for the rational Power; an Image pure, and in every thing excellent, and more honourable than the whole of inanimated images⁴¹. For that which was of inanimate |177 matter, and in the form of an Image of brass, iron, gold, ivory, stone, or wood, was fabricated by the hands of artificers of (mere) matter, altogether for the residence of Demons, and to administer to the error of fools. But the Divine Image, variously adorned by the wisdom of the Divine Power, partook of life and of the Essence which is intelligent: the Image, filled with every excellence,--the Divine Image, the habitation of THE WORD OF GOD, and the holy temple of the holy God,--was prepared by the power of the Holy Ghost, in order that He, who resided therein, might become known among mortal men by means of one who was their equal, as it were by an Interpreter; but who should not fall after the manner of their passions, nor be bound in the body, as the manner is with the soul of man: nor yet, when appearing small (in reputation), should undergo any change on that account as to his Godhead. For⁴², as the rays of the sun's light suffer nothing from their filling every thing, nor when they permeate the unclean bodies of mortals; so, in a far higher degree, the Power which is incorporeal, THE WORD OF GOD, suffers nothing in its own Essence, neither is it mutilated, nor is it ever diminished, when, incorporeal as it is, it permeates that which is corporeal. In the same manner therefore, the Saviour of all presented himself to every man (as) the helper and Saviour, by means of the human vessel which He put forth, just as the musician⁴³ (does), who is willing to shew his skill by means of his lyre. History too among the Greeks teaches (us), that Orpheus moved by his song every sort of animal, and pacified their angry feelings by means of a hollow instrument, the strings of which he struck. This is moreover sung in the assemblies of the Greeks; and it is believed, that an inanimate lyre soothed both the animals and trees, and so changed even the oaks that they became imitators of music. This (personage) |178 therefore, filled with all wisdom and all prudence, THE WORD OF GOD, put forth every sort of healing for the souls of men which had been reduced to all kinds of evil. He took into His hands the instrument of the musician, the work of His own wisdom: this He struck with His hand, (producing) songs and sweet strains to rational man, not to animals that are irrational; and healed⁴⁴, by the medicines of His heavenly teaching, every kind of the fierce, both of the Greeks and Barbarians, as well as the rude and beastlike passions of the soul; and did, as a skilful physician, shew by the aid⁴⁵ of one of their equals, and who was like to themselves,-- to the souls which were implicated in disease, and seeking God among bodies and substances which were elemental,--God in man! Nor again, was He less careful as to the body, than He was as to the soul. For He provided, that the things which He did by means of the Body⁴⁶, should be apparent to men's bodily eyes; (that is) that they should see astonishing miracles, signs, and (other) divine powers. And again, He preached to the hearing of the body, these doctrines through a bodily tongue⁴⁷. All these things therefore, He delivered by means of the Body which he bore,--as it were by an Interpreter,--to those who otherwise could not,--except only in this way,--be made sensible of His Godhead. These⁴⁸ things too, were (thus) administered by the will of His Father: He still remaining with His Father, as He was before, immaterial, incorporeal, (and) unchanged as to His (eternal) Essence. Nor did he suffer corruption from His |179 (former) nature; nor was He confined by the bonds of the body; nor was He here, only such as His human vessel was; nor was He restrained from being in other places of (this) whole: on the contrary, even then, when He conversed among men, did He fill all things: was with His Father⁴⁹ and was in Him; and then also, He fully and providentially took care of all things, whether in heaven, or on the earth. Nor was He ever, as we are, withholden from being near to every thing; nor was He hindered from acting, after His own divine manner. On the contrary, the things that were of Himself He gave to man; but, those which were of man, He took not. Of His divine power too, He provided for mortals; while from His participation with the mortal, He received nothing. Neither⁵⁰ was He who was incorporeal, polluted when born in the body. Nor again, did He who was impervious to passion, suffer in His (eternal) Essence, even when mortal nature had been assigned to Him. For, neither does he who strikes the lyre become in any thing subject to suffering, although the instrument should be broken, or the strings be cut: in like manner too, we do not say when punishment is inflicted on the person of a wise man, that the wisdom of the wise man, or the soul which is in his body, is either cut off, or consumed. So, much less is it right we should affirm, that the Power of the Divine WORD can receive any thing like loss from the sufferings of the body. Nor, does any thing forbid our affirming that,-- since, in our example, the rays⁵¹ of the Sun sent down from heaven to earth, permeated the clay, mire, and every sort of impurity,--the light was therefore in no respect polluted, although these things received light from its splendour. For the light did not (thus) become clay, nor did the Sun become polluted, by its commixture with (such) body; because these things are not foreign in their nature to bodies. |180 But⁵² He,--who is immaterial and incorporeal, THE WORD OF GOD, who is both the life, and intelligent light,--impels, by the divine power which is incorporeal, every thing He approaches, both to live and to remain in this rational light. In like manner also, the body to which this is near becomes sanctified; and quickly does He enlighten it: all diseases too, pains and sufferings, pass away (from it); and that which was defective is supplied from (His) fulness. On this account He gave up His whole life, at one time exhibiting His image under sufferings like those common to ourselves; at another, revealing himself, God THE WORD, in great and astonishing works and acts, as God. And, when He foretold something by His prophetic words which should come to pass, He likewise exhibited Him who was invisible to the many, THE WORD OF GOD, by works, and by astonishing deeds; by signs, wonders, and extraordinary powers (put forth): and again, instructing the souls of men by the divine doctrines, He prepared them to draw near to the heavenly city which is above⁵³, and to hasten to those their fellow-citizens there, as to their own brothers and equals: also, to know their Father who is in heaven, and the excellency of their kind, which is of the Essence that is intellectual and rational: teaching them also, that they should no more err, but henceforth so live in all purity and holiness,--so (I say), that they might make their departure hence to that place easy, and without hindrance; and, that they should be prepared to receive forthwith, with the companies of the holy Angels, everlasting life with God the King of all, and the light which cannot be described, and the kingdom of heaven.

40. Thus therefore, the ONLY (begotten) WORD or GOD, who availed Himself of a human instrument, and set up His own Interpreter, administered every thing for the healing of men by the will of His Father; still remaining immaterial and incorporeal, just as He formerly was, with His Father⁵⁴. By means of a man also. He shewed forth |181 God to man, through mighty acts and wonderful works. In the divine Power and in true Wisdom, He scattered His doctrine (as seed); and taught these things, with others allied to them. Nor became He inferior, from what He did: nor, (as so) doing, became He the less dignified from what He taught and delivered.--The doctrines of life and words of light, He laid not down in any book of paper, nor in the perishing skins of animals; but He inscribed on the very souls of His disciples, as upon intellectual tablets, the doctrines respecting the kingdom of God. In the whole of His instructions on heavenly things, hidden enouncements, and which had never before been heard, were delivered. It was also by means of these things, that He taught that the souls which were on the earth, were beloved of God; delivered the memorial of the life that is with God the Father, in heaven; and also, stirred (men) up to cry in prayer and to say, "Our Father who art in heaven," and, that they should be cognizant of their family which is above. If then, thou art desirous of being a partaker in the contemplation of these things, there is no feeling of jealousy hindering thy approach to the hearing of the Scriptures of His Disciples, and to the knowing of His record in all its parts, both as to His deeds and words; so that thou mayest in truth, view God, and THE WORD OF GOD; and see, how He existed by means of an Interpreter with men, in the example of (His) sufferings; how He, who was immortal, conversed with mortals; how the Image (of God), which is incorporeal, became vested with the nature which is human: and, how the Image of God, which was in Him, moved (Him): how He sent forth enouncements, and made public the Divine teaching; and (how) the Saviour of all, healed every sort of disease and infirmity: and, how ready He was, in whom there was no sin, to good works; and, how those things which eyes had |182 not seen, and which had not entered into the hearing of men, He delivered in mighty deeds; and thus made His Disciples to approach the very summit of excellency with God; made them wise through the power which cannot be described, and constituted them true preachers of His Godhead. Thus again He healed those, whose souls were corrupted by every sort of sin; at one time, inflicting the sufferings (which were) helpful and right⁵⁵; at another, delivering a view of the mystery and doctrine of His Godhead to those who were able to receive it. And, What need is there we should say, how easily and well, and with (what) just rebuke, He received those who were enemies to the truth: at once healing and instructing even these, by the open enouncement of His words? and, how meekly he presented His person to all as a helper, and as long suffering and passive? as a Physician also, not of souls only, but also of bodies? On this account, the name of JESUS was previously imposed on our Saviour⁵⁶;--which is a Hebrew word, designating JESUS as the Physician⁵⁷ of all. Now, the (propriety of the) imposition of the name designating healing on Jesus, He evinced by the works (which He did); for He instructed the souls of men by the Heavenly doctrine, while he healed the Body of all sufferings, pains, and infirmities, by the power of the healing WORD. At one time, He cleansed the leprous in body⁵⁸: at another, He cast out by (His) command the Demons that (possessed) men⁵⁹: and, again at another, He freely healed those who had been reduced by disease! At one time also, to him-- whose body was debilitated, and all his limbs powerless,-- |183 He said by word only, "Arise, take up thy bed, and walk⁶⁰;" and this (man) did what He commanded! And again at another time, He gave the perception of light to the Blind⁶¹! And thus again, at another, a woman⁶²,--who had been afflicted with an issue of blood, and had during the revolution of many years been reduced by her complaint, seeing that great companies were round about Him, and not allowing her to kneel and pray that she might be healed of her complaint,--thought, that if she could but touch the border of His garment, (she should be healed); she accordingly pressed in, and touched the border of his garment; and at once, she was both healed of the evil, and immediately became healthy; bearing (away with her) a mighty proof of the power of THE WORD OF GOD! Another man⁶³ also, the servant of a king,--because his child was grievously afflicted,--fell down before Him, and He forthwith took and healed him! There was another again, the chief of a synagogue⁶⁴ of the Jews, whose daughter (He restored); but this was after she was dead! And, What need can there be, that we should tell how another arose⁶⁵ by the power of the Saviour of all, who had been dead four days, hearing only the voice of the all life-giving WORD which called him? Or, how He made His paths upon the sea as upon dry land, causing His Vessel to traverse the back of the waters⁶⁶? Or, how⁶⁷ when His Disciples were sailing and the storm was against them, He rebuked the sea, the storm, and the winds;--gave the commandment by word; and they were instantly silent, so that they were wrought upon, as by the voice of their Lord? (How) He so filled⁶⁸ and satisfied five thousand men,--when there was with them a company of many women and children,--with five loaves, that they took up an entire remainder which would suffice to fill twelve baskets! To Whom is not this astonishing? and Does it (not) likewise challenge the inquiry which relates to his unseen power? |184

41. Let any one therefore who will, take up the true faith, together with the open proof of the revelation of our Saviour's Divinity, from many other great miracles; and particularly from this,--if he will also consider,--that He foreknew by the divine power what should come to pass, and openly foretold the great change to His better (doctrine) which should take place among men throughout the world; and also predicted, that He himself would be the doer of this: and from these very deeds, let such place faith in (this) His promise. Many other great and evident proofs of His Godhead moreover, (afforded) in many things similar to these, will any one, carefully enquiring, find from His predictions with their fulfilment: which we ourselves shall also examine in this work at the proper time. But, that which we now have before our eyes,--that our discourse may not lengthen itself greatly out, so as to detain thee upon all His mighty works--is the death, which (His) Interpreter,--the clothing of THE WORD OF GOD, and the Image that was openly revealed,--underwent, and which (event) every one acknowledges.

42. This His death therefore, which has been made public, was (so) accompanied by the miracle, that it was unlike that of the rest of mankind. For it was not, that He perished by disease, by strangulation, or by fire; or was, even on the cross itself, cut off by the sword, as a mark of victory, in the manner of others who are evil-doers; nor yet, did he suffer less than any one of those whom they usually put to death; for He suffered a death of violence: but He himself alone, by his own will, delivered up His Vessel to those (his) accusers; and forthwith He raised Himself from the earth;--

43. For said (the Evangelist,) "He cried out greatly, and gave up His Spirit to His Father⁶⁹: and (so) effected a release from His soul, and made His departure from the body. On this account, He had previously delivered this same His death to his disciples, when teaching (them) and saying; "No man taketh my life from me;" and, "I have power to lay it down:" and again, "I have power |185 to take it up⁷⁰: and again, "I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me; and I lay down my life for my sheep⁷¹." The cause of His death too, He establishes in a few words, when saying, that, "Unless the grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it remaineth alone; but, if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit⁷²."

44. Having then, delivered representations of this sort respecting His own death, He effected the release from his soul, and made (His) departure from the body. After this, His body was taken up by his acquaintances, and was consigned to (its) due interment. Again on the third day, He resumed that (being) from which He had before, by the exertion of His own will, departed. And again, He shewed to his Disciples the selfsame person, both in body and substance, just as it formerly was:-- to them (I say) with whom He conversed a little, and with whom He remained a short time. He was then taken up whither He was before: and, before their eyes, did He make his departure and ascension to heaven, in order that they, to whom He had delivered (His) pledge as to deeds, might be made the Teachers of the fear of God who is above, to all nations.

45. Now⁷³, What can be wanting after these things, except that we should state the cause of THIS, which was the chief of all? I (now) speak of the close of His life, which has been spoken of by all; of the manner of His passion, and of the great miracle of His resurrection after |186 death. After viewing these things then, let us now come again to our proofs; and let us confirm these same by open testimonies. He availed Himself therefore, of a mortal Vessel,--for the reasons already given,--as of an Image becoming the Deity; and this He both put forth into life, and by means of this, as some great king by means of an interpreter, He performed every thing that was worthy of the Divine Power.

46. For, if He had done otherwise,--after His dealings among men,--so as not to have been seen, and had suddenly taken flight, and secretly stolen away His Interpreter; or had, in escaping, been careful to convey away His Image from death; or again, had led on that mortal (being) by means of His person, to corruption and perishing; He would have seemed to the many (but) as a spectre.

47. Nor could He have done any thing, which it was right He should do, as being the LIFE, the WORD and the POWER of God; having given up His Interpreter to corruption and ruin.

48. Nor, could those things which He did against the Demons, (or) in His contention with death, have been worthy of completion.

49. Nor could it have been known, where He remained.

50. Nor could it have been believed by those, to whom He had not delivered (it);--nor had it been seen,--that His nature was superior to death.

51. Nor, could He have delivered mortality from its own (mortal) nature.

52. Nor, could He have persuaded His disciples to despise death. |187

53. Nor, could He have established a hope of the life that is with God after death, with those who drew near for (the reception of) His doctrine.

54. Nor, could He have fulfilled the promises of His own words; nor have given to the prophecies, which went before respecting Him, a due fulfilment.

55. Nor⁷⁴, could He have overcome in the last conflict of all, which was opposed to the death that exists in all these things. For it was above all things right, that this mortal vessel should, after it had completed the service which it rendered to THE WORD OF GOD, obtain to itself an end worthy of God, (and that this) be through this same ordinance of death. For, there were two things resting upon (this) consummation; (viz.) either, that He should deliver up (His vessel) to entire corruption and destruction, and (so) make His whole conflict, and egress from this world, matter of shame; or, that He should afford proof, that this same was superior to death; and (so), by the divine power, make immortal that which was mortal. The first however, was incompatible with the promise. For, it is not the property of fire, to be cold; nor, of light, that it be dark: neither is it of life, that it should die; nor, of THE WORD OF GoD, that He should act with impropriety. For, What cause could He have, who promised life to others, for being unmindful of His own vessel when subject to corruption:--for delivering up His Image to destruction, and for surrendering the Interpreter of His own Godhead, to the corruption of death?--for Him to do so, who had |188 previously promised to those, who should take refuge in Him, the life which is impervious death? This (one) then, of two things was necessary:--this, I say, that He should shew him (His Interpreter) to be superior to death. And, How was it, that it was necessary He should do this? Secretly, and by stealth? or, openly before all men, and manifestly? But, if this fact had taken place covertly and secretly; it would then have remained unknown, and unprofitable to man. But, as it was preached (to all), and heard of by all; it afforded to all, the advantage which (grew) out of the miracle. Well therefore,--because it was necessary He should shew His vessel to be superior to death,-- did He also do this, not secretly, but before the eyes of (all) men. He escaped not from death; for this would have been pusillanimous, and it would have been thought that He was inferior to death. But, by this contention with Death as with a contemporary, He established the immortality of that which was mortal; and, this last conflict which was for the salvation of all, secured (for all) the life which is immortal. For this was done, in the first place, against the Demons, for the destruction of the error of a multitude of Gods, when He began to be known among men. It also appeared particularly necessary to Him, that, as He was to make His circuits among the flocks of men, He should immediately, (and) in the presence of all, drive out the enemies and haters of mankind,--as being the princes of wickedness, and like to cruel and fierce beasts, those (I say),--who had, from former times and falsely, been esteemed Gods. He therefore, |189 THE WORD OF GOD, immediately led out His Vessel into the land of these enemies and haters,--that (land I say), which the words of mystery style "The Desert" as (being) destitute of every good thing; and there "forty days, and as many nights⁷⁵," He wrought and performed those things of which no mortal knew, and which the eyes of man did not see. The testimonies however of prophecy teach, that to these things the declarations of the prophetical Scriptures agree, where it is written, that "Jesus was led of the Holy Ghost into the desert, that he might be tempted of Satan. And He was there forty days and forty nights⁷⁶, and was with the wild beasts⁷⁷." And, What are these but the |190 princes of the Demons, whom the Holy Ghost has said are,--and has named by way of figure,--"Serpents" "Adders" "Lions" and "Dragons" on account, of the similitude to the viciousness of each of these: (saying) "Thou shalt tread on the serpent and adder, and shalt trample on the lion and the dragon⁷⁸?" The other things also which were done in the desert, this declaration intimates, saying thus in the person of the Vessel which He bore, " His truth shall gird thee (as) a weapon: neither shalt thou be afraid of the fear of the night, nor of the arrow that flieth by day; nor of the thing that walketh in darkness: nor of the wind that bloweth at noon. Thousands shall fall at thy side, and tens of thousands at thy right hand: but they shall not touch thee⁷⁹."

56. These things have been said in parables and mystically, on the conflict which (took place) in the desert between the Vessel of salvation, and the invisible spirits. During all these nights therefore, and days in like number, He contended with the whole race (of Demons) that was beneath the air. Nor was it tardily that THE WORD OF GOD drove these out, nor, that He pursued the whole congregation of the enemy; nor, that (He did this) as God in his abstract and unembodied power, but, by means of the body which He took. Because the whole race of man had, from ancient times, been subjected to these as to Gods: on this account therefore, principally, He subjected all the families of the Demons to this (His Vessel). For it was right, that He should make him who had been conquered, and iniquitously subdued to his enemies, not only (man's) Deliverer, but also the Conqueror of his enemies; and that He (THE WORD) should shew, |191 that His Friend, whom He had made in His own Image and similitude, was, on account of his participation in THE WORD, superior to the Demons who were formerly thought to be Gods; just as it is written in the words of mystery⁸⁰ (the Scriptures).

57. Because then, the Saviour of us all had completed the conflict which was opposed to these (spirits), He went up thence, clothed (as it were) with victory, entered upon the life common to men, and delivered their souls: having relieved them from the bonds of the Demons: and, having revealed to His Disciples those other secret things,--as well as these which he performed in opposition to the enemies that are unseen,--He thus spoke, and He established (it), "Be of good courage, I have overcome the world⁸¹." The manner too of His victory, He taught by those things which He said to His Disciples in parables (viz.): "No man can enter the house of a strong man and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the. strong man; and then he shall spoil his house⁸²." He therefore bound the strong man, and drove out the whole race of Demons. And forthwith, He (so) wrought on the souls of those who were His, that He freed them from the bitter state, slavery, and errror, of a multiplicity of Gods. This His first conflict however against the Demons, was completed at the outset of His manifestation among men. But the last (His crucifixion), was the commencement of His sovereignty over Death. |192 For it was right that He,--who was superior to (that which was) no God, and to the error of Demons, and, had been attached to GOD THE WORD,--should receive the honour compatible with this His deed (viz.) the victory over Death. For the Demons, which had assembled together against Him, with their Head, and with the spirits residing above the earth in the air, (and) invisible to mortal eyes, turned their backs (in flight) in His first conflict (with them); directing their view to the second, and waiting for His last egress, and departure by death, from the world, which they expected would be like that of other men. For, they had no notion that the mortal nature could ever exist, which should be superior to death; or, that Death was (not) the common king of all those, who had once experienced the birth of mortals. They thought too, that this was, of all evils, that which no man could either avoid, or evade. But, immediately after the signal mark of His first victory over the Demons, He engaged also in conflict with Death. And⁸³, just as one wishing to shew that some vessel was incombustible and its nature superior to fire, could in no other way establish this astonishing fact, except by placing the one which he held in his hand in the fire, and then taking it out of the fire, safe and sound; so also THE WORD OF GOD, the life-giver of all, willing to make it known that the mortal Vessel, of which He had availed Himself for the redemption of man, was superior to death, and, to shew that He made it to participate in His own life, conducted the matter both well and virtuously as it was most convenient. He left the body for a short time, and consigned mortality to death, for the rebuking of its (sinful) nature; and again, |193 He soon raised up the same from death, for the purpose of proving that the Divine power, which was by Him,-- that eternal life, (I say) which was preached by Him,-- was superior to every kind of death.

58. This⁸⁴ therefore was the first cause. The second was, to shew that the Divine power resided in the human body. Because men had formerly made gods for themselves of those who were men mortal in reality, had been overcome by death, (and) in whom the last common extremity had been witnessed; and had named those heroes and gods, who had been taken away by death; on this account therefore, He happily shewed Himself; and for this cause, the same compassionate WORD OF GOD exhibited to men, the nature which was superior to death, and brought in mortality--after its dissolution--to a second life. He also afforded to all, the means of viewing the signal victory of life immortal over mortality; and taught (them) by (His) death to confess Him alone to be the God of truth, who had (so) bound the crown⁸⁵ of victory over death, about His own head.

59. The third cause of (His) death was, the redemption that is (taught) in hidden (mystical) terms, which are these in effect: He was the sacrifice which was consigned to death, for the souls of the whole race (of man): the sacrifice (I say) which was slain for the whole flock of |194 mankind: the sacrifice turning (men) back from the error of Demons. The sacrifice therefore,--the great offering, and that which was superior to all (other) sacrifices,--was the Body of our Saviour which was sacrificed as a Lamb, for the whole race of mankind: and it came up for the souls of all the nations that had been held in the impiety of their forefathers, the error of the Demons. And thence, the whole impure and unholy power of Demons was destroyed; this whole vain and earthly system of error, was instantly dissolved and ruined by a superior power! He therefore who was, from among men, the sacrifice of Redemption,--the bodily Vessel of THE WORD OF GOD,-- was sacrificed for the flock of all mankind. And this is He, who was, by the accusation of men, delivered up as a sacrifice to death; of whom the Divine words exclaim, speaking at one time thus: "Behold! The Lamb of God: behold! He (it is) who taketh away the sins of the world⁸⁶." And at another, thus previously enouncing: "As a Lamb He was led to the slaughter; and, as a sheep before the shearer, He was silent⁸⁷." And the same (Divine word) teaches the cause, saying: " Truly He underwent our sufferings, and bore our pains; but we considered Him bruised and stricken of God, and humiliated. He was slain because of our sins, and was humbled because of our iniquity. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes are we healed. All we have strayed like sheep, and (each) man has turned to his part; and the Lord has made to meet in him the sins of us all⁸⁸." This bodily vessel therefore of THE WORD |195 OF GOD, was, for these reasons, sacrificed. But He, the great High Priest who officiates as Priest to God, the King of all, and Lord of all, is another distinct from the sacrifice, (viz.) THE WORD OF GOD, THE POWER OF GOD, and THE WISDOM OF GOD: He too, after no long time, raised mortality from death, making him (so raised) by participation, the beginning of the redemption of us all, and of that immortal life which is with God. Him too, (thus) vested with the mark of victory over death, and the deeds of the Demons; of those human sacrifices which had been delivered down from ancient times, did He constitute the Destroyer, for the sake of all mankind. Hence also was the name of Messiah (Christ) given to Him; which, among the Hebrews, attaches⁸⁹ in like manner to the chief priest. He therefore received the two names: the name of Jesus, implying the sacrifice of salvation; and that of High Priest, the WORD OF GOD, who officiates as Priest for us all:--the custom of the Hebrews intimating (this) of the Messiah (Christ.)

60. After the things which have been said, the latter was the great cause of (His) death, viz. the Redemption spoken of⁹⁰: because, it was necessary to the disciples that |196 they should see, with their own eyes, the life which was after death, He (thus) openly taught them to place their hope in this second birth. And, because He also encouraged them to be strong in the yoke of righteousness, He well delivered this, in order that they might, with their own eyes, see it. For it was necessary for these, who were about to be brought to the life of righteousness, that, first of all, they should receive this most necessary doctrine by means of open view; and much more, for those who were soon to preach it throughout the whole creation, and to cause the knowledge of God, (so) given by them, to arise (as the sun) in all nations, (and) among all men. It was necessary, that these men should receive the strongest persuasion of the life which is after death, so that they might accept fearlessly, and unmoved in their minds by death, the conflict against the error of many gods. For, if they had not been taught to despise death, neither would they have ever been prepared to approach afflictions. On this account, He the more particularly armed them against the power of death. Nor was it by precepts and words (only), that He delivered to them this doctrine: nor, in persuasive terms or similitudes, that He composed (his discourses) as men do, on the immortality of the soul; but He shewed them in the deed itself, the signal mark of the victory (obtained) over death.

61. For death had been, from ancient times, fearful to all men as the destroyer of our mortal race; its power being considered the undoing of the whole nature of man, both soul and body. Nor was there ever a man, who could relieve human nature from this fearful being. All were pierced, |197 (as it were,) small and great, Princes and Subjects, Kings at once and People, as well as the Inhabitants and Societies of all nations and families, by the fear of death. Nor had mankind any solace for this evil, either in word, or form, or manner of life, opinion of the wise, writing of the Ancients, prophecy of the Prophets, or revelation of Angels. He was superior to all, supreme over all, and victorious over all! Death, like an inflated boaster,--who had subjected to himself the whole mortal race,--was conversant with every species of iniquity, both the impurities of blood-shedding, and the deeds which were unrighteous; with the error also of every sort of vile (and) ungodly impiety. For, of all these things he was the Cause; and, as if there were again no existence after death, the many did in their conduct the things which deserved death, and as if unsubdued by (the fear of) any impending punishment. On account of this dissoluteness (resulting) from death, they lived a life which (in reality) was no life: they entertained not God in their thoughts, nor the righteous judgment of God: nor did they cherish the remembrance of the rational Essence of their own souls. They were conversant (only) with the one hard Ruler, Death; and were reconciled to the corruption resulting from this, which was the undoing of their whole soul. On this account it was, that they gave the name of Pluto⁹¹,-- the god of riches,--to Death: and Death became their god! And not he alone, but also those precious things which were in his presence, and contributed to a life of lust, became their Gods! The very lust of the body therefore, became to them a God! the common aliments, a God! the seed which fell into the earth, a God! the pleasant blossoms of this, a God! the flowers of the apples, a God! the pleasure that was in drunkenness, a God! the love of the body, a God! and the very lust of these things! Hence, the mysteries of Demeter and of Proserpine: as also the rape of the Maid⁹² to Hell; and again, her return. Hence the feasts of Dionysus (Bacchus)--and of Hercules--who was overcome as by some great god by drunkenness! Hence the mysteries of the adultery of Mars and Venus! Hence the |198 madness of Jupiter after women, and his love of Ganymede! the rambling stories about Gods lovers of lust, and attached to the vilest affections! And of all these, was Death the (originating) Cause: for they believed Death to be the end and conclusion of all, the dissolution and corruption both of bodies and souls; and that there was no other life, except this of the body, and which is corporeal:--living a life worse than that of the whole irrational nature of beasts! On these accounts, it became the desire of the universal King, THE WORD OF GOD, at the intimation of His merciful Father, and for the purpose of affording help to these, to hasten,--as a king great in mercy,--and to undertake the reprehension of Death, by means of human nature; being as He was, THE LIFE, THE WORD, and THE POWER. OF GOD. Nor was it but that help should be obtained, that He caused that fearful being among men to be reproved: on this account, He, who was incorporeal,--availing Himself of human armoury, and of a mortal body,--by means of mortality overcame mortality. Hence His primary mystery, that of His Body, was instituted; and hence, the signal mark of the victory of the Cross; hence too, the commemoration of the life which is eternal and imniortal, He named His remembrance. Of the armoury which is mortal, He availed Himself, and exhibited that greatest of miracles to all men, the mark of victory of eternal life, which He established in opposition to Death. For, He gave up mortality to be food for the beasts⁹³; and He himself was forthwith affixed to the cross of crucifixion, in order that to all might become known the nature of mortality. Nor was that which was done concealed by any means; neither from men, |199 nor from Demons, nor from the Powers which are superior. For it was necessary, that all should take an accurate view of mortality, as in a great theatre⁹⁴, when He (thus) testified of the nature of His (human) person; and afterwards (see) Death coming in like a fierce beast: and (also see), why it was that it slew Him: and (that) then, the Power of life came in after Death, and again established for all the victory which is over Death, when he had thus made that which was mortal, immortal. The Power therefore, which had taken hold of him, (viz.) THE WORD OF GOD, left the Body for a short time; and it was suspended for a short space on the Cross, and became a corpse. But the WORD, which gives life to all, became not a corpse. He therefore (thus) attested the mortal nature of his Person. This corpse too, of which Death had (so) taken possession, was now borne by men; and--being worthy of the usual care--was afterwards consigned, according to the laws of men, to burial. The grave itself was a cave which had recently been hewn out; a cave that had now been cut out in a rock, and which had experienced (the reception of) no other body. For it was necessary that it, which was itself a wonder, should have the care of that Corpse only. For it is astonishing to see even this rock, standing out erect and alone in a level land, and having only one cavern within it; lest, had there been many, the miracle of Him who overcame Death should have been obscured. The Corpse was therefore laid there, the Vessel of the living WORD; and a great stone held (the entrance of) the cave. And much did Death exult in this, as if, behold! he had (now) taken even this (Personage) under his power, together with those whom he had ever (so taken). But, when the period of three days had not yet passed, the same life shewed itself, after the rebuke which was sufficient against Death⁹⁵. For, if He had |200 risen earlier (and) immediately, He would not then have been believed to have been dead. But, since He was (thus) in reality raised, He had also in reality died; and had, for a time, been in reality subject to Death; then also did the all-life-giving WORD OF GOD evince the hope that is laid up for all men, by means of the second birth of this selfsame mortal (body)!

62. What things then came to pass after these, as to their being (actually) performed, it is not my intention henceforward to be thy teacher. Those who saw them will be the witnesses best fitted for the truth (in this respect); those (I say) who, from having seen the acts themselves, did, both by their blood and persons, attest their faith in Him; and who, by the power of Him, to whom they gave their testimony, filled the whole creation with the righteousness which was preached by them. Those therefore, who were spectators of the things then done, and who saw with their own eyes the Second Birth which became theirs ⁹⁶, have delivered (this) by their own testimonies. It was not indeed, that the things done had been heard of by them, as far as word or enunciation (went); but, they had been seen, and accurately felt by those who testified respecting them: and on this account, these same, who had by open vision and in reality apprehended (these things), and had received the signal mark of victory over Death, learned well to be daring against Death; and taught this same thing to their Disciples, (viz.) that they had received from their Saviour, the truth pertaining to life immortal. And thus also, was the whole mortal race thence refreshed (as freed) from the fear of Death: because he, who had formerly been terrific, had suffered rebuke in the presence of all; and the life which was after death, bad (now) received certain credibility; not from the artificial enouncements of Sophists, nor from the discovery of persuasive words; but, by the deeds which came forth to light. Nor again, did (men) as formerly tremble at death, but they laughed much and greatly in the hour of this fearful being; so much so |201 that they even followd after death, on account of (their) desire of that immortal life, which should succeed it.

63. Hence indeed, originated the care of mankind for the life which is holy and pure, and the diligence to attain to every (sort of) excellency: the (constant) recollection of God, and of the many enouncements respecting the righteousness of truth, and of the turning away from vice and ungodliness. Nor was it this only, but also the true notion of the life which is after death, was stirred up among all men, and (so was) the right and true state of mind, respecting the righteous judgment of God, the King of all. On this account did the whole race of man,--which had (now) been changed to a state of virtue by means of enouncements not to be described,--henceforward spit in the faces of the Idols, trample under foot the unjust laws of the Demons, and laugh at the ancient traditionary system of error of their forefathers.

64. Henceforward therefore, men became so instructed in the heavenly doctrine, and the enouncements respecting the knowledge of God, that they no more reverentially viewed this visible creation with the bodily eyes; nor, when looking upwards and seeing the Sun, Moon, and Stars, did they address their veneration to them: but they acknowledged Him who is beyond these;--Him who is secret and invisible,--Him who is the Creator of all, and the Maker of every thing: even as they had been taught to fear Him alone.

65. Nor did he, who had been instructed in the new doctrine, again imagine as formerly, that this nature of the body, which is fleeting and corruptible, inanimate (in itself,) and irrational;--nor, that the primitive elements, Earth, Water, Air, and Fire,--were Gods; since he had also been taught, that the superiority of his own soul greatly excelled these.

66. Nor is he as formerly, a slave to his own lusts; nor is he overcome by the baser desires: for he was then vanquished, and could not overcome: (nor⁹⁷) can he, who has |202 been commanded to be careful to root up the sin (of idolatry) from his mind and soul, together with every evil desire and folly, again fabricate Gods to himself, or, even dare to look upon a woman lustfully.

67. Nor will he again as formerly, venerate the Interpreter ⁹⁸ of his own soul, or dare to call it a God: nor will he name his own mind Minerva⁹⁹; nor indeed, any of those other things, which are in like manner but for an hour; but Him alone who is beyond all, the WORD OF GOD, the Artificer of all, the WISDOM OF THE GOD OF ALL, will he recognize and bless, as his Saviour.

68. Nor again as in former times, does he,--who has subscribed to the one who alone is superior to Death; to the Conqueror, who has possessed himself of the signal mark of Victory over the power of Death; to his Saviour; --give the names and appellations of Heroes and Gods, to mortals who left this world in shame, and surrendered their lives to the dominion of Death.

69. Nor again as in former times, will he revere inanimate Idols. Nor will he honour the nature which is irrational, and of Beasts, through that fear of Demons which is out of nature. But, he will laugh at the error of his forefathers, and will turn his face from their manner (of life), which was destitute both of the knowledge of God, and of the contemplation (of this).

70. Nor will he again as in former times, express terror at the images of evil Demons, nor at the vain and erroneous phantasms of earthly spirits:--he (I say) who |203 is constrained by the prevailing power of THE ONE WORD the King of all, has been taught to undo through Him, the whole race of the accusers of men, and (so) to abolish and expel, both from souls and bodies, these (causes of) injuries.

71. Nor will he as formerly, again pollute himself with libations, fumes, blood, and sacrifices; nor yet with the sacrifices of irrational animals: much less will he delight himself with the slaughter of men, and with human sacrifices. He has been taught, that God stands in need of nothing.--Nor will he delight in bodily matter, nor in the fumes of earthly sacrifices; but only in the enlightened mind, in purity of soul, and in holiness of life; in the sacrifices also which are without smoke and blood: those which are in the words of the mysteries: those (I say) which the Saviour of all has appointed to be delivered throughout the whole creation of man, for a remembrance of Himself¹⁰⁰. |204

72. Nor again will he, who has been taught by the words of his Saviour, to "mortify his members that are on the earth¹⁰¹" dare, as formerly, to give the title of gods to the aliments of the body, and to drunkenness; nor yet to the lusts and passions.

73. Nor again will he,--who has subscribed to the only One who is above all, the life-giving WORD OF God, who is his Saviour, and the Conqueror of Death,--be afraid of the solution of his soul, from the body which (now) accompanies it. Nor will he call Death, God.

74. With all these instructions of righteousness therefore, will he be armed who has been taught in the new doctrine. Nor will he, in opposition to the truth, give in |205 to those who dare to contend with God; but will stand up, in the mind (so) confirmed, against fire and sword; will bear up in the presence of fierce beasts, of the depths of the sea, and of every other terror of death. Those too, who in their natures are (mere) children and women, will sport with that death which was formerly (so) grievous, and the hearing about which was (so) dreadful. Barbarians at once and Greeks, who have received the powerful persuasion respecting the life which is immortal, by means of the resurrection of our Saviour, do follow after the life of that better wisdom, the fear of God, the signal mark of their victory over death, and of the eternal life which follows, having subscribed to their Saviour.

75. ¹⁰² Hence it is, that this rational race of man,-- since it has been its lot to reside on the earth,--this same (I say) acts henceforth according to its nature; being taught to live in the remembrance of God, in the fulness of every good, and in accordance with the prediction of the prophets, who, many years ago (inspired) from above, thus previously preached: "All the ends of the earth shall remember themselves, and be turned to the Lord their God; and before Him shall worship all the families of the nations: because the kingdom is the Lord's, and He is Governour over the Gentiles¹⁰³."

76. Hence, places of instruction have been established throughout the whole creation of man; so that the words of God, the doctrine of purity of life and of the fear of God, are preached in the hearing of all nations.

77. Hence, in every city and place, congregations (assembled) from among all, ascribe, in songs of victory, honour to the all-life-giving WORD of God.

78. Hence, the hymns which are suitable to the assemblies of Angels in heaven, even the race of mankind tenders to God the King of all. And henceforth,--together |206 with those spirits, the intelligent and unembodied powers that are with God who is above all; those also, whose lot it is to reside below on this element of earth, as also the rational souls of the just,--do, by means of the body, as by an instrument of music, send forth the hymns which are becoming, and the blessings which are due, to their one Saviour, the cause of every good. And that, which never (before) existed, the fruit which is due to God the universal King, is now daily rendered (to Him) throughout the whole creation of man, by every race as by one general agreement, and at the same befitting hours and seasons¹⁰⁴.

79. Those genealogies of the Demons, and stories about the Gods, which are now superannuated, perished when (so) consigned to oblivion. But, the word of Christ is renewed, and in (vigorous) youth with all. Now are the Divine Laws and Lessons preached throughout the whole earth, and they succeed in purifying all men. The instruction too, of the fear of God in truth, has filled all places, both of the Barbarians and the Greeks. Now do those of foreign, as well as those of many, languages, send forth in one manner of life, and with one consent, the ascriptions of blessing which are becoming, to the Creator of all:--one enouncement, the same Law, and one mystery¹⁰⁵, suitable to God: and to this same conduct do they adhere. Now has there been established, throughout the whole creation, one combination of souls, and one accordance of doctrine. And hence, at one moment of time do those whose lot it is to reside together in the east, along with those at the setting of the Sun, glorify, by means of the same doctrines, the One God who is beyond all, the Lord of the whole world. Nor do they subscribe to any other, except only to the Christ of God, who is the cause of their happiness. Those also, who have possession of the northern parts, together with those who are in the south, at once call Him THE SAVIOUR. And, so do they honour God in the same (forms of) words, that no difference will |207 again soon be made--although it might be imagined as to speech,--between the Barbarian and the Greek¹⁰⁶; nor, that the Greek be a person to be distinguished from the Barbarian; for with God "there is neither Barbarian nor Greek¹⁰⁷." For every one fearing God, is (here) a wise man. And now Egyptians, Syrians, Scythians, Italians, Moors¹⁰⁸, Persians, and Hindoos, all and at once, have be-become wise by the doctrines of Christ. In these things too are they all, at once made wise, and (so) instructed, as to be intrepid against Death; to despise the things of this life, and to put forth the one good hope, which is in the promise of the word of our Saviour. But they also learn, that they shall receive that life of the soul which is immortal, and which has henceforth been promised to them as a deposit, in the habitation of the circle of the heavens, and in the kingdom of God. This promise, their Saviour confirmed by deeds in His conflict with Death; by which He proved to his Disciples, that Death which had (hitherto) been so fearful to all men, was nothing. The life moreover, which had been promised by Him, He established by open view to their very eyes; so that they should even see it; and made this His Image (body), by its resurrection, the commencement of our hope,--of the imperishable life of our bodies, of the soul as being immortal, and of our greatness as like to that of the Angels.

80. The deeds therefore, pertaining to Redemption and affording aid to the world, as to the Revelation of THE WORD OF GOD among men, are these. If however, any one require a greater abundance, so as to be supplied with many other proofs of the Divine power (in this respect), personal leisure will be requisite, for the examination of the things which have been written respecting Him. Of these I will select a few from the writings |208 of His Disciples,--which he previously preached as predicting the things which should be done by Him,--in proof of his Godhead: and will so lay before those, who do not acknowledge the conclusiveness of my former statements, this as the last (and greatest).

The End of the Third Book (of Eusebius) of Caesarea.

[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac and large chunks of Greek have been omitted]

1. ¹ See also Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 10. seq. recurred to again, Book v. par. 52.

2. ² Alluding to what had been said above, about the successors of Alexander, Book ii. sect. 77. Matter nearly allied to that in this paragraph, will be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 178. seq. also, in the Demonstratio Bvangelica, Lib. HI. near the end, and above, Book ii. sect. 66.

3. ³ Alluding to the judgments, &c. spoken of above. Book ii. par. 80.

4. ⁴ Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 178. D.

5. ³ Ps.. Lxxiii. 8, according to the Peschito.

6. ⁴ Ib. ver. 7.

7. ⁵ Both these places are cited by Origen, Philocalia, cap. i. p. 4. Edit. Spencer.

8. ⁶ Is. ii. 4. according to the Peschito, [...]. A large number of predictions to this effect will be found collected in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. capp. i. ii.—I will remark here, that, from the manner in which sentiments, similar to those occurring in this work, are given elsewhere by our author, this was probably his first production.

9. ⁷ So Lactantius, who was contemporary with our author: " Atqui impleta esse implerique quotidie illorum" (Prophetarum sc.) " vaticinia videmus." De falsa religione, Lib. i. cap. iv.

10. ⁸ Matt. xxviii. 19.

11. ⁹ Ib. xxiv. 14.

12. ² Alluding to what was said above. Book ii. par. 81.

13. ¹ So Clemens Alexandrinus, as cited, Prep. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. iii. [Greek] See the notes here to Viger's Edition, p. 3. See also Theodoret (Graec. affect. curat. Serm. x. p. 623. Tom. iv.), who goes much more at length into this subject, and mentions a greater number of these Oracles. Ib. p. 624, he cites a passage from Plutarch (De defectu Oraculorum) which affirms that Demons, ministers of the Gods, not the Gods themselves, presided in these places; but disallows the bold assertion of Empedocles, that they were evil and injurious to men. See the rest of this Tract. See also Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i.

14. ² See Prep. Evang. Lib. v. i. p. 180. A. where similar matter will be found.

15. ³ Alluding evidently to Is. ii. 18—22.

16. ⁴ Prep. Evang. Lib. v. i. p. 170. C...[Greek] The Syriac speaks here much stronger on the divinity of our Lord. His words are, [Syriac], which is rendered sufficiently literal above. These Demons were considered as constituting various classes among the Greeks: the first residing in the Stars: the second consisting of those who had benefited mankind by their labours, and were termed Heroes, as Hercules, the Tyndarides, Bacchus, &c.; the third consisted of those fabulous beings which had, under the garb of philosophy, been deified by the Poets. The fourth contained, Venus, Mercury, &c. The fifth contained those said to be famous for art, as Vulcan, Mars, &c. To these they added a sixth and seventh, who took at one time the forms of Gods, at another, those of Ghosts (manium). These all again, were divided into two classes, the one consisting of good, the other of evil Demons. Prep. Evang. Lib. v. in. p. 182. seq. It is added, from the authority of Plutarch that, from this last sort, all the Grecian oracles were given out. See also, ib. Lib. iii. cap. v. p. 141. Of all these,—according to our author, Demonst. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. viii. p. 157. IX seq.—Satan is the chief head and prince: and the rest generally fallen spirits.

17. ⁵ Matth. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34. Our passage, however, agrees with neither of the places exactly. It was most likely, quoted by memory only. See also Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 179. D. Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 103. D.

18. ⁶ Ib. Prep. Evang. Lib. v. i. p. 180. A. The whole subject of Demonology is discussed at great length in the Prep. Evang. to which I must refer the reader, as he will there find almost every thing necessary to be known on this subject, given from the best authorities among the Greeks themselves.

19. ¹ Syr. [Syriac]. This is also found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvii. p. 164. C. -- [Greek] See also ib. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 179. C. D. -- Ib. Porphyry is (p. 181.) cited, as bearing witness to this fact, thus: [Greek] Ib. p. 156. B, as taken from Porphyry's Second Book on Abstinence, cited from Pallas on the Mysteries of Mithra. The words of Pallas however, are, [Greek]. Whence Valesius argues, (notes to Laudd. Const, p. 258. D.) that Eusebius has rather overstated the matter; assuming that this had every where been done, when, at that very time human sacrifices were offered up at Rome.

20. ³ It is evident I think, from this mode of arguing, that Eusebius did mean to assert, the Divine and self-existing nature of Christ. See, too, the manner in which he argues against Plato, above. Book ii. par. 33, 34, seq. with the notes. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 545. A.

21. ¹ Ib. B.

22. ⁶ So also Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. i. p. 179. B.

23. ⁷ Syr. [Syriac] lit. He made worthy of the name of the House of Lordship. Gr. [Greek] Orat. de laudd. Constant, cap. xvii. p. 546. A. The above affords a curious instance of our Translator's attempt to be literal, as it does of the poverty of the Syriac language for discussions such as this.

24. ⁷ Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 540. D.

25. ⁹ Matt, xxiii. 38: Luke xiii. 35, [...]

26. ¹ Matth. xxiv. 2: Mark xiii. 2: Luke xxi. 6. differing in several respects from the Peschito: thus, [Syriac] Quoted, perhaps, in the first instance from memory: and, in the second, translated from the Greek so written. Several prophecies on the coming of our Lord, the labours of the Apostles, and the fall of Jerusalem, will be found in Origen's Philocalia, cap. i. Edit. Spencer, and more fully in the Demonstr. Evang. of our author.

27. ² Matt. xvi. 18. The latter member reads thus: Syr. [Syriac]. Differing from the Peschito in the term only. Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. p..547. A.

28. ³ There is another member here in the Greek. (Laudd. Const. ib. B.)

29. ⁴ Matt. x. 18: Mark xiii. 9: Luke xxi. 12. The passage however, does not appear to be a literal citation, but only a general mention of the thing in question. Laudd. Constant, p. 547. C.

30. ⁵ Ib. Laudd. Constant. D. where the Greek is more full.

31. ⁶ Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib.

32. ¹ Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. p. 548. C.

33. ³ Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. C.

34. ⁴ So the Greek. (Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. p. 548. D.) [...]

35. ⁵ [...] On the general observance of the seventh day (or Sunday). See also the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. xii. p. 667, from Aristobulus; and ib. cap. xiii. p. 677, from Clemens Alexandrinus. See also ray Sermon on the Sabbath, Edit. 2. London, 1834, Duncan. Whence it should seem, that this must have been the Patriarchal, and consequently the day of the primaeval, sabbath. (Gen. ii. 2, 3.) The sabbath of the Jews was a totally different thing. That was to recur yearly, after the day of preparation: i.e. on the 15th day of the month Abib. (Comp. Exod. xii. 6. with Mark xv. 42.) It could not have recurred, therefore every seventh day: that was impossible. The Jews do however, observe every seventh day. They have therefore, lost the sabbath of Moses entirely. While the Christians actually keep the primitive sabbath, with the additional sanctions of the Resurrection of our Lord, and of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. [...]

36. ⁶ Orat. de laudd. Const. ib. D.

37. ² Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 549. A.

38. ⁵ Orat. de laudd. Constant. p. 536. A. gives also the following matter.

39. ⁶ Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. B.

40. ¹ This adage, [Greek] will be found in the, "Adagiorum D. Erasmi...Epitome. Amst. 1649. p. 480. Syr. [Syriac] The Persians have a very neatly expressed adage to this effect, in these words; Which may thus be paraphrased,--

Kind to his kind with pleasure hies,

And hawk with hawk, pigeon with pigeon flies.

41. ² Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 536. C.

42. ³ This argument is given also in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 170. A. and ib. Lib. vii. cap. i. p. 314. C. D. as well as in the Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 530. D.

43. ⁴ Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 537. A. it. Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 168. D.

44. ² Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. B.

45. ³ [...] The Greek Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 537. B. does not verbally agree with our text.

46. ⁴ Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. it.

47. ⁵ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. xiii. p. 160. A.

48. ⁶ Orat. de laudd. Const. ib. C. it. Demonstr. Evang. ib. B. it. ib. cap. xiv. p. 170. D. it. ib. p. 165. B.

49. ⁷ Comp. John iii. 13; vi. 46: xiv. 10, 11. it. Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 537. D. it. Demonstr. Evang. ib. B. C. seq.

50. ⁸ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 169. D.

51. ¹⁰ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xiii. 109. D. it. 170. A. Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 538. A.

52. 1 Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 538. B. it. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 170. A. B.

53. ² The Greek text, (Laudd. Const, p. 538. C.) leaves us here, but joins us again, sect. 45, below.

54. ³ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xiii. p. 169. B. C.

55. ¹ Alluding to the chastisements mentioned above, as inflicted on the heathen.

56. ² Luke i. 31; ii. 21. Matt. i. 21. "For he SHALL SAVE his people," &c. plainly intimating, that the meaning of the Heb. [Hebrew], should be preserved in it.

57. ³ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. pp. 164, D. 165. A. [...]

58. ⁴ Matt. viii. 2, 3; xi. 5. Luke vii. 22; xvii. 22.

59. ⁵ Matt, ix,.32: xii. 22: xvii, 18, &c.

60. ⁶ Matt. ix. 6, &c.

61. ⁷ Ib. ver. 27; xi. 5; xx. 30, &c.

62. ⁸ Matt. ix. 20. seq. &c.

63. ⁹ Matt. viii. 5. Luke vii. I, 2.

64. ¹⁰ Mark v. 22.-35. seq. &c.

65. ¹¹ John xi. 1. seq.

66. ¹² Matt. xiv. 25. Mark vi. 48. John vi. 19.

67. ¹³ Matt. viii. 24. seq. Mark iv. 37. seq. &c.

68. ¹⁴ Matt. xiv. 19. seq. ib. xvi. 9, &c.

69. ¹ Matt, xxvii. 50, &c.

70. ² John x. 38.

71. ³ Ib. ver. 14, 15.

72. ⁴ Ib. xii. 24.

73. ⁷ Orat. de laudd. Constant. cap. xv. p. 538. C.

74. ⁹ Ib. Orat. de laudd. Constant. p. 539. A.B.

75. ⁵ The various methods had recourse to for the purpose of explaining this portion of scripture, may he seen in Kuinoel's commentary on Matt. iv. 1. Poole's Synopsis, ib. and on the parallel places. The comment given by Eusebius here is, certainly, a bold one. It is nevertheless, as I think, very much superior to that preferred by Kuinoel; viz. that the Devil here represents the high Priest of the Jews, who sent out his emissaries to Christ for the purpose of securing his influence, if possible, in favour of their policy. See the commentators on Matt. iv. with its parallel places. As I do not see any necessity here for departing from the simple and obvious declarations of the Evangelists, I will only remark, that our Lord seems to have been led to this, for the express purpose of being tempted, or tried, by Satan, [Greek] says St Matthew. Comp. Mark i. 13, Luke iv. 2. And, as Demoniacal influence is repeatedly and positively taught in the New Testament, I do not see why this should be doubted. It is certain moreover, that this Demoniacal influence was restrained by our Lord, and that these Demons knew Him. See Matt. viii. 28-32; xii. 22-29; xvii. 18-21. Mark i. 23-26, 34, &c. with their parallels. He also gave power to His disciples over these unclean spirits, Matt. x. 1. Luke ix. 1: and over all the power of the enemy, ib. x. 19. Ib. ver. 18, He speaks of Satan falling from heaven. Again, these spirits could not have been ignorant of the birth of Christ, as announced by the Angels and others, Luke ii. 9-15. ib. ver. 25. seq. comp. ib. xxi. 14-22. From all which it must appear, that these were real beings, at once intelligent and potent; and that our Lord actually restrained, and otherwise overcame, them. The temptation in the desert was therefore probably intended, among other things, to shew them that the Redeemer was now come, and that Jesus was that very person. Eusebius is therefore, in the main, right; although it does not appear necessary to have recourse to all the figures which he has introduced.

76. ⁶ Matt. iv. 2, with the omission of "fasted."

77. ⁷ Mark i. 13.

78. ¹ Ps. xci. 13, as in the Peschito. See also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. ix. p. 437. seq.

79. ² Ps. xci. ver. 4, seq. [...]

80. ³ See 1 Cor. xv. 21. " For, since by man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead:" comp. Rom. v. 15-20. Sec also Theodoret's Dialogue iii, entitled a0paqh&j, "impatibilis," (Deus sc.) Tom. iv. p. 116. seq. where (p. 134.) treating, of the assumed human nature, [...]

81. ⁴ John xvi. 33.

82. ⁵ Matt. xii. 29. Mark iii. 27.

83. ¹ The Greek of the Orat. de laudd. Constant. again joins us here, cap. xv. p. 539. D.

84. ⁴ Ib. p. 540. C.

85. ⁵ [...]. Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 540. D. 541. A.

86. ³ John i. 29, cited also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. cap. x. p. 37. A.

87. ⁴ Is. liii. 7.

88. ⁶ Ib. ver. 4-7. Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. B. C. Comp. Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 164.

89. ⁷ Syr. [Syriac] which, I think, must be an error, for [Syriac]. I have, therefore, translated it accordingly by attaches. In the Hebrew, the signification of Messiah, [Hebrew] anointed. The priests, kings, and others, were so styled, because consecrated to their offices by the anointing of oil, as our Lord was by an extraordinary portion of the Spirit. (See Is. LXI.). Christ in the Greek signifies the same thing. See also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xi. ib. xvi. p. 184.

90. ⁸ Our author seems, in this article, to have had strongly impressed on his mind the distinction made by the Apostle, when he speaks of Christ in his human character only; e. g. "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." 1 Cor. xv. 21. So ib. ver. 47. "The first man is of the earth...the second man is the Lord," &c. So 1 Tim. ii. 5. " The man Christ Jesus:"..."who gave himself a ransom," &c. Again, Heb. viii. 3; x. 12. "This man," speaking of Christ as a Priest, comp. ib. iii. 3; vii. 4, 24, &c. and of His Body, ib. x. 5, 10. The Apostle however, makes no such distinction in his names: nor was it necessary he should. This distinction in Eusebius is, nevertheless, valuable.--Orat. de laudd. Constant. ib. p. 541. C. where the Greek leaves us; but has the following matter, ib. p. 540. A. B. seq. See also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 164. D.

91. ³ [...]. See Book ii. sect. 4. seq.

92. ⁴ Book ii. sect. 15.

93. ² Allusion seems here to be made to P.s. lxxiv. 14, in which we are told, that God brake the heads of the Leviathan, and gave him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. (Gr. Ai0qi/oyi ), taking the Leviathan as representing the evil principle which had corrupted mortality. Comp. Is. xxvii. 1, and see my notes on Job xli. 1. Our author probably means, that He gave up His body to men, &c. who might be termed beasts, because of the fierceness of their nature. Comp. Ps. xxii. 12, 13, 16, 21.

94. ³ So Paul, Col. ii. 15. "And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (His cross).

95. ⁴ I. e. to prove that he really died. This was, no doubt, intended to have its force against the Docetae, who held that it was a phantom only of Christ which had been affixed to the cross, and appeared to die, (which the Mohammedans, after these, still hold)--and thus virtually denying a vital point in the faith of a Christian.

96. ¹ Syr. [Syriac] lit. which apprehended them: alluding perhaps, to Philip, iii. 12, where the text of the Peschito uses this word in the same way.

97. ³ I think it highly probable that the Syriac negative, [Syriac] has in this place been lost, by the mistake of some copyist.

98. ¹ Applying this term, as on several occasions, with reference to the human nature of Christ.

99. ² Syr. [Syriac], the Greek 0Aqh&nh, Minerva, alluding, no doubt, to the practices of the heathen, who made, both of the bodies and mental faculties of men, Gods. See Book 11. Par. 5, &c.

100. ⁶ As this place is extremely important on the question of the Eucharist, I shall give the Syriac, which runs thus: [Syriac]. Nothing can be more certain, I think, than that the bodily and bloody sacrifice of the Mass of the Romanists could not have been intended here. On the opinions of the Syrian Fathers respecting this mystery, sec my Visitation Sermon, (Cambridge, 1839,) with the notes. It is my intention, Deo volente, to publish a more detailed account of the opinions of the Syrian Fathers on this subject, as soon as I can; and for this, I have collected considerable materials. I will now give a sentence or two from the celebrated Bar Salibi, -- a great favourite with the Romanists, -- on John vi. 63. " It is the spirit that quickeeneth," &c. This Father says, [Syriac] i.e. It is necessary that the words said by me should be spiritually received, so that you may inherit eternal life. But, if you receive them bodily, you shall not be profited. For, bodily is, that a man doubt and say, How can He have descended from heaven, when we think him to be the son of Joseph? and, How can this man give his body?--Good Dr Wiseman however, the indefatigable propugner of the Roman Catholic doctrines, has no doubt, that the Jews were right in giving the interpretation which this Father reprobates! and also, that Bar Salibi was an upholder of his own opinions! (See my Sermon, pp. 89, 100, 135--6.) Eusebius himself has, moreover, given his view of the nature of the Eucharist, in his Demonstratio Evangelica, (Lib. i. x. 39. A.) in the following words: speaking of the XL. Psalm, he says, [Greek]. Much the same is said a little higher up (ib. p. 37.) on Is. liii. Again, (ib. p. 39,) he terms these sacrifices, [Greek] See the rest of this Book to the end, where he admirably shews, that it was this sort of sacrifice which was constantly foretold under the Old Testament. So also Origen contra Cels. Lib. viii. p. 416, [Greek] But the most remarkable passage to this effect occurs in Theodoret. Dialog. ii. "Inconfusus." Tom. iv. p. 85. B. [Greek] See my Visitation Sermon, notes, p. 155, and the opinions of the Syrian Fathers, ib. p. 136. seq.

101. ¹ Col. iii. 5. Differing slightly from the Peschito.

102. ² The Syriac is obscure here. I trust however, I have succeeded in giving its meaning.

103. ³ Ps. xxii. 27, 28. Differing from the Peschito only in the addition of [Syriac], their God. Cited also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. i. v. p. 40. Where our author has, and in the following Book, collected a very large number of Prophecies on the coming of our Lord.

104. ¹ That is, on the same stated days and at the same hours of prayer.

105. ² Syr. [Syriac], i.e. Sacrament of the Eucharist.

106. ³ Allied to this, Orat. de laudd. Constant. cap. i. near the beginning.

107. ⁴ Col. iii. 11.

108. ⁵ The Syr. has [Syriac]. One would expect rather to find Medians ([Syriac]) here. Still, the reading might be correct, as the Mau~roi were an ancient people inhabiting a part of Colchis. See Bochart, Phaleg. Lib. iv. cap. xxxi. p. 325.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 26th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_05book .htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Book 4

BOOK IV.

THE FOURTH BOOK OF (EUSEBIUS) OF CAESAREA.

1. IT is desirable then, that we should hear from the common Saviour of all himself, who, speaking with men after the manner of a good Parent, became as a child, and gave (his) answers, as the nature of mortals was able to hear, by means of the vessel which he assumed, as through an Interpreter. For, when he made his Divine manifestation among men, he gave many other proofs of the power of his Godhead, by means of deeds which any one who chooses may collect, from the Books (that have been written) about Him. Nor will that again, be a trifling conviction as to His truth, which takes its stand on the words which he uttered, and which it is necessary we should bring forward against those, who do not readily give credence to his astonishing Divine performances. Even in those other things which have been preached respecting Him,--which (consist) in the power of His words,--there is no small proof afforded to those who possess mind. For, as on many occasions, we know those whom we have never seen with our eyes, and whose words only we have heard; and distinguish the speaker by what we hear, whether he be Greek, --as the case may be,--or Roman, or even Egyptian; or, whether in age old, or young; or, whether the strain be that of man, or woman; or, the enunciation that of the wise and rational, or, on the contrary, of the foolish or ignorant; so also, although we might not have happened to see with our eyes those Divine acts which THE WORD OF GOD performed, when He made His conversation on earth; still, from the teaching of His words, the enunciation of which was foreign, and surpassing general apprehension;--also, from the foreknowledge of things to come to pass which he predicted;--and, from the things which he promised he would do in after times;--as well as from the issue of the things (so) predicted, the |210 fulfilment of which is now before our eyes, (and) brought about by his power;--there must result no mean proof, as to those (declarations) which bear testimony to His Godhead. For, the miracles which were performed by Him may he divided into (two) periods; that, in which the conversations He made on earth are commemorated, and that which succeeded, and extends to our times. Those great acts then, which he formerly did when he was with the men who happened to exist at that time, it was in their power openly to view; but to us, these were unseen; and they are laid down, (as) having been unseen. And thus again also, the things which have been fulfilled in our times,--in the order in which His words foretold them, and are even to this present witnessed by us in the very facts,--could not, to those of the times in which they were foretold, have yet been known as to their results; and they were, no doubt, considered by them, who believed not, as impossible. It is nevertheless likely that even then, those whose character was that of sound judgment,--although not witnessing the results of the predictions,--did still believe in them, on account of His other acts. For, Is it likely that they who saw with their eyes the evident powers of God, the miracles and astonishing acts and deeds which eclipsed all mortal nature, believed only the things which were then seen, but, (as) confirmed by these of his foreknowledge, did not (as) readily also believe those which were afterwards to come to pass?--So that again, it is right that we should, from those miracles which we ourselves have seen, also give our credence to the things which were then witnessed by his Disciples. For, the very things which were delivered in the hearing only of (our) predecessors, are (now) visible to our own eyes: and, they are sufficient for those whose judgment is incorrupt, as proofs setting a seal on the things which have been recorded. And these are the things which then existed not; nor had they yet been set up; nor had they so much as ever entered into the minds of men: but they were foretold by Him, from His divine foreknowledge of the future; and, in after times, they have been fulfilled, and are in (these) our times seen by us, even to this very day.--Of these, our means of knowledge are at hand. |211

2. A certain man, illustrious from (his) service to the rule and power of the Romans, was in a state of suspense, because his favourite boy¹ had become paralytic in his limbs, and was laid (up) in his house; who, when he saw that our Saviour shewed forth such powers upon others,--healing the sick, and curing every pain and infirmity,--he perceived in his own mind, that this miracle was not of man. He approached Him accordingly as God;--not looking to the vessel of the Body which was visible, and by means of which He carried on His discourses with men, but to that God who was unseen; to Him, who by means of a mortal being, made known these His excellent doings;--he fell down and worshipped Him, praying and striving² (with Him), that He would afford to him for his boy the aid which is from God. And, when our Saviour said to him, "I will come and heal him," the Chiliarch³ answered Him,--for he had been considered worthy of this rule among the Romans;--and said to him, " Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but, speak the word only, and the child shall be healed. For, I am a man in authority, and there are soldiers under my hands; and I say to this, Go; and he goeth: and, to another, Come; and he cometh: and, to my servant I say, Do such a thing: and he doeth it." Hear therefore what our Saviour did upon this request, not from me, but from the Writer himself,--teaching (us) thus--in the very words: "But, when Jesus heard it, He wondered, and said to those who |212 followed Him, Not even in Israel have I found such faith as this. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the East and from the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall go out into outer darkness." And, after these words, He thus spoke to the Chiliarch: "Go: as thou hast believed, shall it be unto thee. And his boy was healed from that hour." And, when the Chiliarch returned to his house, in that very hour he found his boy well.

3. With so much power therefore, did the word of our Saviour go forth, and shewed so much virtue, and so replete was it with power and with so much mercy, and with such ease were the good aids (it afforded given), that He readily promised He would come. And such indeed was the miracle which accompanied the act, that it is impossible to conceive of it as we ought. For this, that He said to the Chiliarch no more than, "As thou hast believed, so shall it be unto thee," and, with the word, gave health to his son, How effectually does it shew, that it was God who spoke in mortal voice! But, should any one be persuaded of this with difficulty, on account of the greatness of the miracle; still, such cannot fairly be excused as to His prediction, in which a powerful argument will be afforded in favour of the deed, if any one will consider that at this period, the Roman who drew near to our Saviour, was ONE (only), namely, the Chiliarch, who made a greater and better profession of Him, than (did the whole) Jewish people; and, that our Saviour prophesied that instead of ONE, those, who should like this man draw near to Him, should be MANY; and, that these should be of those residing in the East, and in the West⁴:--those (I say), who, by means of the |213 knowledge of Him, and of the confession (made) of Him, should be considered worthy of honour with God, equal to that of the Hebrew Fathers:--even of him who is preached of as being the Father of their Fathers, Abraham, who went forth from among his idolatrous forefathers, and changed his manner of life; and, leaving the error of many Gods, recognized the ONE GOD who is over all. He also foretold, that like to this (man), and to his sons Isaac and Jacob, there should be myriads of men throughout the whole creation; and particularly of those who resided both in the East, and the West. To these things He added,--and this (constitutes) the greatness of the prediction,--that these very Jews, the descendants of these Friends of God, who make their boast of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should, on account of their resistance to Him, and their want of belief in Him,--as if cut off from the light of knowledge,--go forth into outer darkness: and, because of their extreme ignorance and foolishness, (be consigned to) an entire disseverance from the light of salvation. Thus He predicted.--It is now right we should consider the fulfilment of these things, and receive from the testimony of our eyes how these very Jews, who boasted of their descent from the family of those called the Friends of God, have been cast out, not only from the kingdom of God, but also from their own metropolis, the most excellent place of rule, in which the law appointed that their noblest service should be performed! and (how) those who were formerly free, and the virtuous children of these Fathers, have become slaves; and, being mixed with foreign nations,--a thing unlawful with them,--wander about in lands not their own, and are not permitted to view, even from a distance, the land of their own religious worship! Being moreover, deprived of those princes and kings, who were vested with |214 rule by traditionary right, they now remain in subjection to those who have rased their temple to the ground, and have subdued their whole nation! Nor is there, as formerly, either prophet or revelation; nor is there help, or act of God. Of all these things, not one existed from ancient times; it was (only) after our Saviour had turned away His face from them that these came upon them, according to His predictions; and such are the things respecting the Jews.

4. Instead then, of that one Chiliarch who drew near to our Saviour at that period, a number of men exceeding description has, from all nations, drawn near to Him, not of Chiliarchs only, but also of the mass of the Roman armies; so that even myriads of princes and governours bearing rule among the nations, and in the (various) regions; and also of others, much more honourable and exalted than these,--those who are great, and glory in the royal apartments,--have like the Chiliarch approached the Christ of God; and have, by means of his doctrine, acknowledged the God of those Friends of the Deity, who (formerly) arose among the Hebrews; and they have accordingly, been considered worthy of a return from God the supreme King, equal to that afforded to these. If indeed any one will consider, what numbers of Christians and of churches, and of vast congregations, are said to be in the country of the Persians and of the Hindoos, residing in the East; and, how there are with these, through the words of our Saviour, women, virgins desiring, and men coming over to, holiness, and to the provisions which are for the life of philosophy and of purity, and how numerous the confessors are, who live among these:--

5. Also, how those very persons who confess Him who has arisen from the seed of Abraham, and that He is the Christ of God; and have become, by means of the new birth which is in Him, the children of Abraham; and have (thus) set their seal to the prophetic Word of our Saviour: and this also, that, in like manner, in the western parts of the world, the whole of Spain and Gaul ⁵, in the countries of the |215 Moors and Africans, in the (Islands of the) Ocean itself, and in Britain⁶, men subscribe to Christ, and even acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: upon Him also they call in their prayers, and are looked upon (as) partakers with these same (Fathers) in the worship of God:-- If (I say), any one will therefore take these things into his consideration, he will then understand what the power of the prophetic word (was) that declared and said, "Many⁷ shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." These things therefore, He said, and foretold to the Chiliarch: and, on many other occasions, things not unlike these to the Jewish Doctors. And in this manner He spoke: "When⁸ ye see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the Prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves going out. And they shall come from the East, and from the West, and from the South, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of God." Of these things an open confirmation is afforded by the fact, of all nations having been converted to the God who is over all. These, He therefore said to them, respecting the conversion of all nations to God, who is over all.

6. Thou wilt learn moreover, from the writings of His Disciples,--that it was by their means He was about soon to call in the nations--which are to this effect: " When⁹ Jesus passed over a part of the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Cephas, and Andrew his brother, casting nets into the sea:--for they were fishers. -- He said to them, Follow me; and I will make you fishers of men. And they, in the same hour, left their nets and followed him. And, when he departed thence, He saw two brethren, James the son of Zebedee and John Ms brother, in the ship with Zebedee their Father, and He called them; and they, in the same hour, left the ship and |216 their Father, and followed Him." Another writer too has left it on record, that He spoke to Simon on two occasions, a prediction similar to this: "When a great multitude was standing over against Jesus" He (this writer) has said, that " He went up into one of the ships, which was Simon's; and, when He had sat down in it, He interpreted to the multitude." But, after the teaching which was sufficient,--because it was suitable that He should add some Divine work to His words, for the advantage of those who were looking on,--He ¹⁰ commanded Simon to "cast forth his net for a draught: and he said to Him, We have toiled the whole night, and have found nothing; nevertheless at thy word, I will cast out the net." And, what He had been commanded, he did. And, when he had taken a great number of fishes, their nets were breaking,--because they were heavy with the many (fishes),--and they called to those who were in the ship at their side, to help them. And thus, when they had drawn up the fishes, they filled both their ships, insomuch that they were pressed to sinking; and, upon these things, Simon was astonished and wondered, confessing that he was not worthy, that our Saviour should come near him¹¹. But, when He had thus shewn him a representation of what |217 was about to take place, He also gave its explanation (thus); "and Jesus said to him, Fear not; Thou shalt henceforth be a fisher of men unto life." It was to Galileans,--men unacquainted with any thing beyond the Syriac language, and this mean profession and necessity of fishing, by which they were driven,--that our Saviour well promised, that He would "make them fishers of men" and preachers of His doctrine. And, He made them (such). Nor did He belie His promise; but He shewed forth the "POWER OF GOD," the Doer of a thing, which eclipsed every human excellence! For, had He brought near to Him the Intellectual and the Wise, the Rich, and Illustrious, among the Jews; and had made use of these (as) the Teachers of His words; it would indeed have been likely, that men would have supposed this matter to have been brought about by human means only. For thus are most men usually overcome; (namely), they are either wrought upon by the gifts of the rich, or, they are led astray by excellency of speech, or, by the phantasms of science: or, they fear the power of illustrious personages. But He made use of no such disciples as these: on the contrary, by the poor, the despised;--by men ignorant as to speech, Syrians in language, and in their character humble and mean,--did He openly manifest His work (of redemption). It was the Divine Power alone, which He made use of;--that which He evinced when He previously called them, and made them go forth; and so promised that He would make them both "Fishers of men," and Preachers; that, instead of the nets which they then had, they should receive from Him the net, which should comprehend in its texture, an aggregate of the declarations of both the Law and the Prophets, as well as of those comprehended in (all) the Divine teaching. This they should cast into the sea of mankind as existing in the world, and inclose (therein) as many as they could; filling these their rational nets |218 with every sort of the fish that are rational. But these things, which were then heard by word, were words and sounds, and nothing more: it was an effort of the Divine Power itself, which, at no distant time, brought them to pass; and so fulfilled by deeds the things which had been foretold, that, in a short time, He made His own possession the whole creation of mankind,--congregations innumerable,--by means of these poor and illiterate men; and, that His Churches were every where filled, both with Greeks and Barbarians. For, it was not by that one Divine word of promise, that He would teach His Disciples, but, that He would MAKE them Fishers of men. Nor was it therefore, that He knew only, what should come to pass; nor, that He foretold this; but, that He should also be looked upon (as) the Effectuator of all this knowledge.--He spoke in word, and He performed and established the deed:-- that something (I say), which was to be brought about, (He foretold) by demonstration and representation; and of this He gave the fulfilment in the fact itself! For, to them who formerly toiled throughout the lengthened night, which was dark and destitute of the true light and knowledge of God, and could find nothing which they could take, (leading) to salvation, He arose (as the sun) in His brightness, and commanded those who were in the light and the day,--not by their art, but by trusting in his word,--to cast out their nets into the deep. And they so enclosed this great multitude of fish, that their fishing vessels were pressed to breaking, and the ships themselves to remaining in the deep from their weight. And, because these things were so done, astonishment and great fear came upon Simon. But, our Saviour said (as it were) these things to him, Let not these things alarm thee: they are (but as) recitations for the present, and representations of something hereafter to come to pass: for, these are fish unendued with either voice, or reason; these too, are ships and nets, composed of (earthly) material, and are inanimate; but, not as these things, are those of which these are the representations: for shortly afterwards,--that is, immediately, nmv, and forthwith,--thou shall be a fisher of men unto life (eternal). This laborious fishing which returns no profit, thou shalt relinquish; and, thou shall become a |219 fisherman of reasonable creatures, in place of these which are irrational. Nor shalt thou again draw up those whom thou shalt catch from the depths of the sea, but from the bitterness of the life that is hateful; from the chambers of ungodly darkness and from sin, into the light which is intellectual; and to the elevation of purity. That is, thou shalt catch them for life, by means of that which is of life: it is not death that thou preparest for them. These first indeed, which are drawn up out of the sea, and which formerly enjoyed life in darkness and the deep, perish immediately on their ascending and receiving the light. But, those who shall be caught by thee from among men, shall be caught up out of the darkness of ignorance, and shall be changed to the life that is of God. These things therefore, (namely,) " Thou shalt henceforth catch men unto life," our Saviour foretold by the Divine power: and the same, our Saviour shewed by very deed, were sure and true. This Syrian fisherman therefore, this net-caster,--did by means of his net,--the texture of which was by the Divine power composed of the words of mystery,--catch innumerable multitudes of men. And, " The visual perception of something hidden, is something visible¹²." The things therefore, which the long life of the world,-- and which from the first experienced not the rising (as of the Sun) of our Saviour,--could not effect:--the things which neither Moses who gave the law to the Hebrews, nor the Prophets who came after Moses, could; nor yet the multitmdes of others, who from ancient times carried as fishermen the doctrine of God to man, and who toiled throughout the whole night which preceded his manifestation,--could do, this Galilean, this Pauper, this Barbarian, this Simon did, by means of his voice bring to pass. The demonstrations indeed, then given of Simon as to these things, are the Churches which up to this time have arisen, far more in number than the ships (then present), and these, filled with fish that are rational. Such is this of Caesarea of Palestine¹³, and such is that of Antioch of Syria; and such is that of Rome; for, by |220 these Churches--which Simon set up, and by all those near them,--are these things commemorated. Those too that are in Egypt and in Alexandria itself, did he again, not by his own means, but by those of Mark, his disciple, erect. Of those also, that are in Italy and among the nations adjoining, he was the Steward (Dispenser): and he made his disciple Mark the Teacher and Fisherman of those in Egypt. Now, give thy consideration likewise, to the rest of our Saviour's Disciples, on those whom He said He would make Fishers of men;--and this his word He has shewn forth by deeds. For up to this time He did, and caused, that, forthwith, and throughout the whole creation of man,-- His rational net should be filled with every sort of rational fish, Barbarian and Greek; and that He should draw up from the depths of evil, and the darkness of ungodliness, the souls of men; turning these daily and hourly to the light and knowledge of God which had been delivered by Himself. Which things, seen as they are with our own eyes, establish,--as it appears to me,--beyond (all) doubt, the Divine manifestation of our Saviour.

7. Art thou desirous then, of hearing a third declaration of the Divine word, which foretold that His Disciples should arise (as the Sun) throughout the whole world? Hear this also, for it is after this manner: "Ye¹⁴ are the light of the world:" and, "A city that is built on a hill cannot lie hidden:" "nor do men light a candle, and place it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick; and it giveth light to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Here again, these very fishermen, who went forth from Galilee, --a corner of Judea so called, which is situate on the sea; and of which Isaiah,--one of the Prophets,--making known at once its obscurity, and at the same time, the rising (as of the Sun) of our Saviour, which he announced should take place there,--proclaimed (saying), "Galilee¹⁵ of the Gentiles, a people sitting in |221 darkness have seen a great light:"--those (I say) who went forth from thence; men, mean, necessitous, illiterate in speech, and poor in circumstances;--those very fishermen He said, should be the light of the world; and this promise He confirmed by deed; (namely), that this same Simon who was called Cephas, (and) who went forth from Capernaum which is a village of Galilee,--should enlighten many souls of men with the light of the knowledge of God; and should himself become known throughout the whole creation, even to the regions of the West: and, that even to this time, his memory should be more celebrated among the Romans, than that of those of former times, so that he should be considered worthy of an honourable sepulchre in the very front of their city; and, that great multitudes of the Roman Empire should run to it, as to a great asylum and temple of God. How then, Does not the truth bear testimony to Him, who said to his Disciples, "Ye are the light of the world?" So again, the name of John the son of Zebedee also,--who (was engaged) in fishing with his father and brethren, and mending the net, whom He (Jesus) saw, and considered worthy both of this call and promise,--arose (as the Sun) throughout the whole creation; and whose words have, through the Gospel which was delivered by him, also enlightened the souls of men!-- which has been translated into all languages, both of the Greeks and Barbarians, and is daily preached in the ears of all nations! And more particularly, the sepulchre of this (Disciple) which is in Ephesus of Asia, does glorious honour to his death, and shews to the world the memorial of that light which cannot be hidden. In like manner also, the writings of the apostle Paul are preached throughout the whole creation, and they enlighten the souls of men. The martyrdom of his death, and the sepulchre which (is erected) over him, are, even to this day, greatly and abundantly honoured in the city of Rome. And, What need is there we should say, that the mode of life set up by means of the Disciples of our Saviour throughout the whole creation,--like the exhibition of a banner of victory,--is as a famous city which has nothing hidden within it? but which is in authority in the midst of all other cities, (and) according to the enouncement of our |222 Saviour, "Is like to a city placed upon a hill?" And this is the very word, which they preached respecting their master. It was not, as (if) hidden under a bushel, or given up to error and darkness; but, as upon a lofty candlestick, and lifted up to an exalted eminence, and giving light to all that were in the house of the whole world! And this, (viz.) "Let your light so shine before men" evinced (both) foreknowledge and prophecy; not precept only, but also intimation of what should come to pass. He fully too named them all (here), the light when He said, "YE are the light of the world." Not, that they were many lights; but, that they all together (constituted) one light: as if from an equality¹⁶ of them all, there should be at once an arising (of light as of the Sun) to the whole world. For, it was His alone to say, "I AM¹⁷ the light of the world." And of Him it has been truly said, that "He¹⁸ is the light that came into the world, which enlighteneth every man." But, since these things have been thus foretold, and fulfilled; observe how He again spoke of, and explained, them to His Disciples: "That¹⁹ which I say to you in darkness, speak ye in the light; and, that which ye hear in your ears, preach ye on the housetops. And fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. But fear ye Him rather, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." He also promised by these things, in the very beginnings (of the ministration) of His Disciples,--when they knew nothing of them, but were as if they had been in the dark,--the knowledge of the light. He prophesied also, to those (then) hearing His precepts, that they should preach openly to all men that which was (now) secret, in darkness, and invisible. He taught them too, not to be perplexed, but to suffer affliction with all |223 their soul; to preach Him in the ears of all; and not to fear those, who would kill the mortal body: the soul not being subject to loss of life by men, because it is incorporeal and immortal. For it is God only, who is able to inflict punishment and death, at once on both body and soul. It may be observed therefore, that He taught by these things, that the soul is incorporeal; and set up, in a few words, the ordinances of (true) philosophy,--

In that He foretold at the outset to His Disciples, that He would make them Fishers of men; and, that they should eventually, openly, immediately, (and) through His power, make Disciples of all nations. From the Gospel of Matthew²⁰.

8. After his resurrection from the dead, all of them,-- being together as they had been commanded,--went to Galilee, as He had said to them. But, when they saw Him, some worshipped Him, but others doubted. But He drew near to them, spoke with them, and said: "All power (both) in heaven and earth, is given to me of my Father. Go ye and make Disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold! I am with you always even to the end of the world." Observe now, in these things, the consideration and caution evinced by the Disciples: (viz.) that they did not all worship Him when they saw Him. Some of them indeed did this faithfully and devotedly, but others refrained for the present. It was not easily and suddenly, that they gave in to this miracle; but, it was after much investigation and with every caution they were so at last persuaded, that they went out to all mankind. They became too, the Preachers of His |224 Resurrection; because it had prophetically said in the Scriptures of the Prophets, in His Person, "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and (for thy) possessions, the uttermost parts of the earth²¹." Just as the testimony of this prophecy has now been fulfilled in fact, He said to His Disciples; "All power is given to me, as in heaven, so in earth." For, He had possessed the sovereignty of the things which are in heaven from eternity²²; but now, He said was given to Him, by His Father, those upon earth, in conformity with this (viz.) "Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thy possession. For, from ancient times,--as Moses attests,--" The most High, when dividing the nations, appointed the boundary of the people, according to the number of the angels²³." |225 So that the Angels of God were, from ancient times, Rulers over all that was on the earth. But, when mankind had been perverted to the error of many Gods, and the Angels, who were the Rulers, were unable to afford any remedy for this; the common Saviour of all Himself taught, by means of His Divine manifestation, and after His victory over Death, that the empire of the nations upon earth, should no more be given by his Father to the Angels, but to Himself. And on this account, He commanded his Disciples,--not from ancient times--but now, that they should make the circuit, and make Disciples, of all nations. And He necessarily added the mystery of cleansing. For it was necessary to those, who should be converted from among the heathen, that they should be cleansed by His power from every pollution and uncleanness; because they had been defiled by the error of Demons, and had been holden by the worship of Idols, and by uncleanness of every sort, but had now first been changed from that life of abomination, and of lawless practices. These very persons then, did He direct to teach,--after this cleansing, which is by the mystery of His doctrine,--not, that they should observe the precepts of the Jews, nor yet the Law of Moses, but all those which He commanded them to observe. And these |226 are those which the whole of the Disciples,--making severally the circuit of all the nations,--equally delivered to every Church throughout the whole creation. He necessarily therefore, stirred them up, and made them readily to confide,--to undertake the circuit of all nations, and to make Disciples of all races of men, through the promise by which He counselled them, saying: "Behold, I myself am with you." To this word of promise, He also superadded the performance. He was present in the Divine Power with each and every one of them; to the whole of them was He at once present, and with them He acted and wrought. He confirmed too, even to victory, (the promise) constituting them Teachers to all nations, of that fear of God²⁴ which was delivered by Himself. In this promise therefore, they trusted; and forthwith, did they fulfil His words by deeds: nor did they in any thing hesitate; hut they (so) went forth with all readiness to the disciplining of all nations, that they engaged in the work. With their eyes they had seen Him who was a little while before dead, then living: and, Him whom they had denied with cursing²⁵,--on account of what then happened to them,--they had seen openly, present, and in his own person; and, as His custom was, He had conversed with them, and promised them the things of which we have already spoken. Nor could they disbelieve His promises, because of His appearing (to them); which (appearing) they bad investigated. Now in this precept, there must have been (much) that was discouraging to them, knowing as they did in themselves the rusticity and illiterate character which they sustained; on account of which, they might indeed have sought to be excused, and have well imagined it impossible that those, whose Language was the Syriac (only), and who knew nothing beyond the art of catching fish, could he Teachers both of the Greeks and Romans, of the Egyptians also, the Persians, and the rest of the barbarous nations: and set about to legislate,--in opposition to all other Legislators and Kings throughout the whole |227 creation,---that which was opposed to the things delivered to them from all ages, respecting the Gods of their Forefathers. But it was not possible for them to think such things, who had heard the voice of God saying to them, "Behold, I myself am with you always." They had too, openly viewed the Godhead of Him who spoke with them. It had been seen to be superior to Death: respecting which however they had entertained fear. On the contrary they (now) hear, that henceforth they shall, with all their soul, undergo afflictions. They had now taken up from their Master, the certainty of life after death; they went out tllerefore, with confidence to make the circuit of all nations, that they might confirm by fact, the promises of Him their Lord. But He attached to the promises made to them, a more excellent word; and,--what exceeds all wonder,-- this He shews forth even to this present time; (viz.) " Behold, I myself am with you always" He added also, "even to the end of the world" And this applies, not only to them, but also to all those who came after them, and from them received His doctrine; and, thenceforward, even to this time, is He present to all those who have become His Disciples. Hence, His Church, which is kept by Himself, is daily increasing and multiplying to myriads; and by His Power shall it be congregated, even to the end of the world!

On the conversion of all nations to God. From the Gospel of Luke.

9. Again, upon another occasion after His resurrection from the dead, He appeared to the other disciples, and to them,--yet doubting and not believing in Him,--He put forth and said these words: "²⁶These are the words which I said, to you, when I was yet with you; that it is necessary every thing should be fulfilled which is written respecting me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms. Then He opened their understandings that they should understand the Scriptures: and He said, Thus it was right that Christ should suffer, and that He should rise from the dead on the third day; and (that) repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning from |228 Jerusalem. And ye are the witnesses of these things." On one occasion indeed, He said, that "in His name should be preached repentance to all nations." (Now), if the Deed did not follow upon the Word; neither can His resurrection from the dead be credited. But if, even up to this time, the things which His prediction foretold, remain in fact, so that His lively, (energetic) and operative word is visible (in effect) throughout the whole creation to our eyes; then is it unbecoming we should disbelieve Him who spoke this. For He, whose power is living (energetic,) operative, and visible to the eyes, powerfully impels us first of all to confess thereupon, that He is living; and that He brings to effect the living things of God, whose living (actual) deeds are seen fulfilling His words. These His words then, --being varied and translated into all languages, both of the Greeks and the Barbarians,--has He made intelligible to all²⁷, so that His doctrine is heard by all nations, and has stirred up myriads of congregations of those, who were formerly wickedly led on in the error of many Gods, in the worship of Idols, and in (the course of life) which was unbecoming, to conversion and repentance. He did not command them first to preach remission of sins, and then repentance; but first, repentance, and then remission. For it was to those, who evinced a sincere repentance of former sins, that our Saviour's grace gave the pardon of their deeds;--on whose account indeed He suffered Death, and gave His soul a ransom for the souls of those, who should be saved through Him. Thus therefore, these His disciples,--men rude of speech and altogether illiterate, poor and needy, (as) they were in their character,--trusted in the power of Him who appeared to them after Death, and openly held converse with them. And they began from Jerusalem according to His commands, and went forth into all nations; the things too, which they were commanded, they performed, and preached repentance to all men, and |229 remission of the former sins of the soul. And such was the entire superiority which they evinced, that, even to these our times, the doctrine of these poor and illiterate men, is in active operation throughout the whole creation of man. How His acts should be heard, and preached of, throughout the whole world. From the Gospel of Matthew and of Mark.

10. When our Saviour was in Bethany, a village not far from Jerusalem;--having been invited by one who was (named) Simon, and sitting down there;--a certain woman took an alabaster box of balsam (ointment), which was very precious, and came and poured it out upon his feet: but His Disciples forbade her; complaining of what had happened. But He received the tiling done as a sign, and intimated that this act should be preached of, and heard, throughout the whole world. He prophesied accordingly, and said: "I say unto you, that wheresoever this my Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what this (woman) hath done, shall also be spoken of for a memorial of her²⁸." Now these things He foretold, when, at that time, the writing of the Gospel had yet entered into the mind of none, nor had it come to the hearing of any. Nor, as it is likely, had what was then done, been learned by any who resided in the neighbourhood, but by those only who were present. Nevertheless, He left this whole enouncement in word, and prophesied that the Gospels, which should be written by His Disciples, should be preached throughout the whole world. And to the word He at once also superadded the deed, and said, that with His acts should be written in the Gospel, and spoken of throughout the whole world, even that which had been done by this woman, for a memorial of her:--which same thing has (now) been seen confirmed by Him in very deed! For there is neither people, region, nor place, in which the memorial of this woman, as recorded in the Gospel, has not been mentioned; and, together, with the doctrine respecting Him, is it preached throughout the |230 whole world.--Of the things therefore, respecting this²⁹ (Gospel,) and respecting His Church, hear (now) how He made His promises: --

How He mentioned His church by name, when yet it had no existence: and how He declared, that the gates of Hell should never prevail against it. From the Gospel of Matthew.

11. When asking His Disciples on a certain occasion, what men said of Him, and they answering according to the opinion of the many, He asked them the second time, "But³⁰ what say ye?" and, when Simon had said unto Him, "Thou art the Christ of the living God" He answered him, and said: "Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonas, since flesh and blood hath not revealed (this) to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say to thee, Thou art Cephas: and upon this rock do I build my Church, and the gate-bars of Hell shall not prevail against it." The (term) "this" He took (as implying) the knowledge, that He was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; and Cephas (the rock), because it should neither be rent nor moved. It is not unlikely, that He named (in) " THIS" |231 the whole sense comprised here. On this account too, He designated that same Disciple, who had formerly been called Simon, Cephas (Peter), with reference to this knowledge; (and) of which He afterwards prophesied, and said: "On this rock do I build my Church, and the gate-bars of Hell shall not prevail against it." He foretold at once something to come to pass, and promised, that Himself would build it (the Church), and bring the work to completion, by the things of this knowledge which had now been |232 given concerning Himself; that it should be made firm as on a confirmed foundation; and that His Church should be built, solely by means of His own power which is everlasting, and that the gates of Hell should never overcome it. He himself afforded a proof (of this) in the fulfilment, better than any (that) words (can give). For innumerable persecutions, and many forms of death, have sprung up against His Church, but in nothing could they prevail against it. He has therefore, openly confirmed the enouncement of His prediction, by deeds; its truth He has shewn, by the fulfilment. The Church too, which He called the congregation, about to be set up in His name, evinced no small foreknowledge: for the congregations of the Jews had been termed Synagogues; and, during the time of His going about among men, He frequented the Synagogue of the Jews. Nor was there hitherto, so much as one Synagogue only, set apart to Him. And, Who is not astonished, that He so foreknew those congregations which should afterwards be set up, at a great distance of time, in His name, and, that He should not name them, after the Jewish custom, Synagogues, but Churches? He added too, that the gate-bars of Hell should not prevail against them:-- things, which we perceive with our own eyes! Nor should we wonder at the prediction only, but also at His promise, namely, "I build my Church upon the rock, and the gate-bars of Hell shall not prevail against it:" which is (all) so brought near in fact, that we can see it! For it was not by the power of men, nor yet by the superiority of the Teachers (employed), that His Church was raised; but, it was He who promised, and in deed fulfilled His promise! --He (I say) who up to this time has, by the Divine Power, built up, and enlarged, His Church throughout the whole creation of man!

On the divisions which are in Houses and Families up to this time, on account of His doctrine. From the Gospel of Matthew.

12. ³¹ Think not, that I am come to send forth peace upon earth: I am not come to send forth peace, but a sword. For I am come to divide a man against his Father, |233 and the Daughter against her Mother, and the Daughter in law against her Mother in law: and the enemies of a man (shall be) those of his own house. (Or), as Luke enounced (it); " ³² Think ye then, that I am come to send forth peace on earth? I say unto you, No; but divisions. For, there shall be henceforth five in one house, who (shall be) divided, three against two, and two against three. And the Father shall be divided against his Son, and the Son, against his Father; and the Mother shall be divided against her Daughter, and the Daughter, against her Mother; and the Mother in law, against her Daughter in law; and the Daughter in law, against her Mother in law." And, Who is not astonished, that the things which should take place in every individual house, in times far removed (from those of the prediction), and even up to this time, did not remain hidden to the foreknowledge of our Saviour? For He foretold to His disciples, the things which up to this time are taking place, just as one present to the things themselves, and making the circuit of the dwellings of all the children of men:--things which hitherto have not existed, nor did they at the period in which He enounced these words. Nor, were there yet any such doings; they were then heard only in the ear. But now, that the prediction has in fact come to its completion, and is visible to the eyes, How can any one, who would think justly, but confess that they are in truth the words of God? And again in these things also,--"For I am come to divide and to send forth a sword, and divisions among the children of men,""--we likewise see with our own eyes, that no word of man, either of philosopher or prophet, whether Greek or Barbarian, ever shewed forth power such as this, that he should so hold the whole creation, that there should be divisions in every house; that he should pass through and distinguish every race, throughout all their families; and, that of these some should be considered as his own, and others as opposed to these! But it was our Saviour alone, and this WORD OF GOD, who promised to do this, and He confirmed the promise, in very deed! The cause therefore, of the divisions of soul that came to |234 pass in houses He Himself taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing among the Jews in the Hebrew language³³, in which it is said: "I will select to myself these things: very very excellent are those whom my Father, who is in heaven, has given to me." And, one may learn from this, how in every house in which the word of Jesus should prevail, the excellent would be distinguished from the vile. For, if a man make a comparison among brothers, or servants, or in families generally, as to the customs, forms, manner of life, and the purity and meekness of those, who have chosen the doctrine of our Saviour;--for this is |235 what is meant by those who have been selected by Him:-- and, of those who have not yet become worthy of Him; --he will perceive what sort of power that is, of which He has made use; and, that He did not only foretel what should come to pass, but that He has, according to the prediction, also brought the works to pass: and, with other things, these also in which it is written that He said, "I will select to myself the³⁴ very excellent, those whom my Father who is in heaven has given to me." Nevertheless, (what He) now (said), " I am not come to send forth peace on earth," with other things, He explained to the Disciples themselves and said; "I leave peace with you, my own peace give I unto you: it is not as the world giveth peace, that I also so give peace." It was the knowledge and love of God, which He had prepared for His disciples; and this, that the soul should not be perturbed. And in this way, He named the light, and confirmation of the mind. These things therefore He foretold, and also respecting these (men): but, of those which He foreknew and foretold respecting the Jewish People, (the time) is at hand that we should enquire.

On the things which He prophesied against the Jewish people in parables. From the Gospel of Matthew.

13. When the Rulers of the Jewish people, the chief Priests, and the Doctors of the Law, were assembled together in Jerusalem, and He was in the Temple; He foretold covertly and by parable, the things they were about to dare against Him, and the destruction which should overtake them on account of this daring, in this manner: " There was ³⁵a certain master of a house, (who) planted a vineyard, and surrounded it with a fence, and digged a wine-press therein, and built in it a tower, and delivered it to husbandmen, and departed. And, when the fruit-season drew |236 near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that they might bring to him the fruit. But these husbandmen seized his servants, and some of them they smote, and some they stoned, and some they killed. And again, he sent other servants, more than the former; and to these, they did in like manner. But at last, he sent his Son, and said, Surely they will reverence my Son. But these husbandmen, when they saw the Son, said among themselves: This is his heir; come let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. So they took him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, What shall he do to those husbandmen? They say to him, he shall most miserably destroy them; and his vineyard he shall deliver to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus himself said to them, Have ye never read in the Scripture, 'The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief corner stone of the building: This is of the Lord, and it is a miracle in our eyes?' Wherefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a people which shall render the fruits" (thereof.) And this parable is of a sort with that, which is in the Prophet Isaiah, which is (given) in this manner: "My beloved had a vineyard on the horn of a fat place. And he cultivated it, and surrounded it with a fence, and planted in it vines, and built a Tower within it. He also made a wine-press in it. And he expected that it would produce grapes; but it produced wild grapes." But this that is in the Prophet, accuses the vineyard; which he thus interprets, as to who was (really) intended, when he says, "For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house that is in Israel, and the men of Judah are (His) one beloved plant. I looked for judgment, but there was rapine; and for righteousness, but behold, howling!"

14. The parable then, spoken by our Saviour, was so like to that of the Prophet, that it was known to point out those who were present and heard (it). But, it was not of the vineyard that it was spoken, because the Prophet |237 had already made his prediction of this. The things however, which were not mentioned in the Prophet, He supplied in His parable: those, I say, which respected the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these were the Elders of the people, the chief Priests, the Rulers, and Doctors: those, who indeed were the cause to the whole congregation, that they should render evil fruit, and, on whose account, the vineyard itself was left to destruction. That is, the whole of their people, with their fence, was rooted up; those who formerly contended for the people, and watched over the people, together with their place. The Tower that was in it, was the Temple; the wine-press, the Altar. And all these were therefore, wholly taken away, even to their foundations; because the husbandmen had become polluted with blood; those (I say), who had openly slain the servants first and last; those Prophets, who had, time after time, been sent unto them. The Old Testament also gives its testimony (otherwise) to this matter; and, of the Prophets, Elias who in his prayer to God says, "Lord, they have slain thy Prophets, and broken down thy Altar: and I am left alone, and they seek to take my life³⁶." Of these things therefore does this Prophet, by his prayer, accuse the rulers of the Jewish people. These however, the pollution of the Prophets' blood had not satisfied, and at last they slew the Son himself, that is, the Son of God! Nor was it that they knew Him not; but, when they knew fully and accurately, that He was the heir! These things then, our Saviour Himself delivered by parable, respecting Himself, before His suffering. He also foretold,--by His foreknowledge, what should come to pass; (viz.) these things when walking in the Temple,--to those husbandmen of the vineyard of His times, the Chief Priests, the Doctors, and the rest of those who were at the head of the people. And much (and) openly did He, in the parable, prepare them to pronounce condemnation against themselves: asking them in the close of the parable, and saying, "What shall the Lord of the vineyard, when He comes, do to those husbandmen?" |238 And they, not yet understanding that it had been spoken of themselves, gave judgment against themselves, saying, "He shall most miserably destroy them, and shall give up the vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render to Him the fruits in their seasons." Jesus then said to them: " ³⁷ Have ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief corner (stone) of the building: This is from the Lord, and is a miracle in our eyes?" Very consistently after the prediction of His death, He pointed out, from the testimony of the prophets, His own resurrection from the dead. For He had previously taught, that the Son of the Lord of the vineyard should be slain by the wicked husbandmen, and had obtained from themselves (their own) condemnation. After that, He brought this forward: " The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief corner (stone) of the building:" which, in the prophecy, had been given by way of parable on His resurrection. For,--after He had been rejected by those husbandmen who were also the builders, He (I say), who was (as) a precious stone, and of whom the Prophet Isaiah says, "³⁸Behold, I lay in Zion a choice and precious stone, the chief corner (stone) of the foundation: And he, who believeth in it, shall not be ashamed,"--He became the chief corner (stone) of another building, of which the (divine) word has said: "³⁹And this is a miracle in our eyes:" by which He meant His Church. And thus deservedly did He, according to their own judgment on themselves, repay them, saying, " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a people, that will render the fruits" (thereof): which corresponds to this declaration (already) mentioned, (viz.) "from them;" that He would " give the vineyard to other husbandmen, who should render to Him the fruits in their seasons." For He named the "kingdom of God," those observances in which the worship of God consisted; and these Hedeclared, should be taken away from those husbandmen: and (this) He has most openly shewn, and brought to effect; |239 giving (the vineyard) to another people, which does bring forth its fruits. And this is the Christian people, which docs, throughout the whole creation, bring forth the fruits, that are both conformable, and suitable, to the observances of God; and shews this daily, both in words and works.

On the rejection of the Jews at once, and the calling of the Gentiles: also on those who should unworthily be gathered into His Church; and on the end of these, From the Gospel of Matthew.

15. After the Parable which has already been mentioned, the word of the Divine Scripture states, that "⁴⁰When the chief Priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they knew that He spake against themselves, and they sought to take Him: but they feared the people, because they held Him as a Prophet." "⁴¹And Jesus answered them, and said again in a parable: The kingdom of heaven is like to a (certain) man, a king, who made a (marriage) feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who had been bidden to the feast; but they would not come. And again, he sent out other servants, and commanded them to say to those who had been bidden: Behold, my dinner is ready, my fatted oxen are slain, and every thing is prepared for you: Come to the feast. But they disregarded and went away, One to the village (farm), and Another to (his) merchandise. But they who remained seized his servants, and abused and slew (them). And the king was enraged, and sent his army and slew those murderers, and burnt up their city. He then said to his servants, My dinner is ready, but those who were bidden were unworthy of it. Go ye out therefore, into the ways and paths, and every one that ye find, call to the feast. So those servants went out into the ways, and they brought together all they could find, (both) bad and good." Now, in the former Parable, the Vineyard, the Tower, the Winepress, and the Husbandmen, were evil: and the servants |240 sent, first and last, were killed. And, at last, even the Son of the Lord of the vineyard was himself slain: by which were pointed out, the People, the Temple, the Altar, and the Rulers of the Jews; and also those wicked husbandmen, who, standing at the head of the people, slew both the former and latter Prophets, and at last the Son of God Himself!

16. Now the Parable before our eyes, obviously introduces the familiar feast, and bringing together, of the Bridegroom and Bride, with a marriage-supper: and again the servants also, who are here destroyed and slain, and the former and latter persons bidden. By means of these again, He points out covertly, the things that happened after His resurrection from the dead. For the Bridegroom is, THE WORD OF GOD; the Bride, the rational soul, which is associated with Him, and receives the Divine seed that is of Him. And (this) Divine and rational association, (represents) that of His Church: and, consequent upon these things, the rational feast and marriage supper, (represent) the Divine and heavenly aliments (so prepared). He does not here speak of the inviting servants, with reference to those who were formerly sent to the vineyard, but, with reference to the latter ones. For those were the Prophets; but these, His own Apostles, who were sent forth to make the call, (and) first, of those who were of the circumcision. For, when He first sent these forth, He charged them, saying, "⁴²Into the way of the Gentiles go ye not; and into a city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but rather go ye to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel." These same persons therefore, the servants did first invite; but, when they hearkened not to the call, He sent also, the second time, many Evangelists and Preachers of the Gospel; those whom He chose, after the twelve Apostles, the seventy other Disciples, who also first preached the Gospel to the Jewish people, and called them to the feast of the New Testament. But they availed nothing, because they, who had been bidden, were busied with their merchandise; and who, after they had heard the |241 call of the servants, abused some, and killed others. And it is in our power to find from the Scriptures, how many of the Disciples of our Saviour they afterwards killed, both in Jerusalem and in the rest of Judea. Stephen then was, in the first place, forthwith slain by them by stoning. After him, James the brother of John⁴³. And again after them, he who first chose (to accept) the throne⁴⁴ of the Church of that place, James who was called the Brother of our Lord: whom, on account of his great excellence, they called "the Just⁴⁵." Him too, the Jews of those times killed by stoning. How they abused the Apostles by stripes, the Book of the Acts relates. And these things did He, by His divine knowledge, foretel before they happened; He also foretold the things which should befall them from the Jews. By means of a parable too, He predicted what should come to pass before these things took place, by these expressions, (viz.) "The king was enraged" at the abuse and slaughter of his servants, " and sent his army, and slew those murderers, and burnt up their city." And, What can be more obvious than this foreknowledge, and the fulfilment of the things themselves (so predicted)? For the army of the Romans came soon after, and took the city, and destroyed the Temple itself by fire. And, of Whom was it, except of Him who is King of all, God over all, that it was thus said, that "the King shall send his army, and shall slay those murderers, and shall burn up their |242 city?" To this very time indeed, the remnants of the conflagration which took place in various parts of the city, are obvious to the sight of those who travel thither. But, how those murderers of the Apostles were taken in the reduction (of the city), and suffered the punishment which they deserved, it is not necessary we should say, as the things which were done to them, may readily be found in the record of the Romans⁴⁶ by Flavius Josephus⁴⁷. After the slaughter of these therefore, and the reduction of the metropolis of their kingdom, they,--who remained of those servants that had first heard it said by their Lord, "They who were first called were not worthy; but go ye out into the ways and paths, and all that ye find, call to the feast"--performed even the thing commanded. Our Saviour said to them therefore, after His resurrection, " Go ye and make Disciples of all nations in my name," And these things He said, who formerly had commanded: " In the way of the Gentiles go ye not" but (enjoined) that they should preach to the Jews only. But, when these had abused (their) Inviters, then He dismissed the servants the second time, and said, " Those that were called were not worthy. Go ye out into the ways and paths, and all that ye find call to the feast." And this they fulfilled in deed. They went out into the whole creation, and they preached to all nations, the divine and heavenly calling; and " they collected together as many as they could find, (both) bad and good." Let no one therefore wonder, that, of those, who are collected into the Church of Christ, all are not good; but, that in the mixture together with the good, the evil will also be collected. Nor did this escape the foreknowledge of our Saviour. And it is accordingly seen to remain in fact, in conformity with that foreknowledge: and, what the end of those will be, who are brought together unworthily in His Church, He Himself shews; for He afterwards teaches these things in the |243 parable, saying, "And⁴⁸ the feast was filled with guests: but, when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who had not (on) wedding garments. And he said to him, My friend! how earnest thou in hither not having put on wedding garments? And he was silent. Then the king said to the ministers: Bind him hands and feet, and cast him out into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are the called, but few the chosen." He likewise previously rebuked, with these predictive words, those who should conduct themselves unrighteously in His Church.

Again, on the rejection of the Jewish people. From the Gospel of Matthew.

17. " Ye⁴⁹ serpents, ye generation of vipers, How shall ye escape hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and shall persecute them from city to city; so that there shall come upon you, all the blood of the Righteous, which has been shed upon the land, from the blood of Abel, even to the blood of Zecharias the son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the steps and the altar. I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." There is no need we should affirm, that all these things are so plain, as to require no explanation whatever; which, being afterwards fulfilled in very deed, confirmed by (their) open fulfilment, the foreknowledge of our Saviour. For the Apostles were scourged by the Jews at a subsequent period, in Jerusalem itself; when also, they went forth from their synagogues, "rejoicing⁵⁰ that they were found worthy to be reproached for his name's sake that they were found worthy to be reproached for his name's sake." Stephen also was stoned by them; and James was slain with the sword⁵¹; and again, the second |244 James was put to death with stones⁵². And Simeon, who after James held the Episcopal chair in Jerusalem⁵³, was given up to crucifixion, as the history reminds (us). And many others again, who were slain by the Jews, have (thus) set their seal to the foreknowledge of our Saviour. On account of all which, the judgment of God took vengeance on the generation that dared to do all this: and, upon it turned back the (just) consequence of all its deeds. For it was of that generation that their Temple and altar were rooted up, and the kingdom, which had, by tradition from their forefathers, been preserved to that very time, was dissolved. And of the same, was their freedom taken away: and, from the effects themselves it was evident, that the avenging of the blood of all the Righteous was on that generation, in conformity with the words of our Saviour. It is necessary then we should see, with what entire power, and by what sort of force, it was said, "Behold I send to you Prophets, and Wise men." For (this), "Behold I send" is an intimation of the power of God. And, that He called the Rulers of the Jews to their face, a "generation of vipers," affords no proof of deficiency (in this respect). The prediction too, of the destruction which should overtake them, does, after all the rest, afford ample confirmation as to these declarations; and this their complete fulfilment proves⁵⁴. These things are therefore sufficient (here). Let us then, |245 now enquire accordingly, how it happened to the land which had always been precious to them, and to those glories of the metropolis of the kingdom which had been (so) famous with them; of which, by His divine foreknowledge He attested;--weeping bitterly as He did over them of his mercy,--that the whole should undergo a change to the extremes of calamity, because of the insolence of its inhabitants against Him.

On the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

18. What the end of those things should be, which had been foretold respecting the Jewish people, has (already) been said and shewn. But, as He, THE WORD OF GOD, prophesied also respecting these places themselves, it is necessary we should see His words on them. Now, when the Rulers of the Jews would not bear the purity of His Doctrine, its publication, nor His rebukes, they so acted as to rid their city of Him. He then, leaving Jerusalem, pronounced these words over their city: "⁵⁵Jerusalem, Jerusalem! that hast killed the Prophets, and stoned them that were sent unto thee, How often would I have gathered thy children together, as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but ye would not. Behold I your house is left desolate. For I say unto you, that ye shall not see me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Impurity (and) pollution afterwards marked their doings: and this was the sin in which they dared to persist against our Saviour. And it was right, not only that the Inhabitants of the city, but also the land itself,--in which they so greatly boasted.--should be made to suffer the things, which the deeds of its inhabitants deserved. And these they did suffer! For it was not long, before the Romans came against the city: and, of the inhabitants, some they killed by the law of war; others they destroyed by famine; others they led away captive; and others they persecuted. The captive⁵⁶ (City) and Temple they burnt, and reduced to utter |246 desolation! But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour, from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretel should come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us. For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account, bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. For many times would He have gathered their children together beneath the yoke of the worship of God, just as all formerly was; even as He had from ancient times been careful for them, and had, during all ages, instructed them by one or other of the Prophets, and called them, but they would not hearken to his call;--on this account, He gave judgment against them, and said, "Behold your house is left desolate." It was therefore with special care that He said, not (only) the City itself should be desolate, but the House that was within it: that is, the Temple; (and) which He was unwilling should again be called His, or yet "the House of God," but theirs (only). He prophesied too, that it should be desolate in no other way, than as deprived of that providential care, which was formerly exerted over it: hence He said, "Behold your house is left desolate." And, it is right we should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation as this was. Not at the time when it was rased to its foundations by the Babylonians, on account of their great wickedness, their worshipping of Idols, and pollution in the blood of the Prophets. For seventy years was the whole period of the desolation of the place in those times: because it was not (thus) fully said to them at that time, "Behold your House is left desolate." Nor was it (then so) forsaken; an event happening soon after, which dignified it with a renewal much more illustrious than its former state, as one of the Prophets had foretold: (viz.) "The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former⁵⁷." After the enouncement therefore of our Saviour,--that they should so be left, and their house come, by the judgment of God, to utter desolation;--to |247 those who visit these places, the sight itself affords the most complete fulfilment of the prediction. The period too has been that of many years, and (of duration) so long, as not only to be double of the desolation of seventy years,-- which was that in the time of the Babylonians,--but even to surpass four times (its duration); and (thus) confirming the judgment pronounced by our Saviour. Again, on another occasion, our Saviour--walking by the side of the Temple, just mentioned, and His Disciples wondering at the building which surrounded it, and pointing out to Him the greatness and beauty of the same Temple;--returned to them answer and said, "Behold! see ye not all these things? I say unto you, stone shall not be left here upon stone, which shall not be thrown down." The Scriptures do moreover shew, that the whole building and the extreme ornamenting of the Temple there, were indeed thus worthy of being considered miraculous: and, for proof (of this), there are preserved, even to this time, some remaining vestiges of these its ancient decorations. But, of these ancient things, the greatest miracle of all is, the Divine word (declaring) the foreknowledge of our Saviour, which fully enounced to those, who were wondering at the buildings (of the Temple), the judgment, that there should not be left in the place at which they were wondering, "one stone upon another which should not be rased" For it was right, that this place should undergo an entire destruction and desolation, on account of the audacity of its Inhabitants; because it was the residence of impious men. And, just as the prediction was, are the results in fact remaining: the whole Temple, and its walls,--as well as those ornamented and beautiful buildings which were within it, and which exceeded all description,--have suffered desolation from that time to this! With time too, this increases: and, so has the power of THE WORD gone on destroying, that, in many places, no vestige of their foundations is now visible! which any one who desires it, may see with his own eyes⁵⁸. And, should any |248 one say, that a few of the places are still existing; we may nevertheless, justly expect the destruction of these also, as their ruin is daily increasing: the predicting word, just mentioned, daily operating by a power which is unseen. I know too--for I have heard it from persons who interpret the passage before us differently,--that this was not said on all the buildings, except only on that place which the Disciples, when expressing their wonder upon it, pointed out to Him; for it was upon this that He spoke the predicting word. Again, the Scriptures of His Disciples which teach respecting Him, (teach) us these things (following), on the utter destruction of the place.--

On the taking of the City. From the Gospel of Luke.

19. "And⁵⁹, when He saw the city, He wept over it, and said, If thou hadst known, even in this day the things of thy peace.--But now, they are (so) hidden from thine eyes, that the days shall come upon thee, in which thine enemies shall surround thee, and shall press upon thee from every part of thee: and they shall utterly root thee up, and thy children within thee." The things, prior to these, were predicted respecting the Temple; these, which are now before us, respecting the City itself; which the Jews named the City of God, because of the Temple of God that had been built within it. Over the whole of this then, the compassionate (Saviour) wept. It was not, that He had so much pity on the buildings, nor indeed upon the land, as He had first upon the souls of its inhabitants, and (then) upon (the prospect of) their destruction. He pointed out moreover, the cause of their desolation when He said, "If thou hadst known, even in this day, the things of thy peace:" intimating too His own coming, which should be for the peace of the whole world. For |249 this is He, of whom it was said, "In his days shall righteousness arise (as the sun), and abundance of peace⁶⁰. He came also for this purpose, that "He⁶¹ might preach peace to them that were near, and to them that were afar off." And, of them who received Him, He said, "Peace⁶² I leave to you I leave to you; my peace give I unto you:" the peace, which all nations who believed on Him throughout the whole creation, have received. But the people, who were of the circumcision and believed not on Him, knew not the things of their peace: and, on this account, He said afterwards, "It is now (so) hidden from thine eyes, that the days shall come upon thee, (in which) thine enemies shall surround thee⁶³." The things (I say), which were therefore to take hold on them, a short time after, in the reduction (of the city): (and), because they had no previous perception of the peace, that had been formerly preached to them, it should now be concealed from their eyes. They had therefore, no previous perception of any thing, which should afterwards befall them; He then plainly foretold these things by His foreknowledge, and gave open intimation of the reduction (of the city), which should come upon them through the Romans, (when saying), "The days shall come upon thee...because thou knewest not the things of thy peace." For, for this cause "there shall come upon thee the days, (in which) thine enemies shall surround thee, and shall go round about thee, and shall press upon thee from every quarter of thee; and they shall root thee out, and thy children within thee⁶⁴." In these (words) then, has been recorded the form of war which should come upon them. And, how they were fulfilled, we shall presently find from the writings of Josephus, who was himself a Jew, and descended from a tribe of the Jews;--one of the well known and famous men among that people. At the time of the reduction (of the place), he committed to writing every thing that was done among them; and (so) shewed, that the predictions before us were, in their facts, fulfilled. |250

Again, on the reduction of the City. From the Gospel of Luke.

20. "⁶⁵When ye shall see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, know ye that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. And let those that are within it (Jerusalem) give up⁶⁶: and let not those that are in its borders, enter into it. Because these are the days of vengeance, that all which has been written should be fulfilled. But, woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days; for there shall be great tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled." Previous to this He said, "Behold your house is left desolate." He now gives by the words before us, the signs of the times of the final destruction of the place; and these He shews, saying, "When ye shall see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, thence know ye that its desolation is near." Now, let no one imagine, that, after the reduction of the place, and the desolation that should be in it, another renewal of it shall take place, as it was in the times of Cyrus, king of the Persians; and afterwards in those of Antiochus Epiphanes; |251 and again, in those of Pompey. For many times did this place suffer reduction, and was afterwards dignified by a more excellent restoration. But, when ye shall see it reduced by armies, know ye that which comes upon it, to be a final and full desolation and destruction⁶⁷. He designates the desolation of Jerusalem, by the destruction of the Temple, and the laying aside of those services which were, according to the law of Moses, formerly performed within it. You are not to suppose, that the desolation of the city, mentioned in these (words), was to be such that no one should any more reside in it: for He says after this, that the city shall be inhabited, not by the Jews, but by the Gentiles, when speaking thus, "And Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles⁶⁸." It was known therefore to Him, that it should be inhabited by the Gentiles. But He styled this its desolation (viz), because it should no more (be inhabited) |252 by its own children, nor should the service of the law he established within it. And, how these things have been fulfilled, many words are not wanted (to shew); because, we can easily see with our own eyes, how the Jews are dispersed into all nations; and, how the inhabitants of that which was formerly Jerusalem,--but is now named Aelia by Aelius Hadrian,--are foreigners, and the descendants of another race. The wonder therefore of the prophecy is this, that He said of the Jews, "they should be led captive into all nations;" and, of the Gentiles, "that Jerusalem should be trampled on by them." This miracle is then complete: the Jews being now fully (dispersed) throughout the whole creation, so that they are (found) remaining among the Ethiopians, the Scythians, and in the extremities of the earth. It is only their own city, and the place in which their worship formerly was (carried on), that they cannot enter⁶⁹! But, if the city itself had been utterly desolated, and without inhabitants, men would have thought that this was the cause (of their exclusion from it). Now however, that the place is inhabited by foreigners, the descendants of a different race, and that it is not allowed to them alone even to set a foot in it, so that they cannot view even from a distance the land of their forefathers⁷⁰; the things foretold of it are fulfilled, in exact accordance with the prediction: (viz). "They shall be led captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles" The manner moreover of the captivity, points out the war. of which He spoke; "For (said He) there shall be (great)⁷¹ tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon this people: and they shall fall by the edge of the sword." We |253 can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus, how these things took place in their localities, and how those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were, in fact, fulfilled. He also shews plainly the fulfilment of the prediction of our Saviour, when He said, "Woe to those that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days⁷²." For he has put it on record, how the women roasted their children by the fire and ate them, on account of the pressure of the famine which prevailed in the city. This famine therefore, which took place in the city, our Saviour foresaw, and counselled His Disciples that, in the reduction which was about to come upon the Jews, it was not for them to take refuge in the city as in a place guarded and preserved by God, but in which many should suffer; but, that they should depart thence, and "flee to the mountains;" and, that those, who should be within Judea, should give up to the Gentiles; and those, who were in its lands, should not take refuge in it as in a fortified place. On this account He said, "Let those who are in its borders⁷³ not enter into it, since these are the days of vengeance, that all may be fulfilled which has been written." Any one therefore, who desires it, may learn the results of these things from the writings of Josephus. And, if it is right we should lay down a few things from him in this book, by way of testimony, there is nothing that should hinder us from hearing the historian himself, who writes in this manner;--

From the sixth Book of Josephus⁷⁴.

21. "And, How can it be necessary, that I should describe the severity of the famine, as to things inanimate? I come then to the making known of a fact, the like of which has not been recorded, either among the Greeks, or the Barbarians: one which, it is shocking to mention, and, to the hearing, incredible. I myself indeed, would |254 gladly have left this calamity (unmentioned)--that I might not be thought by those who shall come after, to have related falsehoods,--had I not had many witnesses among those of our own times. I should indeed otherwise have rendered but a doubtful good, as to the land of my fathers, had I omitted to mention the things which, it has, in fact, suffered. A certain woman, of those who resided on the other side of the Jordan,--whose name was Mirian, well known on account of her family and wealth,--took refuge with many (others) in Jerusalem, and with them was shut up (in the siege). This woman's other possessions, as they were after she left the passage (of the Jordan) and came into the city, the Tyrants seized. The residue of her treasures moreover, should it have sufficed for her daily sustenance, was invaded and seized by the attendant soldiers. Grievous indignation therefore, took possession of her; and many times did she excite the robbers against herself, by curses and reproaches. But, when no one put her to death.--either on account of her indignation or in mercy; and she became weary of seeking sustenance for others from every quarter, and (as) suspicion was excited against her, even if she found (it): hunger, at the same time, remaining in her bowels, and indignation inflaming her more than hunger;--she took for her counsellor impetuosity and necessity, and dared to do that which was contrary to nature. She seized upon her son,--for she had a sucking infant,--and said, "Wretched (babe)! for Whom do I preserve thee in war, famine, and tumult?-- that thou shouldest be a slave to the Romans? If thou shouldest indeed live happily with them, still famine precedes (this) servitude; and the seditious are cruel. Come; be thou thou to me for food; to the seditious, the vengeance;--and to the world, the tale which alone is wanting to (complete) the sufferings of the Jews! And, saying this, she at once killed her son. She then roasted him, and ate a part of him! the rest she hid, and kept⁷⁵!" |255 These sufferings out of many, I have here set down on account of the Divine prediction of our Saviour, which declared, "Woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days:" and because it adds this also to the predictive words of our Saviour, "There shall be great tribulation on the land, and great wrath upon this people:" or, as Matthew has said⁷⁶, "For there shall be at that time great tribulation, the like of which has not been since the beginning of the world, even until now; nor shall be" (hereafter). It will be well therefore, to hear this writer himself, when thus putting on record the fulfilment of these same things.

From the fifth Book of Josephus⁷⁷.

22. "It would be impossible to give an account of each and every of their iniquities singly; we say then summarily, that no (other) city (ever) suffered all these things; and, that there never was a generation so fruitful in vices as this⁷⁸: for they destroyed the city itself⁷⁹! and (were the cause) that the Romans should be recorded,-- as forced by them against their own wills,--to this sad |256 victory! They accordingly dragged them on forthwith, unopposed, to the Temple; and viewed from the upper city, the fire that was burning within it." Nor were they pained, nor did they weep at these things! Because, "there should be at that time great tribulation, such, that its like existed not since the beginning of the world." This very thing was foretold by our Saviour, which this writer attests! the whole of which was fully brought to pass¹ forty years afterwards, in the times of Vespasian the Roman Emperor. Our Saviour moreover, added to His predictions,--determining the time,--how long Jerusalem should be trampled on by the Gentiles; for He said, "Until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled:" intimating by this, the end⁸⁰ of the world.

Again, on the laws of the Jews, (viz.) that they should no more be observed, either on mount Gerizim, or in Jerusalem. And, on the service worthy of God, which should be set up in His Church. From the Gospel of John.

23. On the side of this our neighbouring city Neapolis of Palestine,--which was not small, but is even (now) a city of celebrity,--a woman of Samaria drew near to Him; and, after other words, said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a Prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this |257 mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where (men) ought to worship." Upon which, our Saviour returning this answer, said to her, "Believe me woman, the hour cometh (in) which, neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem shall they worship the Father." And, after a few other things, He said: "The hour cometh, and now is, (in) which the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh even such as these to worship Him. God is a, spirit, and it is right that those who worship Him, should worship him in spirit and in truth⁸¹." And, by these things also, He fully proved that His foreknowledge was not small. For formerly, in the days of Tiberius the Roman Emperor,--in whose times these things were said,--the Jews were particularly collected together in Jerusalem, for the observance of the precepts of their Law; and the Samaritans, on the mount called Gerizim which they honoured, on the side of Neapolis, affirming that it was right the Law of Moses should there be observed. Now, these mounts are, as it were, anathemas of God. With both, certain parts were honoured; and of both, the Scripture of each bears record; that of Moses, respecting Gerizim; and those of the Hebrew Prophets, respecting Jerusalem⁸². The sentence of judgment therefore, put forth in the Divine enouncement of our Saviour was, That no more, either in Jerusalem, or on mount Gerizim, should those henceforth worship, who then adhered so pertinaciously to these places: which came to pass soon after. (For), in the days of Titus Vespasian, and in the reduction which happened in those of Hadrian, both these mounts were, according to His words, desolated. That on the side of the city Neapolis, was defiled by unbecoming Images, by Idols, |258 by Sacrifices, and the shedding of blood, and (thus) rendered abominable. The Temple also of Jerusalem was rased to the foundations, and has remained, during the whole of the time mentioned, in utter desolation and (destruction by) burning. And, from that time and even until now, has the prediction of our Saviour been fulfilled, which declared, " The hour cometh, (in) which neither in this mount, nor in Jerusalem shall they worship," He terms the time (meant) "the hour;" which was not yet at hand, but was about to be. And, speaking to His Disciples on the rational service to be completed by Himself, He added, " The hour cometh, and now is, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth." He necessarily added therefore here, It "now is." For immediately, from the very hour (in) which he said these words, (viz.) " The true worshippers"--of whom He was the Head and Teacher,--His Disciples, who received the rational service,--from Him, did perform the service of God, "in spirit and in truth." But the thing, above all (others) prophesied of in these words, implies, that no more on any mount, nor in any distinct corner of the earth, but throughout the whole creation, should those " true worshippers" worship the God who is above all, and should present to Him the Divine services, which should be performed without blood, "in spirit and truth." Not by similitude, nor by those things of which He was the antitype, as were those of Moses observed by both Jews and Samaritans, in slaughter, sacrifices, incense, fire, and many other bodily modes;--that all of these should be abolished through the things now before us, did THE WORD OF GOD here predict. He also said, henceforth "in spirit and truth." That is, "the true worshippers" shall render to God, the service which is worthy of Him, in a manner divine and with both the soul and mind.

On the people which should be set up out of foreign nations, by means of his teaching. From the Gospel of John.

24. "I am⁸³ the good Shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me. Even as the Father hath |259 known me, so know I the Father....And I lay down my life (lit. self) for my sheep. And I have other sheep, those who were not of this fold; and it is necessary that I should bring in these, and that they should hear my voice. And there shall be one flock and one shepherd." By other words (too) He taught and said, "I am not come, but to the sheep that have strayed of the house of Israel⁸⁴." It was the Jewish people then, that He named under this figure; but, by the things before us, He predicted, that it was not those only who had become His disciples from among the Jews, that were considered (as) of the number of His flock; but those also who were without this fold. For thus, the word (Scripture) usually names at one time, the whole Jewish people; at another, Jerusalem, and the service there performed according to the Law of Moses.--That "He would collect other sheep which were not of that fold" implies the whole creation; and He foretold by these things, that out of them (this) rational flock should be so brought together to Him, that to the one and self-same worship of God, all, (both) Jews⁸⁵ and Idolaters believing in Him, should come over; and, that there should be " one flock and one Shepherd." This is His Church, which has been established both from among the Jews, and Gentiles. And thus, has it come to pass! For at once, at the outset of the preaching of the Gospel, great multitudes of the Jews were convinced that He was the Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. And with these, (those), who believed on Him from among the Gentiles, were brought together in one Church, under the hand of the one Shepherd,--of Him who is THE WORD or GOD. For in Jerusalem itself arose, from among the Jews, one after another fifteen bishops of the Church there, from James who was the first⁸⁶. There were too thousands, at once both of Jews and Gentiles there, who had been brought together, even to the time of |260 its reduction in the days of Hadrian. And, that He was the (good) Shepherd who had been many times preached of in the words of the Prophets, it is obvious to us: the words (I say), which mention THE WORD OF GOD and teach, that He is the Shepherd of the souls of men, as of rational flocks. For it is thus said on one occasion by the Prophets: " The Lord feedeth me (as a shepherd), and I shall lack nothing⁸⁷." And on another; "Shepherd of Israel look, (thou) who leadest Joseph as a flock⁸⁸:" and, on another, He introduces (one) saying, "He is the Lord, and the Shepherd of the sheep⁸⁹." He therefore alone, is truly declared to be the Shepherd of rational souls. For, just as the case is among men, the nature of the sheep is one, and that of the shepherd another; and, (as) the rational nature rules and leads that which is irrational; so also is it with respect to the superiority of the Shepherd (here), THE WORD OF GOD, the nature far excels that of man. We indeed are His flock, and, as compared with His power, we are less rational than any sheep. But He is in truth the good and pure Shepherd, who does not so neglect His flock, that it may be devoured by the wolves; that is to say, by the wicked demons, the corrupters of souls. This constrains us to look to His word which declared, with great power and might, "I am the good Shepherd;" and which also said, "I lay down my life for my sheep." (This) He said in a mystery respecting His death. He also taught at the same time the cause; viz. that it was for the redemption of the souls of the rational flocks, that He (so) gave His life. And this also: "I have other sheep," shews, that the Jews were not His only possession; but also, that the whole of the nations had been given to Him of His Father, according to this (declaration), "Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance." |261

How His death was the cause of the redemption of many. From the Gospel of John.

25. He was often with the Jews, because to them were known the predictions of the Prophets respecting Him. But, because the Greeks upon one occasion also approached His Disciples, desiring to see Him,--it is written, that, when they had told Him this, He said: "⁹⁰The hour is come, that the Son of Man should be glorified. I say unto you, that unless the grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it will remain alone; but if it (so) die, it will bring forth much fruit." By these things also) He obviously declared in a mystery, that, among the Greeks, among foreign nations and the children of a different generation, those things which comprehended the praises of His Godhead should be embraced. For it was not when He was among the Jews that he said, "His hour had come that He should be glorified," but, when the Greeks⁹¹ drew near to Him. After this, he necessarily continued shewing of His own death, His resurrection, and of the calling of the people, among whom He then was. For, just as the grain of wheat, before it falls into the earth, remains alone, but contains the life-producing-power, with the energies⁹² of the seed included within it, (and) which the ears shall produce; but, after falling into the earth,--just as that which lives after death,--it will increase, and, from the power vested within it, produce many ears of corn; so did He also declare respecting Himself, that the things should be. And this indeed, the result of them has plainly evinced. |262 For, it was not the Greeks alone who, after His death, received of His power and of the provisions of His Godhead, but also many nations. He was therefore, that seed which fell, and sprang up again, "He who was dead, but is alive⁹³." He, who after His fall which was by death, increased greatly, is He who has, by His resurrection, filled the lands of the heathen, as it were cultivated fields, with the Divine unutterable power. On this account He said, "The harvest⁹⁴ is great, but the labourers are few." And again, "Lift⁹⁵ up your eyes and see the fields, that they are white for the harvest." These things He also foretold (figuratively), of those who should after His death establish themselves in Him, through the pure faith which is by Him; the multitude of whom should, throughout the whole creation both of Greeks and Barbarians, constitute the Church to be established in myriads of congregations;--collected together, as it were, (the produce of) rational well-cultured fields, into one place; (that is) the souls of men, into the granaries of His Church. Hence it has been said, "He⁹⁶ whose fan is in His hand, and who will cleanse His floor, and collect the wheat into (His) treasuries: but the straw He will burn with fire unquenchable."

How Simon the chief of the Disciples, should, like his Master, be given up to crucifixion, and depart this life. From the Gospel of John.

26. "My⁹⁷ children, a little while I am with you; and ye shall seek me: even as I said to the Jews, whither I go, ye cannot come; and thus also I say again unto you. Simon⁹⁸ Peter said unto Him, Whither goest Thou? And Jesus answered him: Whither I go, thou canst not now come, but, after a time, thou shalt come." And again, in the latter part of the book, Jesus, after his resurrection from the dead, said to Peter: "⁹⁹I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thy loins, and wentest whither |263 thou wouldest; but, when thou shalt have become old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and others shall gird thy loins for thee, and shall lead thee whither thou shalt not be willing. And these things which He said (were) to shew, by what death he should glorify God. And, when He had said this, He said to him, Follow me" And, Who is not astonished, that, when He said these things to His Disciples, they should be prepared and ready to adhere to Him even to death? For He did not deceive them by intimating, or promising to them, the things considered good in this life; nor did He by any such means, allure them to give their adhesion to Him; but, He simply foretold those obvious tortures which should, on His account, befall them. And (so) He previously shewed to Simon the mode of crucifixion, by which he afterwards closed his life in the city of Rome, in this which He said, "When thou shalt have become old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and others shall gird thy loins for thee." And similarly, He also shewed mystically in this which He said, "Whither I go. thou canst not now come; but, after a time, thou shalt come." Now, these things were not said to them all, but only to Peter; because it is he alone, who, in the Scripture, (is said) should end his life after the manner of the suffering of our Saviour.

How He foretold to the rest of His Disciples, the persecutions which were about to arise time after time against them. From the Gospel of Matthew¹⁰⁰.

27. "Beware of men, for they shall deliver you up to their Rulers, and shall scourge you in their Synagogues, and shall bring you, before governours and kings for my sake, for a testimony to themselves, and to the Gentiles." And again¹⁰¹, "Blessed are ye when they persecute you, and revile you, and say every evil (thing) against you, for my sake. Rejoice and exult, since great is your reward in heaven; for so they persecuted the Prophets who were before you." Now, the wonder is this, (viz.) the additional word here saying, "for my sake." For it was not sufficient, that He should only foreknow and foretel the persecutions |264 which should arise against His Disciples; but, that He might also shew the cause of these, He said, they should suffer these things for His sake. Nor was it on account of any evil practices, nor yet for any other fault; but,--(as) He previously testified,--that every thing (of this sort) should befall them for His sake: which is present in the fact for our information! For if any one, during the time of the persecutions, denied only that he was a Christian, he was released from all blame and cause of accusation. But, so irreprehensible and sinless were the lives of His Disciples to be, that they should suffer every sort of calamity for no other cause, except only their confessing, and giving testimony to, Him. He did indeed, fully stir up and make'them ready (for this), by comparing them with the ancient Prophets and Friends of God; for¹⁰², (said He), even as they persecuted the Prophets who were before you, so shall they, without cause, drive you out; and, after the manner of the Prophets, shall ye be punished, because ye worship the God who is over all; on which account, they also persecuted the Prophets. Now that He should foretel, that even governours and kings should be moved by these things; that the time was then at hand; that He should (so) speak with His Disciples; and that His words should so come to pass and remain in fact, How greatly does it exceed (all) wonder? For there have been many others, both Barbarians and Greeks, who have said and promised many wise things to their Disciples. Of these, some supposed that there was no God; others annihilated every consideration about Providence; and others (received) those who were thought Gods by the many: others arose (as) the leaders of vicious factions; others (who thought), that Rest¹⁰³ was the extreme (good): and others, that Rest indiscriminately was; and who indeed talked just as they might be circumstanced. But never did any one of these, |265 previously determine such things for His Disciples. Nor do we know of any persecutions that opposed them, such as those were that opposed the teaching of our Saviour. How then shall we not wonder, and confess, that these are indeed the words of God?--these (I say), which not only previously attested, through the Divine foreknowledge, the persecutions which should come upon His Disciples; but also, previously pointed out the cause of these, by this which He said, that these things should happen to them, for His sake?

How those also who were equals should arise, and persecute each other, in the times of the persecutions. From the Gospel of Matthew¹⁰⁴.

28. "The brother shall deliver his brother to death, and the father his son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but he, who shall bear even to the end, shall live." Now, how these things have, even to the present time, been fulfilled in fact, What need is there that we should shew at length, since these facts are superior to all report? We have seen too with our own eyes, how many things of this sort took place, both during the persecutions, and in our own times. Nor do you simply hear this, that "the brother should deliver his brother to death;" for even this might have been as any mere matter of opinion. But we can investigate (the case), and inform ourselves how it was, that "the brother delivered his brother to death."-- When one surrenders himself to fraternal affection, and chooses the love of life, and denies God, and particularly with respect to his brother, whom he will solicit and persuade to worship idols; will excite and inveigle, putting forth (his) fraternal affection, so as to make him disregard the command of our Saviour; then indeed, will the |266 brother deliver up his brother to the death of his soul. In like manner also, will the father cause his son to err (by enticing), and will persuade him to worship the idols, and (so) deliver him to death. So also the children, their parents: they will, through their affection for them, (so) lead them on, that they will choose the mortal life which now is, rather than that which is with God; and will (so) become the cause, both of the death and perdition of the soul of their parents¹⁰⁵. And many such things as these, did we witness with our own eyes, during the times of the persecutions; so that in them was fulfilled the (prediction): "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." In this place also was this addition carefully made, teaching the Disciples that, it should not be for any hateful deed, but for His name's sake, they should be hated.

On those who should impurely collect themselves into His Church, and on the punishment that should come upon them. From the Gospel of Matthew¹⁰⁶.

29. "The kingdom of heaven is like a net that fell into the sea, and collected of every sort (of fish); and, when it was full, they drew it up to the shore, and sitting down they selected those that were good, and put them into vessels; but the bad, they threw away. Thus shall it be in the end of this world: the angels shall go forth, and shall separate the evil from among the just, and shall cast them into a fiery oven: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The "net"--which is here (put) by a figure for the word,-- and which is woven (as it were) from the various mind of the old and new Scriptures, He names His own doctrine: the fluctuating life of man, which is subject to hardship in its doings on account of the calamities attending it, "the sea." Out of this (sort of) life, as from the sea, the "net," so foretold, was to catch up tens of thousands. And under it were to be (taken), the various multitudes of those opposed |267 to each other in their characters; and of these, the good and bad in their dispositions. Of these too he spoke mystically, as being caught up from the sea after the manner of fish, when He said in the first calling of His Disciples, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men¹⁰⁷." This collecting together therefore of such men, bad and good, in His Church,--assembled (as they are) to this very time,-- was not unknown to Him: for He taught, that these same should at last be separated by the Angels, who should be appointed to this (work); and (so) should the punishment, due to the disposition of each one, be awarded.

How Impostors and Seducers should invest themselves with His Doctrine, and formally present themselves to Him. From the Gospel of Matthew ¹⁰⁸.

30. "Beware of lying Prophets who come to you in lambs' clothing, but inwardly (are) rapacious wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. For men do not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles. So every good tree produceth good fruit, but an evil tree giveth forth evil fruit." He (here) counselled (them) by His foreknowledge, to beware of those ungodly persons, who, availing themselves of the ¹⁰⁹opinions of others, and of the words of the Scriptures of His Divinity, should in after times formally assume the name of Christianity. He also shews the marks and vouchers of the evil concealed within them, and which should deceive the many, when saying, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Now the fruits of such are these; the ungodly words uttered by them; their unrighteous and perverse manner of life. These things then, when uttered and foretold by our Saviour, afforded at that time no visible testimony whatever to those who heard them, (as to their truth); but, in after times, the facts (so) declared became openly visible to all: the followers accordingly of |268 Marcion¹¹⁰, Valentinus¹¹¹, Basilides¹¹², and those other corrupters of souls, sprang up, (viz.) Bardesanes¹¹³, and that madman in opinion of yesterday, and of our own times, whose name became the titular badge of the Manichean¹¹⁴ |269 heresy; who all became the sources of lying and ungodly doctrine. Nor did they otherwise come to light, but as outwardly clothed with the skins of our Saviour's lambs. And He plainly styled His Disciples "sheep;" saying, "My sheep hear my voice¹¹⁵:" and again, "Behold, I send you as sheep among wolves¹¹⁶." Of these then they outwardly assumed the manner, while in themselves they were "rapacious wolves." (And), How many thousands of the sheep of our Saviour, did these Deceivers snatch away? Who, presenting their persons in form as to Christ, attached themselves to His instruction, and to the terms of the doctrines relating to His Godhead, and exhibited themselves as (His) lambs! But, that ungodly bitterness¹¹⁷ which lay (as) in ambush within them, adhered secretly to those who had been ensnared by them. These, therefore, who were now thought to be "sheep," because of their (thus) drawing near (to Him), openly appeared afterwards to be "rapacious wolves." |270 And hence, our Saviour taught us previously to beware of them, when He said by way of instruction, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

How even He and His Disciples should be thought to have taken men, by means of Magicians, and of intercourse with Demons.

31. "The disciple is not greater than his master, nor the servant than his lord. It is sufficient for the disciple that he be as his master, and for the servant, as his lord. And, if they have called the Lord of the house Beelzebub, How much more the children of his household? Fear them not therefore, for there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed; nor concealed that shall not be made known¹¹⁸." The Jews held that Beelzebub was an evil Demon, and prince of the Demons: they blasphemed our Saviour accordingly, (affirming) that by the power of this, He expelled the rest of the Demons from men ¹¹⁹. But, He returned the true answer to those who thought this, which is also written among His words. He foretold too, to His Disciples, that they also should be thought to overcome men, through intercourse with Demons and Magicians: which very thing, now affirmed by the many, has sealed and confirmed the prediction of our Saviour. He also gave His testimony, that this notion, (so) ascribed to them, should come to nothing, from (the consideration) of their lives, and conduct; their purity of doctrine, and that (inculcating) |271 the worship of God. He said therefore, "Fear them not; for there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, nor concealed that shall not be made known." He therefore reproved these (Disciples), for a considerable time, because the things formerly escaping the many, had, on this account, been supposed (by them) to be incapable of publication; as also those, belonging to the doctrines of the (true) worship of God, of being made openly known. But, His ordinances and precepts have now been made known to every man; and He has extinguished that (injurious) opinion respecting them, (His Disciples) which had formerly been held by the many¹²⁰.

On those who should remain in complete holiness in His Church, and in the life inexperienced (in conjugal) Society. From the Gospel of Matthew.

32. When He determined for them, that (one) should not leave his wife except in the matter of fornication ¹²¹, and His Disciples said to Him, "If the cause of a man with the wife be thus, it is not advantageous to take wives;" It is written, that He said upon these things, "Every man is not sufficient for this matter, except those to whom it is given. There are eunuchs, who were, thus from their mothers' womb; and there are eunuchs, who were (made) eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who can bear (it) let him bear (it)." It is evident from the context of the Scriptures, that there never was among men, and particularly among the Jews, any one who uttered by revelation any thing like this; or, who did any thing like it: or that, throughout the whole creation and among all nations, whether in the cities or villages, there were multitudes, not of men (only), but also of women, who |272 kept¹²² themselves in perfect holiness, and the state of virginity, through the hope and expectation of the kingdom of heaven. We have seen in the very experiment itself, that they learned they should soon be prepared for this. The fulfilment however, of the claim to foreknowledge, was not simply (realized here); for we have seen many men, well known to us, who (actually) availed themselves of the iron (knife,) and made eunuchs of themselves for no other cause, except that of the hope of the kingdom of heaven: who neither hesitated, nor were weak in the doctrine of our Saviour, but simply and boldly betook themselves to the thing itself¹²³. So that the foreknowledge of our Saviour, even respecting these things, sets to its seal, that His word was in truth the word of God. |273

On the distinction of those who should not worthily receive the seed of His doctrine. From the Gospel of Matthew.

33. When a great multitude of men had come near Him, He thus foretold by a parable what those should be, who should receive the seed of His doctrine, saying: "¹²⁴Behold, a sower went forth to sow: and, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of heaven came and devoured it: and some fell on the rock, where there was not much earth, and immediately it sprang forth; and, because there was no depth of earth beneath its root, it dried up. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up, and choked it: and some fell upon good ground, and it gave forth fruit, some an hundred, some sixty, and some thirty-fold. After these things He cried out and said, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" After this also, He was asked by His Disciples, what the interpretation of the parable should be; and He taught them, saying, " Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. Every one that heareth the word of the kingdom, but understandeth it not,--the Evil one cometh, and snatcheth the seed out of his heart. This is that which is sown by the ivay side. And that which is sown upon the rock, is he who heareth the word, and with readiness receiveth it: but, not being confirmed therein, he is offended by a little affliction. And that which fell among the thorns, is he who heareth the word, but the care of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and it remaineth without fruit. But that which is sown on good ground, is he who heareth the word, and understandeth it, and produceth fruit, some an hundred, some sixty, and some thirty-fold." Now, Whence could it have happened to human nature, not only to declare bv (one's) foreknowledge something that should come into being; but also, to determine the kinds and sorts of persons (who should), unless indeed He were truly THE WORD of God?--He (I say), who at that time (so) prophesied and taught;--of whom it is said, "The WORD OF GOD is lively (energetic), and more sharp and cutting than the two-edged sword, and passeth even to the parts of the |274 soul and of the body, and of the joints and marrow; and is the Judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart, and from whom no creature is hidden¹²⁵?" He well declared therefore, the distinguishing marks of those who should afterwards receive His doctrines; and He also foretold, that those who should in impurity receive the seed of His instruction, should be of three kinds; as should in like manner the good, who should like good ground hear much, and give great increase to the word itself. Of those corrupters of the seed too, which should fall into their souls, He declared there should be three (moving) causes: Either from the considerations of life, and the care of things not (absolutely) necessary, and from riches and pleasures, immersing (as it were) the seed sown within them, and making it resemble the seed choked by thorns: or, others not receiving it into the depth of the mind, but immediately extinguishing it when affliction overtakes them: or, the third cause may be, that the source of the destructions of the seed within them is, the surrendering of a lax and ready hearing to (men) wishing to seduce them, and to snatch away the seed that had fallen into their souls. And these same are, in no other way cut off from bearing the fruit that is of God, except as by one or other of the means just mentioned. But those who are opposed to these, and receive the seed of salvation into a soul that is pure, and a mind that is devoted, do again, as their power may be, greatly increase their fruits. He moreover assimilates the distinctions of these, to those of good and excellent lands which bring forth some thirty, some sixty, and some an hundred-fold. For such as these powers are, are those occasionally found in the souls of men. These things therefore, He prophesied on these matters. But, of the |275 multitude of those who should in after-times bear (much) fruit, through the instruction of His words, He thus cried out and said, "The harvest is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth labourers into His harvest¹²⁶." And again, of these same He said on another occasion: "Do not ye yourselves say, that there are yet four months, and the harvest cometh? Lift up your eyes, and see the fields that they are white for the harvest¹²⁷!" And, Who does not wonder, that He should shew even the fewness of those who should in purity be the chiefs of His word, for He said, "The labourers are few?" And, as prayer was necessary for the obtaining of these, He said therefore, "Pray ye the Lord of the harvest, that He send forth labourers into His harvest." When He said therefore, "The sower went out to sow," He also said, that there was another sower, and another seed; and He also shewed and taught, whence, and whither, he went forth by the things said in the parable immediately following this, which is in this form:--

On the teaching of Heterodoxy¹²⁸, which should be sown together with His word in the souls of men. From the Gospel of Matthew.

34. He added another Parable, and said: "The kingdom of heaven is like to a man, who sowed good seed in his field. But, when men slept, the Enemy came and sowed Tares among the wheat, and departed. When therefore, the wheat sprang forth and produced fruit, the Tares appeared in like manner. And his servants drew near and said to him: Our Lord, Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence are there Tares in it? But he said to them, The man (who is) the Enemy hath done this. They say to him: Is it thy will therefore, that we go (and) gather them? But he |276 said to them, No; lest, while ye gather the Tares, ye also root up the wheat with them. Let them both grow until the harvest. And at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the Tares, and bind them in bundles for burning; but gather ye the wheat into the granaries¹²⁹" (lit. treasuries). This same Parable too, He explained to His Disciples in the house, when they drew near to Him and said, "Explain to us the Parable of the Tares of the field. And He answered them, and said: The sower of the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world. (As to) the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom; and the Tares, those are the children of the wicked one; and the Enemy, who sowed them, is the Accuser. And the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the Angels. Even therefore, as the Tares are gathered up, and fall into the fire; so shall it be at the end of this world. The Son of man shall send His Angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all offences, and those that do evil, and shall cast them into the Gehenna¹³⁰ of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And then shall the righteous shine in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Our Saviour shewed therefore, by His explanation of the Parable, these things (viz.), who the sower that went out to sow the seed was, and what the seed was which He cast forth, in the expressions: "The sower of the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world." For He usually called Himself the "Son of man," on account of His going about among men¹³¹. He therefore went forth from |277 within¹³², and came out. Where then was He within, but above the world? where (indeed) He existed; and in the end of the world¹³³ He came forth, and came down to us, who were without (out of) the kingdom of heaven. And with Him He brought the heavenly seed, which He sowed in the souls of men as in distinguished lands. For the Parable placed before us teaches respecting the field, as of what sort it is, into which He cast the seed;--which says, "The field is the world;" and it shews of this field, that it belongs to none but Himself;--to Him who came forth from the inner part of His kingdom, to those who were "without" (out of it), when saying, "the servants drew near and said to Him, "Our Lord, didst not thou sow good seed in THY field?" He therefore taught plainly, that even this field is His own: and this He interpreted and shewed, was the world. In the former Parable therefore, He shewed His foreknowledge as to what the distinctions of those would be, who should receive the seed into their souls; but in this, which is placed before us, the perverse doctrines and errors of the ungodly Hereticks: when not one of them had yet so established himself among men! Nevertheless, it was not unknown to Him that this should come to pass. For, as false scriptures were scattered as seed in succeeding times throughout the whole earth, with enouncements assimilated to those of His doctrine, by an opposing nature, not unlike the Tares (sown) among His pure words and life-giving doctrines¹³⁴;--and there are myriads even to this time, some of whom make their boast of Manes, some of Marcion, and some of others, of those (I say) who put forth ungodly heterodoxy, and "Tares" (as it were), assimilated to the doctrine of our Saviour; making use of His name, and holding false books of the Gospels:--but he who was the Father of these things; |278 --he who first sowed them in the souls of those who received him, was the Accuser himself: so He (our Saviour) well evinced, by the Divine power, the foreknowledge of what should come to pass; and these things He previously testified, which have been thus fulfilled in fact; and accordingly their fulfilment was, as His words (had foreshewn). As He therefore truly shewed forth these things, and as we see in the facts themselves, the fulfilment of these predictions of our Saviour; so ought we also to think, that the rest shall come to pass. And these are, "the harvest,"" "the end," and "the angels the reapers:" also that the Tares shall be gathered, and shall fall into the fire:--the extreme good things too of those, who shall have preserved and multiplied the living, pure, and life-giving seed; of whom it is said, "Then shall the righteous shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father."

On those who should falsely name themselves the Christ. From the Gospel of Matthew¹³⁵.

35. "When He sat on the mount of Olives, His Disciples drew near, saying between themselves and Him, Tell us, When shall these things be? and What is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered them, and said, See that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, and shall say, I am the Christ; and shall deceive many" And again, after a few things He said, "¹³⁶If at that time any one say to you, the Christ is here, or there; believe ye not. For false Christs shall arise, and false Prophets, and shall give great signs and wonders, so that if it were possible they should deceive even the elect. Behold, I have foretold (it) to you¹³⁷. If therefore they shall say to you, Behold, He is in the desert, go not forth; or, Behold, He is in the chamber, (it) not. For, as the lightning shineth from the |279 East, and is seen even to the West; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be" And on another occasion, when speaking with the Jews, He added these things and said, "¹³⁸I am come in the name of my Father, and ye receive me not; but, if another come in his own name, him ye will receive." These things He foretold when warning His Disciples against the lying Antichrist, whom they were expecting: and one (of these) shewed of another in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, who (should be) in (the time of) the end¹³⁹. But, that others also should be before this, our Saviour Himself foretold in several places: "For many," said He, "shall come in my name, and shall say, I am the Christ, and shall deceive many." And there were many (such) after (these) His words. And so the Samaritans were forthwith persuaded that Dositheus¹⁴⁰, who was after the times of our Saviour, was the prophet of whom |280 Moses predicted ¹⁴¹. And he so deceived them, that they declared he was the Christ. Others again, in the times of the Apostles, named Simon Magus "the great power of God¹⁴²" and thought that he was the Christ. Others (thought the same) of Montanus¹⁴³ in Phrygia: and others again, of others, in another place. Nor did the deceivers cease. And it is necessary we should suppose, that there were many such as these; so that even from them, testimony may be had, as to the reality of our Saviour's foreknowledge. Our Saviour taught moreover, that His glorious second coming should not again be, as it was at the first, in some one place, so that it may be supposed to be visible in some corner of the earth: and, that no one should thus think, He said, "If any one shall say to you, Behold, the Christ is here, or is there, believe ye not." For opinions such as these comport by no means with Him, but with those false Christs and false Prophets. He indeed appeared once in the form of man, and in a certain district. But, of what sort his glorious second coming from heaven should be, He taught and said, "For, as the lightning goeth forth¹⁴⁴ |281 from the East, and is seen even to the West; so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be."

On the events that should happen at the end of things. From the Gospel of Matthew¹⁴⁵.

36. "Ye shall hear indeed of wars, and rumours of wars: see that ye be not moved, for it is necessary they should be; but the End is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there shall be famines and pestilences, and commotions in divers places. And all these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they give you up to affliction, and shall kill you in divers places. And all these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they give you up to affliction, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake." And after this He added, and said, "¹⁴⁶Then shall many stumble, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many. And, because of the abundance of iniquity, the love of many shall wax cold. But he, who shall bear until the End, shall live. And the Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations; and then cometh the End." He clearly foretold also by these things, that His |282 Gospel should, of necessity, first be preached in the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations, "and then should the END come." For the END of the world should not come, before (the Gospel) had been preached; but, when His word should have so taken effect among all nations, that the people should be few, among whom His Gospel had not been preached; so also should the time of the END ¹⁴⁷ be short (in its coming). He further teaches and |283 says, "Ye shall hear of wars, and rumours of wars: see that ye be not moved, for it is necessary they should be; but the End is not yet." He also shews when this shall be, for He says, "The Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations: and then cometh the end." When also, "famines and pestilences, and commotions (shall be) in divers places, and nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" and there shall be overwhelming persecutions, and great afflictions. After these things too, He says, "And ye shall be hated of all nations" not on account of any other hateful acts, but "for my name's sake¹⁴⁸."

37. These proofs of the Divine manifestation of our Saviour, which we have thus far seen, are at the same time demonstrative, that both the words and deeds (had in view) are Divine. For in former times, the words were simply heard; but now, in our times, the fulfilment of these words is openly visible in deed, together with powers eclipsing those of all mortal nature. And, if men will not be persuaded by these, we ought not to wonder: because it is usual with man so to resist things the most plain, as even to dare to oppose by his words the existence of an universal Providence; and hence also, to deny God himself! And thus also, will he disingenuously contend against many other things, to which the truth bears testimony. But, as the injurious conduct of these detracts in no respect from the word, which is in its own nature true; so also will the wicked unbelief of men, in no way injure the evident excellency of the Godhead of our Saviour. But, if it is right |284 that we should compose, for these also, a form (of prescription) conducing to intellectual health; it is time that we should here again present, for their use, (other) proofs of the (truth of the) Gospel, and now also recite the things, which have formerly been investigated with reference to other (objectors), as to those who will not be persuaded by the things (hitherto) said.

The End of the Fourth Book (of Eusebius) of Caesarea.

[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac and large chunks of Greek have been omitted]

1. ¹ Syr. [Syriac], lit. his child: but, as this is probably a translation of the Greek pai~j, which signifies boy, and thence either child or servant-boy, I have thought it best to render it by the English, boy, which is equally indefinite with the Greek.

2. ² Alluding, perhaps, to Gen. xxxii. 25-28, comp. with Hos. xii. 4.

3. ³ This and the following recital are taken, in the main, from Matt, viii. 5. seq. with the addition of "beloved," (Syr. [Syriac]) from the parallel passage in Luke vii. 2. It differs considerably from the Peschito, and is probably the rendering of our Syriac Translator, with the words of the Peschito, however, in his memory. The greatest variety consists in this, that our text has here, Chiliarch (Syr. [Syriac]) Captain of a thousand, instead of Centurion of the Greek and Syriac Scriptures. I have accordingly given Chiliarch in my translation. This reading is certainly extraordinary.

4. ² I have not thought it necessary here to follow the verbiage of the Syriac, which gives, [Syriac]. Of those who reside at the risings of the day, and in quarters of the East, and at the settings of the Sun. I add this merely for the sake of the Student of the Syriac.

5. ¹ Lit. Spaniards and Gauls.

6. ² It is commonly assumed by the Roman Catholics, that Christianity was unknown in Britain until Austin the Monk introduced it at the command of Gregory the Great. With how much truth this is done the reader will see, when he finds that the Fathers generally asserted the contrary. See the "Lux Evangelica" of Fabricius, and Stillingfleet's " Origines Ecclesiae Britannicae."

7. ³ Matt. viii. 11.

8. ⁴ Luke xiii. 28, 29.

9. ⁵ Matt. iv. 18.

10. ¹ As an extract from the Greek original of this place has been preserved in the Imperial Library of Vienna (Lambecii xlii. Nesselii lxxi.) and which has been kindly communicated to me by its learned Librarian Dr Kopitar, through the intervention of the Right Honourable Lord Napier, I shall here give it. I give Dr Kopitar's whole transcript. " Exscriptum e Codice Theol. graeco. Vindob. fol. 240. v. ad Luc. v. 6. de reti rupto: Eu0sebi/ou ev0aggelik~ qeofa&.:. -- rubro colore. Parakeleu&etai me\n pe&trw o9 KC. xala&sai ei0j a gran ta_ di/ktua. o9 de\ to_ prostetagme/non e0poi/ei: w9j de\ sune/kleisan plh~qoj i0xqu&wn polu_. kai\ dierrh&gnuto ta_ di/ktua tw~ plh&qei barou&mena, proskalou~ntai me\n ei0j boh&qeian tou_j e0n tw~ geitniw~ni+ ploi/w. ei0t a0nelku&santej tou_j i0xqu&aj, plhrou~sin a mfw ta_ ska&fh. w9j ki+nduneu&ein au0ta_ budi+sqh~nai: e0f0 oi[j o9 pe&troj a0poqauma&saj e0cepla&gh. a0na&cio&n te e9auto_n th~j srio&n (?) e0piba&sewj w9molo&gei:-- seq. rub. grh& qeolog.:."

Another extract, with which I was favoured through the same channnel, will be found in Book v. sect. 38.

11. ² The Greek Orat. de laudd. Constant. extract extends to this place.

12. ¹ This is given above as a principle.

13. ² Our author here speaks as an inhabitant of Caesarea.

14. ¹ Matt. v. 14-16.

15. ³ Is. ix. 1, 2.

16. ¹ If it should be imagined, that Eusebius intended above to assign any preeminence to Peter in the work of evangelizing the world, this place would be sufficient to correct any such notion. Peter was, as the primary Apostle of the Gentiles, very highly honoured: it was Paul nevertheless, who, after his conversion, became the most abundant labourer of them all.

17. ² John viii. 12, &c.

18. ³ Ib. i. 9.

19. ⁴ Matt. x. 27, 28.

20. ⁶ Matt, xxviii. 18, to the end. The differences from the Peschito are slight, and such as to shew, as before, that the Translator having the words of the Peschito in his mind, rather translated afresh than followed it literally.--All these headings following are, in the MS. given as Rubrics.

21. ¹ Ps. ii. 8. Cited also, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 162. D.

22. ² I do not see how this could come out of the mouth of an Arian.

23. ³ The place here referred to is Deut. xxxii. 8, as given in the Version of the Septuagint: where we have, [Greek] Out of this seems to have originated the notion of Angels presiding over the several regions of the Earth: and, thence, among the heathen, of Demons doing this: a notion prevailing far and wide in the East at this very day. The Hebrew has here, "Children of Israel;" whence the notion among the Jews, that there were 72 nations on the earth, and as many languages; because this was the number supposed to have gone down with Jacob into Egypt. The whole however, is a gross mistake, which has arisen out of a false interpretation of the Hebrew term [Hebrew], signifying enumeration, as well as number. The sense of the place will then be, according to the enumeration, (account or statement) of the children of Israel: i. e. as found in their Scriptures. This Scripture is also quoted, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. vii; but the reasoning differs. See also ib. cap. x. p. 163. See also Origen contra Cels. Lib. v. p. 250, &c. An extract is given from the Theophania, in the "Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio," Tom. viii. p. 91, by Signior Angelo Mai in these words: [Greek] If this extract belongs to any part of this work, it must, I suppose, be to this; as I know of no other place at all like it, From the letter Beta being attached to the extract, one would imagine that the second Book was meant; but certainly, our second Book contains no such matter. All I can see in it, I must confess, is, that the writer of the Codex mentioned by Signior Mai only intended to give a sort of Comment on this place of the Theophania, and one which seems to have come originally from the Jews: it being much of a piece with the traditionary nonsense entertained by that people, but quite foreign to the manner of Eusebius, who never indulges in cabbalistic reasoning of this sort. Nor is the Signior (now Cardinal) correct when he says:--"Theophania, seu publica Christi vita, (Luc. cap. 3 )": neither the term, nor the contents of the work, nor the Scripture cited, justifying such an assertion. Nor does the word a0nefa&nh|, referred to, even hint at the existence of this work. All the passage in the Chronicon intends evidently is, that our Lord appeared (a0nefa&nh|) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. The Cardinal tells us moreover, that he has discovered xviii. other fragments of this work, which he has printed in the second edition of his first volume. But this edition I have not yet been able to find in this country; I can say nothing therefore about these extracts.

24. ¹ A very common term, used to designate the true religion: it is also frequently used in the Hebrew Bible in this sense.

25. ² Alluding to the denial of Peter. Matt. xxvi. 74.

26. ³ Luke xxiv. 44. seq.

27. ¹ The phraseology of the Syriac deserves notice here. It runs thus, literally, In the whole hearing (i. e. understanding) therefore of all the nations has He made these His words; being varied and translated, &c. The term [Syriac] is used here, and signifies, as it does also above, Book in. sect. 39, the understanding of languages.

28. ⁴ Matt. xxvi. 13, &c. cited by Theodoret. Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 448. Chrysost. Hom. Matt. 81. Edit. Montf. Tom. vii. p. 705.

29. ¹ The term this (Syr. [Syriac]) may, indeed, here refer to the woman just named: I am disposed rather to think that it refers to this gospel, or doctrine, termed [Syriac] above.

30. ² Matt. xvi. 15. seq. As this passage is important, I give the Syriac of it here, which stands thus: [Syriac]. Justin Martyr takes this passage in the same way: (Dialog. cum Tryphone. p. 255. 48. Ed. Sylburg,) [Greek]. Euthymius gives the sense thus: Thou art Peter, as about to be a rock of the faith, after the denial (of Christ); or, as already being firm in mind: thence, upon this firmness I will build my Church,, or, I will lay thee (as) a foundation of the Believers. For the Church are the Believers, &c. [Greek] See Hammond's admirable note on this place. It is also thus given in the Syriac, (in this MS.) in the work of Titus Bishop of Bozrah on the Manicheans, near the end. [Syriac] That is: " On this rock do I build my Church, and the gate-bars of Hull shall not prevail against it." 'He calls every thing therefore gate-bars, by means of which those, who should take upon themselves a complete readiness to encounter the death of martyrdom, for the sake of the fear of God. And, after a few other things, when Simon said to Him,' " Thou art the Christ," 'He returned the answer,' " Upon this rock do I build my Church." -- 'Upon what? Upon this faith, that' "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." -- He goes on to say, not as the mad Manes affirms of Him, that the Messiah is the five elements. -- He might have added, -- and probably would, had the thing existed in his days, -- nor as the arrogant Papists do, that by "Cephas" (Peter), is here meant the Popes of Rome.

31. ¹Matt. x. 34. seq.

32. ² Luke xii. 51. seq.

33. ¹ Eusebius has, in his Eccl. Hist. occasionally mentioned this Gospel: e. g. as apocryphal, Lib. iii. cap. xxv. [Greek]. " Sed et in eundem ordinem (i.e. apocr.) jam a quibusdam relatum est Evangelium secundum Hebraeos, quo maxime delectantur Hebraei illi qui Christi fidem susceperunt." Again, as retained by the Ebionites and their followers, ib. cap. xxvii. And again, as spoken of by Papias, and said by him to have been written by Matthew, and to have contained the history of the adulteress (John viii.) ib. cap. xxxix. And again, (Lib. iv. cap. xxii.) Hegesippus is said to have cited some things from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and also the Syriac one. This last however was, no doubt, one and the same with the Hebrew one, and so called because written in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect in Hebrew letters. It was by Jerome translated, into both the Greek and Latin languages: a copy of the original being, in his days, preserved in the Library of Caesarea, which had been formed by Pamphilus the Martyr and Friend of Eusebius. See Jerome on Isaiah, cap. xi. and Matt. xviii. And the note of Valesius, p. 47. See also Jones on the Canon of the New Testament, Vol. i. pt. 2. cap. xxv. seq. -- As this passage of the Gospel (so called) of the Hebrews, does not appear to have been cited by any ecclesiastical or other writer, 1 have thought it right to give it as it stands in the Syriac.

It may be remarked, that Eusebius does here cite this passage as worthy of credit, although he does not ascribe any divine authority directly to it. Mr Jones has, in his very excellent work on the Canon of the New Testament, affimed that Eusebius had never so cited this Gospel--which, indeed, had not appeared in the then known works of Eusebius. Still, this cannot be adduced, as in any way affecting the character of our acknowledged Gospels. I am very much disposed to think with Grotius, &c. that this was the original Gospel of St. Matthew, greatly interpolated by the heretical Jews who had received it. See Jones, l. c.

34. ² The passage differs here from the citation above, in the omission of [Syriac], these things; which might have been omitted as unnecessary to the argument.

35. ³ Matt. xxi. 33. seq. This subject is prosecuted much at length on the predictions given from the Old Testament, in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib, ii. cap. iii. seq.

36. ³ 1 Kings xix. 10-14. Rom. xi. 3.

37. ¹ Matt. xxi. 42. Mark xii. 10, 11. Luke xx. 17; comp. Acts iv. 11. 1 Pet. ii. 7.

38. ² Is. xxviii. 16. 1 Pet. ii. 6.

39. ³ Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.

40. ⁴ Matt. xxi. 45. seq. with a few unimportant varieties from the Peschito: and the same may be said generally of all these quotations from Scripture.

41. ⁵ Matt. xxii. 1-10, with some unimportant varieties from the Peschito, as before.

42. ¹ Matt. x. 5, 6.

43. ² [Greek] Sophronius, as cited by Fabricius, Salut. Lux Evang. p. 101, who shews that it was Herod Agrippa who put him to death, in the 44th year of Claudius. Acts xii. 2.

44. ³ The Syr. has [Syriac]. By ([Syriac]) "throne" is here necessarily meant the Episcopal chair of that Church: which agrees well with the judgment which James is said to have given, Acts xv. 19; and where Peter gives his opinion, not as a Judge, but as a mere individual concerned in the question at issue. See also Fabricii Salutaris Lux Evang. p. 47, &c.

45. ⁴ Hist. Eccl. Euseb. Lib. ii. cap. xxiii.

46. ¹ So styled here perhaps, because written by Josephus after he had attached himself to the Romans, and had dedicated it to the Roman Emperor.

47. ² His History of the Jewish Wars.

48. ⁴ Matt, xxii, 10-14.

49. ⁵ Matt, xxiii. 33. seq. agreeing, with a few variations, with the Peschito.

50. ⁷ Acts v. 41.

51. ⁹ See sect. 10, above, note.

52. ¹ James the Less, called the " Brother of the Lord" in the Scripture. See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. ii. cap. xxiii.

53. ² According to some this was Simon Peter, others say that Simon the son of Cleopas was the person; and this is the account of Hegesippus, as preserved by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. [...]

54. ³ The meaning of our author is,--according to the principle formerly laid down,--that, as that prediction had been completely fulfilled, we can entertain no reasonable doubt as to other declarations then made.

55. ⁴ Matt, xxiii. 37. Luke xiii. 34.

56. ⁵ Syr. [Syriac], lit. and the. captivity and Temple they burnt.; which must, I suppose, mean the City.

57. ¹ Haggai ii, 9

58. ² Imitated by Theodoret (Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 446.) [...]

59. ¹ Luke xix. 41. seq.

60. ² Ps. lxxii. 7.

61. ³ Eph. ii. 17.

62. ⁴ John xiv. 27.

63. ⁵ Luke xix. 42, 43.

64. ⁶ Ib. ver. 44.

65. ¹ Luke xxi. 20. seq.

66. ² Ver. 21. [...] Cited also by Origen (contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 69,) and ably commented upon. He also says (ib.), that Phlegon allows in his Chronicon that our Lord's predictions did come to pass. This author moreover gave an account of the eclipse of the Sun which took place at the crucifixion. See Spencer's note on the place, (p. 35, notes.)

67. ⁴ Our author might have added much, if he had chosen to do so, from the Prophets, confirmatory of this position. I will supply an instance or two. In Isaiah xxiv. 1. we are told that " the. Lord maketh the earth (read, the land, i.e. of Judea) empty, and maketh it waste...and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof." 3. " The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled."...5 because they have transgressed the laws,... broken the everlasting covenant." 6. "Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth (the land)...therefore the inhabitants of the earth (land) are burned (comp. Deut. xxxii. 22--27)... 20. "And it shall fall, and NOT RISE AGAIN." Verse 23. identifies this prediction with those here cited by Eusebius, viz. Matt. xxiv. and Luke xxi. The conversion of the Gentiles is, moreover, beautifully touched upon ib. ver. 13-16. Comp. ch. xxv. 1. seq. In ch. xxvi. the same subject is taken up, and in ver. 5, 6, we have literally described, the TRAMPLING DOWN of this impious city. See also xxvi. ver. 10, 11, and xxviii. 18, also xxix. 1--7: 9--20, which are all obvious and direct predictions of these times: and to these many similar ones might be added. Let those who hold a restoration of the Jews look to this. See also Ezek. v, vi, vii, throughout with the parallel places, as given in the margins of the common Bibles. A large number of passages to this effect are cited from Isaiah, by our author, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. ii. xxx.--xxxvii. &c.

68. ⁵ Luke xxi. 24. But, because a xri, " until," occurs here, many have been induced to think and to argue, that, still there must be a restoration of the Jews to satisfy this! See Demonstr. Evang. Lib. vii. p. 321. D. and Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 62, &c. it. Lib. iv. pp. 174-5, [...]

69. ¹ So also Eccl. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. vi. (Edit. G95.) p. 95. seq. where (p. 96 B.) the words used are an echo of these: [...] The testimony of Tertullian, very much to the same effect, will be found in the Bishop of Lincoln's valuable work, " The Eccles. Hist, of the second and third Centuries;" &c. Camb. 1826. p. 162.

70. ² Ib. B.

71. ³ The word "great" (Syr. [Syriac]) used above, is omitted here. Luke xxi. 23,24.

72. ⁴ Luke ib. ver. 23.

73. ⁶ [...] Luke xxi. 21, 22.

74. ⁷ Hudson's edition. Tom. ii. Lib. vi. p. 3274, line 27.

75. ² Deut, xxviii. 56, 57. "The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee." See all the preceding verses, 52 seq. Comp. Lam. ii. 11; iv. 3, 10, 11. Ezek. v. 9, 13, 16, 17. These predictions were, indeed, dreadfully fulfilled to the very letter!

76. ³ Matt. xxiv. 21.

77. ⁴ Hudson's Josephus, Tom. ii. Lib. v. cap. 10, p. 1246, line 41.

78. ⁵ There is a considerable omission here in our Syriac text of Josephus: but, as the matter omitted could have but little reference to the objects had in view by Eusebius; there is no reason to suppose, the text of Josephus himself to be redundant on this account.

79. ⁶ The Syriac is worded rather extraordinarily here; which I notice for the mere sake of the Student. It stands thus: [Syriac]. Lit, For they destroyed the city, and forced the Romans, when they were unwilling, to be recorded (as having taken part) in a sad victory.

80. ² "The times of the Gentiles" must, I think, mean those times previously spoken of in the Scriptures, during which the Gentiles should retain their ancient state and power. That is, during the last part of Daniel's fourth monarchy, in which it is foretold they should have the rule. After this, during the fifth kingdom the saints are to have the rule, these therefore, must be their times, not, scripturally speaking, "the times of the Gentiles." Our author is therefore, wrong in this place. See the Introduction to his work. He is not the only one who has taken it in this sense, as may be seen by referring to Poole's Synopsis, &c.

81. ³ John iv. 19-24.

82. ⁴ The places had here in view are Deut. xi. 29; xxvii. 4. seq. Josh, viii. 30. seq. The Samaritans, it appears, have introduced a large number of spurious readings into the Text of their edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch, and, among others, one ascribing a higher degree of honour to mount Gerizim, than to Hebal: for which Dr Kennicott, some years ago, considered it his duty to contend. See my Prolegomena to Mr Bagster's Polyglott Bible, Prolog, ii. sect. i. xxi. seq. where I have shewn that much relating to this controversy had not been duly understood.

83. ¹ John x. 14-17.

84. ² Matt. xv. 24.

85. ³ These Jews, according to our author, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. ii. xxxvi. cap. iv. p. 63. seq. constituted the Remnant, which it had frequently been foretold should be saved. And in this he was certainly right. Examine these places, and comp. Rom. xi. 5, &c.

86. ⁴ So also in our author's Eccles. Hist. Book, Lib. iv. cap. v.

87. ¹ Ps. xxiii. 1.

88. ² Ps. LXXX. 1.

89. ³ This is no direct citation of Scripture: it is perhaps, as on a former occasion, (above p. 18, note,) the general sense only of some one or two verses. The most likely appear to me to be Is. XL. 10, 11.

90. ⁴ John xii. 23, 24.

91. ⁵ These however were probably Hellenistic Jews; for we are told that "there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast." They might, indeed, have been proselytes: but the former supposition is the most probable.

92. ⁷ Syr. [Syriac] lit. words, or reasons, of the seed. The reader will bear in mind, that [Syriac], has often been used, in this work, in the sense of invigorating, efficient, cause, and the like, as derived from Him who is termed THE WORD, [Syriac]. See Book i. sect. 76. above, with the note.

93. ¹ Alluding perhaps to Luke xv. 32.

94. ² Matt. ix. 37. Luke x. 2.

95. ³ 2 John iv. 35.

96. ⁴ Matt. iii. 12. Luke iii. 17.

97. ⁵ John xiii. 33.

98. ⁶ Ib. ver. 30.

99. ⁷ John xxi. 18, 19.

100. ⁸ Chap. x. 17.

101. ⁹ Chap. v. 11, 12.

102. ¹ A paraphrastical exposition of Matt. v. 12. Luke vi. 23.

103. ³ See above, Book ii. par. 19, p. 80. with the notes.

104. ⁴ Chap. x. 21. seq. This place, as in other instances, differs slightly from the Peschito. It is cited for the same purpose by Theodoret, Graec. affect, curat. p. 446. Ed. Gaisford. [...]

105. ¹ This is a far-fetched, and unnecessary, interpretation. The intention of the passage seems to be,--what indeed the commentators usually make it,--that, as there should be divisions in families, (Luke xii. 52, 53,) those who were opposed to our Lord, should betray and give up those who were His followers: a thing which in all probability took place.

106. ² Chap. xiii. 47. seq.

107. ³ See above, par. 6.

108. ⁴ Chap. vii. 1.5, 16, 17, and as before, differing slightly from the Peschito.

109. ⁶ I. e. Heterodoxy.

110. ¹ Syr. [Syriac]. Marcion himself was a native of Pontus, and lived in the times of Anicetus the eleventh Bishop of Rome. He enlarged upon the errors of Cerdon his immediate predecessor, who had espoused and laboured to propagate the opinions of Simon Magus. Marcion was an open blasphemer of God, and corrupter of the Scriptures. He was one of those who forbade marriage, and urged the abstaining from certain meats, and in this, he seems to have agreed with the Manicheans and Saturninians: in many things with the Simonians, Basilidians, Bogomilians, Audeans, &c. This heresy had, in the times of Epiphanius, extended itself to Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, and Persia. See Grabe's Irenaeus, p. 104, with the notes and references.

111. ² Syr. [Syriac]. So called after their leader Valentinus, who came to Rome in the times of Hyginus, and lived during those of Pius, and to those of Anicetus. His doctrines had originated in Simon Magus, which he very gradually and cautiously endeavoured to introduce into the Church. For which he was eventually deprived of communion. See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Index. It. Grabe.

112. ³ Syr. [Syriac]. So called after Basilides their leader. He waa a native of Alexandria, and flourished in the times of Hadrian. He received his doctrines, which were those of Simon Magus, from Menander, in which marriage was forbidden, and the abstaining from certain meats was urged. See Grabe's Irenaeus, p. 96, with the notes and I ndex.

113. ⁴ He was a native of Mesopotamia, and flourished in the times of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. He first attached himself to Valentinus; but afterwards wrote against him and his doctrines. He is said to have been a very elegant and acute writer: but he never purged himself, as it should seem, from the Gnostic heresy. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xxx. Asseman. Bible. Orient. Tom. i. p. 47, &c. as marked in the Index: particularly p. 389, note.

114. ⁶ Manes, (or, as the modern Persians name him, [Persian], Mani, the Syrians [Syriac] Manni,) was a Persian by birth, and, according to the Chronicon of Edessa (Asseman. Bibl. Orient. Tom. i. p. 393, note) was born A. D. 240. He entered Mesopotamia in A. D. 261, when he came to Archelaus Bishop of the Caschari, for the purpose of disputing on the subject of religion: but, being overcome, he secretly withdrew himself to Persia. He was there taken by the king, flayed alive, and exposed to dogs. He was strenuous in advancing the old oriental doctrine of the two Principles, good, and bad, among Christians; of which marked traces remain to this day among the Mohammedans of Persia, as may be seen in the celebrated work of Kuleini, under the figures of Intellect and Folly, (see my Persian Controversies, p. 175, and note,) as also in the Dabistan, ascribed to Mohsin Fani. He held with the Gnostics, that Christ was a mere Phantom; he put it forth that himself was the Christ, and the Comforter (Paraclete): and his twelve Disciples accordingly proscribed marriage as being of the Devil, &c. See Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. i. xxvi. Tom. iv. with the Index. Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. as cited by Asseman. A Syriac translation of the work of Titus, Bishop of Bozra, against this heresy, is to be found in the volume from which I take this work of Eusebius. All these, according to Hegesippus, as preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xxii.) originated from Thebuthis, who, being mortified because not made a Bishop, set about secretly to corrupt the Church. He was of one of the seven sects then spread abroad among the Jews. Out of which also arose Simon, whence the Simonians: also Cleobius, Dositheus, Gortheus, Masbotheus; whence also Menander, Marcion, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Basilides, &c. &c. Hence also the false Christs, false Apostles, false Prophets, &c. See the notes of Valesius, Ed. 1695, p. 69. seq.

115. ⁶ John x. 27.

116. ⁷ Matt. x. 16: comp. Luke x. 3. Cited also by Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 446.

117. ⁸ Syr. [Syriac], which, I think, should be read [Syriac]: the intention of our author evidently being, to give an equivalent to the "amarum et maligni principis apostasies serpentis venenum" of Irenaeus, Edit. Grabe. p. 105.

118. ¹ Matt. x. 24, 25, 26. Differing slightly from the Peschito, as before. Cited partly by Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 447.

119. ² Matt. ix. 84; xii. 34. Mark iii. 22. Nothing was more common, among both the Jews and heathens, than the accusation of Magic against the miraculous powers of Christ, and of His immediate followers. (See Wetstein on Matt. xii. 24.) "The Heathen," says Bingham,..."because our Saviour and his followers did many miracles, which they imputed to evil arts, and the power of magic,....therefore generally declaimed against them as magicians, and under that character exposed them to the fury of the vulgar," &c. From the prevalence of a belief in magic still in the East, the Mohammedans strongly object to the manner in which we speak of miracles; because, say they, it might still follow, that such miracles proceeded from skill in magic. See my Persian Controversies, Camb. 1824, sect. ii. p. 191. seq. and Book v. sect. 2. below.

120. ³ This place, which is obscure, seems to me to mean this: He bore long with the ignorance of His disciples, seeing as they did His divine power, and blamed their doubting as to the ultimate results of His Gospel. The chief difficulty in the Syriac is, the introduction of the interrogative [Syriac], How? intended apparently to have the force of a strong negative.

121. ⁴ Matt. xix. 9. Differing from the Peschito as before.

122. ¹ Syr. [Syriac] against which some pious monk has written in the margin [Syriac], see and desire: as if this were an essential of Christianity!

123. ³ It need not be supposed that our author mentions this, for the purpose of praising it: his object probably was to shew, that, as our Lord foretold this, its coming to pass-- a thing most unnatural and unheard of, -- was sufficient to shew His foreknowledge. In his Ecclesiastical History (Lib. vi. cap. viii.) he has mentioned this, as the daring act of an inexperienced young man, resulting from a simple and juvenile method of interpreting the passage referred to: which he says was, nevertheless, a proof of continence and of a strong faith; and this is perhaps, a main part of his object here. See also Book v. sect. 14. below.

124. ⁴ Matt. xiii. 3-9.

125. ¹ Heb. iv. 12. seq. Differing considerably from the Peschito, as before. The ancients, as it will be seen in Poole (Synopsis), generally referred this passage to Christ, just as Eusebius does here; and, it must be confessed, the matter contained in the 13th verse, powerfully supports this view. The exegetical sense however, comes to the same under either view: for, whether we take the word of Christ, with the moderns; or, the Word, Christ, with the ancients, the effects, here spoken of, must all be eventually referred to Him. I prefer the former view, as being the more obvious and simple.

126. ² Matt. ix. 37.

127. ³ John iv. 35. Differing in each case from the Peschito, as before.

128. ⁴ Syr. [Syriac], lit. other opinions: which is probably put for the Greek e9terodoci/a; it being customary with the Syrians so to translate Greek compounds. See above, Book ii. par. 19, note, and ib. 69.

129. ¹ Matt. xiii. 24--31. Differing from the Peschito, as before. ² Ib. 36-43.

130. ³ The Greek has here ka&minon, and the Peschito [Syriac], its literal translation: no MS. has gee/nna, whence it appears very likely, that Eusebius cited the passage from memory: a thing very common with the Fathers.

131. ⁶ Rather, one would think, from his being born as a man.

132. ⁷ See above, Book i. sectt. 27, 37, with the notes.

133. ⁸ It will be sufficient to remark here that, by the "end of the world," must be meant in this place,--as in very many passages of Scripture,-- that period in which the old system passed away, and the new one-- the Christian Church was established. But of this, more in our Introduction to this work.

134. ⁹ Much to the same effect, Eccles. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xxiii. near the end.

135. ² Chap. xxiv. 3. seq.

136. ³ Ib. ver. 23-27.

137. ⁴ "Behold, I have told you before," of the authorized version is ambiguous. I have therefore avoided this.

138. ⁵ John v. 43.

139. ⁷ The place here alluded to is, most probably, 2 Thess. ii. 3. seq. The person who should withhold ([Greek], ver. 6.) was, most probably Nero. (See Wetstein on the place); and "the man of sin," generally, each of the several Roman Emperors who became persecutors of the Church. Such was the opinion, -- and no doubt the true one -- of many of the Fathers: which is grounded on Dan. vii. 8; ix. 27; and xi. 36. See also my Sermons and Dissertations, Lond. 1830, pp. 235, 237, note, and ib. p. 326. seq. with the Introduction to this work.

140. ⁸ He was, according to some, as ancient as the times of Sennacherib; which appears to be quite visionary. Jerome places him before the times of our Lord, and makes him the author of the sect of the Pharisees. Origen however affirms, that he was contemporary with the Apostles, and that he declared himself to be the Christ. This, Origen probably grounded on a passage in the Recognitions ascribed to Clemens Romanus, which informs us, that upon the death of John the Baptist Dositheus set up his claim; appointed thirty disciples, and took a woman whom he named the moon -- (considering the Sun probably as his own representative). To this man Simon Magus attached himself, and obtained a place among the thirty, on the first vacancy that afterwards occurred; and soon after he fell in love with this woman. Hegesippus too, makes Dositheus contemporary with the Apostles, as also does Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria. See the note of Valesius to the Eccl. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. And the note above, sect. 30. On the other hand, Theodoret makes Simon Magus the leader. Tom. iv. p. 193.

141. ¹ Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19.

142. ² Acts viii. 10.

143. ³ He commenced his career of heresy in a village of Mysia named Ardaba, situate on the borders of Phrygia. He took to him two women, named Priscilla and Maximilla; gave out that he was the Paraclete, and that his women were Prophetesses. His sect, which was the Cataphrygian, was large, and, at one time, reckoned Tertullian among its supporters. Among other things, the dissolution of marriages and new sorts of fastings were inculcated as necessary. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. capp. iii. xiv. xvi. xviii. and the notes of Valesius. See also Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. Lib. iii. cap. ii. Tom. iv. p. 227.

144. ⁴ As these citations were probably all made from memory, the reader must not be surprised in finding that they occasionally differ, even in the same context.--These passages would, one would think, be sufficient to satisfy those who are so intent on the personal reign of Christ on earth, that their notions are perfectly groundless. For, if He is not to be seen either here, there; either, in the desert, or in the secret chamber, as the false Christs were; but, whose coming was rather to be as the lightning in rapidity and effect,--as indeed was the case in the overthrow of the Jews, the spread of Christianity, and the fall of the Roman Empire; and as particularly foretold in Dan. vii. 13,14: comp. Matt. xxiv. 24, 30; xxvi. 64. Ephes. i. 22. Col. i. 23, also Zech. ix. 14, with the preceding context from ver. 9;--then must all speculations about a personal reign on earth be visionary and false. Our author however, seems to understand this, as referring to our Lord's coming to judgment at the last day. If so, I have no doubt he is wrong.

145. ⁵ Chap. xxiv. 6-9. ib. ver. 10-14.

146. ⁷ Cited by Origen (contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 68.), with this remark: [Greek] "Quis item non mirabitur, ascendens contemplatione ad illud vaticinium.....cum vidcat juxta illam pradictionem jam praedicatum in omnibus, quae sub coelo sunt, terris Graecorum barbarorumque tum sapientibus, tum insipientibus? Omnem enim humanam naturam vicit sermo praedicatus cum potentia, nec est videre ullum genus hominum, a quo haec doctrina recepta non sit."

147. ¹ This argument is urged by Origen (contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 68. Edit. Spencer). From this reasoning of Eusebius, it is evident that he believed that the End had come. And in this there can be no doubt, I think, he was right; but as this involves a question very ill understood at this day, it may be right to offer a few words here, as to what is meant by the End. This, I think, Daniel (ix. 27.) terms the "consummation:" (comp. ver. 26 and vii. 26, 28,) that is, the End of his seventy weeks, (ib. ver. 24. seq.) when "vision and prophecy" should be sealed: i.e. completed. In chap. viii. 19, it is said, "at the time appointed the End shall be." Again, ib. chap. 27, 28. The End of the matter is said to be, when the kingdom under the whole heaven shall have been given to the Saints (i.e.) the Christians: in other words, when the Kings of the earth shall have become its nursing fathers, and Queens its nursing mothers, (Is. xlix. 23.) Again, Dan. xii. 7. When the power of the holy people shall have been scattered, "all these things shall be finished:" i.e. when the power of the new Church shall be spread abroad far and wide, then shall the End of all these thimgs be. (Comp. Is. lxii. 12, &c. Dan. viii. 24.) In Rev. x. 6, 7, which is an exact parallel of Dan. xii. 7, it is sworn by the angel, that time shall be no longer, and that the mystery of God, as declared by the Prophets, shall be finished. Now, our Lord has identified his predictions (Matt. xxiv. and Luke xxi.) with these of Daniel. In the former (ver. 14.) He says: " then shall the END come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination... spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (ix. 27; xii. 11.)..." then shall be great tribulation" (ver. 21. comp. Dan. ix. 26; xii. 1.) ', ver. 34, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be," i. e. commenced (comp. ver. 8.). In the latter (Luke xxi. ver. 22.) " These be the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS which are written MAY BE FULFILLED" (i. e. in them). That the terms, latter days, last days, end of the world, ends of the world, the fulness of time, refer to the times of the Apostles, and those immediately subsequent to these, the Concordance, with the parallels marked in our common Bibles, will be sufficient to shew.--But the kingdom of the saints is never to end (i. e. as far as pre-diction is concerned); it can therefore, have no last days, latter days, or the like. When any such terms are referred to the last judgment, the language is doctrinal, not prophetical. I conclude, therefore, that this End did come, when the persecution of Diocletian ceased: for then all the conditions of prophecy had been fulfilled. Eusebius is therefore right. See also my Sermons and Dissertations, London, 1831, and the Introduction to this work.

148. ² He proved in sect. 28, above, that this had taken place, as he affirms in other places, that the Gospel had been received throughout the whole world. And so says the Apostle, "Yes, verily their sound went out into ALL THE EARTH, and their words unto the END OP THE WORLD." Rom. x. 18; and ib. xvi. 26.--" made known to ALL NATIONS FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH." And again, Col. i. 23...."The Gospel, which was preached to EVERY CREATURE WHICH is UNDER HEAVEN." To the same effect is the testimony of the Fathers generally. See the "Salutaris Lux Evangelica" of Fabricius: and the Introduction to this work.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, st August 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_theophania_06book .htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: Theophania - Book 5

BOOK V.

THE FIFTH BOOK OF (EUSEBIUS) OF CAESAREA.

1. SUCH as these (then), are the proofs of the Divine manifestation of the common Saviour of all, Jesus the Christ, which have been thus far visible to the eyes, shewing forth at once the Divine words and deeds. For in ancient times, the words, of which we have already spoken, as to things which should come to pass, were simply heard; those (I say) which He prophesied to His disciples when He was near, (and) in their presence. But now, in our times, the fulfilment of these words is openly viewed in fact, with powers eclipsing that of all mortal nature. And, if men will not be persuaded of these things, we ought not to wonder: because man is accustomed so to resist the clearest things (possible,) as to dare to oppose in his assertions even the existence of an universal Providence, and thus also even to deny God Himself! And thus disingenuously, will he also contend against many other things, to which the truth (itself) bears testimony. But, as the injurious conduct of these detracts in no respect from the word, which is in (its own) nature true; so also will the wickedness of the unbelief of men, injure in no respect the evident excellency of the Godhead of our Saviour. Let us not deign therefore, even in word to attach ourselves to these. For those, whom the works of God will not persuade, the word of man will be (too) abject to move. Nevertheless, let us again take up the more vigorously, those things against such, which we formerly investigated by questions¹, in proof of the Gospels. If therefore ally one should, after all this, impugn the truth and dare disingenuously to affirm, that the Christ of God was not (such) as we believe He was, but was a magician, seducer, and |286 impostor; we would present to him, as an infant in mind, those things which we also formerly investigated:--

Against those who suppose that the Christ of God was a magician and deceiver.

2. ² Let us now ask then, Whether there ever was a man heard of at any period, who (as) a magician and deceiver, was (also) a teacher of humility, meekness, purity, and of every other virtue? And, Whether it is just to call by these names, Him who would not allow, that (men) should even look upon women with evil desire? And, Whether he could be a magician, who delivered the chief philosophy by teaching His disciples, that the indigent should of their wealth³ adhere to Him, and that compassion and liberality should abound with them? And, Whether He could be a magician, who forbade the assembling together of ferocious and tumultuous inhabitants, and taught them to love the retirement only, which devotes itself to the word of God? How could He,--who deterred from every species of falsehood, and commanded that men should so honour truth above all things, that they should not stand in need of a true oath, much less of a false one,--be justly named a magician? But, What need can there be, that I should now say many |287 things (on this point,) since we may readily inform ourselves from His own words,--which have, even to this day, been preached throughout the whole earth,--what the sort of conduct was, which was disseminated by Him in the world? Every one who loves the truth will confess of Him, not only that He was neither magician nor deceiver, but was THE WORD OF GOD in truth, and the teacher of the divine philosophy and righteousness; and not of this common philosophy of the world;--

3. But the things pertaining to His form of doctrine were such as these.--Come then, let us enquire whether this His error, consisted in (any of) the many things of His teaching. Observe then, ⁴Was it not God, the King of all, Him alone, of whom it is written that He is the cause of every good thing, that He taught and presented to His disciples? And, Do not the words of His doctrine to this very time, raise the mind of every Greek and Barbarian in existence, to the God who is supreme, to Him (I say) who is the maker of the heavens and of the earth, and of the whole world; making (them) overleap all visible nature, and every thing fabricated? Was this then His error? or, Was it, that He did not allow those to worship many gods,--to whom it had been made clear, from this worship of God only, that He could not be convicted of falsehood:--(and) who had fallen after their Head, on account of this real error? But this was not new, nor was it His word (only), but that of those Hebrews, friends of God, who arose in ancient times. And from them it was, that these recent (true) philosophers were aided in these great (performances), and gave in to their doctrines: the wise men of Greece too, glorying in the divinations of their |288 deities, have put it thus on record of the Hebrews, that "wisdom came to the Chaldeans alone, and the Hebrews purely worshipped the Essence of the person of God, the King of all⁵."

4. If then those ancient friends of God,--those to whom (these) divinations have more particularly home testimony,--did raise the act of worship (directing it) to the God who is over all; How should we confess of Him, that He was a deceiver, and not a most wonderful teacher, who has extended this worship of God--as to the things which were known only in former times to these descendants of the Heads of the Hebrew fathers,--to all mankind! And this to such a degree, that no more, as in those times, a few, and those easy to be numbered, hold the orthodox faith respecting God; but thousands of congregations of barbarians at once, and of those who in ancient times were perfectly savage, also of the wise, and men of Greece,--of those (I say) who now, like the prophets and just men of old, have been taught in the worship of God, solely by means of His power, and of His instruction!

5. But, let us also investigate this third (consideration). Was it then for this, that they called Him a deceiver (viz.), because He taught, that men should no more honour God with the slaughter of bulls, or with the sacrifices of irrational animals? Neither with blood and fire, nor with |289 incense, which are of the earth, because these things are of small value and earthly; and shewed that they never could comport with the nature which is immortal and incorporeal?-- determined also that to keep the commandments of God, and by their means to purify both the soul and body, was more acceptable and becoming to God, than any sort of sacrifice?--inculcated too that men should be careful to become like God, both in enlightenment of mind, and in the knowledge of his worship? And, should any one of the Greeks find fault with these things, let him know that it is not to be imagined, that the things (so) received are against (even) those of His own teachers, who have put much together on this (matter,) viz.; That (men) should not suppose they honoured God by means of blood and the sacrifices of irrational animals, or by those of fire, smoke, and the fumes of fat⁶.

6. We know too that we are, after these things, taught by Him that the world was made; and that these Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, are the work of God; and that it is not right we should worship these, and not Him who is the Maker and Creator of them all. It may be well therefore for us to see, how He could have deceived men, from whom we have learned to think that this system (of things) is nothing new, but is that of the Hebrews, the ancient friends of God. Even this sentiment was also from these famous philosophers;--they delivered these same (particulars), affirming that these beavens, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the whole world, were also made by Him, who is the Creator of all things. He also taught us to believe, that the soul which we possess is immortal, and that it is in no respect like the animals that are irrational, but that (the faculties) within it resemble the powers of God. He likewise taught, that all those who were barbarian and ignorant, should (at once) make this their own, and be, and know. And, How was it, that we were not made wise by those sages among the Egyptians, |290 or by those Greeks who made broad their foreheads⁷; those who said that the soul which was in man, was in no respect better in its essence than were gnats, fleas, worms, or reptiles; nor even, than the soul of the serpent, the viper, the bear, or the panther? and that swine, as to their soul, differed in no respect, (from men)?--

7. And, that after these things, He perseveringly admonished (men) of the judgment of God, and of the punishments and vengeance,--things from which we cannot be exempt,--which are recorded against the wicked; also, of the promises of eternal life, of the kingdom of heaven, and of the life of happiness with God, respecting the just. Whom then did He deceive? Did He not rather stimulate (men) to hasten on to virtue, because of the victories reserved for the righteous? and, to flee from, and repel from them, every vice, because of the punishments to be inflicted on the wicked? Such then, being the instructions contained in the doctrinal ordinances of our Saviour; What room does there remain for imagining, that we should suppose Him to have been a Deceiver and Magician?--But, let us also investigate these things.--

8. When a magician associates his companions with the things of this vice, Like to what men does he make |291 them? Is it not to magicians, deceivers, and fabricators of magical drugs,--in all respects like himself? Was there ever, then, a man found among the whole Christian race, who fabricated magical rites or drugs, from the doctrine of our Saviour? There is no (such thing) existing for any man to say; but, the contrary to this, that they have been seen passing over to the precepts of the philosophy which is Divine. How then, can He be justly styled other, in truth, than the Teacher of the life which worships God, the common Saviour of all,--who became throughout the whole habitable world, and to all nations, the (sole) cause of purity and of holiness of life, and of the knowledge (inculcating) the worship of the Creator of all things?

9. Those too, who adhered to Him from the first, as well as those who afterwards received the traditionary account of the manner of their conversation, were, as to all these matters, so far removed from suspicion of evil and bitterness, that they did not even allow the sick to do many things which the many dared to do; either, that they should write (charms) upon tablets, or make use of amulets; or, that they should in their minds have respect to those who promised to use enchantments; or, that they should prescribe for the persons (of the sick), as cures for complaints, either the fumes of roots, or of apples, or of any other similar things. All these things were therefore, excluded from the doctrine of our Saviour: nor was there ever a Christian to be found who used amulets, or |292 enchantments, or the means of written tablets, or, indeed, any other forms allied to these; the indiscriminate use of which was in repute among the many. What then can be said against the men who had been instructed in these things, so as to cast the imputation on them, of their having been the disciples of a master who was a magician? when, behold, the association of any one among the disciples, who promised any (new) doctrine, was severely reprehended! Those men therefore both of art and science, to whom He was the cause of their (christian) instruction, fully confessed of Him, that He was much their superior (in these respects). For, even as physicians are witnesses of the goodness of the doctrine of their master; so, of geometricians, Who has assigned any other instructing heads, except geometricians? and of arithmeticians, except arithmeticians? And in like manner, of the magician, the best witnesses as to these things have been His disciples, who have (always) fully resembled their Master, and have done (as he did). But no man has ever been found, during all these years, a magician and (at the same time a) Disciple of our Saviour; when, behold, kings and governours have, during the whole of these times, made the most careful inquiries into (these) things by means of the worst of torments!

10. And thus indeed, neither was there (ever) any magician His Disciple, so as to be left free and exempt from every (sort) of condemnation; being only reduced by them (the persecuting emperors) to sacrifice⁸.

11. But, that our discourse may not wander from Scripture, take the proof of these things even from the writings of those primitive acquaintances and Disciples of our Saviour, (as found) in the book of their own "Acts." They so wrought upon those of the Gentiles who received their doctrine, that many of these,--who formerly accused them of magic,--so entirely changed their conduct, that they boldly brought forward the abominable books which they had formerly kept secret, to them into the midst of the |293 assemblies, and threw them into the fire in the presence of all. Hear then the statement of these things, which runs thus:--

12. "The⁹ greater part then of those who practised magic brought in their books, and burnt them in the presence of all men; and they reckoned their price, and it was found, that they were worth fifty thousand" (pieces of silver).

13. Such¹⁰ therefore were the Disciples of our Saviour, and such was the entire power of the word, which they put forth in their discourses with (their) hearers, that it became fixed in the depths of their souls;--were so struck and inclined, that every one took up the resolution no more to suffer those things to remain hidden, by which the many had formerly been implicated in error, but that these secret things should be brought out into the light, and that they should become witnesses against themselves, of their own former wickedness. Such also were those who became their Disciples, so pure, noble in soul, and abundant in love, that they allowed nothing impure to remain concealed within them, but, on the contrary, they gloried and exulted in their change from vice to virtue. Since¹¹ therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour were seen to be such, Must not their Master have first been much more excellent? But, if you wish to know from those who are Disciples, of what sort their Master was, you have tens of thousands of the Disciples of the precepts of our Saviour even to this time; of whom there are multitudes of congregations of men, who have armed themselves against the lusts of the nature of the body, and have accustomed themselves to preserve their minds uninjured by any of the evil passions: those (I say), who have passed their whole lives, (and) grown old in purity; and have put forth, from the provisions of His word, the most brilliant examples (to others).

14. Nor¹² was it that men only were in this manner (attached) to Him, and became Philosophers; but also |294 tens of thousands of women throughout the whole creation; those (I say), who like Priestesses of the supreme God, attached themselves to the most exalted service, and applied themselves to the love of the wisdom which is heavenly. On the generation of the body they cast contempt, giving all care to their soul, keeping themselves in purity from every thing sordid and unclean, and extending their desires to all holiness and to virginity¹³. The Greeks, indeed, sing of one shepherd who left his place for the sake of philosophy, and him they hawk about here and there. This was Democritus¹⁴. They also express their astonishment at one Crates¹⁵, who gave his possessions to his citizens. He then |295 took with him himself alone, and boasted in the provisions of liberty. But these counterparts of the word of our Saviour, are tens of thousands in number; nor was it one, or two (only), who sold their possessions and distributed them to the poor and needy: indeed we ourselves are witnesses, that these were even such among men; and, in the effects themselves, we have seen the righteousness of the doctrine of our Saviour. And, What need can there be that we should say, how many myriads even of the barbarians themselves, and not (of these) only, but also of the Greeks, have, by the doctrine of the words of our Saviour, been raised above every error of a plurality of gods, and have recognized and confessed the one only God, the Father and Creator of this whole world? Him (I say), whom one Plato formerly knew, but confessed that he durst not speak of Him before all men; because such power as all this of God's worship was not with him: but to these the Disciples of our Saviour it was, through the help of their Lord, easy to acknowledge Him, and to find Him (at hand as) the Father and Creator of all. To every race of men did they reveal Him, and so preached the knowledge of Him to all, throughout the whole creation, that, from their teaching, there are even to this time, among all nations, tens of thousands of congregations, not only of men, but also of women, children, slaves, and villagers! All this (then accrued to them) from this philosopher, so that |296 they were not wanting, not only to make Him known (as) the Maker and Creator of this whole world, but they also became his ambassadors in every place. Such were the victories of the common Saviour of all; these, the deceptions of Him who was thought to be a Deceiver¹⁶! While, behold, such alone were His Disciples and acquaintances; from whom it was (but) right, we should learn of what sort their Master was.

15. Come¹⁷ then, let us again try the matter thus,-- You say of Him that He was a magician; and not (only so,) but, that He was a maker of magicians. You style Him cunning, and a deceiver. How then was it, that He was the first, and the only one, who has arisen capable of this matter? Or, Is it (not) right we should, according to custom, ascribe the cause to the Teachers? If then He was the first and only one capable of this;--no one having taught Him, and He having never learned any thing from others, nor yet derived it from the ancients;-- How is it not then incumbent on us to confess of Him, that His nature was Divine? He (I say), who without book, without precepts, and without teachers, (so) learned of Himself, and was seen to know from Himself, the Maker of all these things? when, observe, it is impossible for any one to acquire a knowledge of the art of the goldsmith, of logic, or of the primitive elements (of the world), without some one to instruct and teach him. But, if He was out of nature;--and no one ever, (so) taught of himself, came out a teacher of grammar, or of rhetoric; not having previously been taught; nor, has there been a physician, or builder, or practitioner of any other art: these things being but small, and belonging to men; but this, one might say, is of the Teacher of the whole habitable world; (viz.) that He performed the miracles recorded in the Scriptures, (and) |297 whose Disciples (taught) by Himself were such; having received nothing from the ancients, neither having had any help from those moderns who performed things not unlike what others had done, who had preceded Him;--What other thing can we testify or confess, but that the matter is in truth Divine, and such as exceeds all human nature¹⁸?

16. But. you say of Him that He had deceiving teachers, and that neither the sciences of the Egyptians, nor those mysteries which were formerly preached among them, escaped Him: that from these He collected together (His doctrines), and that He seems to have been a man of this description¹⁹.--If then others, His superiors, appeared before Him, and were His teachers, whether in Egypt or elsewhere²⁰; Why did not the fame of these also run forth, prior to His name among all men, just as His has done? and, Why is not the praise of them also proclaimed, even to this time, just as His has been? and, Who is the magician, of those who arose at any time, Barbarian or Greek, who was the teacher of such disciples; the originator of all such laws and precepts as these are; and has shewed forth the power of (this) the common Saviour of all? and, of Whom has it ever been written, that He did such cures as those which have been recorded of our Saviour?--The knowledge too of something to come to pass, with all those |298 predictions? those too, which like these, have by their means been laid down as principles, What other has, either before, or after Him, been memorialized as having delivered? and, Who is it that has promised that he would effect those things, throughout the whole habitable world, which he had (so) predicted, and has, in fact, so confirmed His words, that, even to these our times, the fulfilment of His predictions is visible to our own eyes? And, Whose disciples and eye-witnesses of the things themselves (here had in view), have ever so sealed the truth regarding those which they attested of their Lord, by the trial of both fire and sword, as these Disciples of our Saviour have done?--who (indeed) bore the reproach of all men, for the sake of the things which they had seen and witnessed of Him, and submitted to every species of torment; while the end of their testimony respecting Him was, as that of the Son of God! How much less would magicians seal with their blood their testimonies? And, Which of the magicians, even if it ever came into his mind to set up a new people in his own name, did not only think of doing this, but also gave effect to his project? How would not this eclipse all human nature, that he should also frame laws opposed to the error of a plurality of Gods, and adverse to the ordinances of Kings, Legislators, Philosophers, Poets, and Theologians? and, that he should send these forth and shew, through the period of a long life, that they were (at once) triumphant and faultless?

17. Which²¹ of the magicians is it, who ever projected that which our Saviour did? But, if one did so project; still he dared not to advance this. But, if one so dared; still he brought not the matter to effect. He (the Saviour) said in one word and enouncement to His Disciples, "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and teach ye them every thing that I have commanded you²²." And the deed He made to follow the word. For thence, every race of the Greeks and Barbarians became at once, and in a short space of time, (His) Disciples: The laws too of our |299 Saviour were not written in any Book of His; but, without book²³, were disseminated at His command among all nations; (and) these were opposed to the ancient worship of a plurality of Gods:--laws at enmity with the Demons, and unfriendly to every error of a multitude of Deities:--laws purifying the Scythians, the Persians, and other Barbarians, and converting (them) from every savage, and lawless sort of life:--laws subversive of the customs, which had obtained from ancient times among the Greeks, and teaching the new and genuine worship of God. How then have they dared so (to advance) such things as these, that one should say of Him, that He was probably aided (in) this magic by others,--the ancient magicians,--who were before His times²⁴? But, if there was no other person, whom any one could say resembled Him; neither was there consequently, who could have been the cause of His possessing all this superiority.--It is now time therefore that we should confess, that an extraordinary and Divine Nature came into the world, which first and alone performed the things which had never before been commemorated among men.

18. Let us again ask, after these things, Whether any one ever saw with his eyes, or learned by hearing, that there were magicians such as He was, and composers of |300 (magical) drugs, who, without libations, sacrifices, and invocations of Demons, performed the rites of magic? When, behold, it is well known and clear to every one, that the whole process of magic is usually effected by these things. For, How can any one bring an accusation of this sort either against our Saviour, or against his Disciples, or against those who are, even to these times led by His doctrine? Is there a man who can bring such an accusation as this against them? Is it not evident, even to the blind, that we are prepared for every thing the reverse of these things? And that we dare to surrender up ourselves to death in an instant? but that we will not sacrifice to Demons:--that we instantly submit to be put out of life; but do not submit to be subjected to Demons! And, Who is he who knows not how delightful it is to us, that, through the name of our Saviour, (coupled) with prayers that are pure, we cast out every kind of Demon? And thus the word of our Saviour, and the doctrine which is from Him, have made us all to be greatly superior to the power which is invisible, and impervious to inquiry; and, (such) that we are ready to be enemies and haters of the Demons, but not that we should be friends, or followers, of (their) customs; much less be subjected and obedient (to them). How then could He have been a slave to the Demons, who delivered such things as these, to those who were devoted to Himself? And, How could He have sacrificed to evil spirits? Or, How could He have called upon the Demons (as His) assistants and helpers, when all the Demons and impure spirits have been agitated, as by some torment or punishment even to this very time, at the mention of His name? (and) have departed and fled before His power, as it was the case in former times, when He conversed with men, when they could not bear to see Him; (one and) another, crying out from another place, and saying, " What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? Art thou come to torment us before the time?" |301

19. Now, Is not the man whose mind is intent on magic only,--and is wholly addicted to things (thus) base,-- in his character openly odious, vile, corrupt, iniquitous, ungodly, and impious? And being such, Whence, and How, can he teach others, either the things which pertain to the worship of God, or which respect purity? or, which concern the knowledge of God? or, which are on the immortality of the soul? or, which inculcate righteousness, and the judgment of God who is over all? Would he not be an ambassador of the things which are opposed to all these? persevering in those that attend on hatred, and the denial of God? and rooting up as fabulous the (doctrine of a) general providence of God? and laughing at the words which treat of virtue, and (affirm) of the soul that it is immortal? If indeed, such things as these had been witnessed (of Him), then would there have been nothing, even respecting this our (Teacher), which we could have said to the contrary²⁵. But, if in all His words and His deeds, He was seen to call upon God who is over all, and King of all; and prepared his Disciples to be such; and, if He was Himself temperate, and a Teacher of temperance; if too, He was a doer and a preacher of righteousness, of truth, of mercy, and of every virtue; and, if He shewed forth the worship of God, the King of all; How does it indeed not follow upon these things that we should think of Him, that not one of those wonderful acts which He did was done by magic? and confess that it was, in truth, by the unseen power of God²⁶?

20. These things then, are directed (against) those who dare, with ungodly mouths, to blaspheme against Him. But if they change and confess of Him, that He was a teacher of purity and sobriety of life, and a bringer in of the doctrine of the (true) worship of God; still, that He was no doer of those wonderful, powerful, and miraculous works which are recorded of Him, or of those divine deeds which are superior to man; and, that His Disciples |302 have fabricated these same; it is now time that we should also meet this accusation.

Against those who do not believe the testimony of the Disciples of our Saviour, respecting His miraculous deeds.

21. If ²⁷ then (these) should say of Him, that He wrought no complete miracle, nor yet any of those wonderful works of which His disciples bore testimony, but that His disciples have otherwise falsely stated them, and have lied for the purpose of putting forth miraculous relations about Him; let us see whether the word of these is to be taken as satisfactory: there being no (earthly) cause that they can assign, why they the Disciples, and He their master, went forth into the world. For He who teaches, gives a promise of some doctrine: and they again, the Disciples, love both the precepts and doctrines, as if (conveying) some (valuable) art²⁸, and give themselves up (accordingly) to the Teacher. What ground therefore, can there be for any one to speak against the disciples of our Saviour, on account of their conversation with Him? And, What could have pressed them to this care respecting Him, and that they should have recorded Him (as) the teacher of such doctrines to themselves? Or, Is (not) this clear? For the things which they learned of Him, they also declared fully to others: and these were the appointments of this His philosophy. They²⁹ were too, the first ambassadors of God |303 who is over all, of the providence of God, of the righteous judgment (of God,) of the soul's being immortal, of the distinction between the life of the good and the bad, and of other things of this kind, which are written in their Scripture. It was also a precept pertaining to the life of this philosophy, which He laid down for them when He said, "Possess ye neither gold nor silver in your purses, neither scrip for the way³⁰,''? with other similar things: but (His great precept was), that they should give up their souls, only to the providential care of the Governour of all, and not be anxious on account of want. And He so instructed them, that they should consider (His precepts) much better than those which Moses delivered to the Jews. For he laid down a law for them, --as for men to whom murder would be easy,--that they should not kill. And in like manner, that they should not commit adultery, as to men dissolute and adulterous. And again, that they should not steal, as to men to whom slavery would be suitable; and, that they should not injure, as to men who were fraudulent³¹. But of these, He knew that it was desirable they should stand in need of no such laws; but that this should above all things be precious in their sight, (viz.) that their soul should be subject to no (evil) passion; and that they should root up and expel from the bottom of their heart, as from its root, the germ of (every) vice; (and,) that they should be superior to wrath, and every base desire: that is to say, that they should not even be angry, because of the superiority of their soul, as being free from passion; that they should not look upon a woman with evil desire; that they should so labour against theft, that they should give of their own to them that needed; and further, that they should not glory in this, that they injured none, |304 but (rather) in this, that those who wished to injure them, they bore with without anger³². But, What need is there that I should collect together all the things which He, and they, taught? He also counselled them,--together, with all these things,--that they should be so confirmed in the truth, as not to be under the necessity of giving even a true oath, much less a false one: but that they should so form their character, that in it, apart from every sort of oath, they should appear as true, and should proceed no farther than "yea³³" (yea), and should in their conversation truly apply this.

22. We³⁴ may ask therefore, whether there is any thing--whatever it might be--against those who were the hearers of these things, and who forthwith arose as teachers of them to other Disciples, (out) of which we may suppose they fabricated all the things, which they attested their Master had done. And, What is there in this leading us to suppose, that they all thoroughly lied? They were, in number, the Twelve who had been chosen, and the remaining Seventy of whom it is said, that He sent them before Him, two and two, into every place and part to which He was about to go. But, there is not so much as a word that can be said of this whole company, (shewing) that they belied Him:--of men, who loved the life that was pure, and the worship of the (true) God; who cared but little for all the children of their own families; and who instead of their friends, their wives I say, their children and all belonging to them, took to the life which had no possessions; and fully gave their testimony to their Lord, as from one mouth, among all mankind.

23. This³⁵ is therefore, the leading, primary, and true reason. Let us then, also investigate that which is opposed (to it). Let Him therefore be (considered) the Teacher, and them the Disciples; and so, as it were in a relation of |305 hypothesis that He taught none of the things already mentioned, but those opposed to them (viz.); that they should forthwith be transgressors of the Law; should act impiously, iniquitously, fraudulently, and falsely; should swear falsely, and do (many) hateful things, and if there be any other vice that can be named. Now, all these things are wholly foreign to the doctrines of our Saviour; they are opposed (to them,) and would be the (offspring) of arrogance and impudence. Nor, are they only opposed to His words and doctrines, but also to the mode of life which has hitherto been delivered to all nations; that which is practised in all His Churches. But, even if the matter be (wholly) false, then cannot its like be advanced; (viz.) that we should have been a race so negligent, as not even to have examined the things now before us!--Let Him then be (supposed to have been) the Teacher of every vice, and iniquity; and that the chief care was, that they should after all these things remain concealed. And such custom is most wisely concealed under the form of a doctrine which is pure, and putting forth a new (mode) of worship. These then, were led by such things, and by others still worse. For vice previously ensnares, and it constitutes the teaching of itself. They would (then,) exalt their Master to a state of greatness by lying words, and spare not even one expression of falsehood; and falsely ascribe to Him every sort of miracle and wonderful work, that (men) might |306 wonder at them and felicitate them, that they were dignified by being the Disciples of such a Master.

24. Come then, let us now see,--if they really were such, --whether it was possible that could have been established, which they endeavoured to do for Him. For they say, that "Evil is friendly to evil, but not to good³⁶." Whence then, is this agreement in vice to be discovered in the multitudes of all these men? And, Whence this testimony respecting them (viz.), that the object of them all was in unison? And, Whence this doctrine about the Divine appointments, and the teaching of the (true) Philosophy? Whence also, the mind (intent) on the life of virtue? And, Whence the doctrine (inculcating) flight from every vice? Whence also, the knowledge and recording of precepts such as these? And, Whence the glory of the conduct and conversation which was delivered by them, throughout the whole creation of man? Whence too, all this power? Whence this courage? Whence this confidence? Whence this resignation even to death?--But, Who would at the first, even in opinion, have had respect to the man who taught vice and bitterness,--as it is (here) said of Him,-- and who promised such things? They would surely say (such were the deeds) of a Magician. But, the Disciples of this Leader were in nothing vicious. And, Must not they have understood these things at the end of their Master? and, by what sort of Death he was affected? Why then, after such an end of shame, did they continue in these things? and affirm of Him who was then among the dead, that He was God, unless they thought it a thing of no moment, that they themselves should suffer similar things? Now, Who is it that has voluntarily and openly ever chosen punishment for the sake of nothing profitable? For, had they been desirous of possessions, so would they also of |307 profit: and, if they had been abominable in character, they would have been lustful. We may then think of them perhaps, that they had thus dealt with the matter for the sake of these things, and intrepidly exposed³⁷ themselves even to death! But, if they preached what was adverse to these, and fully proclaimed (it) in the hearing of all the congregations (of Christians); and also, immediately instructed (men) in the doctrine of the Scriptures, (viz.) that they should flee from every vicious and base desire; should avoid every thing fraudulent; should overcome every sort of lust, and the love of money; and that they did moreover, so teach those who became their disciples; it will be likely that they carried on no merchandize, collected no wealth, and took no part in a life either of ease, or of pleasure. Since therefore, they were led by none of these things; How could they have been induced to suffer, for no object, the worst of punishments and of vengeance, for the testimony given of their Master, which, again, had no foundation in fact? |308

25. But let it be granted, that they honoured Him while He was yet with them, and had His conversation among them, and led them astray by deception, as it has been affirmed; How³⁸ was it then, that even after His death, and then much more strenuously than before, they went on calling Him God? Because, while He was yet among men, it is said that they even forsook and denied Him, at the time when His deceivers were ready (to take Him); but, after His departure from among men, they joyfully chose death, rather than relinquish the good testimony they had given respecting Him! Those (Disciples) therefore, who formerly knew no good thing of their Master, neither the life, deed, doctrine, nor work, that was worthy of praise; and, who had received no advantage from Him, except indeed vice, and the leading astray of men; How was it, that they so easily gave themselves up to death, not, because they were in any respect guilty, but because they had attested things so glorious and praise-worthy of Him; when behold, it was in the power of every one of them to live in safety, and to lead a life of comfort at home with his friends³⁹? But, How could men, who were themselves deceived and deceiving, submit willingly to death for another, who, as they knew with certainty, (and) better than all others, had not been in any one thing the cause of good to them, but--as men say,--the Teacher of every evil? A man endued with mind and virtue, may indeed for some noble conquest, or for some excellent person, occasionally with propriety, and even with glory, submit to death. But he, who is so base in character as to have been in pursuit only of the things of a temporal life, and the enjoyment of lusts, has never chosen death rather than life; nor has suffered severe punishment for the sake of his friends, much less for one convicted of vice. How then, could the Disciples of the (Person) mentioned,--who could not have been ignorant that He was a deceiver and magician, if He really had been such, and even retaining in |309 themselves every vice that was hateful,--have willingly undergone every species of torment and of punishment from their countrymen, on account of the testimony they had given of Him? But this is by no means, the disposition of the vicious. For⁴⁰ I myself have seen many, who have faithfully kept society and oath with the living; but who, as soon as these died, dissolved every compact of this sort entered into between them. And we all know accurately how the Sophists,--brought together in the cities (generally), and in glorious repute for their erudition and display of words,--load with praises the governors, and those vested with great power and rule, just so long as they retain this; but, as soon as any change (in this respect) happens to them, these also change their words; and no more will they willingly memorialize those whom they formerly did, purely from the fear of those (now) in power.

26. If⁴¹ then, these Disciples of our Saviour were deceived and deceiving, I would add this also: They were unlearned, and altogether illiterate; that is, they were even barbarians, and understood no language except the Syriac. How then did they, after the departure of their Lord from among men, go forth into the whole creation, and give their testimony to His Godhead? And, by What sort of advice were they prevailed on to attempt this? By What power too, did they effect that which they undertook? It might have happened indeed, that some rustics at their own homes would be perverted and led astray. But, that they (the Disciples) should be sent forth into foreign countries, and should not relinquish their object through remissness, but should preach the name of our Saviour to every man⁴², together with His deeds of wonder; and not this only, but should also teach His commandments both in the villages and cities;--some of them to the Roman power (itself), and (so) apportion to themselves this city of the empire: others also, to the Persians; others, to those among the Armenians; others, to the nation of the Parthians; and again, to that also of the Scythians: (that) some of these |310 should go forth, even as far as the extremities of the creation, and arrive at the country of the Hindoos; others pass over to the Islands beyond the ocean, and which are called Britain;--could not, I think, have been the things of men; How much less, of those who were deficient and illiterate? How much still less, of deceivers and magicians?

27. How then could those, whose experience of their Master was, that He was vicious and a perverter,-- and who had with their own eyes witnessed His departure by death,--have used such terms with each other, for this (viz.), that they should unanimously lie respecting Him? For they all attested as with one mouth, the cleansing of lepers, the casting out of Demons, the raising of the dead, (the restoring of) sight to the blind, and many other instances of cure, which were effected by Him:--

28. And after these things, His resurrection after the death which they had previously witnessed? For, to such things, not happening, nor even being heard of in their times, How could they, with one mouth, have given testimony, and convinced (themselves) that they came to pass? and have continued to place faith in (this) their testimony, even to death? Was it, either that they were brought together, and that they swore to do this? and that they entered into compact with one another, to fabricate, and falsely to put forth, things which never came to pass? And shall we say, that they used terms to this effect as the pretence for such compact? or, such as these? Men, our friends!--Him who was, (as it were) yesterday or the day before, a Deceiver and Teacher of error,--who suffered extreme punishment before the eyes of us all,--we know better and more accurately than any other, how far He excelled, because we were the Disciples of His secret mysteries. He appeared as pure to the many, and thought that He possessed something better than the many. But |311 He possessed nothing great, nor yet any thing worthy of (that) His resurrection; unless one might say, that He was cunning and impure in character, and that those were perversions which He taught us, and the false boastings which was favourable to such things;--come, let us give the right hand to one another, and let us all at once enter into compact among ourselves, that we will unanimously put forth, among all mankind, falsehood respecting Him, and will say, that we saw " Him give sight to the blind,'' a thing which no one (of us) ever heard of; and that " He cleansed the lepers" and "Raised the dead." And we will in a body affirm, that things were done by Him which we (indeed) never saw; and were said (by Him) which we likewise never heard. Those things too which were done, as it were in reality, we will contend for (as such). And, if this His last end has been published, and He so openly received His death that no one can conceal it, we will nevertheless, impudently make this of no effect; attesting pertinaciously that He rose from the dead; was also with all of us, and accompanied us both in conversation and in the usual meals. Let this then, be pertinaciously and shamelessly retained in all these things, and so remain with us, that we persist in it even to death!--For, Why might we (not) expose ourselves to death for nothing⁷? And, Why should it molest us, willingly to receive stripes and torments in our persons, for nothing that is necessary? And, if it be required that we should suffer imprisonment, injury, and affliction, for nothing that is true; should submit instantaneously to this; should all of us together lie by consent, and put forth falsehood for no profit whatever, either to ourselves or to those who may be deceived by us; or, to Him, of whom these lies have been told by us; affirming that He was God: and that we should extend this falsehood, not only to our own people, but should also go out among all mankind, and fill the whole creation with the |312 things we have (thus) laid down respecting Him; and should thence proceed forthwith, to make laws for all nations, subversive of the opinions respecting the Gods of their forefathers; those (I say), which had from ancient times been established among them: and, that we should first of all lay our commands upon the Romans, not to worship those whom their forefathers supposed to be Gods; that we should then also pass off to the Greeks, and preach that which is also adverse to their wise men: that we should not neglect the Egyptians, but contend also with their Deities, but should not draw out against them the things of Moses, which were in former times adverse to them, but place against them the Death of our Teacher as something terrific: and should destroy that fame respecting the Gods, which formerly went out from among them to all mankind, not by mere words, and stories, but by the power of our Lord, of Him who was crucified; and, that we should again proceed even to the extremities of the land of the Barbarians, and subvert the things (prevailing) with all men: and for this purpose not one of us should be wanting: For the reward pertaining to the things which we (so) attempted, would not be small, since the triumphs to which we should present ourselves, would not be simple ones; but, as it is likely, (would be) punishments awarded by the laws of every place; open bonds, torments, imprisonments, fire, sword, (death by) the cross and (by) wild beasts: but, because we would acquire a likeness to our Teacher, we would willingly rather, and with joyfulness one and all, continue (partaking) in these calamities! For, What can there be better than this, that we should be found enemies to both God and man, for no one thing profitable? And also, that we should obtain nothing of ease? neither should see our friends, nor in any way increase our wealth? nor even possess the hope of any good to perfection? but should, on the contrary, vainly and without any object err |313 ourselves, and lead others (also) astray? For this is the helpful thing (had in view), that we should both be opposed to all nations, and also engaged in contention with those Gods, whom all men have from ancient times confessed: and, that we should preach of Him who was our Teacher, and who died before our eyes, that He was God, and the Son of God: and that we ourselves should be ready to die for Him, having learned from him nothing true, and nothing advantageous! And that we should particularly honour Him, because He aided us in nothing excellent: and should moreover do every thing in order to glorify His name; suffer every sort of injury and vengeance, and willingly receive every form of punishment for nothing that is true! For, evil certainly is truth, and falsehood has that which is opposed to vice. On this account we say, that "He even raised the dead, also cleansed the lepers, also cast out Demons, and was the doer of other wonderful works," when we know of no such things done by Him, but have fabricated all these things for ourselves; and (thus) led all astray, on whom we could prevail to do so! But, if any one would not be (so) persuaded, still we ourselves should,-- for the sake of the things which we had (so) bargained upon among ourselves,--have brought forth upon ourselves the things worthy of such a system of error.

29. And Do these things appear to you as convincing? And, Can you so far persuade yourself, that they (His Disciples) did falsely put forth such things as these? And, that men so deficient and unlettered, did actually make (such) compact among themselves, and (triumphantly) walk over the power of the Romans? Could human nature, possessed as it is with the love of life, have ever submitted, for no object and of its own will, to death? Or, Could the Disciples of our Saviour have been carried on to such an excess of madness, that they should at once,--when they had seen no act of a miraculous character performed by Him, --have falsely put forth by compact such things as these? |314 And again, Could they have put together such lying statements respecting Him, and then have readily submitted to death in support of them?

30. But they went not forth by compact, to this (work of) preaching respecting Him; nor did they make (any compact) among themselves. Whence then, had they this perfect agreement of testimony respecting His deeds? Is it (not) likely, from seeing the things which were done by Him?--For one of (these) two things must be the fact: (viz.) Either, they made compact among themselves, and lied; or else, they attested (what) they had seen with their eyes. If then, they really saw (the things), and preached (them) to all men; they were worthy of credit when they said of our Saviour, that He was God; and, that He permitted them to see with their eyes, (the putting forth of) Divine powers, Miracles, and wonderful Works. If however they really saw none of the things (so) recorded, but put together false statements; and accordingly made oath, and sworn covenant, on this, (viz.) that they would say nothing true, and (then) lied, and attested of their Lord what was false; How could they in reality have submitted to death, for nothing true? and, that neither fire, nor sword, nor fierce beasts, nor the depth of the sea, could make them falsify the accounts, which they had (thus) falsely put forth respecting their Lord?

31. But, How can you say that they neither expected nor hoped, that they should suffer any calamity from this their testimony respecting Him; and, that they therefore went out, even boldly, to the (work of) preaching about Him? On the contrary, it was impossible they should not have hoped, that they should suffer every sort of calamity: superinducing as they did the destruction of the Gods, at once of the Romans, the Greeks, and the Barbarians. Now the Book itself, which (speaks) of them, shews plainly, that after the death of their Lord certain men, enemies of the word and who lay in wait for it, laid hands on them; delivering them first to imprisonment, and then strictly |315 commanding them, that they should speak to none in the name of Jesus⁴³. And, when they found them afterwards openly teaching the multitudes the things respecting Him, they violently seized, and scourged (them), and forbade them (so) to teach; Simon Peter answering said to them, "It is right that we should rather hearken to God, and not to men⁴⁴." After these things too, Stephen was stoned with stones, and died; because he had openly spoken (of Him) in the assembly of the Jews⁴⁵. And there arose no small persecution⁴⁶ against those, who were the ambassadors of the name of Jesus. And again at another time, when Herod the king of the Jews slew James the brother of John with the sword, he, the same, confined Simon Peter in bonds, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles⁴⁷. And, while these suffered such things, the rest of the Disciples persevered, grew strong, and remained in the doctrine of our Saviour; and again preached to all men more particularly respecting Him, and His wonderful works. After these things, James--whom those who formerly resided at Jerusalem called "the Just" on account of his great excellence,--was interrogated of the chief priests and doctors of the Jewish people, as to what he thought of Jesus; and, when he returned answer to them, that " He was the Son of God⁴⁸," he was also stoned with stones by them⁴⁹. Simon Peter too, was, after his⁵⁰ Head (i.e. Christ), crucified at Rome. Paul also was taken off⁵¹ (slain,) and John was committed to the island (Patmos in banishment). And, while these suffered such things, not so much as one of the |316 rest forsook His (Christ's) doctrine; and (indeed) all of them prayed, that such things might befall them, in order that they might, for the sake of the worship of God, be like to those already mentioned. And, on this account again, they openly gave their testimony of our Saviour, and of His wonderful works, the more abundantly.

32. And observe, If the things which they preached respecting Him were lies, and they had fabricated them by compact; we ought to wonder how this whole company could have observed this agreement, in what they had fabricated, even to death. And no one of them ever betrayed any fear, on account of the things that had happened to those who had previously been slain; or left their society; or preached that which opposed what his companion had; or brought to light the things they had (so) agreed upon. But even he, who,--filled with the love of money,--dared to deliver Him up to (His) enemies, did forthwith, and with his own hands, inflict punishment on himself⁵²!

33. Now, Is not this replete with wonder, that men, who were deceivers and unlettered⁵³, knowing neither how to speak, or understand, any language beyond that of their fathers, should not only undertake to go forth and to pass into all nations, but should also (so) go forth and effect (their) purpose? And, let this also be considered, that not even one of them ever uttered a word adverse to the marvellous deeds of their Lord! If then, the agreement of witnesses is sufficient to settle any of those things, about which there is doubt, and which is commonly brought into dispute in the courts of law;--and the law of God has declared that⁵⁴ "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every matter shall be established⁵⁵,"--Shall not the truth also be established by these, who were the chosen twelve, and |317 the Disciples seventy in number, and thousands of others besides these, all of whom at once exhibited (so) wonderful an agreement, and who have (so) given their testimony to the things done by our Saviour? This too they did, not without affliction⁵⁶; but in the suffering of torments, and of every species of injury, of scourgings, imprisonment, and deaths! On this account they were through God believed, in order that (He) might everywhere confirm the word preached, by their means, throughout the whole habitable world, even to this day!

34. Let⁵⁷ it be considered then, that we have granted these things, by connivance at an unjust principle. For (in) this, that a man might imagine that which is adverse to the Scripture, and, that we should say of the common Saviour of all that He was a Teacher, not of righteous precepts, but of those of vice, fraud, and of every sort of abomination; and, that these His Disciples learned the same from Him, and were all lustful and vicious in every thing, beyond all men that ever existed; we allowed, by connivance, according to the statement (supposed), that which is of all things the most improper. For this would be, as if one should in a similar manner, injuriously accuse Moses who said in the law, "Thou shalt, not kill; neither shalt thou commit adultery; neither shalt thou steal; neither shalt thou bear false witness;" and should say, that he uttered these things by way of irony and in hypocrisy; for, it was his wish (nevertheless) that his hearers should kill, commit adultery, |318 and act in direct opposition to the things, which he himself shewed the Law laid down; and put forth (merely) the form of an approach to purity of life!--But there is nothing so shameless as this! In like manner also, might any one arraign the positions⁵⁸ of the Philosophers among the Greeks, whose lives were those of patience, as were all their words, and might say, that they were in their conduct opposed to what they wrote; and so shewed themselves to have made a mere (hypocritical) approach to the life, which belongs to philosophy. And thus, we affirm, might any one simply arraign all the writings of the ancients, and shew cause against the truth which they contain; and might Himself receive that, which is diametrically opposed to these! But, as it cannot be difficult to any one possessed of common sense, to pronounce of this that it would be madness; so also, of the precepts of our Saviour and of His Disciples, should any one pervert the truth which is (found) in these, and then attempt to fix upon Him the things diametrically opposed to His teaching.-- But, let that be granted which the statement itself requires. How much more will it then appear, that the assertion of the opponent cannot stand, as (being grounded) in a connivance (concession) which it is improper to (allow)?

35. These⁵⁹ things being then refuted, let us also consider the testimony of the Scriptures of the Divinity, and the spotless and truth-loving manner of the Disciples, of our Saviour. Any one therefore, who chooses (to exercise) a sound mind, may hence see, that they were worthy of all dignity, since they confessed that they were mean and unlettered in their discourse, and betook themselves to a love for the doctrine of the worship of God, and of philosophy. They also desired the life, capable of submitting to sufferings, and afflicted by fasting, (by) abstinence from wine and from flesh, and (by) many other humiliating things of the body; by prayer and supplication to God, and more particularly by temperance, and the chief holiness of body. |319 and soul³. And, Who is not astonished at this, that they should, for the sake of the excellency of wisdom, have even separated themselves from the wives that had been lawfully given to them? and that they were led by no natural desire, and subdued by no love of children; since they desired not the children that were mortal, but those which were immortal? And, How can any one fail to wonder at this their character, that they desired no money? or (How) imagine this, that they fled not from, but loved, a Teacher who despised the possessions of gold and silver? and the Lawgiver, who laid it down that they should not enlarge their possessions even to two coats⁶⁰? which any one hearing, would doubtless seek excuse from its severe requirements; while they were seen to act upon it, even to the letter! For, upon a certain occasion a lame man--one of those who begged, on account of the extreme doubt as to provision,--asked (alms) of those who were about Simon Peter: and, when Simon Peter had nothing that he could give, he confessed that he was destitute (lit. clean) of every sort of possession of silver and gold, and said, "Silver and gold have I none⁶¹." After this he brought forth the precious name,--which is of all things the most precious,--and said, "This which I have give I to thee. In the name of Jesus the Christ, arise and walk."

36. And⁶², when they attended to their Teacher, (Jesus) enjoined upon them the grievous things, (which should happen to them) in these words which He said to them, (viz.) "In the world ye shall have tribulation⁶³;" and again--" Ye shall weep and mourn, but the world shall |320 rejoice⁶⁴," How plainly did the firmness and deep (sincerity) of their character not appear, since they fled not from these (severe) exercises of the soul, nor betook themselves to the things of the desires? nor did their Lord moreover allure them by way of deception, or make them His by promising them the things which supply ease and comfort; but, truly and freely foretold to them those which should happen to them; and enabled them to choose for themselves the sort of conduct, which He had laid down for them. Of this sort were the things, which He foretold and attested, respecting the persecutions that were to happen to them, because of His name, (viz.) "that they should come before governours, and even kings⁶⁵;" and, that they should suffer every sort of punishment and vengeance, not on account of any thing hateful, nor for any other just cause; but for this only, (viz.), for their testimony respecting Him; which (indeed), we have seen with our own eyes, has happened even to this time? His prediction moreover, is worthy of our admiration; for the testimony (given) respecting the name of our Saviour, and the confessing of Him, had usually the effect of inflaming the anger of the Rulers. And, even if nothing hateful had been perpetrated by any one confessing Christ, they punished and injuriously treated him, on account of His name, as evil, and more evil than any other thing: but, if any one did not confess His name, but denied that he was a Disciple of Christ, he was immediately set at liberty, even if he were implicated in many things which were abominable! But, What necessity can there be, that I should collect and endeavour to record, the many things relating to the lives of the Disciples of our Saviour, when the things already advanced, will be sufficient proof of (all) that is before us? To these (however) we will again add the things (following), here in (their) place; and with these we will conclude our discussion.

37. As to Matthew the Apostle⁶⁶ his former manner |321 of life was not that which was excellent; on the contrary, he was one of those whose business was tax-gathering and fraud. This however, not one of the rest of the Apostles has laid open to us, neither John the Apostle who was with him, nor Luke, nor Mark, the writers of the rest of the Gospels: but Matthew, recording his own manner of life, has become his own accuser! Hear then, how openly he has memorialized his own name against himself in his own writing, and has thus spoken:--

38. "⁶⁷And, when Jesus passed from thence, He saw a man sitting among the Tax-gatherers, whose name was Matthew; and He said to him, Follow me: and he arose (and) followed Him. And it came to pass that when He was sitting in the house, Behold many Tax-gatherers and Sinners were sitting with Jesus, and with His Disciples." And again, after these things, when passing away, and reciting the number of the rest of the Disciples, He added respecting Himself the name of Tax-gatherer, and spoke thus: "The⁶⁸ names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Cephas, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, and Thomas and Matthew the Tax-gatherer." Thus therefore Matthew evinces, through the greatness of (his) humility, his truth-loving character, calls himself a Tax-gatherer; conceals not his former mode of life, and counts himself among sinners! He also numbers himself second to the Apostle who was with him; for he associated (himself) with Thomas, as (he did) Simon with Andrew, James with John, and Philip with Bartholomew; placing Thomas first, and honouring him as the more excellent Apostle with himself; while the rest of the Evangelists have done the reverse of this⁶⁹. Hear therefore how Luke |322 bears record of Matthew, not giving him the appellation of Tax-gatherer, nor placing him after Thomas; but, because he considered him the more worthy, numbering him first, and placing Thomas after him, just as Mark has done: His words then, are these: "And⁷⁰, when it was day, He called His Disciples, and chose twelve out of them, those whom He named Apostles: Simon, whom He named Cephas; and |323 Andrew his brother², James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas." Thus therefore Luke honoured Matthew, just as they, who had from the first been eye-witnesses and hearers of the word, had delivered to him⁷¹. ⁷²And thus Matthew, through his humility, made little of himself, confessed that he was a Tax-gatherer, and numbered himself the second (in order), after the Apostle who was (named) with him.

39. You⁷³ will also find that John is like Matthew (in this respect); for in his Epistle⁷⁴ he does not so much as make mention of himself, or call himself Elder⁷⁵ or Apostle, or Evangelist. In the Gospel too, which was written by him, he says of himself that Jesus loved him, but he does not reveal his own name.

40. Simon Peter moreover, did not so much as attempt the writing of a Gospel, on account of his great fear (of responsibility). But Mark, they say, who, being well known to him and his Disciple, put on record the declarations of Simon respecting the deeds of our Saviour. Who,--when |324 he betook himself to the recording of these things, (viz.) when Jesus asked what men said of Him, and the Disciples themselves what they thought of Him; Simon answered and said to Him, "Thou⁷⁶ art the Christ;"--made the statement that Jesus did not even answer him, or say any thing to him; but that He forbade their telling this to any man. Now Mark committed these things to writing, although he was not present with Jesus when He said them; but he had heard them from Peter, when he taught them. Peter however, was unwilling to state the things which Jesus had said either to him, or about him, by way of testimony (favourable) to himself. But, the things which were said of him are these, (which) Matthew has put forth in these (words): "But⁷⁷ you, Whom say ye that I am? Simon said to Him, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him; Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonas, since flesh and blood have not revealed (this) to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock⁷⁸ will I build my Church, and the gate-bars of hell shall not prevail against it. And I give to thee the keys⁷⁹ of the kingdom of heaven; and every one whom thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and every one whom thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven" When (therefore), all these things were said to Simon Peter by Jesus, Mark did not record so much as |325 one of them; because, as it is probable, neither did Peter mention them in his teaching⁸⁰. These things therefore, Simon Peter well kept silent, and thence Mark omitted them. But the things of his denial (of Christ), he preached to all men; and (so) caused an accusation to be recorded against himself! That he wept bitterly too, over this, you will find Mark to have given the record in these (words): "And⁸¹, when Peter was in the court, one of the maid-servants of the High Priest came to him; and, when she saw that he was warming (himself), she looked upon him and said to him, Thou also wast with Jesus the Nazarene. But he denied and said, I know (him) not, nor do I perceive what thou sayest: and he went out into the outer court; and the cock crew. And again a maid saw him, and began to say to those who were standing (by); |326 This (man) also is (one) of them. And he again denied. And again a little after, those who were standing (by) said to Simon, Truly thou art (one) of them; for thou art also a Galilean. But he began to curse and to say, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And immediately, the cock crew the second time" These things Mark wrote; and these, Simon Peter witnessed against himself. For all these things of Mark are, they say, the memorials of the declarations of Peter himself⁸².

41. Of⁸³ those therefore, who excused themselves from saying the things which would contribute to their own good fame, and who recorded against themselves accusations which can never be forgotten, charging themselves with their own foolishness, in things which none of those who came afterwards could have known, had they not been recorded by themselves; How (shall we not assert) they were free from every feeling of self-love, and lying statement? and justly confess of them, that they openly and clearly put forth the proof of an ardent love of truth? Those therefore, who evinced such a character as this,--of whom men thought that they were the authors of falsehood and of lying, and whom they endeavoured to malign as Deceivers;--How are these not (now) found to be a laughing-stock, lovers of hatred and envy, and enemies to the truth? For, How should not those be such, who (insisted) on the things which were guileless, and of no hateful observance; these same (I say), whose characters were true and pure, and who shewed forth their habitual dispositions by their words?--(not) that (men) should say of them, that they were cunning and wily Sophists, and fabricators of things that had no existence, and laid upon their Lord, by way of favour, things which He never did. It does appear to me, that we may well put the question to these, Whether⁸⁴ it be right we should give credence to the Disciples of our Saviour, or not? And, if we are not |327 to give credence to these only, Whether we should to all those also, who have long ago preached the memorial of their conduct and precepts, (both) among the Greeks and the Barbarians; and have committed to writing time after time the victories attending this? And also, Whether it be just to extend credence to others; but to withhold it from them only?--How clearly then, does not the malice of such (opponents) appear!

42. But⁸⁵, Why should these have lied respecting their Lord? and have delivered down, in their writings, things of Him which had no existence, as if they had really happened? Why too, should they have falsely stated of Him the sufferings, and (other) grievous things (which He bore)? His betrayal by one word of His Disciple (Judas)? the accusation of those who criminated Him? the ridicule? the contempt of the judgment (passed on Him)? the reproach? the smitings on the face? the scourges laid upon His loins? the crown of thorns which was placed upon Him in reproach? the purple robe which they put upon Him after the manner of a cloke? and, at last, the bearing of His cross, the signal mark of His victory? that He was then affixed to this? that He was pierced both in His hands and feet? that they gave Him vinegar to drink? that one struck Him on the head with a reed? that He was derided of those who looked on Him? Is it right (I say), that we should suppose His Disciples to have falsely stated even these, and many other similar things that are written about Him? Or, that we should believe they truly stated these (disreputable) things? but, that we should not give credence to those which are honourable (to Him)? But, How can this system of contrariety be supported? |328 For this, that (men) should affirm that these same persons were true; and again this, that they were false, would be nothing else but to affirm of them, that which is in itself contradictory! Of What sort then, should the reprehension of these be? For, if this stigma is to be fixed upon them, (viz.) that they propagated falsehood, and exalted their Lord by lying statements, and adorned Him by means of (fabricated) miracles; they surely never would have committed to writing the things already mentioned, which were adverse to themselves; nor would they have made it known to those, who should come afterwards, that He, whose ambassadors they were, was "oppressed and " exceedingly sorrowful" and was perturbed in his soul: or, that they "forsook Him and fled-" or, that he, who was the chosen of all the Apostles, and His Disciple, the same Simon Peter (I say),--who is preached of,--did, without either pain (inflicted), or torment threatened, deny Him three times! For these things, even if said by others, it was necessary they should deny; they (I say), who betook themselves to nothing else, except the fabrication of false statements favourable to Him, and magnifying both themselves and their Lord.

43. If⁸⁶ then, they appear to be lovers of truth in those grievous accounts (which they give) of Him; much more are they so in those glorious ones. For those, who chose to lie on any one occasion, would the more particularly avoid those things which brought difficulty with them, either by silence or denial of them: because, those who should come after, would not have it in their power to blame the things, which they had (so) kept silent. Why then, did they not lie and say that Judas who betrayed Him, forthwith became a stone, when he dared to give the kiss--the signal of betrayal? And, that he who dared to strike Him on the cheek, had his right hand immediately withered? And the High Priest of the Jews, because he ran along with those who criminated Him, became blind in his eyes? But, Why did not they all lie, (and say) that, in |329 truth, no grievance (whatsoever) happened to Him? but, that He concealed Himself from men, and laughed at their judgment-hall? and, that those who accused Him, were deceived by spectres sent from God; thinking that they were doing something adverse to one who was not near them? And, Why should not this have been (deemed) more glorious, than their falsely stating that "He raised the dead," and was the doer of wonderful works? This, that they should have recorded, that nothing either human or mortal happened to him; but, that He did every thing by the Divine power?--That He made His ascension to heaven in the Divine glory? For those, who gave credence to their other accounts, could not have with-holden their belief from these. How then, should those be (deemed) worthy of exemption from every suspicion of vice, who concealed nothing of the truth, as to the difficulties and calamities (so happening); and not also worthy of all credit, as to the other miraculous deeds which they attested respecting Him? The testimony therefore, of these men respecting our Saviour, is sufficient. There is nevertheless, nothing to prohibit our availing ourselves, even the more abundantly, of the Hebrew witness Josephus; who, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writing the things that belonged to the times of Pilate, commemorates our Saviour in these words: --

(The testimony) of Josephus respecting the Christ.

44. " At⁸⁷ this period then was Jesus, a wise man, if it be right to call Him a man; for He was the doer of |330 wonderful works, and the Teacher of those men who, with pleasure, received Him in truth. And He brought together many (both) of the Jews, and many of the profane (Gentiles). And this was the Messiah (Christ). And, when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal ancient men among ourselves, laid on Him the punishment of the Cross, those who formerly loved Him were not reduced to silence. For He appeared again to them, on the third day, alive: things which, with many others, the Prophets had said respecting Him: so that from thence, and even until now, the race of the Christians has not been wanting to Him."

45. If⁸⁸ therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, |331 He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. It is also on record, that there was a great Church of Christ at Jerusalem; which had been collected from among the Jews, even to the times of its reduction by Hadrian. The first Bishops too who were there, are said to have been, one after another, fifteen (in number), who were Jews⁸⁹; the names of whom are published to the men of that place, even until now. So that by these, every accusation against the Disciples may be undone; since, what was prior to them, and independent of their testimony, these attest of Him, (viz.), that He, the Christ of God, did by means of these wondrous works which He performed, reduce many, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, beneath His power⁹⁰.

46. You⁹¹ will also be made acquainted with the Divinity of His power, if you will consider of what nature He was; and how it was that all this superiority of the Divine power (operated) in the overcoming of tilings exceeding all description. For let it be considered, No one--who ever wished to disseminate his laws, or any strange doctrine among all nations, and, who would shew himself to be a Teacher of the worship of the one supreme God, to all races of men,--would be willing to make use of those as the ministers of his will, who were of all men the most rustic and deficient. And it is likely, one might |332 think, he would attempt this with the greatest impropriety. For, How could they who could scarcely open their lips, ever be the Teachers of any one man, much less of multitudes? And, How could they,--destitute of every sort of erudition,--address whole assemblies, unless this were indeed a shewing forth of the will of God? For He called them, as we have already shewn, and said in the first place "Follow me, and I will make you Fishers of men⁹²." And, because He thenceforth made them His own, and they adhered to Him, He breathed into them the Divine power⁹³, and filled them both with strength and courage: and, as He was THE WORD or GOD in truth, and the Doer of all these miracles, He made them the Fishermen of intellectual and reasonable souls; adding, at once to the word "Follow me, and I will make you" the Deed, making them both the Doers, and Teachers, of the worship of His God⁹⁴. And thus He sent them forth into all nations throughout the whole creation, and demonstrated that they were the Preachers of His doctrine. And, Who is not astonished, and probably incredulous, as to this miracle,-- which could scarcely (indeed) have been imagined? Since no one, of those who have been eminent, has ever been commemorated as having had recourse to any such thing as this; or has come up to any thing resembling it⁹⁵. For it has been the desire of each one of these, to set up something promising to himself, in his own land only; or, to be able to establish such laws as seemed to him good, among some one people of his own. But observe of Him, who availed himself of nothing either human or mortal, how, in reality, He again put forth the word of God in the precept, which He gave |333 to these His powerless Disciples, (viz.) "Go ye and make Disciples of all nations⁹⁶!" It is likely too, His Disciples would thus address their Lord, by way of answer: How can we do this? For, How can we preach to the Romans? And, How can we discourse with the Egyptians? What diction can we use against the Greeks; being brought up in the Syrian language only? How can we persuade the Persians, the Armenians, the Chaldeans, the Scythians, the Hindoos, and other nations called Barbarians, to desert the gods of their forefathers, and to worship the one Creator of all things? And, upon What superiority of words can we rely, that we shall succeed in this? Or. How can we hope, that we shall prevail in the things attempted? (viz.) that we shall legislate for all nations, in direct opposition to the laws laid down from ancient times, (and this) against their gods? And, What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, '' Ye shall conquer in my name." For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): "In my name." Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, "God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth." It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was |334 hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, "In my name." He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, "It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations⁹⁷." Now, this matter was then declared in a corner of the earth, so that those only who were at hand could have heard it. But, How could they have believed Him when He said this, unless they had taken experiment as to the truth of His words, from the other Divine acts which were done by Him? For this, you are compelled to confess when it is considered, that they gave credence to what He said. For, when He gave them the command, not so much as one sought to be excused; but they confided in what He had intimated: and, just as His promises had been, so DID they make Disciples of the whole race of men! They did go forth from their own land into all nations; and, in a short time, His words were seen in effect! His Gospel was therefore shortly preached, throughout the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations, so that the Barbarians and Greeks received the Scriptures, respecting the common Saviour of all, in the handwriting of their Progenitors, and in the words of their spiritual Fathers.

47. A man might therefore well stand in doubt, as to what the form of the doctrine of our Saviour's Disciples was; how they passed on into the midst of cities, and so proclaimed (it) in the middle of the streets; lifting up their voices, calling to those with whom they met, and thence conversing with the people: also, of what sort the language was in which they addressed them, so that we can imagine the hearers were persuaded thereby: and (again), how (such) men, inexperienced in words and far removed from every sort of erudition, could speak before the people; and (this), if not in large assemblies, still with the few with |335 whom they met, and then addressed: and, of what, and of what sort of terms, they made use for persuading (their) hearers. Nor was their effort small, since they by no means denied the ignominious death of Him, whom they preached. But, even if they concealed this, and did not confess before all, what, and how many, things He suffered of the Jews, but put forth only those splendid and glorious things--I say indeed,--His wondrous works, His miraculous operations, and His doctrines of the (true) Philosophy; still, the matter will not thus be made easy, (viz.) how they could make those who heard them, easily to give in to their declarations: because their diction would be foreign. They would too, now be listening to declarations entirely new, (coming) from men, who possessed nothing worthy of truth, in testimony of the things affirmed by them.

48. But⁹⁸, let it be supposed that the persuasives now put forth were these, (viz.) that those who were His ambassadors, should at one time preach that He was God; that, in body, He was human; and that, in his nature, He was no other than THE WORD OF GOD: on which account also, He performed all these miracles, and (put forth these) powers: but, that at another time, He suffered reproach and infamy, and at last the capital and shameful punishment of the Cross; which is inflicted on those (only), who are in their deeds the worst of all men. Who then, would not (now) properly treat them with ridicule, as affirming things opposed to each other? And, Who is he, whose intellect would (partake) so much of stone, as readily to believe them, when they said that they saw Him after His death? that He rose from the dead?--Him (I say), who could not help Himself when among the living⁹⁹? And (again), Who would ever be persuaded by men so illiterate and |336 deficient as these, when saying; You should despise the things of your own forefathers; charge as folly those of the wise of ancient times; suffer yourselves to be persuaded by us alone, and to be commanded by the precepts of Him who was crucified: for He only is the beloved, and only (begotten) of that God alone, who is over all?

49. I myself however, investigating for myself with effort¹⁰⁰, and in the love of truth, this same thing (singly), should perceive not one virtue in it (making it) credible, nor even any thing great, or worthy of faith, nor so persuasive, as adequate to the persuading of even one illiterate person, much less men wise and intellectual. Nevertheless, when again I view its power, and the result of its doings; how the many myriads have given their assent to it, and how Churches of tens of thousands of men have been brought together, by these very deficient and rustic persons; --nor that these were built in obscure places, nor in those which are unknown, but rather in the greatest cities, I say in the Imperial city of Rome itself, in Alexandria, in Antioch, in all Egypt, in Libya, in Europe, in Asia, both in the villages and (other) places, and among all nations; I am again compelled to recur to the question of (its) cause, and to confess, that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise, than by a Divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them, "Go¹⁰¹, and make Disciples of all nations in my name." And, when He had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged, as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For He said to them, "Behold¹⁰² I am with you always, even to the end of the world." It is stated, |337 moreover, that He breathed into them the Holy Ghost with the Divine power; (thus) giving them the power to work miracles, saying at one time, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost¹⁰³;" and at another, commanding them, to "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out Demons:---freely ye have received, freely give¹⁰⁴."

50. Even you yourself see therefore, how this their word took effect; since even the Book of their Acts attests things like to these, and which accord with them; how,-- (for example,) when writing also of those by whom miraculous deeds were done in the name of Jesus¹⁰⁵,--those, who were present and saw, were astonished. They were astonished, as it should seem, at those who had formerly seen (this power) by means of deeds; and who then made them (i. e. the chief Priests,) readily to ask, Who this was, by whose power and name the miracle had been wrought?--And thus, as they taught, they found that these had in faith (even) run before their instruction. For, it was not by words that they were persuaded; but it was by the deeds which preceded these, that they were readily prevailed upon to accede to the things said. It is also said, that men suddenly brought to them sacrifices and libations, as if they had been Gods; thinking that one of them was Mercury, the other Jupiter: and the whole of this astonishment was, to their minds, a demonstration that the deeds done were miraculous. And, as all those which they preached respecting our Saviour, were such as these, they were thenceforth quickly, and with propriety, received. Nor did they give their testimony of His resurrection from the dead, by mere words and without proofs; but, by their power and by deeds did they persuade, and shew forth the works of the living (God).

51. If¹⁰⁶ then, they preached that He was God, and the Son of God, and that He was with the Father before He came among men; Why should they not have especially added to this, that they believed what was adverse to have been impossible and incredible? For they must have justly thought it impossible, that these acts could have been |338 those of men; but, on the contrary, those of God, even the more though no one would say (this).

52. And this, and nothing else, is indeed the thing required, (viz.) by what power the Disciples of our Saviour gained credit from those, who had from the first heard them: and how they persuaded both Greeks and Barbarians to think of Him, as of THE WORD OF GOD: and how they set up in the midst of the cities, and in all villages, Houses¹⁰⁷ (appropriated to) the Doctrine of the worship of the supreme God. And, Who is not also astonished at this, when he considers with himself, and feels satisfied, that this could not have been of man; that never at any former time, were the many nations of the whole creation subject to the one sovereign rule of the Romans, except only since the time of our Saviour? For it happened, immediately upon His passing about among men, that the affairs of the Romans became great¹⁰⁸;--that, at that time, Augustus was primarily the sole Sovereign of many nations; and that in his time Cleopatra was inflamed with love; and the traditionary (kingdom) of the Ptolemies in Egypt was dissolved¹⁰⁹. For, from that time, and until now, that kingdom which was from ancient time; and of it, as one might say, the ancient germ of men which was established in Egypt, have been rooted up. From |339 that period too, have the Jewish people been in subjection to the Romans; as has that, in like manner, of the Syrians, the Cappadocians, the Macedonians, the Bithynians, and the Greeks; and, to speak collectively, all the rest of those subject to the rule of the Romans; and, that this did not come to pass without regard to the Divine teaching of our Saviour, Who will not confess, when He has considered, that it would not have been easy for His Disciples to be sent forth, and to pass into foreign parts, when all the nations were divided one against another? and when there was no one uniting element among them, on account of the many Satraps (stationed) in every place, and in every city? But, in the extirpation of these, they immediately, fearlessly, and with pleasure, set about doing that which had been placed before them; because God, who is over all, had previously made their course peaceful, and had restrained the wrath of the worshippers of Demons in the cities, by the fear of the great Empire. Consider then, If there had not been something to restrain those who had been stupified with the error of a plurality of Gods, how they would have contended with the Doctrine of Christ. For, you would doubtless have seen in every city and village, commotions (stirred up) against each other, with persecutions and wars of no mean description ¹¹⁰, had the worshippers of the Demons possessed the sovereign rule over us. But now, this also is a work of the God who is over all, that He might subdue |340 the enemies of His word, by the greater fear of a superior kingdom. For it was His will, that (His word) should daily increase and extend itself to all mankind: and again, so, that it should not be thought, that, it was by the connivance of the Rulers, and not by the superior power of God, it took effect.--When any one of the tyrants was so elated by wickedness, as to set about resisting the word of Christ, the God of all even allowed such at once to do his will; because he would afford proof to those combatants for (establishing) the worship of God, and also that it might be seen clearly by all men, that it was not by the will of man that the word was established, but by the power of God himself. And, Who is not instantly amazed at the things which usually come to pass in times such as these¹¹¹? For, those ancient combatants from among men for the worship of God, kept secret¹¹² the nature of their superiority; at that time they became known and seen by all, when they were adorned with the victories which were from God: while those, who were the enemies of the worship of God, received the punishments which were justly their due: chastized (as they were) by strokes sent from God, and their entire bodies wasted by grievous and incurable diseases, so as to have been speedily driven to confess |341 their wickedness in opposing our Saviour¹¹³! But these, the rest of all those who were worthy of the Divine name (Christian), and who gloried in thinking of the things which belonged to Christ, did in a short time shew,--being brought through trials,--the purity and refining of their minds, and that they had thus also obtained freedom for their souls. And soon did God cause, that, by their means, THE WORD, the Saviour, should arise (as the sun) on tens of thousands.

The End of writing the Five Books of Eusebius of Caesarea, which are called "The Divine Manifestation."

[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac and large chunks of Greek have been omitted]

1. ¹ Alluding to the interrogative mode of inquiry pursued in the former Books of this work.

2. ¹ This place occurs also in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. in. iii. p. 102. D. seq.--The charge of our Lord's being a magician is often advanced by Celsus, Origen contra Cels. Lib. i. pp. 7, 30, 65, &c. See sect. 16, below, and Spencer's notes on Origen contra Cels. Lib. i. p. 7, notes.

3. ² Syr. [Syriac]. The meaning of which I suppose is, that he wished His followers to be, those who most felt their wants of His aid. The Syriac is probably defective here.

4. ⁸ Comp. also, ib. p. 106. seq.

5. ¹ [...] It is cited again, Prep. Evang. Lib. ix. cap. x. p. 413. C. [...]. Other oracles are given from Porphyry, Demonstr..Evang. Lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 134. B. C.

6. ⁴ Abundant testimony, to this effect, is adduced, Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. capp. x. xi. &c. from Porphyry and Theophrastus; and again, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. in. cap. iii. p. 105, &c.

7. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. iii. p. 106. C.[...]

8. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 128. A., but much more full in the Greek. Our author seems to mean; No magician would have ever suffered martyrdom, as His Disciples did, because he could have experienced no difficulty in sacrificing to idols.

9. ² Acts xix. 19. The citation agrees neither with the Peschito, nor the Philoxenian Version; but, as before, was translated afresh from the Greek. Demonstr. Evang. ib. B. C.

10. ³ Demonstr. Evang. ib. C.

11. ⁴ Ib. D.

12. ⁵ Ib. p. 129. A. B.

13. ² Demonstr. Evang. [Greek] which, it must be confessed, savours, to some extent, of the attachment to monastic institutions so unhappily prevalent in the days of our author.

14. ³ He was, as some think, the real originator of the Epicurean sect, and author of the doctrine of Atoms. Cicero says of him, (Tusc. Quest. Lib. v. c. xxxix.) just as Eusebius does here: "An, ni ita se res haberet, Anaxagoras, aut hic ipse Democritus, agros at patrimonia sua reliquissent; huic discendi quaerendique divinae delectationi toto se animo dedissent." And Horace, (Epist. Lib. 1.12,12.) speaking of him as a shepherd; "Miramur, si Democriti pecus edit agellos cultaque, dum peregre est animus sine corpore velox." See also his life by Diogenes Laertius: whence it should seem that he was a man of most extensive erudition, having written books on Morality, Physics, Mathematics, Geometry, Astronomy, Geography, Music, Poetry, Medicine, Agriculture, Painting, Tactics, on the Sacred Literature of Babylon, Chaldean History, Navigation, &c.

15. ⁴ [...]. This is, no doubt, the Theban Crates whose life is given in Diogenes Laertius, (Lib. vi. segm. 85). [Greek] - "Hunc ait Antisthenes in successionibus, cum in Tragoedia quadam cerneret Telephum sportulam tenentem, ad cynicam philosophiam prorupisse, illumque patrimonio vendito, erat quippe vir nobilis, cum congregasset circiter ducenta talenta, civibus ea divisisse: adeoque constanter philosophatum esse, ut et Philemon comicus ipsius mentionem fecerit: ait nempe:

" Aestate crassum vestiebat pallium

Sed hyeme pannum, ut temperans evaderet."

See also Plutarch, " De vitando aere alieno," p. mihi, 831. ib. p. 466. His love of liberty, ib. p. 499. Tom. ii. Edit. 1620. Bruckeri Hist. Philosoph. Crit. Tom. i. p. 888, &c. The whole of this is also found in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. vi. p. 129. C. Ed. 1628. Origen is, perhaps, the first among the Fathers who cites both these cases: i. e. that of Democritus and that of Crates, Contra Celsum. Lib. ii. p. 84. On both, see also, notae Hoeschelii ad Orig. ib. Edit. Spencer.

16. ¹ Ib. p. 130. B.

17. ² Ib. p. 130. B.C., &c.

18. ⁵ The Mohammedans urge an argument of this sort in favour of their Prophet, from a fancied inimitability in the elegance of the Koran; which, it is not impossible, they might originally have taken from this, or some similar Christian, work.

19. ⁶ Ib. p. 131. A. seq.

20. ⁷ This is, by no means, a supposititious case. "Celsus," says Mr Bingham, (Antiq. Vol. i. Book i. c. ii. sect. 5.) "and others pretended that our Saviour studied magic in Egypt; and St Austin says, it was generally believed among the heathen, that he wrote some books about magic too, which be delivered to Peter and Paul for the use of his disciples. Hence it was that Suetonius, speaking in the language of his party, calls the Christians, Genus homimem superstitionis maleficae, the men of magical superstition. As Asclepiades, the judge in Prudentius, styles St Romanus the martyr, the Arch-magician. And St Ambrose observes in the Passion of St Agnes, how the people cried out against her, "away with the sorceress! away with the enchanter!" See also the note to Book iv. sect. 31, above. Origen contra Cels. Lib. i. pp. 22, 30. Lib. ii. p. 89, &c.

21. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. p. 131. D.

22. ² Matt, xxviii. 19--20. Cited evidently from memory.

23. ³ Let it not be imagined that this favours the modern doctrines about unwritten tradition. The Apostles were,--be it remembered,-- divinely inspired expressly for this work, and for inditing those Scriptures which are the main sources of divine truth to the Christian Church. And, although Irenaeus (Lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 200. Edit. Grabe) speaks of Tradition, not written, but delivered viva voce; it is evident enough, that he intends to ascribe to this no independent authority: for in the very same context he informs us, that the Heretics, against whom he was writing, were found, when opposing this Tradition, resisting the declarations also of the Scriptures. Ancient Tradition, when found accordant with the Scriptures, may indeed be relied on; but, it is from an examination of it by the Scriptures alone, that we can know it to be good.

24. ⁴ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 132. B. where the Gr. stands thus: [Greek] of which the Syriac is as servile a rendering, and, at the same time, as obscure an one, as perhaps can be imagined.

25. ³ The Greek here, as often in other places, exceeds our Syriac text, which induces me to believe, that our work was written prior to this. Ib. p. 133. C.

26. ⁴ The Greek leaves us here, ib. D.

27. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. v. p. 109. C. seq. with some slight variations. A similar argument is pressed by Arnobius adversus Gentes. Lib. i. p. 32. Edit. 1604.

28. ³ This does not occur in the Greek.

29. ⁴ This does not occur in the Greek, ib.

30. ⁵ Matt. x. 10. Differing, as before, from the Peschito.

31. ⁶ This last clause is not found in the Greek, ib. p. 110. A., where the rest is found.

32. ¹ So the Sermon on the mount, generally, Matt. v. seq.

33. ³ Matt. v. 37. The Greek however has, [Greek]

34. ⁴ Ib. Demonstr. Evang. Lib. in. cap. v. p. 110. C. seq.

35. ⁵ Ib. D. seq.

36. ¹ [...] A sentiment not unlike this occurs in Origen, contra Cels. Lib. i. p. 11.

37. ⁵ Syr. [Syriac]. This word occurs in no Syriac Lexicon accessible to me. It is, however, beyond all doubt, the "Parabolarii," i. q. "Parabolani" of the Latins, and Para&boloi of the Greeks. The following is Bingham's account of the term. (Ant. Christ. Church, Book i. c. ii. sect. 9.)..."They" (the heathen) "gave them" (the Christians) " the names of Parabolarii and Desperati, the bold and desperate men, The Parabolarii or Parabolani among the Romans, were those bold adventurous men who hired out themselves to fight with wild beasts, upon the stage or amphitheatre, whence they had also the name of Bestiarii and Confectores. Now, because the Christians were put to fight for their lives in the same manner, and they rather chose to do it than deny their religion, they therefore got the name of Paraboli and Parabolani; which, though it was intended as a name of reproach and mockery, yet the Christians were not unwilling to take it to themselves, being one of the truest characters that the heathens ever gave them," &c. And, again, (Book iii. c. ix. sect. 3.) " These were those whom the Romans called Bestiarii, and sometimes Paraboli and Parabolarii, from the Greek word Paraba&llesqai, which signifies exposing a man's life to danger, as they that fought with wild beasts did...and it is the opinion of Gothofred and some other learned critics, that the ancient reading of the Greek copies of... Phil. ii. 30, was [Greek], exposing his life to danger, as an old Latin interpreter of Puteanus renders it, 'Parabolatus de anima sua.' See also Wetstein on the place. This name was also given to some officers of the Church, who thus adventured their lives in visiting the sick." Bingham, ib.

38. ¹ Gr. ib. D. The arguments here replied to, will generally be found in Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 87, &c.

39. ² Ib. p. 112. A.

40. ⁴ Not in the Gr. ib. C.

41. ⁵ Ib. (Demonstr. Evang.) p. 112. C., with some variations.

42. ⁶ Comp. Ep. Col. i. 23, and see the note above, Book iv. par. 36.

43. ⁴ Acts iv. 17, 18.

44. ⁵ Ib. 19.

45. ⁶ Ib. ch. vii.

46. ⁷ Ib. ch. viii. 1. seq.

47. ⁸ Ib. ch. xii. 2. seq.

48. ⁹ So Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 69.

49. ¹⁰ Euseb. Eccl. Hist. cap. xxiii. Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. v. p. 116, B. C. [...]

50. ¹¹ Eccl. Hist. cap. xxv. [...]

51. ¹² Ib. cap. xviii. [...]

52. ¹ This was Judas, Matt. xxvi. 14; xxvii. 3, &c. [...]

53. ² Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 117. [...]

54. ³ This clause does not appear in the Greek.

55. ⁴ Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15. 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

56. ⁵ Demonstr. Evang. ib. B. Gr. [Greek].

57. ⁷ Ib. p. 117. C. The Syriac is obscure here, which stands thus: [Syriac], lit. These things then, have been investigated, or, let them be (thought) investigated, (as) that we have given to them, by connivance, a beginning which is not in propriety. [...]

58. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. p. 117. D.

59. ² Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 118. B.

60. ⁴ Matt. x. 10, &c.

61. ⁶ Acts iii. 6.

62. ⁷ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 119. A.

63. ⁸ John xvi. 33.

64. ¹ John xvi. 20.

65. ² Mark ix. 13. Luke xxi. 12.

66. ⁴ See the note to the next paragraph. Demonst. Evang. Lib. iii. p. 119. D. seq. with certain variations.

67. ⁵ Matt. ix. 9-11. As before, differing considerably from the Peschito.

68. ⁶ Matt. x. 2, 3.

69. ⁷ An extract from the original Greek of this place, having been preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna, and kindly communicated to me, (see Book iv. sect. 6, above,) I shall now give it as before (1. c.) " Fol. 375. v. EuseB. eu0aggel-qeofa&: (haec rubrica excipit locum Lucae de vocatione Levi:) Acion qanma&sai to_ a plaston kai\ fila&lhqej h]qoj.. kai\ th_n filosofi/an tou~ eu0aggelistou~ matqai/ou. ou[toj ga_r to_n pro&teron bi/on, ou0k a0po_ semnh~j diatribh~j w9rma~to, e0k de\ tw~n a0mfi\ ta_j telwni/aj kai\ pleoneci/aj sxolazo&ntwn. kai\ tou~to tw~n loipw~n eu0aggelistw~n ou0dei\j dh~lon h9mi~n e0poi/hsen. ou0k o9 snnapo&stoloj au0tou~ 'Iwa&nnhj. a0lla0 o9 me\n louka~j sugkallu&ptwn to_ o noma th~ a0rxaiote/ra proshgori/a katexrh&sato. au0to_j d' o9 matqai~oj. to_n e9autou~ sthliteu/wn u9ion" (lego bi/on.) "kai\ kath&goroj e9autou~ gino&menoj, o0nomasti\, au0to_j e9autou~ memnhme/noj. e0n tw~ oi0kei~w suggra&mmati to&nd' i9storei~ to_u tro&pon. kai\ para&gwn e0kei~qen o9 i0c. ei]den a non'' ( a vqrwpon) kaqh&menon e0pi\ to_ telw&nion matqai~on o0no&mati, e0le/gxwn e9autou~ to_ trau~ma i na qauma&shj th_n te/xnhn tou~ i0atreu/santoj. kai\ pa&lin prow_n e9ch~j, to&n te kata&logon tw~n loipw~n maqhtw~n e0cariqmou&menoj, au0to_j e9autw~ to_ tou~ telw&nou prosti/qhsin o noma. di0 u9perbolh_n e0pieikei/aj. mh_ e0pikru&ptwn to_n pro&teron au0tou~ bi/on. (Fol. 376 r.) kai\ a9martwloi~j e9auto_u sunariqmei~. kai\ tou~ sunaposto&lou, deu&teron e9auto_n katale/gei. sunezeugme/noj gou~n tw~ qwma~, w9j petroj a0ndre/a. kai\ i0a&kwboj i0wa&nnh, fi/lippo&j te kai\ barqolomai~oj. prota&ttei e9autou~ to_n qwma~n. protimw~n w9j krei/ttona to_n sunapo&stolon. tw~n loipw~n eu0aggelistw~n tounanti/on pepoihko&twn:-- Sequitur et hoc loco rubrica: grhgori/ou qeolo&g." Dr Kopitar adds, "Nota quid si sub Corderii Eusebio et Theophane, quem ille e Bessarionis codice citat, nec definit, lateat Eusebii qeofa&neia? E nostro nil amplius apparet. Sed video a Kollarii nota ad Lambecii recensionem, Rich. Simonem laudare similem catenam Bibliothecae Parisinae." -- The Parisian Catena I have no means of examining. The query respecting the Codex of Cardinal Bessarion, I must leave to those who have access to that Codex. On other extracts, found by Signor Mai, see p. 225, above, note. The learned reader will perceive, that in this, as well as the former extract, the "Iota subscriptum" is everywhere omitted: and that, in this extract, a few words have been added by the compiler of the Catena in which it is found. The whole passage is also found, with some variations, in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. v. p. 119. D. seq.

70. ¹ Luke vi. 13. seq.

71. ³ Luke i. 2.

72. ⁴ Wanting in the Greek.

73. ⁵ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 120. D.

74. ⁶ Our author speaks here of the First Epistle of John only: the second and third,--in each of which the Apostle is indeed styled "Elder," --being suspected as spurious for some time in the Church. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. xxv.--" In the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History, the Second and Third Epistles of St John were not reckoned among the o9mologoumena, but were in the number of the antilegomena, or books received by some, and rejected by others." Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. vi. sect. i. chap, xxxii,

75. ⁷ Ib. "The author neither calls himself John, nor assumes the title of Apostle; but names himself simply 'the Elder,' ( o9 presbuteroj)... St John might with the same propriety call himself presbuteroj, as St Peter called himself sumpresbuteroj; and after the death of St Peter, the title

o9 presbuteroj might have been applied exclusively to St John, who was the only Apostle then living." See the whole of this: it. Proleg. Mill, in N.T. Edit. Kuster, sect. 151, 222: also Hammond's and Whitby's Prefaces to the Second Epistle of St John. [...].

76. ¹ Mark viii. 29.

77. ² Matt. xvi. 15-20. Disagreeing in many respects with the Peschito, as before. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 121. A. B.

78. ³ See above, Book iv. sect. 2, where we have a good explanation of this passage. It is also cited Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iii. p. mihi. 8. C., also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. v. p. 121. B.

79. ⁴ I would remark here, that by "binding and loosing," can only be meant, the office,--committed primarily to the Apostles, and secondarily to all duly authorized Ministers of Christ--of preaching, ministerially, the remission of sins through faith in Him: the fact being, that no one of the Apostles ever did, in his own person, proceed to pronounce pardon of sin on any man, nor, on the other hand, to denounce damnation: this mode of speaking of any thing as done, when the enunciation of it only is intended, being very frequently had recourse to in the Scriptures. See my Heb. Gram. Art. 154, 8; 157, 6, second or third edit.

80. ⁵ Both Estius (in difficil. Script. loc. in Marc. viii. 29.) and Dr Hammond (Annot. on the title of Matt.) have also noticed this, as Eusebius has. (Prep. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. vii.) "St Peter's humility," says the former, "would not suffer him to tell these" (honourable) "things to St Mark, when he was writing his Gospel"..."which evidences the great modesty of the Apostle." Dr Hammond:..."He (Peter, and after Him Mark) doth it, (mentions his denial, &c.) more coldly than Matthew had done, only e klaie... Matthew, e klaie pikrw~j." Jones (on the Canon, Vol. in. p. 65.) well remarks,..."There is not any one single instance in all his Gospel (i.e. Mark's) which tends to advance the honour...of Peter above the rest of the Apostles;...which cannot be accounted for by any way more probable, than supposing that the Apostle did not publish those circumstances which were so much in his favour." He also remarks, that, Peter's working a miracle, in order to pay the tribute, is omitted by Mark. See Matt. xvii. 24. Mark ix. 30-33. Our Lord's saying he would pray for Peter, Luke xxii. 31--32, is also omitted. Peter's humility in not allowing Christ to wash his feet, is also omitted. (John xiii. 6.). Peter's zeal in cutting off the High Priest's servant's ear, John xviii. 10, is also omitted, as is his faith in leaping into the sea, John xxi. 7: also the particular charge to feed His sheep, John xxi. 15: as also the prediction of his martyrdom, John xxi. 18. It is worthy of remark too, that all these omissions were made in the city of Rome, where Peter taught, and where Mark, most likely, wrote his Gospel! Surely the Apostle never could have intended to be elevated there as superior to all the Apostles, and head of the whole Christian Church! Is it not probable that his intention was, to guard against the assumption, which he foresaw would be had recourse to?

81. ⁶ Mark xiv. 66, to the end: differing from the Peschito, as before.

82. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 122. A.

83. ² Ib. A. seq.

84. ⁴ Ib. p. 122. C., with some variations.

85. ⁵ Demonstr. Evang. ib. D.

86. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 123. B. C. with some variations.

87. ³ Antiq. Jud. Lib. xviu. cap. iv. sect. 3. Edit. Hudson, p. 798. where the passage is thus given, [Greek]. Hudson has given (ib.) a good list of various readings. It will be sufficient for me to notice those observed by our Syrian translator. This passage is cited by Eusebius both in his Ecclesiastical History (Lib. i. cap. xi.), and in his Demonstratio Evangelica (Lib. in. v. p. 124. B.) as may be seen in Hudson, a. So the Syr.[Syriac] b. So the Syr. c. Syr. kai\ dida&skaloj. d. Syr. th~| a0lhqei/a| dexome/nwn. e. So the Syr. not "pellexit," as in the Latin of Hudson's Edit. f. Syr. kai\ o9 xristo&j. g. Syr. [Syriac], insimulatione? This word I have never met with before in this sense, h. the Syr. adds [Syriac], oi9 pa&lai, palai~oi, or a0rxai~oi, if we have not two translations here of the Greek, tw~n prw&twn, which I suspect is the case. i. The Syr. seems to have had tw~n par' h9mi~n. j. Syr. seems to have had,

oi9 to_ prw~ton. k. Probably not in the Greek of our translator. 1. Not in the copy of our Syrian, m. The Syr. seems to have read, o qen ei0j e ti. n. Did not exist in the Greek of our translator.--See also Fabricii Salutaris Lux Evangelii, cap. ii. p. 16. seq.--It has been very common to suspect this passage as spurious, or as partly so; and some have gone so far as to charge Eusebius with the fraud. See the notes of Valesius to the Eccl. Hist. l. c. above. The chief ground for this suspicion appears to be, Josephus's saying, This was the Christ, when, in fact, he was no Christian. But, Is it necessary to suppose this? The Rulers of the Jews must have known that Jesus was the Christ; and yet, they resisted Him, even to the uttermost! They were acquainted with His miracles, and His resurrection. Did they act accordingly? Quite the contrary! Much the same might be said of thousands among ourselves, who willingly give their testimony to the historical fact of Jesus being the Christ, but who are still as little friends to His cause as Josephus was. Whatever may, therefore, be the fact of the case, as to this reading, I do not see how it can be impugned on grounds so fallacious as these. My own impression is, that it is not spurious.

88. ¹ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 124. C. D.

89. ² So also p. 259, see the note.

90. ³ The Demonstr. Evang. leaves us here. Ib. p. 125. A.

91. ⁴ Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 185. A., but with considerable variation.

92. ³ See Book iv. par. 6, above. This matter occurs also in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. v. p. 135. B. C. seq.

93. ⁴ John xx. 22.

94. ⁵ The Greek is different here, ib. C.

95. ⁶ The Greek has much more here, ib. D.

96. ⁷ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 136. A.

97. ¹ Cited also above, p. 159.

98. ⁵ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 137. C. D.

99. ⁸ This argument is advanced by Celsus: Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 94. seq.

100. ¹ [...] All our author means is probably this, that, looking at such a project of converting the world, with such means simply, how much soever he might be disposed to look candidly on the thing; yet he could not but conclude, that it really promised nothing: i. e. provided other and almighty powers had not been put forth in it.

101. ² Matt, xxviii. 19.

102. ³ Ib. ver. 20.

103. ⁴ John xx. 22.

104. ⁵ Matt. x. 8, &c.

105. ⁶ This seems to refer to Acts iii. 7, &c. iv. 7, &c. ⁷ Acts xiv. 12, &c.

106. ⁸ Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 139. B. C.

107. ⁴ Gr. "Didaskalei~a." Lat. "schola atque auditoria:" generally, as places of Christian instruction.

108. ⁵ See Book iii. sect. i. seq. above.

109. ⁷ The authors of "The Universal History," tells us, after reciting the amours of Julius Caesar and of Mark Anthony with Cleopatra, (Vol. ix. p. 480, Edit. 1747,) that "In her ended the family of Ptolemy Lagus, the founder of the Egyptian monarchy, after it had ruled over Egypt, from the death of Alexander, two hundred and ninety four years, or, as others will have it, two hundred and ninety three, and three months. For from this time Egypt was reduced to a Roman province, and governed by a praetor sent thither from Rome."--On the prophecies of Daniel relating to this period, the work of Sir Isaac Newton on this subject, or Rollin's Ancient History, may be consulted with advantage.

110. ⁸ It must be borne in mind, that this refers solely to the times in which the Apostles preached: for, in these, they generally suffered no persecutions, except from the unbelieving Jews. We have a remarkable instance illustrative of this argument recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, (ch. xxii. 23--30): where it is evident that, if Paul had not been a Roman, or had omitted to stand upon his privilege as such, he would have been scourged, if not put to death, by the Centurion: and also, that if no Centurion had been there, he would have been stoned to death by the Jews. The Roman power therefore, although afterwards a persecuting one, did contribute certainly to the furtherance of the Gospel.--This argument is urged also above, Book in. sect, l. seq.; and in the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 10, also in the Orat. de laudd. Constant. Cap. xvi. p. 541.

111. ³ Reference (see also Eccl. Hist. Lib. ix. cap. ix. p. 293. B.) is probably here made to some of those marvellous things done in ancient times in favour of God's Church. In the Ecclesiastical History of our Author, the deliverance from Egypt is thus compared with the erection of the Christian Church. Paulus Orosius makes a similar comparison, (Lib. vii. cap. xxvii. See my Sermons and Dissertations, Lond. 1830, pp. 309--10.), and Lactantius treats this matter much at length in his admirable Tract, "De mortibus Persecutorum." See also, on the death of Domitian, Suetonius, Lib. xi. cap. xvi. seq. Galerius was the instigator of the last persecution. See his miserable end. Hist. Eccl. Lib. viii. cap. xvi. p. 257. seq. See also, ib. Lib. ix. cap. vi. p. 287. ib. cap. x. p. 297. B. C. ib. p. 298. D. seq. also Constantini orat. ad Sanct. coet. cap. xxiv. xxv.

112. ⁴ Wanting in the Greek, ib. p. 140. D.

113. ⁶ This, although hinting--it may be--at the plagues of Egypt, and the fall of Pharaoh and his host, has more immediate reference to the Roman Emperors, who took an active part in the persecutions of the Church. See the authorities just referred to, particularly Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. viii. cap. xvii. p. 257. This part closes with Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. ib. p. 141. A.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, th August 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: lee_scholar/lee_scholar.htm

Anna Mary Lee, A scholar of a past generation: A brief memoir of Samuel Lee. London (1896)

Anna Mary Lee, A scholar of a past generation: A brief memoir of Samuel Lee. London (1896)

PROFESSOR LEE.

From an Oil Painting bv Evans, in the author's possession.

A SCHOLAR OF A PAST GENERATION

A BRIEF MEMOIR

OF

SAMUEL LEE, D.D.

Professor of Arabic, and afterwards Regius Professor

of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge,

Canon of Bristol, Etc.

BY

HIS DAUGHTER

[Anna Mary Lee]

"Verbum Dei Lux Mea"

LONDON

SEELEY AND CO. LIMITED

ESSEX STREET, STRAND

1896

PREFACE

SHORTLY after the death of Professor S. Lee, over forty years ago, a suggestion was made that some record of his remarkable talents and career, in a more extensive and lasting form than mere newspaper articles could supply, should be given to the public. He had, however, left no diaries or memoranda, nor yet copies of his large literary correspondence, and the idea was abandoned. A year or two ago I was passing through Shrewsbury, and, visiting the museum, saw there, amongst other portraits, a large oil-painting of my father. Attached to the picture was a card, with the statement that he had been Professor of Hebrew at Oxford! Finding such inadequate knowledge of him within eight miles of his native place, it occurred to me that he could scarcely be known even by name to many of the present generation, to whom the story of his life might be a stimulus, and an encouragement to make the most of their far greater opportunities for the acquirement of knowledge. On my return home I looked over the few papers and letters I had in my possession, also the prefaces to some of his translations and other works, all of which I imagine are now out of print, and made extracts from them of passages bearing upon his Oriental studies, and the religious and other topics of the day, many of which are of abiding interest.

With the lapse of time all those who were, strictly speaking, his contemporaries, have passed away, and thus many facts and impressions which might have illustrated this sketch are now lost to us. It will appear from the above that this short and imperfect record is, in the main, an autobiography.

Amongst my father's works, noticed particularly in this memoir, I have made no mention of the Lexicon (Hebrew, Chaldee and English) which was perhaps one of the most esteemed and useful of them all.

The chapter on the 'Travels of Ibn Batuta,' although one of his earlier translations, has been placed near the end, partly because it might prove of less interest to the general reader, partly because the list of authorities quoted would have interfered with the course of the narrative. The following letter may fitly close this Preface:--

Letter from Canon NORGATE

'FOXLEY PARSONAGE,

'NORFOLK, Jan. 14, 1895.

'DEAR Miss LEE,--I heartily wish I could be of more service to you in your contemplated enterprise than your letter seems to intimate, as I had a great respect for your worthy father, though by no means intimately acquainted with him, and 'tis sixty years since! I, had two Cambridge acquaintances who passed under your father's hands who could have borne far higher estimony to his capability and value as at teacher than myself--Arthur Dawson of Christ's College, and Edward Harold Browne of Emmanuel (afterwards Bishop of Winchester), both of whom became Hebrew Scholars of the University of Cambridge. But though a mere sciolist in that language myself, I had learned to appreciate and honour what was perhaps not so generally known by the public at large as by his contemporaries at College--the remarkable manner in which, from his earliest days, he had persisted, in spite of most adverse circumstances, in the acquisition of knowledge of the most valuable description--that of the original language of the Old Testament Scriptures, and of other cognate tongues bearing upon its elucidation --and in imparting that knowledge to others. But this is not all of which I have a vivid recollection; for added to it was the faithfulness with which he adhered to "the truth as it is in Jesus," never, by the grace of God, having been led away by those "will-o'-the-wisps" by which many allowed themselves to be distracted, some even in those early days of heresy, and (alas!) many more later.

'Your father was fortunate in his surroundings. I refer to the atmosphere and companionship that he enjoyed when at Queen's College. I myself, as a much younger man, feel very thankful for the helps that I have been privileged to have in the acquaintance of such men as Farish Tacy, Francis Cunningham and others, long gone to their rest and reward. They formed a galaxy of holy and simple-minded men, though varying much in their respective talents and the application of them; and it is a great pleasure to me, though I fear of little value to you, to bear my humble testimony to your father's worth. I think I see his portly frame now after the lapse of more than sixty years, and I trust that there is in reserve for all who "hold the truth," a happy recognition as well as re-union in the everlasting mansions!--I remain, yours sincerely,--

LOUIS A. NORGATE.'

A. M. LEE.

April 1896.

CONTENTS

CHAP.

PAGE

I. EARLY EFFORTS 1

II. STUDENT--PROFESSOR--DIVINE 10

III. HEBREW GRAMMAR 29

IV. TRANSLATION OF JOB 48

V. WORK ON MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY 59

VI. BIOGRAPHICAL, AND LETTERS, 1840 66

VII. LETTERS, 1841-42

76

VIII. 'THEOPHANIA ' OF EUSEBIUS. 98

IX. LETTERS, 1843 109

X. FIRST LETTER TO DR PUSEY, ETC., 1843-44 134

XI. LETTERS TO ARCHDEACON THORP, ETC., 1845 153

XII. LETTERS, 1846-48 177

XIII. WORK ON PROPHECY 190

XIV. LETTERS, 1850-53 203

XV. HOME LIFE 219

XVI. 'TRAVELS OF IBN BATUTA'. 228

XVII. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO DR LEE, AND LIST OF WORKS 246

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE

PORTRAIT OF PROFESSOR LEE Frontispiece

SHREWSBURY GRAMMAR SCHOOL 8

ROOMS IN TRINITY COLLEGE 24

LOCKING MANOR 67

BANWELL CHURCH 68

BRISTOL CATHEDRAL 84

FACSIMILE PAGE OF SYRIAC MS. 107

BARLEY RECTORY 220

PORTRAIT IN LATER LIFE 224

A Scholar of a Past Generation

CHAPTER I

EARLY EFFORTS

'The autobiographical passages in the writings of eminent men are those which are always seized on with avidity.'--H. REED.

SAMUEL LEE was born May 14th, 1783, He was the youngest of a family of six brothers and five sisters living at Longnor, about eight miles from Shrewsbury. Of these, he and a brother and sister were the children of a second marriage, and much younger than the rest His brother's artistic talents would have made him distinguished as a painter or sculptor had he possessed the same perseverance and steadiness of principle which characterised his brother Samuel. Some letters addressed to him by the latter are still extant, and are full of affectionate Christian counsel. |2 The following letter, written by Samuel Lee, contains all that is known of his early years. It was written in 1813, when he was master of Bowdler's School, Shrewsbury.

Mr SAMUEL LEE to JONATHAN SCOTT, Esq.

'SIR,-- In conformity to your request I now proceed to give you a detail of my pursuits in languages, with some circumstances connected therewith. The first rudiments of learning I received at a charity school at Longnor in the county of Salop, where I was born, which is a village situated on the Hereford Road, about eight miles from Shrewsbury. Here I remained till I attained the age of twelve years, and went through the usual gradations of such institutions without distinguishing myself in any respect; for as punishment is the only alternative generally held out, I, like others, thought it sufficient to avoid it. At the age above mentioned, I was put out apprentice to a carpenter and joiner by Robert Corbett, Esq., in which, I must confess, I underwent hardships seldom acquiesced in by boys of my age; but as my father died when I was very young, and I knew it was not in the power of my mother to provide better for me, as she had |3 two more to support by her own labour, I judged it best to submit. About the age of seventeen I formed a determination to learn the Latin language, to which I was instigated by the following circumstances. I had been in the habit of reading such books as happened to be in the house where I lodged, but, meeting with Latin quotations, found myself unable to comprehend them. Being employed about this time in the building of a Roman Catholic chapel for Sir Edward Smith of Acton-burnel, where I saw many Latin books, and frequently heard that language read, my resolution was confirmed. I immediately bought "Ruddiman's Latin Grammar" at a bookstall, and learnt it by heart throughout. I next purchased "Corderius Colloquies" by Loggon, which I found a very great assistance to me, and afterwards obtained "Entick's Latin Dictionary," also, soon after, "Rega's Testament" and "Clarke's Exercises." There was one circumstance, however, which, as it had some effect on my progress, I shall mention in this place. I one day asked one of the priests, who came frequently to us, to give me some information of which I was then in want, who replied that "charity began at home." This was |4 very mortifying, but it only served as a stimulus to my endeavours; for, from this time, I resolved, if possible, to excel even him.

There was one circumstance, however, more powerful in opposing me, and that was poverty. I had at that time but six shillings a week to subsist on and to pay the expenses of washing and lodging; out of this, however, I spared something to gratify my desire for learning, which I did, though not without curtailing myself of proper support. My wages were, however, soon after raised one shilling a week, and the next year a shilling more, during which time I read the Latin Bible, "Florus," some of "Cicero's Orations," "Caesar's Commentaries," "Justin," "Sallust," "Virgil," "Horace's Odes" and "Ovid's Epistles." It may be asked how I obtained these books? I never had all at once, but generally read one and sold it, the price of which, with a little added to it, enabled me to buy another, and this being read, was sold to procure the next. I was now out of my apprenticeship, and determined to learn the Greek. I bought, therefore, a "Westminster Greek Grammar," and soon afterwards procured a Testament, which I found not very difficult with the assistance of "Schrevelius's Lexicon." I |5 bought next "Hunford's Greek Exercises," which I wrote throughout, and then, in pursuance of the advice laid down in the Exercises, read "Xenophon's Cyropoedia," and soon after "Plato's Dialogues," some part of the "Iliad" and "Odyssey" of Homer, "Pythagoras's Golden Verse," with the "Commentary of Hierocles," "Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead," and some of the "Poetae Minores," with the "Antigone of Sophocles." I now thought I might attempt the Hebrew, and accordingly procured "Bythner's Grammar," with his "Lyra Prophetica," and soon after obtained a Psalter, which I read by the help of the "Lyra." I next purchased "Buxtorf's Grammar and Lexicon," with a Hebrew Bible, and now I seemed drawing fast to the summit of my wishes, but was far from being uninterrupted in those pursuits. A frequent inflammation in my eyes, with every possible discouragement from those about me, were certainly powerful opponents; but habit and a fixed determination to proceed had now made study my greatest happiness, and I every day returned to it rather as a source of rest from manual labour, and though I felt many privations in consequence, it amply repaid me in that solitary satisfaction which none but a mind |6 actuated as mine was could feel. But to return. Chance had thrown in my way the "Targum of Oukelos," and I had a Chaldaic grammar in Bythner's "Lyra," with the assistance of which, and of "Schindler's Lexicon," I soon read it. I next proceeded to the Syriac, and read some of "Gutber's Testament," by the help of "Otho's Synopsis" and "Schindler's Lexicon." I had also occasionally looked over the "Samaritan Pentateuch," which differs little from the Hebrew, except in a change in letters. I found no difficulty in reading it in quotations wherever I found it, and with quotations I was obliged to content myself, as books in that language were entirely out of my reach. By this time I had attained my twenty-fifth year, and had got a good chest of tools, worth, I suppose, about £25.

'I was now sent into Worcestershire to superintend, on the part of my master, Mr John Lee, the repairing of a large house belonging to the Revd. Mr Cookes. I began now to think it necessary to relinquish the study of languages, as I perceived, however excellent the acquisition might have appeared to me, it was in my situation entirely useless. I sold my books, and made |7 new resolutions. In fact, I married, considered my calling as my only support, and some promises and insinuations had been made to me which seemed of a favourable nature in my occupation. I was awaked, however, from these views and suggestions by a circumstance which gave a new and distressing appearance to my affairs; a fire broke out in the house we were repairing, in which my tools, and with them all my views and hopes, were consumed. I was now cast on the world without a friend, a shilling, or even the means of subsistence. This, however, would have been but slightly felt by me, had not the partner of my life been immerged in the same afflicting circumstances. There was, however, no alternative, and now I began to think of some new course of life in which my former studies might prove advantageous.

'I thought that of a country schoolmaster would be the most likely to answer my purpose. I therefore applied myself to the study of "Murray's English Exercises" and improved myself in arithmetic. There was, however, one grand objection to this--I had no money to begin, and did not know any friend who would be inclined to lend. In the meantime, the Revd. Archdeacon |8 Corbett had heard of my attachment to study, and having been informed of my being in Longnor, sent for me in order to inform himself of particulars. To him I communicated my circumstances, and it is to his goodness I am indebted for the situation I now hold, and several other very valuable benefits, which he thought proper, generously, to confer. My circumstances since that time are too well known to you to need any further elucidation. It is through your kind assistance I made myself thus far acquainted with the Arabic, Persian and Hindoostanee languages, of my progress in which you, sir, are undoubtedly the best judge.--I am, sir, with every possible respect, your much obliged and very humble servant,

SAMUEL LEE.

'BLUE SCHOOL, SHREWSBURY,

'April 26, 1813.'

An incident is told of him when an apprentice to his half-brother, Mr J. Lee. The workshops were at a field's distance from the Severn, which at times overflowed and reached the shops. On one occasion Samuel Lee was so absorbed in his books that he was sitting with his legs under water till the men came and took him away.

SHREWSBURY GRAMMAR SCHOOL, NOW THE FREE LIBRARY AND MUSEUM.

From a Drawing by P. Browne.

|9

The Dr Jonathan Scott to whom this letter was addressed, the translator of 'The Arabian Nights,' had been secretary to Hastings in India, and Oriental Professor to the Royal Military and East India Colleges. He was the first person my father had met with able to enter into and sympathise with his zeal for acquiring Oriental languages.

The obituary notice of my father in the C. M. S. 'Intelligencer' for March 1853 gives such a full and interesting account of his going to Cambridge, and subsequent labours there, that I have availed myself of the Society's permission to insert some extracts from it in the following chapter. |10

CHAPTER II

STUDENT--PROFESSOR--DIVINE

'ASTONISHED at Mr Lee's acquisitions, and finding him possessed of almost unexampled facilities for the acquirement of languages, Dr Scott put into his hand some books, through the assistance of which he made himself acquainted with the Arabic, Persian and Hindustani languages.

'The loan of these books, and some instruction in pronunciation, included all that Mr Lee received of external aid; his own mind furnished every other resource. And such was his progress in these hitherto untrodden paths, that, in the course of a few months, he was not only able to read and translate from any Arabic or Persian manuscript, but to compose in these languages. To his friend and patron, Dr Scott, Mr Lee sent Arabic and Persian translations of several Oriental apologues, taken from Dr Johnson's "Rambler," and |11 also Addison's "Vision of Mirza" in the "Spectator," which translations, in the opinion of Dr Scott, were "wonderfully well done."

'From the knowledge which Mr Lee had obtained of the Oriental languages through his acquaintance with Dr Scott, he was introduced into a few private houses, as instructor in Persic and Hindustani to the sons of gentlemen who were expecting appointments either in the civil or military department of the Honourable East India Company's service. This engagement, the superintendence of his own school, and an occasional attendance on two other seminaries as teacher of arithmetic, constituted his employment during his residence at Shrewsbury; and, from the proficiency made by his pupils, it may be fairly inferred that his talent of conveying knowledge to others corresponded with the facility with which he made his personal acquisitions.

'But the period was at hand in which, through the ordering of an overruling Providence, Mr Lee was to be transplanted to a region more congenial to his natural feelings and the bent of his genius. His acquaintance with Dr Scott, which knew no interruption, was soon matured into a cordial friendship, and this, in conjunction with his constantly accumulating attainments, led to the rapid |12 advancement by which his subsequent career was distinguished. Dr Scott introduced Mr Lee to the notice of Dr Claudius Buchanan, who had lately returned from India, and was deeply interested in all the operations of the Church Missionary Society, especially in the Oriental department.'

It was owing to the efforts of these kind and valued friends that my father was enabled to enter Queen's College, Cambridge, at the close of 1813. Dr Buchanan was at that time residing at Cambridge, and he was requested to select the college at which Mr Lee should be entered. A letter in the published life of Dr Buchanan thus notices the fact:--

'QUEEN'S COLLEGE, Jan. 13, 1814.

'I consulted the College to-day concerning the proposed admission of Mr Lee, the Shrewsbury linguist. It was agreed to admit him to Queen's.'

The following notice occurs in the 'Shrewsbury Chronicle,' Jan. 26, 1814:--'Mr Samuel Lee, late of this town, now of Queen's College, Cambridge, was last week examined by Dr Buchanan in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac |13 and Hindustani languages, and his skill and proficiency drew forth the applause of every scholar, as well as of his immediate patrons and friends, among whom are many truly learned and illustrious men. Mr Lee is, perhaps, the only person who at either University read in the three latter languages on his entrance as a student.'

He commenced residence soon after this date. His contemporaries well remember the striking simplicity and unassuming manners of their new associate. He diligently pursued the classical and mathematical studies which were prescribed in the College course, and regularly attended the lectures. But his chief attention was still devoted to Oriental languages; and in classics and mathematics he did not obtain the first place, even in the limited competition of the College examinations.

During the first year of his residence at College, Mr Lee translated into Arabic and Persian a small tract, entitled 'The Way of Truth and Life,' of which the Persian edition was, three years afterwards, stereotyped, and copies were furnished to the missionaries of the Edinburgh Missionary Society at Astrakhan, |14 who found it serviceable in their labours. In February 1815 Dr Claudius Buchanan died, and a difficulty arose respecting the completion of the Syriac New Testament, which he was engaged in carrying through the press. This work Mr Lee undertook on behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

'It became necessary that he should begin the work de novo; and having collated several Syriac manuscripts for the purpose, it appeared in 1816. The following mention is made of Mr Lee's literary labours in the seventeenth report of this Society:--"The completion of the edition of the Syriac New Testament has been executed in a manner so honourable to himself as a scholar, that the Court of Directors of the East India Company was pleased to present him with one hundred guineas in testimony of its approbation."... "Mr Lee has proposed to enhance to the Syriac churches the value of this gift of the New Testament, by furnishing them with an edition of the Old Testament, chiefly by the aid of the celebrated Travancore Manuscript of Dr Buchanan."... "As the real history of these churches is imperfectly known, the Committee have requested |15 Mr Lee to compile a brief narrative of the principal events which have occurred in that history. They were desirous of thus making known the sufferings and exigencies of that persecuted people."

'"This task Mr Lee has very ably executed. He will be found in his narrative to have arranged in lucid order the chief facts which are supplied by Geddes, La Croze, and Asseman; and to have accompanied them by remarks well suited to excite interest in behalf of these oppressed Christians."

'"Besides these works, Mr Lee is editing the Old and New Testament in the Malay language, printed in Roman characters, of which tongue he made himself master for the purpose of rendering this service; and he is also carrying through the press an edition of 'Martyn's Hindustani New Testament,' and the 'Book of Genesis' in the same tongue, translated by Mirza Fitrut, and revised from the Hebrew by the lamented Martyn, the manuscript copy of which book was kindly presented to the Society by one of its friends from India."'

The publication of the 'Syriac New Testament' raised the reputation of Mr Lee abroad as well as |16 at home. The University of Halle, in Saxony, accordingly presented him with the degree of D.D., through the hands of Dr Gesenius, the Hebrew professor of that University. The Syriac Old Testament was not completed till the year 1823, when four thousand copies in quarto were issued.

'The compiler of these notices well recollects the fact alluded to in the foregoing extracts--Mr Lee's acquisition of the Malay language. It was accomplished in the College Christmas vacation of about two months; and upon expressing to him his astonishment at the facility with which he acquired new languages, and the fidelity of his memory in retaining a perfect and distinct knowledge of each, Mr Lee made the remark that the acquisition of languages was to him as easy and certain a process as the study of Newton's "Principia" appeared to be to his fellow-student; that in all languages there were certain links and dependencies which, when once understood, fixed the language in the mind; and that afterwards the copia verborum might be acquired at your leisure. In the October term of 1817 Mr Lee took the degree of B.A., and was soon afterwards admitted to Holy Orders as curate of Chesterton, near Cambridge. Several of his |17 college friends went over to hear his first sermon; and one at least retains a lively recollection of the fervour and simplicity with which he discoursed upon the text, "But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath prepared for them a city." (Hebrew xi. 16.) This sermon afforded a lively proof, if one had been needed, that Mr Lee's great advancement and rising reputation had not kindled the flame of ambition in his mind, nor corrupted it from "the simplicity that is in Christ." The annual record of his literary labours, presented in the eighteenth report of the Society, introduces a new language to our notice. "The attention of the Committee has been called to the Ethiopic Scriptures. A manuscript copy, in high preservation, of the first eight books of the Old Testament in Ethiopic having come, by purchase at a moderate price, into the hands of the Committee, the hope was again awakened which, had before been entertained but often disappointed, of communicating to Abyssinia the gift of the Scriptures."

'Mr Lee at once prepared himself to edit the manuscript, while the British and Foreign Bible Society took measures to print it.' 'Of how great |18 importance to Abyssinia the gift of the Scriptures would be likely, with the blessing of God, to become a judgment may be formed from a "Brief History of the Church of Abyssinia," which the Reverend Samuel Lee has compiled from the best authorities, at the request of the Committee. Mr Lee has executed this task with the ability with which he compiled the "Brief History of the Syrian Churches in the South of India."'

He was also at this time employed, with the aid of a learned Persian, in preparing for the press an edition of the Old Testament in Persian, to accompany 'Martyn's New Testament'; and he was associated with Professor Macbride, of Oxford, in preparing a correct and acceptable version of the Bible in Arabic. The two latter undertakings were to be at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Within the same year he also carried through the press a compendium of the Liturgy in Hindustani, prepared by Mr, afterwards Bishop, Corrie, and printed at the expense of the Prayer Book and Homily Society. 'It will appear from this statement,' the report observes, 'how entirely Mr Lee's time had been occupied.' |19

The Syriac and Arabic Bibles, together with his ministerial duties, occupied the attention of Mr Lee during the year 1818.

The commencement of the next year introduces a new era of his life. The Arabic professorship at Cambridge became vacant by the resignation of Mr Palmer. His friends proposed that he should become a candidate; but as it was necessary that he should have an M.A. degree, the first step was to procure a royal mandate for conferring that degree upon him before the statutable time had been completed. For this purpose, the consent of a majority of heads of houses, and a vote of the Senate, were required. Mr Lee's modesty and retired habits had made him little known in the University. He was opposed also by a gentleman already of the degree of M. A., who had been many years in India, and was an accomplished Oriental scholar. Under these circumstances, a paper was printed and circulated among the members of the Senate, simply giving a list of the various Oriental works which he had edited, and a few testimonials from well-known Oriental scholars. Amongst them was the testimony of four native Persian gentlemen at that time residing in London, who testified |20 to his thorough acquaintance with the idiom and pronunciation, as well as with the grammar of that language, in the following emphatic terms:-- 'Upon the whole, this being the entire persuasion of your servant, and in like manner the belief of all his companions, who have spoken with the above-mentioned Mr Lee, both in Persic and Arabic, that, whether as regards pronunciation, or reading, or writing, he is learned and perfect.' The claims of Mr Lee upon the vacant chair, and his pre-eminent learning, were recognised by all parties. The petition to the Crown for a royal mandate was triumphantly carried through the Senate. The Government used every effort to expedite the business, so that Mr Lee obtained his degree just in time for the election. The election is vested in the heads of houses, and Mr Lee announced his success to the Secretary of the Church Missionary Society in the following letter:--

To the Reverend JOSIAH PRATT.

'QUEEN'S COLLEGE,

'March 11, 1819.

'MY DEAR SIR,--I have now the happiness of announcing to you my complete success in |21 being elected to the Arabic professorship. The candidates had all withdrawn except Mr Keene of Haileybury and myself. The numbers, I understand, were nine to four, so that my majority was great. But had it been necessary, I should have had a few more votes, Now let me pay the tribute due to Him who governs "all things after the counsel of His own will" My prayer and hope is, that this and every other dispensation of His providence may at length promote His glory, and the good of His church. I hope in this to be joined by many a warm and devoted heart; and also that some pious breathings may be put up for me, that I may not be led into temptation but delivered from evil.

'My kindest regards to all friends--Mrs Pratt and family, Mr Bickersteth and family, etc. I hope soon to see you in town, when I will tell you particulars. Please to excuse haste.--I am, my dear sir, yours very affectionately,

'SAMUEL LEE.'

The elevation of Mr Lee to an University professorship naturally closed his official connection with the Church Missionary Society. |22

His labours were never intermitted, but they gradually became of a more general character, and a large share of them was engrossed by academical duties.

He delighted whenever he had the opportunity of giving instruction to any students or missionaries of the Society in the Oriental languages. This he continued to do even to the last year of his life. One of the alumni of Cambridge would scarcely reach his mission in West Africa before he would hear of the death of the venerable friend who encouraged and helped him in the study of Arabic. Such pupils will bear witness that the learned professor omitted no opportunity of inculcating spiritual truth, or ever failed to respond to the motives which carry a missionary into a far country. One of his earliest letters lies before us, in which he thus speaks of the advice which he had just given to a student of the Society under his instruction: -- 'Private prayer is the marrow of religion. It is that which makes the soul "delight itself in fatness"; but for literary men it appears to me to be almost the "one thing needful." '

The literary works which he undertook in |23 furtherance of the Society's objects after his election to his professorship were the compilation of a New Zealand Grammar and Vocabulary, in which he fixed the orthography upon a system which has proved eminently successful. This work was accomplished mainly by availing himself of the assistance of two New Zealand chiefs, Hongi and Waikato, who resided near him at Cambridge for several months in the year 1820. In 1824 he also edited the controversial tracts on Christianity and Mahommedanism by Henry Martyn, being the substance of his public disputations at Shiraz with learned Mahommedans.

Among works of a general kind may be noticed a Hebrew Grammar first published in 1827 (of which a second edition appeared in 1832, and a third in 1841), and a Hebrew and English Dictionary in 1840; also an edition of Sir William Jones's 'Persian Grammar' in 1828, which nearly deserves the title of a new work; 'The Travels of Ibn-Batuta,' translated from the Arabic (1833); and the Syriac version of 'Eusebius on the Theophania,' from a recently-discovered MS., 1840; together with a translation of the same in 1843. He published also |24 a volume of 'Sermons and Dissertations,' as well as several controversial tracts and single discourses.

In the year 1831 Professor Lee was removed from the Arabic Professorship to the Regius Professorship of Hebrew. As this professor enjoys certain privileges at Trinity College, he migrated from Queen's to that Society. In the same year he was presented by the Crown to a stall in Bristol Cathedral, through which he obtained the Vicarage of Banwell, Somersetshire, which he afterwards exchanged for the Rectory of Barley, in Hertfordshire, on the borders of Cambridgeshire.

The following testimony from one of his pupils, afterwards well known as Bishop Gobat of Jerusalem, will show with what grateful affection he was remembered by those to whom he so gladly imparted instruction.

'JERUSALEM, Feby. 13th, 1874.

'DEAR MADAM,--I cannot express the delight which a letter from the daughter of my dear teacher and almost parental friend the late Dr S. Lee, has given me. |25

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. PROFESSOR LEE'S ROOMS, OVER THE LAMP.

From a photograph by Mr. Hunt,Cambridge.

'It is forty-nine years since I had the privilege of being taught by him Hebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but his memory is still as fresh in my mind as if it had been last year, and is ever refreshed when I read the Prophet Hosea, and other portions of the Holy Scriptures, as well as, occasionally, the Koran in Arabic, and the Psalms in Ethiopic, which I then read with him.'

In reference to the translation of the Bible into the Malay language, my father wrote some years later:--'I superintended an edition of the Syriac Testament for the use of the Syrian churches in Malabar, which was printed at the expense of the Bible Society, and published in 1816. The Metropolitan of the church of Malabar, in a letter dated December 3, 1821, to two distinguished noblemen in this country, says,--"With respect to the books of the New Testament which you sent to us, we have divided and given them to the churches which are in Malabar, and with great joy does every man present his prayer to God for you." Since these New Testaments have been sent to Malabar, I have had the good fortune to complete |26 a large impression of the Old for the same church, and I have some hopes that I shall be able to do a similar work for the churches in Abyssinia.'

The following letter from Lord Teignmouth refers to his candidature for the Arabic Professorship:--

'PORTMAN SQUARE, Feb. 18, 1819.

MY DEAR SIR,--I wrote to you yesterday, and hope you received my letter. Happy shall I be if my testimonial should be of use in promoting the object of your wishes, although it cannot add to your merit. God has done much for you, and I hope will do much through you; to Him be the praise.

'The object of this letter is to inform you that the Most Reverend Dr Giarve, Archbishop of Jerusalem, is now in London, and I hope your time and pursuits will allow you to see him, and appreciate his character and talents. He visited me this morning, and is a simple, unaffected man, more like a monk than an archbishop. He writes Arabic and Syriac, and talks in Italian, so that I had an interpreter. I have ordered a copy of your Syriac Testament to be sent to |27 him; he wants the whole Bible for his Syrians; but, if I understand him, it is the Arabic Bible in Syriac characters, for Arabic is the vernacular language in and about Jerusalem.--Your very sincere

TEIGNMOUTH.'

In the life of the first Lord Teignmouth a notice of Professor Lee occurs, from which an extract is given:--'Among the young students whose ardour in Oriental pursuits he had befriended or encouraged, and amongst whom he had distributed nearly the whole of a considerable collection of Oriental books he had brought from India, was one, in the removal of whose difficulties, whilst laying the foundation of his extensive acquirements, Lord Teignmouth had felt a deep interest -- Mr Samuel Lee, now Regius Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge....'

'It was some time after Mr Lee had quitted Shropshire that Lord Teignmouth, having heard from his relations in that county of the circumstances of his history, formed an acquaintance with him, and derived from his intercourse with this remarkable scholar not only the gratification which his |28 communicativeness, amiable qualities and piety afforded, but also the delight of interweaving the studies of his youth with the important pursuits to which he dedicated his declining years.' |29

CHAPTER III

HEBREW GRAMMAR

DR LEE published his first edition of 'A Grammar of the Hebrew Language, comprised as a Series of Lectures'... 'designed for the use of students in the universities,' in 1827, and in 1841 a third edition 'enriched with much original matter.' He says, in the preface to the former edition:-- 'Everyone knows that, since the times of Elias Levita, various have been the efforts to abridge the labour of acquiring the Hebrew language. Some have reduced the grammar to one sheet or page, and the lexicon to but little more, persuading their readers that, as the Hebrew is the most ancient, so it is the most simple of all languages, and that men cannot look with too much suspicion on those attempts to make it complex and difficult, which were first set up by the Rabbins, and afterwards adopted by their equally blind advocates, the |30 grammarians, who have followed them. But if we allow that this language is the most ancient and simple, still the question will remain as to what this abbreviating and plausible system has hitherto done. Has it, it may be asked, supplied us with principles on which we can rely? or, by diffusing an overpowering light over the sacred text, been sufficient to bear down all opposition, or even to satisfy one candid inquirer that he is a jot wiser on these subjects than his pious forefathers were? In most instances, I think, it must be granted that our light has gradually become less, that the scope of the context has appeared less obvious, while the liability to mistake has been increased in an amazing degree. In others, the discovery and exhibition of amusing and splendid theories has, perhaps, tended more to bring both religion and philosophy into disrepute than anything else could possibly do. Hence it is probable that the study of the original Scriptures has, for the last century or more, been daily on the wane in this country, and our knowledge of divinity has not made that progress which might otherwise have been reasonably expected it would....

'The Rabbinical system of vowels and accents has been adopted (in these lectures) as that which is the |31 most likely to promote a sound and accurate knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures; not, indeed, with a view of ascribing to it anything like a Divine origin or authority, but because it seems certain that among the various human systems hitherto proposed for the purpose of assisting the learner, this is incomparably the best....

'Although the Rabbinical system is infinitely superior to those proposed by Masclef, Hutchinson and others, yet it must be confessed that this also has its defects; not to insist upon the consideration that it appears to Se advanced but little farther than a state of infancy.... Hence the great desideratum appeared to be the construction of grammars which should at once combine the labours of the Rabbins with a system of analysis delineating the principles upon which the language is founded, in such a manner as to form the judgment and to interest the understanding; to detail the rules, indeed, but, at the same time, to ascertain the principles upon which they are founded, so as to satisfy the scruples and to ensure the confidence of the learner.

'Towards arriving at this point, Alting seems to be the first who did anything considerable. After him, Albert Schultens, Schröder and Storr |32 have, perhaps, been the most successful writers. Dr Gesenius, the present Professor of Hebrew at Halle, certainly ranks next.... Dr Gesenius is closely followed by Professor Stewart of Andover, in America, in the very excellent Hebrew Grammar which he has published, and which was printed at Andover for the second time in 1823.... As I have occasionally cited the Arabic grammarians, the question might be asked--to what extent the cultivation of this language and of its sister dialects should be carried, in order to enable the student to become well acquainted with the Hebrew? I answer, as the Hebrew language has now ceased to be spoken in its purity upwards of two thousand years, and as these dialects still retain a very considerable portion of its words, and are manifestly regulated by the same grammatical laws, generally speaking, he who is the best acquainted with these dialects is by far the most likely person to be a successful commentator on the Hebrew Scriptures. On the versions of the Septuagint and Vulgate, entire reliance cannot be placed; and the same may be said of all the Oriental ones. To these versions, indeed, we are very greatly indebted on several accounts; there are, nevertheless, so many |33 marks of human infirmity discoverable within them, that it is certainly incumbent on everyone who is anxious to see the beauties, and to feel the force of the Holy Scriptures in all their bearings, to add to these helps others which Providence has placed within his power, and thus to further the progress, and to advance the clearness of that light which alone can be said to shine to the perfect day. In this point of view, therefore, we are greatly indebted to the Rabbins, who were the first to go to the language of Ishmael for that assistance which circumstances had taken out of their own hands, and thence to transmit it to us.... The names of Pococke, Castell, De Dieu, Schultens, Schröder and others will ever be revered by those who appreciate the Holy Scriptures.... It is true no new doctrines are to be expected; those which are the most important are to be found in the very worst translation. But, then, their clearness may have been obscured, and their force diminished.... Difficulties, apparent discrepancies and obscure passages may yet remain, which it could not but be advantageous to the cause of Christianity should be removed. Besides, the general endeavour to translate the Scriptures for the use |34 of missionaries makes it doubly binding that we should endeavour to give nothing to the world which is not, as nearly as human industry can make it, the unadulterated Word of God. And for these ends, I believe, we have sufficient helps within the compass of our command....

'It has long appeared to me that the short grammars with which our market abounds have produced the most lamentable effects among learners.... While, on the other hand, many who might in the end have become good scholars have been alarmed at the sight of a large grammar to such a degree as to give up everything at once in despair. It has been my endeavour to provide for both these cases. To learn the grammar by one continued effort, without an application to the text of Scripture, will be tedious and unprofitable. The rules will appear difficult to retain, the reasons on which they are founded obscure and uninteresting, and both will, therefore, soon be forgotten. On the other hand, the text of Scripture, without recurring to the grammar, will appear equally perplexing, dark and indefinite; but when both are wrought up together the mind will gradually rise to the subject, so that scarce an hour will pass in which |35 some new accession of knowledge will not be realised. In this stage, however, he will stand in need of constant advice to sobriety, to be jealous of the discoveries now made, and exceedingly sparing in making public the new lights he may have the good fortune to elicit. These, indeed, he may register for future inspection-- and this would be an excellent plan--but let him be content to wait for a maturity which, he may rest assured, however calm his judgment or brilliant his talents may be, he will stand in need of.'

Again, later on, he says:--'An experience of some years has convinced me that the criticism of the Hebrew Bible is not to be mastered in a few lessons, whatever some pretenders may affirm to the contrary. Its language, indeed, is not inferior either in regularity, ease, elegance, strength or extent, to many others which are cultivated among us with the greatest ardour; while its history, doctrines, prophetical declarations and morals are as much superior to anything to be found in them as light is to darkness, or as the glories of heaven are to the poor and perishing enjoyments of this state of things. Still, it must be confessed, much time, |36 thought and diligent inquiry are indispensable to its right understanding, especially in those parts which are the most interesting and of the greatest practical moment. To study its language... has appeared to me to promise the best means, both of thoroughly imbuing the mind with a real knowledge of it and of keeping up that interest in the meantime, which is absolutely necessary to its acquirement.

'It is not my intention to infer, or to have it believed, that I have now at length discovered something from which none should in any case presume to dissent. By no means. My only wish is to recommend investigation, and this on grounds the most liberal and extended; and thus to obtain that additional light and knowledge on the contents of the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament, of which I think everyone mustconfess we stand in need. I will only say, that if indeed I have been fortunate enough to have advanced, in any degree, a mode of inquiry in the more elementary parts of the Hebrew language likely to render good service in this respect, I shall have ample reason to be most thankful to Him who is the giver of every good and perfect gift. I will only add, |37 the advancement of Divine truth, and of the honour of Him to whom we owe it, has been my sole motive in so far venturing to differ from others who have preceded me in this line of literature.'

Now that we have for some years had the Revised Version of the Bible, it may not be uninteresting to have my father's opinion on the subject, in the year 1822.

'If it be allowed that certain parts of the Authorised Version are now incorrect, is there not a probability that these would, in another revision, be improved? If, then, there is a probability of improvement, are we to be restrained from making it because some other dangers stare us in the face? Are we to merge what we know to be the truth because, forsooth, there is a question of expediency presenting difficulties and dangers? For my own part, I believe every proposal for building an infirmary, a bridge, or a charity school has ever been attended with difficulties and dangers equally great. It has been said that no theological advantage would be gained by such revision. Had this argument been thought good in the days of Jerome, I do not see where could have been the necessity of |38 his making a new version from the Hebrew, when the old translation from the Septuagint contained every religious truth as far as it could be gathered from the Old Testament. Nor again can I see why the Authorised Version was itself made; for I suppose no one will contend that the former Bibles did not exhibit religious truth. But I may be allowed to add, that if by a revision no religious truth be likely to suffer, but many passages, which are now obscure or unintelligible, be made plain and clear, I believe the dangers, whatever they may be, will be diminished, as we shall confessedly lose nothing, but probably, and I will say certainly, gain much. I agree, too, that the Bible is not intended to teach verbal criticism, but I do contend that the translation, if it be allowed to carry the name of the "Word of God," should be correct; and if it be intended to edify the people, it should be made intelligible, which, in many instances, it now is not.

'Had I leisure sufficient for the task, I should have no hesitation in attempting to make out a list of passages in the Authorised Version which I believe stand in need of correction; and to point out, as far as I may be able, how such |39 corrections should be made; but I should never think of submitting to such a task upon the hope that critics would be unanimous in adopting them, because I know such concurrence is not to be expected, either in this or anything else. The most important question that appears to me as proper to be proposed with respect to such an undertaking is, whether there is among us at this day a sufficient quantity of Hebrew learning to justify the hope of success. And on this point, I am sorry to say, I have considerable doubt'

Letter from the Reverend W. PAUL to Dr LEE on his 'Hebrew Grammar.'

'MANSE OF BANCHORY, DEVENICK,

'BY ABERDEEN.

'REVEREND SIR, -- Having acquired a taste for the study of Hebrew literature, and a great proportion of the knowledge of it which I possess from your works, I have much pleasure in acknowledging my great obligations to you, and in expressing my anxious desire that you may long be spared in health and strength to enjoy the distinguished reputation which you have so justly earned by your literary labours. My long |40 acquaintance with your works has created on my part a sort of imaginary intimacy with you, and a real feeling of gratitude, which I trust you will not repudiate, and I feel assured that you will not discourage the pursuit of studies, a taste for which you yourself have been instrumental in creating. Not very long after commencing the study of Hebrew, which I have learned without any instructors, I fortunately had your grammar put into my hands, which threw a light upon the whole subject which I have failed to discover in any other, although I have perused all those of any note which have lately appeared in this country. I assure you I have too high a respect for you to attempt to flatter you, and that I am expressing the real sentiments of my mind when I say that it is without exception the best grammar I have ever seen in any language, and that my wonder is that any other has got a footing in our universities and schools. I can only account for this from the low standard still possessed by those who teach the Hebrew language. Little progress can be expected in the study so long as a preference is given to grammars stored with facts but destitute of principles, and so long as teachers are more |41 desirous to load the memories than to exercise the judgments of their pupils. I am satisfied, from what I have experienced as an examinator in Hebrew in the Presbytery of Aberdeen, that this mode of teaching it makes it to many little better than labour and sorrow, and tends more than anything else to disgust the student with the language altogether.

'Your system of syllabication is most important as the groundwork upon which the changes of the vowels depend; and the principles of contraction of vowels and consonants which you were the first to introduce are of great consequence in showing how every defective word has been changed from its triliteral form, as exhibiting the uniformity of the laws under which these contractions take place, and as thereby enabling the student to perceive the grounds upon which the variations of verbs from the regular paradigm proceed.

'I cannot here refrain from stating that I have derived more benefit in ascertaining the principles upon which the vowel changes proceed, from the following observation made in your grammar, than from all that I have seen |42 upon the subject in any other work:--"Were words to be augmented in addition to their own primitive vowels, they would become inconveniently long. And on the other hand, as those vowels which have been termed immutable constitute the distinctive character of the words in which they are found, perspicuity forbids that any change should take place in them, otherwise the peculiar forms of such words would be lost, and with that the sense intended by writers generally. Art. 103, p. 41, d Ed."

..........

'Your treatment of the segolate nouns is most satisfactory, and sets the whole of that matter in the clearest light. I am of opinion that the principles there laid down may be applied to many other cases where the changes of the vowels are ascribed to oblique correspondence. Many words as well as segolates assume new forms, and in these cases the changes of vowels appear to proceed with reference to the original vowels of the old and not those of the new form....

'It is, however, your general views upon the grammar and syntax of the language which, in my judgment, constitute your triumph as a grammarian. I am quite satisfied as to the correctness |43 of your theory that the noun is the root, and that the simple form of the verb is actually a primitive noun concrete or abstract, with fragments of pronouns prefixed or affixed, the former becoming the past, the latter the present tense. Verbs having thus their nominatives incorporated with them, apparent nominatives are either to be understood in the absolute case (to speak in a manner applicable to other languages), or are in opposition to, and explanatory of, the nominatives contained in the verb. On this principle you have accounted for a mass of anomalies in regard to concords which have never before been satisfactorily explained. The extension of your general principles to the other conjugations of the verb, by the prefixing or postfixing the same fragments of pronouns to compounds of the original root, whether concrete or abstract, is most ingenious and convincing, and the simplicity of the view is a great confirmation of its correctness....

..........

'If your doctrine concerning the verb is correct, and if the noun is the root, then, with the exception of your own, in which this view is assumed, no Hebrew Lexicon that I have seen, whatever may be its other merits, is based upon sound etymological |44 principles, and hence the student is liable to be misled at every moment.

'As you very justly remark, a great obstruction has arisen to the study of the Hebrew language, from attempts to reconcile its general structure and syntax with those of other languages with which it has no affinity....

'Nordheimer has, in my judgment, completely failed to show that futurity is primarily inherent in what you properly call the present tense. Your doctrine on this point is, I believe, new, and is most important, and it is confirmed by the analogy of verbs in all languages, which, like the Hebrew, have only two tenses....

'I have been much profited by your excellent observations, showing how the Hebrew language can dispense with peculiar forms for the subjunctive or potential moods.

'The principles which regulate the sequences of the tenses create, as it appears to me, the greatest difficulty in Hebrew syntax--a difficulty which you have had the honour of being the first to solve. It may be said of the Hebrew tenses, with greater truth than of those of any other language with which I am acquainted, that they express time, not absolutely, but relatively. This, |45 indeed, may be said to be a peculiar feature of the syntax of the language, and you speak equally philosophically and truly when you affirm that what is called 'w conversive' has no such conversive power as is usually ascribed to it....

'I feel inclined to pursue this subject further, but I perceive that I have already extended this letter to unwarrantable length. I can scarcely suppose that the pleasure which I have in repeating in a very imperfect way what can impart no information, and can be of very little interest to you, is a sufficient warrant for thus occupying your valuable time....

'I have a work nearly in readiness for the press, with a special view of applying the principles established in your Grammar to the study of the Hebrew Scriptures. This I have attempted in an analysis of the whole of the book of Genesis.... The analysis is likewise preceded by a short Grammar.... The Grammar is contained in about sixty pages, and is of little value but as connected with the analysis. It is to your Grammar that the references are chiefly made.

..........

'I believe that such a work would be useful |46 for the study of the Hebrew language, and that it would familiarise the minds of students with the doctrines on Hebrew grammar, which you have been the first to propound. Were this the case, I believe I should be rendering the highest service to the interests of Hebrew literature. It is perhaps not wonderful that views so new and so subversive of much that has been advanced, both by preceding and succeeding grammarians, should be received with hesitation by some, and rejected by others, who have prejudices and theories of their own to maintain, and that they should, from these and similar causes, make their way less quickly than could be wished. But sure I am that they will triumph in the end. The more recent grammarians are evidently approximating towards them, and are throwing them into such forms as may enable them to adopt them without acknowledgment. I have seen Professor E.'s letter, addressed to the editor of the "Journal of Sacred Literature," on the subject of his plagiarism from your Grammar....

'I have now to apologise for the liberty I have taken in writing to you, and for the length to which this letter has extended. Were you to give me a word of kindly encouragement in the |47 pursuit in which I am engaged, it would cheer me greatly in a task to myself extremely agreeable and useful, whatever it may prove to others. This is all that I crave at your hand.--I am, rev. sir, with sincere esteem and respect, very faithfully yours,

WILLIAM PAUL.

'The Revd. Samuel Lee, D.D.' |48

CHAPTER IV

TRANSLATION OF JOB

IN 1837 Dr Lee published a translation of the Book of Job, with an introduction on the history, times, friends, etc., of the patriarch, accompanied by a commentary.

One of his pupils, the Rev. C. A. Hulbert, author of 'The Gospel Revealed to Job,' acknowledges in his preface his indebtedness to his former teacher. 'Attendance on the Hebrew Lectures of the Reverend Professor Lee, during my residence in the University of Cambridge, particularly those in 1833 on the Book of Job, contributed to increase my knowledge of, and attachment to, that divine book. The complete translation and copious notes which I then took down formed the basis of the criticism of the following work. The subsequent publication of the learned author's translation |49 and commentary by himself, enabled me to correct my own notes.'

The reasons which led him to undertake this work may best be given in his own words.

'There has, perhaps, been no period in which much doubt has not existed whether Job was or was not a real character.'... 'I hold that everything which tends to deprive this book, and such books as this, of their real historical character, cannot but administer to infidelity in the end. I therefore considered it my duty to investigate this question in all its essential bearings; and in doing so I soon found that everything necessary to its determination was at hand. I found, as I thought, the family of Job, those of his friends generally, the parts in which he and they resided, as well as the times in which they lived, all determinable in Holy Writ, in a manner never found in cases of parable, and to an extent quite sufficient to prove that the whole was real history, and intended to be received as such.'

'One consideration which has appeared to me of great moment presented itself during this investigation; it was this:--If I have rightly ascertained the period in which Job lived, the |50 allusions so often made in his book to God's will, commands, ways and judgments, must be allusions to revelations existing before the times of Moses; and as I find many of them made in the very words of the Book of Genesis it would follow that this book was in existence and generally known before the times of Job; those not to be found in this book might have been taken from others which Divine Providence has not deemed it necessary should be preserved; and of such we have some intimations elsewhere in the Old Testament, and in the Epistle general of Jude in the New. But what appeared to me the most important and remarkable was the real citations made in considerable numbers from the Book of Job by subsequent writers of the Old Testament, as well as by those of the New; and these, together with allusions less direct existing to a very great extent. Job is not, therefore, merely cited by name, but his book is quoted verbally and literally in very many cases; in many more it is manifestly imitated, or else alluded to. If this, therefore, can be relied on--and my own conviction is that it can, and is, moreover, indisputable-- nothing farther can be wanted to complete the |51 proof that the Book of Job is strictly historical, and canonically true; the sacred penmen themselves of the subsequent Scriptures having both considered and treated it as such, and as being of paramount Divine authority.'... 'It will now appear that even the patriarchs were much more enlightened on the subject of revealed religion than has been usually believed, which cannot fail to throw much light and interest on their histories as recorded in the Old Testament and appealed to in the New; as also on the state and expectations of believers generally in their days. It will also be seen that the Bible really contains within itself much more that is calculated to supply the best elucidation of its own contents than many have supposed; for if it be true that the Book of Genesis, as above remarked, is actually quoted and commented on in the Book of Job, and that the Book of Job is, in like manner, in subsequent portions of Holy Writ, it must also follow that from a careful comparison of the same doctrines, events, phraseology, etc., thus occurring in several places, considerable light will be elicited, and may be thrown upon them in all.'... 'This consideration, moreover, may be fairly reckoned upon as |52 supplying in every case a most powerful argument in favour of the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. For if there does exist the most perfect agreement in all and every one of the most minute particulars of this sort--which certainly could never have been effected by human means -- and this I will affirm is the fact, and that it will every day become more and more apparent as we become more familiar with the original Scriptures; and again, if it should also appear--which I will likewise affirm it eventually will--that not a jot or tittle of prophecy has failed, but that all has been fulfilled, then I say we shall have such a twofold cord of evidence as never can and never will be broken: and, what is best of all, this will be obtained by means the most unexceptionable, the just and natural method of arriving at the genuine intentions of the author of Holy Writ, namely, a minute but comprehensive investigation of its own declarations.'

As this interesting work has been for many years out of print, it may not be out of place to give here Dr Lee's views as to the 'scope and object of the Book of Job,' as contained |53 in his 'Introduction.' 'A little consideration will enable us to see that the primary object of this book is to show that there is a power attendant on true religion sufficient to enable its possessor eventually to overcome every temptation and every trial. This, I say, is its primary object. For, in the first and second chapters, which were apparently given as a key to the whole, we are informed that Job was a just and perfect man, and one who feared God. This was manifestly his character. It is suggested, however, by the great adversary of mankind, that, whatever appearances might be, a little trial would prove the contrary. The sacred penman assures us by means of a vision (as already shown) that, in order to prove the falsehood of this, Job is allowed to be exposed for a season to trials of the severest kind, but still he retained his integrity, and in the end came off victorious, to the entire approval of Almighty God, who restored him, and gave him wealth double in value to that of his former state of prosperity. He is also accepted in making a sort of atonement for his friends. I think, therefore, no doubt can remain that this was the primary object of this book.' |54

'A secondary object seems to have been to show how very imperfect the notions of even good men are on the moral economy of God. The friends of our patriarch meet, as we are told, for the purpose of condoling with him; and there appears no reason, as far as I can see, for questioning their sincerity. The sufferer proceeds, in the first place, to state his afflictions and then to pour out those lamentations and complaints which are natural to such a state. His friends--men evidently acquainted with revealed religion, and apparently very much in earnest as to accurate views respecting it-- proceed to correct him. They professedly take the side of God, and their main endeavour is to vindicate His wisdom, justice and mercy. For this purpose they argue from revelation, from experience, and from very extensive and just views of God's works; and as they are too well informed to suppose that there can be any effect without an adequate cause, particularly where there is an all-powerful, wise and good God overruling all things, their conclusion is that Job's sins must have led to his sufferings. The patriarch very justly and very successfully combats their conclusions, without at all calling |55 in question their several general doctrines--for these were no doubt true and worthy of all acceptation--and in this God Himself eventually declares for him.

'Their great fault was the misapplication of truth. They knew not the real cause which led to Job's trials, and the consequence was, they supposed one which was false; and to this were their arguments universally directed. The pertinacity and warmth with which they pressed their opinions could not but have added considerably to Job's sufferings, who evidently had a greater insight into the general dealings of God with believers than they had. Still, there is no reason, as far as I can discover, for calling in question either their fidelity, good intentions, or sorrow for their friend. They only did what thousands daily do -- they misapprehended the question at issue, and, as they were more willing to believe themselves right than to stop and consider in how many ways they might be wrong, and, in fact, how very little they could know on the subject, they pressed their sentiments to an extent which real religion, good sense, and the sympathy due to a friend would hardly justify; and of this, Job's mission to them from the |56 Almighty (ch. xlii.) must have more than convinced them, and have shown them to demonstration, that although He was truly no less mighty, wise and good than they had represented Him, yet that His wisdom was unsearchable, and His ways past finding out to men such as they were.'

'A third object, apparently, was to provide a book of doctrine, as already remarked, adequate to the wants of believers for ever, illustrating, as just now stated, both the economy of God with His people, and their ignorance as to His thoughts and ways; to keep alive the doctrine of Salvation through a Redeemer, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the certainty of a judgment to come.

'It might seem superfluous, after what has already been said, to dwell on the other doctrines, promises and experience incalculated throughout this book, and so frequently appealed to in the subsequent books of the Old Testament as well as in the New.

'I shall conclude, therefore, by remarking that... the genuineness of its piety, the purity and beauty of its morality, the great extent of its range, the exquisite chasteness at once |57 of its style and sentiments, and, above all, the solidity and depth of its devotion, cannot but conspire to recommend it as one of the most valuable productions of antiquity; at the same time, as a book of undoubted inspiration, and of the most unquestionable canonical authority.'

Letter from a SON of ARCHDEACON CORBETT on receipt of a copy of Dr Lee's 'Translation of Job.'

'LONGNOR, Septr. 7, 1837.

'DEAR SIR,--Tho' duly impressed by the favour done me in receiving a present of your new translation of the Book of Job, not knowing your present residence, and having nothing to say but expressions of my continual admiration of your learning and industry, I delayed my acknowledgment of this book till the term would probably restore you to Cambridge; but receiving a second copy of the same valuable book, I write to ask if, as I suppose, it is a mistake, what I should do with the second vol. I would send it free to any person you may name, and if I hear nothing I will present it to the Library of Pemb. Coll., |58 Oxford, which I intend enriching with other specimens of your great learning.

'With every respect and good wish to you and yours,--I remain, dear sir, your obliged and most humble servant,

JOSEPH CORBETT.'

|59

CHAPTER V

WORK ON MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY

IN 1824 Dr Lee published a work entitled 'Persian Controversies,' translations and explanations of 'Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mohammedanism by the late Reverend Henry Martyn, B.D., of St John's College, Cambridge, and some of the most eminent writers of Persia,' with an additional tract on the same subject, and some account in a preface of a former controversy on this subject, with extracts from it.

It is dedicated to the Right Honourable The Earl of Liverpool, K.G., First Lord of His Majesty's Treasury, etc. etc., as follows:--

'This attempt to develop and refute the religious opinions of the Mohammedans of Persia, as a public acknowledgment of a grant of one hundred pounds per annum made from His |60 Majesty's Treasury for the purpose of enabling the Arabic Professor of this University to deliver a public course of Arabic and Hebrew lectures annually is most respectfully inscribed by his Lordship's most obedient, obliged, humble servant, the translator and author.'

He says in the preface:--'As the following pages may perhaps be found useful to missionaries and others who wish to make themselves acquainted with this question, I have thought it might not be amiss to give some notices and extracts from the controversy as it existed prior to the times of Mr Martyn; especially as that controversy was prosecuted to a much greater length than his, and contains much valuable matter on the subject. It may also be desirable to know where books treating on this question are to be found, because we hear it sometimes affirmed that a missionary has not the means in this country of acquiring a deep and accurate insight into the opinions of the Mohammedans -- that Grotius, Sale and others have left us in the dark as to their metaphysics, mysticism, etc., and therefore that it is necessary, not only |61 to learn their language in the East, but also their opinions. As far, however, as my knowledge of this subject goes, I must be allowed to express a different opinion, having no doubt that both the languages and opinions of the Orientals can be learned in this country at as little expense and in as little time as they can in the East, and at a much less risk. Our public libraries contain the very best books on every subject connected with grammar, history, ethics, theology, geography and every other science, and to which, even in the East itself, access is seldom to be had. Valuable as the labours of Mr Martyn certainly were, yet I have no doubt that if he had passed a short time in this country in a preparatory course of Oriental reading, he would not only have done more than he has, but he would have done it better, and with far greater comfort to himself. Time was when the student of Oriental literature was almost a singularity in our universities, and such was the ascendancy obtained by classical and mathematical learning, that a young man must have had more than ordinary courage and self-denial to engage in studies which could afford him so |62 little in prospect, with so much difficulty in their prosecution.

'The state of the case is now considerably altered. A student may now commence the study of the Hebrew or Arabic without the fear of being cited as a monstrous singularity, or of being met at every turn with the appalling maxim, that Hebrew roots thrive best on barren ground. And, if he persevere, he may hope, not only that a generous public will applaud his endeavours, but that even posterity will allow him a place among those who have been considered as benefactors to mankind, and the best ornaments of the ages in which they lived. Another consideration, and one which has the greatest weight with me, is a belief that no book with which I am acquainted stands so much in need of elucidation as the Hebrew Bible. From the times of Grotius to the present day, I believe we can find scarcely one original commentator. And many even of his remarks have been borrowed from the Jews. The Dutch and German commentaries are the books most worthy of the scholar's regard; but many of these are such as to make it a question whether they should be |63 recommended or not. Nothing, if we except the dreams of Hutchinson, has come out in England for the last hundred years in the shape of original investigation. Compilation has long been the order of the day; and names, respectable indeed and valuable in their time, are now appealed to as the only safeguards against innovation, or as instructors in the way of truth. In almost an universal dearth of Scriptural knowledge, this is not to be wondered at, nor is it to be condemned. It is without doubt the best and safest path. But it should not satisfy the minds of those who have both ability and opportunity for making further progress. And as the character of the times in which we live calls for such exertion, it is to be hoped that the call will not be disregarded.

'The object of these remarks, however, is not to disparage the institutions of this country. Certainly not. I believe that they constitute one of its greatest excellencies and best guardians. I would only turn them to a greater public account by converting a portion of their provisions to a more extensive cultivation of those studies which have ever been the glory of the |64 Reformed Church, viz., the study of the Holy Scriptures, which cannot well be done without an extensive acquaintance with Oriental literature. The general attention, too, that has of late been paid to missionary exertions, both within and without the pale of the Church of England, constitutes a further motive for the prosecution of these studies; and I am of opinion that, without an extensive cultivation of them, there is not much reason to anticipate the success to which it is their object to attain.... It was once, indeed, my determination to give, as a sort of prolegomenon, an account of the creed of the Shiah or Mohammedan sect of Persia, followed by the principal tenets of their mysticism from the Dabistan of Mohsin Fáni and other writers to whom I have access; but as this work is sufficiently extensive, and has occupied a much larger time than might have been wished in the publication, I shall reserve my materials on these subjects for a future work.'

In connection with the subject of Mohammedan controversy, I well remember the visit to Barley Rectory of the genial Dr Pfander, a German missionary to the Mohammedans working under |65 the C.M.S. He was the author of some treatises on the Christian Faith for Moslem readers -- the 'Mizan-ul-haqq' was the title of one of them, and in the line of argument adopted, had taken up and expanded a plan suggested by my father, to whom he gladly acknowledged his indebtedness. |66

CHAPTER VI

BIOGRAPHICAL, AND LETTERS, 1840

SAMUEL LEE was married three times. In a letter to his brother, in 1810, he mentions the fact of his marriage at Worcester; very soon after this the fire mentioned in the letter to Dr Jonathan Scott occurred, for in May of the same year, writing to his brother's wife, he says: 'You would perhaps wish to know what progress I have made in the literary world--much greater than in the pecuniary one. I have stocked my head with more lumber than my pocket, consequently my loss is less than it might have been. I have a pretty general knowledge of Hebrew, a smattering of Scriptural philology--Greek and Latin are secondary things with me. I intend giving you a specimen that I am no contemptible poet; but do not let these things give you too great an opinion of me!' His first wife died when his children were still young, and this great loss was followed, in 1829, by the death of his only |67

LOCKING MANOR; THE HOME OF THE JENKINS FAMILY.

son, a very promising youth of seventeen, who died of consumption. His second wife died in 1837, at Banwell, in Somersetshire; and in 1840, when his daughters were either married, or about to be so, he married my mother, Anne Jenkins, whose father, the Reverend Stiverd Jenkins, lived at the old manor house at Locking. He was not then an incumbent, but gave his services gratuitously to Archdeacon, afterwards Dean, Law, at Weston. His family had for some years been acquainted with that of Dr Lee, Banwell and Locking being about two miles apart. Many and hearty were the congratulations received by Anne Jenkins when it was made known to her family that she had become engaged to the learned Professor, Dr Samuel Lee. Her uncle, Mr W. Portal of Laverstoke, wrote:--'The alliance of a gentleman of his distinguished talents, acquirements and professional eminence, would be an honour to any family. I beg you to accept my sincere congratulations.' And her brother-in-law, the Reverend Thomas Vores, then of Park Chapel, Chelsea, and afterwards of St Mary's, Hastings, thus expressed himself:--'Dr Lee is confessedly the first Orientalist in England, probably in |68 Europe. He has unwearyingly devoted his wondrous attainments to the defence of the great and blessed truths of God's pure Word, and God has called you, dear sister, to the honourable office of being a helpmeet to such a man.'

Banwell is fifteen or sixteen miles by rail from Bristol on the Exeter line. The Church is a very beautiful specimen of florid Gothic, and it is believed to have been erected about the middle of the fifteenth century. It is so surrounded by trees and buildings that it is not easy to get a good view of it The interior is strikingly handsome.

Before my mother's marriage, my father, in order to be within an easy distance of Cambridge, had exchanged the living of Banwell for that of Barley, in Hertfordshire. The following extracts from letters were, for the most part, addressed to my mother between the years 1840-52, during his absence from Barley, when lecturing at Cambridge, or in residence at Bristol, on those occasions when his family could not be with him.

'BARLEY, 1840.

'I have indeed been a hard-working student, but |69

TOWER OF BANWELL CHURCH

I trust an attachment to something much higher than mere study has been my stimulating and supporting motive in all this.

'And He whose glory I have sought has almost miraculously assisted, encouraged, and sustained me. Were I indeed more a Stoic than I am, many anxieties under which I have suffered would have been strangers to me.... Perhaps my life, which some have been induced to think a useful one, may be much lengthened to carry into effect the many labours which I have before me, likely, as I trust, to advance God's glory and the welfare of His people.'

'No one can be more sensible of his own shortcomings than I am. I lament them daily, I pray over them continually. "In me," I know but too well, "there dwelleth no good thing," but help has been laid upon One that is mighty, and Who is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities," and One who has said that "He will never leave thee nor forsake thee." To perfection I never expect to come, yet by His grace I do hope to be able to grow to a meetness for His kingdom, and to make some progress at least towards the full measure of His stature. Still, this must be done in much patience, often in |70 much tribulation, always in fear and trembling, lest I should be lifted up above measure. But then this is the fight of faith, the warfare of hope, the trial of our patience which is "much more precious than gold that perisheth," and in such a contest who shall doubt, be faint-hearted, or desperate? Are not the promises sufficiently clear? Is not the Spirit, the Comforter, sufficiently potent to sustain the fainting spirit, and to strengthen the feeble arm? We cannot humble ourselves too much, we cannot love Christ too much, we cannot depend too much upon Him, nor cast our cares too implicitly and fully upon Him, nor indeed can we rejoice too much in His power, readiness and willingness to "save to the uttermost all those who come" to Him by faith.'

'I might truly say my God has done wondrously for me and with me. Worthless, indeed, I am, perfectly unworthy of the least of all His mercies, yet I have trusted while I have wept, I have endeavoured while I felt that of myself I could do nothing, and what has been the consequence? I have always found my God both near and dear to me; much, very much, has He enabled me to do, more than has fallen |71 to the happy lot of most men; much, very much, He has given me, more than either I desired or deserved.'

'I am much more a creature of feeling than people generally imagine, and I believe and pray that these feelings may be good and rightly directed. Where I love, I love much and constantly; where I cannot love I dare not hate, and I feel that I can, by God's good grace, pray cordially and earnestly for my enemies. This is a great source of liberty to me. May God's holy name receive all the praise.'

'BARLEY, 1840.

'I was sorry to be almost forced to run away so soon from you and your dear family, but I knew I should be expected here. It was so. The congregation was very large, and among them Mrs D. (Lord A.'s sister) and her family, who are disgusted with the Puseyism of their own pastor. I had an admirable subject on the occasion, viz., Rom. iv. ver. 16, to the word "seed." I was greatly aided, and felt very much indeed drawn out in that most interesting and noble subject. The silence was death-like, and |72 the interest most intense. God be blessed, it was of His mercy! Indeed, it was a-season of great refreshing to me. "To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed'' It is by grace, therefore it is sure--and what could our God have done that could have made this more sure? Nothing, so far as I can see, could even Omnipotence have suggested, so good, certain, and lovely.

'As to the ministry, I do feel most grateful to Almighty God for the honour put upon me. I do feel that it is a very great one. I do, above all things, rejoice in being enabled to put forth those glorious doctrines and promises which form the peculiarities of our holy faith; and I never feel so much cast down as I do when anything has put it out of my power to stand up in my pulpit for this purpose, nor so comfortable as I do when I have reason to think that I have laboured to good effect. A most happy composure in such cases rests upon me, and my night passes in rest the most sweet and refreshing. As to self-abasement, if I feel one thing more strongly than another it is indeed my utter unworthiness of such an honour, and never, no, never do I ascend the stairs of a |73 pulpit but I feel a fear and dread upon me lest, through my weakness or inability, the cause of my glorified Redeemer should suffer. I do trust that if I see any one thing more strongly than another, it is the absolute and utter abasement of self; on nothing else can the divine blessing be expected. It is the sick only to whom the Physician can in this case afford any help, and as such, my wants, deficiencies and sins I never cease to lay before my gracious Saviour, and I never fail to find strength accordingly. Oh, yes, it is when we are weak that indeed we are truly strong, and that we can realise all joy and peace in believing.'

'I thank my God--and do you thank Him too, for me--for all my trials, privations and sacrifices. All have been and are made to me sources of the richest blessings. Blessed be His holy name for this and for all His other mercies!

'The old Syrian Bishop of Malabar waited my return hither. I have seen him, but was not much interested with him. He could not read my Syriac "Eusebius," although he is an Archbishop of the Syrian Church. He is, however, a tolerably good Syriac scholar. He had never seen a copy of my "Eusebius" before, |74 although he had heard that such a book was in existence.'

In the spring of 1841 my mother went on a visit to her family, who had removed to Stone in Glo'stershire. The following were addressed to her whilst there:--

'Surely if men are generally duly called upon to be thankful, how much cause have I to be so! My cup of blessings has never been empty--for years it has been full, and now how it truly runs over! Blessed be the Holy Name of Him who has thus blest, and is now blessing, me! It is very gratifying to find so much kindness expressed by the people of your neighbourhood, nor is the kindness of your dear old red-cloaks the least welcome to me.

'They must have been delighted to see you. May their prayers for us be daily put up and received, and answered by Him who is our Father and our Friend.

'You judged quite rightly of my rounds of exercise on Sunday in our delightful grounds. I paced them round and round both before and after service.

'My text was James i. vers. 2, 3, 4, involving |75 the very question of afflictions as noticed in your letter of to-day. I observed that it was Christianity alone that did or could consider afflictions as blessings; to every person otherwise minded they were real marks of wrath, and were generally attended with mourning, woe, murmuring and repining. Then, as to patience and its perfect work; the entireness in Christ which wanted nothing; the completeness in Him, without which Heaven itself would be but a sort of hell; the meetness for this place now to be acquired, the mind of Christ now to be realised. I found myself overwhelmed with a subject so delightful, so deeply interesting, and at the same time so awful that I hardly knew how to leave it or how to go on with it. If, indeed, this happy experience is ours in any degree, and in some degree I hope it is, how thankful, how happy, how rejoiced ought we to be.... One of our senior fellows came over to Barley on Monday, both to see my palace and to carry us all over in a fly and to give us a dinner in his rooms. He is an old and warm friend of mine. He introduced me many years ago to the Duke of Sussex, out of which grew nearly all my present dignity and wealth.' |76

CHAPTER VII

LETTERS, 1841-42

AT this time ray father was much occupied with the Syriac version of Eusebius's 'Theophania' (Divine Manifestation), which was published in 1842, and in preparing the English version which appeared a year later. Further on will be found some account of both works. He refers to them in these letters as 'My Eusebius.'

' GREAT WESTERN HOTEL,

'BRISTOL, Novr. '41.

'Were not the causes of our little separations proofs of the Divine mercy in giving me at once honour and the opportunity of employment, I certainly should be more than half disposed to complain; but our Friend is at once a kind and a wise one; there is nothing he will do or appoint for us which shall not be of first value....

Well, I had the whole inside of the coach to |77 myself from Barley to London. Mr Cross, the coachman, asked me, as soon as I got in, whether I should like anything to amuse myself. I said I should. He accordingly brought me a new tragedy just finished, "spike and spon new," as they say. The title was "Edric the Forester." He did not, indeed, furnish me with the last and fifth act, for that he had not with him. He furnished me, however, with quite as much as I could read before it got dark. The plot is laid in those times soon after the Norman Conquest, when the Welsh, with the Saxons, made many inroads and attacks upon the castles of the Norman lords. The scenery in this case is mostly laid in and about Shrewsbury, and I must say I was both delighted and astonished at the performance. There are in this play some of as good verses as any I ever read, and which would not be unworthy of Shakespeare or Milton. There is a love tale in the piece told almost as sweetly as that of Miranda and Ferdinand in the "Tempest." I was highly delighted with this work of Mr Cross's, and I was as much surprised at it. I could not help telling Mr Cross so, and I do hope it may be the means of affording him the encouragement which |78 he deserves. You will bear in mind that I saw only four acts of this play; the last and fifth I have yet to see. Yet I cannot help thinking that the last is not likely to fall short of the preceding ones. If so, the coachman will surprise the literary world. Well, so much for the tragedy. My next recital will be more of the comic turn. I got to the "White Horse" safely a little after seven o'clock, and soon got a comfortable dinner. Not long after came two gentlemen quite unknown to me into the coffee-room, and not long after an old Hertfordshire clergyman, whom I have met at the visitations. One of these first two gentlemen began to talk rather loudly, and, I thought, not very wisely. I was talking to the old clergyman about the railways, and saying how much better the Bristol one was than that from London to Broxbourne. Upon this the said noisy gentleman attacked me very fiercely, asking me why I did not then lay out my own money on the railways and make them better. I answered as civilly as I could that I had no further interest in railways than they contributed to my comfort in travelling, and to that of the public. He did not mend his manners upon this, but launched out most |79 violently against the parsons generally, and those of Cambridge in particular, saying that they were ignorant, incapable of office, etc., etc. As to the famous Dr Lee of Barley, he was said to know something about Arabic, but he was nothing, etc., etc. I did not say one word to this; was not this exemplary? He then said, among other things, that he had a living to sell, the incumbent being 70 years of age, etc. I asked him where? "H----," he said. "Oh!" said I, "I think I now know whom I have the honour of addressing." "Yes," said he, "I am Sir P---- ----." He then went on to say of Dr Lee, "he heard him say," that 17 shillings an acre was too little for the tithe of Banwell. I asked him whether he was quite sure of this. "Oh yes," he said, "quite sure, and he would bring witness of it." In some other cases he offered to bet 1000 guineas. I asked him whether he would bet 1000 guineas on this also. "Oh, yes," he said, "he would swear it, and bring witness of it," etc. "Well," said I, "I am Dr Lee himself! Did you ever hear me say this?" This was a death-blow. You never saw a coward quail with so bad a grace! "You Dr Lee?" "Yes," I said, "it is even so." |80 "Then," said he, "you are the first and greatest man," etc., etc. All was now flattery of the grossest sort. "Sir P----," said I, "let me say one thing only--as I do not fear the scandal of any man, neither do I want the praise of any." Hereupon Sir P---- became quiet as a lamb.'

Letter from Dr LEE to his Wife on the death of her Father, the Reverend S. Jenkins.

'TRIN. COLL., March I, 1842.

'I have been very sorry that my lectures have carried me away from you on this occasion. This is one of the evils attending our office, but as I hope I am doing the work of my heavenly Master, and as I would not easily allow any obstacle to stand in the way of this, I trust you will not ascribe my absence to any want of regard or of feeling. I hope you are not allowing yourself to indulge in excessive grief. Believe me, you ought not to do so. The removal of our dear friend is to him a glorious change indeed, as it is the realisation of all his hopes, prayers and faith. We should, indeed, have been thankful for a longer sojourn among us; but then we must not evince |81 unthankfulness now that the will of our Heavenly Father has not exactly coincided with ours. Besides, excessive grief destroys health, unfits the mind for entertaining better things, and at one and the same time injures the body and soul. I would not, nevertheless, inculcate the apathy of the Stoic; far from it. I believe it is well pleasing to our God that we should evince sorrow for the loss of valued friends. Our Lord himself, we know, wept at the tomb of Lazarus; Abraham mourned for Sarah; and so did Isaac at the loss of his mother, as he also did for that of his wife. Our great point is prudently to moderate these feelings, and not to sorrow as men that have no hope for them that sleep in Him, as we know our dear father does. Meditate on these things, but, above all, on the glories now enjoyed by the dear departed. Consider how he rejoices with the spirits of just men made perfect, and in the recollection of the labours he here underwent for the purpose of bringing many with him to the same place of rest and of blessedness; and still, it may be, thinks of those who were near and dear to him here, and to whom he gave so many affecting lessons of |82 righteousness and truth; anticipating, too, perhaps, the period when they shall again join him.'

'TRIN. COLL., CAM.,

'March 17, 1842.

'To-morrow I shall conclude my lectures for this term. I shall not quite get through the "Book of Proverbs." I shall, however, within four or five. Last Monday I had a very comfortable lecture, and to-morrow I hope to have another. I now look forward with great pleasure to a few weeks' domestic happiness, and, at the same time, to join my "Eusebius" again, and to carry him on towards completion.'

'TRIN. COLL., CAM.,

' April 2.0/42.

'E. tells me that the Duke's [of Northumberland] letter was pleasant to you. It is, indeed, a pleasure to find so many who wish well to my labours and so kindly to myself.'

'THE "WHITE HORSE," FETTER LANE,

'LONDON, June 2, 1842.

'I have to thank our Heavenly Father that I had a prosperous and pleasant journey to this place, and that I am in the best health |83 and spirits. I look before me, indeed, to a rather dreary sojourn at Bristol, but as I know in whom I trust, I have no doubt my dearest friend and friends at home will be better kept than I could keep them, and that He will bring us together in all health and comfort at no great distance of time. For these things my prayers shall be fervent and constant, and all shall be well. In the meantime, I shall be sedulously employed in the service of the best of Masters, and in this privilege it shall be my endeavour to rejoice and be thankful....

'But I must tell you the news which has put London into a ferment. Yesterday, the Queen was shot at by a carpenter in the Park. No injury was done to Her Majesty, thank God! The man is committed to Newgate for trial. It is said that he attempted to do the same thing on Sunday last, but for some reason or other did not fire. I did intend to be at Bristol to-morrow, but having just now called on Mr Guest, at the Temple, he tells me that a meeting of the Council of our Philological Society is to meet to-morrow evening at eight o'clock at No. 49 Pall Mall. As I am one of the said council, I have made up |84 my mind to stay for the meeting. On this account, I cannot be at Bristol before Friday. I shall therefore, D. V., endeavour to be there then. My "Eusebius," I am told, is looked for with great interest. May God give me wisdom and strength to send it forth such as it ought to be! I called at the British Museum, and found that the Syriac MSS. turn out quite as good as I had represented. I am glad of this. I shall often be with thee and thine in the spirit; often imagine I am admiring, with you, at once our Paradise, and the greater mercies of Him who has so blessed us, and, indeed, provided for us a better Paradise above, where no fall, either of leaf or flower, ever happens, and where chilly winter or piercing winds shall never have place.'

'4 COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'June 3, 1842.

'I have, with God's good assistance, arrived safely here. Blessed be His name! I got in by the railway train a little before ½ past 2 o'clock, i.e., a little under 4½ hours. The weather has been remarkably fine. The country looks rich and beautiful in the extreme; all, indeed, seems |85

BRISTOL CATHEDRAL IN 1837.

to predict peace and plenty. I could not help going to church, as I arrived in good time, and lifting up my heart in thanksgiving to my God and Saviour for the great mercies vouchsafed to me. The sight of the church much refreshed my mind. The service was solemn, and the anthem very sweet.... I met the Philological Council last night. They were exceedingly complimentary to me, and pressed me to take the chair as president. I declined, because I could not allow myself, on my first appearance among them, to take the highest place. I therefore proposed, and pressed it, that Professor Wilson of Oxford should take it. We got through a good deal of business, and this morning I was very agreeably surprised to find the secretary, Mr Guest, a member of the Temple, had sent me a couple of volumes of very interesting matter on the ancient and modern verse of the English. This was very gratifying. I read a good deal of the first volume -- for there are two -- as I came by the railway, and I was very much delighted with it. I shall read the work through at my leisure.... Nothing remarkable has occurred here, except that the place is in fine, verdant and flourishing condition. The trees |86 in College Green are looking very rich and full, as, indeed, all the country does.... I shall be enabled to go on prosperously with my "Eusebius," and, indeed, to be more than a conqueror in everything.'

'4 COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'June 7/42.

'... Pray go to Dr Haviland... if he advises you to change the air, then come here to me at once.... Set out at once in the close carriage, and post your way through St Albans, Oxford, Cirencester, Cheltenham, etc., etc., to this place. From £15 to £20 will be wanting to clear your way. Or if you prefer the railway, go to London, and the next morning get into the train, either at 10 or 12 o'clock. In that case you will be here either at half-past two or at about a quarter before 5 o'clock respectively. The train will bring the carriage for £3, 10s. I myself should like this best, because I shall see you the sooner, and because you can at any time take the carriage and go to our friends at Cheltenham, and then return to me here.... But, I fear, anything I can say about the railway will be in vain. I must say, however, that the comfort of |87 the travelling without dust or delay, the goodness of the accommodation, and the ease and comfort are so great that I hardly know how to speak highly enough of it; besides, I do not know whether you can now find on the road a regular supply of horses, although I should think a cross country road, like that of St Albans, would not be affected by the railway.... Four or five days' travelling post will almost kill you through this hot weather, and it will put the "dear little body" almost into a fever. If you think of travelling post, you must travel early and late--that is, set out at six o'clock in the morning--travel till ten, Then rest till five, and after this, travel till nine or ten. The whole middle part of the day given up to rest, and from five till nine or ten o'clock to travelling. I do not think you would find any inconvenience whatever from such a plan. The change of air would daily do you good. But if you could venture on the railway, you would be here in a few hours, and would experience all the comfort of no dust, no delay, etc., etc.... Your notice about our poor old people at Barley was indeed most gratifying to me. Oh, I do hope I may and shall be found faithful in the |88 great charge committed to my care.... I am to preside at the general examination of the school children at the Diocesan School, Nelson Street. To-day I had to assist in drawing up addresses to the Queen, Prince Albert, and the Duchess of Kent on the Queen's late providential escape from assassination.'

'4 COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'June 13, 1842.

'Alas! I am at this moment beset with a company of glee-singers in the streets, singing very beautifully. I must give them something to allow me to be at peace. Tis done, and they are gone. Now to my own matters again. I had a good Sabbath yesterday. I had a very large and attentive congregation. The sermon was impressive, and was listened to with an intense interest, apparently. Oh, that these may indeed be preparations to the endless Sabbath reserved above for all God's children! I cannot help saying that the contemplation of these things is one of the greatest comforts I have. Praised be God for this: may this feeling be increased a thousandfold! Next Sunday we are to have the sermon for the distressed |89 manufacturers, in obedience to the Queen's letter. I trust this also will be a season of refreshing. It would much heighten my happiness were you here to partake with me in these undertakings.'

'4 COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'19 June 1842.

'I have had a most delighting and comforting day this day here. I preached my sermon, which was evidently well received. The contribution, as things go here, was good, viz., £23, s. d. But my greatest happiness has been the hope that something better than mere human sympathy has been put forth. I mean the warm and awakening love of God our Redeemer. Be this as it may, certainly I have felt my heart much drawn out, and much, I hope, excited and led onward toward that better state, which, I feel confident, we shall one day see together in the Kingdom of our Father above.... We have had some very fine and refreshing rains; how happy that it is not to the earth alone that the gracious dews of our Father are granted, but also to the hearts of them that love Him, in all their sweetness, freshness and comfort! May His name be ever praised by us for this His unspeakable gift' |90

'BRISTOL, June 22/42.

' To-day I presided at the Diocesan school. We had a remarkably good examination; and, at the close of this, I made as good a speech as I could, commending to the school children, to their instructors, their patrons, and their parents, the love which Christ has shown to them, with the hope that they would evince the same one to another; this is, indeed, a theme on which one might dwell forever.... I am afraid I have been very naughty; I have not written to Cheltenham. The truth is, what with my "Eusebius," etc., I have hardly a minute to spare. Church from ¼ before eleven to about twelve daily, and again from 3 to 4, then half-a-dozen letters to write, etc.'

'COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'June 25/42.

'I am glad to hear of Mr L.'s sermons being so good. But this is not all. I must, if possible, have someone who will also look after the parish, the parish school, and be less accessible as to dinner-parties, etc., etc. Mr L. is a very kind man; but then this is not enough; he appears to me to want the requisite anxiety for the spiritual good of the people, which is all |91 important. But this, I fear, he will not soon acquire. I must not, however, be in a hurry. It is anything but an easy thing "to get a good curate. And, perhaps, it is too much for the same incumbent to expect to have a good wife and a good curate. Blessings rarely come unchecked by some evil. In the former case, God be praised, I am greatly blessed.... I dined on Thursday at Mr Battersby's, at Stoke. I met there with an entertaining old gentleman from Shrewsbury who had been in India, seen a great deal of military life, and knew many persons well known to me. To - morrow the Dean preaches, so I shall have an idle Sabbath, nevertheless of rest.'

'June 27th, 1842,

'BRISTOL.

'... I did not preach yesterday. The Dean preached a very good sermon. But I never feel so happy as when I have been actively engaged myself. Nevertheless, I had a very sweet day.... My time is much occupied--three hours every day in church, or thereabouts, and the rest at my "Eusebius." It is, however, all good work, and praised be my God that I am able to attend to it all. It is a great privilege. |92 Mr Profr. Scholefield has found the place in "Plato" for me; and this day I received it from him. It was very kind in him; I doubt whether I should ever have found it. I now have all my places found, and nearly the first book in the Syriac printed. God be praised! I am this day invited to dine with Mr Montague, but must decline it.'

'BRISTOL, June 29, 1842.

'Many thanks for the Homily Society's letter. I will do the work for them, D. V., and by this post I will write to that effect. You have no conception how many letters I have to write. Last night I sent only four; when I wrote last to you the number was ten! What with the duty of attending the church, my "Eusebius," etc., etc., you will readily suppose I have not much time to spare. Last night I read over Dr C.'s note. It is a very rambling production, and seems to prove to me that this very kind friend has not yet found the Rock of Ages--no, nor anything like it on which to rest the sole of his foot. He seems to think it is time for me to drop the mantle to some other. He is not at all aware that a very large portion of my best pleasure is in my labours. The work is pleasurable for the time being, but then there |93 is a hope that when I am dead it shall speak, and shall give God the glory when my tongue and tongues shall have ceased.'

'BRISTOL, July 11, 1842.

'To-morrow the gay doings commence here.' (Probably Agricultural Show.) 'I have received an invitation to dine with the Mayor, to meet the Duke of Cambridge, etc., etc., and I have promised to go. The weather, I am sorry to say, is very rainy here, and not at all likely to be otherwise, which will greatly damp the gay proceedings. A sad tale is prevalent here just now, and causes great excitement, viz., that a marvellously fine bull belonging to the Duke of Devonshire has been poisoned. The animal is certainly dead, and the investigation is going on as to whether this has come to pass by poison or not. I wish the contrary may be the result; but, knowing as I do the abominable spirit of many of the people here, I fear this will not be the case.... A few days ago, I took up "Martyn's Journals," as edited by Archdeacon Wilberforce, and read a little way into them, and what do I find? Generally nothing beyond the reprehension of self, the |94 painful detail of a miserable heart; prayer had recourse to for two hours at a time, and still no comfort! But is this the way to realise God in the heart? Is it likely that an everlasting recurrence to self, and to the unprofitableness of the human heart, will raise the soul to heavenly exercises? Would it not be better to fill the heart with God, God's love, God's deeds, God's mercies, and to eclipse, as it were, our own wantings with the grace and bounty which is from above? To rejoice in the victory obtained by the Redeemer, rather than eternally to repine over the fall of our forefather? Not, indeed, that we should forget the latter; but that we should rejoice the greater in the former, knowing that our battle is won, our Captain perfect, our warfare accomplished, I cannot help thinking, therefore, that this disposition to self-torment is wrong and unscriptural.'

'BRISTOL, July 13, 1842.

'This evening, thanks to my God, I am at home. Yesterday I dined with the Mayor, the Duke of Cambridge--and I know not with whom besides--but this evening is my own.... How worthless is all the show and |95 splendour of wealth, royalty, etc. when compared with the sweet retirement and enjoyment of Christian hearts united in Christian love! I was wearied and tired beyond description with last evening's doings.... You will, perhaps, like to hear of our grand company yesterday. About eighty people dined, I think, with the Mayor; among these was the Duke of Cambridge, the American Minister, whom I met at Cambridge, the Dukes of Richmond, Beaufort, and I know not how many else--earls, marquises, lords, etc., etc. The only lord I knew was Lord Clive, whom I met at Cambridge. I met, too, with Sir T. Dyke Acland, who was very polite to me. Mr Kingston, too, I met, who asked kindly after you. Our Dean and Mr Harvey were there. The dinner did not commence before half-past eight o'clock, and I did not get home before eleven, although myself and the Dean were the first that moved off. I shall not go to any other great dinner. I have had more than enough of these, although, thanks' to our Redeemer, I am very well in health. All is noise, uproar and confusion here. The streets are filled with people promenading, etc., etc., so that one can hardly |96 pass. To-day there is a great dinner at the New Assembly Rooms; to-morrow at Leigh Court, at the rich Mr Miles'. The Bible Society at Barkway is put off to the th of August on my account, when, D. V., I shall have it in my power to be there, and to take the chair.'

'COLLEGE GREEN,

'BRISTOL, July 16, 1842.

'... I will bring you a copy of "Martyn's Journal," because we can talk over it, and while we avoid anything which may be unscriptural, we can select for use everything which may prove valuable.... But I must tell you of my doings. I said, I believe, that I should go out to no more gay scenes here. I was, nevertheless, prevailed upon by Mr Harvey to go to Leigh Court on Thursday evening, to an evening party, at which the Duke of Cambridge and many other grandees were to be present. I went accordingly, and passed an extremely agreeable evening.... I have made myself useful in the Council of the Bp.'s College, of which I am a vice-president, and hope I have facilitated some of their proceedings. My "Eusebius" is going on in one way |97 or other. The second book is nearly printed in the Syriac, and I hope to put the English translation to press soon after my return to Barley.

'Thursday; July 28, 1842,

'BRISTOL.

'... I visited the jail to-day, and had a discussion with a thorough infidel. Oh, what a waste and howling wilderness was his mind! I never in my life saw such a state of desolation and misery! Poor, miserable, conceited, human nature! O Lord, grant us to know Thee, and that this is indeed eternal life! I am sorry I cannot see him again. But I feel I could do him no good. He has so much to unlearn before he can expect to find the truth, that many visits must be necessary, even to set him on inquiry in a way likely at all to get to the truth; and this is impossible with me. The feeling he expressed at parting was good; but of this at Barley by-and-by. I am to drink tea this evening with a Shropshire lady of Cheltenham.... I am, it should seem, a great lion with her; but, you know, there is much more of the lion's skin, etc., in all this than anything else.' |98

CHAPTER VIII

'THEOPHANIA' OF EUSEBIUS

IN 1843 my father published the 'Theophania (i.e., the Divine Manifestation of Christ) ot Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and Father of Church History, being a defence of Christianity against the philosophers of his times; a work in five books, long supposed to be lost, but which has lately been discovered in a monastery in Egypt. Translated into English, with notes critical and explanatory.' A French review thus speaks of the work:--

'"Eusebius," or "The Theophania," translated into English, with notes, from an ancient Syriac version of the Greek original, now lost. By Samuel Lee, Cambridge, 1843. Syriac version, edited from an ancient MS. Printed for the Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts. London, 1842.

'Eusèbe, Évéque de Césarée, en Palestine, au commencement du 4ème siècle, fut, comme |99 on le sait un des hommes les plus érudits et les plus éloquents de son temps. On lui doit entre autres ouvrages une histoire ecclésiastique très-estimée. Il assista au Concile du Nicée, y porta la parole devant Constantin, et ce fut lui qui rédigea contre Arius la formule de foi orthodoxe, que les Pères du Concile adoptèrent, en y ajoutant seulement le mot ὁμούσιος, ou consubstantiel, expression qu'Eusèbe n'admit, à la vérité, qu'avec peine. La répugnance qu'il manifesta au sujet de ce mot, et plusieurs passages d'un commentaire sur les Psaumes dont il est auteur, l'ont fait assez généralement considérer comme partisan des opinions d'Arius. Aujourd'hui son orthodoxie n'est plus douteuse, grâce à la précieuse découverte qui a été faite d'un de ses ouvrages dont on ne connaissait que le titre. La gloire de venger la mémoire de ce savant prélat, était réservée à un des ministres les plus distingués de l'Eglise Anglicane, qui est en même temps un des Orientalistes, Européens les plus instruits, les plus laborieux, et aussi les plus célèbres. M. Samuel Lee dans son zèle infatigable pour les travaux d'érudition Orientale qui ont rapport à la religion, a trouvé la traduction Syriaque du- |100 livre dont il s'agit. Cet ouvrage, dont l'original Grec est perdu, traite précisément du sujet délicat de la divinité de Jésus-Christ, à laquelle on accusait ce Père de l'Église de ne pas croire. Ce livre, intitulé ΘEOΦANEIA, c'est-à-dire la manifestation divine (en Jésus-Christ), nous dévoile la véritable pensée d'Eusèbe, et on ne peut douter après l'avoir lu, que le saint prélat n'ait cru à la vérité fondamentale de la religion chrétienne, vérité sans laquelle elle n'est qu'une secte philosophique. M. Lee, a publié le texte et la traduction de ce traité, il en met en relief les doctrines, et il conclut à l'orthodoxie d'Eusèbe. Nous ne le suivrons pas dans ses consciencieux recherches, et nous n'entreprendrons pas non plus d'analyser le traité de l'Evêque de Césarée. Il nous suffit d'appeler l'attention des savants sur la double publication de M. Lee, une des plus intéressantes qui aient paru dans ces denières années.

[Translation]

'Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, at the beginning of the th century, was, as we know, one of the most learned and eloquent |101 men of his time. We owe to him, among other works, an ecclesiastical history which is much esteemed. He was present at the Council of Nice, spoke before Constantine, and it was he who drew up the formula of the orthodox faith against Arius, which the fathers of the council adopted, only adding the word ὁμούσιος, or consubstantial, an expression which Eusebius, in truth, admitted but reluctantly.

'The objection which he entertained in regard to this word, and several passages from a commentary on the Psalms, of which he was the author, caused the impression that he was a partisan of the opinions of Arius. Now his orthodoxy is no longer doubtful, thanks to the valuable discovery which has been made of one of his works, of which the title alone was known. The glory of justifying the memory of this learned prelate was reserved for one of the most distinguished ministers of the English Church, who is also one of the most enlightened, painstaking and celebrated of European Orientalists. Mr Samuel Lee, in his untiring zeal for the works of Oriental learning which relate to religion, has found the Syriac translation of the book in question. This work, of which the |102 original Greek is lost, treats in a special manner the vital subject of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, in which this Father of the Church is accused of not believing. This book, entitled "The Theophania," that is, the Divine Manifestation (in Jesus Christ), unveils to us the real faith of Eusebius, and one cannot doubt, after having read it, that the good prelate believed in the foundation truth of the Christian religion, a truth without which it is but a philosophical sect. Mr Lee has published the text, and the translation of this treatise, and, in a learned preliminary dissertation, he has given an epitome of the doctrines, and thus established the orthodoxy of Eusebius. We will not follow him in his conscientious researches, and we shall not undertake to analyse the treatise. It is sufficient for us to call the attention of the learned to the double publication of Mr Lee, one of the most interesting which has appeared of late years.'

He says, in a preface to the 'Theophania':-- 'The first, and probably the only, mention of this work, which occurs in any ancient Father of the Church, is to be found in the "Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers," otherwise styled, "The |103 Lives of Illustrious Men," "Vitae Illustrum Virorum," by Jerome.

'It is worth remarking that not only was this work written long before the appearance of Mohammed, but the MS. itself was written nearly 200 years before he was born.'

'Sometime in the year 1839, the Rev. Henry Tattam, of Bedford, who is an excellent Coptic scholar, formed the resolution of visiting Egypt for the purpose of procuring Coptic manuscripts, in order to complete, if possible, an edition of the Coptic Scriptures. At the suggestion of his friends, a subscription was set on foot for the purpose of assisting in defraying the expense of this undertaking, and this subscription was headed by a contribution of £300 from Government. Individuals contributed to a small extent, and Mr Tattam accordingly set out for Egypt. In a short time he returned, having procured some good Coptic MSS., of which a list has been printed and circulated; and also about fifty volumes of Syriac MSS., some of which were of an extreme age, and very valuable. These manuscripts Mr Tattam sent me, with the request that I would give him some account of their contents, and at the same time say what I |104 thought their value might be, which I did as soon as my other engagements would allow. It was in looking over these manuscripts that I had the extreme pleasure of discovering that of which the following work is the translation. Knowing then, as I did, the extreme rarity of this work, in other words, that no other copy of it was known to exist, I requested Mr Tattam to allow me to take a copy of it before it should leave my hands, in order that the work might not be lost, whatever might happen to the MS. Mr Tattam, with the disinterestedness for which he is so remarkable, instantly gave his consent, allowing me, moreover, to retain the MS. as long as I might want it; and although he soon after disposed of the collection generally to the trustees of the British Museum, he was so obliging as to make this stipulation, that I should be allowed to retain this MS. as long as I might deem it necessary.

'My first business now was to make a correct copy of this very rare and valuable Codex, so far as our work was concerned; and I accordingly copied it out myself with all the expedition I could command. Soon after I had done this I applied to the Society lately established in the Metropolis for printing Oriental texts, requesting |105

FAC-SIMILE OF SYRIAC MS. 'THEOPHANIA.'

|107 they would print it, and thus multiply the copies, so as to ensure the safety and permanency of the work. To this request the committee of that Society very graciously acceded. The work was accordingly put to press, and printed by Mr R. Watts, long and well-known for his ability in printing Oriental works generally. In his hands it had, moreover, the advantage of being printed in a Syriac type, which was made some years ago under my own inspection for the purpose of printing a Syriac Bible for the use of the Syrian Churches in Malabar. I will add that, during the passing of the sheets through the press, I collated every one of them with the MS., so that I do trust the Syriac text, now some time completed, will be found as neatly and correctly printed as the greatest care on the part of both the editor and printer could be expected to insure. The MS. containing our work is very neatly written in the Estrangelo, or old Church-handwriting of the Syrians, on very fine and well-prepared skin. It is of the size of large quarto, each folio measuring about 14½ inches by 11½, and containing three columns, each of the width of 2¼ inches, as may be seen in the fac-simile.' |108

The MS. contains 245 folios, 71 of the first of which contain a Syriac translation of the 'Recognitions of St Clements,' as they were called. Eusebius died about A.D. 340. This MS. with the others referred to, were purchased by Mr Tattam at the monastery of the 'Blessed Virgin' in the desert of Nitria, situated on the west of the Nile, and somewhat more than 80 miles from Cairo.

|109

CHAPTER IX

LETTERS, 1843

'BRISTOL, June 15, 1843.

'... My Sabbath yesterday was one of comfort, for although I took no part in the service, except in that of the Communion, this proved one of much refreshing to me. The attendance was larger than usual, and was apparently very devout. Mr C. preached for me, a sermon moderately Puseyistic, though not so much so as to alarm anyone. Our singing was, indeed, very good, although the choir was thin, from the circumstance that one of the men and several of the boys were ill. We have a splendid singer here from Armagh, who is a candidate for one of our lay-clerkships, which will soon be vacant. There are some more candidates to be tried this week, so you see that I am promoted to the office of judge.

'The leisure I experience since my late pressure of business at Cambridge seems very acceptable, |110 and to have put me into quite new circumstances.... The weather continues very rainy and unpleasant here; notwithstanding this, to-day has been one of much parade and show here. We have had processions with flags, drums, trumpets, etc., almost without end, and the poor Bristolians, steeped in rain, mud, etc., witnessing the spectacle. A man riding on horseback in polished armour, others carrying battle-axes, and all manner of odd things. But all is now over, and the rumbling of carts, iron bars in loads, and the like, have succeeded, and Bristol is quite itself again.... I hear that the Oxonians have suspended Dr Pusey from preaching for two years. This, if true, will fall short of the matter. He will be now a martyr to his cause.'

'BRISTOL, July d, 1843,

'Sunday.

'It is a great comfort to me at the close of the Sabbath to turn my mind and my best affections to my dear home.... We have had the Sacrament here to-day, as we have on the first Sunday of every month. The attendance was large, considering what it usually is in such churches. The Dean preached this |111 morning.... A minor canon gave us this evening a discourse highly seasoned with Puseyism. Oh, what a dreary, helpless sort of teaching is this! Man labouring, mortifying himself in order to set up his own righteousness, while he seems in terms to abjure this. Many, indeed, and plausible, are the devices of the tempter, and, alas! how often do these succeed! May we have the wisdom and simplicity to abjure self and to glorify our God and Saviour, who has indeed wrought out a perfect salvation for us, and offered us the surest means of cultivating a genuine humility in the gracious gift of His Holy Spirit. How simple this doctrine, how efficacious and powerful is it! Our God grant that we and ours may cultivate and realise this in all its depth and fulness! Yesterday I ran over Pusey's sermon which has made so much noise of late, and what does it contain? A laboured attempt to make the means of grace those of justification! to make the consecrated elements the very human flesh and blood of Christ, and thus the means of uniting the Believer to Christ in the flesh! and this in a perfect fleshly union! Of the spiritual union and communion not a word is |112 said. No, having begun in the spirit the Church is now to be perfected in the flesh! A great deal of mawkish piety runs throughout the whole, and a great deal of persecution is anticipated for righteousness' sake! The whole appears to me as perfect a piece of Jesuitism in argument as the feelings it evinces are morbid and monkish. I really do not know whether I ought not to attack it and point out its fallacies to the thousands who may otherwise never perceive them. Think this over, and pray over it, and then tell me how you feel upon it. I should not like to omit a duty to the Church of Christ which it may be in my power to fulfil. Nor should I to thrust myself into a hot controversy if my services were not wanted. Many, no doubt, will attack this sermon, but, of the many, perhaps not one equal to the task in a learned point of view. Many, too, will do this from mere party zeal, or the hope of raising self in importance in the eye of the public. In this last case I need nothing; I am rich, and abound. As to the question of learning, I am vain enough to think that I should not fail. But I feel anything but certain what it is best |113 to do. I would not neglect a duty on the one hand, nor rashly obtrude myself on the public on the other. I will wait the intimation of Providence, as I always have done in such cases, and I feel sure that I shall not wait in vain.... The thought of this sad pest overrunning our Church gives me much concern; but I will cast my burden and care on Him who careth for me, and wait patiently for His good guidance.... I often think of our little unostentatious church, and of the attentive hearers, and the gospel truths there put forth. How much better are these things than the splendour of worship where the truth of God is not heard, and the love of God not felt! I think, too, that these temporary privations may be intended for my good, by showing me the more clearly the vanity of mere forms and formality, and the worth of those simple and sublime truths, which at once raise, purify and delight the soul.... I met with a son and daughter of Leigh Richmond in our church yesterday, and walked up to Clifton with them, where I found their mother residing. They seem in comfortable circumstances. I promised to call on them again.' |114

'BRISTOL, July 9, 1843.

'Just now returned from church. Upon the whole, this has not been a day of great comfort to me. Our church is too much a place of resort for all sorts, merely to hear the music. It was so noisy this morning, that you would have thought you were in a market-place. This evening it was better, as I thought it right to give to our Claviger a tolerably good setting down. Our Precentor was irregular this evening, and I gave a similar lecture to him. It is very uncomfortable to have to go through things such as these when one's mind ought to be raised to better considerations.'

As my father recurs to the subject of the music and chanting in several of his letters, the reader may be amused to see the following remarks about the 'Chanting Battle' from a Bristol paper.

'"Chapters on an Old Chapter," three papers written by the "Church-Goer."--Of the array of canons who attended the memorable visitation of 1849, when the chaunting battle was fought and won by the chanters, perhaps the most striking figure, as well as the most determined anti-chanter, was Dr Samuel Lee, the learned Professor of Hebrew. He skirmished on the |115 subject with pamphlets for some time before the fight came off. In these brochures he pronounced vigorously in favour of what he declared was the superior common sense, dignity, reverence and respect of saying our prayers in the natural voice instead of "drawling through the nose," which he considered all chanting, single and double, amounted to. Yet Professor Lee, like Dr Musgrave, was himself no bad musician, and could take part in a vocal quartette, or blow his flute effectively enough in an orchestra; but we are told there was something the Professor liked better than music, better even than his annual division of capitular profits, and that was controversy, verbal warfare, on paper or off paper, but particularly the former. This chanting business afforded grand scope for his favourite pastime, and he rushed with all his pugnacious instincts into the fray. The great Hebraist, however, bore no actual malice to anyone; his heart, it is true, was with Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, or, at the least, with their literature, but he was a blunt and honest Englishman, both by nature and combative instinct.' |116

'BRISTOL, 14 July 1843.

'Prince Albert is to come next week to see the great iron ship launched. To-day the clergy held a meeting to prepare an address, which was done, and I have the honour of being on the deputation, and so shall probably have the honour of kissing his royal hand. The weather is uncommonly fine, and I hope will so continue for some time. I am going on with my remarks on Pusey's Sermon; and I think I shall succeed in writing something on it worth printing. When I come, which will not now be very long, I will show it to you. It is worth knowing that the old English fathers, whom he cites, are point blank against him! and as full of the most important truths of the Gospel as heart could wish. The ground on which he has placed himself, therefore, can be effectually cut from under him; and this I am now doing.... The note from the Dean of Wells was indeed a most kind and friendly one. It must be a pleasure to you, dearest, that there are some who think well of your poor partner's labours. It is an encouragement to me, and the more, as I hope it is pleasant to you. I do not seek |117 popularity, nor do I labour with reference to encouragement. I hope I look higher; still, it is something to be thankful for that our God also prospers me in other ways. I am hoping that my remarks on Pusey's sermon may be extensively useful.'

'BRISTOL, July 15, 1843.

'... Dear Mrs H. is, as you will perceive, a little unhappy because out of active duty. I will write to her, and do the best I can towards relieving her. I think I see how she is affected. She has, like myself, too active a mind to allow her to be doing nothing, and hence a strong feeling of dissatisfaction with self whenever she is not fully employed. So it is with me. If I am doing nothing, I soon get into mischief of one sort or other. This is the case with dear Mrs H. What they have done they have done with the best intentions; it is mischief, therefore, to be unhappy on that account, and because it does not seem to have been direct service rendered to the Saviour. Her work should now be--I mean, she should make it this -- to wait in faith and hope for the instructions of that |118 kind Providence which will not suffer so faithful a minister as Mr H. to be long unemployed. But here lies the great difficulty which all find it is in making our own will fully and entirely to acquiesce in that of our Heavenly Father. I have no doubt you have often felt this. Alas! I do daily, and my busy, wandering heart is constantly hewing out its broken cisterns, and then wondering that it finds no water! We look to friends, but they cannot effectually help us. At last we flee to Him who is ready and willing to do all we want. May our trials ever end in this!'

'July 16th.

'... I finish this after evening service. Just returned from church, where our music has been very fine indeed, and we had a tolerable sermon, except only that the Redeemer was not sufficiently prominent. But not much is to be expected from minor canons. They are, I fear, for the most part, a race among whom Puseyism is likely to find many advocates; we have, at least, two here who go far in this way. We have had very large congregations, and upon the whole, I feel very thankful for all I have seen and heard. May |119 our God give good effect to it all! Yours too has, I hope, been a day of heavenly rest and peace. The Lord grant you all blessing and spiritual prosperity upon it. Pray tell me how the school is going on, and how the numbers in the Sunday School.... You see how large the letters are that I write; and I can say, that if they were as large again, I should not be tired in writing them. I seem to feel at home when I am engaged in them.... These things are much more precious to me than all that pomp or power could give. This next week we are to have great doings here, as I said in my last, and in some of these I am to bear a certain part. Oh. how much rather would I see and enjoy my delights at Barley... one fortnight more, and then, with my God's good blessing, I shall again hope to see and to enjoy the presence of those I love, and our pretty scenery, and our peaceful little paradise, wherein Christian love, and harmony, and faith, and hope, and every Christian grace will, as I hope and pray, ever flourish and abound in and through the sweet and constraining influences of that Holy Spirit, which we shall ever seek as our best ruler and guide.'

|120

'BRISTOL, July 19, 1843.

'I am just now returned from presenting myself to Prince Albert at the railway station, and while all is uproar and confusion about me, I sit down and turn my thoughts and affections to my dear home.... What a delightful change! How much, sweeter is one's own dear home with the dear objects of one's own heart than all the noise and vanity of the excited world! This evening I am to be at Leigh Court, D. V., where there is to be music.... I must close for the present, as the time for launching the great iron ship is approaching. I must go and see this sight. I will fill up my space afterwards. Just returned from the sight of the launch, which was very fine indeed. The day has been showery, but upon the whole tolerably fine.'

'July 20th.

'... The turmoil here is now pretty well over; we shall now be quiet during the few days I have to stay among them. All has gone off extremely well, much to the satisfaction of all. I have not heard of so much as one accident.... I was much gratified with the account of our school and congregations.... It delights me |121 to hear that all is going on well; but I am distressed when I hear the contrary. Thanks to our God for all His mercies to us; they are indeed new every morning, and, what is best, they preserve us from the many dangers and difficulties to which others are constantly subject.... I often feel disposed to bemoan my seemingly very long captivity here. But all-- in hands such as I trust we are--cannot but be for the best.'

'BRISTOL, July 23d, 1843.

'I have been much delighted with Pye Smith's letter. It is a very good specimen of real Christian feeling. I will answer it in a day or two. I think you never saw a sharp controversy so sweetly terminated; oh, that my blessed Redeemer may make me sufficently feel His goodness in thus giving me more than expected success!'

This refers to a long but amicable correspondence with Dr Pye Smith, an eminent Nonconformist of that day, on the subject of Dissent, suggested by a sermon of Dr P. Smith's on the 'Necessity of Religion to the Well-Being of a Nation.' My father published his own letters, in tract form, 'On the Subjects at Present |122 Agitated between Churchmen and Dissenters,' viz., 'On National Religious Establishments in General,' 'On the Election of Bishops in the Primitive Church,' 'On the Antiquity of Liturgical Services,' etc., etc.

'BRISTOL, July 23,1843.

'I have felt greatly encouraged in my Pusey controversy. I do think my God will enable me to render a good service to His Church. This is encouraging--and indeed I do not know any employment so encouraging--not because it is controversy, for I believe I shall be enabled so far to restrain all unkindly feeling, at least that has hitherto been the case, and that my tract will not appear to be much of a controversial character. I think, too, I shall be able to make it short, which will be a great recommendation to it. My "Theophania" is going rapidly off, and seems to be making some impression. May God grant that the impression be good and abiding! People are inclined to think that I have vindicated Eusebius from the charge of Arianism. The Socinians, however, will be very unwilling to believe this. Of the prophetical part of my Dissertation I have heard nothing. I have |123 no doubt, however, I shall have some hard hits. Well, may God's will be done! I have usually benefited much by hard usage. Thanks to Him who can thus bring water out of the stony rock, and make all things work together for good to them whom He loves!... Just come from church; we had a very good sermon from one of our minor canons. "He who is not with Me is against Me." The subject is a most important one, and a most extensive and searching one. I will lay it up in my mind for Barley and for myself. Our congregations are large, but I fear the music is the main attraction with the many.... The weather is cold and dark with us, which, I fear, portends more rain.

'But God's will be done. Our mercies, whether as a nation or as individuals, are far, very far greater than we deserve. I fear, however, times of much trouble are coming on us. In the great manufacturing districts there is scarcely anything to do, and an immense irreligious population is assuming a very threatening position. In Ireland it is all but open rebellion! South Wales is in a sad state of excitement. It was only a few days ago I saw a train of artillery |124 moving up Park Street on its way thither, where there is now a very large number of soldiers. God will, no doubt, fully protect His; yet, when there is war and uproar, all partake to some extent in its evils. Let all these considerations have the effect of bringing us nearer to God, in faith, hope and every Christian grace and feeling.'

'P.S.--I send a Bristol newspaper that you may see all the glories of the Prince's visit here.

'BRISTOL, July 25, 1843.

'This will be my last from this place at present.... I breakfasted this morning with Carus at the Dean's, and afterwards read over to him my sketch of an answer to Dr Pusey, which he seemed to like much. I also gave him a few pages from my "Theophania," on Prophecy, which staggered him considerably. He has promised to study the whole question with the greatest attention, as he much feels its importance. I do not hear of any reviews of my "Theophania" at present. A month or two hence there will no doubt be plenty. Well, God's will and word prevail is my theme. If any one fairly shows that I am wrong I will recant, as it can give me no satisfaction to be the |125 author of error. But of all this when I have the pleasure of seeing you. Now, therefore, may thy gracious Saviour preserve thee and me, and thine and mine, in the full faith and fear of God, and under the guidance of His grace, and the protection of His providence!'

'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,

'October rd, 1843.

'I find all here in extreme quietness, but very few are in residence. The consequence is there is no temptation here to wander from one's immediate business. I am getting on gloriously with my shot at Pusey. I trust I shall in the course of the week entirely finish it. I was mortified to find on Monday that the Library was closed for four days; fortunately the College Library was open, and supplied all my wants. It delights me greatly to find daily the old Fathers more and more directly opposed to this new-fangled Divine. It would indeed be a mortification to find that all the ancient worthies had discovered nothing better than the figments of this Oxford school.... The quiet of this place has settled me down after the late dissipation, etc., at Barley, so that I am gradually forgetting all its excitements.... I am, however, often induced to cry out for a |126 simple desire to serve Him who has done so much for us--for Him who made Himself poor that we might be rich!

'*Poor little Barley! O that thy seed-time may be in the exercise of true faith and hope, and thy harvest in the abundance thy God has promised to give to all who love and serve Him faithfully! And that thou mayest occupy diligently until He come! The more I know of myself, and of men generally, the more I fear lest a deceiving and deceived heart turn us aside, and some lose the right way! God grant this may not be our lot!'

[ * This refers to a sermon he preached on the Sunday previous to his departure for Cambridge.]

Extract from the 'Theophania':--

'If the word of Prophecy is "the more sure" evidence to the believer of the truth of the hope that is in him, then it must have been delivered in terms such as would at once be intelligible to all, and would, at the same time, set forth such facts as would be obvious, convincing and accessible to all. And this character it certainly sustains. All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been |127 done" "The End" should come: that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets": it should be completed: time should now be no more: the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass: in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets: or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done: the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been |128 finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

'On the Restoration of the Jews.' 'On this question much need not be said, for if the events of prophecy have all been fulfilled, and were so fulfilled upon the establishment of the Christian Church, as already shown, every hope of a restoration of the Jews to Palestine must be groundless and futile. Besides, it must be most incongruous to look for the temporalities of the Old Testament under the New, in which we are taught that there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all. That neither on Mount Gerizim, nor in Jerusalem exclusively, should the Father be worshipped, but that wherever there was a real spiritual child of Abraham there should be a temple of God the Holy Ghost. And, let it be remembered, this was the doctrine which the Apostles themselves felt the greatest difficulty in receiving, met |129 the greatest in its propagation, and laboured most anxiously and constantly to preserve entire from commixture with Jewish notions.... In this case, then, as before, nothing short of a new revelation and a new dispensation can justify the expectation of any such things as these. Whether we are to expect any such new light and new appointment, I leave it to others to determine. I can find no such things foretold. I conclude on this question, therefore, that no restoration of Jews, either to temporal or spiritual exclusive privileges, is to be expected; that all such expectation is groundless; and, what is worse, that it tends only to confirm Jewish prejudices, which have hitherto proved all but invincible without it; and further, that those who are so anxiously pressing it are unwarily calling into exercise a power more than equal to all their better efforts to the contrary. To call the Jews to a belief in Christ is a legitimate work of Christian faith and love. It is that which our Lord commanded, and it is that in which the Apostles persevered to the utmost. Circumstanced as the Jews now are, they are "strangers to the covenants of promise, they are without hope and without God in the world.' |130 They are as branches broken off and dissevered from the stock of Abraham; and it is faith in the Redeemer alone which can graft them in and make them the spiritual seed of Abraham, the fleshly descent availing nothing whatever under the New Covenant. To this end it is the duty of the Christian Church to labour; and in this work there are the best grounds for believing that their labour shall not be in vain.'

'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,

'Nov. 18, 1843.

'... I have no particular news to tell you, except that I am to dine, D. V., with the new Bishop of Litchfield at King's Coll. Lodge. I expect to have a pleasant evening. Yes, there is one thing more, I met a gentleman at our dinner table a day or two ago, who said my "Eusebius" was exciting considerable interest, and especially the views of Prophecy therein put forth. It seems to have struck him forcibly that the views of those days differed so greatly from those of these. So it is possible, and I think probable, that at no very distant day my views, and those of the early Church, may |131 prevail. My impression is that they certainly will, and then it will be seen that I am not of mind so unsound as some have imagined; but this is not my chief glory. My great hope is that the truth will prevail, and that Jewish notions will be so far got rid of as to enable men to see the truth as plainly in the Old Testament as in the New, and that these are most intimately connected together.... The good and great men of former times can hardly be expected to have equal weight with the good and little men of the present, because, what is near does, by common perspective, appear to be much larger, higher and more commanding than what is removed to a considerable distance. And so, alas! is it with our holy Faith. The nearer object stands in the way of the more distant one.'

'BRISTOL, Dec. 20, 1843.

'I send herewith my answer to Dr Pusey, and when you have read it be so good as to put it into an envelope and direct it to the Revnd. Dr Pusey, Christ Church, Oxford. Do not forget to put a Queen's head on it. You see, dearest, the ground he takes -- that of persecution. I had no doubt this would be the case, and |132 have abundantly guarded against it. I have no doubt I shall in this same way get blown up and cried down by the party throughout the length and breadth of the land; and so I shall have to experience many ups and downs! I think, however, I have the truth of God on my side. Nor am I quite so young and raw in matters of this sort as to allow myself to be blinded by plausibilities. I entertain nothing like hostile feelings towards Dr Pusey or his party, but I do a perfect hatred, as I hope, towards the unscriptural and earthborn notions which I think they are labouring to propagate, and this, D. V., I will still entertain. I am glad you like my views of the means of grace. I have great confidence in your opinion on matters of this sort, and I always benefit by them. I hope I have not merely taken a negative view of things in this little work, but also a positive one, which will do much good. I think Dr Pusey feels that my letter will have some effect. God grant it may be a good one, and that only which will further His glory and the good of His Church.... Pray take a correct copy of my note to Dr. Pusey and lay it up by you, as it may be necessary for me hereafter to publish it. I think I have |133 not mistaken Dr Pusey's "little ones" for this reason: he mentions these in opposition to others, who, he says, have been brought up in an erroneous and defective mode of teaching. Surely, then, these "little ones" must mean his own party. What think you?'

|134

CHAPTER X

FIRST LETTER TO DR PUSEY, ETC.--1843-44

IN 1843 Dr Lee published a letter to Dr Pusey on his sermon on the Eucharist. In the shape of remarks on this notorious sermon, he demonstrates that Dr Pusey had both misunderstood and misrepresented the authorities that he quoted in support of his heretical views, and, with them, the Holy Scriptures and the formularies of our Church. In reference to this pamphlet, the 'Morning Herald' of December 20, 1843, remarks: 'It is indeed painful to think of the position in which Dr Lee has, by these proofs, placed Dr Pusey; for he has shown that "every one of the extracts, with their author," is opposed to Dr Pusey's notion on the Eucharist, and that his sermon, with the notes and appendix, is consistent neither with the express declarations of Holy Writ, nor with those of the orthodox |135 Fathers of our own Church claimed by Dr Pusey as his teachers, nor yet with those of the Syrian, Greek and Latin Churches quoted as his supporters; and all this in language most courteous, and with kindness most tender. Dr Lee is no Low Churchman, as the following passage will prove: "You were probably offended that a few are to be found among us who think and speak too lowly of the means of grace adopted in our Church. I can feel the force of this, and can lament it with you. But, let me ask you, can you re'cognise no mean between the sin of making these nothing and of making them everything?-- between considering the Eucharist a mere sign or symbol on the one hand, and as consubstantial with the Deity and with man on the other? Can you believe the absolute deification of the elements to be less sinful in the one case than a defective view of their value and efficacy is in the other? For my own part, I believe the former to be the greater sin, tending, as it does, to rob God of His honour, and contributing, as it must, to disseminate ignorance and superstition of the very worst sort throughout the Church of Christ. If, indeed, you had adhered closely to the guidance of Andrewes and Bramhall, you would have done well. If, |136 together with them, you had vigorously enforced the best sentiments of the ancient orthodox Fathers, you would indeed have done a good and a great work. You would have given to Holy Scripture its due authority and pre-eminence, as they have done; to our Catholic, Apostolic and Protestant Church the place and preference which are so justly its due; and you would have shown, as your teachers have done before you, that both Romanists and Dissenters are living in open and unwarrantable schism. This could not, under God, but have tended to enlighten and to benefit both of these: to give a true and salutary bias to our young men in the ministry, and preparing for it, which must have been felt as a blessing for ages to come. Unhappily, however, you have mistaken the way. Equally so has your misguided zeal found its admirers and flatterers, and you seem to be gliding on smoothly under this, at once unmindful, unconscious of, and even glorying in, the manifestly ruinous tendency of your course. "The Holy Truth," which it seems to be your object to propagate, is, as you must see, daily creating and increasing an unholy division among us. Dissent is, on the one hand, rejoicing at your progress and gathering strength under it. Romanism is still |137 more anxious for your success, daily congratulates your heroism and your blindness, receives now and then one of your deluded followers into its bosom, and anxiously looks forward to the period when your leaven shall have so leavened the whole lump that darkness, superstition and cruelty shall again extend their ample ravages over this so long and so richly-favoured land! Infidelity, too, hails with no less enthusiasm the mystified reserve, the priest-ennobling projects, the superstitious, blind and irrational theology of the Tractarian School, as something well adapted to its extension. These, wiser in their generation than the children of light, know full well how to appreciate efforts of this sort --efforts from which the well-informed and well-intentioned cannot but turn with sorrow, and over which the true disciple cannot but lament and mourn."'

'On the tendency of Dr Pusey's writings and teaching, Dr Lee thus beautifully and truthfully addressed the Hebrew professor of the sister university:--"It is no less instructive to observe that just in proportion as you have lost sight of the Scripture, and of its simple but efficient modes of teaching, and of the genuine results of these, the renewal of the soul through grace, in the same have you also lost |138 sight of the true intentions of the orthodox Fathers of the Church, and of the doctrines of the Apostolic and Protestant Church of England, of which you are a minister. In the same, too, have you approached to the formal, spiritless, earthly and superstitious notions of the Church of Rome. Instead of that Faith which once animated our reformers and martyrs, of that Light which poured in upon them from the simple spiritual apprehension of Holy Writ, of that Love to God and to man which was shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, of that Hope and Faith which enabled them to glorify God even in the very fires, and which has so abundantly since their days not only emancipated the human mind, especially in this happy land, from the darkness and folly which ages of ignorance had laid upon it, but has enlightened, inflamed, and led it onward, even to these our times, to results the most excellent, whether as it regards the things of this world or of that which is to come, and which still seems to hold out further prospects of wealth, both temporal and spiritual, to be realised here and elsewhere, which it hath not yet entered into the heart of man fully to conceive; instead of this, I say, and of those still higher stages of spiritual and intellectual illumination and |139 prosperity which it is but reasonable to expect the unfettered energies of man will arrive at, you and your school are proposing and urging, with all the earnestness of a zeal the most blind and perverse, that we should again return to the mummeries which had so long chained down to earth our best and noblest endowments, and that our Church should again become the willing slave of ignorance the most palpable, and of superstition the most degrading.... Are we, having begun in the spirit, now to labour to become perfect through the flesh? Let us, then, throw away the principles which have so far and so happily led us, and then to these vanities we shall certainly come. If we serve Baal at all, we shall serve him much..To this the traditions of men have ever led; to this the prostration of the human intellect, and with it ignorance, folly and vice of every description must necessarily succeed. It was by this that men once, professing themselves to be wise, became fools; by this that they changed the glory of God. to the image of a calf that eateth hay; by this that both Gentile and Jew became earthly, sensual, devilish; by this that the infatuated Church of Rome became the cage of every unclean bird, enslaved and impoverished the nations of Europe, imbrued its hands |140 in the blood of the saints; and by this it is now endeavouring again to reinstate itself in that dominion of ignorance and of tyranny which it so long and so mercilessly exercised.

'The great difference between this system and that of the Catholic Church of Christ, against which you are now--unwittingly, I trust--arraying yourself, is one of principle. It is that of an unflinching, well-grounded adherence to the Commandments of God; of taking these, and these only, as the grounds of Faith; and by these exclusively to abide. On this foundation now stands our Apostolic, Reformed and Protestant Church, and so long as it stands on this rock the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It shall carry with it, and within it, the elements of its strength, and these are nothing short of almighty. They are the doctrines of the Scriptures of truth, of the Word of His grace; and the power of His spirit attending its due administration shall be able to build up its members, and to give them an inheritance among all them that are sanctified."'

'BRISTOL, Dec. 31, 1843.

'With this I begin another series of my |141 Sabbath epistles from this place; with this I close the last year.... I feel thankful for many mercies received since this time twelve months. No real sorrow has overtaken me, but much positive happiness has been granted. My "Theophania," and my letter against Puseyism, will, I trust, long remain as testimonies of these mercies, but rather tending to further the honour of God and the good of His people, and as checks to error and heterodoxy among our fellow men. Our church at Barley has, I hope, been making some progress, and that our own souls have partaken in the growth in grace, which we hope we witness among our neighbours. To all this may our God add, in the coming year, the increase of thirty, sixty and an hundredfold!

'Mr Bedford, the incumbent of St George's, in Park Street, is dead; he died a few days ago... I shall make early inquiry whether Lord Wm. Somerset wishes to take the appointment to St George's as his option. If he does not, it will probably come to me. What must I then do? Is Mr H. the man? I feel rather in a strait on this matter. Do let me have all your mind on it. I should greatly wish to |142 put in a good man there; it presents a scene of great usefulness.... The weather here is a little cooler, which I am glad of. Yesterday, in London, it felt quite winterly, and particularly so as there was a thick London fog coming on.'

(My father had the option of appointing to St George's, Park Street, Bristol, and gave it to his brother-in-law, the Reverend R. L. Hopper, whose ministrations were greatly valued during the long period -- over five-and-twenty years-- that he held the living.)

'I have received another note from Dr Pusey, much of a piece with the last. He says he knows I shall object to what he does hold, although I may have misunderstood him; that he feels he has Bp. Andrewes with him, but that he declines controversy. He is sorry to hear I have been unwell, and ends with "your humble servant, E. B. Pusey." I shall send him an answer to this, couched in terms as respectful as possible; and here I suppose our correspondence will end. I wonder that he drops Abp. Bramhall here, as well as the Fathers generally. This is odd, surely; but he is a very odd sort of writer, and, I suspect, a very eccentric man. I think I shall |143 have no public controversy with him; but whether all his followers may be silent or not is another thing. I suspect they will not. God's will be done. I know I have only His sacred truth before me, and I fear nothing, knowing as I do His faithfulness and goodness. My next year's work will, I think, be my exposition of prophecy, D. V., and it is not improbable I may find matter sufficient even to convince Mrs Professor Lee that hitherto she has been greatly in the dark on this interesting and momentous subject. But this, you will say, is counting on victory without my host. Well, wait and thou shalt see what God can do through an instrument so weak as the poor Professor.... Love me and pray for me, and I shall be greatly prospered in all I take in hand.'

Note from Dr PUSEY to Dr LEE.

'MY DEAR SIR,-- I thank you for your note. I ought to say, in answer, that I believe you would object to what I do hold, altho' you mistake my meaning, as your own language is painful to me. I ought to say thus much, lest I seem to withdraw anything I do hold. I feel persuaded that what I hold Bp. Andrewes held. However, I do not |144 mean to enter into controversy, but commit all to God.

'I was sorry to hear that you had been ill.-- Your humble servant,

E. B. PUSEY.

'BRIGHTON, Dec. 29.'

'BRISTOL, Jan. 1,

'44.

'... I received an Oxford newspaper to-day, I suppose from Barley, which speaks in high terms of my letter to Pusey. I must say I had to-day a conference with Mr C., who behaved exceedingly well. I begin to hope I have done him a real good. He promises to read the "Homilies," and some of our best divines. I hope I have let in a ray of light to him which may be of great service to him as long as he lives. God be praised for this hope.'

'BRISTOL, Jan. 4, 1844.

'I have just received a very delightful note from the Duchess of Northumberland, which I send with this. I think the religious feeling of the Duchess will please you and give you cause for thankfulness. May God of His mercy grant that my little work may redound to the advancement of His glory! I do not know whether E. |145 and you saw it, but the last "Church and State Gazette" gave to my letter against Pusey a splendid character in a very few words.'

'ALNWICK CASTLE,

' d Jany. 1844.

'REVND. SIR,--I delayed for a few days acknowledging the receipt of your tract and welcome letter, as the Duke and I were desirous of reading together your explanation of a subject Dr Pusey had attempted so to mystify in his sermon; it was impossible to comprehend him. We both feel not a little obliged to you, and pray accept my thanks for presenting me with a discourse so clear, so firm, and so temperate, that I have felt an innate thankfulness and satisfaction that it adds strength to the faith in which I have been brought up, and makes me more than ever lament the awful attempts that it would be blindness to deny are making to destroy our admirable institution. I do believe, however, that exertions like yours are producing good effects; those who always meant well will, like Palmer, make an honourable retreat when they find an honest zeal has led them astray, and with pure Scriptural truths and a true |146 understanding of the Orthodox Fathers I trust this most incomprehensible conspiracy will be stopped and defeated. I had just read Palmer's pamphlet and the Bp. of Ossory's charge when your "Answer" reached us, and I wish I could tell you how much the Duke approves it, but your own feelings and the motives that govern you will best tell you. Allow me to tell you how sincerely we hope a blessing will rest upon your good work, and help to sustain our Holy Church in its Christian purity,--and I remain, revnd. sir, yours very truly,

C. F. NORTHUMBERLAND.'

'BRISTOL, Janry. 7, 1844.

'I sit down with great pleasure to write my little Sunday love-despatch to you, and this is the more pleasing as I have experienced mercies many, which suggest at once feelings of thankfulness and love. We had a very excellent sermon this morning from Mr C., so good, indeed, as to surprise me greatly. It contained the marrow of Scripture truth, and this plainly and fully put. The text was I John v. 11, which you will say contains a fine subject. After this we had a very full communion, in which between 3 and £4 was collected. This evening's service had |147 too much of the play-house in it. We had a fine anthem from Haydn, too fine much, in my opinion, for a church; then, as soon as this was over, a host of the vulgar instantly turned out, which greatly disgusted me. I will, if possible, put an end to this.... My lectures at Cambridge must commence soon after I leave this place. We had a most pleasant evening at Blaize Castle.... My letter to Pusey is very highly thought of. You will smile to hear that I have had another note from him, which is in much better humour than the two former ones. You must have been pleased with the Duchess of N.'s note. She evidently is a very discerning lady. But the great comfort is, that my poor endeavour promises to advance the truth, to give glory to God, to advance the knowledge of the Saviour, and to give strength to our Holy Apostolic Church.... May God second it in this way, so that all the glory, all the praise, be His!'

'BRISTOL, Janry. 9, 1844.

'... I believe I told you that I had had another note from Dr Pusey. He seems to me to be in rather better temper than the two former; but, as he is obscure, this is doubtful. One thing |148 is most clear, he has felt the force of my letter. May God grant it be for his spiritual good. It should seem that my pamphlet is making considerable ground; it seems to have made considerable impression. I have said in my note to E. what the "Church and State Gazette" said about it.... There is nothing new here, except a fierce east wind with small drops of rain, which makes all dark and dirty, and necessarily cold. Thank my God I am in a warm and comfortable room, shielded from all the inclemency of the wintry sky. Soon I expect we shall have a world of snow, which will be acceptable. I always enjoy it greatly.'

'BRISTOL, Janry. 14, 1844.

'... I am glad you noticed the note of the Duchess. It certainly gave me much pleasure, and this principally in the belief that she well understood what she was writing about. I dined at Mr George's on Friday last, and passed a pleasant evening. I was rather excited by the arguments of a Mr C, a clergyman here, about prophecy, who, alas! has not the least idea as to how an argument ought to be conducted. This is what always exceeds my forbearance; |149 but I hope to learn better things. I preached this morning at the Cathedral to an attentive audience.... This evening we had an uncommonly good sermon from Mr Milner. It really was the sermon of a man of experience; it suited me well. It discoursed on pressing through the strait gate, a thing of which I have not always felt so great a necessity as I think I begin to feel, and to see absolutely necessary. The sermon, however, did not insist on an extreme mortification of the flesh, but on an absolute effort of the spirit; an effort which should resist sin in thought, and inculcate purity of heart as a principle. This was very good. I liked it much. May God give the consideration its due effect. Our anthem was one of Boyce's, and was indeed a very impressive one; Job xxviii. 12, to the end. The matter contained in this particular part of Scripture I have always thought extremely beautiful. Pray look at the place in my translation. It is pregnant with instruction, and Boyce's music is admirably adapted to it, giving it a force and solemnity which ordinary minds hardly ever feel. My own sermon this morning was quite new. You shall see it when I reach Barley. Its object was to put down all |150 self-sufficiency. "We are not sufficient of ourselves," etc., 2 Cor. iii. 5, and to inculcate reliance on the sufficiency alone which God gives. One of the Oxford heads was present, as I was told, viz., Dr Jenkins, the head of Baliol. I intended to touch the Puseyites, and this but slightly. I mean, not to fill the sermon with a refutation of their fooleries, but mainly to inculcate the power of the Spirit, and in this, the sufficiency of the believer.... My tract, I feel, is making a great impression. May I not say with St James, "How great a fire a little matter kindleth I" I mean, how much our gracious God may please to do by means so weak and so worthless!... I enclose a note from the editor of the "Church and State Gazette," and take it for granted that you have read my letter against the Puseyites therein.'

'342 STRAND, Janry. 11th, /44.

'The editor of the "Church and State Gazette" presents his compliments to Professor Lee, and begs to thank him expressly for the very valuable communication to the "Gazette," this day received, and now in the press. From such a source the M.S. is doubly valuable, and the editor cannot |151 too warmly express his obligations for the honour conferred in, the columns in which it will appear.'

'BRISTOL, Janry. 17, 1844.

'... If my correspondence last week was not so frequent as usual, it was owing to the endless calls I have to go out to dinner parties. This occupies my whole evening on such days, and it was the evening which I usually devoted to this delightful work. This I am forced to write in the middle of the day, having to go out to a dinner this evening. I have been so out every evening this week; that of to-morrow I have refused so to spend. Friday's is promised, and Monday's, next week, solicited: Believe me, this greatly teases me, and particularly as it injures my correspondence with you.... My heart is hourly stealing away to Barley... and in these short reveries I feel as if I were at home. They are therefore very delightful to me.... Pray, did you see my severe letter against Newman in the "Church and State Gazette? "'

'BRISTOL, Janry. 24, 1844.

'... Every day have I had one or two invitations out to dinner to deal with, until I have |152 been perfectly tired of them. I have determined not to go out again during my stay. The kindness I have received has been truly great; and it should seem I am becoming marvellously popular. The letter to Pusey seems to have done wonders in this way--I hear nothing but praise of it. I trust, however, I shall not become vain therefrom. To-day a Hampshire paper arrived, with a very good short review of the controversy.'

|153

CHAPTER XI

LETTERS TO ARCHD. THORP, DR PUSEY, ETC.

'TRIN. COLL., Nov. 19th, 1845.

'ALTHOUGH I expect to see you very soon, I cannot deny myself the pleasure of sending this, because I think it will amuse and gratify you.... 'Our Bible Society on Monday evening went off charmingly. The meeting was a large one, and was nobly supported by the speakers. I was roused, and gave them a short, animated address at its close. I have not heard what was collected. Mr Carus walked with me to my rooms; he was highly gratified at the proceedings, and opened his heart much on the state of his religious young men. He said he had not fewer than two hundred and fifty at his rooms on Sunday evening, when the Bishop of Calcutta addressed them in his usual animated way. I was not a little surprised and delighted to hear him say that I was little aware how much I was strengthening his hands. Particulars I did not |154 ask, but could not help thanking God for this. My last letter to Archdeacon Thorp seems to have made considerable impression here. I hear of it from several quarters. The Camdenians have, I am told, left the University. I am delighted to hear this. If my efforts have in the least promoted this, I thank my God most heartily for it. Yesterday I dined with the Vice-Chancellor, and we had a very pleasant party. When we dispersed I went to Scholefield's to meet the Bp. of Calcutta. The Bp. had taken a little cold, and was gone to bed before I arrived there. I was requested to be chaplain. I consented, and read 2 Tim. 1. for them, it being the lesson for the evening. The son of the Duke of Manchester was there, to whom I was introduced, having known his father many years ago.... This evening I am to dine at our Lodge to meet the Bp. of Calcutta.'

In June 1845, Dr Lee published a letter to the Venerable Archdeacon Thorp, President of the Camden Society, on its late re-organisation and apparent objects, in the 'Christian's Monthly Magazine.' He says--' The laws of this society, as they originally stood, went simply and solely to what everyone seemed to wish for--the |155 encouragement of the study of Church Architecture.' But now 'the new code to be adopted would confer upon the committee new powers and exemptions which they had hitherto not possessed,' and one of the committee openly avowed 'that it was not architecture alone for which the society was formed, and for the advancement of which it had been carried on even from the first.' 'It was,' said Mr Hope, in the words of the president himself, and therefore invested with the best authority, 'also for the great purpose of advancing and carrying out those esoteric principles of good Church - membership, which carried a religiosity with them, etc., that this society had been formed, and hitherto had exerted itself.'

Dr Lee goes on:--'I would ask on what authority it had been assumed that this society had ever any real connection with the University at all? The said church principles are the principles of Romanism.' He then quotes the facts which had induced him to think so. One of the members of the new committee was a Mr Stokes, who had been denounced by Professor Sedgwick as the author of the 'Ecclesiastical Calendar,' the title of which was 'A Christian Kalendar for the members of the Established Church, by a Lay Member of |156 the Camden Society,' Cambridge, etc. It was carried surreptitiously through the University Press, and on this account it was that the authorities forbade any other works of the society being printed at their Press. 'In this Kalendar,' says Dr Lee, 'we are presented with the "six general laws or precepts of Holy Church." The first enjoins "auricular confession." "To confess our sins, as occasion is, to a learned and discreet priest." "Not to solemnise holy matrimony at certain seasons." 'An extract from Dr Pusey is given as to how the Lenten fast is to be holily observed. The Holy Sacraments are presented to members of the Established Church as being seven. The two great sacraments are 'Baptism' and the 'Holy Eucharist' Five lesser sacramental rites are 'Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.' Then we have 'the seven spiritual works of mercy,' etc., and the seven canonical hours of prayer--'Matins and Lauds, Prime, Tierce, Sext, Nones, Vespers, Compline,' none of which have as such ever been taught or enjoined in the Established Church. They are all, in fact, nothing more or less than transcripts from the Romish service books!' Then we are told (Jan. 6) after some other trash about the Magi, |157 that their relics, after several translations, were removed to Cologne in the twelfth century.' Then that the 'relics of St Prisca are preserved in her church at Rome, which gives title to a cardinal.' Extremely important indeed! Again (Jan. 21), 'A church was built over the spot on which St Agnes was decapitated at Rome, and in it is blessed the wool from which archiepiscopal palls are made; it also gives title to a cardinal.' (Jan. 22) 'The relics of St Vincent,' it is said, 'were honoured with miracles.' In some places these relics are 'blessed,' 'sacred,' 'precious,' and so on. Passing over other similar worthless matter we come to Feb. 3. Here 'St Blase was Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia. He is the patron of wool-combers.' Feb. 6. St Agatha 'is the patroness of the island of Malta.' March 1. 'St David, the patron of Wales.' April 23. 'St George, the great martyr, the patron of England,' etc. I will remark here, once for all, on these patron saints; their patronage is worth either something or nothing. If they are in a situation to receive the petitions and to relieve the wants of their clients, then it is worth something. But this taken for granted, that they are vested either more or less with divine powers, and are to be considered as worthy and acceptable mediators with God; |158 this Romanists teach; this, however, the Established Church denies; this every sound member of it repudiates; and this Holy Scripture condemns; as does in one way or other every orthodox writer of the Catholic Church, both ancient and modern! But Mr Stokes, it should seem, thinks that it ought, at least, to be believed by members of our Church, and your society, that it is too harmless to be objected to. To come to matter of graver import. March 12. We have 'St Gregory the Great...' he occupied the Chair of St Peter from 590-604. Mr Stokes has told us that 'Rome is the only Apostolic See of the Western Church,' that it is the ' Holy See,' the 'Chair of St Peter,' etc.... But Mr Stokes was elected with thunders of applause. I have, therefore, a right to conclude that the dogmas put forth in this Kalendar, of which Mr Stokes appears to be the author, are not at variance with the opinion, in other words, "the esoteric principles of good Church membership," under which alone this society is determined to act; and these dogmas are purely Popish. I conclude, therefore, that the said esoteric principles are also Popish and nothing else....

'Yes, Mr President, get these principles of Church membership again in the ascendant here, and what |159 must be the consequence? The extinction, of necessity, of all civil and religious liberty among us; the Established Church not what it is now, the House of Prayer and spiritual refreshing to many a pious soul, but a "den of thieves"; the throne trampled on, the priesthood deified. One of this body, the worst and weakest, perhaps, of them all, honoured and obeyed as the vicar of Christ on earth, and as the only fountain of truth and unity to be found in this system of things.

'This, or something like it, you may perhaps be looking to with increasing interest. But, let me tell you, although neither prophet nor the son of a prophet, this will never come to pass in this country. Your labours may, and will, in all probability, lead to great and violent political commotion, and, it may be, to distress and bloodshed, but the end apparently had in view will never be realised. That marked Providence, which has watched over this nation ever since the days of what Mr Stokes terms a "change of the religion"--the glorious Reformation--will not desert it while there is to be found in it anything like the remnant, now its denizens, which have not bowed the knee to Baal. And this, I will venture to predict, notwithstanding your boast of the extended and extending number of |160 your supporters, the light imbibed, the good sense entertained, the real knowledge and real English honesty, visible far and wide among us, shall, whatever may become of our Apostolical Establishment, which it is not improbable your endeavours may succeed in destroying, secure to it, and enable it to continue in, its beauty and strength to countless generations. I will add only one word more. I ask, can the University, consistently with its character and obligations both to the Church and the throne, allow such a society as this to continue within its precincts? Can it, I say, allow an esoteric theological institution, producing such fruits as those noticed above, wholly opposed to the doctrines which it is bound to teach and enforce upon its members, to remain a moment within it, now that its character is known, that its practices are ascertained to be bad, that it has apparently ruined the religious principles and prospects, perhaps for ever, of one at least of the most promising young men committed to its charge?'

TRIN. COLL., CAMS.,

'Feb. 10, 1846.

'An old pupil of mine has just now left me, full of the question of Prophecy. He came on purpose to talk with me about it. He says many are |161 waiting with anxiety for my work, and are most anxious to see my views established, as they are quite tired out with the tyranny of Bickersteth, Birks, etc. I can only say the Lord knows I expect nothing from man. I seek none of the honour that comes from them; but I do exult in the hope that I shall be able to put down in God's good strength some of the vanity floating about during many years past, and to vindicate the truth and power of the Gospel. I can say but too truly, I have in this undertaking received no encouragement from man; no, not of my own household. Thanks to His great goodness, which has so far upholden me, yet I know and feel that He is with me, and that nothing man can do shall hurt my progress, and His rod and staff shall comfort me.'

'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,

'March 3, 1846.

'I have, thanks to my gracious Redeemer, nothing but blessing to tell you of. I got safely and comfortably here, got through my lecture with great comfort also; since that time all has been blessing and peace. Mr Fares seems to be pretty well... we go on very well upon the whole, and I hope, before he goes, we shall have the greatest part of our work done. |162 The rest must be done after he returns to Malta, and finished by epistle. I have seen no one since I left you about whom you would be interested, except Prof. Scholefield and General Tom Thumb.... As to the General, he was riding in an open car about Cambridge to-day, dressed in uniform. The whole street full was, of course, after him; my impression is that the whole is "a take in." He is, I think, a small child of about four years old, who will after a time stand in need of larger clothes. In the meantime, however, he is making, as they say, about three thousand a year! Oh, how easily mankind is gulled! And how difficult it is to get them to spare one farthing to things of infinite value and moment! People must have something to stare at! or to wonder at! or about which they themselves can talk, or write, in a wondrous way!'

The above refers to the new translation of the Bible into Arabic, which my father was making for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Mr Fares, a Syrian gentleman, was helping him. The work was not finished when he died in 1852, but it was taken up by his pupil and friend, the late Professor Jarrett, and a letter from the |163 secretary of the society, referring to Dr Lee's labours on this behalf, will be found in its place, among others received by my mother after his death.

'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,

'March 24, 1846.

'Thanks to the best of Friends, I have nothing but comforts to speak about. My lecture was easy to me and comfortable, and the recollection of it has been comfortable. The meeting last night was large, spirited and highly spiritual. I begin to be afraid that I may possibly become popular. I concluded with a speech which was well received, and, in my recollection of it, I do not know of anything I would since have unsaid.... I have also to be thankful that I have just finished my article on Pusey's second sermon; I yesterday sent one packet, this evening I sent the last So far, my God be praised. I feel quite relieved; what with my lecture, the paper to be finished, the meeting to be held, and my speech to be made, I feel quite out of prison, and in good health and spirits.... My heart is at liberty to think and speak for itself. And what shall I say? Why, that mercy, and loving-kindness everywhere meet me. I have had, too, a letter from Mr Faber, which I also send for |164 your perusal. I am sure it will please you. You will see that he is full, as a prophet, with seemingly forthcoming events. To-morrow I shall answer it, and will send my answer through you....'

The two following letters from Mr Faber appear to me sufficiently interesting to be inserted here:--

'SHERBORN HOUSE,

'March 22, 1846.

'MY DEAR SIR,--Thank you very cordially, for all the trouble which you have taken. If I had not mistrusted my own speculation, I should not have applied to you. In truth, I felt that I was somewhat in the predicament of the "Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdin." I was removing one difficulty only to fall into another. In fine, while I did not feel sure about my bare grammatical translation, I had a consciousness that my limitation of this, "I was not known," to Abraham was more like a contrivance to serve a turn than a legitimate interpretation. It is curious enough, and which rather endangers my humility, that the very solution (as I understand it) which you propose had flitted through my brain many years ago. As sanctioned by your authority, I |165 very much incline now to think, that it is the true key of the present very perplexing passage. That we may not be at cross-purposes, and that I may ascertain whether in the solution we really have coincided, I will briefly give what I had thought might do away the difficulty. Exactly on your editorial theory, which I think quite indisputable, I conceived that the name, really given by Abraham to the place of sacrifice, was not Jehovah-Jireh, but El Shaddai-Jireh; and that, afterward, on the occupation of the country by the Israelites, the old patriarchal name, like many other recorded names, was changed to what had become its equivalent, by the revelation which Moses received; namely, to Jehovah-Jireh. To this I the more inclined, because the very place bears clearly the mark of an editorial hand The addition, '"as it is said to this day," in the Mount of Jehovah it shall be seen' (or rather, perhaps, in the Mount Jehovah shall appear), could never have been written by Moses himself. In the modern manufactory of a book the clause would have been an editorial foot-note; in old simplicity it was, what we should deem unwarrantably, inserted in the text. On the whole, I recalled that I mentally traced the pedigree of the name thus:-- |166

'1. Abraham, not knowing the name Jehovah, called the place El-Shaddai-Jireh.

'2. When the Israelites occupied the country, the name Jehovah, being then known, gave rise to the proverb, expressive of any remarkable interposition of God, "In the Mount, Jehovah shall appear."

'3. And, finally, the verbal use of the proverb produced a change in the original name of the place, so that, conformably with the wording of the proverb, that place lost its old original name of El-Shaddai-Jireh, and acquired the new, but henceforth permanent, name of Jehovah-Jireh.

'This was one of my speculations; and I think it is the same, or pretty much the same, as that suggested in your letter. You will know whether I judge correctly as to the identity of our views. If the present, or something like it, be not the true solution, I shall be at sea again, for not one of the old solutions that I ever met with gave me any satisfaction. I know how much engaged you are; but a single line of yea or nay as to whether this is or is not your solution would very much gratify me.

'I knew that you wrote the "Letters on Isaac Taylor." Very conceited book, the first portion of which so completely satisfied me that I went no further.... |167

'I was very glad to find that you gave such a dressing to Dr Thorp, particularly in connection with Nasmyth Stokes. That unfortunate, but very conceited, youth, like a nephew of my own, has ended his Tractarian vagaries by going over to Popery. The letter which I wrote at the request of his uncle, Mr Stokes, appeared in the "Christian's Magazine," and has been followed, and is still in course of being followed, by other letters upon Mr Newman's "Development" and Dr Moehler's" Symbolism." The whole number will be ten, and, when they shall have successively appeared in the magazine, they will be printed collectively in a small volume by the Reformation Society. I shall look forward with much interest to your announced letter in the next number of the same magazine.

'I was fully aware of the difference in our views on Prophecy. You, I know, are a Preterist, and a modern party among the Tractarians are all Futurists. Now, as I am neither, I must either condemn myself or set both Preterists and Futurists down as mistaken. According to my own view, we are on the very brink of a precipice, for I certainly believe that we are on the eve of that last fearful bouleversement which is the concurrent theme of all the prophets. Remarkably enough, |168 on the principle, I suppose, of coming events casting their shadows before them, mere secular politicians seem equally to be anticipating some great crisis, notwithstanding the frequent talk in the newspapers that a long peace is certain, and that nations are now too wise to go to war. I fear that the peace of the world depends upon the life of a man who is only a fortnight older than myself --Louis Philippe, to wit. However, I shall be most happy if I prove mistaken. I think, nevertheless, that we may clearly enough see preparations for the final dissolution of the component parts of the mixed colossus of Empire, which is so distinctly announced by Daniel, chap. ii. 35, 44. But difference in our views of so difficult a subject as Prophecy will, I am sure, produce no diminution of respect and regard on either side.... I observe you threaten an assault on Mr Forster touching his Arabic, as respects the old language. I have read his book. He strikes me as perhaps a little too sanguine anent the Hamyar, but he does not describe it as an absolutely different language from Arabic. As I understand him, he exhibits it rather as old Arabic than as a different language. I am quite at sea as to how he attains the deciphering of the rock inscriptions. I |169 had anticipated something analagous to the Rosetta stone, but did not find it.--Believe me, dear sir, yours very truly,

G. S. FABER.'

'SHERBURN HOUSE,

'April 4, 1846.

'Your brother professor, in good sooth, whatever may be his knowledge of Hebrew, is one of the most muddle-headed persons in argumentative powers that I ever met with. A great deal of the "mistings" of Tractarianism on the part (for instance) of such a man as Newman was, I believe, intentional, and introduced for the nonce; but Pusey's "mistings," so far as I can judge from every writing of his that has passed under my eye, is really innocent; though Pusey, by some sophism of not very easy comprehension, manages to hold conjointly his preferment and his opinions. Still, inherently, I believe him to be an honester man than Newman, simply because he has not a tithe of his intellect.... In my letter, the whipster, who ruled Luther "to be an apostate monk and an atheist, and who determined, in short, that the Reformation is a sin of three centuries," is my ill-persuaded nephew, the dupe of Newman and others who have played upon his besetting sin of |170 vanity, much in the same manner, I suspect, as the young Cantab Stokes was played upon in your university. My nephew has showy talents, and a mint of vanity. He has an imagination and poetical bend, but certainly not an iron head. Had he possessed the latter article, albeit more useful than ornamental, he would not have been where he is.

'G. S. FABER.'

'TRIN. COLL., March 26,

'46.

'You had from me this morning my answer to Mr Faber. To-morrow, D. V., I hope to be with you. But, I must tell you, I have begun to be Puseyite in good earnest. Yesterday, being Lady-Day, I fasted! This was a good beginning, you will say. No doubt it was. But, to see its merits, you should know all about it. I was invited to meet a party at seven o'clock, which I supposed must be a dinner party. I was more than punctual, for I was ten minutes before the time at the place appointed, as I had a great horror of keeping people waiting at so late an hour. Nearer to eight o'clock than seven, in came coffee! "Oh," said I, "I am finely dished! I am to have a dish of tea, then, instead of a well-dished-up piece of roast beef, etc.?" "Well, dear friend, this being the |171 case, make the best of it." "So I will," said I to myself; and accordingly I looked out for the solids. These consisted of toast and butter, plum cake, etc., and so, philosopher-like, I made a very good dinner upon what everybody else would have considered a mere pretence for eating. I felt very comfortable, partook in some good music, was at home by ten, went to bed, and slept sound and well! This is my Puseyitish commencement, and, I trust, termination of austerities.'

In this year my father published his second letter to Dr Pusey, which bears the title, 'The Doctrine of the Keys; or, Sacerdotal Binding and Loosing,' as taught in Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and in the United Church of Great Britain and Ireland,' in refutation of certain notions lately put forth by him in a sermon preached before the members of that university.' The letter is not a very long one; I will only give one sentence from it:--'Your views and feelings are in direct opposition to those which are taught and urged in the Reformed Church of these realms.'

The appendix to the letter is very lengthy, and deals exhaustively with the subject of the Confessional and its origin; a passage from the end of |172 it is here quoted as summing up his views on the subject:--

'The particular thing had in view, is the establishment of private confession, with the full and entire power of absolution in the priest. For this, as Dr Pusey tells us, there is no want of any new appointments; the whole may be adopted with the greatest ease, and with the best effects possible. We have only to take his statements as those of all orthodox antiquity, and as recommended by our own soundest divines. But here, again, it unhappily turns out, upon a little inquiry, that orthodox antiquity never recognised any such thing, as it likewise never did the power, in the ministers of religion, directly to absolve anyone of his sins; all that was ever professed by the true Church being, to teach the remission of sins upon the due use of the means of grace, and through the tender mercy of our God in our Saviour Christ. All here, therefore, is, as before, very promising, but quite groundless, alluring, but utterly void of truth. But then private confession would, as Dr Pusey thinks, be a good thing, no matter what the infidel Michelet or others may have said to the contrary. Medicine is good, as is also law, although these may have been so abused in unskilful or dishonest hands as |173 even to have destroyed life. The difference, however, lies here--medicine and law are not in themselves bad; it is the abuse of these only which can make them so. The principle which governs private confession, as here recommended, is a totally different thing; it is in itself essentially bad, and can in no way be made otherwise. It necessarily puts artful and designing men--and such the school of its advocates have universally been-- into a situation the most ruinous to society, public and private... and to this the history of the confessional will supply the most satisfactory proofs; while the powers of the faithful minister can in no way be increased by it.... Of its abettors, and of Dr Pusey in particular, I myself believe nothing short of a judicial blindness as to the truth, ignorantly hoping to discover something better than the Word of God, as interpreted by Christ's Church, has to supply, can account for their conduct. It must be that secret and unseen power of error which induces men to do things which, in its earlier progress, they never would believe it possible they could do. "What," said Hazael to the Prophet, "is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing?" 2 Kings viii. 13. Well indeed might the man of God weep at |174 viewing, in the young traitor and murderer, the germ of sins and cruelties he was so soon to commit, and of which he probably had then neither the slightest conception nor the will to undertake. In the absence of Divine light there ever is a progress from bad to worse; and in nothing has this been more visible than in the progress of the Tractarian party. Dr Wiseman admonished Mr Newman of this a few years ago. He very clearly saw whither the arch-Tractarian was wending his way, and sagely told him that, as he had begun to see as through a glass darkly, the day was not far distant when he should see and feel wholly as he himself did. The day came; Newman halted no longer between two opinions; and now, in Dr Pusey's "other vineyard" he is serving "Baal much." The loss of spiritual sight has here, alas! precipitated both the leader and the led into the same ditch!

'It is painful to me to say anything which may appear personal; certainly my intention is to do no such thing, but only to illustrate the principle above adverted to, the working of which I most deeply lament. I may say, however, to Dr Pusey himself, that in my last I admonished him of certain grossly palpable errors in his quotations and reasonings on the Eucharist. He has, |175 nevertheless, without so much as a word in explanation, or otherwise, just now again printed and published that same sermon, together with the one here noticed, with all its errors, just as it issued in the first instance from the press!... Does this evince that regard to the public which a conscience so tender, and a piety so deep, as those which he appears to cultivate will justify? I think not; nor can I account for this on any other grounds but those of the heathenish principles by which he has allowed himself to be so implicitly deluded and led. I can say of myself, I entertain no feeling towards Dr Pusey but that of sorrow at the course which he has taken, and the unhappy differences which he has created, and is still creating, under the plausible but mistaken view of restoring greater union and a better state of things. Never, surely, was the zeal of a very zealous man more unhappily exerted, or time, which might otherwise have been well employed, more unwisely thrown away; nor, probably, were ever efforts, so far from challenging respect in themselves, followed by consequences so extensive and distressing. In the part which I have taken in this controversy, and which may terminate here, I have endeavoured to know nothing of the |176 extremes of either High or Low Church; feeling, as I do, the exceeding sinfulness of fostering party feeling in the Church of Christ. Nor is the question here that which has respect to either High or Low Church, as such, but to the Protestant establishment of these realms, as opposed to the corrupt one of Rome. And, in discussing this, I have, I trust, endeavoured honestly to follow the declarations of Holy Scripture as these have been seen, felt and urged by the best expositors, both of early and late times.... Nor have I felt any desire to diminish the value of the means of grace, as applied under our holy religion; my endeavour has been to restrict these to their due province as means, while I have hoped and prayed that I, and all who embrace them, may find in them, and through them, what these themselves are not and never can be, viz., the grace and holiness which bring salvation.'

|177

CHAPTER XII

LETTERS, 1846-48

'COLLEGE GREEN, July 19, 1846.

'NEXT Sunday is my last for this season; but my period does not end until the end of the month.... I met Lord Wm. yesterday, who pressed me much to stay and do his duty. But it is impossible at. this time; at some other, perhaps, I may be able to do so.... I hope I have got through the College matter here; a very good man has been elected. I hope he will accept the situation, and work it well. I shall know to-morrow, most likely.... I must now say something of to-day's preparations and duties, for I have not been idle. I have written an admirable sermon, as I think, which I intended to preach this morning. I will read it to you when I come home. During this morning I have been reading the Prophets, and putting down some notes on |178 particular places. I find the inquiry most interesting and instructive. I think I see more and more clearly daily the intimate connection between the two Testaments; or, if you like the term better, between the "Two Witnesses." The inquiry is most rational, I think, and I feel it to be very edifying--it tends to substantiate, as to embody, the Old Testament declarations in such a manner as to make them very impressive. A very intelligent Jew from Bath called on me a few days ago, and brought me several papers on prophecy, and with these two sermons with notes, of the late Dr Arnold of Rugby. I will give you a specimen of his proof that prophecy must have a double interpretation. It is, says he, the word of God; it is also the word of man, and to each of these an interpretation is to be given, therefore, prophecy has necessarily a double interpretation. He illustrates this notable canon by the case of Caiaphas, who said it was expedient that some one should die for the people.

'Caiaphas then, we are to suppose, meant one thing, the Holy Ghost, who caused him to speak, another. The Evangelist, however, makes |179 the whole a prophecy and nothing else; and such it really is (John xi. 50), for he adds, 'and that the whole nation perish not,' which could hardly have been said if Caiaphas meant nothing more than that the Jews of Jerusalem should be gratified thereby. Consider the whole place. Did you ever hear of such reasoning as this? Then, again, he makes all prophecy to be doctrine of one sort or other, all centreing in Christ, but to be fulfilled times innumerable, even to the end of time. How do you like this? Here is surely scope enough for the wandering imagination of clever and plausible men. In Isaiah liii. he can see nothing whatever of Christ, but something like the return of the Jews from Babylon. Nor can he discover that the citations made in the New Testament from the Old do generally give their true sense. This is only a shoot from the trunk to which the religious world is in bondage. Is it not a beautiful illustration, and, indeed, proof of the goodness of the principle adopted? Now, I contend that the Evangelists and Apostles have cited correctly as it regards the sense; with the letter they had but little to do. The principles which |180 they adopted are the true and rational ones, as are the interpretations which they gave, Now, Dr Arnold was a very clever and very extraordinary man; all the world is in love with him. How do you like him? Mr M. and my good friend Mr F. are not a whit better in their principles; nay, their leading principles are identically the same, the only difference is, they are not so badly followed out. But I must not deal so unmercifully with what so many good folk are in love with. I will spare for the present. I have sent all my attack on Pusey to press. It is somewhat longer than I intended, but the matter is too important and too little understood to be shortly treated. I think you will be pleased with it when you see it. I suppose it will be out by about October. It is not desirable it should be out earlier, as people are travelling about now, and do not read much.'

'COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL,

'July 26, 1846.

'I did not think this day week that I should have to send you another Sunday epistle during my stay here. It afforded me many a pang to feel that I could not be with my own so soon as I wished, and, |181 indeed, hoped to be. It will not, however, inflict any serious injury on either of us.... I preached my sermon, intended for last Sunday, to a crowded congregation, which was, during the whole, as still as death. May God give His blessing upon it, both to the preacher and hearers! I felt much warmed in the delivery. I felt the subject, I hope, myself, and hence, I suppose, I got the attention just now noticed. I certainly get more and more tired of our everlasting music. It is far too much. It lengthens out the time of the service, and distracts the mind to things of inferior moment. The many come for nothing else; and also the singing men themselves, who from their very manner show that nothing else concerns them. The chanting of the psalms, is, however, very expressive, f I feel that I can enter into this. But, upon the whole, Barley is better than Bristol, much; ay, in every respect. The more I am held from it, the more do I love it; its simplicity, in many cases, piety; but, above all my peaceful and orderly home.... I believe I told you that I have finished my Bishop's College labours, and have succeeded beyond my expectations. We had Lord Wm.'s family here at church to-day. His brother, Lord Fitzroy was expected, but I rather think he did not come. He came from |182 London yesterday to see his brother, Lord John Somerset, who, it is to be feared, is in a dying state. To-morrow he returns by an express, or quick train. I wonder much why people make the risk so great by travelling by the express train going at the rate of nearly a mile in a minute. The common trains go at about half that rate, that is, a mile in two minutes. The risk is a very rash one.... I have nothing here to talk about that can interest you. It will avail you nothing to tell you how our singing men are behaving themselves; how the College Green is looking, or how much plague I have with the man who is hired to take care of it.... But I forgot to give you my text. It was 1 John xiv. 16--"God is love," etc. I viewed this first in nature, next in grace, showing that the same love was visible in each, and that these served mutually to illustrate and explain each other.'

'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,

'March 10, 1847.

'... Dr Wolffe* [* Missionary to the Jews.] has but just left me. He has been dining here, and he took his tea with me. He attempted to get up a lecture at the Town Hall. But, alas! none came to hear. To-morrow |183 he tries again; and I have no doubt will again fail. He has been marvellously amusing. Our young men in hall and combination stared at him with all their might. My name, he says, is well known throughout India, and even in Bochara. Only think that such a creature should be known almost from pole to pole! If, however, I am known and recognised above that is infinitely better.

'Yesterday Mr B.'s brother, who became a Dissenting preacher, called on me. He told me he had returned from Dissent to the Church. He begged a copy of one of my tracts against Pye Smith, which 1 gave him, and promised to procure another for him. He seemed much taken with my reasoning. He requested to be allowed to come to tea with me. He came accordingly; but, alas! in came also Mr Dodd, the gentleman who calls occasionally to talk on Prophecy, and the consequence was, we had no talk about Dissent. I have no doubt I shall see him again in a day or two, and certainly I shall be glad to do the best I can to deliver him from the libertinism of Dissent. We had a long confab yesterday evening almost to midnight. It was very interesting. All entered, as I thought, very feelingly into the Scriptures which we had to consider. It struck me as |184 primitive and edifying. I received yesterday an invitation to dine with our master at the Lodge on Tuesday next. To-day I called and apologised that I must be at Bristol. Our master made himself exceedingly agreeable, as also did Mrs Whewell. He was much interested with my prophetical scheme, of which I told him some time ago. By-and-by I hope to gratify not a few on this great and interesting question. Thanks to our God, I have been very well, and in very good spirits.'

In July 1847, during the Long Vacation, the Queen and Prince Albert visited Cambridge on the occasion of the Prince's Installation as Chancellor of the University. During the Royal visit, Professor Lee was presented to the Prince, who, in the course of conversation, expressed a wish to do something for him in recognition of his services to Oriental literature. Dr Lee replied, whilst gratefully acknowledging the kindness of His Royal Highness, that he already had all he could wish in regard to earthly comfort and prosperity, and desired no further preferment, but added that he should esteem it as a personal favour if, in the bestowal of his patronage, the Prince could promote the interests of his faithful and valued curate at Barley. To this Prince Albert |185 gave a most kind and gracious assent, and shortly afterwards a living falling vacant in the Duchy of Cornwall, it was presented, in accordance with Dr Lee's request.

' BRISTOL,

'Sunday, 8 Aug. 1847.

'... I was in one of my low moods last night, when even the grasshopper would have been a burden. Poking about the room, I met with one of John Wesley's sermons on the necessity of taking up the Cross and denying self. I read it through, and certainly it did me much good service. He is not an accurate writer, but is generally much superior to the many that are commonly read. This sermon induced me to think that I was setting rather too much value on my own feelings, which, after all, had no good grounds for discomfort. I now thanked my good God, and went to bed. I slept soundly and well, and got up in very good spirits. I had thought of getting Mr Caley to preach for me, but I now felt that, having no good excuse for being idle, I could not allow this day to pass without doing my duties myself. I had not quite finished my sermon on John xx. 23. This I now did vigorously, and |186 went accordingly and delivered it, for all which I thank my God in the best way I can. We had a large and most attentive congregation, and I do hope the blessing of God will rest on myself and those who heard me.'

'TRINITY COLL., CAMB.,

'March 28, 1848.

'Nothing but comfort has occurred to me-- thanks to our good and gracious God! but the news from the Continent is full of strange events. At Berlin about 2000 have been killed; at Milan, perhaps as many; at Vienna, many. The revolutionary spirit has extended itself to Denmark, and two of the Duchies, Holstein and Schleswig, have proclaimed a Republic. In Poland, the same thing is going on; and in the States of the Pope in Italy the same is likely to be the case. In Hungary and Bohemia, feudal claims and usages of the serfage are done away with. Throughout Germany, freedom of the Press is established; and in Ireland, rebellion is next to certain! What times we live in! France, with its new Republic, is in a state of bankruptcy, and knows not whither to look for money. In our own country, thanks |187 to our God, all is promising tolerably well. Surely we are a very highly - favoured people, and very thankful and very prayerful ought we to be. God grant us the grace to be so! I hear nothing as yet of Ely. All is so far in statu quo! (The Canonry of Ely was to form the future endowment of the Hebrew Professorship. Dr Lee preferred to give up the latter and retain the Canonry at Bristol.) 'Nothing is stirring here but newspaper - reading and talking about what is taking place in the world. God be thanked that we have nothing worse! As to myself, I am going on with my preliminary matter for my work, and I hope soon to bring it also to a close. I shall then have the last and very interesting part to perform, viz., to revise, illustrate with notes, etc., etc., until I have got the whole quite to my mind.' (This refers to his work on Prophecy, published in 1849.)

'I look back to our last Sabbath with much thankfulness and great satisfaction. The Lord be praised for it! all such retrospects are very comforting to me, and call forth many thanksgiving to God for them. The Lord enable us to make |188 all our Sabbaths real Sabbaths of spiritual rest and refreshment, and sources of much and continued thankfulness to us all!'

Letter from a LADY staying at Barley Rectory in 1848.

'I must take the opportunity of giving you my first impressions of Dr Lee, though I had not intended to speak so hastily. He arrived at home yesterday to a six o'clock dinner, having travelled ever since six o'clock in the morning, and came in as fresh as a lark; thus you see his physical powers are tolerably good for an old man of 70, at least I should think.' (He was really not more than 65.) 'He conversed with Miss Portal, Mrs Lee's cousin, the whole evening, and I am delighted to find him very communicative, which I was rather afraid such a learned man might not be. I was fully prepared to see a man of great activity and energy in mind and body, but I confess I was surprised to see with how much mildness and softness it is blended. It was beautiful last night to see as well as hear him speak; his whole face was beaming with the greatest animation; there was no excitement, no fire; I do not think I ever saw anyone so thoroughly warm in his subject without being |189 warm, if you can understand me. I suppose it must be his remarkably mild blue eyes which throw such a peculiar softness over his features, for though he is not handsome his expression is most pleasing.

'I like the little peeps I have had into his mind very much; his face appears to be a very good index to it, for though it is and must be a "master spirit" it is not an iron one. Music and poetry have had their softening influence, and he is as great an admirer of the beautiful as he is deep and sound. As far as I can judge, imagination and judgment are nicely balanced. His defects, whatever they may be, do not lie on the surface. He exhibits a beautiful specimen of superior intellectual powers, brought into subjection to the power of the Gospel, the finest and most interesting sight a Christian can behold. This morning being wet we have had recourse to the piano, and I am happy to say I have at present given tolerable satisfaction, having succeeded in playing at sight all that Dr Lee has selected to sing. He has evidently had a fine voice; he brought home a new flute, so I expect we shall have a good deal of music.'

|190

CHAPTER XIII

WORK ON PROPHECY

EVER since his translation of Eusebius's 'Theophania,' my father's mind had been more or less occupied on the subject of Prophecy, and he became convinced that the views which he entertained, known as the Preterist, were those held by the early Church. The subject was one of absorbing interest to him during the few last years of his life, and as a child I can remember the animated conversations between him and my mother on Prophecy in their walks about our beautiful garden, or in the leisure of meal times, she holding the more general and popular opinions of the restoration of the Jews to their own land, etc.

In the year 1849 he published his 'Inquiry into the Nature, Progress and End of Prophecy.'

A Scotch minister, the Reverend W. Paul, himself a Hebrew scholar, with whom my father |191 corresponded, has so clearly and forcibly set forth his views in one of his letters, as he gathered them from the book, that I give an extract from it:--

'MANSE OF BANCHORY,

'BY ABERDEEN, 30 March, 1850.

'REVD. AND DEAR SIR,--Since I last wrote to you I have perused with great care and interest your work on Prophecy, and I felt every inclination to write to you sooner with a view to the expression of my opinion of its contents. I, however, delayed doing so until I had fully and maturely considered the principles you set out with, and the result you have arrived at. I had given very little attention previously to this important subject, chiefly from the very unsatisfactory manner in which I had seen it pursued. I could discover no solid ground to rest upon, and I was called upon to hold, almost as a matter of faith, results which had no foundation but that of ingenious conjecture, which left ample scope for anyone becoming a prophet who was not deficient in vanity and presumption....

'Notwithstanding these views, which in a somewhat confused form occasionally floated through my mind previously to the perusal of your work, I do confess that I was completely staggered by |192 enunciations that all prophecy had already had its fulfilment; that the Book of Revelation is rather confirmatory of old than a record of new predictions--that the believing remnant of the Jews have become the heirs of the world, and that to them have been already fulfilled all the promises made to their fathers--that there exist no promises in Scripture of the restoration of their brethren on their acceptance of the promised Saviour, to the earthly Canaan and Jerusalem-- that the fulness of the Gentiles has arrived in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that the Gospel has in that sense been preached to every creature under heaven -- and that the Jews, at whatever time converted, will, on their conversion, lose all their distinctive characteristics as a nation, and will become, with the Gentiles, one body in Christ.

'I have marked with great attention and interest the way in which you have cleared your ground, and laid down, followed out and established your principles. I have carefully considered these principles, weighed the arguments by which they were supported, and reflected upon the results to which they have led, and I am happy to say that they have carried full conviction |193 to my mind. The fact is, I cannot resist your conclusions. I find nothing in them to clash with the great leading principles of divine truth which are most surely believed in by all the true Church of Christ, while they throw a flood of light upon otherwise unintelligible parts of the Old Testament history, doctrine and prophecy which is most satisfactory. One regrets to see the talents and learning of such men as Mr Elliott and Dr Todd wasted in confirming and perpetuating the errors of Mr Mede. The year-day theory you have very properly rejected, and have rightly tested the application of prophecy by the whole of the circumstances taken in cumulo. No one has succeeded, who has attempted, to fix down the accomplishment of a prophecy to periods calculated from time specified in the prophecy itself.

'One great difficulty has been removed in regard to the application of prophecy to the Jews, by the dissertation on the Covenants introduced into your work. You have there clearly pointed out the different condition, under these covenants, of those that serve the Lord, and of those that serve Him not--that the promises made to Abraham are the portion only of the former; that these promises do |194 not include any peculiar blessings of a temporal character in Canaan or Jerusalem; and that Jews as well as Gentiles were only to be blessed in Christ by their being turned from their iniquities, and obtaining salvation through Him. In that dissertation, likewise, the confusion between doctrine, i.e., contingent prediction, or intimation of the consequences of certain conduct as good or evil, on the fate of nations or individuals, and prediction, properly so called, has been removed, by which means many otherwise very difficult passages of Scripture have been made extremely plain.

'I have often thought that "Glassen's Rhetorica Sacra" might, in the hands of one mighty in the Scriptures, be of essential service to the elucidation of prophecy. I have often thought that the rhetorical figures of Scripture might, through the instrumentality of that work, in good hands, be reduced to a precision, which would make the study of prophecy, conducted on proper principles, comparatively easy. Nothing can be more satisfactory than the manner in which you have arranged this part of your subject. Indeed, you have accomplished in this way more than I ever thought to be practicable. You have, indeed, brought unusually great talents and |195 theological attainments of every variety to bear upon this very difficult question, and a mind, unless I am much mistaken, sincerely anxious for the Spirit's light and guidance in the investigation of divine truth, together with an earnest desire for the advancement of the spiritual interests of others.

'It is not wonderful that prophecy is expressed under highly figurative language, but it is remarkable to trace the extent to which what is figurative is involved in the whole of the Jewish history. In their journeyings from place to place; in their captivities and deliverances; in occurrences that happened to individuals; in Egypt, in the Wilderness and in Canaan; in the language and ceremonies of their ritual; in their offices of prophet, priest and king, are perceptible types and shadows of good things to come, and events applicable to the circumstances of the Church under the last dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. All this fully justifies the spiritual interpretation which you have given to many of the prophecies, where temporal events in the first instance are evidently pointed at.

'I have only now to conclude with the expression of my hearty concurrence in the views you have |196 adopted, of my thanks for your having put the work into my view, and of my sincere desire that it may be extensively read and pondered, and impart to others the same gratification and instruction which it has afforded me.... Were mine the prayers of the righteous man which could "avail you much," be assured they would be offered up for you with all sincerity.--Believe me to be, rev. and dear sir, with great respect and esteem, very faithfully yours,

' WILLIAM PAUL.

'The Rev. SAMUEL LEE, D.D.'

The following letter is from the Reverend W. Carus, acknowledging a copy of his work on Prophecy, which Dr Lee had sent him:--

'TRIN. COLL.,

'March 31, 1849.

'MY DEAR DR LEE,--How much have I been longing for the appearance of your work on Prophecy! But I little expected the favour of a copy from the author, especially valuable from the kind inscription, and also from the but too kind note which accompanied it. Allow me to express to you my grateful and affectionate acknowledgments for this very gratifying remembrance of |197 me. I can truly say no one in Cambridge will feel your separation from us more deeply than myself. Your presence and friendship has been one of the bright and happy gifts which made my labour here pleasant, and self-sacrifice light and easy. But we are not separated though we cannot meet just so frequently within the walls of our good College. I shall feel more than ever bound to visit Barley, and so fulfil my long-made promise. Indeed, I have here a volume brought from Armenia for you, by Mr Birch, about which I wrote to you last autumn. Shall I send it? or bring it? I go on Monday to the Pyms.... I shall take your book as my company. Whether you will make me a convert or not, I don't think you will have a more friendly reader. Wednesday I go to the F.'s of S., the week following, the Scholarship Examinations will detain me here. But, about June, if you are at Barley I will gladly come over.--With kindest regards, ever believe me, your affect, and obliged,

W. CARUS.'

Letter from Dr LEE to his BROTHER-IN-LAW.

'BARLEY, Jan. st, 30, 1849.

'MY DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,--... I think |198 I said in my last that I should show what the principles of Mr Mede were, and what sort of reliance can be placed on them. I have finished my preface, and in a day or two shall send it to press. You will not be sorry to hear that I find my principles and the main of my results to accord exactly with those of the early Christian Church. So far as it judaized, Mr Mede and his school are with it.'

'BARLEY, May 2, 1850.

'My DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,--Many thanks for your kind note, and for all the kind things said in it. I have no doubt Mr N.'s letter would please you, not only as entering very fully and particularly into the character of my book, but as exhibiting a very rare specimen of an ingenuous mind. In this last respect, I must confess it surprised me. I have had some letters much to the same point, but none that so particularly and carefully investigated the matter before he pronounced his conclusions. Only a few days ago I had a letter, much to the same effect, from London, and a little earlier another from Brighton. What I prize principally in Mr N. is the care he has taken to understand the subject. I am not one of those who labour under a very high opinion either of |199 myself or my productions. I am therefore greatly obliged when anyone takes the trouble to follow me, and to state his reasons either for approving or disapproving of anything that I have written. Of one thing I think I may say I am certain, viz., that I am not wrong in the main, that my system is good, and hence, I have no doubt, it will first or last prevail. Its results are certainly good. I care not, therefore, for the present popularity of the opposite view. It must have its day, and this, God knoweth, I do not envy it. I have, indeed, much to be thankful for, and I praise my God for the great honour He has been pleased to put upon me. I must confess I do not expect much from a review by Mr Nangles, for, in the first place, I have doubts whether he has either ability or candour sufficient to enter fairly into the question. He cannot in a day or two see where the great point of the question rests, and he cannot spare more time, as the editor of a newspaper, to bestow upon it. Then, again, he writes for a party who will not take his paper if he desert the Millennarian, etc., doatings of his supporters. The manner, too, in which he has been accustomed to view Scripture will not quadrate well with that adopted by me. He is, and will |200 continue, like many others similarly circumstanced, satisfied with his present notions. If this is not the case, you may fairly conclude that, whatever I may be as an interpreter of the prophets, I am no prophet myself; you will soon be able to judge in this matter if, indeed, Mr Nangles is at work on the book. Poor Lamb! *[ * Dean of Bristol.] I saw him about nine days before he died. He seemed then to have no idea of his danger. I invited him to Barley, for I thought a change of air might do much for him. But it could have done him no good.... You, and those about you, are very kind in wishing to see me at the Deanery. I am pretty sure, however, this will not be the case. I am told that Lord Wriothsley Russell has long been wishing for it; if so, he will have it, of course. Lord Melbourne wished Lamb to take Ely, and to vacate Bristol, in order, as it is said, to make way for Lord W. R. If he comes to you, you will have a most excellent man, and one who will fill that post much better than I can.... We are all, thanks to our God, doing very well. I do not think I shall see you now before Midsummer, unless, indeed, our new Dean should deem it right to summon us earlier.' |201

'BARLEY, July 27, 1850.

'My DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,--... This day week I must be in Bristol to commence my two months' residence there.... I am interested in hearing of any progress made in the knowledge of prophecy. The case you mention seems to promise well. Still, I know that many -- no matter how right or wrong -- will not take the trouble to investigate a question of so large an amount as that of prophecy, merely for the truth's sake. Others would rather accept a system which seems to promise so much that is glorious than be convinced that it is not true. And here I think the stumbling-block and rock of offence to my scheme is likely long to continue, perhaps to the end of time. But I must be content to succeed in just as much as the great Head of the Church will allow me, and for this, little as it may be, I shall be thankful. You will be glad to hear, I think, that I shall shortly publish an outline of my work, D. V. In this it will be my object to fix the dates and events of prophecy in such a manner as to be incapable of misunderstanding, and I think of avoiding their adoption. My own convictions certainly grow stronger daily on this great and interesting subject. Every day adds |202 something to my stock which I had not before, and this, I have no doubt, will be the case to the end of my career. If so, I believe I shall be made the honoured instrument in the hands of Him who has, of His mercy, done so much for me, of more effectually arresting the progress of doubt as to the inspiration of the Scriptures than I had ever imagined, or perhaps than anyone hitherto has.'

|203

CHAPTER XIV

LETTERS, 1850-53

AFTER the year 1848 the home-letters are few. His Hebrew lectures no longer took my father to Cambridge, as, in that year, he resigned the Professorship. Also, after that date, whilst in residence at Bristol, his family were either with him there, or staying in this immediate neighbourhood. I have selected the following letter out of several to show how the scholar could unbend to interest and amuse a child.

'Aug. 13, 1850.

'MY VERY DEAR LITTLE ANNA MARY,--I thank you much, indeed, for your very kind and interesting note which I have just now received, as I do all the dollys (dollies?) for their very kind remembrances of me. I am glad to hear, too, that Jenny Donkey is behaving so well. It is owing, no doubt, to the good training she gets from Miss W., Susan, etc., etc. She may, perhaps, become as famous as the dog of the Sleepers in the |204 Cave, which, because it had slept with his masters so long, that is some two or three hundred years, became at last so humanised as to claim, and get, all the honour due to any one of his masters. You say, however, that she is not equal to the journey proposed in my last, unless I can send you a pair of seven-league boots. But what can these be? I never heard of such things! I remember reading many years ago about Lorenzo's jack-boots, which were so large as to stop a river into which they fell by accident, and actually flooded all the neighbouring country for several miles! But I think the reading must be erroneous here; it must be seven-legged boots; that is, such as make up seven legs to every creature that wore them, so that while four were travelling three would be taking rest, and the animal gallop on night and day without stopping. But, if seven-leagued be the true reading, then perhaps every step would be seven leagues in length. I prefer, however, the seven-legged reading. I will at my leisure turn into Levi's shop; it is possible he may have some of these marvellous boots to sell. If so, I will get some and send them through the Post Office, for I understand legs and arms often travel in this way. But dear mamma also complains of her legs being weak. If I could |205 get a new pair for her, oh, how much I should rejoice! For then she may perhaps be able to come to me here, without venturing into the railway. But do tell her from me that faith in God's goodness is a much more safe and easy conveyance. It will even carry its possessor to Heaven! Oh, what a railway is this! But dear mamma has promised to come whenever I shall desire it; and I have desired that it be as soon as possible, and I now beg through you that she will put on the legs of faith forthwith, and no more either trust, or distrust, her own, which are evidently too weak to be trusted. I think I know what the "operation" was. I have some notion that there was a rebellious tooth so conducting itself that it no longer deserved a place in the mouth of anyone, and so Mr Balding came and gave it notice to quit, but, being a rebel, it would not quit, and the consequence was, he turned it out perforce. Am I right?

'Good-night, dear little Anna Mary. Hoping to see you soon, believe me, with kindest regards to Miss W., dollies, etc., thanks to Dr Broadley for your nice wine-glass, and warmest affection to dear mamma, your affectionate papa,

S. LEE.'

|206

To his WIFE.

'41 PARK ST., BRISTOL,

'Aug. 24, 1851.

'I betake myself with very great pleasure to give you some account of my day, in the form of my usual bulletins. The day then has been a very prosperous one with me. I have felt very well and strong, and preached my sermon this morning on Ps. ex. 4, with vigour. The subject is, as you will see, the Priesthood of Christ, and it is truly a noble one. One thing occurred to me, that had not before, and, as it may interest you I give it. It is 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5. "A living stone," said of Christ; and "ye also as lively stones," etc., i.e., Christ is here the Rock out of which the water of life flows, as the Rock of Ages. The "lively stones" are those who have been made so by virtue of His grace; in this sense Peter was a "lively," not the "living stone," and this distinction is actually made in the Greek original, thus: Christ is termed the Petra, i.e., the Rock. Peter receives the name Petros, i.e., rocky, or belonging to the Rock; which will show that he received no greater privilege in having this name or title than any other true believer does, for they all are stones used in building up the spiritual house, or Church of God. But you may read my sermon by-and-by if you choose.' |207

'41 PARK STREET, BRISTOL,

'Aug. 31, 1851.

'I have but just returned from the morning service at the Cathedral, where I had much comfort in delivering a sermon on the Divinity of our Lord, showing that He was the Jehovah of the Mosaic and patriarchal dispensations incarnate. This consideration I find a most edifying and instructive one; it seems to open to me the doctrines of the prophetic Scriptures in a most encouraging point of view, and to ascribe positively to Christ all that has been said in the Psalms and Prophets of the right, etc., of the Lord, i.e., of Jehovah. I think my next must be an expansion of this consideration to show how intimately the doctrines of Scripture are connected with the true interpretation of prophecy. I have occasionally mentioned this to you generally. I now feel more particularly its value; and, as it will enable me to throw an immense amount of light on the Old Testament, and hence make the reading of it very profitable, and connect it closely with the New Testament, I cannot help thinking the endeavour will have great good both with myself and others, especially as it will have the effect of dispelling some of the Jewish--may I not say Egyptian--darkness under |208 which it labours with the many. I got leave yesterday for *[ * Pupil at Blind Asylum.] Miss W. to come to the Cathedral today. She was "much gratified" and hopes to come again. So it always is with the things or persons we love; we no sooner have the pleasure of seeing them but we want to see them again. Well, I suppose I must ask leave again for her. The housekeeper at the asylum (for the blind) spoke very highly of her, particularly as exerting a very good influence upon those about her. This "liked me much."... Just returned from church. Mr C. preached a very good and really evangelical sermon. Some parts of it were echoes of mine this morning.'

'41 PARK STREET,

'Septr. 14, 1851.

'... I have been doing exceedingly well. I accordingly preached this morning to an overwhelming congregation, which was extremely attentive. My text was, Ps. lxxxvii. I, 2, 3. Its object was to show that this psalm had before it the establishing of Christ's Church throughout the world on the mountains of holiness, i.e, this, God's Zion was to occupy the high places of the |209 earth, just as the Zion of Jewry did the mount so called in Jerusalem; that Christ was the chief corner-stone of its foundations, the rest of those, His Apostles, as the precious stones in the Revelation of St John; that the distinction of holy and unholy Jews was made in the dwellings of Jacob and the gates of Zion; that the holy party, in the Apostles, founded our Zion throughout the world; that this man, born here and there, related to the spiritual birth of all who entered it, whether in Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, etc.; that the glorious things spoken of in it (not of it) were the mighty deliverances thus wrought universally and individually; and that "all my springs are in. thee," were the "wells springing up to everlasting life" in every believer in the power of the Holy Ghost, given according to the promise of our Lord. It was full and pointed, and ended by showing that on this model was our own Church constructed, etc. But you will perhaps read it by-and-by.'

'41 PARK STREET, BRISTOL,

'Septr. 28, 1851.

'It is with great pleasure and thankfulness that I sit down to write my last Sunday bulletin for this year. I have indeed much to be thankful for |210 that I have been enabled to get through my duties with so much ease and comfort to myself. My sermon was on Rom. viii. 28, 29, 30; rather a long and comprehensive text. My object was to show that the predestination here was that of prophecy, or promise, to be fulfilled in all believers under the New Covenant, just as those belonging to the temporary Israel were under the Old; that conformity to Christ, and hence justification and glorification, were in like manner pre-determined for all believers. You may like, perhaps, to take much of this with John Calvin. I think, nevertheless, you will not readily object to my more practical view of this great subject. Mr ---- gave us a casuistical discourse on the virtues of Jona-dab, the son of Rechab, telling us that he was descended from Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and not from Abraham; and, further, that the Midianites were descendants of Jethro, all of which is quite apocryphal, for the Midianites must have been descended from Midian, the son of Keturah, Abraham's concubine. How he had discovered that Jonadab was of this people I do not yet see. He next told us that these Rechabites were, in the Essenes, among the first to receive Christianity. But here he was wrong, for this was the privilege |211 of the remnant of Israel. Besides, these Essenes, otherwise termed Ebionites, as it should seem, were the first who denied the divinity of our Lord! All the rest was very poor indeed. So much for this.... A curious coincidence happened this morning. I quoted 1 Thess. iv. 14-18 inclusive, which was the anthem for this evening's service, and a most impressive one it is. Another, too, less remarkable perhaps, we had in the gospel for the day, "seek ye first the kingdom," etc., which I had also inserted without being aware that it was in the service.... I have written seven elaborate sermons since I have been here, with all the other etc.s!'

To the Reverend R. HOPPER.

'BARLEY, April 8, 1852.

'MY VERY KIND BROTHER HOPPER,--Accept my best thanks for your very feeling and kind letter.... I must now give you some account of myself.... My true complaint has been pleurodyne rheumatism, i.e., the side-paining rheumatism. I have, however, great reason to be thankful that it has been only of the chronic sort. The acute is infinitely worse. I have also to be thankful that I have had no febrile affections, no |212 loss of appetite, no loss of sleep, no pain, except a lingering slow one in my left side. I have never been laid up at all, so as not to be able to prosecute my labours to some extent. So that, putting all things together, I have very great reason to be thankful. I am become a little thinner, and not so much so as might have been expected. I am now hoping, D, V., that a change of air, etc., will soon set me up, in the west.... You will smile when I tell you that I am in correspondence with a lady of rank on the question of prophecy and the restoration of the Jews. How it may end I have no idea. Before I see you, I may, perhaps, be able to see farther on the subject than I now do.... But I must close.-- Believe me, my very dear brother, yours very truly,

S. LEE.'

My father went to Bristol soon after this letter was written, and his malady considerably increased, so much so, that he was often quite unfit to attend the Cathedral services. He liked to go when he could, and on one of these occasions he found the following note, from a Bristol tradesman, had been left for him. He remarked to my mother that this more than repaid him for the |213 effort he had made in going to the Cathedral when in much suffering. He died in December of this year.

'BRISTOL, 22 June 1852.

'REVND. DR S. LEE.

'SIR,--I was greatly concerned to hear of your serious indisposition some time ago. I assure you, rev. sir, that I did not cease to offer my humble prayer on your behalf, and now I rejoice exceedingly to see you once more in God's sanctuary. I am more concerned in your behalf, because, through a sermon that you preached at the Cathedral in August 1850, from these words, "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God," I came to think seriously of the Christian faith, and I greatly rejoice for the hope that is within me. I trust, therefore, you will pardon a stranger in writing, but my heart is so full of gratitude to you that I write thus to strengthen you, and that you may know, even in this world, that your labour was not in vain. May the Lord bless you, and give you a long life and happiness here, and a crown of glory hereafter.-- Such is the prayer of your humble servant,

'W. D.'

|214

Letter to the SECRETARY of the C. M. S. from the Rev. T. PRESTON of Trinity College, Cambridge, himself a distinguished Oriental scholar.

'You have probably seen mention in the papers of the death of Dr Lee. He had been sinking for nearly a year, though, from the nature of his complaint, very sanguine, almost to the last, about his recovery. Long before that he had an asthma, which seemed to me to be much increased by mental exertion, of which he was most unsparing, as well as by the keen air of Barley.

'I should think his review of my "Makamat" was about the last thing he sent to press. It is fully a year that he has ceased to look over the proofs of the Arabic Bible. I remember his saying that it did not seem likely it should be finished (i.e., the revision of it) during his lifetime. The whole of the translation has been made under his superintendence, to which it owes very much indeed. His biblical labours were assiduous in the highest degree, and aided by an amount of erudition unequalled in this country. His learning and perseverance have been the model of many others, to whom he kindly gave his aid and encouragement, myself among the rest, and by |215 whom his loss is deeply felt. Along with enlarged and fervent charity he was remarkable for his strenuous disapproval of the presumptuous speculations of modern German Neologians, to whom he would hardly grant a hearing, so strongly was he set against them. He laboured conscientiously through life to promote the devout study of the Scriptures, and it is impossible not to deplore the departure of the possessor of such rare endowments, with whom so much that is valuable is lost'

Letter from Reverend T. VORES.

'Dr Lee's distinguishing characteristic as a Christian was his cheerful, rejoicing, thankful spirit. But when the period of suffering came he was able to kiss the rod.

'He spoke of the abounding mercies which had attended him through life; he acknowledged the final mercy of his Father's chastening hand, and his spirit was like Job's when he said, "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" I need not tell you, who knew him so well, that the Lord Jesus was to him the Alpha and Omega.' |216

Letter to Mrs LEE from Professor JARRETT.

'TRUNCK RECTORY, NORTHWALSHAM,

'NORWICH, Feb. 23, 1853.

'MY DEAR MRS LEE,--I am quite ashamed that I did not acknowledge the receipt of the packet of Arabic MS., but I could not write to you then, and I wished to allow some time to pass before I offered you my expressions of sympathy on your bereavement. And now I know that all such expressions will as yet be of no avail. After a while you will be comforted by the thought of the manifold labours that he whom you have lost dedicated to the cause of sacred literature, and that while he is in the enjoyment of rest from his labours, others will long continue to be edified and guided by the results of his unwearied toil.... Dr Lee's removal was to me most unexpected; I constantly hoped to hear of his restoration, and looked forward to additional opportunities of learning from him.--I am, my dear Mrs Lee, yours very truly,

THOS. JARRETT.'

|217

Letter to Mrs LEE from the SECRETARY of the SOCIETY for PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.

'67 LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS,

'Feb. 26, 1853.

'DEAR MADAM, -- Nobody will believe more readily than yourself how deeply the Foreign Translation Committee of this Society, as well as all other members of it at all interested in the important works entrusted to that Committee, have felt the loss they have sustained in the death of the rarely gifted and excellent Dr Lee. His labours in connection with the Committee for many years past had been most valuable, and were, as they rightly deserved to be, highly appreciated. But it did not please the All-wise Disposer of events to permit him to see the accomplishment of the great and important work on which he had, in his later years, set his heart-- the publication, I mean, of the whole Bible translated out of the sacred originals into the Arabic language. He lived, however, to see the completion of the materials for the work, and the Committee propose to request his esteemed pupil and friend, Professor Jarrett, to take up the labour of preparing those materials for the printer and |218 carrying them through the Press, where Dr Lee left it, an arrangement which they feel confident is only carrying out what would have been Dr Lee's own wishes on the subject. With this object in view the Committee have charged me with the expression of their sincere and respectful sympathy, in which I beg most cordially to join, to request you will have the goodness to hand over to Professor Jarrett the rough copy of the translation by Mr Fares, the whole of which, the Committee have reason to suppose, was in their lamented friend's possession.--I have the honour to be, with much respect, dear madam, your obedient, humble servant,

J. D. GLENNIE.

|219

CHAPTER XV

HOME LIFE

THE account of Dr Lee's home life which follows was given by the lady who had come in 1848 to Barley Rectory to superintend his daughter's education:--

'As a student, it does not appear that his great attainments were acquired by any extraordinary effort, such as rising at unusual hours or sitting up late, but by one continued course of regular and diligent application. His mind never seemed to grow weary, but day after day, and week after week, nay, the whole year round, he was as fresh for his work, and went to it with as much energy and ardour as if he had just entered upon it after a long holiday. But notwithstanding this untiring energy of mind, he always allowed himself such time for exercise and relaxation as he considered conducive to his bodily health. He never knew what it was to have a headache, and till within |220 eighteen months of his death his health was singularly good. No doubt this was attributable in a great measure to his great regularity and abstemious mode of living. The peculiarly happy disposition, with great evenness of temper and spirits with which it pleased God to bless him, and which led him always to take a bright and cheerful view of everything, contributed also in no small degree not only to his general health, but likewise to the vigour and elasticity of his mind, and helped him to triumph over difficulties which would have depressed or overwhelmed an ordinary character.

'He never harboured a painful or vexatious thought, nor suffered himself to dwell upon a distressing subject, so that let what would happen, he was able to prosecute his studies with his usual serenity and diligence. He said, however, that at an early period of his life he was once completely cast down by some great affliction, so that for a time he sank under it and was quite overwhelmed; but in a little while he began to reflect that this was not right, and by no means the way to glorify God, so he resolved to arouse himself and shake it off, and by God's grace never again to be so mastered by his feelings as to be incapacitated |221

BARLEY RECTORY. THE ORIEL WINDOW TO THE LEFT IS THAT OF THE LIBRARY.

for his duties. He considered this a turning-point in his career of usefulness, as he never afterwards became the victim of unreasonable depression. His constant habit was to breakfast at 8 or 8.30, according to the season, after which, and family prayers, he retired to his study, which he seldom if ever left till 12.30 or 1. These, he was wont to say, were the best hours for study, when the mind had most strength, and was less easily injured by close application than at any other time.

'He often warned young men who were disposed to overwork themselves, whilst he commended their diligence, against too many consecutive hours of deep thought. Eight hours a day were the utmost that he said any man ought to apply closely, and, with that, two hours of daily active exercise should never be neglected. But to resume. At 12.30 or 1 he would, on a fine day, take a stroll in the garden, discoursing with his wife on his favourite subject of prophecy, or upon any topic of interest that had engaged his attention during the morning. If the weather did not admit of this, he would come and pace the dining-room with his little girl, and unbend his mind for her amusement by playful remarks and innocent jokes. His presence seldom |222 failed to give an animation and sprightliness to all around him. His love of punctuality invariably brought him to the luncheon - table as the clock struck 1.30, after which, of late years, he indulged in a short nap in an easy-chair. Then, unless it was positively a wet day, he always took about an hour's walk, generally in the garden, revolving in his mind the work on which he was then engaged. After this, he returned to his study until dinner-time, to prepare his letters for the post. Many of these were, of themselves, a task of no small magnitude, for he generally had some private controversy or discussion in hand, besides which, he devoted many hours of his valuable time to answering the inquiries of young students, and directing them in the pursuit of Truth. He took great delight in encouraging any, however humble they might be, either in circumstances or attainments, if, with an earnest and candid mind, they were in search of truth, let the subject be what it would. His wife said that he gave up, in this way, at least one-third of his time to the literary and spiritual benefit of others. His dinner-hour was 5.30, and many an hour after it has he beguiled by singing some of Handel's or Haydn's choicest airs. He had a fine taste for poetry, music, and everything that is |223 calculated to elevate and refine the mind. These things were a real relaxation to him, and afforded much enjoyment to those around him by the justness of his criticisms and his hearty appreciation of all that was beautiful. He used to say that he could not imagine how anyone could listen to fine music without having the mind elevated and improved by it; in his case, it seemed to warm his heart with pious feelings, and produce much the same effect as a good and spirit-stirring sermon would on others. He often spoke of his grateful sense of God's goodness to him in thus affording him so many sources of gratification and relaxation. After tea, at 8 o'clock, he again retired to his study to resume his morning labours until 10, the hour of prayer, and 11 o'clock was the hour, which nothing seemed to tempt him to transgress, for retiring to rest himself.

'His attachment to the Church Missionary Society and their cause was warm and lively to the last days, and he was in the daily habit of listening to some one or other of the missionary periodicals of the day, in which he took the greatest interest. Of his retentive memory every one who knew him is well aware, but they may not know how much he exercised it for the benefit |224 and amusement of his family circle. Often would he quote whole passages from his favourite Shakespeare, as well as Milton, Goldsmith, Pope, and many other English poets. Some, if not all of these, he said he had not read for thirty years, nor had they been learnt by rote, but whatever he read with interest and admiration was impressed upon his memory in such a way that he could recall it, bit by bit, as each piece was brought to his remembrance by some other of similar import. During the last few months of his life, when he was in constant sufferings his kindness and consideration were shown by his choosing such books as he thought might be profitable and useful to others, but he preferred the works of some eminent divine, such as Bishops Hall and Hopkins, for in them, he said, there was something for the soul to feed upon. For a year or two after he gave up the Hebrew Professorship, in addition to his laborious work of translating the Bible into Arabic, he took the whole of the parochial duty on himself, visiting amongst his sick people as occasion demanded, and performing two full services on the Sunday. On his return home from the afternoon service, when Mrs Lee joined him in the study, she generally found him reading his |225

From a Daguerreotype, age about 60.

Hebrew Bible, so untiring was his mind. Rarely did a Sunday pass without a little sacred music in the evening, when he would sing with more than usual animation; and this was no temporary excitement producing weariness or lassitude on the Monday, for he always declared himself better on that day than any other in the week. In visiting the sick and dying, his manner and style of conversation were gentle and encouraging, and his prayers simple and earnest. He was beloved and respected by all his parishioners, both Churchmen and Dissenters, for though he disliked exceedingly the principle of Dissent he was kind and courteous to all Dissenters, and much respected those whom he considered truly pious men. As a master he was strict, but not severe. He used to say, "he that ruleth, let him do it with diligence," but his servants universally loved and respected him. His mind remained vigorous to the last, so that till within three weeks of his death he continued to write at intervals, as his strength and the severe paroxysms of pain permitted, what he intended as an appendix to his work on Prophecy, published in 1849. He was only able to accomplish half of what he proposed writing. His Christian resignation was remarkably shown in his |226 cheerful acquiescence in the Divine Will when unable longer to pursue that work in which his heart, was so much engaged--the translation of the Bible into Arabic. Throughout his life he had habitually acknowledged all that he had received to be of mercy from that God who "worketh in us to will and to do of His good pleasure," and when sickness prevented him from pursuing those occupations in which his whole heart seemed absorbed, he at once yielded his own will, saying, "Have I received so much good at the hand of the Lord, and shall I not receive evil?" He was often in great pain, but no impatience manifested itself, nor could one at all tell how much he suffered except by his extreme quietness. This made it difficult to know his feelings, but when he did speak, all testified a genuine simple faith in Christ, through whose merits alone he hoped for salvation, and confidently expected to reign with Him in glory. On the day before his death he revived considerably, so that he asked for some of Handel's magnificent choruses in the "Messiah" to be played to him. "Worthy is the Lamb," and some others were played to him, which he seemed much to enjoy; after this he fell asleep and scarcely woke to consciousness again.' |227

He died on the 16th December 1852, and was buried in a vault in Barley Church.

His own words shall close this brief sketch.

'May His grace and love, shed abroad in our hearts, constrain us sweetly to sing His praise, sound forth His never-failing mercies, as revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord evermore, and when we shall have laboured for the advancement of His glory and the good of His Church here, so as to have become meet for an inheritance with the saints in light, we may, with the voice of praise on our tongues, and the experience of heaven in our souls, be transported thither.' |228

CHAPTER XVI

'TRAVELS OF IBN BATUTA'

IN February 1828 the Oriental Translation Committee was formed for the purpose of raising a fund, called the Oriental Translation Fund, to defray the expenses of translating and printing interesting Oriental works. It was under the patronage of the King (George the Fourth), and numbered among its subscribers the Dukes of Clarence, Sussex, Cambridge, Gloucester, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and many others of the nobility, bishops, etc. In the regulations we find the following note:-- 'For the purpose of directing the attention of scholars to the literature of the East, and encouraging translations, the Committee is empowered to give annually, for such works as it may consider deserving of distinction, four rewards in money, in sums of from £50 to £100 each, and four gold medals of the value of twenty guineas each, inscribed with the names of the individuals to whom they are presented,' |229

They state in their first report their 'great satisfaction in the most liberal support afforded to them by the Royal Asiatic Society, not only by allowing the Committee's business to be transacted in their house, but also by their handsome transfer to the Oriental Translation Fund of the Honourable East India Company's munificent annual subscription of one hundred guineas. The English Universities have expressed their favourable disposition towards the undertaking, and received in the most friendly manner the hopes expressed by the Committee, of considerably diminishing the expense of printing by the assistance of the University presses.'

Many who had it in their power to do so were stimulated by the efforts of the Committee to undertake translations of Oriental works, both in this country and in Turkey, Persia, Egypt and the Barbary States, etc., and much attention was attracted to Asiatic literature; and several translations which had long remained unnoticed were brought to light.

In a list of works preparing for publication in the first year of their transactions, mention is made of 'The Travels of Ibn Batuta,' translated from the Arabic, and illustrated with copious notes, by |230 the Rev. Professor Lee. Ibn Batuta spent above twenty years in travelling in the fourteenth century. Besides giving very interesting notices of Spain, Greece, Java, etc., he gives long accounts of Nigritia, the Maldive Islands, where he acted as judge for eighteen months, and China, to which he went as Ambassador from the Court of Delhi, at which he resided several years.

For this translation one of the gold medals was awarded to Professor Lee.

This work was dedicated to Lieutenant-Colonel Fitz-Clarence. In the dedication, Dr Lee expresses his views on the value of Oriental studies. He says:--

'I think myself fortunate in having it in my power to dedicate to you the first-fruits of an Institution which owes its origin and efficiency almost entirely to your exertions; and as my author traversed and described many parts of the East, of which you, nearly five hundred years after his time, have given so many interesting and confirmatory accounts, this will constitute an additional reason for doing so. No one, perhaps, can better estimate than yourself the duty incumbent on this country to possess an accurate knowledge of the |231 history, geography, commerce, manners, customs and religious opinions of the East. Placed as we are in the proud situation of legislating to perhaps its richest and most important part, and hence looked up to by its almost countless inhabitants for protection, instruction, government,--nothing can be more obvious than that it is just as binding upon us to acquaint ourselves with their wants, in order to these being provided for and relieved, as it is that we should calculate upon the wealth of their commerce, or the rank and influence which our governors, judges and magistrates should hold among them. Unhappily, however, prior to the times of Sir William Jones, knowledge of this kind was scarcely accessible to the bulk of society; and since that period, notwithstanding his glowing predictions to the contrary (in the preface to his "Persian Grammar"), the study of Oriental literature has seldom been carried beyond its first elements.... It is not my intention to dwell here, with the admirable Sir William Jones, on the beauty of their poetry, the value of their sentiments as moralists or philosophers, or the almost boundless extent and variety of their languages; but on the paramount necessity of our possessing an accurate knowledge of their countries, histories, |232 laws, commerce, connections, tactics, antiquities, and the like, for purely practical purposes. Other considerations, indeed, will, and ought to, weigh with the divine, the gentleman and the scholar; and here, perhaps, our knowledge of philology may be mentioned as likely to receive as much improvement as any science cultivated in polite society possibly can.

'It is customary, I know, to look to the universities for the tone of learning in any country; but in this respect these bodies are with us very inadequately provided for. The majority of students is interested in other pursuits, while those which are intended for the East are expected to keep terms at one or other of the seminaries provided by the Honourable Company. The utmost, therefore, that can be brought to bear here upon the ardpur of youth, or to stimulate the enterprising to the toil of years, which is, indeed, necessary to a moderate acquaintance with the languages of the East, is, perhaps, a professorship with an endowment of forty pounds a year, accompanied with duties and restraints of no ordinary nature. And the natural consequence has been, that whatever may have been known on these subjects, few have been found hardy enough to undertake laborious and expensive works with no |233 other prospect than of being eulogised by their biographers as having "immortalised and ruined themselves." Our institution, therefore, will, I trust, even here be the means of creating a stimulus to the cultivation of learning, for which, indeed, some provision has been made, and which the greatest ornaments of our Church and nation have deemed of the very highest importance. I mean that which immediately bears on the study of the Christian Scriptures, an acquaintance with the Hebrew and its sister dialects. As things formerly were, a Whelock, Castell or Pococke may have delivered lectures, but, as it was then facetiously said, "the lecture-room would exhibit an Arabia deserta rather than an Arabia felix"; and for the most obvious of all reasons, namely, that where neither emolument nor consideration are to be had, there will never be any considerable public effort made. In this point of view, therefore, I believe that under prudent government our institution may be productive of the greatest public good in filling up a chasm in our means of information which nothing else could effect. And I think I may say that whether we consider the amazing extent of its operations, the unprecedented support which in so short a time it has experienced, the aggregate |234 quantity of literary power concentrated in its Committee, or the number of works of the first importance which it already has in the progress of publication, to have projected and brought into active operation such an institution, cannot but be gratifying to everyone (and particularly to yourself) who took any part in its formation.--I have the honour to be, dear sir, your most obliged humble servant,

THE TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR.

'CAMBRIDGE, Jan. 1829.'

'The Arabic manuscripts of this work are three in number, and are all copies of the same abridgment. They were originally bequeathed to the library of the University of Cambridge by the late Mr Burckhardt, where they may at any time be seen. It is, indeed, much to be regretted that they are only abridgments; but as they contain much curious and valuable information, and that obtained at a time of very considerable interest, namely, when the Tartars were making progress in Asia Minor, and the Empire of Hindustan was verging towards its final subjugation to the Mogul dynasty, I have thought it would be quite unpardonable to let the manuscript lie any longer untranslated, especially |235 as its publication may possibly be the means of bringing the entire work to light, which Mr Burckhardt has assured us is still in existence.

'The Sheikh Ibn Batuta, the author of these travels, left his native city, Tanjiers, for the purpose of performing the pilgrimage, in the 725th year of the Hejira (A.D. 1324-5). After passing through many cities he came to Alexandria, where he arrived in the evening. He was rather poor, and would not enter the city until he had witnessed some favourable omen. He sat accordingly near the gate until all the persons had gone in, and it was nearly time for closing the gate. The keeper of the gate was irritated at his delay, and said to him, ironically, "Enter, Mr Judge." He replied, "Yes, judge! if that be God's will." After this he entered one of the colleges, and attended to reading, following the example of others who had attained to eminence, until his name and reputation for modesty and religion reached the ears of the King of Egypt. About this time the judge of Alexandria died. The number of learned men in Alexandria who expected this appointment was large; but of these the Sheikh was one who entertained no expectations of it. The Sultan, however, sent it to him, and he was admitted to the office, which he filled |236 with great integrity and moderation, and hence obtained great fame. In his narrative Ibn Batuta gives the reason for his further travels. "One of the greatest saints in Alexandria at this time was the learned and pious Imam, Borhan Oddin El Aaraj, a man who had the power of working miracles." (It is generally believed among the Mohammedans that every saint has it in his power to perform miracles, without laying claim to the office of a prophet. This kind of miracle they term "karamet," benevolent action.) "I one day went in to him, when he said, 'I perceive that you are fond of travelling into various countries.' I said 'Yes,' although I had at that time no intention of travelling into very distant parts. He replied, 'You must visit my brother Farid Oddin in India, and my brother Rokn Oddin Ibn Zakarya in Sindia, and also my brother Borhan Oddin in China, and when you see them, present my compliments to them.' I was astonished at what he said, and determined with myself to visit those countries. Nor did I give up my purpose till I had met all the three mentioned by him, and presented his compliments to them."'

The subjoined list of Arabic and Persian works consulted by Dr Lee in the preparation of 'Ibn |237 Batuta' for publication is a proof of the thoroughness of all his work, and of his untiring energy and zeal.

'As I have occasionally cited some Arabic and Persian works in the notes, I take the opportunity here of apprising the reader what they are, and where the copies cited are to be found.'

1. The 'Rauzat El Safa,' a very celebrated and well-known history of Persia, written by Mir Khand in seven volumes. The copy here cited formerly belonged to the Right Honourable Lord Teignmouth, and is now in my own possession. Copies, however, are to be found in most of the public libraries.

2. The 'Khulasat El Akhbar,' an abridgment of the Persian historians generally. This is also in my possession.

3. The 'Gwalior Namah,' a history of the fortress of Gwalior, by Heraman Ibn Kardhar Das, the Munshi, a small, neatly-written quarto, bearing the class mark 324 of the library of Eton College. From this the notice of Gwalior has been taken.

4. 'Tarikhi Badayuni,' a valuable history of Hindustan, by Abd El Razzak Maluk-Shah of Samarcand. A neatly-written, thick folio, bearing the class mark of the Eton Library 439.

5. The first volume of the 'Matlaa El Saadain,' by Abd El Razzak Ibu Is-hak of Samarcand, a |238 general history of Persia. A moderate-sized folio, incorrectly written, bearing the Eton class mark 366. These three volumes were lent me for this work by the kindness of the Reverend the Provost and Fellows of Eton College, for which, and the very ready access they afforded me to their valuable library, I take this opportunity of returning my warmest thanks.

6. 'The Tabakati Akbari,' a history of the Emperors of Hindustan prior to the times of Akbar, compiled, at that monarch's request, by Nizam Oddin Mohammed Mukim of Herat. The copy cited formerly belonged to my late Valued and learned friend, Jonathan Scott, Esq., of Shrewsbury; it is a thick quarto, very neatly written, and is now in my possession.

7. The citations from 'Ferishta' are taken from a copy also in my possession.

8. The 'Kanun El Tijarat' is a well-written work, in Persian, on the nature and value of jewels, silks, etc., taken from the 'A-ini Akbari, and other works, written originally in the Hindustani language by Iatimad El Daulat, and translated into the Persian, A.D. 1806. The copy is in my possession; it is a thin, neatly-written folio.

9. The 'A-ini Akbari,' a most valuable work, |239 giving a statistical account of Hindustan, with particulars as to its officers, customs, etc., compiled under the superintendence of Abul Fazl, prime minister to the Emperor Akbar; large folio, in the University library of Cambridge; this work has been translated into English by Mr Gladwin, but the copies are very scarce; our own library does not possess one.

10. The 'Medical Dictionary of Ali Ibu El Husain,' known by the Haji Zain El Attar. This work is entitled Ikhtiarati Badiai, and contains a list of medicines, simple and compound, arranged according to the Arabic alphabet. It is neatly written, and in the Persian language. The form is small folio, and contains 300 closely written pages. The copy is in my possesion.

11. The 'Dabistan,' a very valuable, and interesting work on the religious opinions of the Orientals, usually ascribed to Mohammed Mohsin Fani of Kashmire; the real author, however, seems to be unknown. This work was first brought to notice by Sir William Jones, but has not yet been translated, if we except the first book on the religion of the ancient Persians, which was translated and published in India by Mr Gladwin. The whole Persian work was printed in Calcutta in |240 1811. Two MS. copies of this work are in my possession, one of which is the very copy noticed by Sir William Jones. If I can ever command leisure sufficient, it is my intention to translate this work.

12. The 'Heft-Iklim,' a very valuable biographical and geographical work in Persian, by Anun Ahmed Razi, giving notices of some of the most eminent Persian writers of every clime. The copy here cited is in large folio, very thick, and neatly written; it was lately purchased by the Public Library of Cambridge.

The 'Maathari Rahimi,' a valuable and elaborate history of some of the emperors and other eminent men of Tartary, Hindustan, etc., by Mohammed Abd El Baki Rahimi El Nahawendi. The copy used by me formerly belonged to Mr Hindley, but has lately been purchased by the Cambridge Public Library. It is fairly written, in large folio, and contains perhaps 2000 leaves.

13. The 'Nafahat El Ins,' a history of the Mohammedan saints, by the celebrated Jami. This work contains all that was most valuable in two writers who had preceded him, together with considerable additions made by himself from other works, as well as from information obtained by personal inquiry. It was dedicated to the Emir |241 Nizam Oddin Ali Shir, A.H. 881, A.D. 1476; but, according to a note at the end, in 1478. The work, which is in my possession, is a large octavo of about three hundred and fifty leaves, very neatly but not very accurately written in Pattan in Hindustan, A.D. 1612.

14. The 'Kulasat El Ansab,' a short history of the Afghans, by Ibn Shah Aalam, of the tribe Kot-ha-Khail. A work in one small octavo volume-- Persian. There are two copies of this work in the Public Library of Cambridge.

The Arabic works cited are the following:--

15. The 'Kitab El Isharat,' by El Harawi. This is an account of the pilgrimages performed by the Sheikh Ali of Herat early in the thirteenth century. The book is but short, and, according to the author, contains only an abstract of a larger work, which had been taken from him by the King of England when engaged in the Crusades. This abstract was made from memory; but of this the author does not fail to remind his reader when treating of particulars which might have escaped him. I had the use of two copies -- one in the collection of Mr Burckhardt in our Public Library, the other was lent me by the kindness of Mr Lewin. These copies are near the size of our duodecimos. Mr |242 Burckhardt's contains part of two copies, the latter of which was written 537 years ago, perhaps in the time of the author. I have generally cited him by the name of El Harawi.

16. 'Abulfeda's Geography.' The copy used by me is in the handwriting of Erpenius, which is probably a transcript of that in the University Library of Leyden. It is in very large folio, and, like its original, presents many unintelligible readings; it is preserved in the Public Library at Cambridge, and has the class marks, Dd. I, ii. This work is, I understand, either entirely, or for the most part, given in a translation by Reiske in 'Buesching's Magazine'--a work published some years ago in Germany, but which has never come to my hands.

17. The 'Geographical Work of Edrisi' is too well known to need any description. I used the Roman impression.

18. The 'Marasid El Itlaa.' This is a sort of geographical dictionary, not unlike our gazetteers. It is occasionally cited in M. de Lacy's ' Chrestomathie Arabe.' Like all other Arabic dictionaries, it is very defective; otherwise, many places unnoticed by me would have been more exactly described.

19. The 'Geographical Work of Ibn El Wardi' is too well known to need description. The copy I |243 have cited belongs to the Public Library at Cambridge, and bears the class mark, Ll. 5, 30. There is also another copy in the collection of Mr Burckhardt

20. The 'Yatimat El Dahar,' a remarkably elegant and interesting work on the principal Arabian poets, with some extracts from their writings, compiled by A.H. 384, A.D. 994, by Abu Mansur El Thaalabi. The work is occasionally cited by M. de Lacy in the second edition of his 'Chrestomathie Arabe.' The copy used in this work is a large-sized, neatly-written octavo, containing about 250 leaves. It formerly belonged to Mr Hindley, but it is now in my possession.

21. The 'Sukkardan,' a work by Ibn Hajela on Egypt. It is occasionally noticed by M. de Lacy in his 'Chrestomathie Arabe.' The copy here used is a moderately-sized octavo, tolerably well written. It is to be found in the collection of Mr Burckhardt in the Public Library of Cambridge.

22. The 'Khulasat Tahkik El Zunun,' a biographical dictionary, apparently an abridgment of 'Haji Khalfa'; but of this I am not certain, as the copy of 'Haji Khalfa,' with which I have compared it, contains scarcely half the number of works of which this gives some account. I suspect |244 however that this copy of 'Haji Khalfa' is only an abridgment itself. The Epitomator's name is Kamal Oddin Abu Futuh Ibn Mustafa Ibu Kamal Oddin Ibu Ali El Sidiki. The book is in Mr Burckhardt's collection.

23. Another book from which some citations have been made is Ibn Khaldun's 'History of the Berbers'; and as this book is extremely scarce and valuable, I may be excused if I describe it a little more particularly. The full title, then, which stands on the first page is as follows:--'The Seventh Part of the Book of Examples and of the Diwan of the Commencements and Accounts, on the Times of the Arabs, Persians, Berbers and others contemporary with them, who came into supreme power; a publication of the Priest and learned Sheikh, the very learned Wali Oddin Abu Zaid Abd El Rahman, son of the Priest and very learned Abu Abd Allah Mohammed Ibu Khaldun, of the sect of Ibn Malik, and of the country of Hadramant.'

The work is closely and accurately written in the Mogrebine hand, in large quarto, upon stout, well-polished paper. The 'History of the Berbers' covers three hundred and sixty-nine pages. The remainder of the book, which contains |245 seventy-seven pages, is an account of the family and life of the author, written by himself.... The cessation from writing it out was on the th of Moharram, in the year 1008 A.D., July 21, 1599. This book does not belong to the University Library of Cambridge, as some have supposed, but to the Rev. Richard Edward Kerrick, A.M., son of our late librarian, the Rev. Thomas Kerrick, A.M., who informed rne that it had belonged to his father, which is no doubt the truth, as an engraving containing his arms and name, Samuel Kerrick, S.T.P., is pasted within the cover at the beginning of the book. Upon discovering to Mr Kerrick, our librarian, the character and rareness of this work, I was permitted to copy and translate it, upon tendering a bond of five hundred pounds ensuring its safe return at the end of two years.'

Dr Lee's valuable library was sold after his death.

|246

CHAPTER XVII

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO DR LEE, AND LIST OF WORKS.

'PROVIDENCE, March 29, 1834.

'SIR,--At the annual meeting of the Rhode Island Historical Society, held July 19th, 1833, you were unanimously elected an honorary member, and it is with no small degree of pleasure, as the society's organ, I announce the same to you. Its objects are sufficiently indicated by its name; its origin, rise and progress are spoken of in the preface to the first vol. of its collections, a copy of which, together with your diploma, is now forwarded.

In the upper left-hand corner of the diploma will be seen the State's Coat-of-Arms; in the corresponding right-hand corner two medallions; the one intended for Roger Williams and the other for Wm. Coddington, two of the first settlers of the State. They are fancy sketches, however, as we have |247 never succeeded in finding a portrait or likeness of either. The main design is emblematical of the Present, the Past and the Future. In the centre is a mirror, from before which Hope has withdrawn a curtain, and a representation of the Future is exhibited therein. On the right, the Past is delineated by an Indian in his light canoe paddling down the bay. Mount Haup, the once favourite residence of the noted warrior King Philip, the chief of the Narragansetts, being seen in the distance. On the left, the Present is represented by a view of the Pawtucket River and Falls, with factory on either side. As this is truly a manufacturing State, as the village of Pawtucket consists chiefly of cotton establishments which adorn the river to its very source, and, moreover, as the first Factory ever erected in the country stands immediately above these Falls, the scene selected is quite appropriate, although apparently perhaps as destitute of beauty as the conception may be of classic taste. The following is the device contained on the seal: viz., around the outer margin is a circular raised band with the words and figures, Rhode Island Historical Society, 1822, within which band is a triangle composed of three raised lines with the words Mooshasuck, 1636, on |248 the line forming the base thereof; Aquidueck, 1638, on the line forming the right side; and Shawomet, 1642, on that forming the left side of said triangle; and within the centre of the same, a foul anchor. These are the Indian names with the dates of the first three settlements within the State.

'Everything relating to the early history of our Country, and more especially of our State, is highly desirable. There are numerous manuscripts, books, pamphlets and loose sheets of this description which would be of much value to us, but are unattainable here; yet such are sometimes met with at the book-stalls, antiquarian sales, etc., in London and other parts of England, sold for a trifle, and perhaps used as waste-paper, no one noticing them who deems them of sufficient importance to merit preservation. Should any such come under your observation, or to your knowledge, you would confer a favour by purchasing them for, and in behalf of, the society; and the expenses attendant thereupon shall at all times be promptly paid.--I am, sir, with sentiments of respect, yours, etc.,

THOMAS H. WEBB.

'Rev. SAMUEL LEE, D.D.'

|249

LIST OF DR LEE'S WORKS.

1816. -- The Syriac New Testament.

1817-18. -- Edited the Malay Scriptures, Arabic and Coptic Psalter and Gospels, translated Genesis into Persian, superintended the Hindustani Prayer-Book, and Morning and Evening Prayers in Persic.

1820. -- A New Zealand Grammar.

1821. -- A Letter to Mr J. Bellamy on his new Translation of the Bible, with some Strictures on a Tract, entitled 'Remarks,' etc., Oxford, 1820.

1821 -22-- A Vindication of Certain Strictures on a Pamphlet entitled 'Remarks,' etc., Oxford, 1820, in answer to 'A Reply,' etc., Oxford, 1821.

1823. -- The Syriac Old Testament.

1824. -- Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mahommedanism, by Henry Martyn, and some of the most Eminent Writers of Persia, translated and explained, to which is appended an additional Tract on the same question; and in a Preface, Some Account |250 of a Former Controversy on this Subject, with Extracts from it.

1827;--A Grammar of the Hebrew Language.

1828.--A Grammar of the Persian Language, by Sir W. Jones, Revised, with considerable additions.

1829.--Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta Bagsteriana. 1829.--The Travels of Ibn Batuta, translated from the abridged Arabic MS. copies, with Notes.

1830.--Six Sermons on the Study of the Holy Scriptures, preached before the University of Cambridge, 1827-8, to which are annexed Two Dissertations, the first on the Reasonableness of the Orthodox View of Christianity, as opposed to the Rationalism of Germany; the second, on the Interpretation of Prophecy generally, with an Original Exposition of the Book of Revelation.

1832.--Grammar of the Hebrew Language, second edition. |251

1837.--A Translation of the Book of Job, with an Introduction and Commentary.

1840.--A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee and English.

1841.--Grammar of the Hebrew Language, third edition.

1842.--A Syriac Version of the 'Theophania,' by Eusebius.

1842-3.--The Prayer-Book, translated into Arabic. 1843.--A Translation of the 'Theophania,' by Eusebius.

1843.--Tracts on Tithes.

1849.--An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress and End of Prophecy.

1849.--A Letter to G. S. Faber, B.D., containing an Interpretation of 2 Peter iii.

1849.--A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Glo'ster and Bristol.

1849-51.--The New Testament translated into Arabic, and the Old as far as Numbers.

1851.--The Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St John investigated.

Colston & Coy., Limited, Printers, Edinburgh.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 15th August 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode. Hebrew text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPTiberian font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_star.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea: On the Star [Spurious]

The Journal of Sacred Literature, th series vol. 9 (1866) p. 117; vol. 10 (1867), pp.150-164.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA ON THE STAR.

THE tract which I now offer to the readers of The Journal of Sacred Literature, is ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea; and there is no reason, so far as I can see, to doubt the correctness of the statement. It is entitled: Concerning the Star; showing how and through what the Magi recognized the Star, and that Joseph did not take Mary as his wife. Consequently, it stands in a certain connection both with parts of the Chronicle and with the Quaestiones, edited by Mai in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, t. i., and his Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, t. iv., p. 219 foll.

This tract is, I believe, now published for the first time. The Greek original appears to have perished; and the Syriac fragment De stella quae Magis apparuit, given by Mai in the Nova Patrum Bibl., t. iv., p. 281, is evidently extracted from a different work. I have taken it from a manuscript in the Nitrian collection, Add. 17,142, a small octavo volume of seventeen leaves, dating apparently from the sixth century. The text, which I have reproduced as faithfully as possible, is, I am sorry to say, very corrupt; but I shall endeavour to correct at least some of the mistakes in the notes to the translation, which I hope to publish in the next number of this Journal.

WILLIAM WRIGHT.

24th March, 1866.

[Syriac of pp.118-136 omitted from online text]

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA ON THE STAR.

"ICH habe den seltsamen Tractat über den Stern mit Interesse durchgelesen, obgleich er ganz ändern Inhalts ist, als ich erwartete. Meinen Freund Gutschmid interessieren die Königslisten sehr, und er ist schon dabei, alle nach ihren Quellen zu ordnen. Die assyrischen Könige gehn auf Ktesias zurück. Das persische Verzeichniss findet sich eben so bei Malala. Den König [Syriac] erkannte Gutschmid sogleich als a llos, und diese Conjectur bestätigte ihm der Text des Malala. Nur mit dem Verzeichniss der Könige seit Alexander ist Gutschmid nicht im Heinen. Uebrigens bestätigt Gutschmid meine entschiedene Zweifel an der Echtheit des Werkchens, welches zwar vielfach auf Eusebius' Chronik zurückgeht, aber doch von einem weit weniger hervorragenden Mann geschrieben sein muss. Ich glaube sogar, der Urtext ist Syrisch, hauptsächlich weil die Bibelstellen und biblischen Anklänge mehr Aehnlichkeit mit der Peshito, als mit den LXX zeigen."

So writes my friend Professor Noeldeke of Kiel (21st May, 1866), and I am glad to find that this little Syriac tract "on the Star" should have proved so interesting, not only to a linguist like himself, but also to a historical critic like Von Gutschmid.

With regard to the authenticity of the work, I am quite prepared to give it up, now that I have studied it more carefully myself, and have heard the opinion of Noeldeke and Ceriani, and the reasons on which that opinion is based. Considering the age of the manuscript, which certainly cannot be assigned to a later date than the sixth century, there can, I think, be but little doubt that this tract is the production of a writer who lived not long after the time of Eusebius----say, towards A.D. 400 ----and who made use in composing it of the first and second books of the Maccabees, the Chronicle of Eusebius, the works of Ctesias, and the writings of one or two other ancient chroniclers.

With regard to my translation, I have done, on the present occasion, precisely as heretofore; that is to say, I have striven to be as accurate and literal as possible, my main object being to translate, not to comment and annotate. The names of the Assyrian and Median kings, from Ascatades down to Astyages, I have reproduced in Greek letters.a This will convey to such of my readers as are not orientalists, some idea of the corrupt state of the manuscript. The names themselves, as well as those of the Persian kings from Cyrus to the last Darius, may, |151 in general, be easily identified and restored by referring to the lists of Ctesias (ed. Müller, appended to Dindorf s Herodotus, 1844), Eusebius (Chronicon bipartitum, ed. Aucher, Yenice, 1818; Chronicorum Canonum libri duo, ed. Mai and Zohrab, Milan, 1818), Jerome (in the eighth volume of the Benedictine edition, 1734-1742), Georgius Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, 1829), Joannes Malala (ed. Dindorf, 1831), and the Chronicon Paschale (ed. Dindorf, 1832). The list of kings, however, from the time of Alexander to that of Augustus Caesar, I have not yet traced to its source, and must now leave it to the care of others. These names I have reproduced in Roman capitals, as several of them do not admit of being transcribed into Greek.

W. WRIGHT.

London, September, 1866.

a I had written "Greek uncials," but for printers' reasons I have had to submit to the use of small type.

CONCERNING THE STAR; SHOWING HOW AND THROUGH WHAT THE MAGI RECOGNIZED THE STAR, AND THAT JOSEPH DID NOT TAKE MARY AS HIS WIFE.

I WILL write and inform thee, our dear brother, concerning the righteous of old, and concerning the handing down of the histories of their deeds; and how, and through what, the Magi recognized the Star, and came and worshipped our Lord with their offerings; partly from the Holy Scriptures, and partly as we have found in the true chronicles, which were written and composed by men of old in various cities.

The ancient scribes testify, that everything which was written by the care of Jason in five large books,¹ from the year 88 of the kingdom of the Greeks till the year 177 (B.C. 223----134), they themselves abridged hastily in two books, from the year 137 (B.C. 174), omitting also the things that were done within the space of fifty years. But as regards other things, with the care that they took, they entered into the repository of the archives of their fathers, where were written and deposited the acts of the remaining histories of the Prophets, which were not written in the books of the Prophets; and they found in the chronicles, that the Tabernacle of Witness which Moses made, and the Ark which he constructed, and the Altar of Propitiation which he consecrated,----these the Prophet Jeremiah took, and concealed them in a cave of the mountain on which Moses used to pray.² And they also found in these chronicles, that the fire which Moses received from Heaven, and with which the priests used to minister, till the time they went |152 down to Babylon, ---- it too was found to have been buried and concealed by Jeremiah the Prophet in a pit which was in watery ground;³ and after seventy years it was discovered; and with it the captive priests used to minister on the altar, until the appearance of our Lord. And many other things, which the scribe Aristobulus and his colleagues ⁴ had written in the book of records, and in the epistles of the kings of the house of David and Hezekiah and Josiah and their companions,⁵ were written and deposited (there). And when they had found them, they collected them, and wrote them out in the volumes of their books. And through the care of these ancient writers, when they saw that the Jews went to the city of Tyre to praise Herakles, a hero of the Greeks,⁶ ---- this too they put into writing; and that Andronicus used treachery towards Onias, the high priest and a famous man, and slew him at Daphne, which lies by Antioch, without any crime,⁷ ----not even this did they neglect.

And it was found in the true chronicles of the Persians, which were written and deposited there from ancient generations, that Jerusalem was a warlike city from its (earliest) days, and did not make much account of kings, and great fortresses were in the midst of it.

And when Sihon, the king of the Amorites, was slain, Moses said: "Now is fulfilled that which was spoken in the ancient proverbs: 'A fire shall go out of Heshbon, and a flame from the city of Sihou, and shall devour the city of Moab, and all the worshippers of the altars of Arnon.'"⁸ And when Moses heard that this was written in the books of the Amorites, he too added and put it into his book.

And when King Saul persecuted David, David recited to him some of the ancient proverbs, and said: '"From the wicked proceedeth wickedness, but verily my hand shall not be upon thee;' and because of this my hand is not upon thee, but the hand of the Lord hath power over thee."⁹

And when the people went up from Babylon, and there was a great strife concerning their going up, king Darius commanded, and the books of the records and acts of the preceding kings were called for; and there was found among their chronicles a roll,¹⁰ in which was written: "I truly, Cyrus, king |153 of Persia, have commanded that the people of the Hebrews should go up from Babylon to Jerusalem, along with the vessels of the service of the house of the Lord." And when king Darius heard this, he too affixed his seal to this order, and commanded that, whosoever should disobey this order, a beam should be pulled down from his house, and they should make it into a cross, and hang him upon it, and that his house should be given up to plunder.¹¹ And he added of his own (goods) expenses for the house of the Lord.¹²

And Job, whose time was anterior to that of Moses, ---- before that Moses narrated the history of the creation of Adam, Job said unto his friends, as he had found in the tradition of the generations before him: "This we have found in the world, since Adam was created upon the earth. Who is he that made man upon the face of the earth?" ¹³ And to his Lord he said: "What shall I do unto Thee, O Maker of man? in return for Thy hands, which have laboured and made me, and fashioned me and framed me, when Thou didst curdle me like cheese of milk."¹⁴

Moses himself too found many things, which were going down and coming by tradition from mouth to ear, from one generation to another; and he put them into his book, although he left out many things which could not be comprised (in it). For that which is said of Abraham, that he was enjoining his children and his household to keep the commandments of the Lord,¹⁵ is older than the laws of Moses by four hundred and thirty years. For these commandments, which Abraham was enjoining his household (to keep), were received by him, as it were by tradition, from Shem; and Shem too received them from his father Noah; and Noah received them from Enoch; and Enoch received them from Adam; and Adam received them from his Lord. For the barbarous races who keep (the commandments) 'Thou shalt not kill,' and 'Thou shalt not steal,' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and destroy wizards,¹⁶ and so forth, ---- this is not (done) as it were by the law of Scripture, but by the law of the mind of ancient tradition, which is older than the law that Moses wrote. For it was not of the law of Scripture that Joseph was afraid, and did not come nigh unto |154 his master's wife;¹⁷ nor was it of the law of Scripture that the king of Gedar¹⁸ (Gerar) was afraid; he and his nobles, and did not come nigh unto Rebecca; nor was it of the law of Scripture that Lot was afraid, and said to the people of Sodom, "Do not do this disgraceful and shameful thing to the men who have entered under the shadow of my roof;¹⁹ but of that law and mind which was born with the ancient generations, and went on, and came by tradition of their children down to the time of Moses, who put into writing those things which were written on the tablets of the heart; for "the law was added because of falling away."²⁰

And as many things, which Moses also neglected, are found in chronicles that were written and laid up, so too the history of the Star which the Magi saw, was found in a chronicle which was written and laid up in Arnon, the border of the Moabites and Ammonites. And this history was taken from the place in which it was written, and was conveyed away and deposited in the fortress of Achmethan,²¹ which is in Persia. Because that, in the time of Moses, and both before and after Moses, the Assyrians were lords over the land of the Moabites and of the Ammonites, where Balaam said, "A Star shall rise out of Jacob, and a Head shall arise in Israel."²² And it was not merely over the land of the children of Lot that the Assyrians were lords, but also over the land of Sihon and of Og, the kings of the Amorites, and over the whole land of Palestine, and over Phoenicia, and Syria, and all Mesopotamia; seeing that the nations sent up tribute to them, as if subdued under their hands, and gave them hostages, and offered them crowns of victory. And whenever one place rebelled against another, and they commenced war against one another, (word) was written and sent to the Assyrian kings, and as they commanded, so it was (done), and those who rebelled received chastisement.

And along with these things, both the deeds which Moses did in inner Arabia, and in outer Arabia, and in Rekem of Gea, and in the regions which were round about the cities of Moab, and the history of the Star, which Balaam spoke, and so forth;----these things the princes and judges of those places |155 wrote down, and sent and made them known; and they were read before ασκρτοσ, the king of the Assyrians, who was reigning at the time in which they were done. And he commanded, and the record of these matters was deposited in the fortress of Achmethan, where they were preserved among the books of the kings of Assyria, as was also the custom in other countries.

And after ασκρτσ [ασκδτσ], there reigned after him αμυντοσ there in Assyria, when Moses was between the Amorites and the Edomites, and had come to the city of Petra, which is called in the language of Mesopotamia Rekem of Gea.

And when the people encamped over against 'Ad'ira, which is 'Adu'ira (Aroer), that lies in the valley of Arnon, which separates the Midianites, the children of Kentura (Keturah), the concubine of Abraham, from the children of Lot, Abraham's brother's sou, in the days of Balak the son of Zippor, the king of the Moabites; and when Balak saw the people that were with Moses, which had come near to his borders, he despised them, and neglected the wars which he had witnessed; how Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had taken possession by war of the land of the Moabites, carrying away hostages from the Moabites, was not able to stand before this people, who had slain him and destroyed him at Jahaz;²³ nor was the king of Canaan, who dwelt in the south, able to stand before this people, and they called his place a devoted place.²⁴ Of these things Balak, the king of Moab, was afraid, and he trembled, and was frightened to wage war with Moses, before whom neither the kings of Egypt had stood, nor the kings of other very mighty nations, nor had even the terrible sea itself dared to stand before Moses. And Balak called the elders of the Midianites and his nobles, and said to them:²⁵ "This Moses, who, lo, has terrified the whole earth, and slain the kings that were around us,----and behold, the people that are with him are |156 grazing on our land as the ox that grazeth in the field, ---- is he not that Moses, who was made the overseer and shepherd of Jethro, the priest of your gods, whom ye received as a guest, and who was protected among you as a stranger? And lo, today he is expelling us from our lands, and driving us out of our territories. But let us abstain from war, and let us send and call Balaam the soothsayer, to come and curse them; because they are the children of Jacob, who trembled and was afraid of the curses of his father Isaac, as we have all heard from our fathers." And they sent after Balaam the soothsayer. And the messengers went and found him at Urem,²⁶ which is situated over against Turär, the eastern (part) of Mesopotamia; and they said to him: "The king of the Moabites, and the princes of the Midianites, have sent us after thee, that thou mayest go with us and curse the people that has come out of Egypt." But Balaam, through his craftiness, because he knew that the power of his word was not sufficient to enable him to do this, and to stand before six hundred thousand drawers of the sword, laid hold of a pretext, and said to those who had come after him: "Be ye witnesses unto me henceforth, that I fear lest perchance the Lord should not permit me to curse the people and destroy it by means of words and maledictions." And when he went unto Balak the king, instead of the curses which he was looking to hear from him, he heard blessings from him. And when Balaam saw that Balak began to be vexed with him, because, instead of curses, he heard from him something which he did not expect, Balaam said unto Balak: "The. princes whom thou didst send after me, can testify that I said unto them, 'Whatever the Lord sayeth unto me, I will say, and not what Balak says unto me, who has sent you unto me.' And upon this condition I arose and came with them unto thee, to tell thee that the legions of the Chittites and the armies of the Greeks are about to issue forth from the whole land of the Macedonians, and to subdue the Assyrians in wrath and the |157 land of Nimrod in anger.²⁷ And after this happens, then shall rise the Star out of the children of Jacob,²⁸ whom thou didst wish to keep in darkness; and the Head shall arise in Israel, to come and destroy whom thou didst send after me; and He shall destroy their mighty men, and shall subdue the whole seed of Seth the son of Adam." But Balak the king and his nobles,----when they heard that the mighty Assyrians, who were rulers over them, were going to be subdued under the yoke of the king of the Greeks, and the whole earth (was going to be subjected) to Him on whose account the Star was going to rise, destroying their mighty men,----laid aside the fear of the people who were abiding over against them.

But that king Balak might not come to disgrace and (incur) the punishment of death from amunts king of the Assyrians, he wrote and informed him of the things that Balaam said. And he commanded, and the letter was laid up in his archives, as was written above; and they received this writing, this history being handed down and coming from people to people through the whole land of the Assyrians.

But the Assyrians, because they were born and brought up in the doctrine of the Chaldaeans (astrologers) of their country and of the soothsayers their countrymen, according to what they had received from their mother Babylon, from whom, began astrology and soothsaying and magic, just as from Egypt (began) incantation,----on this account they received the word of Balaam the soothsayer, the disciple of Babylon, and were not able to refuse credit to his word, lest the whole doctrine, on which they took their stand, should be proved false; for Balaam was called "the soothsayer," because of the doctrine of astrology in which he was brought up. And as to his being besides called a prophet, because his word turned out true in regard to the legions of the Chittites which issued forth, and about the Star which arose,----although in these things indeed he was true and trustworthy, yet because he was a false witness, and said: "I see no iniquity in Israel,"²⁹ the children of Jacob slew him" as a liar.

To be brief,----the tradition of the history of Balaam was handed down and came from king αμυντροσ (αμυντοσ) to king |158 βχοσ (βλχοσ), in whose days Othniel the son of Kenaz was ruler over the Hebrews.

And from βχοσ (βλχοσ) to king βλπτωρ (or βλφτωρ), in whose days Ehur (Ehud) killed Eglon the king of the Moabites.

And from (λ)βκροσ (or βχροσ)³⁰ to king πραιρσ, in whose days the Philistines subdued the Hebrews.

And from πραιροσ (πραιδοσ) to king σωροσ, in whose days the Hebrews were delivered from beneath the hand of their enemies.

And from σωροσ to king πλμροσ, in whose days Jael killed Sisera the general.

And from (λ)πλμροσ to king πισοσ, in whose days Gideon slew the children of Midian.

And from (λ)πισοσ to king σρσμοσσ; in whose days Abimelech slew his seventy brethren.

And from σρμοσσ to king μνθροσ, in whose days died Tola, the son of Abimelech's uncle.

And from (λ)μνθροσ to king τομοσ, in whose days Nephthah (Jephthah) offered his daughter a sacrifice to God.

And from (λ)τομσοσ to king τυασσ, in whose days Samson died among the Philistines.

And from (λ)τυασσ to king θινοσ, in whose days died (Eli) ³¹ the high priest.

And from (λ)θινοσ ³² to king δρκλσ, in whose days Saul was slain on the hill of the Gibeonites, and David became king.

And from (λ)δκλσ (δρκλσ) to king ευπλσ, in whose days Solomon sat upon the regal throne.

And from (λ)ευπλσ to king αθνοσ, in whose days Jeroboam became king over Israel.

And from (λ)αθνοσ to king πτραιοσ; in whose days (Azariah) the son of Azur ³³ (Oded) the prophet said unto king Asa: "Because this people listened not unto the voice of the Lord |159 their God, there was no peace either to him that went out or to him that came in."

And from (λ)πραιοσ to king φτριοσ, in whose days the Lord smote Jehoram the son of Athaliah, the sister of Ahab, and his bowels came forth from his inside, and he died.

And from (λ)φρτισ to king ακρπζσ, in whose days Joash was slain by his servants.

And from (λ)βπρσ to king θισκων, in whose days Uzziah was smitten with leprosy.

And from (λ)θισκων to king αρβκσ, in whose days Menachem reigned over Israel.

And from αρβκσ to king σωσρμσ, in whose days Jotham built the gates of the house of the Lord.

And from σωσρμοσ to king μρκιοσ, in whose days Hezekiah opened the gates of the house of the Lord, which had been closed by Ahaz his father.

And from king (λ)μρκοσ, in whose days Manasseh made the image with four faces, to king αιρκσ, in whose days Manasseh returned and came up from Babylon, because he knew that the Lord was God.

And from (λ)αρικσ to king φρατροσ, in whose days Josiah burned the bones of the priests.

And from φρτροσ to king κυβσρσ, in whose days Daniel and Hananiah and their companions were led away captive to Babylon.

And from κυβσροσ to king αστβυγσ, in whose days the Babylonians laid waste Jerusalem.

And from αστιβγσ to Cyrus the king of the Persians, who proclaimed the return to the children of Israel, that they should go up from Babylon to Jerusalem.

All these kings of the Assyrians, from the days of Moses to Cyrus the Persian, were on their guard and watching to see when the word of Balaam would be fulfilled; and when the legions of the Chittites would issue forth from the land of the Macedonians; and how would be devastated the lands and regions of all Asia, and the city of Ephesus, and the districts of Pontus, and Galatia, and Cilicia, and all Syria, and the spacious country of Mesopotamia and of all the Parthians; and (how) they would pass on to Nineveh, the city of Nimrod, the first of all mighty men, and would wage war violently with the Assyrians, and conquer them and subdue them. |160

When then the Assyrians saw that their kingdom was taken away from them, and was given to the Persians, they thought that the great war of the Chittites too, of which they had been afraid, had passed away from them. For although at different times the Assyrians had had wars of and by themselves,----when the Babylonians waged war with them, and took away from them the kingdom; and again the Medes waged war with the Babylonians, and took away the kingdom from them also; and the Persians also waged war with the Medes, and the Persians conquered and won the kingdom;----yet they had had no fear in all these wars and struggles, because they knew that those who were overcome, were the brethren and associates of those who were victorious. For neither was it possible that Cyrus the Persian should succumb in war, because that in the days of Isaiah the prophet the gates of victory had been opened before Cyrus; nor was it possible that the gates should be shut in his face, because he was called the Anointed of the Lord.³⁴

And after Cyrus the Persian reigned Cambyses, at whose word Syria was laid waste, and Phœnicia, and Palestine, and other countries.

And from Cambyses (the tradition was handed down) to the first Darius, in whose days Ezra the scribe rebuilt the desolate places of Jerusalem.

And from Darius to king Artachshasht, in whose days Sanballat and Shimshai the scribe were hindering the people from rebuilding the desolate places of Jerusalem.

And from Artachshasht to king.....,³⁵ in whose days went up the remnant which had remained in Babylon, and some of the children of the captivity of the people.

And from..... to another Darius, in whose days went up Ezra the scribe, he and the priests and the Lévites, and were walking upon the wall of Jerusalem, and repeating the psalms of David for the completion of the building.

And from Darius to the last Artachshasht, in whose days the |161 furniture of Eliashib was thrown out into the street, because he had made for himself a house in the court of the house of God.³⁶

And from Artachshasht to the last Darius, who is the ram that Daniel foresaw,³⁷ butting westward and northward and southward; and there came a he-goat, and the legions of the Chittites with him, as Balaam had said, and waged war with Darius, king of the Medes and Babylonians and Assyrians and Persians, and overcame him, and slew him, and ravaged the people who were with him, and cast him down, and subdued the Assyrians under his power, and made them tributary to the kingdom of the Greeks, which was of old subject to the power of the Assyrians. The kingdom of the Jews too, which had also been subject to the children of the East, passed under the power of the Greeks.

And when the Persians saw that the word of Balaam had turned out true and become a fact, they were also specially concerned to see when the Star would arise and become visible, about which he spoke, meditating what might perchance happen at its rising, and whence it would appear, and concerning whom it would testify.

And after this Darius, whom Alexander the king of the Greeks slew, there arose king ARSUN, in whose days cities were increased in their buildings in the land of Syria.³⁸

And from (L)ARSUN (the tradition was handed down) to king ARTMRSUS, in whose days the Books of the Hebrews were translated into Greek.

And from (L)ARTMRSUS to king ATISHCHU, in whose days lived Jesus the son of Simeon, the priest, who was called Bar-Sira (the son of Sirach or Siracides).

And from (L)TISHIS to king APTSHURS (or APHTSHURS), in whose days the impure Jason ³⁹ received from the king of the Greeks the power over the children of his people; and he wrote the children of his people by the name of Antiochians ⁴⁰ through the praises of Herakles.⁴¹

And from (L)APTSHURS to king PRIDUS, in whose days the senators (συγκλητικοί) of the Romans wrote to the cities letters of greeting regarding the party of Jonathan and Simeon (Simon), the sons of Mattathias.⁴² |162

And from (L)MPRUS to king ASTRUS, in whose days Arshak (Arsaces) the Parthian waged war with the king of the Greeks and slew him.

And from (L)MPIZRUS to king ANSCUS, in whose days the kingdom of the Greeks was cut off.

And from (L)ISCUS ⁴³ to king PIRSHBUR (Pir-Shabur?), in whose days Augustus Caesar reigned over the Roman empire. And in his days was the glorious manifestation of our adored Saviour. And therefore in the days of this PIRSHBUR, who was called ZMRNS, there appeared the Star, both transformed in its aspect, and also conspicuous by its rays, and terrible and grand in the glorious extent of its light. And it overpowered by its aspect all the stars that were in the heavens, as it inclined to the depth, to teach that its Lord had come down to the depth, and ascended again to the height of its nature, to show that its Lord was God in His nature.

And when the Persians saw it, they were alarmed and afraid, and there fell upon them agitation and trembling, and fear got the mastery over them. And it was visible to the inner depths of the East alone; and the Persians, and the Huzites,⁴⁴ and the other peoples that were around them, knew that this was what Balaam had foretold; and this apparition and news flew through the whole East: "The king of Persia is preparing splendid offerings and gifts and presents, and is sending them by the hands of the Magi, the worshippers of fire." And because the king did not know where the Messiah was born, he commanded the bearers of the offerings, (saying): "Keep going towards the Star, and walking on the road along which it runs before you; and by day and night keep observing its light."

And when they set forth with the sun from their country, in which this sun (of ours) is born every day, the Star too with its rays was running on before them, accompanying them and going with them, and becoming as it were an attendant of theirs. And they halted in many places, passing by large fortified towns, and (through) various foreign tongues and different garbs, that were unlike to one another. And they halted outside of the cities, and not inside of the cities, until they reached the gates of Jerusalem, over which the Star stood still, entering and alarming Jerusalem and its inhabitants, and terrifying also the kings and priests. |163

And when they had entered within the gates of the city, it was concealed from them. And when the Magi saw that neither the kings, nor the priests, nor the chiefs of the people perceived the coming of the Messiah, and the Star was concealed, they knew that, because they were not worthy, they did not perceive the birth of the Son, nor were they worthy to behold the Star.

And when the Magi saw that the Star was hidden from them, they went forth by night from the city; and at that very moment the Star appeared unto them; and they went after the apparition of it, until it descended and stood still over the cave of Bethlehem, where was born the Messiah. And in that hour they opened their treasures, and offered unto Him many presents and gifts of offerings, bowing down in adoration before the Messiah, that their offerings might be accepted, and that they might be delivered from the hateful treachery which they had seen in Jerusalem, and might reach their own country without fear, and might carry back word to those who had sent them of what they had seen and heard.

And when they had made their offerings and passed the night there, the Star too stopped with them above the cave. And when they rose early in the morning to set out for their country, it was for the second time running on and going before them on the way, which was different from the former one; and until they had entered their city, it did not quit them, nor was it concealed as on the former occasion.

And when they had entered into the presence of the king who had sent them, they narrated to him all that they had heard and seen. These things too were written down there in inner Persia, and were stored up among the records of the deeds of their kings, where was written and stored up the history of the legions of the Chittites and the account of this Star, that they might be preserved where were preserved the histories of the ancients.

But Joseph and Mary, when they saw the treachery of king Herod and the envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, arose and took the Child, and went to a foreign country and of a barbarous tongue; and there they dwelt for the space of four |164 years, during which Herod continued to reign after (their flight). And at the commencement of the reign of Herod's son, they arose and went up from that land to the country of Galilee, Joseph and Mary, and our Lord along with them, and the five sons of Hannah (Anna), the first wife of Joseph. But Mary and our Lord were dwelling together in the house in which Mary received the Annunciation from the holy Angel.⁴⁵

* * * * * * * *

and eleven, in the second year of the coming of our Saviour, in the consulship of Caesar and of Capito, in the month of the latter Kanun, these Magi came from the East and worshipped our Lord at Bethlehem of the kings. And in the year four hundred and thirty (A.D. 119), in the reign of Hadrianus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and of Fulgus, in the episcopate of Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome, this concern arose in (the minds of) men acquainted with the Holy Books; and through the pains of the great men in various places this history was sought for and found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care.

Here ends the Discourse on the Star, which was composed by Mar Eusebius of Caesarea.

[Footnotes have been numbered and moved to the end]

1. a 2 Maccabees ii. 23.

2. b 2 Maccabees ii. 4, 5.

3. c 2 Maccabees i. 19, etc.

4. d [Syriac, Greek] See 2 Maccabees i. 10.

5. e 2 Maccabees ii. 13.

6. f 2 Maccabees iv. 18, 19.

7. g 2 Maccabees iv. 33-35.

8. h Numbers xxi. 27, 28.

9. i 1 Samuel xxiv. 12, 13.

10. j Ezra vi. 1, etc.

11. k Ezra vi. 11.

12. l Ezra vi. 8.

13. m Job xx. 4. The last clause is corrupt. In the Peshïtta it runs thus: [Syriac], from (the time) that He made man upon the earth.

14. n Job vii. 20, and x. 8, 10.

15. o Genesis xviii. 19.

16. p Exodus xxii. 18; Deuteronomy xviii. 10, 11.

17. q Genesis xxxix. 7, etc.

18. r As in the Peshitta, [Syriac]. See Genesis xxvi. 6, etc.

19. t Genesis xix. 7, 8.

20. u Galatians iii. 19.

21. v [Hebrew], Ecbatana.

22. w Numbers xxiv. 17.

23. c Numbers xxi. 21, etc.

24. d Numbers xxi. 1-3.

25. e Numbers xxii. 3, etc.

26. f By [Syriac] is probably meant [Syriac], on the Euphrates near Samosata. See Assemani, Bibliotheca Orient., t. ii., in the Dissertatio de Monophysitis, art. Urima. Knobel identifies [Hebrew] with 'Anah, [Syriac].

27. i Numbers xxiv. 24.

28. j Numbers xxiv. 17.

29. m Numbers xxiii. 21.

30. p The λ, [Syriac], seems due, here and elsewhere, to a blunder of the scribe, who has taken the preposition for an integral part of the name.

31. v The name of Eli is wanting in the Syriac text.

32. w v is a slip of the pen for l...

33. y 2 Chronicles xv. 1-7. Azur as in the Peshitta, [Syriac]. The name of Azariah is wanting in the Syriac text.

34. d Isaiah xlv. 1.

35. f The monarch intended must be Artaxerxes Longimanus, but I do not know what to make of the αυλ, ευλ, or ουλ of the text. Von Gut schmid has suggested "to another king" ([Syriac]=ἄλλος); but the writer of this tract could hardly have been so ignorant as to take ἄλλος for a proper name.

36. g Nehemiah, xiii. 8.

37. h Daniel viii. 3, etc.

38. i This refers to the founding, or restoring, of Antioch, Laodicea, Apamea, Edessa, Berœa, and Pella, by Seleucus Nicator.

39. j 2 Maccabees iv. 7, etc.

40. k 2 Maccabees iv. 9....

41. l 2 Maccabees iv. 19.

42. m 1 Maccabees xv. 15, etc.

43. o For (L)NSCUS,...

44. p The inhabitants of Al-Ahwaz,... or Chuzistan.

45. s Here some sixteen or seventeen lines of the Syriac text have been. purposely erased, probably on account of some statement which a later reader considered heretical.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: philostorgius.htm

Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History

EPITOME

OF THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS,

COMPILED BY

PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

TRANSLATED

BY EDWARD WALFORD, M. A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden.

MDCCCLV.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF PHILOSTORGIUS

BY THE TRANSLATOR.

ALL that is known with certainty of Philostorgius is that he was a native of Cappadocia, and was born of humble parentage about the year

A. D.

364. It would seem came to Constantinople in his youth to complete his studies; but it is uncertain whether he was educated for the legal or for the ecclesiastical profession. In later life he composed a History of the Church, comprised in twelve books from the beginning of the Arian schism down to the year AD. 425.

The work itself is no longer extant; but we have an Epitome of it compiled by Photius, who was appointed to the Patriarchal see of Constantinople,

A. D.

853, and under whom the schism between the Eastern and Western churches was formally consummated. We have also a short notice of this work in the Bibliotheca of the same learned writer (Myriobiblion, Cod. 40). It is to be observed that Photius, although he was the author of the expulsion of the term "Filioque" from the Nicene Creed, inveighs throughout his Epitome against Philostorgius as a heretic and impious person, and as a friend and apologist of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Apollinaris, and other heretics of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Philostorgius would seem to have been a person possessed |p428 of a considerable amount of general information, and he has inserted in his narrative many curious geographical and other details about remote and unknown countries, and more especially about the interior of Asia and Africa. He was rather inclined to credulity, in regard to portents, monsters, prodigies, and other wonderful things, of which he gives accounts at considerable length; and Photius himself vehemently censures him for his absurdity in attributing miracles to those whom the patriarch himself regarded as heretics. He is quoted by Gibbon in the 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of his "Decline and Fall," not however without a caution against his Arian predilections and his partiality to the cause of Gallus.

The Epitome was translated into Latin, with comments by J. Gothofredus, and published in to at Geneva in 1642; as also by H. de Valois, under tile title of " Compendium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Philostorgii, quod dictavit Photius Patriarcha," Paris, 1673, with notes. It has also been translated into French, and published at Paris in 1676, under the title Abregé de l'Histoire de l'Eglise de Philostorge. It appears now for the first time in an English translation.

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO THE ELECTRONIC EDITION (A.D. 2002)

The following notice and short bibliography is taken from J. Quasten Patrology, vol. 3, pp.532-4:

Philostorgius was born about 368 at Borissus in Cappadocia Secunda but went at the age of twenty to Constantinople where he spent most of his life. Though a layman he became a follower and warm admirer of Eunomius (cf. above, p. 306).

While at Constantinople he published between 425 and 433 a Church History in twelve books covering the period 300-425 ostensibly a continuation of Eusebius but in reality a late apology for the extreme Arianism of Eunomius. Photius describes (Bibl. cod. 40) its size, content, style and tendency as follows:

Read the so-called Ecclesiastical History by Philostorgius the Arian, the spirit of which is different from that of nearly all other ecclesiastical historians. He extols all Arians, but abuses and insults all the orthodox, so that this work is not so much a history as a panegyric of the heretics, and nothing but a barefaced attack upon the orthodox. His style is elegant, his diction often poetical, though not to such an extent as to be tedious or disagreeable. His figurative use of words is very expressive and makes the work both pleasant and agreeable to read; sometimes, however, these figures are overbold and far-fetched, and create an impression of being frigid and ill-timed. The language is variously embellished even to excess, so that the reader imperceptibly finds himself involved in a disagreeable obscurity. In many instances the author introduces appropriate moral reflections of his own. He starts from the devotion of Arius to the heresy and its first beginnings, and ends with the recall of the impious Aetius. This Aetius was removed from his office by his brother heretics, since he outdid them in wickedness, as Philostorgius himself unwillingly confesses. He was recalled and welcomed by the impious Julian. The history, in one volume and six books, goes down to this period. The author is a liar and the narrative often fictitious. He chiefly extols Aetius and Eunomius for their learning, as having alone cleansed the doctrines of faith overlaid by time, therein showing himself a monstrous liar. He also praises Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom he calls the Great), Theophilus the Indian, and several others, for their lives and wonderful works. He severely attacks Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, for his extreme severity and invincible craftiness, in which, he declares, Acacius surpassed all his fellow-heretics, however filled they were with hatred of one another, as well as those who held different religious opinions. This was the extent of our reading. Soon afterwards six other books were found in another volume, so that the whole appears to have filled twelve books. The initial letters of each book are so arranged that they form the name of the author. The work goes down to the time of Theodosius the Younger, when, after the death of Honorius, Theodosius handed over the throne of the West to his cousin Valentinian the Younger, the son of Constantius and Placidia. Notwithstanding his rage against the orthodox, Philostorgius does not venture to attack Gregory the Theologian [i.e. of Nazianzus], but unwillingly accepts his doctrines. His attempt to slander Basil the Great only had the effect of increasing his reputation. He was forced to admit the vigour and beauty of his sermons from actual knowledge, although he timidly calls Basil overbold and inexperienced in controversy, because he ventured to attack the writings of Eunomius (SPCK).

Apart from this interesting report Photius published separately an Epitome, a series of excerpts culled from the twelve books. Since Philostorgius' work has perished, this Epitome serves as a skeleton for its reconstruction. It survives in a number of manuscripts whose archetype is Cod. Barocc. 142 s. XIV. Scattered fragments are also extant in the Passio Artemii composed by John of Rhodos in the ninth century, in Suidas and in a Vita Constantini found in Cod. Angelicus 22 and edited by Opitz; still others in the Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei by Nicetas Acominatus, and in two epigrams of the Anthologia Palatina. These remains show that Philostorgius used excellent sources no longer extant, especially documents of Arian origin, which furnish very valuable information for the history of this controversy and its chief personalities. For this reason the loss of the complete text is deplorable despite its bias and inaccuracy.

One of the fragments reveals that Philostorgius wrote earlier a Refutation of Porphyry and an Encomium on Eunomius of which we know nothing.

Editions: MG 65, 459-624. -- Crit. ed.: J. BIDEZ, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte: GCS 21 (1913) 1-150; Anfang der Artemii Passio mit Philostorgius Angaben äber Artemius, ibid. 151-157. -- H. G. OPITZ, Die Vita Constantini des Cod. Ang. Gr. 22: Byz 9 (1934) 535-593 (contains the complete text of the Vita with the fragments of Philostorgius). -- New fragments: P. HESELER, Neues zur 'Vita Constantini' des Codex Angelicus 22: Byz 10 (1935) 399-402. --J. BIDEZ, Fragments nouveaux de Philostorge sur la vie de Constantin: Byz 10 (1935) 403-442.

Translation: English: E. WALFORD, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen... also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius as Epitomized by Photius. London, 1855.

Studies: P. BATIFFOL, Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius: RQ. 3 (1889) 252-289; idem, Die Textäberlieferung der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius: RQ 4 (1890) 134-143; idem, Quaestiones Philostorgianae (thesis). Paris, 1891; idem, Un historiographe anonyme arien du IVe siecle: RQ9 (1895) 57-97 (a source of Philostorgius). -- L. JEEP, Zur Ãœberlieferung des Philostorgius (TU 17, b, 2). Leipzig, 1899. --J. R. ASMUS, Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der Kirchengeschichte des Philo-storgios: BZ 4 (1895) 30-44. -- J. BIDEZ, GCS 21 (1913) IX-CLXIII (important introductions on manuscripts, sources, life, education and purpose of Philostorgius). J. MARQUART, Die schwarzen Syrer des Philostorgios: ThLZ 38 (1913) 705-709. --G. FRITZ, DTC 12 (1935) 1495-1498.

I believe a new translation of Philostorgius into English is planned, which will include fragments discovered since 1855.

This page contains Walford's text, omitting the indexes to the book since these contain both Sozomen and Philostorgius. Greek text is rendered using the freeware SpIonic font. The footnotes have been moved to a separate page, and renumbered. However the original numbers have been preserved in the footnotes. The page numbers of Walford are indicated in the text.

Roger Pearse

2002.

|429

THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

OF

PHILOSTORGIUS

The History composed by this author was comprised in twelve books, and the initial letters of each book being put together composed the author's name. Philostorgius commenced his History from the outbreak of the contest between Arius and Alexander, which he regarded as the first cause of the outbreak of the Arian heresy: and he continued it down to the date of the proclamation as emperor of Valentinian the younger, the son of Constantius and Placidia, and the violent death of John the Tyrant. The History itself was written as an encomium on the heretical party, and an attack and assault upon the orthodox, rather than a history.

EPITOME OF BOOK I.

CHAP. 1.--Philostorgius

says that he cannot tell who was the author of the two books which are commonly called those of the Maccabees. But he is especially loud in the praise of their unknown author, inasmuch as the events which he narrates in them are found to correspond exactly with the prophecies of Daniel: ¹

and also because of the skill which he |430

shows in explaining how the evil deeds of men reduced the condition of the Jewish people to the lowest depths, just as afterwards it was the valour of other men that retrieved it again; when the Jews resuscitated the spirit in which they had met their enemies of old, and had seen their temple purged of foreign superstitions. The Second Book of Maccabees, however, according to Philostorgius, would seem to be the work of a different writer from the First; and is a mere compendium of what Jason of Cyrene related at length in five books. It gives an account of the war carried on by Judas Maccabeus against Antiochus Epiphanes, and his son named Eupator. But as to the Third Book of the Maccabees, Philostorgius utterly rejects it as monstrous, and as bearing no resemblance to the two former ones. The Fourth Book he asserts to have been the work of Joseph, and to be regarded rather as an encomium upon Eleazar and his seven sons, the Maccabeans, than as a regular history of events.

CHAP. 2.--Though Philostorgius praises Eusebius Pamphilus as well on other grounds as on account of his Ecclesiastical History, yet he accuses him of erroneous opinions in matters relating to religion.² The accusation which he brings against him is to the effect that Eusebius considered the Deity as unintelligible and incomprehensible, and that he was implicated in a variety of other strange opinions. He also bears |431 witness that Eusebius brought down his history to the period when Constantine the Great was

succeeded in the empire by his sons.³ CHAP. 3.--The impious Philostorgius says that when the votes of the people were inclining to his own side in the election of an archbishop of Alexandria, Arius preferred Alexander to himself, and so contrived to give him a majority. CHAP.

4.--He also says that a certain presbyter of Alexandria, who was called Baucalis,⁴

on account of a lump of superfluous flesh which had grown upon his back to the size of an earthen vessel, such as the Alexandrians call "Baucala" in their provincial dialect, having obtained the post of honour among the presbyters next to Arius himself, brought about the beginning of contention between Alexander and Arius, and that it was from this circumstance that the preaching of the Homoöusian⁵ doctrine was devised.⁶ CHAP. 5.--Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, according to Philostorgius, was proclaimed emperor⁷ of Upper Galatia and the district lying around the Alps; regions which were very remote and difficult of access. This Upper Galatia |432 is now called Gallia or Gaul by the Romans. The death of Constantius occurred in Britain,⁸ which is also called the island of Albion. Constantine succeeded in avoiding the treachery of Diocletian, and finding his father on his deathbed upon his arrival in Britain, he soon after committed his body to the tomb, and was shortly proclaimed his successor in the empire. CHAP.

6.--As to the cause of the conversion⁹

of Constantine from heathen superstitions to the Christian faith, Philostorgius, in conformity with all other writers, ascribes it to

his

victory over Maxentius, in a battle in which the sign of the

cross was seen in

tile East, vast in extent and lit up with glorious light, and surrounded on each side by

stars

like a rainbow, symbolizing tile form of letters. The letters too were in the Latin tongue and formed these words,

"In

hoc signo vinces."¹⁰ |433 CHAP. 7.--Philostorgius says that before the synod at Nicaea, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, came to Nicomedia, and after a convention with Hosius¹¹ of Cordova and the other bishops who were with him, prevailed upon the synod to declare the Son consubstantial with the Father, and to expel Arius from the communion of the church.CHAP. 8.--Not long after this, the synod of Nicaea was held; at this synod, over and above the other high priests of God, Basileus,¹² bishop of Amasea, and Meletius,¹³ bishop of Sebastopolis, were present. CHAP. 9.--Philostorgius also confesses that all the bishops consented to the exposition of the faith made at Nicaea, with the exception of Secundus,¹⁴ bishop of Ptolemais, and Theon, bishop of Marmarica. But the rest of the band of Arian bishops, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, (whom Philostorgius

calls the Great,) Theognis of Nicaea, end Tharis of Chalcedon, and all the others, embraced the sentence of the council, though with a fraudulent and treacherous purpose, (as Philostorgius admits,) for under the term o9moou&sioj they secretly introduced that of o9moiou&sioj.¹⁵

But still they did not refuse

submission to the decrees of the synod, though Constantina, the emperor's sister, suggested this counsel to them.CHAP. 10.--Philostorgius adds that Secundus, on going into exile, said to Eusebius, "You subscribed, Eusebius, in order to escape being sent into banishment: but I place my confidence in a revelation made to me by God, that within a year you will be sent into exile too." In point of fact, within three months after the conclusion of the synod, Eusebius was |434 sent into exile according to the prediction of Secundus, upon returning to his own original and manifest impiety.

EPITOME OF BOOK II. CHAP. I.--PHILOSTORGIUS falsely relates, that after the general council and the recantation of the Eusebians, and their open return to the orthodox faith, the emperor Constantine punished them, because, while they subscribed to the Homoousian faith, they entertained sentiments at variance with it,¹⁶

and on the other band, that he recalled Secundus and his associates from banishment, and sent letters in every direction, exploding the term "Homoousios," and confirming the doctrine of a diversity of substance. He adds that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, subscribed these letters, and that on this account Arius communicated with him. But when all fear on account of the emperor was at an end, Alexander returned to his original sentiments, while Arius and those who joined with him in his opinions seceded from communion with Alexander and the church. CHAP. 2.--He says that Arius, after his secession from the church, composed several songs to be sung by sailors, and by millers,¹⁷ and by travellers along the high road, and others of the same kind, which he adapted to certain tunes, as he thought suitable in each separate case, and thus by degrees seduced the minds of the unlearned by the attractiveness of his songs to the adoption of his own impiety.

CHAP.

3.--Though Philostorgius extols Arius to the skies for impugning the Divinity of the Son, yet he asserts that the latter is involved in the most absurd errors, because he everywhere affirms that God cannot be known, or comprehended, or conceived by the human mind; and not only by men, (which perhaps were an evil more easy to endure,) but also not even by His own only-begotten Son. And lie asserts that not only Arius, but also a large body of his followers, were carried |435 away into this absurd error at the same time. For with the exception of Secundus and Theonas, and the disciples of the martyr Lucian, namely Leontius, Antonius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the rest of the impious band of heretics adopted this opinion. CHAP.

4.--Philostorgius asserts that Constantine was induced by the fraudulent artifices of his step-mother to put his son Crispus to death; ¹⁸ and afterwards, upon detecting her in the act of adultery with one of his Cursores, ordered the former to be suffocated in a hot bath. He adds, that long afterwards Constantine was poisoned by his brothers during his stay at Nicomedia, by way of atonement for the violent death of Crispus.

CHAP.

5.--He also says that Urphilas¹⁹

brought over as settlers to the Roman territory a large body of persons who had been driven out of their ancient abodes for the sake of their religion. These came from among the Scythians, north of the Ister, and were formerly called Getae, though now they are better known as Goths. And he asserts that this race of men were brought over to the faith of Christ in the following manner. While Valerian and Gallienus were administering the empire, a large multitude of Scythians, who lived north of the Ister, made an incursion into the Roman territory, and laid waste a great part of. Europe by their predatory excursions and afterwards having crossed over into Asia, invaded Cappadocia and Galatia. Here they took a large quantity of prisoners, among whom were not a few ecclesiastics; and they returned to their own country laden with spoils and booty. These pious captives, by their intercourse with the barbarians, brought over a great number of the latter to the true faith, and persuaded them to embrace the Christian religion in the place of heathen superstitions. Of the number of these |436 captives were the ancestors of Urphilas himself, who were of Cappadocian descent, deriving their origin from a village called Sadagolthina, near time city of Parnassus. This Urphilas,

then,

was

the header of this pious band which came out from among

the Goths, and became eventually their first bishop. The following was

the method of his appointment.

Being sent by the then king of the

Goths on an embassy to

the

court of the emperor Constantine, (for the barbarous

tribes

in those parts were subject to the emperor,) he

was ordained

bishop of the Christians among time Goths, by Eusebius and the other prelates that were with him. Accordingly he took the greatest care of them in many ways, and amongst others, he

reduced

their language to a written form, and translated into their vulgar tongue

all the books of holy Scripture, with

the exception of the Books of Kings, which he omitted, because they are a mere narrative of military exploits, and the Gothic tribes

were

especially fond of war, and were in

more

need of restraints to check their military passions than of spurs to urge them on to deeds of war. But those books have the greatest influence in exciting the minds of readers, inasmuch as they are regarded with great veneration, and are adapted to lead the hearts of believers to the worship of God.

This

multitude of converts were located by the emperor in the different parts of Moesia, as he thought best, and he held Urphilas himself in such high honour, that he would often speak of him in conversation as the Moses of his day. Philostorgius is loud in his praises of this Urphilas; ²⁰ and asserts that both he |437 and the Goths who were under his spiritual rule, were followers of his own heretical opinions. CHAP.

6.--The

impious Philostorgius relates that the Christians in Central India,²¹ who were converted to the faith of Christ by the preaching of St. Bartholomew, believe that the Son is not of the same substance with the Father. He adds that Theophilus the Indian,²² who had embraced this opinion,²³ came to them, and delivered it to them as a doctrine; and also that these Indians are now called Homeritae,²⁴ instead of their old name of Sabaeans, which they received from the city of Saba, the chief city of the whole nation.

CHAP.

7.--Philostorgius says, that Eusebius,²⁵

Maris, and Theognis, after a period of three years spent in banishment, were recalled by command of the emperor, and immediately put forth an heretical form of faith, and sent it in every direction, in order to counteract the Nicene Creed. He adds, that Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, was deposed ²⁶ and excommunicated by the same parties, because he afterwards returned to the Homoousian faith; but that Eustathius,²⁷ bishop of Antioch, was deposed by them on different grounds, namely, on a charge of having attempted the chastity of a certain woman, and seduced her; upon this the emperor condemned him to banishment, and sent him into the western parts of the empire. As to the rest, he writes, that in this illegitimate council there were no less than two hundred and fifty bishops, and that Nicomedia was the workshop where they contrived all their evil deeds. |438

CHAP. 8.--Concerning Agapetus,²⁸ a follower of his own peculiar heretical sect., who was originally a soldier, then a priest of his sect, and eventually became bishop of Synada, he tells many wonderful stories

;

he says, for example, that many

dead men were raised by

him to life again, and that he

expelled and healed many maladies of various kinds. He adds that many other wonderful things were done by him, and that by his exertions many of the Gentiles were converted to the Christian religion.

CHAP. 9.--He says that, in the twenty-eighth year²⁹ of his reign, Constantine turned Byzantium into the city of Constantinople; and that, when he went to mark out the circuit of the city,³⁰ he walked round it

with

a spear in his hand; and that when his attendants thought that he was measuring out too large a space, one of them came up to him and asked him,

How far, O prince?" and that the emperor answered, "Until he who goes before

me conies to a stop

;"

by this answer

clearly manifesting that some heavenly power was heading him

on, and teaching him what he ought to do. Philostorgius adds, that Constantine, after building the city, called it "Alma Roma.," which means in the Latin tongue, "Glorious." He also states, that the emperor established there a senate, and distributed among the citizens a copious allowance of corn, and adorned the city in other particulars with such sumptuous magnificence, that

it

became a rival to ancient Rome in splen dour.

CHAP.

10.--He states,

that

on

the decease of Alexander,

the bishop of this city, Eusebius,³¹

bishop of Nicomedia, was translated to the episcopal chair of the newly erected

metropolis.

CHAP.

11.--The impious contriver

of lies asserts, that after

the death

of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the votes of the

prelates were not unanimous, and that when there was a diversity |439 of sentiment, and a considerable amount of time had been spent in altercation, the divine Athanasius suddenly appeared one evening in the church called after Dionysius, and finding there two Egyptian bishops, firmly closed the doors with the assistance of some of his followers, and so was ordained

by them,³² though strongly against the will of the

the ordainers. For

a power from above fell upon them, and so constrained their will and powers that what Athanasius wished

;

was at once done. Philostorgius adds, that the remainder of the bishops then present anathematized Athanasius on account of this transaction

;

and that the latter, having first thoroughly

strengthened his cause, addressed to the emperor certain letters

relating to his ordination, in the name of the entire state; and that the emperor, thinking that the letters in question were written by the assembly of the Alexandrians, ratified the election with his own approval. Afterwards, however, upon being informed of the details of the transaction, he sent Athanasius

to Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, to give account of the matter before a synod which was assembled there. And Philostorgius writes, that Athanasius gave way before the threats of the emperor. At length, however, upon

arriving at Tyre, he was unwilling to submit to a legal inquiry, but fraudulently suborned a certain harlot, whose belly proclaimed her shame, and laid his plots against Eusebius, who was regarded as the head and chief of the assembly,³³ thinking doubtless that he would escape from trial, and avoid the sentence of the synod, in the midst of the tumult and commotion which he thought in all probability would be raised. But our author, so partial to liars, writes that the fraud was openly detected in the very same manner, as the orthodox party say the harlot was detected who had been suborned by the heretics to give evidence against the great Athanasius. For he says that Eusebius asked the harlot

if she knew the person who had defiled her; and that upon her answering that she knew him well, Eusebius again asked her whether the party in question was present |440 among the episcopal assembly. She answered, "Spare evil words, my lord;

I should be mad,

if I were to accuse such holy

men of such

foul lust" From this the truth

was elucidated, and so the whole of the fraudulent conspiracy was brought to light. Thus, says Philostorgius, Eusebius showed himself

superior to every calumny that was brought forward, but Athanasius, who hind hoped to escape trial altogether, went away after having been convicted of a double crime, not merely an illegal ordination, but also a foul calumny; and so,

by the common consent of all,

a sentence of deposition was

passed against him. Athanasius, however, went on

unblushingly, and ventured to assert that time sentence of deposition

and time calumnious stories thrown in his teeth were equally untrue, being mere fabrications of time hatred and ill-will of

the bishops assembled in the synod, because lie refused to

receive ordination at their hands.

On this account the emperor, he adds, charged a second synod of bishops to examine into

the cause of Athanasius;

and the latter added some

fresh charges to the original calumnies. For they said. that Callinicus the confessor, and bishop of Pelusium, had been loaded by him with iron chains and sent into confinement, and that Athanasius did not cease to treat him with contumely, until he

had

fairly removed him out of his way. Then also the hand of Armenius was brought into court, and Mareotes and Ischyras came forward, and the sacred cup and other stories of a like kind were devised. For these reasons, he says,

Athanasius was excommunicated by the synod, and Gregory

the Cappadocian substituted in his place.³⁴ Such are the stories of this lover of untruth against the holy Athanasius.

CHAP. 12.--He says

that Helen, the mother of the emperor, built the city which was called Helenopolis,³⁵

at the entrance of the. Gulf of Nicomedia: and that the reason of her great

predilection for the spot, was because the body of the martyr

Lucian was carried thither by a dolphin after his death by

martyrdom. |441

CHAP. 13.--He says that when this martyr Lucian was about to die, and

was

debarred from the church and the altar by the hand of tyranny, and when chains and stripes forbade him even to move, he lay upon his back and offered the

venerable sacrifice

upon his own breast, and so partook himself,

and gave his companions the opportunity of receiving

likewise

of

the unspotted sacrifice. This act of sacrifice was performed in

the prison, and the holy band of Christians who

stood as it were around his dying bed, at the same time represented the church, and afforded a screen to prevent the

heathen from seeing what was being done.

CHAP.

14.--Philostorgius recounts many other disciples of this martyr Lucian, and especially Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and Theognis, bishop of Nicaea; and also Leontius, who afterwards became bishop of Antioch, and Antonius of Tarsus in Cilicia; likewise Menophantus,

Numenius, and Eudoxius, together with Alexander and Asterius the Cappadocian; of whom he says that they yielded to the violence of tyrants so far as to offer sacrifice to the gods of the heathen; but afterwards made amends for their lapse, their master himself assisting to bring them to repentance.

CHAP.

15.--Out of the above-mentioned individuals he specifies Antonius and Leontius

as

having preserved their

piety pure and unsullied; but as for Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis, they were brought into collision with the Nicene symbol, but afterwards returned to their original opinions.

But Maris, after returning to the orthodox belief, fell afterwards into another grievous error. In like manner, too, Theognis, who held that God was the Father even before he had begotten the Son, inasmuch as he had the power of begetting him. Of Asterius he says that he interpolated the doctrine of Lucian, affirming

in his writings and orations

that the Son is the image of the Father's substance, and in no way differing from him.³⁶

CHAP.

16.--He says that Constantine, having entered |442

upon the thirty-second year of his reign, was poisoned by his brothers at Nicomedia. And that when his end drew near, and the plot was discovered, he drew up a testament enjoining

that the authors of his death should be punished, and ordering that whichever of his sons should first

arrive, should proceed

to take measures against them, lest his children too should be destroyed by a like conspiracy. He further adds, that the document itself which contained these instructions, was intrusted to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia; but that the latter, being alarmed lest the emperor's brothers should make search for

it, and wish to know what was written in it, placed the

tablet in the hands of the

deceased

emperor, and concealed it beneath his clothes. Accordingly when they had come, as

Eusebius expected they would, to search for

the tablet which

contained the will, Eusebius answered that

he

had.

indeed received it, but that he had immediately returned it into the hands of the emperor. Afterwards, however, this same Eusebius, having again taken away the tablet, deposited it in

the

hands of Constantius the son of Constantine, who was the

first of the brothers to arrive; and who not long afterwards put into execution the instructions contained in his father's will.

CHAP.

17.--This impious

enemy of God also accuses the Christians of offering sacrifices ³⁷ to an image of Constantine placed upon a column of porphyry, and of honouring it with lighted lamps and incense, and of offering vows to it as to God, and making supplications to it to ward off calamities.

CHAP.

18.--He writes also, that after the death of Constantine the Great, when all who were in exile in various parts had

obtained permission to return, Athanasius, too, returned ³⁸ from Gaul to Alexandria, and hearing of the death of Gregory, landed and went straight from the ship, just as he was, to the church, and took his episcopal seat, without

showing any regard to those who had deposed him. |443

EPITOME OF BOOK III.

CHAP.

l.--Philostorgius says that Constans,³⁹ the eldest

of the sons of Constantine, plotted against the life of his brother Constantine the younger, and that the latter, together

with

his

generals, was defeated and put to death, and his portion of the empire added to that of Constans.

CHAP. 2.--Philostorgius is loud in his praise of Constantius, and says that he built at Constantinople the church which is deservedly called "the Great." He also writes that he translated the remains of St. Andrew the apostle from Achaia to the church which he had erected, and which was called that of "the Holy Apostles;" ⁴⁰ as also that he erected near it a tomb in honour of his father. And lastly, he adds,

that the body of the apostle Timothy was translated from Ephesus in Ionia to the same renowned and venerable church

by the command of the same Constantius.

CHAP.

3.--Philostorgius says that Constantius, having learned that Athanasius had again taken possession of the see of Alexandria, expelled him from that city, and issued a mandate ordering that George the Cappadocian should be elected in his room. Accordingly, he adds that Athanasius, in fear of the emperor's threats and the snares of his enemies, betook himself again to the emperor of the West.

CHAP.

4.--He says that Constantius sent ambassadors⁴¹

to those who were formerly called Sabaeans, but are now known as Homeritae,⁴² a tribe which is descended from Abraham by

Keturah. As to the territory which they inhabit, he says that it is called by the Greeks "Arabia Magna" and "Arabia Felix," and that it extends into the most distant part of the ocean. Its metropolis, lie says, is Saba, the city from which |444 the queen of Sheba went forth to see Solomon. This tribe is part of the Israelitish family, and practises circumcision on the

eighth day; but they also offer sacrifices

to the sun and moon, and to the

native

gods of the country. Constantius accordingly sent an embassage to them, in order to induce them to come over to the true religion. The king determined, in pursuance

of his plan, to conciliate the king of that people by magnificent

presents and words of gentle persuasion, and thence to take

an opportunity forthwith of sowing the seeds of religion. He also asked for licence to build churches

on behalf of the Romans who came thither by sea, and the inhabitants of the country who wished to embrace time Christian faith. At the

head of this embassy

was placed Theophilus the Indian, who

had been sent when very young as a hostage from the Divaeans to the Romans when Constantine was at the head of the

empire.

The

island

called Divus,⁴³ is a portion of their territory, and

the inhabitants of it are called Indians. Further, he relates that this Theophilus, having passed

a long life among

the Romans, formed his character

upon a pattern of the most strict amid perfect virtue, and embraced the true faith concerning God; but, he adds, that he chose the monastic life, and was promoted to the diaconate at the hands of

Eusebius. Thus much as to his early life. But afterwards, having undertaken this embassy, he was

invested, by the men of his own party, with the episcopal⁴⁴

dignity. But Constantius, wishing to array the embassy with peculiar splendour, put on board of

their ships two hundred well-bred horses from Cappadocia, and sent with them many other gifts, with the double view of making an imposing show and of conciliating the feelings of

the people. Accordingly, Theophilus, on his arrival among

the Sabaeans, endeavoured to persuade the ruler of the tribe |445 to become a Christian, and to give over the deceits of heathenism. Hereupon, the customary fraud and malice of tire Jews was

compelled to shrink into deep silence, as soon as ever Theophilus had once or twice proved by

his

wonderful miracles the truth of the Christian faith. The embassy turned out successfully; for the prince of the nation, by sincere conviction, came over to the true religion, and built three churches in the district, not, however, with the money which the emperor's

ambassadors

had brought with them, but out of sums which he voluntarily supplied out of his private resources, with a laudable strife

to show that his

own

zeal was a match for the

wonders performed by Theophilus. One of these

churches he erected in a place called Tapharum, the metropolis of tire nation: another in the place where the mart of Roman commerce stood, lying towards the outer sea. This place is called Adane; and it is the spot where everybody is in the habit of landing on coming out of the Roman territories. The third church he built in another part of the district, where the mart of Persian commerce stands, hard by the mouth of the Persian Sea, which lies along those parts.

CHAP. 5.--Theophilus, having arranged everything among the Homeritae according to his ability and circumstances, and having dedicated the churches, and adorned them with such decorations as he could, crossed over to the island of Divus, which, as we above showed, was his native country. Thence he made his way to the other districts of India, and corrected many disorders among their inhabitants. For they listened to the reading of the Gospel in a sitting posture,⁴⁵ and used other customs repugnant to the Divine law. But Theophilus, having corrected everything among them according to a religious rule, confirmed the doctrine of the church. For, with regard to the worship of the Divine Being, as that impious

writer asserts, they needed no correction, inasmuch as

from the earliest antiquity they constantly professed to believe the Son to be of a different substance from the Father. |446

CHAP. 6.--From this Arabia Magna Theophilus proceeded to the Aethiopians who are called Auxumitae,⁴⁶ who dwell along the coast near the entrance of the Red Sea, which is formed there by the ocean deeply indenting the continent. The Red Sea, in its turn, after extending to a very great length, terminates in two distinct gulfs, the one of which bends in the direction of Egypt, and is called Clysma,⁴⁷ after the name of a place situated at the head of it. This was the sea across which the Israelites passed on dry ground, when they fled away from the Egyptians. The other gulf goes off in the direction of Palestine, near a city which, from the earliest times, has borne the name of Aila. On the further coast of this gulf of the Red Sea, and on its left side, dwell the Auxumitae, so called from their metropolis, which bears the name of Auxumis. Nest to these Auxumitae, but to the east, dwell the Syrians, who stretch to the other ocean, and who are so called even by the men of those parts. For Alexander the Great of Macedon placed them there after he had removed them from Syria; and they still use their hereditary Syrian tongue. Further, these are all of a very dark colour, from the effects of the vertical rays of the sun. Among these, the wood-casia, and the common casia, grow in the greatest abundance, as likewise the cassamum and cinnamon. In this same region, also, there is an abundance of elephants. Theophilus did not penetrate as far as these people, but he came to the Auxumitae, and, having, ordered all things there correctly, he thence began to return into the territory of the Romans: and after his return he was loaded with honours by the emperor; he received the charge of no episcopal see; but was looked up to by the followers of his own sect, as a public example of excellence.

CHAP. 7.--Philostorgius says, that among other large rivers, the Tigris falls into the inner part of the Persian Sea, |447 which is here connected with the ocean. The shores of this sea are surrounded by many nations; and the river itself runs in a south-easterly direction, below the Hyrcanian Sea, and appears to take its rise among the Cordiaeans. Thence it flows along the side of Syria,⁴⁸ and upon reaching the district of Susis, it joins the waters of the Euphrates with its own, and thence flowing on with a deep and rapid stream, it rushes on with a violent roar of its eddies, from which circumstance they say it derives its name of Tigris.⁴⁹ Before, however, it reaches the sea, it divides its waters into two large channels; and thence it flows into the Persian Sea, the extreme points of its mouths being so far distant from each other, that the two mouths embrace between them a large extent of country. This is an island; it is washed both by the rivers and the sea, and it is inhabited by a tribe called Messenians.

CHAP. 8.--The Euphrates, however, to all appearance, takes its rise among the Armenians; in this region stands the Mount of Ararat, so called even to the present day by the Armenians,--the same mount on which the Holy Scripture says that the ark rested. Many fragments of the wood and nails of which the ark was composed are said to be still preserved in those localities. This is the place where the Euphrates takes its rise. At first it is but a small stream, but gradually increases in size, and absorbing into itself many other tributary rivers which flow into it, it passes through Upper and Lower Armenia in its onward course. First of all it cuts Syria Euphratensis, so called after the river. Afterwards, however, it cuts its way through the rest of Syria, winding along with many varied folds in every region which it passes through, until it reaches Arabia, where it takes a circular course, when nearly opposite to the Red Sea; and embracing in its windings a large tract of country, finally turns its course towards the wind called Caecias, or Northeast, and falls into the Tigris. Here its waters do not entirely mingle with those of the Tigris; but though partly absorbed in it, it flows parallel to the Tigris with the largest |448

portion of its waters, and finally mixes with the Tigris near about Susa; and thenceforward, the Euphrates having lost its independent name, the two rivers flow, conjointly into the Persian Gulf. The district which lies between these two rivers, the Euphrates, namely, and the Tigris, is called Mesopotamia.

CHAP. 9.--The sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris, so far as we have been able to ascertain, are such as we have related. But our sacred books, when they say that these rivers flow out of Paradise, speak most truly. For it is from this place that they derive their first supplies of water; inasmuch as after having traversed some distance in all probability above-ground, they afterwards pass into a large sandy desert, where they sink deep into the sand, and do not cease from this downward course, until they reach the firm rocky soil, of which that region consists: the base of this region affords a check on their downward course, and so they each gather their waters together and rush onwards, making their course all the more straight on account of the force and magnitude of their accumulating waters. But these rivers flowing beneath the ground, being partially absorbed by the sand of the intermediate district, burst forth again with a considerably diminished supply of water. It is not, however, after all so incredible a thing, that these rivers should flow so long a distance underground. For there are found everywhere the largest and most rapid streams and rivers whose course is under-ground, as is clear from the fact that their sound is heard as they rush on with loud murmurs and roarings. Moreover, some persons in their attempts to sink wells in the ground above these rivers, when they had gradually dug down to the rocky soil which resisted their efforts, beneath which the roaring waves endeavoured to force an egress upwards, were with difficulty rescued by those who stood above at the brink of the well, for the water burst forth in a torrent, which was intercepted by no subsequent drought, on account of the perpetual supply of water. For the secret wisdom of God has rendered the very courses of rivers, some occult and others open to the view, like veins supplying the necessary blood in the body. Whence also the prophet David sings, "He hath founded it upon the seas, and hath prepared it upon the floods,"⁵⁰ enclosing the seas |449 like treasures in the embraces of the largest tracts of land, and supplying them with a firm bottom for supporting the vast mass and multitude of waters which are collected in them. But to rivers, by a wise arrangement, he has ever given a free course: affording a passage to the onward current of their waters by the depression of certain localities, and by declivities from the higher to the lower parts.

CHAP. 10.--Philostorgius, going entirely upon conjecture, writes, that the situation of Paradise was towards the east;⁵¹ and he so conjectures, firstly, because in the first place the parts to the south of it are all inhabited as far as the outer sea, which the sun scorches with his perpendicular rays; (this is what is called the Middle, or Torrid, Zone;) and, secondly, because the river now called the Hyphasis, and which is called Pison in the Holy Scriptures, itself taking its rise out of Paradise, seems to flow from the northern parts of the east down towards the south, and to pour its waters into the ocean there, opposite to the island of Taprobana. On the banks of this river is found the fruit, or flower, which is known under the name of Karyophyllum. The inhabitants of those parts believe that it formerly grew in Paradise; and, moreover, all the district above them is especially desert and barren. But as the river produces that fruit, it would seem clear that the river runs entirely above-ground, and that it nowhere has a subterranean channel, for else it could not produce the plant which grows there. And further still, this river shows another sign of its connexion above-ground with Paradise; for they say, that if a man bathe in its waters when he is suffering under the most burning fever, he immediately recovers. On the other hand, the Tigris and Euphrates, as flowing under-ground and then emerging again, can bring down their streams no production of those parts, as the Hyphasis does. No, nor even the Nile; and yet the Nile also flows out of Paradise, according to the oracles of Moses, in which it is called Ghion, though the Greeks named it Aegyptius. This river then, if one may conjecture, takes its rise in Paradise, and before reaching any inhabited region, its waters are absorbed by the sand, whence it makes its way secretly into the Indian Sea, and there takes a sort of circular course,--for what man knows anything accurately concerning this matter, |450 --and then passing under all the intervening continent, makes its hidden passage into the Red Sea, on the other side of which it eventually appears again beneath the mountain which is called after the Moon. There it is said to form two great fountains, situated at no great distance from each other, and throwing their waters up to a great height from below. The river then falls down a steep ridge of cliffs and passes through Aethiopia into Egypt.

CHAP. 11.--He says that the whole district which lies to the east and the south, though parched up with the excessive heat, brings forth by far the finest and best productions, both by land and sea. For the sea teems with whales of incredible size, which are often seen as they rise out of the sea by those who sail around the coasts. The land also produces elephants of prodigious and gigantic size, and those which are called bull-elephants. As to this kind of beast, it is an ox of huge magnitude, and has a hide in colour and thickness closely resembling that of the elephant. This animal I saw with my own eyes, when it was brought to Rome; and I simply describe what I beheld. There are also among them serpents whose bodies are as thick as beams, and extending in length as much as fifteen fathoms;⁵² for I have seen their skins brought to Rome. There is also an animal called a unicorn which is found in these parts. It has a head like a serpent, with the exception of a single crooked horn of no great size which grows upon it; and its whole chin is covered with a beard. Its neck is lengthy and reaches high aloft, and especially resembles the folds of a serpent: but the rest of its body more nearly approaches that of a stag, with the exception of its feet, which are those of a lion. A picture of this animal is to be seen at Constantinople. Moreover, the cameleopard is a production of this region: this beast is in most respects like a very large stag, but in its height it approximates the form of the camel. Its neck, which it carries high aloft, is long beyond proportion to the rest of its body; and the whole of its skin from head to foot is dappled with spots like a leopard. Its fore legs are much taller than its hind ones. In these parts too there is a kind of ape, called the aesopithecus; for the ape tribe comprises a variety of kinds. There is, for |451 instance, the arctopithecus and the leontopithecus, and the dog-headed ape; for the ape form is found conjoined with a variety of other animals, as is evident from the various specimens of the ape tribe which are brought to us. Of this kind is the deity called Pan, who resembles a goat in his head, face, and horns, and from his middle downwards; while in his breast, his belly, and his hands he is almost a perfect ape. One of these animals was sent by the king of the Indians as a present to the emperor Constantine; it lived a little while and was carried about as a sight, enclosed in a cage on account of its ferocity. After its death, those who had the care of it embalmed its body in salt for the purpose of turning the strange sight to account, and they took it safe and entire to Constantinople. It seems to me that the Greeks must once upon a time have seen this monster, and, amazed at the strangeness of its appearance, adopted it as a god, in accordance with their ordinary practice of making a god out of everything strange and wonderful. This they clearly did in the case of the satyr, which is of the ape tribe, with a red face, and restless motion, and furnished with a tail. The sphinx, too, is a kind of ape, as I myself can testify from what I have seen. The rest of the body of the sphinx is covered with hair, just as all other apes, but from its head to its breast it is free from hair, and has the breasts of a woman. Where its body is bare, it has a raised portion of red, like millet, running round it, which elegantly harmonizes with the fleshy colour in the middle, and improves it. Its face is tolerably round, and inclining to the form of a woman. Its voice is very like the human voice, though not articulate; it most nearly approximates that of a woman uttering her words in a hurried and indistinct manner under the influence of anger and grief, and it is rather flat than sharp; the beast moreover is very savage and cunning, and cannot be tamed without difficulty. This beast, I imagine, was formerly carried to Thebes in Boeotia, and having flown at several of the spectators who came together to view it, and having torn their faces, Oedipus slew the monster, because he was indignant at seeing his fellow-citizens thus mangled; and so, as it seems to me, he gained his high renown. But in order to exaggerate the praises of Oedipus, the story makes out that the animal was winged, because it flew violently at the spectators; it adds the breast of a woman and the body |452 of a lion, because the former was bare and closely approximated to the female figure, and as to the latter, because it was fierce and generally went upon all four feet. The story also represented it as endued with reason, because its voice approached so nearly to that of man; and attributed to it enigmas, because it uttered indistinct sounds and inarticulate words. And the whole of this matter is not to be wondered at, considering that the Greeks are accustomed to distort many other stories also into a fabulous form.⁵³ This region produces also wild asses of lofty stature, and with skins wonderfully variegated with a mixture of black and white. For they have certain coloured streaks running down from their backs to their sides and belly, and then separating, which mutually connecting form a strange intermixture and variety. The phoenix too, a bird so celebrated in story, is found among them. I have also seen a parrot brought from those parts; this bird is the most loquacious of all, and its voice approache? very nearly to that of man. I have seen also some painted and spotted birds which are commonly called Garamantides, (by a name borrowed from the African tribe,) very many of which are brought over to us. Many other animals besides of a remarkable character come from the same districts, but I shrink from recounting them in my present narrative. Above all, the purest gold is obtained there, with golden fibre?, as it were, springing out of the ground, layers of which are piled upon layers, and show the clearest proofs of the production of gold. Their fruits too are very large and fine; among these the most remarkable are the nuts. And in a word, the whole region of the Homeritae, even to the Red Sea itself, brings forth its produce twice every year, from which circumstance it is called Arabia Felix. But speaking generally, nil that district which lies toward the east is far superior to the remaining regions in every respect. But Paradise, as being the most pure and excellent spot of all the East, and endued with the brightest and fairest climate, and irrigated by the most limpid of streams, is beyond a doubt incomparably superior to all other portions of the habitable globe, lying |453 as it does towards the east, and washed by the waves of the sea.

CHAP. 12.--Philostorgius says that Athanasius reached the emperor of the West, and having used presents in order to propitiate the nobles of his palace, and especially Eustathius, chamberlain of his privy purse, who had very great weight with the emperor, produced letters from Constans to Constantius⁵⁴ to the following purport. "Athanasius comes to us and shows by manifest proofs that the bishopric of Alexandria belongs to him, wherefore allow him to obtain possession of it, or certainly he shall recover it by the assistance of my arms." He adds that, on receipt of this letter, Constantius convened the bishops in order to deliberate with them as to what should be done; and that they advised Constantius that it was better to leave Alexandria smarting under the severe yoke of Athanasius, than to undertake a war against his brother. Constantius therefore, he adds, allowed Athanasius to recover his see, and sent a letter to George, summoning him to his presence. George returned into his native country, Cappadocia, and there busied himself with the administration of his own private affairs. But Athanasius henceforth passed through the cities with greater confidence, and by his discourse brought over all the separate bishops with whom he had any intercourse to the Homoousian faith. He writes, however, that certain other bishops did not pay deference to the words of Athanasius,⁵⁵ and that Aetius,⁵⁶ a bishop of Palestine, who had been accused of fornication, endeavoured to avoid the charge by coming over to the communion of Athanasius, and so ranged himself upon his side; but that he soon paid the penalty of his sin, for that a disease seized upon his genitals, and producing worms, in the end deprived him of |454 life. He writes also that Maximus,⁵⁷ bishop of Jerusalem, inclined to the side of Athanasius, although in the persecution under Maximian he had become illustrious as a confessor, and had had one eye put out. He adds that Athanasius by degrees brought several others also over to his doctrine.

CHAP. 13.--He says that Flavian of Antioch was the first who collected together a large band of monks, and uttered aloud the doxology, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost."⁵⁸ For among those who had gone before him, some had been accustomed to say, "Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost," and that this latter form of doxology was the one more customarily received. He says that others again used a different form, saying, "Glory be to the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,"

CHAP. 14.--He says that the Arians, though they differed in their doctrinal statements from those who preached the Catholic faith, were nevertheless accustomed to communicate with them in prayers, hymns, and deliberations, and in everything except the mystic sacrifice. As soon, however, as Aetius came and began the contention on these points, he persuaded the multitude of his followers⁵⁹ to break the bands of amity and friendship which had formerly bound them to the Homoousians, and to range themselves as a faction in entire opposition to them.

CHAP. 15.--He says that Aetius⁶⁰ came from Coele-Syria. |455 His father, who had held a post in the victualling department of the army, failed in his business; and upon his dying insolvent, the governor of the province to which he belonged paid the proceeds of his effects into the imperial treasury. Thus it happened that Aetius was left at a very early age, together with his mother, in a state of extreme destitution; on this account he was obliged to follow the trade of gilding to provide a maintenance for his mother and himself. He had followed this art for a considerable time, when, on account of his superior intelligence, he began to turn his attention to the study of philosophy. In the first instance he became the disciple of Paulinus,⁶¹ who had been translated to the see of Antioch from that of Tyre. Afterwards, however, upon the death of his mother, on whose account more especially he followed his trade as a gilder, Aetius began to apply himself entirely to the study of logic; nor was it long before he began to show himself superior to his fellows in disputation, which was the cause of more than ordinary ill-will being roused against him. As long as Paulinus lived, this envious feeling was kept in check; but upon his death, after having held the bishopric for the short space of six months, Eulalius ⁶² was appointed to the see in his room, and the old grudge against Aetius broke out afresh with such violence that Eulalius was induced to banish him from Antioch. Accordingly Aetius went to Anagarbus, a city of Cilicia, and again resorted to the practice of his craft in order to maintain himself; at the same time, however, he did not wholly abstain from disputations with such as desired to enter upon them with him. At this conjuncture, a certain grammarian was so struck with admiration at his |456 ability that he offered to teach him the rudiments of his art, and Aetius became an inmate of his home, and performed for him the menial duties of the house. He willingly instructed Aetius in the first principles of grammar; but when at length Aetius had publicly confuted his master, showing that he gave a wrong interpretation to the Divine oracles, and had covered him with shame on account of his want of skill in expounding, he was rewarded for his pains by being expelled from the house that owed him so much. After this expulsion, he lived for some time with Athanasius, a disciple of the martyr Lucian. who at that time was bishop of Anagarbus. Under him he read the writings of the evangelists, and made himself perfect master of their contents; this done, he found his way to Tarsus, in order to see Anthony, who had himself been one of the disciples of Lucian. From him he learned the interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles, and lived with him for some space of time, while he as yet held the rank of a mere presbyter. But upon his elevation to the episcopate, Anthony found that he had no time to devote to the instruction of Aetius; so the latter returned to Antioch, in order to become the disciple of Leontius, who was at that time a presbyter at Antioch, and had been one of the pupils of Lucian. He expounded to Aetius the books of "the Prophets," and especially Ezekiel. But again ill-will, as Philostorgius dreams, or rather, as one might say with greater truth, his own unbridled tongue, and the impious nature of his doctrines, drove him from the city. Thence accordingly Aetius took his departure into Cilicia, where one of the heretical sect of the Borboriani entirely overcame and confounded him in a disputation in defence of his doctrines. On this account he began to be cast down in spirit, and to feel that life was no longer worth living for, seeing that he found falsehood to be more powerful than truth. While Aetius was in this state of mind, as Philostorgius declares, a vision appeared to him, which raised him up again, and confirmed his mind; for it showed him by certain external signs the indomitable strength of the wisdom which should hereafter be imparted to him. From that time forward Aetius had a special gift from God, which saved him from defeat in his disputations. Not long afterwards a certain man named Aphthonius, a leader of the mad heresy of the Manichaeans, and who had gained great renown for his wisdom as well as |457 for his eloquence, met him in the city of Alexandria, for the curiosity of Aetius was so much excited by his fame that he had actually gone thither from Antioch to see him. But upon coming to a regular discussion, Aetius very shortly dumbfounded Aphthonius, and reduced hirn to deep shame from the pinnacle of glory. Aphthonius was so grievously afflicted by the suddenness of his defeat that he fell into a dangerous sickness, on which death shortly ensued, his bodily strength not being able to bear up against it for more than seven days. But Aetius went on everywhere overcoming his adversaries, and gaining the most illustrious victories. At the same time, he gave himself up to the study of medicine,⁶³ that he might be able to cure diseases not of the soul only, but also of the body. He had also, as a master in this line, Sopolis, a man inferior to none of his day in his art. But if at any time he chanced to be in want of necessaries, he would go by night to some artisan of his former trade, that he might not be hindered from attending to more important business during the day, and quickly finished anything of gold that needed a skilful hand, and so getting his pay from the goldsmith, he supported life. But this all happened in the reign of Constantius, at the same time when Theophilus was staying at Antioch, after his return from India.

CHAP. 16.--He says that Aetius, in a discussion upon consubstantiality, which he maintained against Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Eusthathius of Sebastia, proved them to be the most foolish of all men; and on this account, according to his fabulous narrative, he incurred their implacable hatred.

CHAP. 17.--He says that this Leontius, of whom we have already made mention as a presbyter, and as the instructor of Aetius, upon his promotion to the bishopric of Antioch, raised his former disciple to the diaconate, and gave him permission publicly to teach in the church the ecclesiastical doctrines. Aetius ⁶⁴ shrunk from the humble function of a deacon, but willingly embraced the office of a teacher; and having remained as long as he judged sufficient in order to teach the sacred doctrines which were intrusted to him, he went again back to Alexandria, where Athanasius was already in high |458 repute, and was so manfully defending the doctrine of consubstantiality, that it was necessary to find some one to oppose him.

CHAP. 18.--Philostorgius says that Flavian and Paulinas, who afterwards divided between them the diocese of Antioch, were deposed by the same Leontius, as holding opinions at variance with his own. These followed Eustathius when he was driven into banishment; and Leontius permitted none of his cares ⁶⁵ at Antioch, or rather the interests of religion in general, to suffer by the many vicissitudes of the time.

CHAP. 19.--Philostorgius says that Aetius refused his consent to Secundus and Serras,⁶⁶ when they wished to put him forward as a candidate for the episcopal office; for he said that they did not celebrate the Divine mysteries purely or holily, seeing they were in communion⁶⁷ with the professors of consubstantiality.

CHAP. 20.--Upon hearing the report of Aetius's wisdom, Eunomius came from Cappadocia to Antioch, and held a conference with Secundus. He recommended Eunomius to Aetius, who at this time was living at Alexandria. Accordingly they lived together; Aetius being engaged in teaching, and Eunomius in attending upon his course of sacred instruction.⁶⁸

CHAP. 21.--The impious Philostorgius says that he wrote an encomium in praise of Eunomius, and he does not blush to avow the deed.

CHAP. 22.--He says that Constans was put to death by the tyrant Magnentius, on account of his zeal for Athanasius. After his death, Constantius stayed for some time at Edessa in Mesopotamia, his presence being required there on account of the Persian war. During this time their elder sister Constantia,⁶⁹ the widow of Hanniballian, in fear lest the tyrant Magnentius should reduce the whole empire under his power, proclaimed as Caesar Veteranis, one of the masters of the |459 cavalry. She seemed to do this in her own right, because their father, while alive, had placed the imperial crown upon her head, and had named her Augusta. As soon as he received intelligence of these matters, Constantius sent the crown forthwith to Veteranis, confirming to him by this act his title of king; afterwards, however, he set out with an army into the West against Magnentius, under the pretext of a desire to enter into a friendly conversation with Veteranis; and because the latter had afforded him some ground for suspecting a revolt, he apprehended him, and deprived him of his imperial robe. But he punished him with no other disability, and even admitted him to his table; and eventually he banished him to Prusa in Bithynia, and assigned him an ample and magnificent estate, thus securing him against all possibility of being in want of those comforts which constitute the happiness of private life.

CHAP. 23.--Philostorgius says that Sapor, king of Persia, waged war against the Romans, and laid siege to the city of Nisibis; but that, contrary to the general expectation, he was obliged to withdraw his forces and to return covered with shame, because James,⁷⁰ bishop of that city, had shown the citizens what to do on their own behalf, and had fought wonderfully with a firm hope and confidence in God on behalf of the safety of the city.

CHAP. 24.--The Sucian Alps, as Philostorgius says, as well as those which are called the Julian Alps, are a succession of narrow passes, with large mountains meeting closely together, so as to afford mutual strength to the position. These passes, he observes, by the way, are somewhat like the narrow pass of Thermopylae. The Julian Alps⁷¹ divide Gaul from Italy, but the Sucian Alps are the frontier between Dacia and Thrace. Veteranius seized upon these narrow passes, and so afforded to Constantius grounds for suspecting him of meditating a revolt.

CHAP. 25.--While Constantius was preparing his expedition against the tyrant Magnentius, intelligence was brought to him that the Persians had already set their forces in motion against the provinces of the East. On this account he deemed it necessary to nominate Gallus as Caesar, and to send |460 him into the East against the Persians. Now Gallus was his own cousin; for Constantius, the father of Gallus, was brother to Constantine the Great, who was the father of Constantius and his brothers.

CHAP. 26.--Constantius gained a victory over the tyrant: upon this occasion also the sign of the cross appeared to him: its appearance was of immense size, and in the brightness of its rays it wonderfully surpassed even the brightness of day. It appeared at Jerusalem⁷² about the third hour of the day which is called the day of Pentecost. This sign, which was portrayed by no human hand, was seen to stretch from the Mount of Calvary even to the Mount of Olives, and was accompanied by a large iris, like a crown, which surrounded it on all sides. The iris, indeed, signified the mercy of Jesus Christ crucified and taken up into heaven, and the crown denoted the victory of the emperor. Moreover, that splendid and venerable sign did not escape the notice even of the soldiers. But though it was clearly seen by both armies, it frightened above all measure Magnentius and his partisans, who were addicted to superstitious practices; while, on the other hand, it inspired Constantius and his army with invincible bravery. Magnentius, however, having suffered this defeat from Constantius, afterwards recovered his strength by degrees, and, engaging with him in a second battle, was entirely defeated, and fled away to Lyons with the loss of nearly all his army. And first, indeed, under the assumed appearance of good-will he killed his brother in order to rescue him from injury at the hands of the enemy. Finally, he fell upon the sword which he had placed to his breast, and so died by his own hand, having exercised his usurped power for about four years.

CHAP. 27.--Philostorgius says, that Basil and Eustathius, having fallen into enmity with Aetius, devised some absurd calumnies, and incited Gallus against him, so that Gallus, in reliance upon his bishops and burning with rage, ordered Aetius to be sought out and to be put to death by having his legs broken. But when Leontius, bishop of Antioch, had given the Caesar information which directly contradicted what had been alleged against Aetius, the sentence of condemnation was revoked, and Aetius soon afterwards went to the court of |461 Gallus and was reckoned among his friends. He was also repeatedly sent to Julian, especially at the time when Gallus had taught his brother to lean rather to the side of heathenism. He was sent, however, with the design of recalling Julian from his impiety. Gallus, moreover, appointed Aetius his superintendent of religious instruction.

CHAP. 28.--Gallus having shown considerable valour in the war against the Persians, certain calumniators endeavoured to stir up against him the hostility of Constantius. The latter, accordingly, as soon as the war was settled by the valour and bravery of Gallus, sent Domitian the prefect of the Praetorium with secret instructions to keep Gallus from quitting the city of Antioch. For by this means he thought to diminish the glory which Gallus was reaping from his bravery and care of the state. But Domitian, who was so far from acting within the tenor of instructions, that he even exceeded them by his boldness both of thought and of deed, as soon as he reached Antioch, where Gallus was staying, would not endure even to appear in his presence. On account of this insult, and other matters besides, Gallus determined to inflict capital punishment on the prefect for his haughtiness and contumacious conduct, and took Montius⁷³ as his assessor in this determination. The latter, using unbounded confidence, addressed Gallus in these terms: " You are not empowered to create even a curator⁷⁴ of the city; how then can you venture to kill the prefect of the Praetorium?" Constantia,⁷⁵ the wife of Gallus, was so exasperated by these words, because Gallus was both Caesar and the husband of Augusta-- (for this latter dignity she had herself received from her father)--that she dragged down Montius from the judgment-seat with her own hands, and gave him over into the hands of the attendants, who immediately seized him and carried him to Domitian; they then seized him also, dragged him. down from his throne, and tying ropes round the feet of both, |462 they put them to death with every mark of insult. This was done in great haste, and with the consent of Gallus.

EPITOME OF BOOK IV.

CHAP. 1.--CONSTANTIUS was much enraged when he heard what had happened to Montius and Domitian, and summoned to his presence Gallus, who immediately obeyed the command, because, although he suspected no good from his sudden summons, yet he feared the chance of a civil war following in the event of his refusal. Constantia, however, went on before him, and endeavoured to obtain an interview with her brother before her husband, and to implore mercy on his behalf. But upon her arrival at Bithynia, her journey and her life were at once broken off by a sudden attack which ended fatally. By this mischance the fears of Gallus were considerably increased, but still he did not depart from his previous resolution, so he went on his way accompanied by Theophilus the Indian. Moreover, upon the arrival of Gallus in Noricum, Barbation is sent from Milan, where Constantius then happened to be, to strip him of his purple robes, and to banish him to an island⁷⁶ in Dalmatia. But Theophilus, who chanced to be at hand, would by no means allow the matter to be brought to so ready a decision: for at the time when Gallus was created Caesar, he was himself the mediator of the treaty made between Gallus and Constantius, by which they mutually pledged themselves to friendship, and promised that they would not lay plots against each other; and it was he who all along had kept them at peace. Accordingly, on being informed of this middle position thus held by Theophilus, Constantius ordered him to be sent away into exile, and Gallus to be stripped of his purple and carried in the dress of a private citizen into a certain island, where a military guard was set over him. Moreover, the eunuch Eusebius, who had been elevated to the dignity |463 of a Praepositus, was supported by a party in his attempts to excite the mind of Constantius more and more against Gallus; for they feared that Constantius, either in remembrance of his oath, or moved by the tie of consanguinity, would recall the Caesar from banishment, and that Gallus, as soon as he had escaped that danger, would miserably destroy them all. Accordingly, they fraudulently and treacherously plotted together and sent persons to put Gallus to death. But, before the deed of blood was accomplished, Constantine relented, and sent another party to prevent the bloodshed. But Eusebius persuaded them not to approach the island, and not to show any one the rescript of the emperor forbidding the execution of Gallus before he was actually put to the sword. The matter was carried out in accordance with their designs: and hence it was that Julian, when he afterwards succeeded to the purple, put to death Eusebius and his comrades on account of the iniquitous execution of Gallus.

CHAP. 2.--Constantius, moreover, weighing well the weight of the imperial power, and his own inability to support it single-handed, summoned Julian, the brothpr of Gallus, out of Ionia, and appointed him Caesar, at the same time giving him his sister Helen in marriage; and sent him forthwith into Gaul as governor; for matters were in a very troubled state in those parts.

CHAP. 3.--He went however himself to Sirmium, where he settled for some time. At this period he recalled from exile and restored to his citizens Liberius the bishop of Rome, for whose recall the Romans were very clamorous. Philostorgius then goes on to say that this same Liberius, and with him Hosius the bishop [of Cordova], wrote openly against the term "consubstantial,"⁷⁷ and against Athanasius himself, when a synod had been convened there, and had brought over the aforementioned prelates to its own opinion. But as soon as they had subscribed, adds Philostorgius, Hosius returned to his see of Cordova in Spain and governed the church in that place, while Liberius⁷⁸ administered the church of Rome. Felix, who had been consecrated as bishop during the absence of Liberius, voluntarily retired, retaining |464 the dignity of a bishop, though he presided over no local church.

CHAP. 4.--Upon the death of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, the friends and partisans of Eudoxius,⁷⁹ as Philostorgius relates, translated him from his see of Germanicea, and placed him in the chair of Antioch.⁸⁰ This Eudoxius followed the opinions of the Arians, except only in as far as he was led by the writings of Asterius to profess the opinion of those who held that the Son was like in substance to the Father. But the Arians led him to abandon this opinion, and brought him over to believe the persons to be unlike in substance. But Philostorgius says that Eudoxius was gentle and modest in his character, and endued with no small degree of dexterity and cunning, but he vehemently censures him for want of courage. He says also that his father's name was Caesarius, and that he derived his origin from Arabissus, a town of Armenia Minor; adding at the same time, that though he yielded to the blandishments of women, yet he ended his life by martyrdom, thus blotting out the spots upon his character, and gaining moreover a heavenly crown.

CHAP. 5.--Eudoxius, according to Philostorgius, promoted Eunomius to the diaconate. But Eunomius refused to undertake the office of a deacon before he had arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines of that party.

CHAP. 6.--When the administration of the church at Antioch was put into the hands of Eudoxius, Philostorgius relates that Basil of Ancyra bore the disappointment with great impatience. For he had himself cast an ambitions eye towards that see, and carried it about fixed in his breast as the one desire of his heart.

CHAP. 7.--Constantius, when his wife Eusebia,⁸¹ whom he dearly loved, was afflicted with a disease of the womb, found it necessary to recall Theophilus from exile, for the latter was |465 celebrated for his divine skill in healing diseases. Accordingly Constantius implored his pardon for all the injuries which he had inflicted upon him, and earnestly entreated him to cure his wife. And his request, as Philostorgius testifies, was not made in vain, for as soon as Theophilus had laid his healing hands upon the empress, she was set free from her malady.

CHAP. 8.--He says that Basil, having taken with him Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, and other leaders of the churches, brought charges before the emperor against Aetius and Eudoxius, alleging against them] among other matters, that they had been privy to the conspiracy of Gallus, and actual participators in it. Theophilus too was implicated in the same series of charges. The emperor believed the story of Basil,⁸² which was supported by the women, whom Basil had already brought over to his side, and accordingly sentenced Theophilus to exile, and banished him to Heraclea on the Pontus, while he ordered Eudoxius to quit Antioch, and to keep himself within his own house. Afterwards he gave up Aetius and the rest of his party into the power of his calumniators. But Basil had held a disputation concerning the faith in the presence of the emperor. In this disputation he maintained that the Son was like to the Father in all things,⁸³ but he made no mention of the question of substance, and totally avoided the term. They also endeavoured to get this opinion confirmed by the sentence and signature of the senate. And not long afterwards, as soon as the news of what Basil had done reached Antioch, Eunomius undertakes the ordination of a deacon, and being sent as an ambassador to Constantius to get the decrees rescinded, he was taken prisoner on his road by the followers of Basil, and was banished to Midasus in Phrygia. Aetius, however, fell into the hands of Basil and his party, and was sent into banishment at Pepuza, a small village of the same country: at the same time Eudoxius retired into Armenia, his native country. Other individuals also, to the |466 number of seventy, were condemned by the voice of Basil and his party, and were sent into exile.

CHAP. 9.--The victorious party, upon accomplishing the above-mentioned matters, traversed the country in every direction, confirming men everywhere in the Homoiousian belief, that is, in the likeness of substance between the Father and the Son; and when many flocked over to their opinion, they drew over to their side Macedonius,⁸⁴ the bishop of Constantinople, although he had previously been more inclined to the sentiments of Eunomius. Many other bishops also they induced to join their party, being drawn over partly by their speeches and partly by the force which they added to their persuasions.

CHAP. 10.--He says that Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, and Narcissus, of Irenopolis, together with some others, came to Singidunum, a city of Maesia, and brought back to Constantius news of what had been fraudulently done by Basil. Constantius was amazed and confounded with grief, and recalled the condemned from exile, ordering at the same time two synods to be convened, one at Rimini, for the bishops of the West, and the other at Nicomedia, to assemble together the bishops of the East, and Libya, and Thrace, in order that the arguments alleged by either side might be diligently weighed and sifted. But the impious Philostorgius asserts that an earthquake put a stop to the holding of the synod at Nicomedia, because the greater part of the bishops there were favourably inclined to the Homoousian creed; this earthquake, he says, killed Cecropius, bishop of Nicomedia, and fifteen other bishops, who had arrived before the rest, shattering the church in which they were assembled. But the synod of Rimini, at which three hundred bishops were present, entirely rejected the use of the term "substance," but declaring the Son to be like to the Father according to the Scriptures, it confirmed that belief with the signatures of the bishops present.

CHAP. 11.--Nicomedia being thus overthrown, as Philostorgius says, by the earthquake and a consequent conflagration and inundation of the sea, a synod was at length convened at Seleucia, Basil⁸⁵ and his party having refused to meet at Nicaea, and Eudoxius and Aetius to adopt Tarsus. But the |467 party of Basil, having contrived by their artifices to divide the synod into two factions, and having met together apart from the rest, declared the Son to be like to the Father in substance; they also proceeded to depose such as entertained the opposite opinion, condemned the doctrine which asserts the Persons to be unlike, and finally by themselves ordained Annianus bishop of Antioch. But Eudoxius and Aetius, having subscribed their names to the doctrine of unlikeness, sent their letters about in every direction.

CHAP. 12.--But the emperor, on being informed of these matters, ordered the whole of the bishops to assemble at Constantinople. Accordingly they meet together, nearly all the episcopate, as well from the West as from the East and from Libya, Basil and Eustathius⁸⁶ being the leaders of those who professed to hold that the Son was like to the Father in substance. These these had a great number of supporters present, and among them a second Basil, who even at that time was only of the order of deacon; he was superior to many in his powers of speech, though from natural timidity⁸⁷ and shyness he shrunk from public discussions. But of those who professed their belief in the unlikeness of the Persons, Aetius and Eunomius were the leaders, so far as concerned power and influence, each of them being only of the rank of a deacon. Next to these came the bishops Maris and Eudoxius, who at that time was bishop of Antioch, but was afterwards promoted to the see of Constantinople, as likewise Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who pretended that he was of their party in order to cause pain to Basil, because the latter treated with marked respect Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, whom he had deposed. Acacius, moreover, was bold in discussion, most acute in discerning the point in matters of business, and very eloquent in enforcing his opinion. Hence also the acts of this synod, which are not few in number⁸⁶, were digested and arranged by him. Accordingly, as soon as both parties had come into conflict concerning their respective dogmas, Basil was the patron of those who professed to believe that the Son was like in substance to the Father. But those who asserted |468 the dissimilarity of substance, put forward Aetius and Eunomius as the champions of their cause. Moreover, Basil and his partisans, when they saw Aetius pitted against him as his adversary, in fear of his eloquence, avowed that it was indecorous for bishops to contend with a deacon concerning the doctrines of the faith. But when the leaders of the opposite cause shrunk back from the contest, saying that the matter at stake was not their dignity, but the question of the truth. Basil⁸⁸ came forward to the contest, though unwillingly; and, as he writes, he was entirely overcome by his eloquence. So that he not only confessed that the substance of the begotten Son differed from that of the Father who begot him, and was like him in no respect; but also, as Aetius demanded, he confirmed his profession by the subscription of his signature. When the emperor learned these tidings, and still bore in his mind all fresh the calumny of Basil against Aetius, he took advantage of that event to gratify his anger. Accordingly, he ordered both of them to appear in his presence, and asked Basil what were the charges which he brought against Aetius. Basil answered, that he asserted the Son to be unlike the Father in substance. Upon this Aetius said, "I am so far from thinking or asserting that the Son is unlike the Father, that I confess him to be like without any difference." But Constantine, laying hold of that word, "without any difference," and not even enduring to learn in what sense Aetius used that term, gave orders that he should be expelled from the palace. But afterwards, with the assistance of Acacius, he brought about the judicial deposition of Aetius from the episcopate; and it was not only the orthodox who subscribed his degradation, but also those who were of his own opinion; of whom some had changed their former opinion, while others defended, under the name of economy,⁸⁹ what they had been unwillingly compelled to do. Further, Constantius, bringing into the midst of the synod the epistle of the Western bishops, ordered it to be confirmed by the subscription of the bishops who were present. Now, in the letter were contained the following words, " That the Son is like to the Father according |469 to the Scriptures." Then also, by the artifice of this same Acacius, who always had one thing hidden in his bosom and another ready upon his tongue, both all the bishops who were present, and also those who hitherto had professed to believe the Persons to be unlike in substance, added their subscriptions.

EPITOME OF BOOK V.

CHAP. 1.--UPON this Acacius, having drawn over the emperor to his own sentiments, assailed Basil, Eustathius, and many other bishops with various accusations, and deposed them from their sees. He also stripped of his sacerdotal dignity Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople; and after his degradation it was with the consent of the emperor that Eudoxius was translated from the see of Antioch and chosen in his room.⁹⁰ Those who were deposed were also sent into banishment: Basil went into Illyria, and the rest were dispersed in various places. When they were led into exile, they revoked the subscriptions with which they ratified the faith of the council of Rimini: and the latter party preached the doctrine of consubstantiality, while the others renewed the opinion of a similarity of substance in the Persons. Aetius, however, being deposed for the introduction of his term "without any difference," which was manifestly at variance with the rest of his public teaching, is banished to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, though most of his followers and partisans had not only set their signatures to the condemnation of himself, but also of his doctrine; some casting entirely away the opinion which they had previously embraced; others, again, playing the part of mere time-servers, and reverencing the will of the emperor as paramount to the truth. Moreover, Acacius, having got Basil deposed and banished from motives of private hostility, and Aetius on account of his difference of opinion, returns to Caesarea and appoints professors of the Homoousian faith, as bishops of the sees of those churches which were deprived of their pastors. Thus, at Nicomedia., he consecrated Onesimus in the place of Cecropius, and substituted Athanasius⁹¹ in the |470 room of Basil at Ancyra, while he set another Acacius over the church at Tarsus in the room of Silvanus. But at Antioch, all the clergy who had formerly agreed with Basil in the line which he pursued against Aetius and Eudoxius, were driven into banishment without an opportunity of defending themselves. Meletius, too, was summoned from Sebastia, a city of Armenia, and placed in the see of Antioch by the same Acacius in the place of Eudoxius, who had ascended the throne of Constantinople. But Meletius, though previously he had professed his belief in the unlikeness of substance between the Father and the Son, suited his views according to the will of the emperor, and subscribed the epistle of the Eastern bishops. But after his elevation to the see of Antioch, he came forward as a most valiant defender of consubstantiality. The same Acacius also consecrated Pelagius bishop of Laodicea. And, to speak briefly, wherever force and influence seconded his design, he used all, possible zeal in placing those who most strenuously professed the consubstantial creed in the place of those who were expelled.

CHAP. 2.--The emperor, having learned from Acacius that Aetius was treated by Auxentius, bishop of Mopsuestia, with all possible care and kindness, ordered him to be removed to Ambdala,⁹² that he might there bring his life to a miserable close on account of the fierce and savage character of its inhabitants. And when, on account of the heat, that place was infected with a very terrible pestilence, this impious forger of lies declares that Aetius appeased the Divinity and warded off these calamities, and was treated in consequence by the barbarians with the greatest kindness and respect.

CHAP. 3.--After the deposition of Eustathius, Eusebius, and Eleusius, Maris and Eudoxius consecrated Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus,⁹³ with the full consent of Constantius. Eunomius, however, refused to submit to their consecration until he had received from them a pledge that Aetius should be set |471 free from his sentence of banishment and deposition. A period of three months was specified for the performance of this stipulation.

CHAP. 4. -- Constantius had previously been in the habit of gaining victories over his enemies; but after he had stained his hands with the blood of those who were near of kin to him,⁹⁴ and had been driven on by the calumnies of Basil to punish Aetius, Theophilus, and Serras with banishment, he was forced to retreat in disgrace from a battle which he fought with the Persians.

CHAP. 5. -- The impious Philostorgius declares that Meletitos, bishop of Antioch, was banished by Constantius, who happened at that time to be staying at that city, to Meletina, his native country, as though he had been convicted of perjury, because while he was most ardent in preaching the doctrine of consubstantiality, he pretended to embrace the doctrine of "an unlikeness of Persons.⁹⁵ After this, Constantius summoned from Alexandria Euzoius, the partner of the heresy of Arius, and, ordering the bishops to lay their hands on him, appointed him to the see of Antioch.

EPITOME OF BOOK VI.

CHAP. 1.--SOME individuals of the clergy of the city of Cyzicus accused Eunomius before Eudoxius as though he asserted the Son to be unlike the Father, because he denied that he was like him in substance, from which they drew the inference that he held the Son to be really unlike the Father. Moreover, they accused him of changing the established rites, and of casting out those who would not join with him in his impious designs. On this account a tumult was raised in the church of Constantinople, which was strenuously agitated by a certain presbyter of that church named Hesychius. Eudoxius forthwith summoned Eunomius to his presence.⁹⁶ Upon |472 his arrival he accused Eudoxius of sloth and carelessness in the performance of his promises. Eudoxius answered ihat he had by no means neglected to perform them, but that first the tumult ought to be quieted which had been roused on his account. Accordingly, Eunomius began to plead his defence before the clergy of Constantinople, and so conciliated the minds of those who were previously excited against him, that he was induced not only to come over to his own opinions, but also to offer a ready testimony to the piety of Eunomius. For not only was he never detected in asserting the Son to be unlike the Father in those sermons which he delivered,⁹⁷ but he also freely professed to teach that he was like him according to the Scriptures. That he was like in substance was a position which he by no means admitted;⁹⁸ for he said that it was equally impious to declare the Son to be like in substance to the Father, and not to confess that he was entirely like, according to the relation existing between the only-begotten Son and the Father, who had begotten him without passions. And he infected with these views not merely the great body of the clergy, but also the entire congregation of the church; for the style of his discussions on these points struck them with admiration, not only of his wisdom, but also of his piety. On this account Eudoxius was rejoiced above measure, and exclaimed, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this."⁹⁹ And the people applauded Eudoxius, because he had quoted the words of Holy Scripture so effectively and opportunely.

CHAP. 2. -- The impious Philostorgius declares that the hateful Eunomius delivered to the people, at the command of Eudoxius, on the feast of the Epiphany, a sermon in which the abominable and detestable doctrine of that school was openly taught. For those detestable individuals ventured to assert, that after the ineffable birth of her Son, Joseph had conjugal intercourse with the Virgin Mary; and what is still more audacious, they did not hesitate to declare that the Son was but the minister of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son. |473 Moreover, the very style which they used at that time was far removed from that of graceful panegyric, being turgid, with obscure and superfluous expressions, and the employment of words of impurity, tending to a speech at once distasteful, ridiculous, and confused; declaring that God had openly visited them with the punishment of a mind darkened and confounded.

CHAP. 3.--After heaping many praises on Eunomius, Eudoxius not only brought himself to perform no part of his promises to him, but also endeavoured to persuade him to subscribe to the deposition of Arius, and to the exposition of the creed adopted at Rimini, excusing to them, under the pretext of "economy,"¹⁰⁰ his unlawful and involuntary crime. By these doings Eunomius was grievously enraged, and would not perform either of them; but he leaves them¹⁰¹ in possession of Cyzicus, first in promise, and afterwards confirming the grant by letter, and retired into his native country of Cappadocia.

CHAP. 4.-- Acacius, being grievously indignant against Eunomius because he had been appointed bishop of Cyzicus, accused him and Eudoxius of having consecrated as bishop, without the common consent, the disciple of Aetius, a person who vied with and even surpassed his master in the fervency of his zeal for heresy. And by his calumnies he managed to make so much way that Constantius lent him his ear, and recalled Eunomius to Antioch. On his arrival thither, Constantius ordered him to be examined, and to plead his cause in the judicial assembly. But when the assembly demanded a prosecutor, no one appeared against him; for Acacius was struck dumb with fear, and persevered in keeping a most profound silence, for he thought that his adversary would be entirely overwhelmed by the mere force of calumny with the emperor. As soon as Constantius learned this, he regarded Acacius with suspicion, as one who had instituted the charges |474 against Eudoxius rather out of spiteful motives than from any real uprightness of character. Accordingly he bade him return at once to his church, and reserved for a larger assembly all further inquiry into the present business.

CHAP. 5.--While Constantius was pondering in his mind over these matters, news was brought to him of the rebellion of Julian.¹⁰² Accordingly he seized at once upon Constantinople, and convened by proclamation a synod at the city of Nicaea for the purpose of examining into the doctrine which declared the Son to be of a different substance from the Father. But upon his arrival at a place called Mopsi Crene, he was struck with a fatal disorder, and being there baptized by Euzoius, he died, leaving behind him his royalty and the synods to be held for the purpose of confirming a heresy.

CHAP. 6.--When the body of Constantius was being carried out to burial, Julian entered Constantinople, and walked before the bier without his crown, thus paying honour to the corpse of one whose life he had so shortly before endeavoured to take away.

CHAP. 7.--Julian, having thus seized upon the empire, recalled Aetius as one who had been sent into banishment on account of Gallus; and restored to their sees not only him, but also all the other prelates who had been banished on account of the contested doctrines of the church.

EPITOME OF BOOK VII.

CHAP. 1.--JULIAN having thus seized upon the imperial purple, and issued edicts permitting all possible licence to the heathen, and allowing them to practise all that they had learnt, involved the Christians in the most grievous and inexplicable persecutions, by allowing the heathen everywhere to inflict upon them every kind of death, accompanied with every sort of tortures and torments, unheard of until then.

CHAP. 2.--When George, bishop of Alexandria, presided over the council,¹⁰³ and compelled those who were of the sentiments |475 of Aetius to subscribe the epistle ¹⁰⁴ against Aetius, the heathen suddenly attacked him and seized him: and after inflicting many indignities upon his body, at last they committed it to the flames. Further, this impious writer asserts that they were incited to this act by the counsel of Athanasius.¹⁰⁵ For the latter recovered his see upon the death of George, and the people of Alexandria received him back with open arms.

CHAP. 3. -- Concerning an image¹⁰⁶ of our Saviour erected by the faith of a pious woman in grateful remembrance of her cure from a bloody flux, Philostorgius writes, that it was placed near the fountain in the city among other statues, and presented a pleasant and agreeable sight to the passers-by. And when a certain herb, which grew up at the foot of this statue, was found to be a most effectual remedy against all diseases, and especially against consumption, men naturally began to inquire into the cause of this matter; for by lapse of time all memory of the fact had been lost, and it was even forgotten whose statue it was, and on what account it had been erected. Inasmuch as the figure of our Saviour had long stood exposed in the open air, and a great part of it was covered over by the earth which was perpetually carried down against the pediment, especially during seasons of heavy rain, the notice contained in the inscription upon it was well nigh obliterated. A diligent inquiry was consequently made, and the part of the statue which had been covered up being brought to light, the inscription was discovered which explained the entire circumstances of the fact; and the plant thenceforth was never again seen either there or in any other place. The statue itself they placed in the part of the church which was allotted to the deacons,¹⁰⁷ paying to it due honour and respect, yet by no means adoring or worshipping it; and they showed their love for its great archetype by erecting it in that place |476 with circumstances of honour, and by flocking thither in eager crowds to behold it. During the reign of Julian, however, the heathen ¹⁰⁸ who inhabited Paneas were excited by an impious frenzy to pull down this statue from its pediment, and to drag it through the midst of the streets with ropes fastened round its feet; afterwards they broke in pieces the rest of the body, while some persons, indignant at the whole proceeding, secretly obtained possession of the head, which had become, detached from the neck as it was dragged along, and they preserved it as far as was possible. This transaction Philostorgius declared that he witnessed with his own eyes. But the district of Paneas was formerly called Dan, from Dan the son of Jacob, who was the head of one of the twelve tribes, which was situated in those parts. But in the course of time it came to be called Caesarea Philippi,¹⁰⁹ and later still, when the heathen erected in it a statue of the god Pan, its name was changed to Paneas.¹¹⁰

CHAP. 4.--The heathens perpetrated everywhere many atrocities against the Christians, and more particularly the following disgraceful deed they committed in Palestine. The bones of the prophet Eliseus and of John the Baptist¹¹¹ were dug up out of their sepulchres where they were buried, and being mingled with the bones of beasts, they were thrown into the flames, reduced to ashes, and scattered to the winds. In some places, too, they seized upon the Christians and placed them as victims on the heathen altars; and many other fearful atrocities did they commit, impelled, as it would seem, by some supernatural frenzy. When Julian learned these tidings, ho not only felt no indignation against their authors, but even rejoiced at their doings; as though the infamy belonging to such deeds attached itself to others, while his own wishes were in concert with their acts. But as soon as he perceived |477 that none of his desires were realized by all these atrocities, inasmuch as the spirit of the Christians, whom he specially persecuted, did but gather fresh strength daily, he contrived to bring into open collision¹¹² the bishops who had been banished for various reasons and those who had been substituted in their room. Accordingly he gave to both parties full licence of doing whatever they could to obtain their restoration and to defend their possessions respectively. And on this account they were so brought into open contest with each other as to cause our religion great disgrace and opprobrium,--a point which the Apostate had especially at heart. He added also another insult to this malignant contrivance, for he pressed those who were already enrolled among the clerical body to undertake the public functions of the Decurios, and assigned the revenues of the churches to the ministers of the heathen deities. In fine, he did not cease to employ every effort and contrivance to cause the superstitions of the heathens to flourish in every quarter, and, as he hoped, entirely to extinguish our religion.

CHAP. 5.--While matters were in this state, Eudoxius, recalling to mind the oath and pledges in which he had bound himself before Eunomius in favour of Aetius, wrote letters to Euzoius, bishop of Antioch, commanding him to convene a synod, in order to absolve Aetius from the sentence of condemnation which had formerly been passed upon him. But Euzoius took no account of this request, but was especially loud in his censures of Eudoxius for not having sooner set himself to do what he now enjoined others to execute. But when Eudoxius persevered in his command, Euzoius at length promised to comply.

CHAP. 6.--While Aetius and Eunomius were staying at Constantinople, they were joined by Leontius, bishop of Tripolis, and Theodulus of Chaeretapa, as also by Serras. Theophilus and Heliodorus from either Libya,¹¹³ and all who embraced the like opinion, and who had not ventured to subscribe |478 either the condemnation of Aetius or the letter of the Western¹¹⁴ bishops. These therefore assembled together and consecrated Aetius as bishop,¹¹⁵ and Aetius and Eunomius were all in all with them. They also consecrated other bishops, Eudoxius not only not being indignant on the occasion, but also giving his vote in favour of those who were to be ordained even more readily than the partisans of Aetius. During the same period Euzoius too, having collected a synod of nine bishops, reversed the measures which had been originally adopted against Aetius.¹¹⁶ He also reversed the six months of licence at the expiration of which Serras had been condemned to deposition from his priesthood, as a punishment in case of his refusing to subscribe the deposition of Aetius and the letter of the Western bishops. Accordingly, when the two measures which I have mentioned above had turned out thus, Euzoius contemplated sending letters to Eudoxius, but it so happened that the persecution of the Christians, which at that time was past all endurance, checked his attempt.

CHAP. 7.--When the apostate Julian found himself after many ineffectual attempts unable to detach from the faith. Valentinian, the commander of a regiment in the army, he stripped him of his dignity and banished him to Thebes in Egypt.¹¹⁷ He was Comes of the band called "Cornuti," and while Constantius was emperor one of the school of the Silentiarii is said to have seen him with flames issuing out of his mouth about mid-day, just at the time when we take our meal, and to have reported the sight to Constantius. Being sent by him to summon Valentinian to his presence on some business or other, he happened to witness the event; and as soon as he learned the tidings of it, Constantius was seized with suspicion and alarm, though he did nothing to Valentinian by way of punishment. But to calm his fears, he sent |479 him to the fortresses of Mesopotamia, with instructions to keep garrison there and to check the incursions of the Persians.

CHAP. 8.--Philostorgius does not differ much from other writers in his narration concerning the martyr Babylas,¹¹⁸ the number and greatness of the indignities with which Julian treated his body, what the devils were compelled to speak, how the shrine together with the image of Apollo¹¹⁹ was burnt down by lightning, and as to all the other wondrous events which happened, both natural and supernatural. He says moreover that the holy Babylas¹²⁰ was put to death together with three boys of a very tender age, and that his martyrdom arose from the following cause. Babylas was bishop of Antioch; by inspiration of the devil, Numerian the Roman emperor, or as others say, Decius, was led to desire to enter the church of the Christians at the time when a very large concourse of people had assembled together. But the priest of God stood at the entrance porch and forbade his entry, declaring that, so far as in him lay, he would not suffer a wolf to climb into the fold. But the emperor immediately desisted from his effort, either because he feared a popular outbreak, or because he changed his mind on some other account. But as to the bishop, he first accused him of insolence, and afterwards commanded him to sacrifice to the heathen deities, as being the only sacrifice by which he could at once wash out his offence, and gain honour and glory from posterity. Babylas having resisted the proposals of the emperor with a stout and noble heart, received the crown of martyrdom.

CHAP. 9.--The apostate Julian endeavouring to convict of falsehood the prophecies of our Saviour, in which he declared that Jerusalem should be so utterly overthrown that "one stone should not be left upon another,"¹²¹ not only failed in his attempt, but also was compelled against his will to give a |480 most irrefragable proof of their truth. For having collected together all the Jews¹²² from every quarter, and having Supplied them with money from the imperial treasury and with other resources, he enjoined upon them to set about the rebuilding of their temple. But a panic repeatedly inspired in their minds, such as no tongue of eloquence can describe, put a check to their attempts, and also covered with shame and disgrace as well the emperor as the Jews, and drove them into the greatest straits. Hence flames came down and destroyed those who dared to set a hand to the work; hence an earthquake came and swallowed them up, while others perished again by some other calamity. So the audacity which dared to cast discredit upon the prophecies of our Lord, was overruled to show their venerable truth and efficacy.

CHAP. 10.--When many of those who had been most furious against the Christians and our holy religion had thus suffered the well-merited penalty of their sins, Julian, the count of the East, the uncle of the apostate emperor,¹²³ and Felix, the count of Largesses, and Elpidius, the prefect of the palace, whom the Romans are accustomed to call Counts of the Privy Chamber, paid the most manifest and conspicuous penalty of all. These three were among those who apostatized from our faith in order to gain favour with the emperor. Felix, indeed, without any apparent predisposing cause, suddenly burst one of the largest of the interior veins, when a torrent of blood flowed from his mouth. He afforded a most horrible spectacle to all who were present, and did not survive the stroke an entire day, for towards the same evening, when the blood ceased to flow any longer, he breathed his last. But Julian, being seized with a severe disorder, the nature of which was unknown, lay prostrated on his bed for forty days without speech, and almost without showing signs of consciousness. But afterwards, when he began to mend in a slight degree, he condemned the impious deed which he had committed, and confessed that his disease was sent upon him as a punishment for it; and recovering so far as to become a witness against his own impiety, he breathed his last in great tortures from the ulcers which tore his intestines in pieces. Last of all, Elpidius, at a somewhat later period than the rest, having |481 been detected favouring the conspiracy of Procopius, who had rebelled against Valens, was despoiled of his goods, and being condemned to perpetual imprisonment, finished his life in the deepest disgrace, amid the execration of all, who called him Elpidius the Sacrificer. Moreover, another of them, who went with the above-mentioned individuals into a church which they were pillaging and plundering, robbing it of its sacred vessels and shrines, and insulting the God who was honoured in those sacred rites, this very man, I say, insolently lifted up his robe and made water upon the altar, whereupon he suffered an immediate and sudden penalty. For those very parts which he had thus insolently abused began to putrify into his very bowels, and produced a vast multitude of worms, so that he died by a miserable end, and one which deserves to be kept in silence. Others, and many too, who had dared to perpetrate similar crimes, paid a like penalty for their sin.

CHAP. 11.--The Roman emperor Hadrian, who was called Aelius, named the city of Jerusalem Aelia, after himself, in order entirely to banish and exclude thence the Jewish race, that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country.¹²⁴ Hadrian was in reality afraid of their hot and impetuous disposition as a nation, and especially dreaded lest they should meet in that city under the pretext of performing their sacrifices, and cause the Romans trouble.

CHAP. 12.--After the translation of the relics of the martyr Babylas, the heathen oracles, beginning with that at Delphi, gave forth some predictions and prophecies; the good providence of God permitting them to speak, but turning to shame the reverence and respect paid to them by their worshippers.¹²⁵ For the more diligently the heathen sought to get answers from their deities in order to find a just cause for paying to them divine honours, the more they were compelled by Divine Providence to discover their weakness and powerlessness for truth; for the answers which they uttered were shown to be false and without fulfilment. In truth, when all the oracles had given their answer, that Julian, the emperor's uncle, who at that time lay ill, would recover and not |482 die, he breathed out his wretched soul while those very responses were being read by the people.

CHAP. 13.--A certain man named Heron, a native of Thebes in Egypt, and who had borne the episcopal office, having afterwards gone back to heathen superstitions, was suddenly seized by a putrid disorder, which affected his entire body, and rendered him loathsome to the sight. Being brought then into great straits, he lay about in the streets, unpitied by any one, for the Christians turned aside from him in disgust, while the heathen knew him only so far as they had led him into their errors. Heron, indeed, died a bitter and miserable death. A certain Theotecnus, also, having passed over to the same superstition, suddenly became putrid in his body, which became a mere receptacle of worms, which eat out his eyes, and he was reduced by madness to the very last extremity. His very tongue was gnawed out and eaten by them; and after undergoing these painful tortures, he was reserved for even a severer penalty. God displayed many of these miracles at that time upon those who had impiously apostatized from religion, exacting from them a penalty commensurate with their crimes.

CHAP. 14.--When Julian bade the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt in order to refute openly the predictions of our Lord concerning it, he brought about exactly the opposite of what he intended. For his work was checked by many other prodigies from heaven; and especially, during the preparation of the foundations, one of the stones which was placed at the lowest part of the base, suddenly started from its place and opened the door of a certain cave hollowed out in the rock. Owing to its depth, it was difficult to see what was within this cave; so persons were appointed to investigate the matter, who, being anxious to find out the truth, let down one of their workmen by means of a rope. On being lowered down he found stagnant water reaching up to his knees; and, having gone round the place and felt the walls on every side, he found the cave to be a perfect square. Then, in his return, as he stood near about the middle, he struck his foot against a column which stood rising slightly above the water. As soon as he touched this pillar, he found lying upon it a book¹²⁶ wrapped |483 up in a very fine and thin linen cloth; ¹²⁷ and as soon as he had lifted it up just as he had found it, he gave a signal to his companions to draw him up again. As soon as he regained the light, he showed them the book, which struck them all with astonishment, especially because it appeared so new and fresh, considering the place where it had been found. This book, which appeared such a mighty prodigy in the eyes of both heathens and Jews, as soon as it was opened showed the following words in large letters: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."¹²⁸ In fact, the volume contained that entire Gospel which had been declared by the divine tongue of the (beloved) disciple and the Virgin. Moreover, this miracle, together with other signs which were then shown from heaven, most clearly showed that "the word of the Lord would never go forth void,"¹²⁹ which had foretold that the devastation of the Temple should be perpetual. For that book declared Him who had uttered those words long before, to be God and the Creator of the universe; and it was a very clear proof that "their labour was but lost that built,"¹³⁰ seeing that the immutable decree of the Lord had condemned the Temple to eternal desolation. The city of Jerusalem itself was formerly called Jebus, and was inhabited by some of the tribe of Benjamin, before King David took it by the aid of Joab. The army promised him the throne of Israel if he could only get possession of that city, and when he captured it, the army faithfully observed its promises. He then built a new city on the same site, and chose it as the metropolis of the entire Hebrew race.

CHAP. 15. -- The apostate Julian undertook an expedition against the Persians, relying upon the prophecies of the heathen oracles in different quarters, that his might would prove irresistible. But a certain old man, who had long since been discharged from the Persian service, contrived by fraud and treachery to insnare the Apostate as he was making war in Persia.¹³¹ And when he had brought the Romans into the greatest straits by leading them into a pathless desert, in which a very great portion of the army perished, he gave the |484 enemy, like the prey of a hunter, into the hands of his countrymen. For the Persians rushed upon the Romans, having joined to their forces as allies some Saracenic horsemen who were armed with spears. One of them hurled a spear against Julian, which struck him on the thigh near the groin; and when the spear was drawn out, it was followed by a quantity of dung and blood also. One of the body-guard of the emperor immediately attacked the Saracen who had wounded the king, and cut off his head: while the Romans immediately placed Julian, thus mortally wounded, on a shield, and carried him off into a tent. Many even thought that the fatal blow was struck by Julian's own friends, so sudden and unexpected was it, and so much at a loss were they to know whence it proceeded. But the wretched Julian took up in his hands the blood which flowed from his wounds, and cast it up towards the sun, exclaiming, "Take thy fill;" and he added curses upon the other gods as villains and destroyers. In his train was a most distinguished physician, one Oribasius, a native of the Lydian city, Sardis. But the wound was far beyond all medical art, and carried Julian off after three days of suffering, after he had enjoyed the dignity of Caesar for five years, and the imperial throne two years and a half from the death of Constantius. Philostorgius in this passage writes, that Julian sprinkled his blood towards the sun and cursed his gods. But most historians write that he used this act as an expression of hatred against our Lord and only true God, Jesus Christ."¹³² |485

EPITOME OF BOOK VIII.

CHAP. 1.--ON the next day after Julian's death, the soldiers proclaimed Jovian emperor. He found that there was no other means left of escape, for the whole army had been reduced to a tenth of its original numbers; so he concluded a truce for three years with the Persians, on the condition of surrendering to them Nisibis and all the fortresses which had been erected by the Romans as means of defence against the Persians, even as far as Armenia. Moreover, Merobaudes¹³³ and his fellow-comrades, as they were carrying the corpse of Julian into Cilicia, placed it by accident, and not by design, opposite to the tomb which contained the bones of Maximin, so that the coffins of both were separated from each other only by the highway.

CHAP. 2.--Euzoius and the bishops of his party compiled a book in defence of Aetius¹³⁴ and his doctrines, but they took no pains to get the matter brought to a satisfactory termination.¹³⁵ Accordingly Aetius and Eunomius stayed some time in Constantinople, and busied themselves with looking after their own affairs; and having arranged other matters as seemed to them most advantageous, they ordered certain bishops, among whom were Candidus¹³⁶ and Arrianus, who were |486 set over the churches of Lydia and Ionia, while Theodulus¹³⁷ was promoted from the see of Chaeretapa to the bishopric of Palestine. At Constantinople too they chose Paemenius as bishop of their church, for many seceders from the party of Eudoxius and other sects in that city had swelled the adherents of Aetius and Eunomius. By this act, however, they contrived to incur the hostility of Eudoxius, who had hitherto cherished the hope of cementing a friendship with them. And when Paemenius died, soon after this, they substituted Florentius in his place, at the same time appointing Thallus bishop of Lesbos, upon the death of the existing bishop. Euphronius,¹³⁸ too, they set over Galatia, on the shores of the Euxine, and Cappadocia, as bishop, and Julian over Cilicia. Theophilus the Indian not long afterwards betook himself to Antioch in Coele-Syria of his own accord, for the special purpose of rousing Euzoius to carry into execution the decrees which had been passed in favour of Aetius; and, if he could not accomplish this point, at all events to preside over the people who adhered to his own views of doctrine. But the care of both parts of Libya, and all who professed their doctrines throughout Egypt, was placed in the hands of Serras and Stephen and Heliodorus. In relating all these matters, Philostorgius exceeds all bounds of moderation in praising their eloquence and their sanctity of life to the skies.

CHAP. 3.--Philostorgius makes mention of a certain bishop named Theodosius,¹³⁹ a most zealous supporter of the Eunomian tenets, but a follower of wanton women, and one who added some other impious tenets to the ancient creed, and especially this, namely, that the nature of Christ was subject to change, but that by the most perfect practice of the Christian virtues he was raised to a state not subject to change; and also that God neither speaks nor hears, for else he would have material hands and ears. Many other impious assertions of the same Theodosius are also related by him. |487

CHAP. 4.--Aetius, indeed, went into Lydia to set Candidas and Arrian over the districts of that province. But the aforesaid Theodosius, fearing that their life would be the condemnation of his own, took up hostilities against Aetius, although previously he had refused to put his signature to the synodical epistle¹⁴⁰ against him;¹⁴¹ and having communicated his design to Phoebus,¹⁴² who was himself of the number of those who had declined to condemn Aetius, and who was inclined to regard Theodosius in the more friendly manner from early remembrance of him, and from being like to him in the immorality of his life,--the two joined forces with Auxidianus, who, like themselves, had been a bishop, and laid their plans against Aetius and Candidas, collected together six other bishops, and having formed themselves into a synod, sent letters by common consent to Eudoxius and Maris. In these letters they condemned the ordination of Aetius as illegal, especially on the ground that after his being deposed from the diaconate, and while as yet he was still under the censure of those who had deposed him, still, though degraded from the lower office, he had been promoted to the higher rank. They also assailed the ordination of Candidus and Arrianus, on the ground that they had been hastily performed without the common consent, and likewise other ordinations which had been held by Aetius. Eudoxius, however, having very readily received this letter, never took the pains to call back to mind the sacred oaths by which he had pledged himself to Eunomius, and the letters which he had written to Euzoius, and the many and various pledges by which he had ratified his promises. But he wrote back to Theodosius and his companions, urging them to carry on the matter with promptness, and exhorting them to reserve their punishments for those who had held ordinations, rather than visit those who had been ordained with penalties.

CHAP. 5.--The emperor Jovian restored the churches to their original uses,¹⁴³ and set them free from all the vexatious |488 persecutions inflicted on them by the apostate Julian. He also called back from exile all whom he had banished because they refused to abandon their faith: among their number was Valentinian,¹⁴⁴ who at that time returned from Thebes in Egypt.

CHAP. 6.--Philostorgius says, that Candidus and Arrianus, relatives of Jovian, came to him while he was staying at Edessa, and resisted him in his efforts to conciliate the goodwill of the emperor towards Athanasius. But the emperor referred what was said on either side to be decided by the common voice, and meantime showed no sign as to which of the two sides he regarded with favour.

CHAP. 7.--Eudoxius addressed to Euzoius certain letters against Candidus and Arrianus. Euzoius felt indignant at this step, so he joined forces with Elpidius, and wrote back to Eudoxius, partly in censure of his opinion, and partly, on the other hand, exhorting him the rather to give up opinions of such a nature. At the same time he visited him with a gentle censure for the long delay which he had made in performing the promises which he had made Eunomius in favour of Aetius.

CHAP. 8.--The emperor Jovian, having arrived at Ancyra, on his way to Constantinople, gave the title of "most noble" to one of his two sons, named Varronianus, who was then quite a child. Thence he set out with his army on a further expedition, though it was the very depth of winter, and lost many of his men upon the road; reaching Dadastana itself together with a few survivors.¹⁴⁵ Having put up at a certain station on the way, he laid down to take his rest in a bedchamber, the walls of which had been recently white-washed; and when a fire was lit, and the heat diffused itself through the room, the moisture of the newly-stained walls began to exude, and being drawn in by the nostrils in breathing, choked up the passages of the lungs, and suffocated the emperor, after he had held the imperial throne about ten months complete. |489 His corpse was afterwards brought to Constantinople. The army on its arrival at Nicaea, after a lapse of twelve days, proclaimed Valentinian emperor, according to a suggestion of Datian the patrician, communicated in letters from Galatia, where he had been left, partly on account of his old age, and partly on account of the severity of the winter. Secundus,¹⁴⁶ prefect of the Praetorium, and Arinthaeus, master of the horse, together with Dagalairus, chamberlain of the household, joined in effecting this matter. And when forthwith after his proclamation, the army, as it carried along the emperor on a shield,¹⁴⁷ demanded of him that he would choose some one to share with him the imperial power,¹⁴⁸ Valentinian lifted up his hand and commanded them to hold their peace; and no way alarmed, he thus addresed them with all the firmness of an emperor. "It was your own free choice and vote, my soldiers, which raised me from a private state to the dignity of emperor. Henceforth, however, to discern and to arrange what is to be done, is the place of the emperor only, and not that of his subjects." As soon, however, as he had entered Constantinople, he took his brother Valens to share his throne, and having made this appointment, went as far as Sirmium in the regions of the West; here he divided with his brother all the imperial ornaments, and the other insignia of state and court, and sent him back to Constantinople, assigning to him all those parts of the East which had been formerly subject to Constantius. The emperor himself, however, took in hand the other two portions of the empire, and so possessed himself of the entire West. And not long afterwards he began to train up, in imitation of his own character, his son Gratian, whom he advanced to the regal dignity at a very early age.

CHAP. 9.--Philostorgius says, that Hypatia,¹⁴⁹ the daughter of Theon, was so well educated in mathematics by her father, that she far surpassed her teacher, and especially in astronomy, and taught many others the mathematical sciences. The impious writer asserts that, during the reign of Theodosius |490 the younger, she was torn in pieces by the Homoousian party.

CHAP. 10.--The author here relates that there was a Philostorgius living in the days of Valens and Valentinian, who was the most illustrious physician of his time. He had two sons, Philagrius and Posidonius. Of these two, he relates that he saw Posidonius, who was also eminent as a physician. This Posidonius, however, used falsely to assert that men do not grow fanatic by the agency of evil spirits, but merely by the superfluity of certain evil humours; and that there is no power in evil spirits to assail the human race. At the same period also flourished Magnus, who practised the same art at Alexandria.

CHAP. 11.--This impious writer, though against his will, expresses his admiration of the wisdom of Basil the Great and Gregory the theologian; whose country Nazianzum he calls Nadiandum. But he prefers to both the one and the other Apollinaris of Laodicea, as far as regards the literature of the Scriptures, though he admits that in panegyrical discourses the latter is surpassed by Basil; while Gregory, as compared with the other two, had a much more rounded style of composition; he was also more fluent in speech than Apollinaris, and more stately than Basil.

CHAP. 12.--He says that not only Basil the Great, but also Apollinaris, wrote against the Apology of Eunomius; but that Eunomius replied to him in five books, and that when he had read only the first of these, he was struck with such profound remorse that he died. Thus does this writer show how much more highly he values falsehood than truth,

CHAP. 13.--He openly calumniates these same most holy men, Basil and Gregory. For he makes out that they said that the Son was not made man, but dwelt in a human frame; and on this account Apollinaris joined their party. He also not only accuses him on account of those matters for which he is deservedly censured by pious individuals, but he also relates that ho was carried away into another strange belief. For among other things, he asserts that he denied the resurrection of the body.¹⁵⁰ |491

CHAP. 14.--In the books which he wrote against Porphyry, Apollinaris far surpassed all that had been written against the same Porphyry by Eusebius. He also left far behind the books of Methodius on the same subject.

CHAP. 15.--He says further, but I know not whence he derives his information, that Apollinaris was a bishop, and that Novatus was of Phrygian descent.

CHAP. 16.--He also asserts that Cibates was the birthplace of Valens and Valentinian.

CHAP. 17.--He says that among those who professed the doctrine of the likeness of the Son in substance to the Father, the most celebrated were Theodore, bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, and George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, an Alexandrian by origin, who had previously devoted himself to the study of philosophy. Next to these in esteem and in point of time came the elder Eustathius, a man held in high veneration by the people, and most powerful in his method of persuasion. To these must be added Basil and Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, and Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, as well as Marathonius and Maximin, presbyters of the church at Constantinople.

CHAP. 18.--In his comparison of Eunomius and Aetius, Philostorgius prefers the latter in respect to the force of his demonstrations, and his ready faculty of reply to objections, saying that everything seems to lie ready for use at the tip of his tongue. But as to perspicuity in teaching, and a style well suited to learners, he prefers Eunomius.

EPITOME OF BOOK IX.

CHAP. 1.--THE ninth book of Philostorgius contains some wonderful miracles wrought by the hands of Aetius, Eunomius, and Leontius,--inventions of the author; as likewise some others wrought by Candidus, Evagrius, Arrianus, and Florentius; but above all, by Theophilus the Indian, and of certain other persons, whom their zeal rendered more vehement |492 than others in their profession of the same impiety. When Philostorgius was compiling these fictions, it would seem that no idea of their absurdity came into his mind to keep him in check.

CHAP. 2.--Philostorgius says that, when Moses punished Jannes and Jambres with wounds inflicted by heaven, he also condemned to death the mother of the latter.

CHAP. 3.-- According to Philostorgius, Valens, upon his return from Illyricum to Constantinople, paid especial honours to Eudoxius;¹⁵¹ and when Eudoxius had it in his power without difficulty to fulfil his promises to Eunomius, he lacked the will to do so. Euzoius¹⁵² also had, in like manner, an opportunity of ordering to be put into execution the resolutions which he had carried on their behalf in the synod held at Antioch. But both the one and the other were so far from remembering their promises, that Euzoius began to abuse the very persons whose cause he had espoused, calling in mockery the followers of Aetius and Theophilus the Indian,¹⁵³ "Heaven-goers," as though it were not religion and the faith that was at stake, but merely the choice of colours or genera. Eudoxius, too, heaped upon them other reproaches, and also used this very term "Heaven-goers"¹⁵⁴ against them in the church. I indeed do not call those men impious, says Philostorgius, as they wish to be called, lest their apostasy should seem to the world to have a show of reason; but I call them pests and plagues.

CHAP. 4.--Aetius and Eunomius now broke off entirely from Eudoxius and Euzoius, and intrusted the church of Constantinople to Florentius, Aetius at the same time leaving the city, and sailing to Lesbos. Here he lived in a certain rural |493 district near Mitylene, receiving with kind speeches such as repaired to him. This very district the emperor Julian had given to Aetius as a sign of his good-will and affection. Eunomius, however, passing over to Chalcedon, lived there in a garden close to the sea walls, which was his own property, taking especial care of his revenues, as Aetius did, though neither of them thenceforth had the charge of any particular church. But the followers of their sect considered them as their common fathers and leaders. Eunomius certainly, since he had left the city of Cyzicus, never celebrated the holy mysteries¹⁵⁵ of the altar during the remainder of his life, although there was no bishop of the same sect who transacted any ecclesiastical matters without consulting his opinion.

CHAP. 5.--Upon entering on the third year of his empire, Valens commenced an expedition against the Persians. At the same time¹⁵⁶ Procopius¹⁵⁷ also seized upon the imperial power at Constantinople. He was near of kin to Julian; and many opinions were passed concerning him, which said that the empire ought to be offered to him; and these opinions from time to time were spread publicly abroad. On this account, as soon as Jovian was raised to the empire, Procopius took to flight and left Mesopotamia with his wife. Being obliged to conceal himself, by changing about from place to place, which he did with great difficulty and distress, weary at length of his wanderings and concealment, at last he threw, as men say, his last stake. Accordingly he went to Chalcedon, and, in the absence of Eunomius, took refuge in the land belonging to him outside the town. Hence he passed over to Constantinople, and seized upon the imperial power without bloodshed. And not long afterwards, having engaged in battle with Valens, he was overcome by the treachery of his generals, Gomarius |494 and Agelius, and, taking to flight, he retreated to Nicaea. Next day, while he was meditating to take his departure thence, he was seized by Florentius, who was in charge of the garrison of that town, and was carried in chains to Valens. Procopius soon afterwards was beheaded, having had possession of his power for about the space of six months. But his betrayal of Procopius did not avail to insure the life of Florentius; for his soldiers delivered him to be burnt, being enraged with him on account of a former grudge, because, when he had been sent by Procopius to garrison Nicaea, he had treated several of them with indignity as favourers of the side of Valens.

CHAP. 6. -- Whilst Procopius was still exercising the imperial power, Eunomius came to him during his stay at Cyzicus. The arrival of Eunomius seemed to demand the liberation of those who were illegally detained in prison by Procopius, where they had been cast into chains, because they had embraced the part of Valens. These relations had constrained Eunomius to undertake this embassy: he accordingly took it in hand, and immediately returned as soon as he had set them free from chains. About the same time the person who had been sent by Procopius to administer the island of Lesbos,¹⁵⁸ brought Aetius also into public disgrace, by getting the inhabitants to accuse him of favouring the side of Valens. And beyond a doubt a violent death would have ensued, had not one of the most influential persons in the court of Procopius come up at the time and saved Aetius from the sword. For the person who had been sent by Procopius was a relative of Herennianus and Gerresianus, two brothers, who had lived much in company with Eunomius, and who had been joined with him in the indictment. Accordingly, in pursuance of the authority with which he had been invested, having severely threatened the judge who had condemned them, and having rescinded the capital sentence passed upon them, he sent them away freely and fully acquitted of the crimes alleged against them. Aetius, however, took them along with himself and sailed for Constantinople, where he lived with Eunomius and Florentius for a short space of time, after which he died. Eunomius closed his eyes and mouth, and carried out |495 in the most splendid style the other ceremonies appertaining to the funeral conjointly with the followers of the same sect.

CHAP. 7.--Whilst Eudoxius was staying with Valens at Marcianopolis, the clergy of the church at Constantinople resolved that Eunomius should be banished from the royal city. Accordingly the latter went to Chalcedon, and wrote and told Eudoxius what had happened. Eudoxius was not only not moved by the contents of the letter, but also showed openly his indignation at his not having had to bear a more severe sentence.

CHAP. 8.--Some persons, says Philostorgius, censured Eunomius, because he had concealed Procopius in his country place, when he was meditating to seize the imperial power. This calumny, and an attempt upon his life on account of it, Eunomius escaped with great difficulty. Yet he was sent into exile in Mauritania; a punishment inflicted on him by Auxonius, the prefect of the Praetorium. Eunomius, indeed, was led off into exile during the continuance of the bad weather of winter. But on his arrival at Mursa, a city of Illyricum,¹⁵⁹ the bishop of which city was a certain Valens,¹⁶⁰ he was received with great kindness by him and recalled from banishment, Valens having joined Domninus, bishop of Marcianopolis, in an application on his behalf to the emperor, and pleaded the cause of Eunomius with great interest. After recalling Eunomius from exile, the emperor was anxious to admit him into his presence; but Eudoxius contrived by some artifices to prevent this interview. But after this, he went to Nicaea to ordain a bishop in that place, in the room of Eugenius,¹⁶¹ bishop of that city, who had recently died; but before he had brought the matter to a conclusion, he departed this life. Demophilus, however, was translated from Beraea to Constantinople, the emperor approving the decree of the synod.¹⁶² |496

CHAP. 9.--Philostorgius says that a certain presbyter named Anysius lived at Borissus, a village of the further part of Cappadocia; this man had four sons,¹⁶³ and an only daughter, named Eulampia, who was the mother of Philostorgius, the writer of this history. Her husband, Carterius by name, who followed the sect of Eunomius, persuaded his wife to come over to his own opinion; for she was one who, both on her father's and mother's side, inherited an attachment to the consubstantial faith. The woman was drawn over by the persuasions of her husband, and gained over to the same opinion, first, her brothers, then her father, and lastly, by degrees, the remainder of her relatives.

CHAP. 10.--Theodore, bishop of Heraclea, as Philostorgius relates, had an especial hand in placing Demophilus in the see of Constantinople; for the privilege of this particular consecration seemed to belong to him more particularly. And farther, while Demophilus was being placed in the episcopal see, many of the people who were present cried out, not "He is worthy,"¹⁶⁴ but, " He is unworthy."

CHAP. 11.--Modestus,¹⁶⁵ who was promoted after Auxonius as prefect of the Praetorium, being indignant with Eunomius, as Philostorgius says, condemned him unheard, as one who raised disturbances in churches and states, and so he banished him to the island of Naxos.

CHAP. 12.--Caesarea was originally called Mozoca, from Mosoch, a prince of Cappadocia; but, in process of time, the name was corrupted into Mazaca.

CHAP. 13.--From the day that Eunomius had left Cyzicus, no bishop, according to Philostorgius, had been appointed in his room. But Demophilus, upon his arrival at Cyzicus with Dorotheas and others,¹⁶⁶ found that he could bring nothing to |497 pass in the matter of ordaining a bishop, because the inhabitants of that city were most zealous in their profession of the similarity of substance, according to the teaching and instruction of Eleusius, who had confirmed them in this opinion. But when Demophilus and his partisans had admitted the protest of the people of Cyzicus, and had condemned and anathematized Aetius and Eunomius, (for this was what their protest amounted to,) and both in their speeches and their public writings had called him a "denier of similarity,"¹⁶⁷ and had subjected to the same anathema both their faith and all the followers of it, at length the people of Cyzicus admitted his ordination, though they suffered no one else to be advanced to the episcopate, except such only as they had preferred by their votes. The individual ordained as bishop straightway preached and taught the consubstantial faith.

CHAP. 14.--Upon the death of Euzoius, bishop of Antioch, Dorotheus¹⁶⁸ was translated from Heraclea of Thrace to the see which he had held. Philostorgius however is severe upon both Demophilus and Dorotheus; the latter he calls the vainest of men, while he accuses Demophilus of being wont to mix up everything in confusion, and especially the dogmas of the church. So that on a certain occasion, while he was preaching before the people of Constantinople, he said that the body of Christ was mingled with his Divinity, and so entirely disappeared, just as a pint of milk is lost when poured into the vast body of the ocean. Demophilus was a native of the city of Thessalonica,¹⁶⁹ and of noble descent. He was also very much enraged with the partisans of Eunomius, and visited them with the severest penalties.

CHAP. 15.--During the time of Valens, the oracles of the heathens gave to those who consulted them, pebbles marked |498 with certain letters. These letters, when combined together, seemed to some to make up the name of Theodosius, to others that of Theodulus or Theodore, or of some other individual. For the forms of letters went on regularly as far as D, the daemons, according to their custom, giving ambiguous responses,¹⁷⁰ to the ruin of those who trust in them, but so as to escape the discredit of having spoken untruly. Hence a certain Theodore among the Syrians, being led aside by deceit to attempt to seize upon the imperial power, was immediately put to death along with those who had followed him. Together with them Valens punished also many innocent persons because their names began with the same letters.

CHAP. 16.--The emperor Valentinian died, after a reign of twelve years, leaving his son Gratian heir to the empire. He left also two other children, his daughter Galla and the younger Valentinian, who was only about four years of age.¹⁷¹ His mother Justina and the army in Pannonia straightway caused the child to be proclaimed emperor. Gratian, however, on hearing of this proceeding, withheld his approval from the proclamation of Valentinian, because it had been made without his sanction. He moreover punished some¹⁷² of those who had dared to make the attempt. Nevertheless he did not entirely refuse to share the throne with his brother, towards whom also he discharged the duty of a father.

CHAP. 17.--The Scythians who dwelt on the further side of the Rhine were attacked by an invasion of the Huns, and being forced from their settlements, and being driven out of their abodes, they crossed over into the Roman territory under the pretence of friendly intentions. The Huns would seem to be identical with those who were anciently called Neuri; and their settlements were at the foot of the Rhipaean¹⁷³ mountains, |499 out of which the river Tanais takes its rise and pours its waters into the Sea of Azof. But the Scythians, having crossed over into the territory of the Romans, at first conducted themselves quietly towards the latter, but afterwards they began to plunder, and finally made open war upon them, without previously sending a herald to proclaim war. As soon as Valens learned these tidings, he straightway quitted Antioch, and reaching Constantinople, made his way with speed into Thrace. Here he encountered the barbarians, and having lost many of his soldiers, he speedily betook himself to flight. At last, being driven to the most extreme necessity, and being wholly destitute of counsel, he hid himself, together with a few of his followers, in a small rural cottage where some hay was stored up. The barbarians who were in pursuit of him burnt everything that came in their way, and among other things, the hut above mentioned, little imagining that the emperor was there. Thus died Valens,¹⁷⁴ losing at the same time the most brave and numerous portion of his Roman soldiery. The barbarians, too, without any fear henceforth overran and devastated the whole of Thrace, under their general Fritigernus. Gratian mourned for his uncle, and shed tears for the calamity which had befallen the empire; and having proclaimed Theodosius emperor, he sent him to govern that part of the empire which was in his uncle's hands. The native country of this Theodosius was Spain, now called Iberia; the river Iberus,¹⁷⁵ which flows through it, having abolished its former name.

CHAP. 18.--On the death of Theodulus of Chaeretapa, who was bishop of Palestine, Eunomius ordained Carterius in his room; and on his death shortly after, John was chosen to supply the vacancy. Eunomius, Arrianus, and Euphronius left Constantinople and went into the East in company with this John, in order to bring Julian thither from Cilicia, and to meet Theophilus the Indian at Antioch, and to regulate the entire state of matters in the East.

CHAP. 19.--The emperor Theodosius met the barbarians |500 near the city of Sirmium,¹⁷⁶ whither he had gone as soon as he had received the imperial purple, on account of the exigencies of the state: then, having defeated the barbarians in battle, he entered the city of Constantinople with great pomp, and intrusted the care of the churches to the consubstantial party, driving out of the city the party of Arius and Eunomius. Among their number was Demophilus, who, on his expulsion, betook himself to his own city Beraea. Hypatius also, being driven out of Nicaea, withdrew to Cyrus in Syria, the place of his birth. Dorotheus, too, being driven out of Antioch, went off into Thrace, whence he originally came. The rest dispersed into their different localities.

EPITOME OF BOOK X.

CHAP. 1.--DOROTHEUS indeed, as we said above, was driven cut of Antioch, The presbyters, however, of the same city, Asterius and Crispinus, and the rest of the clergy, convened a council, at which some of the neighbouring bishops were present, and sent to Eunomius and his party, demanding to be admitted into communion by them. These, however, sent letters by way of reply, to the effect that they would receive them into communion on no other conditions except that they should rescind the sentence of condemnation which they had formerly passed on Aetius and his writings; and moreover, they required them to show a reformation in their lives; for they were tainted by some impure actions. The others did not at that time admit the proffered conditions, but afterwards they went so far as to revile Eunomius and his party in the churches, calling them "Men in the clouds;"¹⁷⁷ and full |501 of desperation and madness, because forsooth they had dared to proffer to them such, terms as those mentioned above,

CHAP. 2. -- Philostorgius brings a charge of impiety against their leader Arius, because he said that the God of the universe consisted of many parts; for he declares that Arius asserted that God can be comprehended, not in his entire magnitude, but so far as each individual is gifted with strength to comprehend him; and that he also gave it as his opinion that God was neither substance nor person, nor any one of those things which are usually predicated of him; ¹⁷⁸ and that these assertions are supported by the synods of Ariminum and Constantinople, the latter of which declared that the mode of the generation of the Son was entirely unknown to all, ascribing the knowledge of that generation to him alone who begot him.¹⁷⁹ Now this is the very synod which passed sentence of condemnation on Aetius.

CHAP. 3. -- The Arian party developed their doctrine of the likeness of the only-begotten Son to the Father into a variety of heresies; some of them, for instance, made it to consist in the fact that both of them have a foreknowledge of future events. Others, again, in that both the Father and the Son are born God. Others, again, in the fact that both can create things out of nothing. But, says Philostorgius, these opinions, though they seem to be at variance with each other, all come to one point in the end, namely, in that they declare the Son to be of one substance¹⁸⁰ with the Father. Philostorgius, moreover, adds, that this party, after being cut up into a variety of discordant sects, perpetrated many other foul and disgraceful deeds, buying and selling the priesthood¹⁸¹ for money, and giving themselves up to the lowest of sensual pleasures.

CHAP. 4. -- The Eunomians, according to the testimony of Philostorgius, so utterly abhorred the heresies above mentioned, |502 that they would not admit their baptism or their ordination. Moreover, the Eunomians baptized not with trine immersion, but with one immersion only, baptizing, as they said, into the Lord's death;¹⁸² and this death (they added) he underwent for us once only, and not three times.

CHAP. 5. -- The emperor Theodosius invested his son Arcadius ¹⁸³ with the imperial purple while he was still very young. And not long afterwards, the emperor Gratian was put to death in Gaul by the treachery of the tyrant Maximus. Philostorgius also forges many calumnies against Gratian, going even so far as to compare him with Nero. For his profession of the right rule of faith did not please Philostorgius in Gratian.

CHAP. 6. -- The emperor Theodosius, on finding some of the chamberlains of his court infected with the Eunomian doctrines, expelled them from his palace. Eunomius himself he ordered to be banished from the city of Chalcedon, and to he sent into exile at Halmyris.¹⁸⁴ This Halmyris is a place in Moesia, situate on the Danube; but soon after this it was captured by the barbarians, who crossed the Danube when it was frozen over. Eunomius is dismissed thence to Caesarea in Cappadocia. But becoming distasteful to the people of Caesarea, because he had formerly written some books against their bishop, Basil, he was permitted to live in his country place, which was called the Dacoroenian fields. In this place, Philostorgius writes, that when he was twenty years of age, he came to Constantinople and saw Eunomius. He raises him to the very skies with praise, and declares that his prudence and virtue were consummate. He also describes his personal appearance, his countenance, body, and limbs, as full of grace and dignity. He compares also to pearls the speeches which flowed from his lips, though shortly afterwards he confesses him, even against his will, to have lisped. And he is not ashamed to exalt this lisp into a mark of great grace and elegance. Moreover, the white leprosy,¹⁸⁵ which marked his |503 face as it were with brands and sears, were an addition to the majesty of his person. And further, although he praises very highly the rest of his writings, still he affirms that his Epistles far surpass the rest of his works in merit.

CHAP. 7.--Upon the demise of his empress Placidia,¹⁸⁶ Theodosius took to wife Galla, the sister of the younger Valentinian, and the daughter of Valentinian the Great, and of Justina, who was created Augusta.¹⁸⁷ This Justina was a follower of the Arian heresy. By Galla Theodosius had a daughter who was named Placidia.

CHAP. 8.--Theodosius joined his forces with those of Valentinian at Thessalonica, and set out to meet the tyrant Maximus; for the latter, when he had possessed himself of Gratian's share in the imperial purple, endeavoured to obtain possession of that of Valentinian as well. Accordingly, the emperors send against the tyrant,¹⁸⁸ Timasius and Richomer, masters of the cavalry, as likewise Promotus and Arbogastes. These surprise him by a sudden attack, and quickly hurl him down from his throne, strip him of the insignia of empire, and bring him before the emperors in the dress of a private citizen. Maximus was then beheaded, having exercised the power of a tyrant for five years.

CHAP. 9.--After gaining this victory over Maximus, and after the arrival¹⁸⁹ of Theodosius at Rome, when the emperor was on the point of taking his departure thence, a new and strange star¹⁹⁰ was seen in the sky, which announced the coming of very great calamities upon the world. It appeared first at midnight, near the east, in the very circle which is called the Zodiac. It was large and bright, and in brilliance it was not much inferior to the morning star. After this, a concourse of stars gathered around it on every side, like a swarm of bees gathering in a cluster round their queen. Then, as if impelled, by some mutual collision, the light of all the stars mingled |504 together, and shone forth in a single flame, assuming the shape of a double-edged sword, huge and terrible. But that one star which first appeared seemed like the hilt of the sword above mentioned, or rather like a root shooting up the large body of light, from what appeared to be a star, surmounted with flowers darting up like the flame from a lamp. Such was the novel and wondrous sight exhibited by the star which then appeared. Its course, moreover, was very different from that of the rest of the stars; for from the time of its first appearing in the place where we have said, and moving on from thence, it began to rise and set together with the morning star. Afterwards, however, receding by little and little, it went up towards the north, advancing slowly and gradually, and following its own course with a slight deflection towards the left of those who beheld it, but in reality it pursued in the same course as the other stars, with which it came into contact from time to time. At length, having completed its course in the space of forty days, it suddenly passed on into the sign of the Great Bear, and was last seen in the very centre of it, where, soon afterwards, it was extinguished. In addition to these particulars, Philostorgius gives us many other wonderful details concerning this star in the shape of a sword.

CHAP. 10.--Philostorgius says that he himself wrote against Porphyry on behalf of the Christians.

CHAP. 11.--At the very time of the appearance of this star in the shape of a sword, there were seen also two human bodies; one in Syria, far surpassing in height the usual stature of man, the other in Egypt, of incredible smallness. The Syrian was five cubits and a palm in height; though his feet were by no means in proportion to the rest of the body, but were turned inwards and crooked. His name was Anthony. The Egyptian, however, was so extremely short, that he gracefully imitated partridges shut up in cages, and that the latter played and strove with him in jest. And what is more wonderful still he had a stock of practical wisdom by no means commensurate with his bodily stature. His voice was far from unmusical, and his conversation evinced clearly the excellence of his intellectual powers. Both of these lived in the time of Philostorgius, and neither of them was short-lived;¹⁹¹ the tall one dying after reaching five and twenty years of age, and the |505 diminutive one nearly attaining the same number. In this place Philostorgius makes mention of many other prodigies which had happened either at the same time with, or just before, those above-mentioned.

CHAP. 1.2. -- Philostorgius says, that the fast of the fourth and sixth days of the week does not consist in mere abstinence from flesh meat, but that it is laid down by the canons, that no kind of food whatever is to be taken till evening. For concerning Eudoxius,¹⁹² a follower of his own peculiar heresy, who was of the degree of presbyter, though he had lost his genitals, he thus writes, "He was so zealous in keeping the fast, that throughout his life he observed not only those days which the Christians keep, according to the precept of the church, in memory of the Passion of our Lord."

(Here four pages are wanting, and the 10th book is imperfect.)

EPITOME OF BOOK XI.

(The beginning of this book is wanting.)

CHAP. 1.--[VALENTINIAN ¹⁹³ the Younger] used to hunt bears and lions; but while he was only in his twentieth year, he was deprived of his life, his imperial purple, and his field-sports. |506 He was also uncontrollable in his rage, and this was the chief cause of his death. For on one occasion, when he was conversing in the palace with Arbogastes, and was roused to anger by something that he said, he attempted to draw a sword against his Master of the Horse. He was checked, however; for the attendant whose sword he endeavoured to draw, held him back, and endeavoured by his words to remove all suspicion from Arbogastes. At the same time he found out from the words of the emperor himself what were his designs, and brought them into light. For on asking what was the motive of so violent an outburst, the emperor answered that he was about to lay violent hands on himself, because, although he was emperor, he was not allowed to do everything that he pleased. Arbogastes at the time made no very curious inquiry. But afterwards, when he had dined one day at Vienne in Gaul, and when he had seen him with some low buffoons, lying down and dipping his lips into the river, he sent some of his attendants to attack him. These laid violent hands upon him and savagely strangled him, while not one of the emperor's servants were at hand, for at that moment they had gone to take their dinner. But that none might straightway make search after the authors of his death, they tied his handkerchief like a noose around his neck, and hung him ¹⁹⁴ with it up to a tree, so that it might seem that he had hung himself of his own accord.

CHAP. 2.--After the murder of Valentinian, Arbogastes found himself excluded from the imperial purple by reason of his birth; so he proclaimed as emperor a certain man named Eugenius, who in rank was a magister, but in religion was a heathen. Having discovered this, Theodosius placed the imperial crown on the head of Honorius, one of his two sons, and spent the entire winter in making the necessary preparations for war. But as soon as the spring approached, he commenced his expedition against the usurper: on arriving at the Alps, he seized upon them by a stratagem, and having met the usurper near the river called Frigidus, and having fought with him a severe conflict, in which very many were killed on both sides, at length victory turned aside from the usurper, and placed the crown on the head of the legitimate |507 emperor. On this the usurper was captured and beheaded. Arbogastes cast aside all hope of escape, so he fell upon his own sword, and so terminated his life. After this the emperor made his entry into Milan; when he sent for his son Honorius, and gave up into his hands the command of the entire West. After gaining this victory over the usurper, Theodosius died of a dropsical disease after a reign of sixteen years; during which time,¹⁹⁵ as emperor, he had arrived at the highest pinnacle of human felicity. For, having gained fame by his victories, and having chained the crown of the entire Roman empire, and having seen his two sons raised to the imperial dignity, which he left to them firmly secured and free from conspiracy, he died upon his own bed the happiest of deaths, obtaining, as it seems to me, this reward of the burning zeal which he cherished against the worship of images. When the impious Philostorgius speaks thus concerning Theodosius, he is not ashamed to traduce him at the same time as given to intemperate living and immoderate pleasures, saying that it was by this means that he contracted his fatal dropsy.

CHAP. 3.--In the Eastern parts Rufinus held the highest post of esteem with Arcadius, whilst in the West Stilicho held the same position with respect to Honorius. Both of these generals readily allowed the name and title of emperor to remain¹⁹⁶ in the hands of the two sons of Theodosius, while they retained in their own hands the actual authority of empire, each of them ruling his own emperor, the one under the title of Master of the Cavalry, the other under that of Prefect. Neither of them, moreover, was content with the place which he held under his emperor. For Rufinus, indeed, spared no artifice to invest himself with the title of emperor, while Stilicho used his efforts to secure the purple for his son Eucherius. But the soldiers who had gone forth to war against the usurper under Theodosius, on their return from Rome, slew¹⁹⁷ with their swords Rufinus in the place which is called the Tribunal, at the very feet of the emperor; and this |508 they did partly in compliance with the instructions of Stilicho, and partly because they found themselves scornfully treated by Rufinus. And further, it is to be observed that he was put to death on that very day on which the astrologers¹⁹⁸ had all but invested him by anticipation with the purple. Moreover, Rufinus was tall in person and of a manly disposition, according to Philostorgius. The quick glance of his eye and the eloquence of his tongue showed him to be a person of skill and ability. On the other hand, Arcadius was short of stature, and weak in bodily frame; his personal strength was slight, and his complexion dark. The sloth of his natural disposition showed itself in his speech, and in the blinking of his eyes, which remained closed like those of persons asleep, and were kept open with an effort. These points caused Rufinus to miscalculate his chance, for he thought that at the very first sight the army would gladly choose him as emperor, and depose Arcadius. Moreover, the soldiers having cut off Rufinus' head, inserted a stone into its mouth, and carrying it about upon a pole they marched forth in every direction. They cut off his right hand too, and carried it about through all the workshops of the city, adding these words, "Give something to the insatiate one." In this way they collected together a large amount of gold, for they who saw the head, gladly gave their gold on account of the pleasure they derived from the spectacle. The ambition and thirst after power which marked Rufinus met with this end. Stilicho¹⁹⁹ also, according to Philostorgius, was put to death with his fellow-conspirators by the army, upon a given signal, on account of the plots which he had laid against Honorius.

CHAP. 4.--After the murder of Rufinus, a eunuch named Eutropius, of servile descent, having gained entrance to the court, and having been promoted to the dignity of a Praepositus, still was far from being contented with his present condition. For, since the loss of his genitals deprived him of all hopes of the empire, he persuaded the emperor to appoint him to patrician and consular rank; and thus a eunuch, who |509 could not beget even a common son, became thenceforth the father of the emperor.

CHAP. 5.--According to Philostorgius, Eutropius, who succeeded Rufinus in the office of prefect of the Praetorium, gave orders to transfer Eunomius from the Dacoroenian territory to Tyana, to be there kept by the monks. For he felt envy against the glory of Eunomius, and would not suffer his body even to be laid in the same tomb with the master, though many of the soldiers earnestly entreated him. The very books too of the same Eunomius he commanded to be destroyed by a public edict.²⁰⁰

CHAP. 6.--The emperor Arcadius, after his father's death, took to wife the daughter of Bauto. Now this Bauto was of barbarian origin, and had discharged the office of Master of the Soldiery in the West. The wife too was quite the opposite of her husband in respect of his sloth and indolence, for she had in her a considerable amount of the audacity which marks barbarians. Arcadius had already had by her two daughters, Pulcheria and Arcadia; and soon afterwards he had another son and daughter, named Theodosius and Marina. But at the time when he had only two children, Eutropius had on one occasion treated his wife with great indignity; for he threatened her that he would straightway turn her out of his palace; accordingly, embracing her two children in her arms, she came to her husband just as she was, and crying and stretching forth her children, she poured forth a flood of tears, adding also those other artifices which women in their anger are wont to adopt with the truly feminine design of exciting their husbands' feelings of pity more vehemently. Then Arcadius was moved with pity for his infants, who by a natural impulse joined their lamentations with those of their mother, and was fired with rage. And then it was that Arcadius showed himself to be an emperor,²⁰¹ while his anger inflamed him, and prompted to him weighty words. Accordingly he forthwith stripped Eutropius of all his dignity, deprived him of his wealth, and banished him to the island of Cyprus. And not long afterwards, when certain persons accused him of |510 having made use, when consul, of those very ornaments which no one but the emperor could legally use, he was recalled from Cyprus. And when the judges were seated in the place called Pantichium,²⁰² and Aurelian the prefect of the Praetorium, and the other magistrates who were in high command, had been appointed to carry on the investigation, Eutropius was convicted of the crime laid to his charge, and suffered the penalty of it by the loss of his head. Thus at all events Philostorgius gives the narrative of the event; others however allege different circumstances as the grounds on account of which Eutropius was stripped of his dignity and command, and eventually put to death.

CHAP. 7.--Philostorgius says that in his day there was so severe a pestilence as had never occurred before within the memory of man, in accordance with the portent of the star which appeared in the form of a sword. For not only was the military force destroyed, as in former wars, nor was it only in one part of the world that signal calamities occurred; but men of every rank and degree perished, and the whole of Europe and a very large part of Asia was entirely ravaged. A considerable portion of Africa also, and especially that part which was subject to the Romans, felt the blow. For the sword of the barbarians carried off large multitudes, and pestilence and famine pressed upon them at the same time together with large herds of wild beasts. In addition to this there were very grievous earthquakes, which overturned houses and entire cities from their foundations, and hurled them into inevitable ruin. Moreover, in certain parts the earth opened and gaped, swallowing up the inhabitants suddenly as in a tomb. There were also im certain other parts deluges of rain from heaven; in other parts fierce droughts and fiery whirlwinds, descending from above, to complete the manifold calamity till it was past endurance. Hail too fell in many places, bigger than a stone which would fill the hand, nay, it was found in some parts of such a size that it weighed no less than eight pounds. Moreover there was a great downfal of snow accompanied by a very severe frost, which seized upon those who had not been carried off by the other calamities, and deprived them of life, most clearly revealing the anger of |511 God. But to mention the details of these visitations is a task which surpasses human ability.

CHAP. 8.--The Huns,²⁰³ who had seized upon that part of Scythia which lies across the Ister and laid it waste, afterwards crossed the river when it was frozen over, and made an irruption into the Roman territory: then spreading themselves over the entire surface of Thrace, they laid waste all Europe. But the Eastern Huns crossed the river Tanais, and pouring into the provinces of the East, made an irruption through the Greater Armenia into a district called Melitine. Thence they proceeded to attack the parts about the Euphrates, and penetrated as far as Coele-Syria, and having overrun Cilicia, destroyed an incredible number of its inhabitants. Moreover the Mazices and Ausorians, who dwell between Africa and Libya, flocking in from the eastern parts, devastated Libya, and at the same time overran a considerable portion of Egypt. On the west they attacked the Africans, and inflicted upon them a similar loss. Besides all these barbarians, Tribigildus,²⁰⁴ a Scythian by birth and origin, and one of that tribe which are now called Goths,--for there are several distinct and separate tribes of this race,--this Tribigildus, finding himself surrounded by a large force of barbarians, while he resided at Nacolia in Phrygia, and when he had been rewarded with the title of a Count, (Comes,) suddenly became an enemy of the Romans instead of a friend; and beginning from Nacolia itself, he seized on very many cities of Phrygia, and made great havoc among their inhabitants. Gainas, the Master of the Soldiery, who was himself a barbarian, on being sent against him, betrayed the victory, for he was meditating a similar course against the Romans. Thereupon Tribigildus, as though flying away from Gainas, made an invasion into Pisidia and Pamphylia, and laid them waste; when at last, after having suffered many losses through the difficulty of the various places, and in his battles in Isauria, he escaped at length to the Hellespont, and crossing thence into Thrace, he died not very long afterwards. Gainas after his revolt assumed the dignity of Master of the Soldiery, returned to Constantinople, and endeavoured to seize upon it. But a |512 heavenly army, seen by those who had endeavoured to put the affair into execution, deterred his troops, and freed the city from all fear of a siege; while on the other hand it caused the opposing party to be caught, and gave them over into the hands of their foes. Accordingly a vast slaughter followed: Gainas too was seized with such alarm, that immediately upon night-fall, he broke through the guards of the gates by a sally and left the city, attended by a small band which he was able to rally round him. But since Thrace had been laid entirely waste, and could afford no means of sustenance or offer any rewards for another predatory incursion, Gainas crossed over into the Chersonese, contemplating to cross over thence into Asia by means of boats. As soon as this plan of his was made known to the emperor, Fravitas, the Master of the Soldiery, was sent against him. This person was a Goth by descent, and a pagan by religion; but he was faithful to the Romans, and most skilled in military tactics. Accordingly while Gainas was transporting his army in vessels to the opposite continent, he came against him with some ships of war, and after a light encounter destroyed all who were being carried in the transports. Hereupon Gainas, seeing that all hope was lost, fled away into the higher regions of Thrace. And not long afterwards certain Huns made an attack upon him and killed him: his head was seasoned with salt and carried to Constantinople. Besides these calamities, the tribe of the Isaurians inflicted several disasters on the Romans. For in the East they overran Cilicia and the neighbouring parts of Syria, and not only what is called Coele-Syria, but all that tract which stretches on till it joins Persia. But towards the north and north-west²⁰⁵ they invaded Pamphylia and laid waste Lycia. They also devastated the island of Cyprus, and likewise carried off the Lycaonians and Pisidians into slavery; and having driven the Cappadocians out of their settlements, and taken them captive, they pushed on as far as Pontus, and treated their captives far more savagely than was customary among the other barbarians. |513

EPITOME OF BOOK XII.

CHAP. 1.--PHILOSTORGIUS severely censures Stilicho on many other grounds, and more especially accuses him of having aimed at seizing the empire. He also relates how a certain magister named Olympius, seized with his own hand the sword which had been drawn against the emperor in his own palace, and so saved the emperor's life at the cost of great bodily injury, and lent him his aid and assistance in putting Stilicho to death while he was staying at Ravenna. Others call this man not Olympius but Olympiodorus; and they relate not that he came to the assistance of the emperor, but that he laid plots against Stilicho, who deserved well at his hands, and falsely accused him of aiming at the empire. They also state that, at this time, he was not a magister at all, but that he attained this dignity after the unjust murder of Stilicho, as the reward of his crime, and that not long afterwards he was put to death with clubs, and so paid to Stilicho the penalty of his nefarious wickedness.

CHAP. 2.--About the same period Alaric, a Goth by descent, having collected an army in the upper parts of Thrace, made an incursion into Achaia and took Athens; he also laid waste the regions belonging to Macedonia, and the borders of Dalmatia. Moreover, he made an inroad into Illyricum, and then crossed over the Alps, and overran the north of Italy. According to Philostorgius, he was recalled thence by Stilicho,²⁰⁶ who at this time was still alive, and who opened to him the passes of the Alps. He says that Stilicho employed against the emperor every possible artifice of treachery, and not only viewed him with an unfavourable eye because he was his son-in-law²⁰⁷--(for he had given him his daughter in marriage)-- but also administered to him a potion for the purpose of preventing him from becoming a parent; nor did he perceive that, while he was endeavouring to proclaim his son Eucherius emperor in the teeth of right and justice, he was ruining and destroying, before arriving at his time, his own grandson, and the rightful heir to the imperial throne. And further, he |514 writes, that Stilicho assumed the imperial dignity so manifestly, openly, and without scruple, that he even coined money on which nothing was wanting but his image.

CHAP. 3.--Upon the death of Stilicho, the barbarians who were with him took his son and went away. When they had neared Rome, they permitted him to take refuge²⁰⁸ in a certain temple which enjoyed the privilege of a sanctuary. He laid waste everything that lay around the city, as well in order to avenge the death of Stilicho as because they were severely tried by hunger. But when Eucherius was put to death, in pursuance of letters from Honorius, which were superior to all rights of sanctuary, on this the barbarians joined Alaric. and urged him to lay siege to the city of Rome. He accordingly seizes the port of the city without delay: this was the largest arsenal of the Romans, consisting of three ports, and stretching out till they equalled a small city in magnitude: a large supply of corn belonging to the state was here stored up according to ancient custom. Accordingly, when Alaric had seized upon the port without much difficulty, he took the city of Rome, partly by stress of famine, and partly by his military engines; and by the common voice of the Romans, he proclaimed Attalus emperor, in compliance with the permission of Alaric. This Attalus was a native of Asia Minor; he was a heathen in religion, and the post which he held was that of prefect of the city of Rome. After the nomination of Attalus as emperor, Alaric thenceforth permitted the remaining portion of the Roman people, such in fact as had survived the famine, and had not been devoured by each other, to bring in supplies of corn from the port. Then, taking with him Attalus, to whom he acted as Master of the Soldiery, he advanced to Ravenna with an army to oppose Honorius. Whilst this was going on, Attalus urged Honorius voluntarily to adopt a private life, and purchase the safely of his body by cutting off his extremities. But Sarus, who had succeeded Stilicho as Master of the Soldiery, under Honorius, gave Alaric battle, and overcame him, forcing him to fly far away from the city of Ravenna. Then Alaric seized |515 upon the port²⁰⁹ himself, and stripped Attalus of the imperial purple; either on the plea that he was accused of being ill-disposed towards Alaric, or (as others say) because he contemplated entering upon a treaty with Honorius, and considered that it would be well first to remove the individual who seemed likely to prove an impediment to his plan. After this Alaric returned to Ravenna, and having offered to make a treaty²¹⁰ with Honorius, he was repulsed by the above-mentioned Sarus, who affirmed that a man who ought long since to have paid the penalty of his audacity, was unworthy to be reckoned among friends. Alaric was enraged at this speech, and a year after his first attack upon the port of the city of Rome, he marched off towards Rome, as an enemy, with a flag of hostility. But the fire of barbarians, and the sword of the enemy, and captivity by aliens, divided, as it were, among them the vast pile of her fame, and the greatness of her glory. For while the city of Rome was lying in ruins, Alaric laid waste Campania, and died of a disorder which seized upon him there.

CHAP. 4. --The brother of his wife,

* * * * * * * * * *

[Here two lines of the Greek text are wanting.]

[named ²¹¹ Adolphus, succeeded him. He was married to Placidia, the sister of Honorius, whom Alaric had carried off with him from Rome as a captive; to marry whom he had repudiated his former wife,] because she was of Sarmatian origin. According to Philostorgius, it was at this time that the. kingdom of iron and the kingdom of clay were united together.²¹² And not then only, but also at a subsequent period, when |516 Adolphus took Placidia to wife; for then the clay and the iron coalesced.

* * * * * * * * * *

[Here about nine lines of the Greek text are wanting.]

[But²¹³ since the Scripture says that that alliance should not be lasting, therefore Constantius, who loved Placidia] had conceived in his mind the hope that if he could conquer Adolphus in war, he would be able to gain her as his wife. Not long after this Adolphus was put to death by one of his own domestics, after he had perpetrated several very foul deeds under the influence of anger. After this, the barbarians concluded a treaty with Honorius, and gave up into his hands both his sister Placidia and Attalus, having themselves first received from the emperor a grant of corn, and a district in Gaul for the purpose of tillage.

CHAP. 5.--After these events, the city of Rome gained a slight respite from its severe misfortunes, and began to be more thickly inhabited again: when the emperor arrived there, he signified both by gesture and by words his wish that the city should be restored; and having ascended the tribunal, he ordered Attalus to come to the lowest step of it. After this

* * * * * * * * * *

[Here two lines of the Greek text are wanting.]

he cut off two of the fingers of his right hand, namely, the thumb and forefinger, and banished him into the island²¹⁴ of Lipara, without inflicting on him any other punishment, and actually supplying him besides with all the necessaries of life.

CHAP. 6.--About this same period Jovian²¹⁵ rebelled against the emperor, but his insurrection was speedily put down. His brother Sebastian, too, having made a similar attempt, suffered a similar penalty. But Heraclian, who imitated the madness of these men, was raised to a higher pitch of success, from which he had a proportionate notorious fall, the providence |517 of God clearly showing in his case that he allows nothing to pass its due bounds, and that he delights not in usurpers, but that he assists those who strive in defence of their lawful sovereign.

CHAP. 7.--After the death of Arcadius, his son Theodosius,²¹⁶ then quite a child, is proclaimed his successor in the Eastern parts of the empire. With him lived in the palace his sister Pulcheria, who administered and directed the imperial rescripts.²¹⁷

CHAP. 8.--When Theodosius had entered the years of boyhood,²¹⁸ on the 19th of July, a little after noon-day, the sun was so completely eclipsed that the stars appeared; and so great a drought followed on this eclipse that a sudden mortality carried off great multitudes both of men and of beasts in all parts. Moreover, at the time that the sun was eclipsed, a bright meteor appeared in the sky, in shape like a cone, which some persons in their ignorance called a cornet, for there was nothing like a comet in the phenomena of this meteor as it appeared. For its light did not end in a tail, nor had it any of the characteristics of a star, but it seemed like the flame of a huge lamp, subsisting by itself, with no star below it to answer to the appearance of a lamp.²¹⁹ Its track, too, was far different from that of comets. For it arose first in the east, just where the sun rises at the equinox, and then passing across the lowest star in the constellation of the Bear, crossed gradually over to the west. After measuring the whole expanse of the heavens, it at length disappeared, after it had continued its course for more than four months. Its apex, moreover, at one time was carried up to a high and narrow point, so that the meteor exceeded the length and shape of a cone, while at another time it returned to that particular form. Moreover, it showed to the eye a number of other prodigious appearances, which showed that it was different from common stars in nature. It began about midsummer, and continued |518 till nearly the end of autumn, and it was the precursor of severe wars and an incredible mortality. In the following year a series of earthquakes commenced, which cannot be easily compared with former ones. At the same time with the earthquakes, fire came down from the skies, which seemed to banish all hope of escape; however, it caused no destruction of life, for the mercy of God sent a violent wind which scattered the fire in every direction, and at length drove it into the sea. Then a new and strange sight was to be seen; --the waves of the sea burning in the day-time, like woods and forests,²²⁰ until at length the flames were extinguished in the waters.

CHAP. 9.--Moreover, in many places, immediately upon the occurrence of the earthquake, the roofs of houses were seen to be shattered with a loud crash and report, so that those who were within their walls beheld the sky above them. After this convulsion, they became joined and compacted again so closely that not a single trace of the occurrence was left. The same thing happened also to the flooring of houses in several places: granaries²²¹ falling in upon those who dwelt below, and pouring down upon them large heaps of grain through the sudden openings; then, again, the ground became solid and firm, so that they all began to doubt whence that fatal load of corn had fallen in upon them. Moreover, other strange and unwonted calamities of the same kind happened at this period, showing in the very clearest way that these things do not happen by a mere law and order of nature, as the heathen falsely imagine, but that they are sent down upon mankind as scourges of the Divine wrath.

CHAP. 10.--This same Philostorgius endeavours to show by a variety of proofs that earthquakes are not caused by an inundation of water, nor by the force of winds pent up within the bosom of the earth; nor, again, from any deviation of the earth; but only happen by the will of God, for the purpose of converting sinners and bringing them to repentance. And he says, that he constantly asserts this, because neither of the above-mentioned elements can bring about such effects by any natural power. But if God so will, then even the smallest drop of rain that falls, or the lightest flake of snow, |519 can move with the greatest ease Olympus in Macedonia, or any other of the highest mountains, since we see God frequently make use of these events for the correction of the human race. For, although he could have suddenly divided the Red Sea, had he chosen, yet he first lashed it and roused it by a violent south wind, that at length the waters stood on this side and on that;²²² not because there is naturally any such power whatever in the south wind, but because the Divine Majesty chose to make use of it in order to carry out his will. So, also, the stroke of the rod drew fountains of water out of the stony rock,²²³ and the streams of Jordan healed the leprosy;²²⁴ not because their natural powers could produce any such effects, but because the Creator has the full and perfect use of changing all his creatures to such uses and purposes as he may please.

CHAP. 11.--After the death of Eudoxius, who had been the ruler of the sect of the Eunomians at Constantinople, Lucian, the son of the sister of Eunomius, is chosen in his room. They say that he fell into avarice and its kindred vices, and fearing that he would be punished for so doing, tore himself away from the rest of the Eunomian party, though he remained at the head of his own band of followers, heading no inconsiderable a multitude, inasmuch as all persons of doubtful character, and who were stained with vices, flocked together to his party.

CHAP. 12.--The emperor Honorius took Constantius, his Master of the Soldiery, as partner of his throne, on account of his near relationship, when Placidia had borne him his son Valentinian.²²⁵ On this Valentinian the dignity of "Most Noble" was conferred by Honorius. Accordingly, the images of Constantius were sent into the East, in accordance with the ancient custom of those who had been recently raised to the purple. But Theodosius, disapproving of the nomination of Constantius, would not admit his images: and when Constantius was preparing to avenge this insult by arms, death came upon him and freed him from his life and his cares, when he had reigned about six months.

CHAP. 13.--During the tenth consulship of the emperor Theodosius, and the thirteenth of Honorius, the latter was |520 carried off by dropsy. John, having seized upon the imperial power, sent an embassy to Theodosius. But they returned without accomplishing their purpose, and, moreover, having been treated with indignity, so they were sent in different directions through Propontis.²²⁶ But Placidia and Valentinian the Third, who had fled to Byzantium after the death of Honorius, were sent by Theodosius to Thessalonica. There he granted the dignity of Caesar to his cousin, at the same time intrusting the carrying on of the war against the usurper to Ardaburius, Master of the Soldiery, and his son Aspar. These passed across Pannonia and Illyricum, with Placidia and Valentinian in their train, and took by storm Salonas, a city of Dalmatia. After this, Ardaburius set out with his naval reinforcements to oppose the usurper; while Aspar took under his command the cavalry: anticipating all suspicions by the suddenness of his attack, he seized on Aquileia, a very considerable city, Placidia and Valentinian being still in his train. Here, indeed, he took a very large city without any labour or cost. But Ardaburius was surprised by a violent wind, which threw him, with two of his triremes, into the hands of the usurper, who treated Ardaburius most kindly because he had an eye to a treaty. He enjoyed perfect liberty, and excited against the usurper some of his inferior officers who were already ripe for a revolt. At the same time he sent private instructions to his son Aspar to come to him as if to celebrate an immediate victory. He speedily arrived with his cavalry, and in a light encounter John was taken prisoner, (for he was betrayed by the treachery of those who were about him,) and led away to Aquileia to Placidia and Valentinian. There his right hand was cut off, and soon afterwards he was beheaded; having held his usurped power for about a year and a half, when Theodosius despatched Valentinian to Rome and proclaimed him emperor,

CHAP. 14.--Aetius, one of the generals of the usurper John, arrived three days after the death of the latter, bringing with him much about sixty thousand barbarian troops, whom he had succeeded in hiring as auxiliaries; he at once engaged in battle with the forces of Aspar, and many fell on both sides. After this Aetius made a treaty with Placidia and Valeutinian, and was promoted to the dignity of a count. |521 On the payment of a sum of gold, the barbarians laid down their arms and returned to their own homes, after a mutual interchange of hostages and promises of fidelity.

END OF THE EXTRACTS FROM THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS.

FRAGMENTS OF PHILOSTORGIUS.

CONCERNING APOLLINARIUS,²²⁷ BASIL, AND GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM, AS GIVEN IN SUIDAS UNDER THOSE NAMES, IN THE WORDS OF PHILOSTORGIUS.

AT those times flourished Apollinarius at Laodicea in Syria, Basil at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Gregory at Nazianzum, which is a station on the road through Cappadocia. These three individuals were strenuous in their defence of the consubstantial faith against the doctrine of dissimilarity of substance, and so wholly confuted all those who previously and up to my own day were leaders of that heresy, that Athanasius must be judged a mere child in comparison with them. For they were very great proficients in that kind of instruction which is called "external," or "profane," and they had great knowledge of whatever contributed to the deep study and remembrance of the Scriptures; this was the case most especially with Apollinarius, for he was skilled also in Hebrew. Moreover, each of them, in his own particular matter, was excellent in his style of writing and speaking; Apollinarius being first in that kind which is best adapted to commentaries; Basil being the most splendid in panegyrical discourses; while the style of Gregory, as compared with both of them, would rank higher as a composition. Apollinarius was the more copious, Basil the weightier, in his speech, And whilst they were endowed with such talents for speaking and writing, |522 they exhibited in their lives a character well fitted to draw a multitude to imitate themselves; so that those who beheld them and heard their speech, and read their writings, were all of them drawn over to their communion, as many at least as could easily be persuaded by any of their arguments.

CONCERNING PANEAS AND THE JORDAN.

AT the farthest confines of Palestine, near where Phoenicia commences, there is situated a city formerly called Dan, after the tribe to which it belonged. Here some wanderers, cut off from the rest of their race at a distant period, settled down for some time., taking possession of the district around, built a town at its extreme border, and assumed to themselves the name of Phylarchs. This was the farthest point of Judaea on the side of Phoenicia. Herod the Great, in later times, built this city, and changed its name to that of Caesarea Philippi; now, however, it is called Paneas, from a statue of Pan which was placed within its confines. In this town of Paneas rises one of the two fountains of the Jordan, (for it has two sources,) which is even now called "Dan," after the ancient name of the place. The other fountain, which is called "Jor," is about 160 stadia distant, and takes its rise out of the side of a hill. From each of these fountains ²²⁸ flows a river, the one called Jorates and the other Danites. Descending from their hills, these rivers descend into a plain, where they join their waters, and, flowing in a single channel, form the river Jordan. This river henceforth mingles together alike the waters and the names of both, and flows through the lake of Tiberias, dividing it in the midst, and finding its way to the opposite continent, maintaining throughout an uniform size and width. Thence it flows through the whole of Palestine, and is at length absorbed in the sea which is called the Dead Sea, where it disappears.

CONCERNING AGAPETUS.

AGAPETUS, bishop of Synada, whom Eusebius Pamphilus²²⁹ celebrates with the highest praises, commemorating his wondrous |523 and surpassing miracles, used to change the situation of mountains and the courses of rivers, and to raise the dead to life. He says also, that the emperor Maximin wished to kill him while he was still a soldier, as a Christian, because he had found many who were so taken with admiration of the wonderful works which were done by Agapetus, that he left the worship of heathen gods and came over to the Christian faith.²³⁰

CONCERNING AETIUS.

AETIUS of Antioch in Syria, whose pupil was Eunomius, was born in Antioch, a city of Syria, of parents both poor and humble. His father had been enrolled among the military ranks, and having been unfortunate in his affairs, died early, leaving him quite a child. Reduced to the extreme of penury, he began to practise the art of gilding, and arrived at great eminence in his line. But the bent of genius led him to loftier aspirations, and he applied his mind to the study of logic. At first he was a pupil of Paulinus, who had been shortly before translated to Antioch from the city of Tyre, while Constantine was still emperor. While Aetius was his pupil, he showed no small grasp of intellect in disputations against those to whom he was opposed in the schools, and his attack was almost beyond all endurance. At length Paulinus died, and was succeeded by Eulalius as the twenty-third successor of the apostles ²³¹ in the see of Antioch. Hereupon many of those who had been convicted by Aetius, feeling indignant at being conquered and defeated by a stripling and a common artisan, formed a combination against him, and expelled him from Antioch. Accordingly, on being rejected, Aetius betook himself to Anazarbus, and in a very short time, having learned all the science and faculty of logic, he continually showed fruits far superior to the rudimental and elementary instructions which he had received from others. Meantime, however, he did not cease to censure and refute his adversaries, though he wore but a thin and scanty cloak, and lived upon very humble and ordinary food.²³² |524

CONCERNING AUXENTIUS.

AUXENTIUS, bishop of Mopsuestia, was one of the confessors. He was one of the number of those who were distinguished as soldiers in the palace of the emperor Licinius, being one of his scribes, or, as the Romans call them, notaries. His confession was made in the following way. In a certain court of the imperial palace stood a fountain, and above it a statue of Bacchus, and around it a large vine which covered and overshadowed the entire place. When Licinius had gone thither for the purpose of mental recreation, followed by a numerous train of attendants from the palace, and among others by Auxentius, he cast his eyes upon the vine, and happening to see a bunch of grapes of prodigious size and beauty, as it hung down from the branches of the vine, he ordered Auxentius to cut it. Forthwith Auxentius, without any suspicion of what was about to follow, cut off the bunch of grapes. Licinius then turned to him and said, "Place this before the feet of Bacchus." To this Auxentius answered, "By no means, O emperor; I am a Christian." On hearing this Licinius said, "Go then away; you are discharged from the service, for one of two things you must do." Auxentius delayed not a moment, but without delay threw aside his belt, and gladly took his departure from the palace, ungirded, just as he was. Not long afterwards, the supervisors ²³³ appointed him bishop of Mopsuestia. His younger brother was Theodore, who had taught rhetoric at Athens, and who afterwards obtained the bishopric of Tarsus. For Aetius being accustomed even aforetime to teach Eunomius,²³⁴ and others who were of higher than ordinary talent, as soon as he promoted Eunomius to the degree of a professor, made him act instead of himself as a master and teacher, as well of others as those who were more |525 perfectly advanced in learning and instruction, while he himself was ever ready to teach others the elements and first principles. But Eunomius was considered as by far his superior in improving and building upon the foundations previously laid, and in giving perspicuous and eloquent interpretations.²³⁵

CONCERNING EUDOXIUS.

EUDOXIUS, bishop of Antioch, carne originally from Arabyssus, a town of Lesser Armenia. His father, Caesarius, had obtained the crown of martyrdom during the reign of the emperor Maximin, although previously he had shown himself addicted to vicious pleasures. But he studied to wash out the stains of his early life in the blood of martyrdom. For when his executioners had pierced both of his feet with six huge nails, they cast him on a funeral pile; and because he expired while yet on his way to the flames, his relations carried off his body from the pile, when it was still entire and only partially burnt, and buried it in a field called Subel.²³⁶

CONCERNING THEOPHILUS.

THIS Theophilus returned from India and took up his abode at Antioch, without having the care of any particular church as his own, but acting as a common bishop, so that at his will he visited all churches as his own; the emperor exhibiting towards him all possible respect and reverence, and the rest whom he visited receiving him with great alacrity, and admiring the excellence of his virtue. This was so great and so noble, that no one can do justice to it in terms; it was, so to speak, a correct copy of that of the apostles. They say that while he was at Antioch, he raised to life again a certain Jewess: such at least is the assertion of Thalassius, who lived with him for many years, and has never been suspected of falsehood in matters of this nature; and who, moreover, has very many persons who lived at the time, and who were eye-witnesses of the miracle.

CONCERNING LEONTIUS.

LEONTIUS, bishop of Tripolis, a city of Lydia, was sprung from a Moesian tribe, dwelling on the banks of the Danube, |526 the same that Homer calls a0gxi/maxoi,²³⁷ that is " fighting in close combat," This Leontius is claimed by the impious Philostorgius, in his seventh book,²³⁸ as inclined to the Arian party, of which he was himself an adherent. He had an only son, and perceiving in him no signs of a good disposition, he obtained by prayer from God that he should depart this life while still very young; judging that it would be better to die, and to be removed from the uncertain dangers and chances of this life, before he could do anything sinful and disgraceful. They also called him the "Rule of the Church," on account of the extreme freedom which he used in his opinions, and in his speech towards all alike. On one occasion, when a synod of bishops was convened, and the empress Eusebia, and wife of Constantius, was Saluted by the rest of the bishops, he alone of them all remained at home, and paid no regard to her whatever. The empress being enraged at this, and boiling with indignation, sent to him one of her attendants, with the endeavour to conciliate him, partly by reproaches and partly by enticing promises, and saying that she would build him a large church, and add to it a large sum of money besides, if he would only come to visit her. Leontius answered her in the following terms: "If you have the desire of performing any of these promises which you make to me, my empress, be assured that you will be gratifying your own inclination rather than me. But if you really wish me to come and salute you, I will do so, provided the due and customary reverence for the bishop be shown; I mean, that when I enter the room, you will come down from your lofty throne, and meet me with respect, bending your head down to my hands in order to receive my episcopal benediction. Next, that I shall sit down, and you stand in a respectful attitude; sitting clown when I bid you and give you the signal for so doing. If you choose to do all this, I will willingly come to you; but if not, you will never give me presents sufficiently ample and magnificent to induce me to abate one particle of the honour which is due to bishops, and be willing to violate the divine laws of the priesthood." The queen, on receiving this message, grew white with the vehemence of her rage; and would not patiently submit to have such an answer brought back to her from Leontius. And being violently excited with wrath, and agitated in mind, |527 and having used those threats which accord with the light and excitable disposition of a woman, she related the matter to her husband, and demanded revenge. He, however, thought that the freedom of speech used by Leontius was rather to be admired; so he calmed down the rage of his wife, and sent her back to her own apartment. Likewise on another occasion, when Constantius was presiding in an assembly of bishops, and wanted to enter all the churches at his will, while all the rest received the words of the emperor with admiration and applause, and said that he had done everything right, Leontius alone held his tongue and was silent. And when the emperor asked him why he alone of all kept silence, Leontius answered thus: "I am astonished that you, who are set over matters of one kind, to administer them, should take in hand the administration of others which are distinct from them: and that when the care of military and civil matters has been intrusted to you, you should dictate to bishops in matters which appertain to the office of a bishop alone." On hearing these words, Constantius was fairly abashed and overcome with shame, and ceased thenceforth to act and to command on behalf of the state in matters of this kind.²³⁹

CONCERNING DEMOPHILUS.

DEMOPHILUS, bishop of Constantinople, was a man who was accustomed to mingle everything together in his mad impetuosity, and who, like some wild and rapid torrent,²⁴⁰ rolled along much mud and filth in his discourses, as any one might easily detect from the first sermon which he delivered at Constantinople. Now, in this discourse, it is probable that he would have been more than usually accurate and diligent, considering that these kind of discourses are taken down by notaries. Certainly, in his commentaries extant to the present day, he is very confused and indistinct in his positions; and, discussing concerning the Father and the Son, he thus speaks in learned terms. "The Son was begotten by the will of the Father alone, without time and without means, so that he is the minister and servant of the commands of the Father. For God foresaw that all those things which he was about to create, |528 could not exist, inasmuch as they were to be of a kind pure and unmixed, like God himself who created them. And so it was necessary that all created beings should become gods according to the dignity of their Creator; from whence it would follow that there would be a plurality of gods. Or certainly it was necessary that all things should be straightway dissolved as soon as made, just as though they were placed near the hottest fire. On this account, the Son existed as a medium between the creatures who were to be created and the Father from whom he is begotten; so that abasing himself, and joining and uniting himself to those things which were to be created, he might fulfil the Divine will, and become the Mediator between God and us men who are created by him." But Demophilus does not perceive that in these words he falsely attributes weakness and envy to the Supreme God, and that he makes the Son to be of a lower condition than the rest of his creatures. For the Father himself must needs be weak, according to the opinion of Demophilus, inasmuch as though he wished to impart his essence to all created beings, he could not effect his design afterwards. But he would by no means be free from evil will, if, when it was in his power to make all his creatures gods, he studiously abstained from making his creatures of the same condition and dignity with himself. And, moreover, there would be none of his creatures who would not appear to be more perfect and happy than the Son himself, if indeed he was begotten not as his own end, but for the contemplation and use of his own creatures. For whatever exists for the use of something else, must needs be inferior to that for which it is created. And many other mad dreams of the same kind does Demophilus set forth in his writings.²⁴¹

THE END.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 9th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_of_emesa_sermon_on_passion_02_trans.htm

Eusebius of Emesa, Homily on the sufferings and death of our Lord (1859) pp.215-231

Eusebius of Emesa, Homily on the sufferings and death of our Lord (1859) pp.215-231

On the Sufferings and Death of our Lord.¹

[Translated by S. C. Malan]

BRETHREN, we cannot hold our peace on the sufferings of Christ; we must speak of them; for both the time and place constrain us to do so. For, since He died for us, shall we not tell of His Passion? Yea, rather, we will dwell on it, and proclaim it aloud. He is on the Cross, for thy sake, O sinner; and thou, be at His feet, for thy own sake also. Thou darest not think or say nothing of thy Lord's sufferings; for where He suffered, there Satan died.

The traitor is come to look about him; and when come, he is on the alert and ready, not in places unknown, but in a spot which he knows full well. That place is near you. But what is meant by 'near you?' To that very place which you yourselves had shown to others is the traitor come, bringing with him a crowd; as if much people could overrule the power of God! The devil's son is come with swords, that are the wiles of his father who came to Adam as a friend, while he acted by him as an enemy: for he deceived and overcame him like a man that was taken in. And here he hid his guile under a kiss; although he remonstrated when his friendship was doubted. Did he come to betray with a kiss? No; he came not to kiss, but to betray. I resist not, said the Lord; do what thou listed: thou alone art the cause of thy own destruction. That was to the traitor himself; but to those who came to lay hands on Him, He said: What seek ye? They answered: Jesus of Nazareth. And the Lord replied: I am He; I resist you not, I flee not from you; for this very purpose am I come, and to this end was I born. But while He spake they and the traitor fell backwards to the earth; to show that He had come there of His own accord, for if they could not stand His speaking to them, how could they have bound Him against His will? "If ye seek Me," said the Lord, "let these go their way."

But Peter, who was the most fervent of all the disciples, comes forward also on this occasion. For at times he stepped rightly before the others; at other times it was very much as he thought best himself. He who knew how to come out of the ship boldly and walk on the water to his Lord, he who believed fervently, nevertheless suddenly fell back. But that was ere he was made a Rock, and ere he had received of the Spirit. For when once he had received the Spirit, he no longer quailed before a maid, nor shook in the wind; but he abode unmoved and faithful in the place in which he was put. Do not find fault with me, brethren, if I gather, one by one, every merit of our Lord; while I endeavour as well as I can, to tell His virtues. I pray you, do not grow weary; for I tell you of the Cross.

Peter drew his sword, which the Lord bade him take with him in order to fulfil every particular dispensation connected with His humanity; according to what S. Luke declares, that this saying should be fulfilled, "He was reckoned among the transgressors a saying which the other Evangelists apply to Christ on the Cross.² He cut off the servant's ear, well and deservedly; for the ear that hears not, ought not to remain in its place. But the Lord showed kindness even then to those who laid hands on Him; for although He healed the servant's ear by a miracle, yet He did not hinder their hands from taking Him. Having bound Him they led Him away captive, that the prophecy of Esaias should not come false, which said, that "He was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter." The Jews were pleased at His being taken; and the traitor rejoiced as if he had done a good work.

Peter then follows to see the end, full of doubt and forethought on the denial his Lord had foretold him should take place. He had been told that he would deny Him; and he repelled that, saying, he would never do so. His readiness was both good and becoming; but it was ignorance on his part: for he did not know how far he was about to show himself weak and mean. He follows anxiously and doubting: full of misgivings: his heart beating all the while. He meets the maid, who says to him: "Art thou not a Galilean also?" But Peter denies, and declares he is not. Yet that denial was not without meaning in one who was to be witness of his Lord's Resurrection. For if He who had died, was dead and not alive, then why should Peter think it fitting that he should be crucified with his head downwards for One who was dead?³ Then Peter moves further, goes from his place, but not from his denial. When about to speak, so troubled is he as to wish to change his language. "Thou art a Galilean, says the maid." Nay; I am not a Galilean, says Peter, with a lip that betrays him. Yet see how he who was thus troubled in his speech by an ignorant maid, afterwards persuaded even Roman orators. But we will presently speak of the Resurrection; meanwhile let us tell more about the Cross.

The high priests, servants by birth, sat in council, and the Judge of all stood before them as a servant. The lawyers themselves who had not learned the law, asked Him: Art Thou the Son of God? like the devil, of whom the Lord had said before, that he was their father. "I adjure Thee, said the high priest, tell me if Thou be the Son of the living God." Not that he cared to know it; but he wished to destroy Him. Then they brought the King of the judge before that judge. He stood before him "like a sheep before his shearer," as Esaias says. The judge trembled; not so the accusers. They say: "He maketh Himself a King," that His sentence might be irrevocable. Then the wife of the judge, who had suffered in a dream because of Him, sends a message to her husband; he was better disposed than the rest, he even wished not to kill Him, but to release Him, and he commanded Him to be scourged, in order to allay their fury; thus fulfilling the saying of the prophet: "With His stripes we are healed." But they cried with one voice: "Away with Him, away with Him, and crucify Him that might be fulfilled what was said of the Lord: "He lifted up his voice against Me."

What crime could the Jews bring against Him? What blind man was there that had not received sight, or lame that had not walked? Maybe some of those that had once been healed by Him, were among them who then railed at Him. No doubt many whose tongue He had loosed, cried against Him to please the Jews. I trow that of them was said: "What could be done to My vineyard that I have not done to it? I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and behold, it hath brought forth wild grapes." Pilate grew weary of denying the Jews their request; but he was overcome by those shameless miscreants. He washed his hand, because he had not soiled it: but they cried, that His blood might be on them and on their children. If what they at first required had not been done, then He would neither have been put to death nor risen again. While they prevailed in their impious intreaties, while they raged in their savage fury, and the judge refused to give way to their wickedness, they brought to pass and fulfilled the truth of the prophet's words who, because he knew beforehand the malice of the Jews, foretold that the Anointed of the Lord should suffer at their hands. Pilate wished to stop their evil deeds, but he could not.

Jesus went forth out of the city, bearing Himself the Tree of His own Cross; like another Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice. Will anyone say that this was done without purpose? The daughters of Jerusalem wept on that occasion, not knowing over whom they would have to weep. "Weep over yourselves and your children," said the Lord, "and not over Me, for I am now fulfilling that which I chose of Mine own free will." And they would weep hitherto if He whom the Jews did away with was not risen again from the dead. But now let us speak with joy of our salvation. Jesus went forth and walked between malefactors; that it might be fulfilled, "He was reckoned among the transgressors." He who only did good, our Saviour and our Lord, went forth among thieves and sinners.

And now the day of His crucifixion, was the day of Adam's transgression. God created Adam on the sixth day; and on that day he transgressed. On that day too Jesus became obedient and endured His sufferings at the sixth hour, when Adam tasted of the fruit; that we should overcome in Christ at the same hour that we were overwhelmed in Adam. The Tree of Life in the Garden, is the Tree of the Cross. There was a woman, through whom sin came into the world; here is a virgin who heard Him say: "Behold thy mother." On that day Adam put forth his hand for evil; and Jesus spread His holy arms for our good. Adam drew near to the tree; and Jesus laid His hands and His feet on the Tree to which they were fastened with nails. Adam tasted of the fruit through lust; and Jesus tasted of vinegar mingled with bitter gall. Adam heard this sentence: The earth shall bring forth to thee thorns and thistles. Our Jesus of His own will was crowned with the thorns of Adam. Adam brought down a curse upon himself; but Jesus who is blessed by them that are condemned, was hanged on the Tree as one accursed.

We run as it were in a race; one on the right, the other on the left; for the types given by Moses are complete and realised. For as he went up the mountain at the time when the people of God was fighting with Amalek, and Joshua the Son of Nave, as leader, held out his rod in his hand, he showed beforehand the figure of the Cross, with his arms and his rod. There Hur and Aaron, one on the right hand of Moses, and the other on the left; and here two thieves, one on the right and the other on the left of Jesus. And why thieves? that thou mayest know, O sinner, that His sufferings were for such as thou art. One reviled; but the other blessed.

And what didst thou see, O thief, or rather, O thou bringer of glad tidings to us? Neither a sign nor a miracle. He is nailed to the Cross as well as thou; and He tastes of gall which thou hast not drunk. He is crowned with thorns, which thou hast not worn. Then one reviled and would not learn of his fellow. What seest thou? A Man hanging on the Cross and the scorn of His foes, and thou sayest: "Remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom." What! dost thou call Him Lord who is thus hanging on the Cross, sentenced to it by His Judges; and is He a Judge who is thus condemned? Thou didst feel and acknowledge that He was crucified for sinners, and was doing His utmost to give life to those that were lost: for He is the Lamb slain and offered in sacrifice for many. What then dost thou ask, O thou believer, and no longer thief?—That Thou wouldst remember me in Thy kingdom. Thou askest a thing that is far and distant, but I will give it thee at once. Thou hast not been slow in believing; and I will not withhold My grace: today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. So that he really rose to Paradise, who was about to descend into hell to which he was doomed. And why this day? Because while on this day Adam was driven from Paradise, at this hour the thief opened it and went into it. And from the hour at which Adam ate of the fruit of the garden until he left it, Jesus remained on the Cross, until He fulfilled the spreading of Moses' hands towards heaven. "They pierced My hands and My feet," according to the saying of David. Gall in the cup is offered because of Adam's lust to Him Who is crowned with thorns. In order that the adversary should be put to shame, He carried the conquest of His enemy as far as the Cross, and endured patiently his infamous treatment.

But in like manner as the heavens showed the place of the Nativity by means of a brilliant star in the East, so also they made known how they mourned for the sufferings of Christ, by withholding the light of the sun, in order to hide the fury and audacity of His enemies. The light hid itself for three hours, as long as the Sun of Righteousness remained on the Cross and in sufferings; afterwards the sun reappeared, lest they might think night had arrived. But the sun did not shrink from being darkened; it hid itself three hours in order to represent as it were the stay of the Son of Man for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, and His appearing again. When the heavens withheld their light and gave it back they proclaimed a miracle; and the earth shook at the fight it could not bear. For it was fitting and becoming all creation to bear witness of Him Who was suffering on the Cross. And the bosom and bars of the earth were torn asunder in order to receive Him Who was free among the dead.

The types and examples of Joseph the patriarch, as handed down by the ancient Jews, were realised in the Son Who was betrayed to death by them, and dwells for ever with His Father,

Let us then abide by Jesus who endures Agony for our sake. At the foot of His Cross thieves were crucified with Him, as being necessary to the fulfilment of the dispensation, that we might learn how men do die, and how God was separated from him by His will and not without it. Those who were subject to the law of nature had their legs broken, that they should endure death according to that nature. But He who had power to lay down His life and power to take it again in like manner as He took of His own will and not against it, a body out of the Virgin, also of His own accord and not otherwise made on the Cross, a separation between His Spirit and His body. "Father, in Thy hands I commit My Spirit:" not in the hands of the wicked who, reviled and reproached Him on all sides. This is a great wonder: for He died willingly and not unwillingly; and there need not of necessity be any pain connected with it, for when He will, He gives up His Spirit.

He is then in every respect the One Only-begotten; for as He alone was begotten of the Father, and He alone was born of the Virgin according to the flesh, so also in death, He dies of His own will and not otherwise. Those who heard this could hardly believe it, and they asked; Can a man give up the ghost when he likes, of his own will? So that one of the soldiers who could not believe that He was already dead, made a gash in His side with a spear, and some in wonder said: "Of a truth He was the Son of God." But why did he not pierce with his spear the heart or other parts near it? Because it was where the serpent hid his fangs. For Eve Was taken from Adam's side, and he who wishes to heal the bite of the serpent, must cut the part in which the venom lies. It was therefore fitting and right that one side should be wounded for another; that the saying might come true; "All things concerning Me have an end."

Mark also the day: for when the days of unleavened bread, then also the passover of sufferings; and when the Lamb, then also Him that is without blemish and without spot. If the reckoning of days does not exactly fit, care not for it; for the Church makes no mistake in her reckoning, but the Jews have altered their own. This day was the death of death, and the destruction of sin: this day was the sacrifice offered for the propitiation of our sins, but the shame of our foe. This was the beginning of our life, the signal of victory over the great adversary. But of that death no one doubts; for all admit and confess it. The Gentiles ridicule it; the Jews say: we put Him to death. But they will bear the doom they have brought down upon themselves; while the Church rejoices in Jesus Christ our Lord; to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end]

1 Translated from the Armenian. Homil. of S. Severian, ed, Venice, p. 428. [Note to the online edition - sermon 14 from this edition, edited by J. B. Aucher, is not listed in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum 2 among the works of Severian. Sermon 15 is plainly labelled as by Eusebius of Emesa. In the CPG 2, 3531 there is a list of sermons by Eusebius of Emesa extant in Armenian. Sermon 5, De passione is identified as identical with sermons 14 and 15 from the Aucher edition. I have therefore corrected the attribution at the top.]

2 S. Luke and s. Mark alone mention it. Compare s. Luke xxii. 37, with s. Mark xv. 28.

3 This, as everybody knows, has reference to the tradition received in the Eastern and Western Churches respecting the Martyrdom of S. Peter. There is at Rome, outside the gates, on the Appian way, a church dedicated to him, and called Domine quo vadis? the words S. Peter addressed to our Lord whom he is said to have met at the place on which the church is built, when he was fleeing from persecution. There was something inexpressibly solemn about that spot the last time I saw from it the sun set over the beautiful meadows of the Sabines.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2010. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

The translation is taken from S. C. Malan, Meditations for every Wednesday and Friday in Lent on a prayer of S. Ephraim, London (1859), pp.215-231

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _0_intro.htm

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Introduction

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Introduction

[Click here for Picture]

Folio 13b of the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623, inverted to show the underwriting.

[To face Title-page

S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS

OF MANI, MARCION, AND BARDAISAN

OF WHICH THE GREATER PART HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED FROM THE PALIMPSEST B.M. ADD. 14623 AND IS NOW FIRST PUBLISHED

BY

C. W. MITCHELL, M.A.

FORMERLY RESEARCH STUDENT EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

VOLUME I

THE DISCOURSES ADDRESSED TO HYPATIUS

PUBLISHED FOR, THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY

BY

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE

14, HENRIETTA STEEET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON,

AND 7, BROAD STREET, OXFORD

1912

LONDON:

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E., AND GREAT WINDMILL STREET, W.

PREFACE

THE work of which this volume contains the first two parts was begun when I held a Research Studentship at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. It was then my intention to publish a translation of the fragments of S. Ephraim's prose refutation of the False Teachers, published by Overbeck ("S. Ephraemi Syri aliorumque opera selecta," pp. 21-73), and considered to be a valuable document for the history of early Manichaean teaching. In undertaking this I could not foresee that the work would extend over such a long period, or that it would, when complete, pass so far beyond the limits of my original plan. An unexpected enlargement of it has been made possible and has developed in the following way.

Before I had finished the translation of the Overbeck section, Professor Bevan, who had suggested the work, informed me that the remainder of Ephraim's Refutation was extant in the palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623. Wright's description of this manuscript did not encourage the hope that the underwriting could be deciphered. On p. 766 of the catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts he referred to it thus: "As stated above, the volume is palimpsest throughout, and the miserable monk Aaron deserves the execration of every theologian and Syriac scholar for having destroyed a manuscript of the sixth century written in three columns containing works of Ephraim..." These words not only state with emphasis Wright's opinion of the importance of the manuscript, but also suggest, I think, his fear that its original contents were lost. While I add, in passing, that they may also be taken to indicate the satisfaction which the recovery of that text would have brought him—a text of which he knew the first part intimately through his active share in the preparation of Overbeck's volume—, I may also venture to express here, by anticipation, the hope that, after the whole of the present work has been published, both Theology and Scholarship may consent to modify the severity of this verdict on ill-fated Aaron.

On examining this palimpsest of eighty-eight leaves, I found that the older writing on a few pages could be read with ease, on a good number of others with much difficulty; while in |2 each of these legible pieces there were more or less irrecoverable passages, and worst of all, only one side of the leaves could be read, except in two or three cases, though there was evidence that the writing was lurking in obscurity below.

I decided to edit as many of the pages as were fairly legible, and to publish them along with the translation which I have mentioned above. After I had worked at the palimpsest for a considerable time, my gleanings amounted to over thirty of its pages. But the illegibility of one side of the vellum, coupled with the confusion arising from the disturbance of the original order of the leaves and quires in the hands of the monk Aaron, made it impossible to arrange the deciphered pages so that they could be read consecutively. As they had been transcribed with tolerable completeness, most of them containing about a hundred manuscript lines, and as each page was a section from a genuine work of Ephraim against Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, the Text and Translation Society undertook the expense of publishing them as isolated Fragments.

In 1908 the pages, grouped in the best way possible according to their subject-matter, began to be printed. Nearly one half of them had passed through the press when the work was unexpectedly stopped by a most fortunate turn of events. Dr. Barnett, Keeper of Oriental Manuscripts at the British Museum, began to apply a re-agent to the illegible portions of the palimpsest, and so wonderfully did its virtue revive the energies of the ancient ink, so distinctly did the underwriting show itself, here readily, there reluctantly, that it now became possible to transcribe almost the entire contents. In consequence, too, of his action, I was able to reconstruct the order of the leaves and quires, and to assign the former Fragments to their proper places in the original document.

It will thus not be difficult to see how these successive extensions of my first project prevented the appearance of the volume at the times promised. I feel, however, that the work has, in the meantime, gained so much in character and importance, that the facts which I have stated above will be a sufficient explanation to the members of the Text and Translation Society for what may have seemed vexatious delays. Instead of a text and translation of a collection of fragments, torn from their context, and suffering greatly from illegible gaps, this volume and that which is to follow it are now able to present to "the theologian and Syriac scholar" the text and translation of Ephraim's "Contra Haereses" approximately complete. The lacunae which still remain will not, I think, be found to affect seriously the elucidation of many passages of importance.

Even with the help of the re-agent, the work of transcribing |3 the palimpsest has been necessarily slow. Not to speak of the arduousness of the decipherer's task, which anyone who has had experience of such work will appreciate, there have been in the present case unusual difficulties owing to the fact that no other copy of the underwriting is extant. Such difficulties are inevitable when the decipherer's aim is not collation, but the recovery of a lost document. In a field of this kind pioneer work cannot go on rapidly; for it constantly happens that advance is only possible by verifying and re-verify ing one's conjectures as to probable words and letters in passages which at first sight seem all but obliterated.

The time, moreover, which I have been able to devote to the work has been limited by my other duties, and has often been rendered still more scanty by the weather. Accurate deciphering is only possible under a good sunlight, and London has never claimed an abundance of this among her varied endowments. When bright days have been absent, in the interests of completeness and accuracy I have been obliged to postpone both transcribing and proof-correcting. For, however much the editor of such a work as the present may hope, for the sake of mistakes which he may have allowed to creep in, that he may not be transcribing e's act, yet he must feel that, as the writing soon fades back to that underworld from which it has recently emerged only after a thousand unbroken years of obscurity, there is laid upon him a special responsibility to attain finality in transcription. At the same time, he is aware that there comes a temptation to linger too frequently and painfully over sparse after-gleanings. Perhaps I have sometimes erred in this respect, but at any rate I feel that this edition presents a maximum of text recoverable from the palimpsest, and I have no hope that the lacunae can be filled by a more prolonged study of it.

I have tried to make a literal translation, and for the sake of clearness have introduced marginal summaries. The difficulty of the Syriac of the published fragment of the second Discourse was formerly noted by Nöldeke (ZDMG for 1889, p. 543), and the remainder of the work is written in the same style.

In the next volume containing Parts III. and IV.—the latter of which is now being printed—there will appear the text and translation of an unedited work of Ephraim, called "Of Domnus." It consists of Discourses against Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, and a Hymn on Virginity. The Discourses against Bardaisan are remarkable as showing the influence of the Platonists and the Stoics around Edessa.

In the third volume, Part V., I shall endeavour to collect, arrange, and interpret the evidence derived from the first two volumes for the teaching of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan. In that |4 connection notes will be found on special points, e.g., the references to the Hymn of the Soul, Vol. i, pp. lxxxix., cv.-cvii.; BÂN the Builder, p. xxx.; BOLOS, p. lxxii.; HULE, p. xcix. f.; Mani's Painting, p. xcii.; the Gospel quotations, e.g. pp. xc., c. Part V. will also contain indices for the whole work.

Throughout the first volume Ephraim directs his main attack against the teaching of Manichaeism—'perhaps the most formidable rival that the Church has encountered in the whole course of her history.' If that system ultimately failed on the favourable soil of Syria, its defeat must have been in some measure hastened by the weapons forged by Ephraim, and stored up in these Discourses to Hypatius, to be used by others in proving that Manichaeism could not justify itself intellectually to the Syrian mind.

I could wish to make my recognition of Professor Bevan's help as ample as possible. In editing the text, in conjectural emendations, and, above all, in the translation, I have had his constant and generous assistance. Throughout the work I have received from him encouragement and help of the most practical kind. For its final form, of course I alone am responsible.

I desire to express my thanks to Dr. Barnett, who has taken the greatest pains to restore the Manuscript to legibility, and who by his courtesy and kindness has greatly facilitated my progress with this work. I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Burkitt, who has given me advice and many suggestions; and to my colleagues the Rev. F. Conway and Mr. C. E. Wade for help on certain points.

To the Text and Translation Society, who undertook the publication of the work, and to the Managers of the Hort Fund for two grants in connection with it, I beg here to offer my sincere thanks.

C. W. MITCHELL.

MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL,

LONDON.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTORY NOTES (3)-(10)

TRANSLATION OF THE FIVE DISCOURSES i-cxix

SYRIAC TEXT OF DISCOURSES II-V 1-185

PLATE I To face Title-page

PLATE II To face p. (4)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE FIVE DISCOURSES ADDRESSED TO HYPATIUS.

Two manuscripts—B.M. Add. 14570 and B.M. Add. 14574— have preserved the First Discourse. The first of these is fully described in Wright's Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, pp. 406-7. This small volume contains as well a Discourse of Ephraim "On our Lord." It is written in a small elegant Estrangela of the fifth or sixth century, and each page is divided into two columns. On the first page there is a note stating that this was one of the two hundred and fifty volumes brought to the convent of S. Mary Deipara by the Abbot Moses of Nisibis, A.D. 932.

As regards the other manuscript, only the part of it numbered DXXXV by Wright, and described on pp. 407-8, requires mention here. Its nineteen leaves are "written in a fine regular Estrangela of the VIth century," each page being divided into three columns with from 34 to 38 lines to each. They contain not only the First Discourse but a fragment of the Second, (Overbeck, pp. 59-73) and originally belonged to the palimpsest Add. 14623, of which they formed the first nineteen leaves. Along with the eighty-eight leaves of this palimpsest, to which reference has already been made in the Preface, they formed a volume containing "To Hypatius" and "Of Domnus," two works which Ephraim intended to be his great refutation of the False Teachings. It thus becomes evident that the text of Discourses II-V, edited in Part ii., pp. 1-185, is really derived from a single manuscript, although, according to the Catalogue, the nineteen leaves and the palimpsest portion appear under different numbers.

When this sixth-century volume was rendered a palimpsest by |3 the monk Aaron, c. A.D. 823, fortunately the above-mentioned fragments—its first nineteen leaves—'escaped his ruthless hands.' But the surface of the remaining eighty-eight leaves suffered a ruinous transformation through his zealous attempt to remove the writing, and the treated vellum was re-arranged into new quires. The long list of works which the renovated codex was destined to contain can be seen on pages 464-7 of the Catalogue.

The two plates, one facing the title-page, the other opposite this page, show the present appearance of the manuscript. They have been reproduced from photographs of both sides of folio 13, which is a fair specimen of the leaves. It will.be noticed that the underwriting on the first plate is fairly clear, while that on the second plate showing the other side of the same leaf is, except for the title, completely illegible. The text of both has been transcribed with the help of the re-agent. The photographs have lost somewhat in distinctness in the process of reproduction.

On folio 88b there are two notes of interest in connection with the history of this palimpsest (CSM, p. 766). From the first we learn that Aaron was a Mesopotamian monk, a native of Dara, and that he wrote his manuscript in the Thebaid of Egypt. His date given above shows that Add. 14623 is one of the earliest palimpsests in the Nitrian Collection. Another note on the same page states that the volume was presented with nine others to the convent of S. Mary Deipara, by Isaac, Daniel and Solomon, monks of the Syrian convent of Mar Jonah in the district of Maris or Mareia. A.D. 851-859.

The manuscript was brought from the Nitrian desert by Archdeacon Tattam, and has been in the British Museum since March, 1843.

[Click here to see Picture]

Folio 13a of the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623, inverted to show the underwriting.

[To face p. (4)

|4

SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORK.

At the head of the First Discourse in B.M. Add. 14574, the following title is found: "Letters of the Blessed Ephraim, arranged according to the letters of the alphabet, against the False Teachings." On this Wright remarked that although the words "arranged according to the letters of the alphabet" appear to imply that there were originally twenty-two of these Discourses, following one another like those of Aphraates in the order of the Syriac alphabet, yet this "seems unlikely as the second Discourse begins with the letter p" (CSM, p. 408).

The exact meaning of the words remained obscure till Professor Burkitt, after examining the palimpsest portion of the work, showed that it consisted of five Discourses arranged acrostically in the order of the five letters of the author's name. He also observed that "a similar method of signature is actually used by Ephraim in the Hymn added at the end of the Hymns on Paradise (Overbeck, p. 351 ff.), the several stanzas of which begin with the letters m Y r p ) " (Texts and Studies, vol. vii-2, pp. 73, 74).

The decipherment of the palimpsest makes it possible to complete Professor Burkitt's evidence (op. cit. p. 74) thus:—

The First Discourse begins mYrp) )

The Second Discourse begins tY)$wrp

The Third Discourse begins Yl)gr r

The Fourth Discourse begins xrY Y

The Fifth Discourse begins )tOM$M M

|5

TABLE I

SHOWING THE RELATION OF PRIMITIVE QUIRES TO THE MODERN ARRANGEMENT

Ancient

Modern

Quire and Leaf

Quire and Leaf

I

Original order preserved in B.M. Add. 14574

II

Original order preserved in B.M. Add. 14574

B.M. Add. 14623

III 1 = Folio 14 = II 6 — — — — — ┐

2 = 10 =

2 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 9 =

1 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 12 =

4 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 16 =

8 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 11 =

3 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 15 =

7 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 18 =

10 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 17 =

9 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 13 =

5 — — — — — ┘

IV 1 = Folio 19 = III 1 — — — — — ┐

2 = 22 =

4 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 21 =

3 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 23 =

5 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 20 =

2 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 27 =

9 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 24 =

6 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 26 =

8 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 25 =

7 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 28 =

10 — — — — — ┘

V 1 = Folio 29 = IV 1 — — — — — ┐

2 = 36 = IV 8 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 44 = V 6 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 34 = IV 6 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 46 = V 8 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 41 = V 3 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 33 = IV 5 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 43 = V 5 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 31 = IV 3 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 38 = IV 10 — — — — — ┘

VI 1 = Folio 42 = V 4 — — — — — ┐

2 = 39 = V 1 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 35 = IV 7 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 47 = V 9 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 37 = IV 9 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 30 = IV 2 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 40 = V 2 — — ┘ | | |

| | |

The rest of the Quire belongs

| | |

to Vol. II

TABLE II

GIVING THE TRANSCRIBED LEAVES OF THE PALIMPSEST ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THEIR NUMBERING IN THE CATALOGUE, AND THE PAGES OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ON WHICH THE TEXT OF EACH LEAF BEGINS

Folio 9 begins on page 33

Folio 17 begins on page 59

10 " 28

18 " 55

11 " 46

19 " 68

12 " 37

20 " 85

13 " 63

21 " 77

14 " 23

22 " 72

15 " 50

23 " 81

16 " 42

24 " 94

Folio 25 begins on page 103

Folio 37 begins on page 173

26 " 98

38 " 151

27 " 89

39 " 160

28 " 107

40 " 181

29 " 111

41 " 133

30 " 176

42 " 155

31 " 146

43 " 142

32 belongs to Vol. II

44 " 120

33 begins on page 137

45 belongs to Vol. II

34 " 124

46 begins on page 129

35 " 164

47 " 168

36 " 115

PART I.—TRANSLATION

THE FIRST DISCOURSE pp. i-xxviii

THE SECOND DISCOURSE pp. xxix-l

THE THIRD DISCOURSE pp. li-lxxiii

THE FOURTH DISCOURSE pp. lxxiv-xci

THE FIFTH DISCOURSE pp. xcii-cxix

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, Syriac using the SPEdessa font, both free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _1_hypatius .htm

The First Discourse to Hypatius against the False Teachers: S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). First Discourse to Hypatius against the False Teachers.

A VOLUME OF

SELECTED DISCOURSES

OF THE

BLESSED SAINT EPHRAIM.

THE FIRST AGAINST THE FALSE TEACHERS

Greeting to Hypatius.

EPHRAIM ¹ to Hypatius my brother in our Lord—greeting: may peace with every man increase for us and may the peace which is between us abound, in the peace of truth may we be established, and let us make especial use of the greeting (conveyed) in a letter.²

I write a letter though I

would rather have come

to see thee in person.

Behold, I am writing willingly something that I did not wish to write. For I did not wish that a letter should pass between us, since it cannot ask or be asked questions; but I had wished that there might pass between us a discourse from mouth to ear, asking and being asked questions. The written document is the image of the composite body, just as also the free tongue is the likeness of the free mind. For the body cannot add or subtract anything from the measure of its stature, nor can a document add to or subtract from the measure of its writing. But a word-of-mouth discourse can be within the measure or without the measure.

For great is the gift of Speech.

For the Deity gave us Speech that is free like Itself, in order that free Speech might serve our independent Freewill. And by Speech, too, we are the likeness of the Giver of it, [Ov. p. 22.] inasmuch as by means of it we have impulse and thought for good things; and not only for good things, but we learn |ii also of God, the fountain of good things, by means of Speech (which is) a gift from Him. For by means of this (faculty) which is like God we are clothed with the likeness of God. For divine teaching is the seal of minds, by means of which men who learn are sealed that they may be an image for Him Who knows all. For if by Freewill Adam was the image of God, it is a most praiseworthy thing when, by true knowledge, and by true conduct, a man becomes the image of God. For that independence exists in these also. For animals cannot form in themselves pure thoughts about God, because they have, not Speech, that which forms in us the image of the Truth. We have received the gift of Speech that we may not be as speechless animals in our conduct, but that we may in our actions resemble God, the giver of Speech. How great is Speech, a gift which came to make those who receive it like its Giver! And because animals have not Speech they cannot be the likeness of our minds. But because the mind has Speech, it is a great disgrace to it when it is not clothed with the likeness of God; it is a still more grievous shame when animals resemble men, and men do not resemble God. But threefold is the torture doubled when this intermediate (party between God and animals) forsakes the Good above him and degrades himself from his natural rank to put on the likeness of animals in his conduct.

And a letter cannot speak.

A letter, therefore, cannot demonstrate every matter about which a man is seeking to ask questions, because the tongue of the [Ov. p. 23, 1. 2.] letter is far away from it,—its tongue is the pen of the writer of it. Moreover, when the letter speaks anything written in it, it takes to itself another tongue that the letter may speak with it, (the letter) which silently speaks with two mute tongues, one being the ink-pen, the other, the sight of the (reader's) eye. But if we thus rejoice over a letter poor in treasures, how much more shall we rejoice over a tongue which is near us, the lord and treasurer of the treasures within!

Yet I have written because I felt myself unworthy to meet thy piety.

But I had desired that instead of your seeing me in the characters of a document, you might have seen me in the characters of the countenance; and instead of the writing of |iii my letter thus seeing you, I had desired that my eyes instead of my writings might see you. But because the sight of our face is not worthy of the pure gaze of your eyes, behold you are gazing on the characters of our letter. But justly pure writings have met your pure eyes; not that I say that the pure is profaned by the defiled, but it is not right that pure eyes should look at what is riot pure. For even though the People had sanctified their bodies three days, (yet) because they had not sanctified their hearts he did not allow them to approach the holy Mountain, not that holiness would be profaned by those who were defiled, but those who were defiled were not worthy to approach holiness. [Exod, xix. 10 ff.] But by Moses, the holy one, who went up into the holy Mountain, God gave an instance for the consolation of the pure and for the refutation of the defiled, (showing) that all those who are holy like Moses are near holiness like Moses. [Ov. p. 24.] For when one of the limbs of the body is satisfied all the limbs receive a pledge of satisfaction, that they too will be satisfied together with that one in the same manner. For by means of that body, too, in which our Lord was raised, all bodies have received a pledge that they will be raised with it in like manner.

Discreet fear prevented me from visiting thee at thy request.

But, my brother, in that thou didst stir up our littleness to approach you, know that if I wished I could come, but know, too, that if I could come I would not wish to be deprived (of the opportunity). For I could come if I had no intelligence; but I have been unable to come because I had intelligence. In (blissful) innocence I might have come on account of love, but (looking at the matter) intelligently I was unable to come on account of fear.

Not that I was overawed at the prospect of a discussion.

And whoever is steeped in love like a child is above fear; and whoever! is timorously subject to fear vain terror always tortures him. It helps athletes too in a competition to be above fear through the encouragement of a good hope, and not to fall under the sickly apprehensions which result from a timorous habit of thought. Athletes perhaps (might) well fear because the victor is crowned and the loser suffers shame, For they do not divide the victory between the two of them.

There would have been gain however it ended.

But we ought not to fear a struggle in which failure is |iv victory; since when the teacher wins the learner too is much helped. For helper and helped are both partakers in the gain. If, then, we had come to teach there would have been a common victory as Error would have been overwhelmed by our Truth. [Ov. p. 25. l. 3.] But if we had been unable to teach, yet had been able to learn, there would have been a common victory in that by your knowledge there would have been an end of ignorance. The treasure of Him that enricheth every one is open before every one, since Grace administers it, (Grace) that never restrains intelligent inquirers. If, therefore, we had possessed something we could have bestowed it as givers, or if we did not possess anything we could have received as inquirers. But if we had not been able to give nor able even to receive, our coming could not have been deprived of all good. For even if we could not have searched you out with our mind yet we could have seen you with our eyes; since we have no greater gift than seeing you. [Ex. xxxiii. 18 ff.] But Moses testifies that while it was granted to him to do everything like God, at last he abandoned everything and prayed to see the Lord of all. For if the creatures of the Creator are thus pleasant to look upon, how much more pleasant is their Creator to look upon; but because we have not an eye which is able to look upon His splendour, a mind was given us which is able to contemplate His beauty. Man, therefore, is more than his possessions, just as God is more excellent and more beautiful than His creatures.

In spite of my conscious inferiority I might have given a little help: for all are mutually dependent.

But know, my beloved, that if we had come, it would not have been possible for us to have been real paupers such as receive everything, nor again for you to have been complete givers, to give everything. One who lacks is not lacking in all respects, lest he should be abased; neither is he who is complete, complete in every respect, lest he should exalt himself. But this lack has arisen that completeness may be produced by it. For in that we need to give to one another and receive from one another, the wants of all of us are filled up by the abundance of all. [Ov. p. 26, 1. 7.] For as the wants of the limbs of the body are filled up |v one by the other, so also the inhabitants of the world fill up the common need from the common abundance. Let us rejoice, therefore, in the need of all of us, for in this way unity is produced for us all. For inasmuch as men are dependent on one another, the high bend themselves down to the humble and are not ashamed, while the lowly reach out towards the great and are not afraid. And also in the case of animals we exercise great care over them on account of our dependence on them, and obviously our need of everything binds us in love towards everything. O hated Need! yet much-loved unity is produced from it. Because countries are dependent on one another, their dependence combines them as into a body; and like the limbs they give to one another and receive from one another. But these arrangements of interdependence belong to one rich complete Being, Whose need is this—to give to everything though He has no need to receive from anywhere. For even what He is thought to receive from us, He takes it astutely from us in His love that He may again give it to us manifold more as the rewarder. This is that astuteness which ministers good things, and our craftiness which ministers evil things should resemble it.

I said above that I refrained from coming through fear. Such fear even S. Peter experienced.

But as regards that fear of which we spoke above, not only upon us weak ones does the constraint of fear fall, but even upon the heroes and valiant themselves. Nor have I said this in order to find comfort for our folly, but that we might remind thy wisdom. For when Peter despised fear and was wishing to walk upon the waters, although he was going (thither) on account of his love which was making him run, yet he was nigh to sinking on account of fear which fell upon him; and the fear which was weaker than he on dry land, when it came among the waves into a place in which it was strengthened became powerful against him and overcame him. [Ov. p. 27, l. 13.] From this it is possible to learn that when any one of all the desires in us is associated with an evil habit which helps it, then that desire acquires power and conquers us. For fear and love were weighed in the midst of the sea as in a balance, and fear turned the scale and won; and that Simon whose faith was lacking |vi and rose in the balance was himself nigh to sinking in the midst of the sea. And this type is a teacher for us, that is to say, it is a fear-inspiring sign that all those whose good things fail and are light when rightly weighed, are themselves nigh to sinking into evil. But if any one say:—why is it necessary to frame illustrations of this kind, let him know that this may not be harmful if we receive from everything some helpful lesson for our weakness. [Ov. p. 28.] If, therefore, Peter was afraid of the waves, though the Lord of the waves was holding his hand, how much more should weak ones fear the waves of Controversy, which are much stronger than the waves of the sea! For in the waves of the sea (only) bodies are drowned, but in the waves of Investigation minds sink or are rescued.

The Publican in the Parable was conscious of this fear.

But, again, that Publican also who was praying in the Temple was very importunate about forgiveness, because he was much afraid of punishment. He was in a state of fear and love; he both verily loved the Merciful One on account of His forgiveness, and he verily feared the Judge on account of His vengeance. And though, on the one hand, he was praying in love because of his affection, yet, on the other hand, because of his fear he would not dare to lift up his eyes unto Heaven. And though Grace was urging him forward, his fear was unable to cross boldly the limit of justice.

Such fear may be a gain.

If the fear of the Publican who was justified knew its measure and did not exalt itself to cross the limit, how can weakness dare to neglect the measure and to cross the limit of propriety? For this also (is said) that a man may know the degree of his weakness and not exalt himself to a degree above his power. I think that such a man cannot slip. For he does not run to a degree too hard for him and so receive thence a fall. For without knowledge men run to degrees too hard for them; and before they go up pride urges them on, and after they fall penitence of soul tortures them.

On the other hand,the Lord gave a Parable of unabashed importunity.

But, again, indeed, I see that that importunity about which our Lord spake was praised and enriched because its importunate nature ventured to cross the limit of propriety; for if it had been abashed and observed propriety, it would have gone empty away, but because it was presumptuous and trampled down |vii harmful modesty as with its heels, [Ov. p. 29, l. 5.] it received more than it had asked. O Necessity, whose importunate words enriched its destitution! For it does not aid necessity to be subject to harmful modesty, but (it is aided) by its importunity being a good instrument for (securing) good things.

Better, therefore, is wholesome importunity, than a barren scrupulosity about exact propriety.

But if all these praises were bestowed on importunity, which opened closed doors, and aroused those who were asleep in bed, and received more than was its due, how must that indigence be censured which has not approached open doors nor received help from the treasuries of the Rich One! Better, therefore, is he who is importunate about his aid than he who is ashamed and loses his aid. For whoever observes proper modesty while he loses his aid, even the propriety which he has observed is in that case subject to censure, and propriety has become impropriety. And he that seeks after exact propriety at all times is neglectful of sound propriety. For from the best wheat, if it shed not much bran, fine flour cannot be made; for unripe fruit is not palatable, and what is over ripe loses flavour, or else its taste is pungent, or bad.

The proper limits of Knowledge.

For if we refine things much beyond what is proper, even the fine and the pure are also rejected. For it is not right for us to cultivate Ignorance, or deep Investigation, but Intelligence between-these-two-extremes, sound and true. For by means of the two former a man surely misses his advantage. [Ov. p. 30, l. 3.] For by means of Ignorance a man cannot understand Knowledge, and by deep Investigation a man cannot build on a sound foundation. For Ignorance is a veil which does not permit one to see, and Investigation, which is continually building and destroying, is a changeful wheel that knows not how to stand and be at rest; and when it passes in its investigation over true things, it cannot abide by them; for it has unstable motions. When, therefore, it finds anything it seeks, it does not retain its discovery, and is not rejoiced with the fruit of its toil But if we inquire much into everything we are neglectful of the Lord of everything, inasmuch as we desire to know all things like Him. And since our Knowledge cannot know everything. |viii we show our evil Will before Him Who knows all things. And while He is higher than all in His Knowledge, the ignorant venture to assail the height of His Knowledge. For if we are continually striving to comprehend things, by our strife we desire to fence round the way of Truth and to confuse by our Controversy things that are fair—not that those fair things are confused in their own nature, but our weakness is confused by reason of the great things. For we are not able completely to apprehend their greatness. For there is One who is perfect in every respect, whose Knowledge penetrates completely through all.

It is not good for us to seek deep Knowledge: for deep things are unknowable. See how Simplicity is better than Cleverness.

But it is not right for us to look at all things minutely, but rather simply—not that our Knowledge is to be Ignorance; for even in the case of something which a man does not do cleverly, if he does the thing with clever discrimination then his lack of Cleverness is Cleverness. And if, by his Knowledge he becomes an ignorant man so that he ignores those things which he cannot know, even his Ignorance is great Knowledge. For because he knows that they are not known, his Knowledge cannot be Ignorance. For he knows well whatever he knows. But the mind in which many doubts spring up, destroying one another, cannot do anything readily. For thoughts, vanquishing and vanquished, are produced by it, and the waves which from all sides beat upon it, fix it in doubt and inaction. [Ov. p. 31, l. 12.] But it is an advantage that the scale of simplicity should outweigh in us the scale of wrangling-logic. For how many times, in consequence of the clever and subtle thoughts which we have concerning a matter, that very matter is delayed so as not to be accomplished! And consider that in the case of those matters which keep the world alive, Simplicity accomplishes them without many thoughts. For these matters succeed when a single thought controls them, and they stand still when many thoughts rush in. For there is only a single thought in Husbandry, that is (the thought) that in a simple manner it should scatter the seed in the earth. But if other thoughts occurred to it so that it pondered and reasoned as to whether the seed was sprouting or not, or whether the earth would fail to produce it, or would restore it again, then Husbandry could not sow. For morbid thoughts spring up against a single |ix sound thought, and weaken it. And because a thing is weakened, it cannot work like a sound thing. For the soundness of a [Ov. p. 32.] thought like the soundness of a body performs everything. And the husbandman who cannot plough with one ox cannot plough with two thoughts. Just as it is useful to plough with two oxen, so it is right to employ one healthy thought.

Deep Investigation is to be avoided.

Moreover, if the martyrs and confessors who have been crowned had approached with double thoughts they could not have been crowned. For when our Freewill is in a strait between keeping the commandment and breaking the commandment, it is usually the case that it is seeking two reasonings destructive of one another, so that by means of the. interpretation of one reasoning it may flee from the pain of the other, that is to say, (it argues) in order that by a false excuse it may cast away the burden of the commandment. Now, without wandering after those things which are unnecessary, or omitting anything that is necessary, let us say in brief and not at length, that if anything succeeds by means of a single sound thought, its soundness is weakened by many thoughts. For if we approach with polished wiles any matter which we ought to approach in a simple way, then our intelligence becomes non-intelligence. For in the case of every duty, whenever a man proceeds beyond what is its due, all the ingenuities which he can devise about it, are foolish. So (too) in the case of any investigation in which the investigator slips from its truth, all the discoveries he may make, although his discoveries may be clever, are false. For everything which is clever is not true; but whatever is true is clever. And whatever is debated is not deep, but whatever is said by God is subtle when it is believed. But there is no subtlety equal to [Ov. p. 33.] this, that everything should be duly done in its own way, and if it happen that what is to be done can be done simply, its simplicity is subtlety. For it is all the more fitting that we should call this simplicity subtlety in that it accomplishes helpful things without many combinations and reasonings. For in that it does things easily it resembles Deity, Who easily creates everything.

The advantage of simple Knowledge can be seen in the case of the husbandman.

It is right, therefore, that we should investigate well the advantage of things by an examination of them; and if they are |x judged by the investigators to be simple, there are many things which are thought to be obviously unsuccessful, but their unseen qualities achieve a great victory. For there is nothing that appears more simple than this, that the husbandman should take and scatter in the earth the gathered seeds which he holds in his hands. But, after a time, when it is seen that the scattered seed has been gathered and has come with a multitude like a general with his army, and that the seed which had been regarded as lost is found and finds also other (seeds) with it, then a man marvels at the husbandman's simplicity, which has become a fountain of cleverness. Therefore, with regard to this very thing, hear on the other hand the opposite of it, that if a man spare the gathered seed, so as not to scatter it, he is thought indeed to act prudently in refraining from scattering. But when we see the husbandman's scattered investment collected in the principal and interest, and the earth rewarding him, then the intelligence which refrained from scattering is seen to be [Ov. p. 34.] blindness, because it is deprived of (the chance of) gathering. Therefore, it is not an advantage to us that we should always be led astray by names, nor that we should be deceived by outward appearances.

I considered the matter carefully before I decided not to visit thee.

For if, because I wisely discerned that it would not be right for me to venture to come, I did not come for that reason, perhaps it would have been better for me if I had not wisely discerned. For, perhaps, my coming to thee in childlike and simple fashion would have met with success. But know again that if I had come recklessly I would not have wished to come, because our coming would have been indiscreet. For we should have had no fruit of intelligence. For everything which is done indiscreetly belongs either to reckless habit, or blind chance; and it has no root in the mind of those who do it.

In deciding, I was conscious of a free power of Choice within me: the nature of Freewill.

But if these two wise conclusions (namely) that I should come and that I should not come, (both) belong to my Will, this is a single Will of which one half does battle with the other half, and when it conquers and is conquered it is crowned in both cases. This is a wonder, that though the Will is one, two opinions which are not homogeneous are found in its homogeneity. And I know that what I have said is so, but why (it is so) I am not |xi able to demonstrate. For I wonder how that one thing both enslaves it and is enslaved by it. But know that if this was not so mankind would have no free power of Choice. For if Necessity makes us wish, we have no power of Choice. And if, again, our Will is bound and has not the power to will and not to will we have no Freewill. ["The Will is both one and many."] And, therefore, necessity thus demands that there should be a single thing, and though it is a single thing, when that single thing wills to be two it is easy for it, and when again it wills to be one or many it is a simple matter for it. For in a single day there are produced in us a great number of Volitions which destroy each other. [Ov. p. 35, l. 5.] This Will is a root and parent; it is both one and many. This Will brings forth sweet and bitter fruit. O free Root with power over its fruit! For if it wills it makes its fruits bitter, and if it wills it makes its products sweet. For God to Whom nothing is difficult has created in us something which is difficult to explain, and that is, Freewill. And though this (Will) is one, yet there are two opinions in it, that of willing and that of being unwilling; so that when half of it struggles with and conquers the other half, then the whole of it is crowned by the whole of it. For this is an unspeakable wonder, how, though the Will is one, half of it rebels against the Law and half of it is subject to the Law. For, lo, there are in it two opinions contending together, for part of the Will desires that Evil should be done, and again, part of it uses restraint and guards against Evil being done. And how on the one hand has the Will not been transformed by that part of it which desires evil things that it may become like its part which desires evil things? and how again (on the other hand) has the Will not been converted by that part of it which loves good things, that the whole of it may become good like the part of it which loves good things? But if both these parts can be converted to Good or Evil, what shall we call them? That we should call them Evil (is impossible, for) they can be good,—that we should call them good (is impossible, for) they can be bad. [Ov. p. 36.] And though these two can be a single thing, yet except they are divided and are two there can be no struggle between them. This is a wonder which we are unable to speak of, and yet we cannot be silent about it. For we know |xii that a single Will possessed of many conclusions exists in us. But since the Root is one we do not understand how part of the thought is sweet, and part of it bitter, even if it does not completely escape our notice. And how, on the one hand, is that bitterness swallowed up by that sweet thing so as to become pleasant like it? And how again when it (i.e., the sweet thing) has been swallowed up is it mixed with that bitter thing so as to become bitter like it? And again, how when these two frames of mind have been swallowed by one another, and have become one thing affectionately, are they again separated from one another and stand one against the other like enemies? For where was that Mind before we sinned that brings us to penitence after sins? And how is that Mind turned to penitence after adultery, which was raging before adultery? These are frames of mind which are like leaven to one another, so that they change one another and are changed by one another. But here our Truth has conquered the (false) Teachings and bound them so that none of them can bear investigation.

This Discourse is meant for friends.

But if any one wishes to investigate some of the Teachings (in question) let him know that we have not been called at present to struggle with enemies, but to speak with friends. But when the statement (intended) for friends is finished, then our belief will show a proof of its power in a contest also. But it is easy for every man to perceive what I have said, because there are in every one two Minds, [Ov. p. 37.] which are engaged in a struggle one against the other, and between them stands the Law of God, holding the crown and the punishment, in order that when there is victory it may offer the crown, and when failure appears it may inflict punishment.

False views about the origin of Evil make the Law an absurdity, or make Good akin to Evil.

But if the Evil which is in us is evil, and cannot become good, and if also the Good in us is good, and cannot become evil (then) these good and evil promises which the Law makes are superfluous. For whom will the Rewarder crown—one who is victorious by his Nature and cannot fail? Or whom, again, will the Avenger blame—that Nature which fails and cannot conquer? But if that good thing which is in us is obedient to |xiii something evil, how can we call that Good, seeing that it has a close relationship to Evil? For by means of that thing whereby it becomes obedient to Evil its kinship with Evil is perceived. For that Evil would not be able to draw it to itself if it were not that its lump had an affinity to the leaven of Evil. See therefore, also, that what they call a good Nature is, in virtue of what it is, convicted of being an evil Nature; inasmuch as it has an evil Will which is drawn away after Evil. But inasmuch as it has an evil Will, all Evil things had a tendency towards it. [The evil Will is the root of Evil.] For there is nothing more evil than an evil Will. For that is the root of evil things. For when there is no evil free Will, then evil things come to an end. For the deadly sword cannot kill apart from the evil Will of its holder. [Ov. p. 38.]But see, already when we have not advanced to the contest (even) before the contest, the enemies of the Truth have been conquered beforehand.

The Will is its own explanation.

And if any one ask, what then is this Will? we must tell him that the real truth about it is that it is the power of Free-choice. And because it is not right to scorn a good learner, let us now like those who hasten and pass on throw him a word, that is to say, one of the words of Truth. For, even from a single word of Truth, great faith dawns in a sound and wise hearer; just as a great flame is produced by a small coal. For if a single one of a few coals of fire is sufficient to make scars on the body, one of the words of Truth, also, is not too weak to clean away the plague spots of Error from the soul. If, therefore, any one asks, "What is this Will, for though it is one thing, part of it is good, and part of it evil?" we shall tell him that it is because it is a Will. And if he asks again, we shall tell him that it is a thing endowed with independence. And if he still continues to indulge in folly, we shall tell him that it is Freewill. And if he is not convinced this unteachableness of his teaches that because there is Free-will he does not wish to be taught. But if he is convinced when they say to him that there is no Freewill, it is truly wonderful that in the annulling of his Freewill, his Freewill is proved, that is to say, by his being in a desperate state. [The very denial of Freewill proves that it exists.] And the matter is as if some eloquent person wished to harangue and to prove that men have no power of Speech. And that is great madness; |xiv for he says there is no power of Speech when he uses the power of Speech. For his power of Speech refutes him, for by means [Ov. p. 39.] of Speech he seeks to prove that there is no power of Speech. When Freewill, too, has gone to hide itself in a discussion and to show by argument that it does not exist, then is it with more certainty caught and seen to exist. For if there were no Freewill, there would be no controversy and no persuasion. But if Freewill becomes more evident when it hides itself, and when it denies (its own existence) it is the more refuted, then when it shows itself it is made as clear as the sun.

The Will is not enslaved, but is the Image of God.

And why does Freewill wish to deny its power and to profess to be enslaved when the yoke of lordship is not placed upon it? For it is not of the race of enslaved reptiles, nor of the family of enslaved cattle, but of the race of a King and of the sons of Kings who alone among all creatures, were created in the image of God. For see every one is ashamed of the name of slavery and denies it. And if a slave goes to a country where men know him not, and there becomes rich, it may be that, although he is a slave and of servile origin, he may be compelled to say there that lie is sprung from a free race and from the stock of kings. And this is wonderful that, while slaves deny their slavery, yet the Freewill of fools denies its own self. And see, if men give the name of slave to him who says that there is no Freewill, he is displeased and becomes angry, and begins to declare the Freedom of his family. Now, how does such a person on the one hand deny Freewill, and on the other acknowledge it? And on the one hand hate literal slavery, and (on the other) acknowledge spiritual slavery? If he chose with intelligence and weighed the matter soundly it would be right for him to acknowledge that (principle) that he might not be deprived of the mind's free power of Choice. [Ov. p. 40.] And here he is exposed who blasphemes very wickedly against the Good One, the Giver of Freewill, Who made the earth and everything in it subject to its dominion.

Freewill is denied by those who wish to blame God for their failures.

But there is no man who has gone down and brought up a crown with great toil from the hard struggle, and (then) says that there is no Freewill, lest the reward of his toil and the glory of his crown should be lost. The man who has failed says there |xv is no Freewill that he may hide the grievous failure of his feeble Will. If thou seest a man who says there is no Freewill, know that his Freewill has not conducted itself aright. The sinner who confesses there is Freewill may perhaps find mercy, because he has confessed that his follies are his own; but whoever denies that there is Freewill utters a great blasphemy in that he hastens to ascribe his vices to God; and seeks to free himself from blame and Satan from reproach in, order that all the blame may rest with God—God forbid that this should be! But if he is intelligent he ought not to think that a being endowed with power over itself is similar to a thing which is bound in its Nature. [The mystery of the Will is a part of a wider mystery.] And, moreover, it would not be right for any one, after he has heard that the Will... to ask (and say), 'But what, again is the Will?' Does he know everything, and has this (alone) escaped his knowledge, or does he know nothing at all since he cannot know even this? But if he knows what 'a bound Nature' is, he can know what an unconstrained Will is, but that which is unconstrained cannot become constrained, because it is not subject to constraint. But in what is it unconstrained except in that it has (the power) to will and not to will?

The power of Freewill is obvious but unspeakably difficult to explain.

And if he is unwilling to be convinced in this way, it is because the power of his Freewill is so great, and our mouth is unable to do it full justice; our weak mouth has confessed that it is unable to state its unconstrained Will. For it is a Freewill which subjects even God to Investigation and rebuke, on account of its unconstrained nature. It ventured to bring up all this because it desired to speak about that which is unspeakable. [Ov. p. 41, l. 5.] But that (Freewill) which has ventured to make statements concerning God, itself is not able to state its own nature perfectly. But concerning this, also, we say to any one who asks that this is a marvel which it is very easy for us to perceive, but it is very difficult to give a proof of it. [But it is impossible to explain anything completely.] But this is not so only in this matter, but it is the same with everything. For whatever exists may be discussed without being searched out; it can be known that the thing exists, but it is not possible to search out how it exists. For see that we can perceive |xvi everything, but we cannot completely search out anything at all; and we perceive great things, but we cannot search out perfectly even worthless things. [Let us thank God that our Knowledge of things is limited.] But thanks be to Him Who has allowed us to know the external side of things in order that we may learn how we excel, but He has not allowed us to know their (inward) secret that we might understand how we are lacking. He has allowed us, therefore, to know and not to know that by means of what can be known, our childish nature might be educated, and that our boldness might be restrained by those things which cannot be known. Therefore, He has not permitted us to know, not that we may be ignorant, but that our Ignorance may be a hedge for our Knowledge. [Knowing that our powers of knowing are so limited we can avoid vain and weary searching.] For see how we wish to know even the height of heaven and the breadth of the earth, but we cannot know; and because we cannot know we are thus restrained from toiling. Therefore, our Ignorance is found to be a boundary for our Knowledge, and our want of Knowledge (lit. simpleness) continually controls the impetuosity of our boldness. For when a man knows that he cannot measure a spring of water, by the very fact that he cannot, he is prevented from drawing out what is inexhaustible. [Ov. p. 42, l. 5.] And by this experience it is seen that our weakness is a wall in the face of our boldness. Thus, too, when we know that we cannot know, we cease to investigate. For if, when we know little, the impetuosity of boldness carries us on and proceeds to those things which may not be known, who is there who will not give thanks to Him. Who has restrained us from this wearisomeness, even if we do not wish to remain within the just boundary within which He has set us? Our Ignorance, therefore, is a bridle to our Knowledge. [Yet we are not to be ignorant, but to seek after practical Knowledge.] And from these instances it does not follow that the All-knower wished to make us ignorant, but He placed our Knowledge under a helpful guardian; and better is the small Knowledge which knows the small range of Ignorance than the great Knowledge which has not recognized its limits; and better is the weak man who carries about something that is necessary for his life than the arrogant strong man who burdens himself with great stones which cause his destruction. [Our chief Knowledge is to know what subjects can never be known.] But our chief Knowledge is (just) this—to know that we do not know |xvii anything. For if we know that we do not know, then we conquer Error by our Knowledge. For when we know that everything that exists is either known or not known, thereby we acquire the true Knowledge. For whoever thinks he can know everything, falls short of the Knowledge of everything. For by means of his Knowledge he has gained for himself Ignorance. But whoever knows that he cannot know, from Ignorance Knowledge accrues to such a one. [Ov. p. 43.] For in virtue of the fact that he knows that he cannot know, he is enabled to know, that is to say, (he knows) something which profits him.

No external force compelled my Will when deciding not to come to see thee.

If, therefore, as I said above, though the Will is one, part of it compels and part of it is compelled, by whom was I compelled not to come except by my own Will? O that some unknown external Constraint had opposed me! For perhaps with the whole of my being I would have contended against the whole of that (Constraint) and been victorious. (O that it had been thus), and that an inward Constraint had not opposed me, (a Constraint) of which I know not how to give an account! For I am not able to state how part of me contends with another part; in virtue of being what I am, I conquer, and am conquered continually.

The heretical Teaching says that the Will is a Mixture.

But we are not stating the case as the Heresies state it. For they say that Constituents of Good and Evil are mingled together in us, and "these Constituents conquer one another, and are conquered by one another." But although Error is able to deck out what is false, the furnace of Truth is able to expose it. For we say that free Volitions conquer one another, and are conquered by one another; for this is the Freewill which the voice of the Law can transform.

Consequences of the denial of Freewill.

And if they say that if Freewill comes from God, then the good and evil impulses which belong to it are from God; by saying this, what do they wish to say? Do they wish to affirm that there is no Freewill? And if they deny Freewill what can they believe? [Ov. p. 44.]For if they deny Freewill the Law and Teaching are of no use; and so let books and laws be rolled up and let judges rise from their thrones, and let teachers cease to |xviii teach! let prophets and apostles resign their office! Why have they vainly laboured to preach? Or what was the reason of the coming of the Lord of them all into the world?

Freewill and the teaching about the Constituents are incom patible.

But if they profess belief in Freewill—which is actually what they profess—that Freewill which they profess to believe in compels them to deny that Evil which they believe in. For both of them cannot stand. For either our Will sins, and (at other times) is proved to be righteous, and for this reason we have Freewill; or if the Constituents of Good and Evil stir in the Will, then it is a Constituent which overcomes, and is overcome, and not the Will.

Freewill means Freewill not a 'bound Nature.'

But if any one says that everything which stirs in our Freewill does not belong to Freewill, by his Freewill he is making preposterous statements about Freewill. For how does he call that Freewill when he goes on to bind it so that it is not Freewill. For the name of Freewill stands for itself; for it is free and not a slave, being independent and not enslaved, loose, not bound, a Will, not a Nature. And just as when any one speaks of Fire, its heat is declared by the word, and by the word 'Snow,' its coolness is called to mind, so by the word 'Freewill' its independence is perceived. But if any one says that the impulses that stir in it do not belong to Freewill he is desiring to call Freewill a 'bound Nature,' when the word does not suit a Nature. And he is found not to perceive what Freewill is, and he uses its name rashly and foolishly without being acquainted with its force. [Ov. p. 45.] For either let him deny it, and then he is refuted by its working, or if he confesses it, his organs contend one against the other; for he denies with his mouth what he confesses with his tongue.

The Law of God presupposes Freewill.

For the Giver of Freewill is not so confused (in mind) as this man who is divided (against himself) part against part, that He should become involved in a struggle with His nature. For He gave us Freewill which, by His permission, receives good and evil impulses, and He furthermore ordained a Law for it that it should not do overtly those Evils which by His permission stir invisibly in it. And let us inquire a little. Either though He may have had the means to give us Freewill, He did not wish to give it, though He may have been able to give it, or He may |xix not have had the means to give, and on this account He was unable to give it. And how was He Who was unable to give freewill able to give a Law when there was no Freewill? But if He gave the Law, the righteousness which is in His Law reproves our Freewill, for He rewards it according to its works.

The diversity among men proves that Freewill exists.

And if there is no Freewill, does not this Controversy in which we are involved concerning Freewill, bear witness that we have Freewill? For a 'bound Nature' could not utter all these various matters controversially. For if all mankind were alike saying one thing or doing one thing, perhaps there would be an opportunity to make the mistake (of thinking) that there is no Freewill. But if even the Freewill of a single man undergoes many variations in a single day so that he is good or evil, hateful or pleasing, merciful or merciless, bitter or pleasant, blessing or cursing, grateful or ungrateful, [Ov. p. 46.] so that he resembles both God and Satan, is it not established by thousands of witnesses that we have Freewill? And, behold, at the mouth of two or three witnesses is every word established. [Deut. xix 15. S. Matt. xviii. 16.]

Man alone has Freewill. Compare him with other creatures and see the difference.

For examine all those variations which I mentioned above, and see that they do not exist in any 'bound Natures,' not in the sea nor on the dry land, not in the luminaries nor in the stars, not in trees nor in roots; nor even in animals—and yet there is sensation in animals—nor even in birds, though they have sight and hearing. But if hawks are birds of prey, they are all birds of prey; if wolves are destructive, they are all ravagers; and if lambs are harmless, they are all innocent, and if serpents are cunning, that subtlety belongs to all; but man, owing to his Freewill, can be like them all, while they cannot become like him. On this account they have a (fixed) Nature, while we have Freewill.

The word Freewill must stand for a reality.

Thou usest the word 'Freewill,' learn its independence from the word; thou usest the word 'Slavery,' learn the bondage (of slavery) from the word; thou usest the word 'Nature,' recognize its immutable fixity by the word; and thou speakest of 'God,' recognize His actual Existence by the word. For all these are words which are not at variance with their (underlying) realities. If thou namest these things when thou wishest, thou must of necessity acknowledge them to thyself even if |xx thou dost not wish. Speak against Freewill, and in virtue of what it is we can know how powerful Freewill is, since it has struggled with its power against its power. [Ov. p. 47.] For even when a man says that there is no Freewill, he is able to say there is no Freewill because he has Freewill; and, therefore, in proportion as that Freewill artfully changes itself in various ways, so those changes tell us that Freewill exists. For a 'bound Nature' cannot be changed. Why then is it necessary for us to obtain from another direction testimony as to whether Freewill exists or not? For, behold, in virtue of being what it is, the evidence for it is proclaimed. For when it denies itself, (saying) that it is not independent, it is convicted of not being in bondage. For when any one acknowledges that Freewill exists, it is not right that Necessity should come near it.

The Teaching about the Constituents makes all teaching futile.

But if, as these say, the Constituents of Good and Evil overcome, and are overcome, they are able to believe in a Mixing of Good and Evil, just as if they denied that there is a Mixing, then they are able to believe that Freewill exists. But if they say that, when the evil Constituent is large, Freewill is subject to compulsion; what, then, is it that the Heretics teach in their Congregations except the Error which they have been taught? For if they teach it is because there is Freewill; supposing there is no Freewill, let them shut their mouths and not teach.

The Will cannot affect the nature of physical poisons.

But let them be asked, are they Teachers of Freewill or Changers of our Nature? If a man eats by mistake from a deadly root, the Will of the eater cannot change that deadly thing, seeing that it is not an unfettered Will that he should change it; but it is an evil Constituent, the nature of which cannot be changed by words. How then can the just Judge condemn mankind (by asking), why they have not changed by the Will the evil Nature which cannot be changed by the Will? [Ov. p. 48.] Therefore, let them either admit that unfettered free Wills are changed to Good or Evil or let them admit that if they are 'bound Natures' of Good and Evil, they are Natures which cannot be conquered by words. For they ought to supply an antidote as a medicine to counteract a deadly poison. For it is right that by natural illustrations that Teaching should be refuted which was composed deceitfully from analogous phenomena in Nature. But |xxi Truth is strong enough to destroy with the single reply which it makes the numerous fabrications of Falsehood.

The great diversity of our thoughts shows that we have Freewill.

For it is obviously clear from what I say that there are not Weights of Good and Evil conquering one another and being conquered by one another. For, behold, in a single hour one can think even a hundred good thoughts. And if because there was at that time much Good in a man, his good thoughts were numerous within, behold that man can do the reverse of this in the same hour. For directly after these good thoughts a man can think a multitude of evil thoughts. Which one of these, therefore, do they affirm to be more than the other? And if they say that the Evil was most (in amount), how then since all that Evil would be in the man did it permit him to think all those good thoughts? And if that Evil made room of its own Will, that Evil is good, which has this good Will. For how did that Evil which, when it wished, finally conquered the Good, consent to give way before it at first? [Ov. p. 49.] But if they say that the Good exceeded (in amount), in which of a man's limbs, did all the Good hide itself, and make room for the small amount of Evil to go up and show a great victory? If, therefore, the Evil submitted to give way before the Good, the Evil is better than the Good, in that it took the crown and gave it to its opponent. But if the Good consented to give place to the Evil that it (i.e., the Evil) might be victorious, the Good is more evil than the Evil in that it gave place to the Evil to do corruptly.

The Soul is not a Mixture: it has free Choices.

It is, therefore, clear to any one who has knowledge that Weights and Constituents of Good and Evil neither outweigh one another, nor are outweighed by one another; but on the contrary, there are real free Choices which conquer one another and are conquered by one another, since all the Choices can become one Choice. For if good Choices spring up in us from the good Root which is in us, and evil Choices are produced in us from that evil Root which is in us, then these (powers) in us are not independent free Choices, but Natures fixed by Necessity.

Freewill could not separate the Constituents.

For if, as one of the Heretics says, Purity and Foulness were mixed together, it is not Freewill that would be required to separate the good Will from the evil Will, but a strainer to |xxii separate the pure from the foul. For in the case of things that are literally mixed together, a separating hand is required to separate them like the skilful hand which separates with a fire the dross from the silver, and separates with a strainer the pure from the foul.

If Freewill cannot alter visible Evil, how can it alter spiritual Evil, a bound Nature?

But if they say that these Natures in which there is mixed an excrement have 110 Freewill whereby they may separate the Foulness from them, let us leave them a little. Even if we wander a little from our subject, let us go with them where they call us. For Truth on account of its strength goes wherever it is led as a victor, and where it is pressed towards a defeat, there it gains the better crown. Let us leave, therefore, the 'bound Natures' and let us come to 'the independent Minds'; let us see if the Wills of these men in whom there is Freedom can separate and send out of themselves the evil Ingredient, that by (the example of) the visible Mixing of the visible Evil we may believe that also the invisible Mixing of the invisible Evil can be separated. [Ov. p. 50, 1. 12.] If there is a quantity of harmful poison or deadly phlegm in any of these men, let them tell us: will 'the blameless Conduct of Freedom' separate this Evil, or will drugs and medicinal roots? Does not this fact refute them (and convince them) that the harmfulness which I have mentioned cannot be separated by 'the righteousness of Freedom,' but by medicinal skill? If, therefore, this small Evil which is mingled with us is not expelled from us by 'blameless Conduct,' but by the virtue of drugs, how can' Commandments and Laws' separate that mighty and powerful Evil which is mixed in Souls? For, behold, as experience teaches us, (medicinal) virtue can separate from us even the Evil which we have mentioned by means of skilful (medical) methods, and not by the 'Conduct of Freedom.' For if they talk such nonsense let no one hear those who would relate empty tales to foolish minds. [Ov. p. 51.] For empty allegories are believed (only) by one whose mind is empty as regards the Truth.

The proper cure for Evil if it is a poison.

If, therefore, that deadly Evil is mixed in mankind like a noxious poison let them hear the true reasoning with a healthy ear. Just as when a vessel of poison is filled up, an emptying is necessary by means of drugs that that poison may not overflow |xxiii and produce in us pains and hurts; so also when Evil is excessive in the Soul a discharge is necessary for it, either from month to month or from year to year. For, behold, just as poison becomes excessive in us from nutriment, so they say that "Evil collects and increases in us from Foods." If, therefore, the measure of the Evil of both kinds becomes excessive in us, it is clear that there must be a discharge and an emptying of the fullness. For, behold, it is also the case that when blood or phlegm increases in us (then) a discharge is necessary for them.

Forgiveness is no cure for such Evil; much less vicarious forgiveness.

Those, therefore, who ought to expel Evil from mankind by a visible working, lo, they are purging away the sins of mankind by an invisible forgiveness. But though the sins of mankind do not depart from them they are added to those who (say that they) purge them sevenfold. For around their necks is hung the debt of sins for the pardon of which they have falsely gone surety. For also madness, though it does not depart from a dog which has gone mad, enters sevenfold into those who are bitten by the dog. [St. Matt. x. 14.] But the disciples were commanded that they should shake the dust off their feet against whoever did not receive them, [ Ov. p. 52.] let us shake off the dust of our words against these who do not receive the Truth of our words. For if vengeance was ready to come for the dust of feet, how much more ready will vengeance be for the Truth of a word which is treated despite-fully by him who hears!

If Freewill cannot alter fevers how can it subdue the Great Evil?

But I wish to know this: is Freewill the cause of sins, or is Evil the fountain of sins? But if it is Evil as they say. free Volitions cannot block up the springs of Evil. By what method then is the Evil made subject to our Will? For, lo, when we wish, we stir it up in us to injure us, and when we will we keep it quiet within so that it cannot harm us. A plain demonstration refutes their obscure Teaching. For, behold, not even a fever within us is subject to our Will, so that when we wish it may rage and abate. If, therefore, this slight fever is not subject to our Freewill, who can make subject to our Freewill that great Evil about which they speak? If that Evil made itself subject to us, there is nothing kinder than it, for it has made its great power subject to our weak Will. But if the power of Good makes Evil subject to us, it is clear that whenever it hurts us |xxiv that same Good stirs it up to hurt us. And, therefore, even if that Evil is evil because it hurts us, yet that which permits Evil to destroy us is more evil than it.

See how our Will is unable to alter the Nature of things.

But we are not venturing to blaspheme against the Good, but (this is said) in order that by means of what is considered blasphemous, though it is not blasphemous, the blasphemy of madmen may perchance be refuted. For one cannot bring into the way a man who is walking outside of the way, [Ov. p. 53, l. 2.] unless one goes a little from the way after him into the wilderness. See, then, that the Nature of things does not follow our Wills, but our Will goes after the Nature of Creation, in that we use them according to their natural adaptations (lit., as they are natural and for what they are natural). But if even fire is not cold or hot according to our Will, how is the fierce power of that Evil which possesses an Existence of its own made subject to the Will of those who are created? But Evil does not possess an Existence of its own, because Freewill possesses empire over itself. And fire always retains its hot nature, but Evil does not retain the nature of its being even as much as the fire which is a created thing. And, though we do not wish to be burnt, yet fire still acts according to its own nature, and when we go near it, it burns us. How then is that Evil, which is mixed in us, if it also has an injurious nature, able to injure us when our Will wishes to be injured? If our Will gives it power, then the wickedness of our Will is stronger than the wickedness of Evil; and according to their preposterous Teaching it is found that Evil is therefore accused by our Freewill because, as Freewill wishes, and in proportion as it wishes, Evil opposes it. And in vain do they blame Satan since their Will is more hateful than Satan. But if Evil can injure our Freewill whenever it (i.e., our Freewill) wills to be injured, it is clear that they are calling Freewill Evil, though they not not aware of it. [Ov. p. 54.] For fire which burns does not wait for Freewill to will or not to will, but it injures alike him who wills and him who does not will—both of them—if they approach it.

The Will cannot change the nature of fire: how can it conquer the Evil Element?

But if they think "that our Will is able to conquer Evil," let us then dismiss the strife of Controversy, and let us come to actual experience. Let one of them stretch even the tip of his |xxv little finger into the fire, and if his Will can conquer the power of the fire that it may not injure him, it will be possible to believe that the injurious nature of Evil can be conquered. But if the fire causes irritation and pain over the whole body when it has touched only our finger, how does that injurious Evil, since it is all mingled with the whole of us, not also injure us like the weak fire? If they say that He (i.e., God) has not allowed us to conquer fire by our Freewill, who then granted them power over Evil to conquer it by means of their Freewill? But if another Good (Power) granted to Freewill the power of conquering Evil, all their blasphemy applies to Him Whom they praise. For all the censure is attached to that (Good One). For if He thus changed Evil so that it might not injure us like injurious fire, it is clear that He is also able to change any Evil that injures us at present that it may not injure us. But if He was unable, is our victory still certain? And let them persuade us (and show) how their Freewill conquers Evil when it cannot conquer fire. But whichever proof they may choose, they are fettered by the one they choose. If they say that because fire by its nature possesses heat on that account our Freewill is unable to conquer it, [Ov. p. 55.] it is evident that Evil does not possess Freewill by nature; and on that account our Will is able to conquer it.

In any case, how can the Will lessen the evil Element except it is akin to the Evil?

But if the injurious and hot nature of fire, though it has been created and made, cannot be mitigated, how, seeing that Evil is an actual Existence, as they say, can the true nature of Existence be mitigated, seeing that even (mere) things cannot mitigate one another or be mixed with one another unless they have an affinity so as to receive one another? And, if a thing cannot love its opposite, how did Evil, as they say, conceive a Passion for Good, and make an Assault on it and mingle with it? And how, too, did Good mingle with Evil and love it? And though teachers and law-givers summon it, it despises their counsels and makes void their laws, nor do the drawn swords of just judges frighten it to abstain from the hateful love which it has for the body which they call 'deadly,' and it hates and denies the |xxvi good Source of its Nature, and loves to bring forth the evil fruit of the bitter Root [Rom. xi. 17 ff.] into which it has been grafted for a while.

And how does the Word of the True One convict (them), who says: there is no good tree which yields evil fruit! [St. Matt, vii. 18.] For if the Soul is a good thing from a good Nature, how does it bear the evil fruit of the 'deadly Body'? And how does the Body which they say springs from an evil Element bear good conduct like good fruit?

They attribute incredible power to the Will.

But it is possible for thee to hear, O Hearer, what is greater than this. For lo, when we will, the Evil in us may 'become lessened' and not injure us. And in the twinkling of an eye, again, if we will, it may be real and 'fierce' and 'deadly' in us. [Ov. p. 56, l. 3.] O what a great marvel is this, that is to say, O what great blindness (in the false Teaching)! For see, that when we lessen the Evil in us we do not mix anything in it except the good Will alone, that it may be lessened. And when it (i.e., Evil) revives and rages we do not mingle anything in it that it may rage except the evil Will. But if our Will lessens it or makes it worse, behold, is it not clear even to fools that our Will is good and evil? Therefore they are alluding to Freewill when they use all these evil terms, and they are uttering blasphemies against this Will, though they are not aware of it. For if a man drinks diluted wine and mixes his good. Will in it, can it acquire strength and become overpowering though he should mix no (more) wine in it? And if, on the other hand, the wine is unmixed and strong, can he lessen its strength by his Will alone, though he mix no water in it? Therefore, let them take their stand either on a Mixing or on the Will.

If our Will comes from the Good, why is it not refined, and sent up?

For if our Will lessens Evil, that statement is conquered whereby they say that Evil is mixed with Good, and behold (they say) "the Good is refined little by little." For behold our Will is in us always, and is not 'refined at all, nor does it go out from us.' For if our Will 'were being refined and going out,' our Will would have already come to an end, and it would not be possible for us to will rightly. And if our Will does not come to an end neither do Good and Evil. When, |xxvii therefore, does the Refining and Separation of the two take place? [Ov. p. 57.] And if there is a Refining of the Good by means of Good so that it goes up from the Depths to the Height, why is there not also a removal of Evil by means of Evil so that it may be sent down to its Depths?

The Manichaean religious formulae cannot thrust out the power of Evil.

But if they persist in holding this (theory of a) Mixing, that (explanation) fails inasmuch as by our Will we conquer Evil, and, therefore, instead of 'the Good Words' which they teach they ought to distribute good Parts that mankind may eat or drink them that those good Parts may enter and lessen the fierceness of Evil. For words do not lessen the bitterness of roots; but the (natural) acridness which is in a Nature is lessened by the (natural) sweetness which is in (another) element. For facts are not overcome by Words, nor by Expressions are Natures changed. For that Evil which exists independently, as they say, can be thrust out by means of some Good which also exists independently. For Power thrusts out Power and Substance is thrust out by Substance and Force is conquered by Force. Yet our (mere) Word cannot stir a stone without the hand, nor can our Will move anything without our arms. And if our Will is not able to move such insensible and helpless things, how can it vanquish the great Evil, seeing that a Power is required and not (mere) Will? For Light does not drive out Darkness by Will, nor by Free-choice does the sweet overcome the bitter. If, therefore, these Natures, because they are Natures, require a powerful Force and not a mere Will, how is it that the quality of Power, not (mere) Free-choice, is not required in the case of Evil and Good, if they have 'bound Natures'?

Moral and physical Evil cannot come from a single Essence.

But if the Will does not lessen the Evil which is mixed with bitter and deadly roots, whereas Free-choice conquers this Evil of mankind, how can it be, if it is the very same Evil which is in mankind and in roots, that part of it is conquered by Force, and part by the Will? Either Evil is divided against itself, or there are two Evils which are unlike one another in their essence. [Ov. p. 58, l. 7.] And if part of the poison which exists in fruits and roots is 'amassed and collected in us' (and), if Evil is all one, how is part of it in us conquered by 'a Law and Commandment,' and part conquered (only) by mixtures and drugs? [Cf. p. cxvi. ll. 2, 3.] And Counsel and |xxviii Teaching are of no avail to counteract the poison in our bodies, nor are drugs and mixtures of any use for the Evil which is in our Souls. And here it is seen that the poison which is in us is a 'bound Nature,' and a Law cannot change it, and the Evil which is in our Souls belongs to Free-choice and (medicinal) Roots cannot lessen it. Though, therefore, there are many things which it is possible to say on these subjects, I do not wish to increase (their number), lest it should appear that we have conquered by means of many words, and not by true words. For we do not conquer with the weapons of Orators and Philosophers, whose weapons are their logical Teaching. For thanks be to Him Whose Teaching thus gains a victory by our child-likeness and His Truth by our simplicity without the Teaching of Philosophy.

THE END OF THE FIRST DISCOURSE AGAINST THE DECEITFUL TEACHINGS.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ For the Syriac text, see Over beck, p. 21.

2. ² Something seems to have fallen out here; see Ov. p. xxv. 1. 1.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _2_hypatius .htm

The Second Discourse to Hypatius against Mani and Marcion and Bardaisan: S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Second Discourse to Hypatius against Mani and Marcion and Bardaisan.

THE SECOND (DISCOURSE) TO HYPATIUS AGAINST MANI AND MARCION AND BARDAISAN

The self-contradictions in Mani's Teaching.

LOOK¹ at this Teaching intelligently how it is destroyed by itself, and refuted by its own nature, and unmasked by its own character; its condemnation is from it and in it. And just as the very words of the servants gave the verdict against them before the Lord of the Vineyard, so also the very words of this Teaching give the verdict of their condemnation before wise Hearers.

Darkness could not have had a passion for Light.

For he has set a difficult beginning over against a confused ending, things which strive with one another that it may be known that not one of them is true. For at the beginning he said that the Darkness has a longing Passion for the Light; which is not natural for this Darkness which is visible, inasmuch as even this Darkness which is visible to us is, as they say, [P. 2, l. 3.] of the same nature as that which is invisible to us. Yet this Darkness certainly flees from before the Light as from its opposite, and certainly does not make an Assault upon it as upon what is pleasant to it. Behold one argument in favour of their condemnation, an argument drawn from the nature of things in general.

Nor does Light finally imprison Darkness.

Hear, again, another argument against them from their scripture. If the Darkness verily longed passionately for the Light because the Light soothed it, how do they say that the Light is its opposite and finally its torturer? And if Light is an Element which is desirable and attractive to Darkness, how is there produced from that pleasant Nature something which is bitter to Darkness? For the sweetness of our place bears witness that bitterness is not tasted in its midst. [The Prison for Darkness not built from Darkness.]But if that Prison-house, |xxx the tormentor of Darkness, is built up from the Nature of the Domain of Darkness, a Nature cannot torture itself. For fire does not burn itself. And if the Darkness is tortured by what belongs to itself—a notion difficult to accept—then Good, too, is not at rest in its place, and the matter is found to be preposterous, (namely), that every Entity which is in its own place is in anguish, but [P. 3, l. 9.] in the place of its Opposite it is at rest. For if all Darkness altogether with all that is in it is one Entity all alike, it is not opposed to its own nature; just as a wolf does not oppose itself nor a lion itself.

Nor from the Good Realm. How could Bân, make that Grave for Darkness? Cf. pp. xlvii., lxxv.

But if from the Domain of Good that Prison-house is built up for Darkness, how is its enjoyment changed to its torment? For lo, it is a Nature which is unchangeably pleasant. "For the Architect and Builder of that Grave," as their account says, "is one—whosoever he may be, whose name is BÂN—who in the days of his adversity became the fashioner of the Grave of the Darkness." And how from that one Entity, since it is single, does there come both builder, and that which is built, and from it the Grave and from it the Earth on which the Grave is built? For this is found (to be the case) with this earth of ours that everything comes from the earth itself, both he who makes and that which is made; for since it was not created out of Natures and Entities it is changeable into anything as [P. 4, l. 5.] the word of the Maker commands. [If the stones for the Prison come from the Light- Realm they must suffer when cut.] But if all those things are one Nature and from one good Entity, how can it be divided up? And how when that Nature is cut does it not suffer? And do not they who are not even willing to break bread lest "they pain the Light which is mixed with it," pain it in cutting and hewing these Stones; and if the Light suffers in the breaking of bread, how much more does it suffer in the cutting and hewing of its members! And if it be an Earth in which there is no sensation, and they be Stones in which there is no feeling, how is it that, though it is one Nature and one Entity, from it there come speaking Souls and also deaf-mute Stones? [Cf. p. XXXV. l. 32.]Therefore, there is not one homogeneous Essence, but many unlike one another. And if on account of their mute condition, they do not feel when they are cut, behold also this Light being of the same nature is mingled with these things in a mute condition. |xxxi Why, therefore, do they not break and cut them, seeing that this [P. 5.] (Light) does not feel? But if they do not cut it lest they should pain it, with their teeth they cause it to suffer much more when they eat it, and with their bellies when they confine it there.

On Mani's doctrine that the Body was made by the Evil One.

But if he who framed the Body is evil, as they blasphemously say—and this God forbid, it is not so—if the Darkness contrived to frame that Body to be a Prison-house for the Soul that it might not go forth thence, it would not be difficult for him to know from this that the refining Furnace which he framed injured him and refines the Light. But if it escaped his notice at the beginning he could, now that experience has taught him, destroy his framing and make another Body, not one that separates (the Light), but one that imprisons; not one that refines, but one that befouls; not one that purifies, but one that defiles; and not one that makes room for the Light (to escape), but one that detains the Light. If this making of the Body really belongs to him (i.e., the Evil One), then his work convinces us concerning him that he is a wise and skilful Maker, he who might have made vessels alien to the Cleansing of the Light. [P. 6.] But if he might have made them so and yet did not so make them, his workmanship is sufficient to extol him and to put to shame those who falsely accuse him.

If the Soul has the same nature as Light, it would be refined and sent up as the Light.

Now wise physicians prove to us—and the limbs with the veins bear them witness—that the power of food pervades the body. But if the Light is refined little by little and goes out, it is clear that it is a Nature which is dissolved and scattered. And so if the Soul is of the same nature, how does it too not go out in the Refining? For it must be that the Nature of the Soul itself is capable of dissolution just as the Nature of Light as. How. is it that the Light goes out while the Soul remains? and who gave to the Soul this indissoluble fixity? If this belongs to its nature, how is this Element partly fixed and partly not, partly dissolvable and capable of being scattered, partly fixed and massed together? For if the Nature was a fixed one from its beginning, the Sons of Darkness when they ate it—if they ate it—would not be able to dissolve its Nature. For just as they could not annihilate its Being so that it should no longer be in existence—for lo, it is in existence—so they would be unable to dissolve the fixity of its Being. [P. 7.] These statements, then, can |xxxii be made without examination, but on examination they cannot stand.

How could the Evil One fix the Soul in the Body?

And if they say that that Evil One fixed the Soul in the midst of the Body, in order that it might be imprisoned, how then did he not fix that Light, which is 'refined and goes out,' so that it could not go out? And how did he fix a Nature which is incapable of being fixed? For who is able to fix the Nature of fire to prevent its being divided in the flame of a lamp? And although fire is amassed, it can be divided because it has not a fixed nature. But a ray of the sun a man cannot divide because it is fixed through and through in an indissoluble nature. But, if by reason of the entrance of the Soul into the Body which can be confined, that (Soul) was confined which was not confined (before), how is it that that Light, which, they say, is 'refined and departs,' was not confined along with its kinsman who was confined there (in the Body)? And if it has self-knowledge because it is collected together and fixed, it is clear that those Parts which are not fixed are deaf-mutes without knowledge, and silent without speech, [P. 8.] and quiet without motion.

On Bardaisan's teaching that the Soul is composed of seven Constituents.

And it is in this connection that Bardaisan, the teacher of Mani, is found to speak with subtlety, when he said that of seven Parts the Soul was composed and fixed; though he is refuted as well. For the numerous Parts which the Soul gathers and collects, make (possible) many a mixing of the seven Parts without proper regulation. And because it does not receive in equal weight from all the foods the Parts of all the Constitutents, it may happen that the scale of one of the Constituents may preponderate and overwhelm the rest of its companions; and this abundance of one is the cause of the disturbance of all the Constituents. And from the Body which is without it is possible to learn about the Soul which is within, (namely), that whenever one of its Constitutents preponderates on account of the quantity of one of the foods, the injury reaches the whole system. But the spiritual character of Angels proves that their nature receives nothing more; and not only are those holy beings exalted above this, [P.9.] but even in the case of unclean devils their nature receives no addition to and suffers no loss from what it actually is; nor is the nature of the sun ever more or less than |xxxiii what it is. For these things, and those that are like them, are perfect Natures, since at all times the (true) balance of their natural character is maintained. But when anything has either too little or too much, either increases or diminishes, either is lessened or grows weak, its nature is destructible by its creation; though even over those Natures which are not destructible there rules that Will which made them indestructible. But we have not come to stir up now the mire of Bardaisan; for the foulness of Mani is quite sufficient. For behold our tongue is very eager to conclude at once and flee from him. But if those Natures which were mentioned above are perfect though made, how much more must the (Eternal) Essence be perfect in its Being!

The absurdity of Mani's teaching about two 'Roots.'

This doctrine of madmen, then, proclaims an Existence which is deficient in everything, and this its deficiency refutes those who proclaim it. For they have put together two Roots with preposterous reasoning, but they are dissolved with straightforward reasoning. [P. 10, l. 5.] For if a statement is made without knowledge, it is rectified by sound knowledge; and whoever puts on contentiousness is stripped bare by the persuasive arguments of Truth. For they have professedly set forth two Roots, though on investigation it is found that there are many. [For how can they produce offspring unlike themselves?] For he introduces births and generations which are the opposite of one another. But, that though this Entity is one, there should be from it births (which are) the opposite of its nature—this is not pleasing to the ear of Truth. For how can that Element bring forth anything foreign to itself? In the case of creation from nothing, this can be; but in the case of a 'bound essential Nature ' there is no (such) means; above all (it is impossible), when it (i.e. the Nature) is one and other Entities are not mixed with it.

Or mortal beings spring from an immortal Element?

He has set forth, therefore, an Entity which is immortal though the children whom it brings forth from itself are mortal. And whence did mortality spring up in the fruit though it was not mixed in the root from which it came? And how does a [P. 11.] Nature which is not composite bring forth bodies which are composite, which have been confined and killed?

Mani's Teaching about the making of the World.

Thou hast heard this foolishness; come hear one that is greater still. "When the Primal Man," he says, "hunted the Sons of Darkness he flayed them, and made this sky from their |xxxiv skins, and out of their excrement he compacted the Earth, and some of their bones, too, he melted, and raised and piled up the mountains,"—we thank him that his falsehood is revealed— "since there is in them, a Mixture and a Mingling of the Light which was swallowed by them in the beginning." For his sole purpose in stretching them out and arranging them was, that by means of the rain and dew whatever was swallowed by them might be purged out, and that there might be a Separation and Refining of the Natures from one another.

If it were true, the Maker would be foolish or inexperienced.

O how foolish a workman was this! But perhaps he was a learner, who had not yet reached experience in workmanship. For if there had been wine (to purify) would he not have known how to make a strainer? And if there had been silver or copper (to refine), would he not have known how to arrange a furnace? [P. 12, l. 4] For by means of these instruments which the wisdom of mortals has contrived, the dregs can easily be separated from the pure and the dross from the silver. But this workman, even after many years, has not acquired intelligence nor after innumerable experiments has he been able to know what is necessary for his workmanship, that is to say, how to employ such compendious² methods. But he made the sky a strainer which is useless all summer, and even in winter it does not refine every day; but in the remote south it is not even, a little moistened. Very stupidly arranged, too, is the hollow of this filter; for if what is pure descends to the earth, then the dregs are left above in the sky. And this performance is the reverse of the right one, in that the pure descends to the bodily sphere while the dregs remain behind in the spiritual sphere.

But as for the other statements, how and what they say about the Snow, as they are quite futile, let them be gathered within a covering of silence.

Mani teaches that the whole of creation 'refines.'

"Moreover," (he says) "he (i.e., Primal Man) made trees to be Furnaces." Yet they do not at all times separate fruit from the dust and their produce from the soil; and also cornfields (are said to be furnaces); and yet they do not continually draw up life from the earth. And if, as they teach, a Refining goes |xxxv up from the offal of the Archons, [P. 13, l.12] then the greater part of that swallowed Light is going forth by means of the offal of the Archons who swallowed it. Such is the polluted teaching which refines the Parts of its God from the midst of offal!

On Mani chaean principles the Archons and their skins are alike mortal.

But if, as some of them say, just as a serpent has a Sheath-skin, so out of the Sheath-skins of the Sons of Darkness the sky and the earth and the rest of created things were made, let them know that the proof which they offer stands against them. For there cannot be lifeless Sheath-skins from, things which in their nature are immortal. For as the lifeless Sheath-skin of the serpent convinces any one that the serpent also is mortal, and in like manner divisible, capable in like manner of being disintegrated and destroyed. And as the Sheath-skin of the serpent proves that its nature is destructible, so also the [P. 14.] Sheath-skin of Darkness proves that Darkness is mortal too. For a thing that is derived from an Existence is like it in every respect. Therefore, whether they were Sheath-skins, or real hides, the case is the same.

Why was the Father of the Archons left alive and imprisoned?

But if the Sons of Darkness were skinned and stretched in the air, they give evidence that Darkness, their Father, is also mortal because he is composite. Why, therefore, did they not skin him, too, in the beginning and deliver creation from his injuries? What necessity could there be that he should be left alive, and what reason ³ was there in his case that he should remain and turn again to struggle with pure souls?... [Cf. p. lxxiii.] And after he has 'intoxicated' and perverted and put them to shame, after he has made some of them fornicators and minstrels and blasphemers, then that wise Builder and Architect [Cf. p. xxx. l. 14.] has sense enough to frame a Grave and Prison for him. And instead of the Prison-house being thus built after a long period, and with [P. 15.] much toil, if the Sons of Light had been gathered together and with these Stones had stoned him, then, lo, [Cf. p.xxi. l. 32.] he would have come to an end. But if he would not have died, because his nature is not mortal, then this impure Teaching is put to shame in everything it says. For how did the sons of the immortal die, and how were the sons of a spiritual one skinned, and how were those |xxxvi who are not composite disintegrated? [Mani himself was skinned.] And they did well who skinned the lying Mani, who said that Darkness was skinned, though it has neither hide nor Sheath-skin.

The Manichaean teaching about the Moon is impossible.

If, moreover, as they say, "the Moon receives the Light which is refined, and during fifteen days draws it up and goes on emptying it out for another fifteen days," if she is filled very gradually till the time of full moon, it may well be because there are not sufficient Refiners to give the Light at once, but why, pray, is it that she empties the Light little by little? [Cf. pp. xxxviii. ll. 27, 127; xlii. 1. ll. P. 16.] Either the Receiving-Vessels do not receive and let it go at once, or the place into which she empties it is small and there is room for only a part daily. And while for fifteen days that Ship of Light seeks to empty out (the Light), where, pray, does that other Light, which is 'being refined and is going up,' go and collect and exist while the Moon is being emptied? It must wander about and be lost for lack of a place to receive it; and so Darkness swallows it once more. [Cf. pp. xliv. 1.16; lxxxv. 1.4; lxxxix. l. 26.] For if it 'sucked in the Light' when it was far from it in the beginning, will it not gulp it down all the more, now that the Light exists at the very door of its mouth?

How foolishly Mani's 'Director' has arranged the Moon's function!

But understand how foolish that Director is. For, instead of (the arrangement) which would have been right, namely that the Moon should go and empty out (the Light) in one hour and return so that that former Light which was emptied out might be preserved, and that latter Light which is being refined might not be lost, (instead of an arrangement such as this), behold, the Moon is worn out with going and coming, and at full moon it is then emptied in such a way that the former Light is worn out and the latter scattered. Now a woman is with child for a long time, since her babe is developed after nine months. But when her [P. 17.] labour is easy, the birth takes place in a single hour, and thus the child is not in much torment, nor is the mother much exhausted. But in the case of the bright and lightly-moving Moon, at the time of full moon her child is produced in such a way that she is worn out and her child exhausted. And if she brings forth each offspring in a day, can she not also bring forth as the scorpion in one day? And if she really empties it out she should be there as long as she is emptying. Why is she worn out with coming |xxxvii (and going), though she takes nothing hence till the time of full moon?

How is the amount of Light received by the Moon always the same?

And how is it that from eternity to eternity this Ship of Light is filled uniformly and receives neither more nor less? But this contrivance was not a wise one. For it would be right that, at the time when the Refining is great, the Moon should receive more, that is to say, instead of being filled till the time of full moon, it would be right that she should be filled in five days. For if their statement were true, it would be right that what I have said should be the case. [Mani's teaching has not aided the Refining.] For to-day there is much of Mani's Teaching, and so it is clear there is also much Refining! But as a hundred years ago, this Teaching did not exist—would that it did not now—it is evident that the Refining of Light a hundred years ago would be less than it is to-day. And if the Refining of Light was not the same in amount then and now, how was the Moon then and now uniformly filled till full moon? And when the Refiners were few in number, there was not less Light for the Moon, nor to-day when the Manichaeans abound is there any Light added to it. But when there were no Manichaeans, and when they are now in existence, there is no increase in the Moon to-day though they exist, just as there was no lessening in the Moon when they did not exist. [P.18, l.31.] So by the Moon, fixed in the Height which they have made as a mirror for themselves, it is possible for that secret falsehood of theirs to be brought to light. For if the existence and non-existence of the Manichaeans are alike to the Moon, the lying Teaching is refuted by what is peculiarly its own, in that its existence is on a level with its non-existence. And if they do not exist for the Moon, for which they imagine they do now exist in a very special way, they do not in a very special way exist for God the Lord of the [P. 19.] Moon. Thus from the Luminaries they receive a special refutation who imagine that they are recognised by the Luminaries. And, in fact, does not the reasoning of arithmeticians⁴ convince them that when those who persuade are many, much more do those that receive measure out; and when there are many floods the rivers are filled above their limits and rise beyond their wont? |xxxviii

The lunar month of 29½ days opposes Mani's view about the Moon.

And why, indeed, is there a Moon for twenty-nine days and a half? Let the false Teaching which disguises itself offer a proof on this point by means of a natural demonstration. But let us strip it that it may appear bare without any truth. Let them tell us, therefore, concerning this part of a day why it is defective and not completed; is there no superfluous Light in any of the months, so that the deficiency for this day may be filled up? But when it (i.e., the day) is defective it is not finished, and if there is superfluous Light (?) it is not completed. And if on account of the small amount of Light that day is imperfect, there would [P. 20.] be a chance that other days too would be imperfect. And in like manner when the Light increased, it would be right that the days should be found increasing as well. The shortage of Light, however, does not make any lessening in the Moon, nor does the increase of Light fill up this defective part. So let this defective part of a day convict the Heretics that they are altogether lacking in truth.

The Manichaean teaching about the Sun.

And because Truth quickly refutes them, when it passes from dealing with the Moon to the Sun... that it may refute by the pair of Luminaries those who while they worship Luminaries are persons whose intelligence is wholly dark. For just as he is enlightened who worships the Lord of the Luminaries, so is he darkened who exchanges the worship of their Lord for the worship of the Luminaries. Let us, therefore, state the case as they state it, though we shall not maintain it as they maintain it. For they say that the Sun receives the Light from the Moon; right worthy⁵ are these Receiving-Vessels which receive from one another! [Cf. p. xxxvi. l. 10. xlii. l. 11.] And is there then no room in the Sun to receive all those Parts in one day from the Moon? But, perhaps, the Sun might receive it, but the Moon is unable to give it; and behold with whatever load she has, she must hurry along and fling off some of the weight she is carrying. How, again, does the Sun not show that there has been some addition to his Light when he receives fifteen Parts of refined Light? For, behold, the Moon is clearly marked even by one Part which is added every day, just as she shows when she is lessening. Is the sun then a |xxxix vessel not completely filled? And how is its deficiency invisible? And if it is not deficient how does it receive? For if it is complete and its cavity is full of its Light—as it is in reality—(then know that) if thou pourest anything more into a vessel that is already full, it does not receive it; for anything that falls into it overflows. But this full object (i.e., the Sun) which does not receive anything which the Manichaeans assert (to exist), by its appearance calls us not to accept anything from the Manichaeans.

The Mosaic narrative gives the true purpose of the Sun and Moon.

Let us forsake then those doctrines of the Manichaeans, because they are the only witnesses concerning them, and let us hear those of Moses, to which all nations under Heaven bear witness, and in old time the Hebrews who reckoned according to the Moon, and after them all nations who are called Barbarians, and also the Greeks, who use the reckoning of the Sun, though they do not desert the reckoning of the Moon. And, therefore, even if we prolong our discourse, let us declare what is numbered by Sun-reckoning and what by Moon-reckoning. Days are numbered by Sun-reckoning. [P. 22, l.22.] For the dawning and darkness are indicated by the Sun. Behold the division of the day. But by the Moon the months are indicated. For the beginning of the months and end of the months are indicated by the Moon. [The Sun marks the days not the months.] For it is by the rising of the Sun and the setting of the Sun that the days are divided. But in the matter of months it makes no division, because its succession goes on uniformly, and does not declare any division when thirty days are ended, that it may be known by that division that the month has ended, or begun. [The Moon marks the months not the days.] But the Moon, when it is full and wanes, makes a division for the months, but makes no division for the days. For how often does it happen that the Moon rises at the third or fourth hour, and sets [P. 23, l. 2.] at the seventh or ninth hour; while for two whole days she is not seen at all. God, in His wisdom who, indeed, ordered the months for the purpose of reckoning and the days for the purpose of numbering, made the Sun to number the days, as also the Moon to number the months, and as the day is completed in its course, so the Moon also is completed in its months, and from its beginning to its end the Moon produces thirty days. But if the day consists of twelve hours, and the Sun moves through a course of twelve hours, it is clear that the Sun is the fount of days. And, again, |lx if the month consists of thirty days and the Moon completes thirty days in waning and waxing, it is clear that the Moon is the mother and parent of the months.

Their inexactness in dividing time shows that the Luminaries are deficient and not worthy of worship.

But the exact reckoning is twenty-nine days and a part. For this also in the beginning the Wisdom of the Creator (both) put together and ordered the numberings that it might perfect the reckoning. For when the months are reckoned by, numbering [they have] thirty days. But the eleven days which are after the months he did not put in their right place, and why not? And, wherefore are eleven days lacking in the Moon, and why are there three hours more in the year in the course of the Sun? They are these three excellent Mysteries (?), as the numbering is interpreted, and the reckoning explained, so that because of the lack which exists in the Moon months are intercalated, [P. 24, l.21.] and because of the excess which exists in the Sun days are intercalated in order that since months and days are intercalated this Luminary may be abased, and the sovereignty of God may be made known. For because many nations go astray in the matter of them (i.e., the Luminaries) on account of their Light, let their numbering convince them (i.e., the nations) that on account of their dependence it is not right that they should be worshipped.

For if the numbering of the Sun is not arranged (with exactness) the course of the Moon (also) by its swiftness and deficiency changes the seasons of the year, so that summer is turned to winter, and winter to summer. And if again a deficiency is not [P. 25.] found in the Moon, which is dependent on the fullness from the Sun, as for these three superfluous hours which are in the Sun there is no place for them (in which) to go and remain in the numbering and reckoning of the year. For in the perfect days of the three hundred and sixty-five days, where may three superfluous hours enter and exist, (those hours) which cannot be reckoned with the perfect number of the months, and do not exist in the perfect number of the days? But between the months of the Moon and the numbering of the days of the Sun, the Lord of the Luminaries arranged for them a place that they may go and rest in it. But we have spoken this rapidly because we were not sailed to speak of these matters; but we were compelled to speak |lxi (of them) in order to refute those who wish to turn aside the Luminaries from the service of the months and days, that they may point out in them Refinings which go up from the earth.

If the Moon is a vessel how can the vessel itself wax and wane?

And inasmuch as the Moon seems to be made for the numbering of thirty days, and consists altogether of these parts., when the thirty days come to an end, it (itself) ceases to exist. For it is not one thing and its Light another thing. And because "the Moon is a vessel into whose midst the Light is poured," even if that Light were lacking, the vessel itself as [P. 20, l.9.] regards its own nature with (i.e., in proportion to) the aforesaid Light, would not be able to come to an end or increase, since all vessels give evidence that they themselves exist in their natural size, and if there falls into them a greater amount the vessels do not grow larger, and if less falls into them, they do not shrink. And if anything that is in them is emptied out and vanishes, those vessels themselves do not vanish. And since they call the Moon the Ship of Light, let a demonstration come forth from a ship to refute them, (namely), when it is filled or emptied it remains in its proper size, that is to say (in the real proportion) of its length and breadth and height. But in the case of this Ship of Light, which, they say, is in the heavens, the Light which is poured into it or emptied from it is visible to us, but the Ship itself is not visible; either let them then tell [P. 27.] us the nature of the vessel, that we may know that for this purpose it was arranged that it might be filled and emptied as they say; or let them tell us if that vessel itself is filled and built up and rises, and is completed and demolished and comes down. It is evident even to blind men who do not see that the Moon is made for the numbering of the months, and is not for a Refining.

The purity of the Moon and Sun.

And if they say that because the Moon is very 'pure and ethereal,' therefore, it is not visible, then how is the Sun visible, seeing that it is a Light purer and more refined than the Moon? [Cf. p. lxxxiv.] And it is the Sun that goes and comes every day on account of its purity to the House of Life, as they say. |lxii

Contrasted views of Bardaisan and Mani about the Moon.

And which view shall we hear, that of Bardaisan, who says about the Moon that it is an Earth and a Matrix which is filled from a high and lofty overflow and floods those who are below and beneath, or that of Mani, who says that the Moon is filled with those who come from beneath and sends (them) away to the Upper Places? But they both are wrong in both respects, so that the word of Moses may be believed who said concerning the Luminaries, 'they shall be for signs and for [P. 28.] seasons, etc.'

Mani's teaching about the Luminaries and Disgorgings is ludicrous.

But who will not laugh at the words of children, that the Luminaries have finally become the Receiving-Vessels⁶ of the School of Mani, and not of anything which is great, but of Disgorgings! For by these the Light is refined if it is refined. For there is no evidence that it is refined by Prayer as they say, but that (it is refined) by Disgorgings its taste gives evidence. And if not, let them pray and disgorge, and let incontrovertible experience show in which of them is the taste of food, in Prayer or in Disgorgings! But above all there is evidence that he who disgorges looks upwards in order to send upwards by means of the force and violence of the wind that thing which is refined to the Domain from which it has come down. And, perhaps, this Mystery was secretly in the world, and the world did not perceive it! And, perhaps, even Mani did not perceive it. And here it is not the man who prays much who is refined, but the man who disgorges much. For those physicians by means of things which are very different excite Disgorgings in order to purge (?) the stomach which does not digest. [P. 29.] For when it does not disgorge there comes the evidence of its (i.e., the food's) heaviness and coldness. And it must be that if it does not digest, it does not liquefy, and if it does not liquefy, it (i.e., the stomach) does not disgorge, and if it does not disgorge, it does not go forth; and if it does not go forth, it is not refined. For the coldness shuts up the food heavily there, that is to say, the cold phlegm, which is over the food—the great enemy of the School of Mani. For it wishes by its coldness to restrain the Refining, lest it (i.e., the food) should be released, and go forth thence. And, therefore, |lxiii that pungent radish⁷ can be the enemy of their enemy; for it enters and does combat, and as it were, engages in a contest with it, and rends the veil which is spread over the face of the food; and then a way is opened up for the imprisoned Light which is there that its Refining may go forth in the Disgorging.

And thus when the Manichaeans disgorge, because their food has not yet been digested, it is clear that their Refining has not [P. 30.] yet 'gone up,' and we must say that their Light is still mixed in their vomit, and it would be right for them to turn and swallow it anew in order that that Light which is concealed in it may not abide in corruption. Above all if (?) a dog comes and swallows it behold that Light which has gone forth in vomit from the midst of a Manichaean called a Righteous one (ZADDIQA), has entered and become imprisoned in the unclean stomach of a dog, [and it is clear] that if the Manichasan had turned and swallowed his vomit immediately, there would have been an ascent to the Height for the imprisoned Light to fly away and 'go up' to the House of its Father. And that Manichaean ought to be tormented instead of it (i.e., the Light), because he knew (?), and (yet) that Light went in and was imprisoned in the belly of the dog, and thence it was sent forth by a Transmigration (?) when the dog produced young; and that Light was transmitted in the race of mad dogs and biters; and it must be mad like them, and bite like them. It is right, too, that it should bite and tear in pieces that Manichaean who disgorged it and did not swallow it again; for he is the cause of this madness. [P. 31.] But if they say that in a dog too it is refined, then are dogs more than they are in the Refining-process, and it is right that they should be fed more than they.

The Refining of air and foods cannot be true.

And if they say that the air 'is refined and sent up,' they confess, though they do not wish it, that not by Prayer is it refined, but by other causes, such as either dry or boil or heat or cool. For if, as they say, 'that pleasant taste which is in foods belongs to the Light which is mixed in them,' then just as the mouth perceives that Pleasantness of the Light when it |lxiv enters so it ought again to perceive it when it goes out. For if the mouth perceived it when it entered, though it was mixed with Bitterness, how much more ought the mouth to perceive it when it goes out, when its Pleasantness has been separated and isolated! But if it perceives it when it enters, but when it goes out in the Refining-process it does not perceive it, it is clear that the Pleasantness belongs not to the Element which is refined, but to its Opposite. [P. 32.] For a thing that is palpable and capable of being tasted when it enters must be palpable and capable of being tasted when it goes out. But if they tell additional falsehood, they incur additional exposure. If they say that because the Light has been made very subtle and has been 'refined,' on that account the mouth does not perceive it, then by this short utterance their whole system is utterly upset as to the manner [Cf. pp. xxxvi. l. 17; lxxxv l.4; lxxxix. l.26.] in which the Primitive Darkness, not merely 'seized' that Primitive Light, but also 'felt, touched, ate, sucked, tasted, and swallowed it.' For behold this mouth (of ours) is of the same nature as that Darkness, and it certainly does not perceive the Light when it goes out from within it. And here all this falsehood of theirs is felt because a sound ear meets it.

Why is the Refined Light so gradually sent up to its Place?

For this Refining which goes out of the mouth is not completely refined; therefore, it goes from the mouth to the Moon, and from the Moon to the Sun, to be refined, and to be as it was of old. For if it is refined and not dependent on the Refining of the Moon, why is it necessary that it should go to the Moon, and from the Moon to the Sun, and (why does it) not flit away outside and go up, and be taken up to its place? [P. 33, l. 7] For it abides here in idleness for fifteen days while the Moon is being emptied, and then it suffices for thirty days.

Or is it possible that it forgot the way to its Home? And how did it know to go, because it did not know the way?... [then how does one (i.e., the Moon) know how to go, and does not lose its way, while the other (i.e., the Refined Light), loses itself and requires a helper to conduct it? Such easily lost Light would not be able even to find its way to the Moon, but it would require a |lxv helper to conduct it, and deposit it in the Moon. But if they are both (i.e., the conducting Moon, and the Refined Light) one Nature, how does one draw while the other is drawn?]

[L. 35.] And how do the Sons of the Omniscient not know how to go to their House from which they came? And who can have patience with these (men)?—unless it be the truth that He delights in their repentance, [S. Luke xv. 7, 10.] He whose sole object in refuting these (men) is that they may not thus go astray. If, therefore, this (Light) which goes out of the mouth—inasmuch as taste [P. 34.] implies an Exhalation and a Mingling—is so 'pure and subtle' in its going forth from the mouth, (that) the mouth does not perceive it since it is refined, and is more refined and pure than before the Mixing and Mingling, how is the turbid Darkness able to handle that pureness which is not palpable, or how can the corporeal seize the spiritual which is intangible, or how can the bodily eat a thing which has no body? For either the Darkness is 'pure and refined, and subtle,' and that Light is gross in its nature, or they are both subtle, or (both gross)... (so that) the two of them do not perceive one another, so that as they were perceived in the food, they may be perceived in the Refining. And if they are both light, whence is this heaviness? And if they are pure turbidness has entered from some other place. And, therefore, it is necessary that we should seek some other Entity who himself disturbed the two of them....

Why did not the Good Being protect his possessions from the assaults of his Evil neighbour?

But if that Light (?) had been God, if he was good or just, it would have been incumbent on his Goodness and Justice to surround his place with a strong wall, and preserve his freedom and honour from his unclean Enemy and from his raving Neighbour, especially when the Good (Being) had perceived that his nature was capable of being injured, as they say—though God forbid that this should be said concerning the perfect Good! But if in their shame they turn and say that it is not injured, then whom do they teach—is it not one who is in error? [P. 35, l.30.] And whom do they heal—is it not one who is smitten? And whom do they teach the creed—is it not one who denies and |lxvi blasphemes? For these evils with innumerable others happened, and are happening to the Souls which (come) from him. And if they are not from him, and are in his Domain it was incumbent upon him as one who is wise and loves his possessions to place a protecting wall around his flocks which were capable of being injured.

See how God has protected Heaven from mankind and to their advantage!

But in these matters a convincing argument, may be drawn from this creation which has been arranged by a wise Creator, for, because he knew that mankind (would) presume with their Freewill and attempt by their free Choice to set a limit to creation... because they are not able to set a limit to creation—for Constraint does not permit them—they have attempted to set a limit to the Creator by Disputation; just as also they wished to build a Tower by which they might go up whither an ascent should not be made. [Gen. viii.] [P. 36, l.22.] For the ladder to that Height is the grace of the Creator, nor in thousands or myriads of years would they be able to go up to that Height whither Elijah went up in the twinkling of an eye. For a tower does not enable (us) to ascend to Heaven, because it is the Will of the Lord of the Heaven that enables (us) to ascend to Heaven. Therefore, in order that kings at the present time might not be bold like those of old He placed them in the midst of a creation which cannot be overcome. For (should they wish) to go up above, there are the outstretched heights immeasurable,—to go down beneath, there are the terrible impalpable depths,—to cross the ends (of the earth), [P. 37.] there are bitter illimitable seas, and these [things He did, not because He was afraid on His own account—He who is not capable of being injured—but He made the heaven strong against our boldness that it may not wear itself out in vain and fruitless efforts]. [L. 11.] [The Realm of the Good Being ought to have been protected likewise.] And if the creation is so protected against weak mankind it would be much more right that the Domain of the Good (Being) who actually exists should be fortified against terrible enemies. For as the Lord of the Domain is perfect in his Essence, so it is right also that his Domain be fashioned aright, and his building fortified, and it would be right that that building; should be protected with a strong wall. |lxvii

Without a wall he is 'imperfect.'

But the Domain lacks a wall, and its lord lacks reasoning. And if he did not fortify it with a... wall, he would be lacking in it; how shall we call him God who is even more deficient than mankind? For there is no one who does not make doors and bars for his house; or do they perchance argue in answer to this, that there should not be walls for a city, and a fortress for a place of escape, and a castle for... a hedge for a vineyard, an enclosure for a flock? And which of the Manichaean [P. 38.] is there who does not shut his door or the door of his place of Assembly? But closed doors are here... on account of that [ —l. 16.] injury.... And if a robber came against Mani in the open country, and against his disciples, would they not take refuge in a fortress, and hide in a castle and enter within walls? [If the Manichaeans practice non-resistance. they do so that they may be killed and escape from the Body.] But I think that they are wiser than their Father (i.e., the Good Being) who, they say, is a God. For they understand how to make these things though they are clothed with the disturbing Body; but their Father who is not clothed with the polluting Body, does not know how to make these things in his own Domain. And if the School of Mani do not flee before a robber, and do not take refuge in citadels or walls, let us ask, is it because their Bodies cannot be injured? And if they are looking forward to this, (namely), to be killed and to escape from the Body, and so do not need a wall, above in the House of their Father there would be a special necessity for walls that they [P. 38.] might not be mixed with the vile Body. [A wall would have prevented their being mixed with the vile Body.] For owing to the lack of walls, of which they had none, the Darkness swallowed them and mixed them in this Body, and while they are expecting (?) to escape from it by means of a sword, which, moreover, is not really the case, they Avould have escaped from it by means of walls.

Cf. pp. XXX., lxxv. They cannot say that there were no materials to build the wall.

And suppose a man says there were no stones, where was that great Earth from which BÂN, the Builder, cut whole stones for the Grave of the Darkness? And where is blindness such as this... [that in a place where there existed this Graver and graven materials, and where there was all this Working, and where there was |lxviii this Wise Disciple and Architect of its Grave who stretched the line and [P. 39, l.35.] weighed out axes (?) and set, the rules, and devised a plan, where there was all this], was there not found a single one to give advice that they should receive it and preserve their Domain? And lo, they (would) have escaped from the ten thousand evils which encompass them to-day.

Darkness would not leave its natural Domain as Mani taught.

But if they talk foolishly against these things, against all propriety they are debating so that only those things that are not proper may be proclaimed. And if they are thus puffed up though in Error (it is) as if they had found out something true; for it has escaped the notice of the Heretics that they have discovered (only) Error; but they by their Freewill have been discovered [P. 40, l.10.] by it according to its will. And because of the proud who have exalted themselves, let us diverge (lit., creep) a little from our Examination, and let us disregard them on the one side that they may be defeated rightly on the other. For it would never be pleasant for the Darkness to depart from its Domain, because every Entity which exists is contented if it is in its own place—because that is the place which belongs to its nature—[See from illustrations that this is true.] as fish are in water, as moles in sepulchral vaults,⁸ as moths in clothing, as worms in wood, as maggots in barns, as swallows in places frequented by man, as an owl in ruins, as a dove in the light, and as bats in the night. To these and many others their natural dwelling-place is pleasant, and if any one changes the dwelling-places which belong to them for those which do not belong to them, that is to say, places which hurt them instead of those [P. 41.] which do not hurt them, it is a great evil and bitter trouble for them as the celebrated Psalm of the Blessed David reckons; and he declares in due order the places of all of them in Psalm civ, which is 'Bless the Lord, O my Soul, O Lord my God, thou art become very great,' which declares that according to their nature are their places, and according to their places is their contentment. For if you immersed a fish in oil, and hid a mole in honey, and made a moth live in silver, or worms in gold, or a louse in a heap of pearls, although these excel the dwelling-places |lxix which belong to them, yet they are contented with their own (dwelling-place). And if these things that are made, and that are not Entities are contented with the places which were created for them, how much more is the Entity of Darkness contented with its natural den! And if any one stimulates it to go forth thence, it suffers pain, just as a man pains the dark mole when he brings it up from its dark place.

Darkness would be contented only in its own natural Domain.

For if the Darkness had its own peculiar Domain,⁹ as they say,--this is a statement which is difficult to believe—[but] what is more difficult than this is that "Darkness exchanged the Domain of its nature, and loved the Opposite of its nature," and exchanged its ordinary manner for something which was alien to it. For a newborn babe changes from its place to another place, for both of them belong to it; and though it comes from its own to its own [P. 42, l. 9.] it verily weeps when it goes forth,—how much more is an Entity [troubled] if a man roots it up from its place (and takes it) to another place which does not belong to it! For just as in its own Domain it is at peace, so in a Domain which is not its own it suffers calamity. Moreover, physicians say that everything which does not keep its nature ruins its natural generation, though they are speaking of custom and not of nature. For if a man goes to accustom himself to something to which he is not accustomed, if he does not wisely acquire the custom by stealth, little by little, he is injured by it. But if a thing to which a man is unaccustomed disables a man if he comes to it suddenly when it is natural even if it is not customary, how did the Darkness come upon the Light, its Opposite, suddenly [and enjoy it]? And instead of what would have been right, (namely), that [P. 43.] it (i.e., the Darkness) should be positively injured as Nature indicates, it actually made an Assault upon it (i.e., the Light), as the Falsehood says, which against the Light....

The Golden Calf story applied to the Manichaeans.

But when that imposture is crushed by the questions of the [L. 16.] Truth all his system has been exposed and laid bare. For as the question (?) of Moses shattered the Molten Calf, so the power of the Truth shatters the fabricated Teaching. But I know that |l although the Calf was shattered the Jews did not flee from the worship of it, so also the Teaching of the Manichaeans has been well exposed, but the Manichaeans do not revile the worship of the Sun and Moon. For they are like one another in their blasphemies, even if they are not alike in their Scriptures. For as the Jews blaspheme against the New Testament, they (i.e., the Manichaeans) blaspheme against our Old Testament. [The parable of the Wineskins applied to Jews and Manichaeans.] But that (i.e., Scripture) is (both) new wine and old. For as for the old its-taste is in it, and its odour has not grown faint, but in the new there stirs the ferment of its power and of its violent heat. (?) But [P. 44, l. 10.] such vessels as do not receive the old convict themselves by their impurity, that (?) they are not even worthy to contain it. And such as do not receive the new they are old bottles which it (i.e., the new wine) convicts by its power that they are not able to bear it.

THE END OF THE SECOND DISCOURSE.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ For the Syriac Text of Discourses ii.-v., see pp. 1-185.

2. ¹ Or perhaps "easy," "obvious." See note on p. 12.

3. ¹ Or perhaps "indulgence." See note on p. 14.

4. ¹ Or "of arithmetic." See note on p. 19.

5. ¹ An ironical exclamation.

6. ¹ Cf. pp. xxxvi. l. 10, xxxviii. l. 27.

7. ¹ The radish is said by the native Arabic authorities to produce disagreeable belchings (see the Lisan-al-'Arab, xiv. 29, 19).

8. ² [Syriac] in the Syriac occurs only here and on p. 73, l. 10, but it is found frequently in the Nabataean Inscriptions.

9. ¹ Or "Place."

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 27th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _3_hypatius .htm

The Third Discourse to Hypatius against the Teachings: S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Third Discourse to Hypatius against the Teachings.

THE THIRD DISCOURSE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS

I. Marcion's teaching; the heavens of the stranger

I DESIRE to utter one more refutation against the three of them (i.e., Marcion, Mani, and Bardaisan), that is against Marcion in the first place who (says) that a heaven is found also beneath the Stranger. Let us ask who bears up those heavens, and what is in them. For a power is necessary to bear them. Or can it be that the heavens of the Stranger are resting on the heavens of the Maker, so that he is the all-sustaining Maker, as indeed is the case? But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also will deal [P. 45.] frowardly with the froward, (and say) that he who is above the [Ps. xviii.26] heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU¹ brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence... [inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded within his bosom there is required for them another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us [L. 26.] that there should be anything set up without a foundation.

The heavens of the Stranger and his boundaries.

But know that if the Stranger has heavens which have been created from nothing, we must inquire by whom they were created. And if they are his in virtue of (their) 'essential being' there is a fortified boundary of 'essential being' beneath him, which he cannot cross. And just as he is not able to go forth from that Place which surrounds him so as to be something which does not exist in a Place, and has no Creator, so he is not able [P. 46.] |lii to cross that boundary which is beneath him. Nor were the Souls able to go up hence to cross it.

The relations of the Stranger and the Maker.

But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above [L. 39.] allowed him, let them show us why.... And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and [P. 47.] Contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war--[though he did not come], (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?

Surely the Maker could reach the Domain of the Stranger.

And if they say that these were able but their Maker was not, if they say anything they like, they must hear something they dislike, (namely), that if the Soul, which is all the creation of this Creator, was strong enough so that with the strength of the Stranger, it was able to cross and to go, and did not remain |liii anywhere (?) on that immeasurable journey, how much more able [P. 48, l.13.] would the Creator be to go, not only up to the Domain of the Stranger, but even to explore the other regions inside of it, if there were any there!... [Thou mayest know that the system of statements which they make is impossible.] For (being) a Person who grows not old nor ever dies or grows weary, who has no need of a conveyance of any kind, and requires no food,--and in that Domain there were no walls to hinder him,--how was the Maker hindered from travelling to see what was above him, (to see) whether that Domain was empty or had something in it or not? But if he reached the heavens of the Stranger, even if he did not actually enter he must have struck them to see what they were or whose they were.

The Stranger and his Domain. How the Stranger may be both inside and outside of his Domain.

And when the Stranger went forth from his Domain to come hither, it is clear that he vacated his Domain. For anything which is limited, and in the midst of a place, when it goes forth from its place, the whole of it goes forth and no part of it remains in its place. But if half of it goes forth and half [P. 49, l.11.] remains, or some portion of it, these things prove concerning its nature that it is divisible. And if again they wish to change their ground, and say a thing which cannot be, (namely), that when he went forth to come from his Domain, his Domain was not deprived of him at all, because he is a Fullness which [P. 49, l.15.] does not lack, and a Greatness which is not lessened, then how was his Domain full of him, and the Domain which was in the middle full of him--a place infinite and unlimited? And, moreover, the Domain of the Maker would be full of him (i.e., of the Stranger), and this creation would be full of him; even unto Sheol beneath would his extent reach. If before he went out he was the sole occupant (lit., fullness) of that Domain wherein he dwelt, and after he went out that Domain was likewise full[P. 50.] of him as before, it is clear that he is something which was found to belong to that Domain, and was (nevertheless) outside. It is necessary that we should inquire whence this addition arose; or perhaps some veil was upon his face as upon the face of the Sun; and when that veil was drawn aside he extended his |liv rays unto us. And when he gathered himself in and confined himself to his Domain he filled the whole of the Domain in which he dwelt from of old. And it is necessary that we should inquire from whence are those causes which arose in front of him, and impeded the Light; and here his nature is found to fill all (space), and our place is not found to be foreign to his rays, just as also the vault of creation is not foreign to the rays of the Sun, even if by means of other veils it is concealed from us.

If Marcionites use the Light of the Sun to illustrate the omnipresence of the Stranger, they dishonour him.

But the Sun is one thing and its effulgence is another thing. For the Sun has substance and a circumference, too, and the eye sets bounds to the Sun, but its effulgence has no limit and substance. For the eye cannot set bounds to it. And by this proof it is discovered that the child is greater than its parent, since the parent is limited and the child that springs from the parent unlimited. But it (i.e., the effulgence) is not really greater; it really is less than it, in that it has not substance like it (i.e., the Sun). But because also the Sun is fire we learn to know it (i.e., the Sun) from this lower fire; for thus also a flame of fire has a substance, [P. 61, l.28.] but the Light of the fire has no substance. And bodies come and go in the midst of its Light and are not injured, but bodies cannot approach very near to the substance (of the flame). And just as there are flowers or blossoms or one of the roots which have sweet-smelling fruits and one small place is able to accommodate them because they are substances, but their scent is diffused outside of them because it has no localised substance; and we [P. 52.] do not say that the scent of spices is more than the spices, or the perfumes of ointments more than the ointments, for they themselves are sold for a price, but the scent of fragrant herbs is freely given to all who come near them; and (just as) the censer cannot fill the house, but its smoke is greater than the house, for it is even diffused outside of it, (so) if they have made, therefore, their God like a perfume, which is dissipated and like a flame which is scattered, though they wish to honour him, they reduce him to inferiority, for they make him (to be) without an independent substantial Existence.

II. Bardaisan's teaching; what supports his Entities in Space?

Again, let the party of Bardaisan be asked concerning those Entities which he speaks of, what supports these things of his |lv also,² seeing that they are placed in a deserted and empty Space in which there is no breath of air supporting all, especially inasmuch as he mentions that there are both light and heavy Entities there? For Light is lighter than Wind and Wind than Fire, just as also Fire is lighter than Water. But light and heavy things cannot exist unitedly in one enclosure without the force of another [P. 53.] (supporting them).

How could the Entities ever be mingled?

For the light (thing) must dwell above just as the heavy (thing) dwells beneath all. Therefore, Fire cannot exist in the same rank in which Light exists, nor can Water, which is heavy, be in the rank of Fire, or of Wind, because there is no force to support them.... Water puts an end to Fire, which is opposite it. For [L. 29.] heaviness and weight cannot exist in one rank just as they cannot [L. 39.]... by the same weight... things which are light and heavy in the midst of Water or in Air. These things convince concerning themselves how (far) the heavy approach the light. And if these which are heavier by measure than their companions, do greatly flee towards the depths, how much more distant from those things [P. 54.] which are beneath, without weight and without measure, will the Darkness be which exists more heavily than all! For lo, all its heaviness, too, is beneath all... [how did the Darkness] go up from them because its heaviness.... But if it is able to exist [L. 16.] and be quiet, let them tell us what thing it was which came upon its heaviness (?)... for it is unable to be raised by itself.... [Ll. 12, 22.] But if they say that it crossed its boundary and when it crossed [L. 34.] it, it crossed it in an upward direction, then (let me ask), which is easier--for a heavy thing to go upwards, which is not natural, or to be sent downwards according to its nature? For so [L. 46.]... [owing to some cause or other] to cross its boundary and make an Assault upwards. Above all [the proper nature of its [P. 55.] (i.e., of the Darkness) heaviness, demands that it] should be continually sent beneath. And because from of old and from eternity everything was actually going down and down the Fire would not be able [to find its way down through the great |lvi distance to the Darkness beneath or to reach] the Depths which are immeasurable.

If a Primal Wind stirred up the Entities, who caused this Wind? Was it God? 2

But let us inquire as to this Fire, what was the cause that stirred it up also to cross the Boundary which it had never crossed before? They say that the Wind beat upon it and stirred it up. Let us come to the succession of causes and let us ask also concerning the Wind,--what stirred it up too? And if the causes are multiplied, what, then, was that which was the Cause of all the causes? If it be not known, there is a great error, but if it be known, there is a right question in reply to which a true argument should be offered. For if it was God, then He is the cause of all confusion, He who disturbed things in their state of order and [Cf. p. lxxiii. 1. 15.] mingled things that were pure and introduced Strife and Contention among Natures that were at peace; then He Who, they say, [P. 56.] is the real cause of all beauty turns out to be the cause of all ugliness.

But whoever stirred up that Evil which was asleep, and gave power to what was powerless and found out a method and arranged the Cause to make the Evil cross the Boundary, a thing that had never crossed its Boundary, that misdeed of his teaches us what name we should give him, with what eye we should look upon him, and with what amazement we should wonder at him!

Why would the Upper Being do so?

But if the same Upper Being stirred the Element of the Wind in a manner contrary to its nature, then that Upper Being must have crept and come down from his natural height; and what Cause, then, stirred him up, too, that he should hurl Contention [Cf. p. lxxiii. l. 15.] and Strife among the Entities and Natures which were in a peaceful state, and, if they know not, whence did this cause spring?

For as regards these other things which they say concerning the Entities, whence did they learn that they are as they say? If the spirit of revelation made (it) known to them, it ought to [P. 57.] have revealed to them (something) concerning the Cause on which all the causes depended.

Bardaisan's revelation was not accredited by Signs nor is it Scriptural.

But one must wonder at this Wind that it was not revealed to Moses, the chief of the Prophets, who divided the sea and went through its midst, nor again to Simon, the chief of the Apostles, |lvii was it revealed, he who went down and walked upon the waters, and moved lightly upon the waves of the sea! But it was revealed to this Bardaisan who was unable to prevent the dew which dropped upon his bed! But let them give us the signs and wonders which he did, that by means of the open signs the secrets which he taught may be believed. But if the Prophets and Apostles [L. 22.] who did many signs and wonders did not say one of the things which Bardaisan by himself denied, and if Bardaisan, who denied many things which are foreign to the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles, did not do any of the signs which they did, is it not clear and evident to any one who wishes to see clearly that there is a great gulf between his Error and their true Knowledge?

What supported the Entities in Space?

Let us ask [what force it is which supported] all those creatures which Bardaisan preached and the Firmament (?) and the Earth and those whom he calls PANPHLGOS ³ (?) and all that earth (?) which is beneath everything and above the Darkness--who supports all these? Or how does the Darkness, which is beneath [P. 58, l.10.] everything, support everything so as to be the foundation of all? But if they say that everything is placed on nothing, let Bardaisan who said how can it be explained that something comes from nothing, (let him) repeat the thing which went forth from his mouth (and ask) how can something be supported by nothing? For how can a thing which does not exist support a thing which does exist? But if he says that it would be easy for God to hang everything on nothing, he confesses, though unwillingly, that it would not be difficult for God to create everything out of nothing. For if he was unable to create something from nothing, neither would he be able to set something on nothing... [and [P. 59.] Bardaisan cannot say that the Will of God supported everything]. For (how) was that Will which they say is light [and unable to [L.7] make anything from nothing able even to support it?] And, [L. 13.] therefore, as it was necessary for the Will to have something out of which to create creatures ([so it needed something] on which to place its creatures.

God is the cause of the Entities.

[And if creatures are made from Entities] which are not |lviii dependent on something which supports them, [are not these Entities dependent] upon something which is not dependent? And if they say that there is a myriad of... each supporting one another... [they are not wise in what] they say; [for let us [L. 33.] ask about that last supporter] of them all, who bears it up? Until of necessity one great and perfect One is found Who is perfect in every respect, Who is identical with His own Domain and exists by His own power, and from nothing makes everything. For if He lacks any one of these things, then He is not perfect, and, therefore, [P. 60]. He is in some sort an imperfect God who requires three things--that is, something from which to create created things, and a Pillar which upholds His creatures and a Domain in which His Divinity may dwell. But if the Will of God is supporting by its power the creatures which come from the Entities, it is clear that also that Will of God was supporting the Entities from the first and the same confused them. And if it was not supporting the Entities, then it does not support anything that comes from them. And if the Entities were dependent on it (i.e. the Divine Will) and existing by His power, they were not even Entities, especially as the Darkness also is found to exist likewise by the power of the Good One.

III. Mani's Teaching; he placed the Light World in contact with the Darkness, and thereby introduced great difficulties. How did the attractiveness of Light reach the Senses of Darkness?

And, therefore, on these grounds we have opposed Mani also with a true refutation. For he, too, calls God the Earth of Light, which (Earth) is not perfect, but if it is a deficient thing, the very word deficiency is enough to refute its claim to perfection. For its one side proclaims concerning the whole if it, that if on its side which is near the Darkness, it is limited by the Darkness, and if it is (so) by nature, its nature is very deficient and imperfect, inasmuch as that which limits it on one side is not a thing which is fair but the Darkness. Now, in the case of a thing which is limited by the Evil, inquire no further as to its weakness; [P. 61, l.13.] for it is enough that the Evil limited it. And how, O Mani, shall we call that thing the perfect Good which is limited by the Darkness, or perfect Light that which is bounded by the Darkness? For it (i.e., the Darkness) confined and limited its inferiority (i.e., the inferiority of the Light), and did not suffer it to fill all (Space), in addition to the fact that it (i.e., the Darkness) waxed |lix bold like a strong one to trample down its Domain and to enter its Boundaries, and to plunder its Possessions. But they say that it (i.e., the Darkness) came as one in need; but if it was in need, know that this (i.e., the Light) also is weak, and if the former plunders the latter is plundered. And, in order that they may be refuted in all points, if the two frontiers of Good and Evil were thus contiguous, all that side which bordered on the unclean became unclean and defiled, and infected, and corrupted by the contact of the Darkness. And if they say that that side which bordered on the Darkness was not injured by the contact of the [P. 62.] Darkness, then that side which could not be injured is more excellent than those Souls which were injured by the contact of the Darkness, for it (i.e., the Darkness) is said to have acquired power over the inferior, since this inferior was all injured. But although it (i.e., the side) has contact with the corrupt Darkness from everlasting to everlasting, the injurious contact could not injure it. And if the Enemy was unable to get dominion over it, and the Foe to tread it down and the Marauder to ascend and cross it, then why was it necessary for the Good One to take the pure Souls who belonged to him, and to 'hurl' them beyond his own victorious Frontier into the jaws of the Darkness? For it has been said that the Darkness could not even cross that mighty Frontier. But if it was a defenceless Frontier, one which could be overcome, and laid low, and trodden down and crossed, then its weakness could also be injured by the contact of the Darkness. And if the Darkness had been able to get dominion over it, if it had wished to destroy it, lo, it would have destroyed [P. 63.] it by degrees, and made an Assault. And if it desired to rob it, behold it would have approached it stealthily by degrees, and moved onwards. And if (it had wished) to feel a Passion for it and to enjoy it, lo, what gave it Pleasure was at its side... if [L. 13.] what gave it Pleasure was in close contact on its side from everlasting to everlasting; and if it carried its will into action, the Darkness had no need to make an Assault and enter the midst of the Earth of Light, because the same Pleasantness was diffused throughout the whole of it (i.e., the Earth). For the Light is one in its nature, and wherever a man has pleasure in it, |lx it is the same. Look, therefore, at the fabricated system of deceit, for in all this the Pleasantness of the Light is in contact with the Darkness, as they say. If it is after the fashion of a park, the one side which bordered on the Sons of the Darkness was entirely akin to the Darkness--for it is with them. And if the Fragrance of that pleasant thing is sent forth into their nostrils, and if that Light is diffused upon their eyes, and if the Melodies of that sweet Player are poured into their ears, how since all this was present with him, did he smell and perceive as from a far mountain that "there was something pleasant [P. 64, l.12.] there"? And if from the centre of the Earth (of Light) or from the inner sides he received the smell of the Pleasantness of Light, this, too, is against them. For how did it come about that the sweet smell and effulgence burst forth and entered even there? And how did this beautiful Fragrance ever smite the Darkness?

If Darkness has foreknowledge it is more excellent than the Light.

For if the Darkness had foreknowledge, and by means of that he knew that there would be something pleasant (in the realm of Light) then is that Entity (of the Darkness) greater and more excellent than this Good, in that it has this foreknowledge. But lo, the Souls who are from this (Entity) are to-day existing in Ignorance and Error. [How can the Souls escape from this Darkness?] And if he had great foreknowledge, when do the Souls who have strayed expect to be 'refined,' seeing that 'he who leads them astray' is so great? For by his knowledge he made them to be without knowledge. But, above all, they cannot go forth hence, because, howsoever that Good (Being) may contrive to form ways and means for their departure [P. 65, l. 9.] hence, that Evil One knows beforehand all the movements and secrets which are planned there against him; and that Good (Being) cannot even conceal his secret thoughts from him. And if he cannot conceal from him the thoughts in his own heart and in his own Domain, how does he expect to release from under the hand of this mighty One the Souls who are subject to his authority, [Cf. p. lxxii. l. 3.] especially, too, if they are stored up in the midst of him and 'swallowed,' as they say? And if, when they were not swallowed, he contrived to swallow them, now that he has swallowed them, who is there that can bring them forth from his midst? '(This |lxi is a thought) which even Mani himself may have muttered from the midst of the Darkness when he was swallowed. And in his muttering whose help would be invoke? (Would he invoke) Him who even in his own Domain is guarding himself from that which he fears? For he is afraid to come because he knows that if he comes he is swallowed; but they are ashamed to say that he [P. 66.] can be swallowed. And how can they conceal it? For behold those Souls which were swallowed up (so as to be removed) from him make them ashamed. And if they were not swallowed, again they are all the more ashamed in this point, (namely): Why did that Nature which cannot be swallowed not contend (?) with the Darkness and swallow all of it?

The Evil One had or had not foreknowledge.

Behold, two alternatives are set before them; let them choose one, whichever they wish, that they may be put to confusion in it. But if in both directions they are put to confusion, this is not due to us, but to their wise Teacher, who concocted for them a Teaching which is put to confusion in every respect. But if they say that he had no foreknowledge, [then let them hear my former questions about the contact of the Darkness with the Light]. [Cf. p. lviii. f.]

If Darkness had foreledge, he showed restraint. Did the Virgin of the Light tempt him?

If the Evil One has foreknowledge from the first, how is it that he sometimes (?) perceived as if he sometimes knew? And if when he knew he did not feel desire; the question is one which resolves itself into two alternatives, (namely), if he verily made an Assault with his eyes (open?), it is a thing [P. 67.] repugnant to his nature; but if, though he felt desire, he did not make an Assault he remained by reason of his self-restraint for a long time in a state of desire perforce. But these Souls who are from the Good (Being) are put to shame by his self-restraint, since they are found to be fornicators, and they run corruptly into all evils. And who caused that false ascetic to offend? Can it have been that Virgin of the Light about whom they say that she manifested her beauty to the Archons, so that they were ravished to run after her? But it is not possible for pure mouths to speak as they do about the things after this; so that we will not commit them to writing, but we will take refuge in such discourse as it is possible to use (and argue), that if that Virgin of Light appeared to him and |lxii made him offend by her purity, her folly is seen in this. And in what respect was the beauty or pleasantness or fragrance of the Virgin of Light different from that of that Luminous Earth? So that if there is a question of Passion, behold, [P. 68.] as a harlot, she embraces the fornicator. For the borders of both Domains embrace one another after the manner of bodies. And, because from eternity and from everlasting they were touching one another, perhaps, also, that Evil one became weary of the perpetual contact. But if a comparison such as that which they employ (lit., bring) is applicable to the matter, (namely), that one loves and another is loved, the experience of debauchees refutes them, (namely), that, although they love, there comes a time when they are sated and weary of that thing which they love.

How did Darkness discover this Light?

And if our questions do not please them, neither does it please us that they should speak all this blasphemy against the Truth. If, therefore, they wish to hear many things, in a single [L. 33.] word... that is to say, when they confess that they are in an evil case. And, therefore, silence is our part, and they will [P. 69.] have profit. But if... And if they do not wish to come to that which overthrows them (?), let them show how at one time the Darkness had a Passion for the Light, though they were from everlasting hidden in one another. If this Fragrance was diffused recently, first we must inquire what was the cause which made it spread, and what was the power which stirred it up, and why all this was. (?) And it is clear that that is the cause of the trouble and war. But if the Darkness acquired Thought which..., and a Mind which he had not (formerly) and² Knowledge which he had not, lo again [we refute them by asking how Mind could be acquired by a Nature which did not contain it. It could only come from an outside source-- from a region above the Darkness].

The explanations of Bardaisan, Marcion and Mani as to the original cause of the Disturbance.

[L. 40.] For Bardaisan had already (?) (i.e., before Mani) said, 'There arose a cause by chance, and the Wind was impelled against the Fire.' Marcion said [concerning the... ] "that |lxiii he saw a certain picture." (?) For we will not utter these other things which are after it(?); even though their mouths were fit to utter something which was not permissible. For (let us ask) whence sprang the cause, O Marcion, which first [made him aware of] that which was beneath him? And if the Good... which was above it did not perceive HULE seeing that it was under him, how did he perceive it anew, [P. 70, l.11.] or how did HULE(?) recently (ascend to regions) which are not natural for it? And Mani said, concerning the Darkness... [that its Sons began to rage and ascend to see what was above them outside the Darkness or that it acquired Thought].

They are all different. Mani takes any explanation that suits him regardless of consistency.

And see how like the perverse crabs are to one another, each one of whom takes a devious course and goes forth, not to come to the Scriptures, but to turn aside from the Scriptures! And, perhaps, Satan, their father, took a somewhat devious course, because he is a native in Error--that is because they are foreigners from foreigners, who do not blaspheme at all. For let the circumcised foreigners prove that each of them is a drop of poison 'of the troubled sea.' Whenever, therefore, it suits Mani, he brings their two sides into [P. 71.] contact, like Sun and Shade, which cannot be mingled together. And, again, when he is forced he destroys the first and mixes them together--the Good and the Evil--like water with water. And that he may not be refuted (by the argument) that if they had been near together, how did the Darkness recently desire the Light, as if it had suddenly met it, he constructed the theory 'that sometimes HULE acquired Thought.' And in seeking to avoid refutation, he came to such a point that he rightly suffered confusion. And because he was compelled he named two Roots; and because again he was plainly exposed he produced many Natures from the midst of two Natures. But a tongue which is in the power of Falsehood is turned by it as it (i.e., Falsehood) finds convenient.

How did the Darkness love the Light?

For with regard to Light which is the opponent and the abolisher of Darkness whenever it suits them, they say that |lxiv it (i.e., the Darkness) had a Passion for it (i.e., the Light). And how does opposite love opposite, that is to say, how does the injured one love its injurer? or how does the eater have affection for that which is eaten, as the wolf for the lamb? Or will they, therefore, suppose the Light to be injured [P. 72.] like the lamb? And (then) it had good reason to desire the Darkness (which is) like a wolf! But if they suppose that the Darkness is injured like the lamb, how does that which is injured have a Passion for its injurer? They attribute to Darkness that it desires, like the wolf, and that it is injured like a lamb; and when these two things are laid at the door of the Darkness, has not the true (opinion) perished from them (i.e., the Manichaeans), that is, have they not perished from the Truth? For those proofs and comparisons which they adduce are also confused like them (i.e., the Manichaeans).

The Domains of Good and Evil illustrated from the natural places of Fish and Moles.

But if there are two Domains, and Good and Evil who dwell in them, (now) I portray these from things external and with simple illustrations in order that they may be easy for their hearers. For let us suppose that there is a great and clear and pure river, and fine fish in it, and that there is a bad and filthy and foul sepulchre, and moles in it. Then let us set the moles which dwell in the Darkness as the likeness of the Sons of Darkness, and let us place the fine fish as a fine (?) type of the Sons of the Light and let us suppose that their Domains are bounded this by that, the water by [P. 73, l. 8.] sepulchral vaults, and the dry land by wet ground... if those fishes [do not] long to go up to the dry land and to soil themselves in mud and in the burrows⁴ of moles; is it not, therefore, incontestably clear that just as moles dislike going down to the water, so fishes disdain to go up to the dry land? And they are made to be neighbours to one another; and in proportion as their boundaries approach one another, so much the further are their (natural) wills removed from one another; so that there is none of them which desires his neighbour's domain. |lxv

If, therefore, these things which are not Entities, and are not (derived) from Entities, and were not made from good and evil Natures--since if thou kill a mole and cast it to the fishes, the fishes will devour it--and if, therefore, these things which are near to one another in a certain sense are thus far strangers as regards their abodes and... in their nature, and do not dare to cross their borders, how much more would it be right that Good and Evil should exist in their Nature and Domains, seeing that they are real Entities and really strangers to one another, and the reality of their Enmity [P. 74.] is never lessened! For if it was lessened, that is due to Freedom and not to Essential-nature, (it is due) to Will and not to Nature; how, therefore, did the Darkness... to cross to the Domain of its opposite, and why?--seeing that when a mole goes it goes into its own (proper place), and when it ceases (?) (it goes forth) and smells that it may reach the edge of the water and (then) returns again to go into its own (proper place). And so, also, a fish, to which are assigned its depths comes into its own (proper place), and when it ceases (?) it returns to its depths

Here are correct demonstrations which refute those who have introduced confused Teaching... For it is found that [L. 33.] fishes and moles which come from Nature [stay in their own natural places]...

* * * * * * *

[Moles akin to the Darkness are not anxious to cross the [P. 76, l. 5.] boundary] of fishes, the sons of water. And how do they flee from this boundary and rank of the Sons of the Light; and (yet) the Darkness, their Father, made an Assault to enter within the boundaries of the Sons of the Light, and why are (the words) 'refined,'⁵ and 'first' (used to describe him)? But if their Father made an Assault, but they flee, it is found that these blind and dark moles do (in reality) come from the nature and abode of the Good (World of Light). For, behold, they flee from their opposite. Nor (even) like these blind |lxvi moles is the perception of Souls which see and hear and speak and perceive that they may flee from the vile boundary of the Darkness.

How could Darkness swallow Light?

Again, let us turn and ask the advocates of Error, that is, its Preachers--how were the Sons of the Light cast into the mouths of the Sons of the Darkness? And how did the Darkness swallow the Light--a thing which is not natural to it? But the nature of both is that the Light swallows and the Darkness is swallowed. And if here (in our world) the [P. 76.] Light swallows the Darkness as experience shows, but there the Light is swallowed, as the Heretics say, it is clear that this Darkness which is swallowed here is not akin to that Darkness which swallows there; just as also the Light which swallows the Darkness is not akin to that which is swallowed by the Darkness. And if they strive to make a stand, again they fall. For one fall is not sufficient for them. For really it is not a case of falling at all. For this takes place (only) where there has been standing; they are always prostrate-- they do not wish to stand.

Again, let them understand (?) that as regards this Light which swallows the Darkness here with us, and this Darkness which here amongst us is swallowed by the Light, it it is the nature of that which swallows to swallow, and of that which is swallowed to disappear. Or has the Creator's own will changed their natures? And if it is due to (His) Will, where was their (unchangeable) Nature? If he is one who submitted (?) himself there, and is the Light-God who did not [P. 77.] aid himself, whose Light was swallowed by the Darkness, how has he to-day changed the nature of the Darkness that it should be swallowed by the Light? For they say that he is the Maker. And, if the Darkness changed its nature, it is unlikely that it would bring itself to the weakness, so that he who swallowed them is swallowed to-day. Since that true saying demands that natures essentially fixed cannot be changed; but that Freewill, because He created it to say |lxvii everything, proclaims by name those Entities whose true nature it cannot declare. But, because those names belong to the Entities, the Entities of the substances (?) are changed. For if the substances (?) of the Entities had been like the names of the Entities, and were fixed natures, they could not be changed; because a thing which exists in the natural condition of its original Essence, so exists as it is, and so remains for ever and ever.

But let us inquire about the nature of this Darkness, whether this is natural to it, (namely), that it should be swallowed by the Light, just as our sight proves... that [P. 78.] it (i.e., the Darkness), too, is swallowed here so that both here and there it has an essential Nature. For one Entity cannot be divided into two Entities, even though the Heretics speak absurdities. And if the nature of the Light around us, as it proves about itself, is such that it swallows and is not swallowed, and there is no means whereby Light is swallowed by Darkness, at any time and for all time to come, it is clear... that as it swallows the Darkness here, so it swallows there, and was not swallowed (by the Darkness).

Refutatory Summary.

Also the perverse ones do perversely proclaim the Teaching --but here [we have correctly refuted what] they say concerning the Light and the Darkness... we hear that it was done there in quite a contrary and opposite way. On which (opinion), therefore, is it right that we should stand--on the cunning tale which is proclaimed preposterously, or on true evidence, whereof the correctness is seen by practice?... For not a little... because it was not right that they should [P. 79, l. 2, Ll. 7, 8, 9.] be a little ashamed. For... to speak... against... that rightly... but also those who believe. (?) For according [Ll. 10, 14.] to the great falsehood and untruth... difficult... he [Ll. 17, 24.] gives them a preposterous account of a thing which we see in practice correctly every day. For it seems that he made them drunk first, and then he told them a tale. For he was afraid of the truth of Nature, lest it should refute him. But, if not, how (?) was the perverse tale not disgraced in their ears, |lxviii that, while they see that the Light swallows the Darkness here, they think that there it (i.e., the Light) is swallowed by the Darkness?

The Light and Darkness have no bodies.

And the Darkness when it is swallowed here by the Light has not even a body; for nothing is separated from itself (i.e., the Darkness), seeing that it vanishes altogether. But a house full of darkness shows that if a man opens the doors [P. 80, 11.] and windows in the daytime, whither can that darkness, which is in it, go up [to hide]? There is no room for it to go outside, for the Light which is from outside absorbs it. If we say that it stays within, it does not remain there. For the rays of the Sun entering pursue it. And if it does not exist within, and goes out, it is clear that it has all come to an end; and with it has come to an end all that Teaching which says that it (i.e., Darkness) has a kind of body in reality. For in this manner it (i.e., the Teaching) says that it has a body, in that "it verily ate those brilliant Shining Ones (ZIWANE) who were cast into its mouth." So Darkness and Light have become composite bodies--a thing which nature does not teach. For a man never eats Light nor ever swallows Darkness.

The Body has not the same Nature as Darkness, nor has the Soul the same, Nature as Light.

And if this Body with which we are clothed is of the same nature as the Darkness, as they say, and this Soul which is in us is of the same nature as the Light, when we look at these two natures which are in us, and at the two (natures) of Light and Darkness which are outside of us, they are refuted (and shown) that these are not from those, neither these from those. For how can the bright Soul which is within be over[P. 81, l. 13.] come by the Body which is akin to the Darkness? For the outer Light which is akin to it (i.e., the Soul) overcomes the Darkness. Moreover, how does this Body overwhelm the bright Soul, seeing that this outer Darkness which is akin to it is consumed and swallowed by the Light?

The Sons of Light were not used as bait (?) to catch the Sons of Darkness.

And as for these things which are obvious even to simpletons and madmen, how do they who will not distinguish between statements which are correct, and those which |lxix are self contradictory, applaud them when they hear them? For how dost thou receive (this) into thy mind, O wise Hearer, and how is there a (healthy) ear... that thou shouldst hear [L. 32. L. 37. Ll. 38, 39.]... when... and explains with explanations which are worthy of ridicule?... [for he says] that the Primal Man(?) cast(?) "the Sons of the Light into the mouths of the Sons of the Darkness as (into the mouths) of hunters, and that the Light was pleasant and agreeable and sweet to those Sons of the Darkness; and thus they were found to eat them [P. 82.] greedily, and they were cast in and entered into their midst and were mixed with them." O how exceedingly ridiculous that a man... O what vile blasphemy!... wolves eat lambs and lions eat calves, and the eater and the [L. 11.] eaten are quite content with one another! And these are bodies, and these are composite things, and both of them... if... the Sons of the Darkness are bodies because (they [Ll. 21, 22.] have) bodies as they say (but) the nature of the Sons of the Light is spiritual, as they say; for this Light, too, is akin to them, how is it fitting (that) this thing which is mingled (with the Darkness) should be held fast? And the Soul which dwells in the Body [would not be held fast] since it is akin to it... so that if the Soul was akin to the Darkness... this [Ll. 38, 41.] [perturbed] Body... lo, they are akin to its nature as they say [L. 46.] [for] that Darkness... and as the wise ones profess....

* * * * * * *

Darkness by the Primal [Man] who bore it, he would have [P. 83, l. 9.] died; since it is difficult... which (is) in its Essence.. and also the Parts... which he slew.. because they [Ll. 16, 18,19.] teach that the Darkness has a nature... and goes into anything which he catches.[L. 22.]

The Sons of Light had a composite Nature.

And, therefore; if the Sons of the Light were eaten and entered into the belly and were digested in the stomach, it must be that they were dissolved in the excrement and waste |lxx refuse. For these are plausible statements to be made by their own about their own! And, therefore, those Sons of the Light are natures which can be dissolved and destroyed. And it is proper to ask concerning this nature, as to how it existed from all eternity. For if they were compounded they are also dissolved... and also destroyed; they are not the thing [P. 84.] which they were before they were destroyed; and besides this, it is clear that if he collects and compounds them,... has compounded them from the beginning. And if from all eternity they have not been compounded, but are natures which are not composite (they spring) from an Existence which is not composite. So that by plain things they have been refuted who speak much falsehood about secret things... [L. 18.] akin to the body, as they say, that body is found not only [unable] to eat or to destroy or to torture... but, also, it [L. 30.] is unable to understand their plain things... as they say, [L. 37.] [that as] the Darkness ate the Light... which was in it, [L. 40.] and it was all inside the Darkness... how did it eternally and from the beginning both seize it and feel it... into [P. 85, l. 7] its midst... and how...?

Judge judged and the tormenting Fire.

But they say these things in addition to those other things, (namely), "that the Souls came to the Judge." For if that nature is one, how can part of it judge and part of it be judged? And also the Souls are part of the Essence (?), how (does [L. 16.] there spring) from it one who torments and one who is tormented? And if, too, the fire which torments is akin to him who torments, and to those who are tormented, what ear is there which can endure this blasphemy that the judge and the judged and the tormentor are from one good Essence, as they say? And how are there in it these three opposites? For He also who judges the judged came hither in his entirety and was mixed with the Body; thus he sinned and offended just as those Souls who are from him offended. And if these Souls. had stayed in their (native) Domain and had not come hither, |lxxi these would have possessed it, after he had gone thither. And how are they true natures, those natures which did not [P. 86.] preserve their Essence?

The Body can be pure and righteous.

For, consider the pure and righteous Body, how it is not such as the apostates state (when they say), "that the Body is a covering which is from the evil Nature." nor is the Soul as they say, from a pure Root. For the eyes of the glorious body clothe themselves with chastity, its ears with purity, its limbs with glory, its senses with holiness, in its mouth is praise and on its tongue is thanksgiving, and in its lips is blessing, in its feet is the habit of visiting the sick, in its hands alms for the needy, in its heart is true faith, and in its... love (?). And that wall was built by God and [He made it to be] a pure shrine for Him, and a temple... for its architect when... in (?) the body... he (i.e., Mani) says... that it (i.e., the Body) is from a nature so that it sins... it is a shame to them since it shows that the Body... And if they are not [L. 39.] persuaded to secret sin, they will be persuaded by a devil. How did he(?) force...

The Soul is not necessarily pure.

Consider again the refined Soul about which they say [P. 87.] that its nature is from the Good (Being), it shows concerning its nature... the Body is... (a nature) which is evil. Also... the refined Soul which they say is the Daughter of the Light puts on that Darkness in its deeds and... in its conduct.... And if (it is) from God [how does it revile [L. 23.] Him?]... and if (it is) from [the Holy One, how is it impure]... and if (it is) from... behold it puts on... and if it is from the Good (Being), how has it become a den and nest of unmixed Evil?

How can Light which formerly pleased finally torture Darkness?

And if all this was pleasant in the midst of Satan, how do they say that some of these Souls who sin much and do much wickedness, and blaspheme much, and are guilty of great unbelief are found like dregs in the midst of one whom they call BOLOS?⁶ As they say that "when the fire dissolves all his interior, there is collected every portion of the Light which was mixed and mingled among created things, and those Souls [P. 88, l. 3.] who have done much wickedness are assigned to the realm of the Darkness when he is tortured." And if it (i.e., the Light) is a nature which pleases him, as the beginning of their Teaching says, how is it the cause of his torment, as the end of their fabricated system says? But that that Luminous Nature should become at one time his enjoyment, and [that he should like it] and enjoy it, and that, again it should be assigned to his realm, and that he (i.e., the Darkness) should be imprisoned and tortured therein--this may happen in the cases of changeable Natures which are created out of nothing: according to the Will of the Creator they can be changed to anything.

For loose dust of the earth is the dwelling of every creeping thing, and according to its liking it crawls in it and dwells in it. But if any one by regulation associates two Natures with the Nature, that is to say, so that it may be moulded with water by the hand of the workman, and receive strength from fire, then there springs from it a vessel and a prison-house to torture... that creeping thing which lay in it when it was dust, and crawled in it, and was delighted when it was [P. 89.] clay. When it becomes a vessel moulded and baked in an oven, it becomes the torturer of those that are imprisoned in it.

Why was a Wall not built between the Domains?

If, therefore, the Darkness is finally tormented by that Luminous Nature in which it takes pleasure, what was the cause of the negligence long ago (which brought it about) that the Darkness obtained dominion over all this and took pleasure therein? And what is the cause of its fierceness so that at last the Darkness is imprisoned and tormented in it? If its 'Essential nature' has this strength, then where was |lxxii it "formerly? But if this energy conies from another place, why did it not come formerly? So that instead of the Grave which is now built stupidly for the Darkness, an impregnable wall should have been built, and thus there would have been (a separation) between the two Domains, (such a wall) as it would be fitting for the Good (Being) to make, and right for the Just (Being) to keep in repair, and proper for the Wise (Being) to guard. But after those atrocities which the Darkness wrought [Cf. p. XXXV.] upon the Light, and after those blasphemies which the Souls blasphemed against their Father, and after they committed fornication and folly and polluted and disgraced themselves, [P. 90.] and after great blemishes have appeared in them, so that, although their wounds may be healed, they cannot be effaced, and the places of their spots cannot be covered up, after all this Strife and Contention, and after all this misery and loss [Cf. p. lvi. ll.13, 26 f.] --even if there was a gain, the gain of such things would not be equal to the loss--he has planned to-day to build a Grave for the Darkness so that at last it may be imprisoned there.

And how can a Grave limit him who is infinite? For if the Darkness can be limited, then the Light also can be limited. And if the Good (Being) cannot be limited, but the Evil One can be limited, it is clear that this Evil One who can be limited is not an (eternal) Entity, the Companion of that Good (Being) who is not limited; and it is found that that which limits is an (eternal) Entity, and that which is limited by whoever is able to limit him, is a creature. But if he is not a creature and is an (eternal) Entity, an Entity cannot limit an Entity without itself being also limited by that other one, his equal, which is limited.[P. 91.]

THE END OP THE THIRD DISCOURSE.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ² I.e., 0Ihsou~j according to the Marcionite transliteration.

2. ¹ Ephraim alludes to the Heavens of the Stranger, see above, p. li.

3. ¹ I.e. perhaps pa&mflogoj, "the all-flaming."

4. ² See the second note on p. xlviii.

5. ³ The meaning is not clear.

6. ¹ I.e. Dia&boloj. Cf. p. lx. l. 33.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _4_hypatius .htm

The Fourth Discourse to Hypatius against False Teachings: S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Fourth Discourse to Hypatius against False Teachings.

THE FOURTH DISCOURSE AGAINST FALSE TEACHINGS.

How was the Darkness imprisoned?

YE know that it is right that Mani be asked: From which of the Elements was the Grave built for the Darkness? But if it spontaneously turned and imprisoned itself, know that, because it cannot mix or mingle with itself anything else-- [P. 91, l.20.] for there is nothing--and because, moreover, it cannot change itself--for it is an (eternal) Entity which exists as it existed before, and does not come to change--it cannot become opposed to itself. But if he built (the Grave) from the Element of the Good (Being), how did he make it from these Souls in whom he takes delight to-day? But if there is essentially belonging to his nature something which is harder than these Souls, then why did the Darkness not build from that hard and deaf (i.e., inexorable) and victorious element a wall for the outer Domain in order to keep his possessions within? And thus [P. 92.] he would have been spared all these evils. But, perhaps, this wisdom had not come near him at that time, but in the end (?) of his years it happened that he was harassed and learned,, practical (?) workmanship and stone-cutting, and architecture.... And if these (qualities?) are there, not only are they there. For many things are required there. For a natural building shows how many things it requires to be employed (in constructing it).

Things required to build the Grave.

For if they are stones in reality, (?) and if they are cut as they say, there is required one who cuts, and the iron [L. 30.] which cuts, and the stones which are cut, when... are [L. 40.] left, and a rope... which in the middle, and all these... natures... which is in it and a destroyer of their |lxxv essence; and, moreover, fire injures iron, for it (i.e., the fire), transforms the nature thereof. And if any one leaves an iron in the furnace there its destruction (?) follows. And [P. 93.] if any one goes... though they are bound (natures), and they go into one another. All this creation is required there so that it may be found in the Domain of the Good (Being). So when this Teaching professes to explain about the Domain of the Good (Being), its explanation is found to refer to this creation. And just as even when it explains about it (i.e., this creation),... lacks intelligence, and just as...

The Earth from which the Stones were cut cannot be Eternal.

And this Earth from which the Stones are cut is not [L. 26.] essentially such that is uncomposite, and also incapable of being cut up. For a thing which is not composite cannot be cut. For a composite nature can be dissolved. But if it can be cut... And if it has these (qualities) in its nature, it has no (immutable) Essence in its nature, and it shows that the natures which (spring) from it are composite creations. For that Grave is built, it is certainly composed and... But if [L. 40.] the Architect of the work is skilled in building it is right that it should be put together cunningly. These Stones, [P. 94, l. 8.] therefore, which were compounded there show concerning the Earth from which they were cut, that it also is a composite nature.

The Earth would be damaged by the quarrying.

And just as if any one asks about natural stones... as to whence they were cut, it is possible to declare and say that they are cut and hewn from some place or other--a thing whereof also a building in our country is a witness to us--it is right, moreover, to ask whence had this Earth (such resources) that these Stones were cut from it. For it is clear [Cf. p. xxx. l. 29.] that they were made either from something or from nothing. For they cannot say that it exists of itself; for... refutes them. And, therefore, let the great deep and abyss which is in that quarry, from which these Stones were cut, refute them. And when BÂN, the Builder, built to make the Grave [Cf. pp. xxx., xlvii.] for the Darkness, he made that great pit in his Domain for the Sons of his Domain. And whence was the deficiency [P. 95.] of that Earth filled up (again); for if it was fair before it |lxxvi became lacking, it was exceedingly and endlessly disfigured after it had been cut.

Thus, the idle tales have become and are a laughingstock. For if the stone-cutters operate on that Earth, they are at the same time carrying it forth into the Domain of the Darkness. And if it has not a nature to remain in a Domain which is not its own, then how does it imprison in a Grave built from itself the Darkness which is foreign to its nature?

Have Light and Darkness A Common Earth or separate Earths?

And, again, if this Earth stretches unto the Earth of the Darkness, is it not the fact that, since it is beaten out and everywhere bordering upon it (i.e., the Darkness), it has all become one earth in the Domain of the Light, and in the Domain of the Darkness? And it is found that one earth supports them both. These are fine Gods and (eternal) Entities which are supported by one another! And if it is one, as also it is one, for it must be one, then either it is all dark [Cf. xcv. 7.] towards the Good and towards the Evil, or, again, it is luminous towards both. For it is impossible that the half of it towards [P. 96.] the Darkness is dark, and the half of it towards the Light is luminous, because its fixed nature will not allow it. For it is one in its Essence. Or a great gulf exists in the middle between these two Earths, and does not allow them to go forth to one another.

If a great gulf divided the two Domains, how could it be crossed?

And if a mighty gulf which separates above and below does exist there, how did the Darkness cross to the Domain of the Good (Being) without a bridge? Or did he forsooth make a bridge over it and cross? For those to whom it is easy to speak falsely in everything, it is not difficult to lie.

And if they say that he crossed without a bridge, even if they speak falsehood, they are refuted. For if the two sides can cross over one to another without a bridge, a wide gulf being in the middle, they are found to be spiritual, and they are not heavy bodies, and it is evident that for Natures which are thus subtle and light, a supporting Earth is not required as for bodies. Therefore, either let them appeal to the Earth, and it shows that they are corporeal, |lxxvii and are unable to cross the gulf without a bridge. Or let them appeal to the Abyss, and if they flew and crossed it [P. 97.] they are spiritual, and are not dependent upon the Earth.

How could a bridge be constructed between the Domains?

And if they flee from these two (alternatives) to (the theory of) a bridge... [they are refuted] for when the sons of the Darkness bridged (?) the Great Abyss, to cross it. with what (did they make it) and how? And how did they bridge it; for those who build a bridge fix (?) its foundations (lit., legs) on both sides as rivers show, or a deep which is bridged. Why. therefore, did they bridge it? And how were the Sons of the Darkness able without a bridge to... their companions... or did they, perhaps,... cross the bridge... since they were on one side, and the Sons of the Light on the other side! And if that bridge was... the waste in the middle would make it useless. But if it was... it would not allow them to cross; and thus the twisting of Mani has come to an end.

If the Light Earth touched the Earth of Darkness, it suffered pollution.

But if the Earth was all one, since it stretches towards Good and Evil, are they not ashamed when they say concerning the one, that is to say, concerning the one Essence that the half of it which is towards Good is good, and the half of it which is towards Evil is evil? But if it is in its Essence praiseworthy (?) O what ridiculous Teaching--how can the Essence of the Earth be praiseworthy (?) [when it touches the vile Earth which was opposite? ].

How could the Darkness limit the Light?

And if those illustrations of the Sun and Shadow which [P. 98, l. 8.] they bring forward do belong to things; if (they are) Earths, because they are dense bodies, they touched one another and were limited by one another... how is it (the Light) [L. 20.] limited by the Darkness, seeing that the Light scatters the Darkness and rends it asunder and (enters) into its Domain, and... also its nature...? [L. 28.]

Mani's illustration of "Sun and Shadow."

For (as regards) the Sun and the Shadow which touch one another, the nature of the Sun has no [gross and dense] body... to destroy the Shadow, and the Light which is here... seeing that no other body is interposed. [L. 38.] Moreover, a Shadow is not a nature (in) itself. For it is the child of that substance, either of stone or wood, standing in the [P. 99.] |lxxviii face of the Light; and apart from the Light a Shadow cannot be produced.

If the nature of Light and Darkness is considered, Light ought to have made the Assault.

But if they say that, although there was no dense body which hinders the Light, the Light was not able to enter the Domain of that Darkness; they confess, though unwillingly, that they are 'bound Natures' in Essence, and that they are unable to depart from their (respective) territories. But if they are 'bound Natures,' fixed in their places like mountains, how did they make an Assault on one another and enter into one another? And it is very probable that if they do make an Assault on one another, the Light has extension and radiance and effulgence and rays, so that its effulgence may stretch afar. And if the rays of such a thing (as this Light) the nature of which is to scatter its rays afar, were limited by external compulsion, and it did not cross the border of the Darkness, how do they know how to [announce] that the Darkness made an Assault on the Light--when it (i.e., the Darkness) has no (such) nature? And the Light which ought to have been victorious did not even make a stand for itself.

Primitive Light and Light which is visible now must be different in kind.

For these things which they say do not occur in the case of this Darkness and Light which are here. Let them either appeal to the Light and Darkness which are here, or let them admit that this is not the same Light as exists there, but another. And if it is not the same, why do they worship this Sun if it is not the same as that which is in the Domain of the Good (Being)? And if the Light and the Darkness are not the same, then this world was not mixed and brought [P. 100, l.14.] into existence from these Natures. And whence then are these Luminaries which are in our sphere?

Mani's inconsistent Teaching.

O what (is to be said) of a Teaching whose failures are more than its artifices (can remedy)! For as often as they need an argument they bring forward such proofs as these, and as often as an allegory suits them they concoct such tales as these. For Mani did not know that his deceit would enter the furnace of Truth. For where it suits him, he says that the Darkness made an Assault; but he does not remember that this visible Light shows him clearly that this cannot |lxxix be so. Again, where it suits him, he asserts that the Light is the Light of Souls, that is to say, that the Luminous Nature of the Soul is created (in the form of) Light of the Soul. But the worship with which he worships the visible Luminaries refutes him. Or can it be that the visible Sun is perversely (represented as) the God of the invisible Souls? [P. 101.]

The Bright Ones whom the Primal Man cast to Darkness.

"But," he says, "the Primal Man cast his five Bright Ones (ZIWANE) into the mouth of the Sons of the Darkness, in order that, as a hunter, he might catch them with his [net]." And here it is found that the Sons of the Light are their food, and that the Essence of the Sons of the Darkness [is akin] to the Sons of the Bright Ones. To which of them is it like-- to the Light, which is visible, or to the Wind which is invisible; to the Water which is cold, or to the Fire which is hot?...

* * * * * *

Know that this world was not made from these refined [L. 26.] Natures, and it is necessary that... the creation of the world which was from such Natures. But if it was mixed out of these Bright Ones (ZIWANE), let them know that the refined Light was also made turbid by its opposite; but, concerning its nature, he declared that it is visible, [and it consists of] hot Fire and cold Water. And still our question stands, (namely), to which of them (i.e., of the Bright Ones) was their (i.e., of the Sons of the Darkness) Root (Essence) itself like? But know (?), O Mani, that the fish of the deep and birds of [P. 102.] the height are caught with a bait which is akin to them, as nature shows from which they bring illustrations. For from the quarter from which they bring illustrations, from there (they) can be refuted.... And if... them, how does it [L. 15.] oppose them, if it is true that from their own (Elements), and from the (Elements) of Darkness, the whole of it (i.e., Creation) does exist as they say?

The Creator has given Freewill.

But as regards those who say that everything is created from nothing, and that devils and men have Freewill, and this Freewill produces good and evil actions--and if it be |lxxx not so they have no Freewill at all--it is impossible that we should stand up (and) contend (?) against them either in words or in writings. For a nature is changed into everything according to the will of the Creator; in order that he may show that (Creation comes) not from 'bound Entities'... [L. 44] like the Freewill of mankind [so the devils (?) have Freewill] [P. 103.]... when those who persist in the arrogance of their Will do entreat and make supplication. And these (words) "thou has set thy heart on my servant Job, O (?) Satan..." prove that he (i.e., Satan) has Freewill just as several passages from the Old Testament. But there are many (such passages) belonging to the New (Testament), and these are sufficient to stand on behalf of us and to contend against our enemies.

From which of the Natures does the ''Consuming Fire" come?

But, perhaps, this great confusion is a small thing to Mani; and it is right that we should turn again and ask him of this Consuming Fire, from which of these Natures does its consuming nature come? If it is from the Darkness, how does it injure the body which is akin to its nature? And if it injures its nature, it would be right that it should injure itself also, if that nature which springs from it is injured. But if its harmfumess is from the Light, how could the Sons of the Darkness imprison it in their midst without being injured, seeing that bodies, their kinsmen, are not able to stand before its breath? And if they are two, as if from the two Natures of Good and Evil, then how did they receive [P. 104.] one another into union when they were opposed to one another? And all this (that he says, namely), 'they loved one another' is due to the fact that the difference between them is not known. And how did they become one mind, when they are both suspicious of the two Natures from which they have sprung? For when good and evil (persons) touch them (i.e., the Elements contained in Fire), they are both injured equally by both of them. And the good Fire which springs from the good Nature does not recognize the good, its kinsmen, just as also the evil Fire does not discern the evil, its |lxxxi relatives. And in virtue of the test applied to this one Compound (i.e., Fire), we have a right to say that all that Mixture of the two Natures consists of one mingling of love. But if there are some of the Minglings which struggle with one another because they are opposed to one another, why does Fire not struggle with Fire?

The Creation in all its diversity has come not from the Entities but from the Creator. The Diversity is due to the needs of mankind, not to Eternal opposition of Natures.

Is it not thus plain to an intelligent person that all the creatures exist in natures which are different from one another according to the Will of the Creator, He who prepared them for the numerous uses of mankind? And there are some that are akin to one another, and there are some which are opposed to one another, according as it pleased the Will which arranges everything. But when they agree and differ deliberately, and exist in agreement and disagreement [it is obvious] that they are not made from Entities which differ. For if, on [P. 105, l.12.] account of the enmity which they have towards one another, it is supposed that they are differentiated from one thing, then (it follows that) on account of the love which they have, they are known not to be made from Entities which are opposed to one another. For if those were created for our benefit (?) it is clear that we must recognize that likewise all of them were regulated for our sakes. For this is the true cause of their creation(?). For if Light and Darkness exist for their own sakes, and not for our sakes, perhaps he is right (?) in thinking that they have enmity towards each other. But if they exist for our sake and are both useful to us--the Light for toil and the Night for rest....

* * * * * *

[and they are useful to us] even if they have a war with one [P. 106.] another, but for us they both bring much peace and health. For when hot fire is necessary for us on account of its heat which is necessary to [warm us] it is supposed that because it is a consumer it is an enemy opposed to the things which are injured by it, and [why] do I (?) weary myself (?) with many details? For these many things can be explained even in.... Since they are all useful to mankind they are |lxxxii all at peace with one another, (namely, those) which are supposed to be created from different Entities. For on account of the uses of man, which are unlike one another, creatures were created for his service, and are unlike one another. For if his use were (only) one, then it would be a single thing which was necessary for his service. And if his service were one, there would be one thing for his use. But because everything is useful to him, everything was created for his use.

And even those things which are considered unnecessary [P. 107.] are necessary (to promote) either his awe or his chastisement (?) or his fear, or in the course of his swimming through this world that this dwelling may not cause his nature to sink, (this dwelling) which also hated the true lodger (?); and the temporary lodging-place was acceptable to that Good [L. 15.] (Being) in His grace and not... but (he set) upon him the constraint of many troubles, that on account of the troubles that are in the world he should hate the dwelling and desire to return to his true profit. These are the true causes on account of which the different creatures which are unlike one another were created.

See how man is served by creatures possessing opposite qualities.

But seek out completely the creatures as related to one another, and seek them out again as related to man, and see that creatures which are not all useful to one another are all useful to man, and those which are thought to be strange (to one another) are all related to the service of man. For how is the bull like the horse in running? And (yet) the swiftness of the horse and the slowness of the ox are both useful to man. [P.108] And how is the winter like the summer in comparison? And (yet) the coldness of the one and the heat of the other are a source of help to man. And how are fierce things like gentle things? And (yet) they both do one common service. And, therefore, their histories are too long and their numbers are too great, and their kinds are too abundant that we should labour (?) to complete the comparison of them, but some tastes (i.e., specimens) of them are sufficient to convince concerning them all. |lxxxiii

Manichaeans attribute the usefulness of creatures to the Mixture of Light.

But those Heretics who do not examine creatures according to the reason of their use in relation to us, but compare creatures with one another (saying) "how is the Darkness like the Light, and sweet like bitter, and that which harms like that which is harmed," when they bring comparisons of one thing with another, they cause the simple to err by means of their names, and because childhood has not (sufficient) knowledge to oppose them, it is perplexed. But also they are refuted by their own words. For because they perceived that everything was created as for our service--for there is no single thing among all these which is benefitted but they must needs make an assumption and say "that it is due to the Light which is mingled with all," and to that cause the benefit [P. 109.] of everything is to be ascribed, [and] they have confessed, though unwillingly, that if a man is helped by them all, (then) they all were created on his account.

They fail to account for the fixed nature of animals.

We turn, again, to examine that thing which they also investigate, (namely), of what use are harmful creeping things which have been created. But being eager to win, they have been quickly defeated. For how does a creeping thing do harm, seeing that even in it, as they have said, there is mixed in it some of the Good Nature which is scattered through everything? And where is the Evil that is not mixed in an innocent lamb, if it is scattered in everything? And so it is possible to distinguish between Good and Evil by means of wolves and lambs, and by means of serpents and doves, and the Mixing of Good and Evil has appeared in man alone! And how are wolves always evil and rapacious, [Cf. p. xix. (in med.)] and lambs always illtreated and innocent, whereas men sometimes ravage like wolves and sometimes are illtreated like lambs? Who is he who arranged these things... and who [P.110, l.2.] is he who [gave] to creatures a 'bound Nature' so that creatures [have a fixed disposition], and to man gave an independent Will?

If Light and Darkness had originally Freewill, why do not all things possess it? Does man alone come from a Mixing?

If the Darkness has Freewill--for behold as they say, by its Will it made an Assault, and, again, if the Light has an independent nature--if from two natures which have Freewill and Independence and Thought all creatures have come, |lxxxiv how (?) is it that they all have not Life, and all have not Thought, as also they all have not independent Freewill? And here it is found that man alone is from these two Natures which have these (qualities), because he also has such (qualities) as these. Whence therefore came the rest of creatures and of beasts and plants which do not possess these (qualities), and are not from the two Natures from which man comes? Or let them be convinced that there is one Will which created everything from nothing, as was useful for Freewill and for [P. 111.] our boldness (?) according to the reasoning which we wrote above.

Refutatory Summary.

But consider also that according as it suits their cause they learn to construct discourses, but because they are (artificially) constructed they are reduced to nothing, and because they are decked out they are refuted, and because they are powerless they are not able to stand in a contest.

If the Sun comes from the Good Nature, why does it hurt the eye?

For they say that everything which injures is from the Evil (Nature), just as everything which helps is from the Good (Nature). And they say concerning the Sun that it purifies from Evil, because it goes and comes every day to the Domain of the Good one, which is a purification. And yet [Cf. p. xli.] the eye which fixes its gaze much upon it is injured by its strength, but if it fixes its gaze to look on the shadow or thick darkness it is not injured, and so it is found that the Sun of the Good (Being) is harmful.

They cannot say that it only hurts the Body.

And if they say that it harms the body which is akin to the Darkness, why did it not always harm it, but instead (of that) it actually gave Pleasure to it? And how is the Soul which is in the midst of it (and) akin to the nature of the Light harmed by the Body? For it causes it to sin, since the [P. 112.] Bitterness (?) of the Darkness is not all like itself, as also the Pleasantness of Light is not the same in everything. For this visible Darkness by its colour confuses the eye, and does not imprison it; it is rather Satan who by Thought enslaves the Soul, and it is not the Colour (which does it), and this |lxxxv (Darkness) which has Colour has no Thought. And the Primal Darkness from which they both come, on account of its (greedy) hunger, harmed the Light which it 'passionately [Cf. pp.xxxvi. l. 17; xliv. l. 16; lxxxix. l. 26.] desired and ate, and sucked in, and swallowed, and imprisoned in its midst, and mixed in its limbs.'

Primal Darkness and our Darkness must be different.

And what is the nature of all of this harmful (Darkness), seeing that this Darkness, which is from it, confuses us by its Colour, and Satan, who is from it, by his Thought slew the Light, but the Primal Darkness crushed it with its teeth?

So the Light of the Sun and the Light of the Soul are different: the Sun is silent; the Soul can speak.

And just as this Darkness is not like itself, so neither is the Light (like itself). For this Sun by its Colour delights us, and not by its Voice, and the Soul which in his (Mani's) Teaching is akin to it (i.e., the Sun), delights by means of its Voice, and not by its Colour. And how is this Sun wanting in Thought (?), and how does the Darkness not possess Speech like its original Father?... the creation and learned... to give to them his Refining that he may bring them to the House of Life. And why does the Moon go on quietly, and why are the stars in silence? If they all come from an [P. 113, l.9] eloquent Nature, why are they not all eloquent like the Nature from which they come?

The Mosaic account of the Creation is the true one. Speech is God's gift to man. Harmful creatures show man's superiority, and only harmful after the Fall.

And though Bodies are from the Darkness, as they say, they have Speech and Mind (and) Beauty, and there is no... and as regards the lightly-moving Luminaries which are from an Element endowed with Speech which shuts up their mouths like a scorpion... let them be refuted concerning the Luminaries (and shown) that because they are lamps created for our service, the Sun and Moon are rightly deprived (?) of Speech. For by Speech [our superiority in the rank of creatures is clearly demonstrated and the Luminaries are] for our service, God... [so the Luminaries] are found against them, so that though they do not wish it they establish the word which Moses wrote. For when God created everything for the service of man, and that he might show that creatures were created to serve him, He did not give them Speech and Mind as (He did) to him that their inferiority |lxxxvi might prove about them that they were certainly for service, as, also, the superiority of man proves concerning him that he [P. 114, l.4.] is certainly to be served. And not only harmful creatures did He create for the service of Adam; for it might be thought that if they were harmful they might be able to cause him harm, on this account God created those creatures which are fierce, and those which are terrible, and those which are cruel, and those which are harmful, in order that the sovereignty of Adam might be seen, set over all like that of God. But he possessed this power over them before he sinned, but they received this power against him after he had sinned. Therefore God said, let us make man in our Image, that is in the Image of His authority, so that just as the authority of God rules over all so also the yoke of Adam's lordship had been set over everything.

Man is higher than the Parts of the Light.

Let them tell us, therefore--those who speak against the God of Moses--how they speak against that Scripture to the Truth of which they themselves are witnesses. For the Scripture declares that God gave to man dominion and [P. 115, l. 8.] authority over the earth, and behold now... [we see] that it is so, but, according to the scripture of the Heretics, it is not only to man that they give honour and dominion, but to all the Parts of the Light, because they say "they are from one Great and Glorious Essence." And because they desired to give worship to those that serve, those Manichaeans are sun-worshippers, who have compelled mankind who ought to be served to offer worship to the things of creation. Consider, then, how they are refuted by the things of creation. For it is a fact (lit., found) that they have magnified the Sun and the Moon more than mankind. Let them tell us which is greater--a thing that is excellent by its Light and its Effulgence, or a thing which is excellent by its Reason and Knowledge. For if a thing that is excellent by Light is superior, let them blot out their scriptures and annul their doctrines, and put their words to silence, and deny their faith and sit down and weep for themselves.

Why has the Soul not Effulgence like the Luminaries? But man's Soul is greater than 'an Effulgence.'

And why have they not Radiance like fire, if that Radiance is excellent? So that they may also be asked (this question) |lxxxvii --if they are from that Effulgent Nature, why have they not the Radiance of their kinsman? If, therefore, some one produces a fire in a desert by the rubbing of a flint, or of something else, that he may make there a great flame from a great heap--of the two, (namely), that great fire which has a great Radiance, and the small mortal who has an excellent Mind, which is the greater? For if the rays [P. 116, l. 21.] of the fire have suffered(?) themselves to be confined for a long time, the hidden beams of the Mind (are such that) this creation has no power against them that they should be confined by it. For a lamp which can be confined in the midst of a vessel can prove concerning every Light that exists, that it can be confined in some hollow or other. But there is no hollow to confine the Mind; for it is confined in the body, and more excellent than it; and in the midst of creation, and is more than it; and in the hollow of creation, and it has no power against it; for it is limitless because even unto God who is not limited its extent reaches.

If the Parts of the Light are mixed in all living creatures why are their powers and characters so different?

Let them, therefore, either be persuaded honestly, or let them be vehemently plied with questions: either man is more honourable than all, and all created things are assigned for his service, or else there is one head (?), the nature of Light, as they say. Why, then, are the Parts of this Light which are in a deaf man, deaf-mutes, and those which are in a blind man are changed into their opposite (i.e., become Darkness). and those which are in a dumb man are silent, and those which are in a scorpion inject poison. And if the Evil (principle) [P. 117, l. 19.] has prevailed and overcome them, behold in doves and in lambs the Good Parts are many, why, therefore, are those in a dove not cunning, and those in lambs not wise? And so it is discovered that Darkness possesses cunning and wisdom... because this Darkness is cunning... the Good Nature... So also at all times the simplicity of that [L. 43.] Good Nature has been conquered, and is conquered by this cunning of that evil Nature. For it has both power and [P. 118] |lxxxviii wisdom. For a lion shows, and a wolf and a dragon, that they are cunning and crafty, and that they are wise and strong; just as a lamb, together with a dove, shows that they are weak and simple. So that simpleness and weakness show an inclination towards that Nature whose Parts are numerous in them. But if they bring other illustrations (to prove) that the Darkness bears witness to its own weakness,--for it always fails before the Light,--they have (thereby) refuted and discredited the starting-point of their doctrine, though they do not perceive it. For there they relate how the Darkness conquered the Light and 'swallowed it.'

Why the Manichaeans can charm serpents and vise enchantments.

But perhaps, they are glorying over this, that they enchant the serpent and charm the scorpion, and "the cunning of the serpent is conquered by Enchantment, and the poison of the scorpion is charmed and conquered with it (i.e., the serpent)." Wise are these investigators whose wisdom has conquered even the cunning of the serpent--that is to say, their wisdom is mocked at by the cunning of the Devil! For [P. 119.] the Devil himself is enslaved that he may enslave, and he subjects himself to be their slave so as to become their lord. For he subjects himself in those things which do not harm him in order that they may be subject to him in tliose things which cause their death. For the Devil himself, on account of his subtlety, enters into the serpent as he was concealed in it from the beginning, and as those of the house of Adam thought that a serpent was speaking with them; and because they were not willing to contemplate the invisible (being), who had taken up his abode in it (i.e., the serpent), they were drawn after the external (audible) voice which called them. But when they thought that they were obeying the serpent, they became the disciples of Satan who was in it, and they did not perceive it. But let us pass on with few words, because there is no time to finish the whole account of the Serpent. But even if we turn from the account of it, we come again to the account of his disciples--as it were from the Serpent to the sons of the Serpent. So since the Devil does everything by means of a serpent, at that time of Enchanting the Devil [P. 120.] does not reveal himself that he is there. For he knows that they |lxxxix flee from him because he is hateful. But he causes it to be supposed concerning the serpent that it is made subject to the Enchantment in order that they may believe that that Enchantment is from God, so that while they are persuaded on account of the serpent to learn Enchantment, they may be persuaded to serve Satan by means of Enchantment.

How are they unable to conquer all kinds of Evil by their Enchantments?

Let us ask, therefore, the Sons of the Serpent (i.e., the Heretics), concerning the serpent as to how it is persuaded, or how it is enslaved by Enchantment, seeing that other natures, although they are Sons of the Evil One, as they say. are not persuaded by Enchantment. And how is that a single Nature, part of which is conquered and part of it not? If that Enchantment is powerful, why did it not enslave all the Parts of the Evil One? And if that Evil One is too powerful for Enchantment, [weak and feeble] is whoever was persuaded. And if the power of the Good (Being) is mixed in the Enchantment and the name of the True (Being) associated with it so that it (the Enchantment) becomes a weapon whereby serpents and scorpions [S. Luke x.19.] and all the power of the Enemy may be overcome, then (we may ask) was there not a single sorcerer or enchanter in the Domain of the Good (Being) who might have gone forth and enchanted that great Dragon which was assaulting them in the beginning? [P. 121.] But, perhaps, the Sons of the Light had not yet learnt this Enchantment. And from whom then does this discovery come after a time? For owing to the lack of this Enchantment perhaps, which had not yet been learnt that All-devouring¹ (Serpent, [Cf. pp. xxxvi. l. 17; xliv.l. 16; lxxxv. l. 4.] or Dragon) was not bound which crawled forth from its Domain and swallowed the innocent ones, the Sons of the Light. And what authority did Jesus give his disciples to conquer serpents and scorpions--the authority of Enchantment or the authority of Faith? And if Faith is from God, He (thereby) asserts that Enchantment is from Satan. He, therefore, by his cunning arranged such fetters as these, allowing himself to be bound in order to bind; so that when they come to bind him by Enchantment he may turn and bind them by impiety. |xc

The Manichaean interpretation of John i. 4.

And how do they say 'the Primal Man'? For even with regard to the name of this one they go far astray. For they are content to understand the Scriptures in a perverse way. For the passage is written in the Gospel that "the Life is the Light [P. 122.] of man"; but the Greek Gospel explains that the Life is the Light of men. They have combined and made from the word 'man,' ² as it is written in the Syriac (the explanation) that this (word) refers to a (single) man, that is the Primal Man, the Father of the Five Shining Ones whom they call ZIWANE (the Bright Ones).

Opinions of Mani and Bardaisan contrasted.

And those things which Bardaisan makes (i.e., considers to be) five Entities, Mani makes (to be) from a single Essence. And this conflict is not ours. For it is right for us to lift ourselves from between two serpents in order that they may fight with one another for the victory which is itself altogether a defeat in other respects. Because Mani was unable to find another way out, he entered, though unwillingly, by the door which Bardaisan opened.

Their views about the making of the Body.

For because they saw that this Body is well put together, and that its seven senses are arranged in order, and that there is in the heart an instrument for the impulses of the Soul, and that there is in the tongue a harp of speech, they were ashamed to speak blasphemy against it (i.e., the Body) in plain terms, and they had recourse to cunning, and divided it into two parts. But they suppose that its nature (?) is from Evil, and its workmanship [P. 123.] from the Archons, and the cause of its arrangement is from Wisdom. And she (i.e., Wisdom) showed an image of her own beauty to the Archons, and to the Governors, and she deceived them thereby so that when they were stirred up to make (something) in imitation of what they saw, each of them should give from his treasure whatever he had; and that owing to this cause their treasures should be emptied of what they had snatched away.

And since Mani saw in this place that he was not able to cross the river at any other place, he was forced to come and cross where Bardaisan crossed. For he, too, spoke thus concerning |xci the Primal Man: "By means of the image which he showed to the Sons of the Darkness he compelled them."

Their views refuted by Scripture.

And because here they both say the same thing, the same thing may be said against them both, so that by means of the Truth which is not divided against itself, the two divided ones may be overcome, (the two) who in this passage have clothed themselves with (a semblance of) agreement against the Truth. But a single passage which the true Apostle spoke dissolves their fabrications without trouble. For he said that 'your Bodies are temples of God. and whoever shall destroy [1 Cor. vi. 19.] the temple of God, him will God destroy.' If, therefore, the Body belongs to corruption, as they say, who cut off hope as [1 Cor. iii.16, 17.] regards their Bodies, why is he destroyed who destroys it, seeing [P. 124.] that even when he does not destroy it the Body pertains to corruption? But if he is destroyed who destroys it, it is clear that its Architect and Regulator is God, and not the Sons of the Darkness as Mani said, nor the foolish Governors as Bardaisan said.

THE END OF THE FOURTH DISCOURSE.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ Lit., "that which sucks in (its prey)"--the word is found in the Hymn of the Soul, see 'Texts and Studies,' Vol. V., part 3, p. 12, 136, and p. 20, 586. Wright translated "loud breathing." The rendering given above is based on the passages to which reference is made in the margin.

2. ¹ Ephraim means that the Syriac word may be taken either as singular or plural.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, st October 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _5_hypatius .htm

The Fifth Discourse to Hypatius against the False Teachings: S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., volume 1 (1912). Fifth Discourse to Hypatius against the False Teachings.

THE FIFTH DISCOURSE AGAINST THE FALSE TEACHINGS.

True, unlike false, obedience will not listen to seductive Heresy.

BUT true obedience is the likeness of a pure betrothed (maiden), who is not drawn after the voices of strangers; and the ear which turns aside a little from the Truth is like the Adulteress who turns aside from her consort; and the ear which is led to all Teachings is like the harlot who is persuaded by every one [P. 124, l.38.] who calls her. Let us, therefore, refute that erring obedience which is infected by the words of the liar, which, instead of the name of the true Bridegroom, loves the name of its corrupter. For it has consented that the name of Mani should be proclaimed over it, and not the name of the Messiah.

See how Mani, the last of the great heretics, is refuted by Ezek. viii.

And because this is the Teaching which comes from the party of Marcion and Valentinus and Bardaisan and he is the last of all, that is to say, the dregs, lower than that above him, so this one (i.e., Mani) is more abominable than those before him. But in the evil times of the world this Teaching has sprung up in the world's latter time. And because it has fought much against the Truth, let us speak a little against it, and it is not [P. 125, l.18.] we, but the Truth which speaks against it. But the substance of this Teaching while appearing small and insignificant to those simple ones who are not acquainted with it is like the hole which the Blessed Ezekiel saw in the wall. For though that hole was insignificant and small, great evils and numerous abominations and the secret things of shame were inside it. [Ezek.viii. 8.] But that passage (of Scripture) which commanded Ezekiel to dig in the wall which was a veil over the hateful things, by the power of that holy passage, let us also remove the veil of this foul teaching so that the hated things inside it may be exposed. |xciii But I do not wish to speak of all of them because they are [P. 126.] unclean, just as the holy Prophet was unable to make his mouth a channel for the hateful filth....

Mani's paintings.

But let us be like the illustrious Prophet (observing) how, as often as it was possible for him to say (something), he said (it); also (let us observe) what he said, also that he did not (utter) all these things, but only some of them, those things which are omitted being intelligible to the wise by means of these things which are uttered. Therefore the holy Voice commanded [Ezek. viii. 9, 10.] the Prophet obedient in everything (and said) 'go in and see the great abominations which they are doing here.' And he went in and saw all the idols of the House of Israel portrayed on the wall. So also Mani painted in colours on a scroll — as some of his disciples say—the likenesses of the wickedness which he created out of his mind, placing on hideous (pictures) the name of the Sons of the Darkness that it might declare to his disciples the ugliness of the Darkness that they might abhor it, and placing on beautiful things the name of the Sons of the Light "in order that its beauty may in itself indicate to them that they should [P. 127.] desire it," as he said, "I have written them in books and pictured them in colours; let him who hears them in words also see them in an image, and let him who is unable to learn them from... learn them from pictures." And perhaps he actually worships these likenesses which are pictured there.

The "Righteous" Women, among the Manichaeans.

But the Voice said again to the Prophet: [Ezek. viii. 13, 14.] 'Turn again and see greater abominations than these'; and he went in and saw women sitting and weeping for Tammuz. And wherein was this abomination greater than the first ones except that those images of heathenism were considered to be images of the living God, whereas here Tammuz is being worshipped and bewailed, idle and adulterous as he is? So on this account this abomination was greater than those. And, therefore, corresponding to those vain mourning women who were bewailing the god Tammuz who was slain on account of his adultery by a wild boar,—whom, moreover, they suppose to be a god,—come see here also those idle women of the party of Mani—those whom they call [P. 128.] 'the Righteous Ones' (ZADDIQATHA), because they multiply wickedness. For they also are idle, and sit on account of the Bright |xciv Ones (ZIWANE), the Sons of the Light, "whom the Darkness came forth and swallowed."

Manichaean worship of the Luminaries. Mani's teaching about an all containing Space.

[Ezek. viii.15, 16.] Again He who commanded said to him who was commanded: "Turn again and see greater abominations than these"; and he went in and saw between the porch and the altar—for beside the porch was built the altar of their offerings—"about twenty-five men with their backs to the Temple of the Lord." But by the word 'backs' he means their nakedness. And by reason of this ignominy which they displayed over against the Temple of the Holy One, this sin was greater than the first ones, and the middle ones; and these, it is said, were rising early and worshipping the Sun. And in the case of these it is written that they worshipped only the Sun; but Mani went on to teach his disciples to worship the Moon. For they worship the Sun and the Moon, luminaries by which those who worehip them become dark. But when the Sun comes to the West [P. 129.] they worship the West, as do the Marcionites their brethren. For it was right that by this worship the common kinship should be manifested. And because the name of...

* * * * * * *

[L. 20.] who said... that a place (?) limits him who can be limited; [L. 27.] they wish (?) to flee from him.... For if the heaven is enclosed (?) by a gulf which any one wishes to cross... [L. 33.] how much more exceedingly is He in every place whom gulfs and places are not able (to contain)! But these abominations which Ezekiel saw, perhaps they are allegories... the Manichaeans believe thus. For he assumed at the beginning two Entities and two Domains, and two Elements, and two Roots. Let him, therefore, be asked about the two if there are only two; [P. 130, l.4.] for each of these two because it is a single thing, must be altogether like itself. But if there is in it anything which is not like it, it is falsely called one. For it is clear that that thing which is not like it in nature is not part of its nature. Let us hear, therefore, when he explains (the change of) one into many which are not like it in nature, nor is it like them, nor are these like those. And first of all he assumes a Space, and how is a Space |xcv like God? For one limits and the other is unlimited; and one confines and the other is not confined; and the one has Personality and Knowledge and Power and Wisdom, and in Him (?) are Grace and Freedom, and the other has none of these things, though concerning the nature of the Space there is an undeniably great discussion. For not only is the Space not like God, but [neither is it like] itself (i.e., homogeneous), (being) [Cf. p.lxxvi.18 ff.] dark and luminous as they say it is there. And let the discussion be choked by means of inquiry, and this is the noose which they have thrown round their own necks. For let them [P. 131.] be asked concerning that Space, whether half of it is dark and half of it luminous, and whether half of it is good and half of it is evil, and whether its sides which are towards the Good are like the Good, and its gulfs which are towards the Bitter are like the Darkness. If they say that the half of it towards the Good is Good, and the half of it towards the Evil is Evil, this is difficult to accept; for since that Space which confines both of them is one, how is half of it good, and half of it evil? For they cannot make two (separate) Spaces, and suppose a third Space between Space and Space. Concerning the property of this third Space there is a third inquiry as to what it is, and whose it is, and whom it resembles. For of necessity, that Space which confines is one, and many differences and boundaries are found in the midst of it. For boundaries do not bound and limit Space as if it came to an end, but they bound things in the midst of Space, that is to say. either houses or cities or lands or mountains or plains or kingdoms or peoples who are bounded one with another by the sea or [P. 132.] dry land.

But if they say that that Space is altogether the same (i.e., homogeneous), though (?) it is stretched over the Good and over the Evil, it is clear that either it belongs to both of them or that both of them belong to it. For by the one yoke which fell upon the two Entities they have become subject to those two, (namely), the great yoke which ruled over them (?) And, therefore, even the distinct are not distinct. For the equal yoke cast upon them does not allow them to escape from being themselves conformed to its equality, except in this respect, (namely), |xcvi that a person who is in the midst of Space cannot occupy the whole of that Space.

And if it be not so, fashion in thy mind that whoever is in the midst of that Space, and has a body must necessarily be limited also. For the place which limits him is greater than he is. But anything which is not in Space cannot be limited; there is no Space to limit it.

Bardaisan's Hymns to Space are impious.

And on this account that pre-eminence which the Teachings give to Space, the true Teaching gives to God, because He is His own Space. For greater are the praises which Bardaisan uttered concerning Space than those which he uttered concerning the God in the midst of Space, which (praises) are not suitable [P. 133, l.10.] for Space, but for God. For if they are suitable for Space their Space is found to be more excellent than their God. But the true word (i.e., piety) demands praises as it demands acts of worship, and presents them to the one great and adorable (Being). For as it is not right to worship idols that there may not be many gods with the One, so it is not right to bestow the title of 'Existence' on Space along with God. And as it is not right to postulate another power which is able to command God, so it is not right to postulate a Space which is able to limit God. For if He is made subservient in one respect, this is a great blasphemy. For, as He does not command all if He is commanded, so He does not limit all if He is limited. For if the (title of) Commander is necessary to His lordship, the (title of) Space is also necessary. [P. 134.] For if all commanders are under His command, as they say, all places too are included within His greatness, as we say, that is, as the Truth requires.

Mani makes God depend upon a Luminous Earth.

But he went on to say that that God has also a Luminous Earth, and that He dwells upon it. And as he made Him depend upon Space, so he made Him depend upon an Earth. For he did not say that that Earth was a thing made and arranged for the sake of His possessions: as the true Prophet [Is. xlv.18.] said concerning the true God: 'not in vain did he create it, but that His Creation might dwell in it.' And as He made the Earth for the lower beings He made Heavens for the higher beings, and those things and these (exist) for the sake of beings |xcvii made and created, spiritual and corporeal. For He before His creation was not dependent upon a Heaven on which to dwell, nor upon a Space (or Domain) within which to be.

God and Space in the Heresies. Answers to the opinion of Marcion, of Mani, and of Bardaisan.

But as for Mani and Marcion, the one before, the other after, with Bardaisan in the middle, one inquiry is directed against the three of them. But let Marcion be asked first as (being) the first—if those Heavens actually exist for the Stranger it is clear that he is not one Entity, but two unlike one another. And if a Space surrounds him, then again there are three Entities, and the Space is not like the Heavens, nor do they both resemble God. God is found to be weak and inferior to the two of them. [P. 135, l.14.] For it is found that a Space surrounds him as being an inferior, and that the Heavens bear him up as being weak, not to mention other things which we shall not give at length, which indeed refute Mani also. For he names a Space and an Earth along with God as an actual existence. But Bardaisan (who was) in the middle and (was) clever, chose one and rejected the other; and this (he did) in order that he might thereby refute his neighbour, and he did not know that that of which he was ashamed is the companion of that which he affirmed. For he said concerning God that He is in the midst of Space, but he does not [attribute actual existence to the Heavens as Marcion did [L. 41.] nor to a Luminous Earth as Mani].... [Yet in his Teaching like them he limited God. For he made Space] support God [L. 48.] and he did not know that there is something outside God which [P. 136.] surrounds him; (and that) there is something beneath God which bears him up.... a self existent Space like God. For [L. 11.] both of them exist also, so that either the latter was dissolved like the former, or the former was established like the latter.

Again, how can Mani speak of his Five Elements as coming from One Root?

But, again, Mani goes on to make many things, five Natures which he calls ZIWANE (the Bright Ones). And how, if he assumes two Roots, can there be many (beings) confined in the midst of each of them? For how from [one source can such diverse objects come as Light and Water. Wind and Fire?]... These show concerning their nature as also Water and Light show that their Root is not a single one. The fashioner of this Teaching [L. 39.] was foolish even if he was clever. For he says (there are) two |xcviii [P. 137.] Roots that we (?) may not say to him as Bardaisan said, (namely, that there are) five Roots (one) above (the other)....

* * * * * * *

[L. 18.] divide one Nature into many Natures those which are composite.... And this is the refutation of those two [that Water and Fire and the other Bright Natures would injure one another [L. 23.] if they existed together as neighbours]... without the contact of the Darkness which he represents as the opposite of the Entities, those Entities are found to be injurers of one another if they are really in existence. For thus their Existence demands, and so experience proves. But if they were created [P. 138.] from nothing, the Will of the Maker is able to make them be at peace with one another, and to part ¹ them (in anger) one from another, when they were injuring, and being injured.

How could the Entities be in contact with one another if the Space was infinite?

And, therefore, let us inquire briefly concerning these two Roots, leaving on one side many questionings in their statements, (let us ask) whether they (i.e., the Entities) were in contact with one another, or far from one another, or whether one was below or above the other. And if he says that one was opposite to the other, then Marcion and Bardaisan are more subtle than he. For Bardaisan supposes that the Darkness was beneath, below everything; and Marcion represents the Stranger as being above everything. Therefore (it may be said), that if that Space in which they all dwell is one, and the length of that Space is immeasurable, and its breadth infinite, what (is meant by saying) that all those Entities were dwelling in the same neighbourhood, and one above the other or one behind the other? Was there not a chance that they would be scattered and be far from one another in that Space which is infinite?

Why the False Teachers have affinities with one another.

So this proves concerning their Teaching that it is the elaborate arrangement of men. For the cause of this nearness of their Gods who are near to one another is evidently this, (namely), that it is because the false (Teachers) are near to one another; on this account they bring their Gods together. And because they are imprisoned in the midst of one hollow of |xcix Creation, therefore they have imprisoned their Gods within one Space. And because they are not able to go outside of [P. 139, l.19.] this world, lest the argument should be brought against them 'Whence did you perceive their Gods'? they have managed to construct causes which result in their Gods being in the midst of this world so that the effect might be that from these Gods they received the revealed Teaching concerning their secrets. And as children who play on a wide staircase, when one sits on the lowest step his companion, in order to anger him, sits on the middle step, and in order to resist both another sits on the upper step, even such are the heralds of Error. To [P. 140.] resist each other they have named Places some of which are more compressed (i.e., lower) than others, and Gods who are higher than their companions. In the sport of children the (same) story (?) is found. For children who are older than one another have ranks one above another. But they (the Teachers) have named empty Domains and idle Gods who do not exist, and futile stories which have no root.

In Mani's teaching his two Roots are placed 'opposite one another on a level.'

And because Mani saw that before him his two elder brethren, namely Marcion and Bardaisan, that one had said, 'below'² and the other 'above'—because he saw that if he said 'below,' that had been said; and if he said 'above,' he saw that it was not new (lit., ancient), not knowing how he should represent the two Entities which he introduced, when he saw that (the arrangement of them) above and below was taken, he represented them as being one opposite the other on a level.

The False Teaching about HULE.

For he, too, prophesied by the spirit of his brethren, and [the afore-mentioned...] HULE ³ (i.e., Matter) is found in all of them, for it is only in the Church that it is not found. And if HULE belongs to the evil Existence as they affirm [and because the Church does not preach HULE in the Church, HULE is not in the Church, because it is not in the Scriptures of the Church], among all of them it (i.e., HULE) is altogether because it is all [P. 141, l.6.] found in their Scriptures. |c

Why did Marcion introduce HULE into his Teaching?

And if Mani and Bardaisan have called the Maker God, perhaps a way might have come to them to call HULE also (God). For it is the cause of the Making as they say. As for Marcion who compelled him to rend again his tunic and dance with the wanton....? For if he says concerning the Stranger that he is not the Maker this would be sufficient to put him in error. For he said that the Good One came—he who did not make (things)—and gave life to the Sons of the Maker; and because he had no property in the realm of the Creator it would not be necessary for him to undertake the cause of HULE. And if in order to show that the Maker tricked HULE the Stranger Himself did not keep faith with him when he came, and transferred by fasting and prayer the bodies which were from HULE, and after he worked all this work in them he sent them by death to the realm of HULE, he removed them without [P. 142.] compensating the Maker in that he raised the bodies of Enoch and Elijah to Heaven, and promised resurrection in his Scriptures [Dan. xii.13.] as He said to Daniel, 'Go, rest till the end, and thou shalt stand in thy time at the end of the days.' And who forced Marcion to introduce the subject of HULE except HULE herself, For she who is preached could not fail to make a revelation concerning her name by the mouth of her Preachers.

The subject of HULE being common to the Teaching of the three, the refutation of one is the refutation of all.

And, therefore, this HULE which is found in them all is a sign set upon all of them, so that by one sign set upon all of them they may be known to be all one. But wild asses are weak against a strong lion. When they see him they verily gather against him as one who is strong, and victorious, but he rends one and as for the many who have gathered, he scatters all of them by means of one. The Truth also in its splendour when it conquers one of the false (Teachers), by means of that one who fails, defeats all those who have gathered together. For all who are in Error are limbs one of another. But when a [P. 143.] body is caught by one of its limbs, the limbs also which are not caught are caught by the one which is caught. For it is [S. John x. 8.] written concerning those former deceivers, " All those who have come are thieves and robbers." But blessed is he who is able to bear insult (lit., that which stirs indignation), and blessed is he again whom their insult does not reach at all, so as to perturb him. |ci

What madness to suppose that Good is refined and goes up!

But what insult is greater than this of the Heretics who say that the Good is "refined little by little and goes up"? O the unspeakable madness! For it would be right that some other Good should be added to the first in order that the Evil Constituent might be weaker so that it might not prevail over it and drown the world. But they are like fruits whose exterior, when they are dry, deceives those who see them. But when they are squeezed between two hard things, then the dryness within them is convincingly revealed. These (men) also are set between two true words so that all their long fabrication is dissolved briefly.[P. 144.]

How the evil Constituent could be conquered.

For if the Evil which is mixed in us, as they say, injures Us, then one of these two things can be, either that that Evil can be separated from us that it may not hurt us, or the Good Constituent may increase in us so that the Evil which is in us may be weakened so that it may not kill us. But I had wished to repeat this statement, (?) not that when it is repeated this statement gains power, but that when it is repeated the Hearer gains power... because those Hearers whose [L. 28.] faithfulness has opened their ears even from one... receive it. But such Hearers...

* * * * * * *

If the Good "goes up," how can the Evil be conquered here?

If, therefore,... is mixed in the Evil Element, the Souls [P. 145, l.12.] are existing in an evil condition, how can they exist in a good condition when the force of Evil increases in them? For in proportion as the Good (Element) 'is refined and goes up,' so the Evil (Element) becomes fierce, and goes down. And just as that Good which has been 'refined,' and has 'gone up' is... and victorious (?) and reigns, so that other Good which is left behind is [defeated] and stifled. For the victory which is gained by those Souls who have been 'refined,' and have 'gone up' has (only) increased the defeat of those Souls who are left behind. For in proportion as all (?) the Parts of the Light have been mixed as one... in Evil they would lessen the Evil by their quantity so that it might not stifle them. Therefore, just as |cii those Souls which are 'refined and go up,' are victorious and exultant (?) so those Souls which are left behind are defeated [P. 146.] and stifled; but not even now are the Souls able to be refined, and to go up because the Foulness of Evil lies heavily upon them.

No Power akin to the Souls could deliver them without being overwhelmed.

Because that other Power (of Good) comes and is not confused, it is clear that it is not of the same nature as these Souls which are stifled. And instead of these Souls coming who struggled with the Evil, why at the first did not that Power come whose nature cannot be overwhelmed by 'the Floods of Evil'? But if that Power is found to be of the same nature as those Souls that are overwhelmed, it is evident without dispute that by means of that Foulness which 'intoxicated' them he who comes is perturbed.

If the Body is essentially Evil, Truth cannot come from Teachers clothed with such a Body?

And, therefore, accordingly to this infallible refutation and undeniable evidence and unanswerable demonstration and experience which neither errs nor causes to err, Marcion, too, and Mani and Bardaisan, because they were clothed with the Body which they represent as from the Element of Evil, were unable to be good in it, because, as they say, it is from the Evil One, nor (could they be) upright, because it is vicious; nor (could they be) true, because it lies; nor (could they be) pure, [P. 147, l.9.] because it is turbid. And let them not be angry because these things have been spoken against them by us. For their mouth overthrows them, not our tongue; and their Teaching, not our Will; and their Error, not our free Choice. For they said that the Body comes from the Element of Evil and lies; and it is clear that because their Souls were playing on this hateful harp, the 'intoxicating Foulness of the Body' did not allow the melody of Truth to be played on its strings. And, therefore, they have decided against themselves that they are preachers of Error, owing to the fact that they are mixed in the Body which comes from Error according to their decision. For it (i.e., the Body) speaks against them.

The orthodox teaching about the Body: it is the instrument and partner of the Soul.

But if, as we say, the Soul is able by means of the senses |ciii of the Body to hear the Truth, and to speak what is right,—for to us, who are Sons of the Church, the function of teaching properly belongs, inasmuch as we confess, according to the Preaching of the Prophets and Apostles, that the Body is akin to all the beauties of the Soul, and is a partner with it in all good things, since it is able to learn by means of it, and teach by means of it,—it (i.e., the Body) is, as it were, a trumpet for it; for by its (i.e., the Body's) mouth, it (i.e., the Soul) preaches Truth in the World, and it is a pure harp for it, by means of which it sounds forth Truth in creation. For along with it (i.e., the Body) the [P. 148, l.15.] Soul is adorned just as along with it the Soul is defiled. For they are alike in the matter of gain and loss, in every respect like friends they suit one another. For (they come) to the struggle like companions and to the (victor's) crown as partners, even if it is thought that it (i.e., the Soul) contends in it (i.e., the Body) against it. But it does not escape the notice of a wise (Hearer) that the triumph is on behalf of both. For when the Body is chaste and the Soul chaste it is a common gain, just as also when the Soul is impure and the Body impure it is a common loss. And nature shows about this that when they are foul they are both called by one Evil name, and when they are fair they are both called by one good name. And if both... that they both teach... For it is the speech [P. 149, ll.1, 4, 8.] of it all. And when it (i.e., the Soul) is... it (i.e., the Body) is.... For... which are from them and in them and other [Ll. 11, 14.] things which are not from them are not spoken convincingly (?) against them.... Obedience... by persuasion... in him [Ll. 18, 20.] who is not persuaded. For by the visible limbs of the Body the invisible movements of the Mind (are known....)

The Shadow depends on the Body, but Body and Soul are more vitally one.

For just as the Body is beside (?) its real (?) Shadow so also the Soul is beside the Body. For the Shade (?) of the Body has no power apart from its Body, upon its movement (it is dependent), nor has the Body any power apart from the Soul, upon its guidance in everything...

* * * * * * *

[P. 150, l.12.] And, perhaps, because of... which is between the Body and the Soul there is this.... Shadow so that by the visible Shade the invisible strife may be scattered. For if the Shade |civ [shows itself the servant of the Body]... the Body, too, proclaims who can influence it according to its power. For they teach by means of one another that in teaching... But the symbols (?)... which thou hast heard are not in the case of everything. For behold the real Body....

[L. 37.] Why is the Shadow loved just as also the Body is loved? No, and why not?—because the Shadow is not able to hear and see like the Body. But the Body lives with the Soul.... [P. 151.] For... spring up and are seen by means of it. For the Shadow cannot see or hear, either with the Body or apart from it. But the Body sees without its Shadow, without it it (i.e., the Body) hears and speaks; it does not exist with it and by means of it; it does not hang in it when it is weary. But the Soul and the Body exist one in the other, and one of them cannot exist apart from its companion.

See, further, the intimacy of Soul and Body. This acuteness of the Physician's touch. Elijah's Body, taken to Heaven.

But let us introduce subjects into the midst of other subjects in order that they all may tend to edification. Let us ask the Heretics who lay hold of the Soul and leave the Body, though the Soul in its love and conduct has not forsaken the Body. But the Body exists between the two of them—between the Soul and the Shadow—one invisible within, the other outside it—they are both bound in this middle vessel. The Shadow is the contemptible object, but the Soul is the glorious object. But if the Body is something dependent, it is not dependent on the Shadow that it should borrow anything from the Shades. For it uses its own limbs as real objects. But the Soul which is great and perfect, how is it altogether dependent [P. 152.] on the Body? For it can do nothing without it. For hearing enters into it by the ears, smell comes to it by the body's inhalation, it (i.e., the Soul) sees forms through the Body's eyes, it tries tastes with the Body's mouth, with the Body's heart it discerns knowledge, and with the whole of it all manner of things. By the touch of its fingers it obtains a great and subtle perception, it touches with the finger the veins, and learns things that are invisible. It describes everything that |cv is in a diseased Body as if it (i.e., the Soul) had entered into it. It describes to the sick man invisible things that are concealed in him. From it he learns (the truth) concerning his ailment which he has, [the sick one does not cease to understand, the finger becomes as it were the speaking mouth;] when it calls, no one [L. 28.] hears, for it calls quite silently; it speaks with him, while those who are near at hand hear it not. It describes to him his suffering and recounts to him his trouble. And there is a passage where he said deceitfully, Likewise when the end comes, the Soul learns all these perceptions by means of the Body; and just as these things which are here are learnt by means of it, so likewise these things which are to come are acquired in conjunction with it. And if these things which are to come are more subtle than the Body in accordance with the places [P. 153.] (in which they are), so it (i.e., the Body) will undergo change. For that Will which made it gross for the gross purpose which is here present, made for it that Spiritual abode which is yonder. When Elijah was on the Earth he lived as an earthly one, and he was taken up to the Spiritual (abode)... from the earthly (sphere)... above the Heavens. For during forty days he disciplined his body by the rigour of fasting... [L. 18.] he did not hunger nor did he thirst when he was running... [L. 21.] in the Body after him... [L. 25.]

* * * * * * *

[who... true from the Scriptures for he receives the truth by [L. 37.] Experience, and whoever is true, from the... Scriptures declares the truth]. For the Mind was sufficient for the Soul apart from the Body; the Mind does not find the Body apart from the Soul; the Soul was not sufficient for it; it acquired [P. 154.] Understanding on account of the Body, nor does the Body bring it to an end since by means of its Soul it (i.e., the Body) acquired Animal-Life, by means of one another they acquire for one another, and they are a mirror of one another. And just as they both perceived each other by the Mixing of both of them together, so also by means of death they both forget each other.

Why did the Soul put on the Body?

If the Soul has Thought without the Body, has it need also? And if motion and action exist, it is likewise not in need of the Body. And if it is not in need (of it), how was it compelled |cvi to clothe itself with the Body? And if it clothed itself (with the Body) because it was compelled, it (i.e., the Soul) awaits it (i.e., the Body) in the Resurrection so that in both worlds it (i.e., the Body) may be to it (i.e., the Soul) a brother and a servant and a companion.

But if it has a Soul of its Nature (?) why is it dependent upon an alien (Body)? And if it pleased the Animal-Life to put on the Coat of Skin, over whom is its skin (laid), since its skin is related to skin? How pleasing it was to the subtle Nature of the Soul to put on the gross Coat of the vile Body! But it was vile according to their account. But it was [P. 155.] not vile because the Soul praises him who clothed it with the rational covering of intelligent Senses in order that one might regulate the other by Knowledge.

And what can give it that alien Sense which is mixed in it, seeing that, as they say, it is an alien nature? And if it is alien it is opposed to it. But, if he had given it blindness (?) and not sight he would then be depriving it of sight.

The Body ignores the Shadow: why is the Soul so intimate with the ' vile ' Body?

For the Body has a Shadow; as a despised thing it... it, it does not call it (i.e.. the Shadow) into its good things nor bring it into its evil things. But what has happened to the Soul [that it made the Body its companion, and makes it such an intimate...?]

And even the dream which it (i.e., the Soul) sees apart from [L. 33.] it (i.e., the Body) when it (i.e., the Body) is asleep, when it awakens and... [the Soul requires the Body to tell of the dream it has seen; the dream really comes from both of them], [L. 43.] The dream, therefore, which it sees apart from the Body the Soul does not (really) see apart from it; by it (i.e., the Body) and with it and in the midst of it and in... [the Soul has its dream] [P. 156, l. 6.]... [they depend upon each other, in slumber and in sleep they are not separated from one another] since they [L. 12.] are mingled with each other. But in death... they are separated, and... from one another—as they were mixed together [in hope... on their Resurrection—since they have their Resurrection as a dream so that just as after their sleep Recollection (?) comes to both, so after death....] |cvii

(And when) the Body has slumbered the Soul forgets that it is in its... when... it sees [gold], and yet it is not [L. 28.] gold, it sees silver, and yet it is not silver, it does not know itself where it goes astray... with its (i.e., the Body's) senses, [L. 34.] and it becomes like the pure (ideal form) (?) which he left behind...

[And above (in the other world) if its companion left it when rational and went to sleep, it lost all its memory,—when it entered the Body and was clothed with the senses, then it gained perception, and it sees even in a dream because it has the Body; but it loses its senses in death. Nor does that thing left behind (SHARKANA) [P. 157 l.2.] come to it. For if sleep deprived the SHARKANA of all its memory, would not death... as it is simple too. How did the Soul enter the Body and put on its grossness... For it is correctly clear that the Body does not help the Soul's going up, [Ll. 27, 28.] which he ascribes to it, nor does it receive from it its going up, which he proclaims... What then can be the cause of the Soul's coming down from the House of Light, so that it is born into the gross body?]

But as for the Soul... of its house perturbs it, as they [L. 33.] say, and all its search (?) belongs to blasphemy, and all its fullness belongs to deficiency, for "the pure Soul came into the turbid Body, so that though it was a thing which was not deficient it gained through it (i.e., the Body) very great deficiency." [P. 158.]

Difficulties in the Teaching about the Soul's pre-existence and its entrance into the Body.

For if the Soul came from a Place, as they say, who know not what they say, how and why is it not able to return to its natural Place? For if it was sent forth when a child⁴ it was here that it received Understanding, and that Place which was deprived of Intelligence was abandoned (?) by it. And if when it was possessed of Knowledge it was conducted (on its way) how did it leave Understanding behind? And if the Body perturbed it and (so) it forgot, as long as it is (associated) with the Body it is forgetful.

And if it is forgetful how do the false (Teachers) teach it to |cviii remember anything that it has forgotten? It actually lost its Knowledge and a borrowed Voice teaches it (again), it lost all its Understanding, and a Buzzing (sound) in the ear makes it remember! And how does the Body not perturb that Voice which teaches it, seeing that it stands between two Bodies, (namely), between the speaker and the hearer; for it goes out of the mouth of the Body and enters the ear of the Body. And if the feeble voice of the teaching is not drowned in (passing [P. 159.] through) the innumerable ears of the Hearers, that is to say, is not confused so as to proclaim Error instead of Truth.— for, as they suppose, they proclaim Truth to their Hearers,—how much more, therefore, would the Soul which is stronger than words be able to purify the Body in which it dwells, if it (dwells) in it without uncleanness! For, moreover, one Soul has no need of another Soul to learn or to teach. For as wild beasts are not dependent on one another because that animal-life is part of their nature, so one (Soul) is not dependent upon another in (the matter of) Knowledge, because their essential Knowledge is the same, if, as they say, the Essence of all the Souls is one. But if their Knowledge is not one their Essence is not one.

All teachers being clothed with Bodies their teaching must have the nature of the Body's Root.

But in all refutations the same Truth conquers, and is crowned, in that if the Soul is conquered by the Body, much more would teaching fail (given) through the ear. And if teaching does not fail, much more does the Soul not fail. 0 let not, therefore, the heretics teach, for teaching is futile. (?) For if the teacher does not err, how does the teaching err, seeing that they are both clothed with Bodies? And if teacher and teaching are from one Root and both are covered with the [P. 160, l. 5.] flesh, how is one bitter and another pleasant, (how does) one go astray, and another teach, one wander and another guide? And if their Root is pleasant and (yet) their perturbation is bitter, either they are bitter like the Body or pleasant like the good (Root), or they are all [bitter, and one of them is not sweet] [L. 21.]... or one of them does not remember. For how does he escape who escapes, and what is the cause that he (finds release) if they are all from one family, and from an Entity....?

How can diverse Souls come from a single Root?

[L. 29.] And how is it a single Existence when there is from it one |cix good and another (evil). If there is Recollection in all the Root, then there is [no] Error in all the Essence. And as for the Sons of this Essence how does one fail and another conquer?—their Essence is not the same. For how does he err who errs, and his companion who is with him not err if his nature is akin (to the nature of the other)? If they are from [the same] nature, in the contest they are companions. And if on account of this Body with which he is clothed, he goes [P. 101, l.21.] astray and... then how does his teacher who is clothed with the Body [not] go astray like him? And if the teacher... [in spite of the body] is able to teach... he shows concerning his Soul that he exists from its power.... For he knows that if he taught like his companion, he would be abased. And how does he teach us.... that Evil is not the same since [L. 20.] from it comes one who is fierce also... in its part which is fierce (and) in the part which... it conquers.

The pre-existent Soul and its Place.

How do the false (Teachers) teach Abodes and Places? And the Places are fashioned in their (?) minds, and are not seen (?). If the Soul has come from a Place, how did it forget its Place? But if the Body perturbed it, and it forgot its permanent Place in which it dwelt, how... And the Body [L. 39.] does not perturb the images (?) of the mind....

* * * * * * *

The Teaching about a continuous Going up of Souls leaves those remaining behind to be overwhelmed by Evil.

But if a quantity of wine intoxicates and leads astray, [P. 102, l.18.] how (much more) will a quantity of Error intoxicate and lead astray! But if, as they say, the number of Souls constantly becomes less from day to day because they are 'refined and go up,' how are those Souls that are left behind able to conquer seeing that they are left [in the midst of a quantity of Evil which they are not able to conquer?] Why [do they not all join forces against the Evil?] Is it not clear to the blind, that when a king goes to fight a fierce battle with a numerous force... [he unites his force with] other forces....? [Though] therefore kings wisely add... to their forces, in this battle which, as they say, is fiercer than these battles of ours, [P. 163, l.7.] see how the number of the Souls grows foolishly less!

The right method for separating Good and Evil.

But consider how foolish is the wisdom of the Teaching, nor do they know how to hide their falsehood. But how is |cx Falsehood able to hide from the face of Truth? For instead of that which they assert, (namely), "lo, the Good is refined, and goes up," it would be right that the Evil should consume away and be removed little by little and cast into another place. For in this way there would have been advantage to both sides. For that Evil which was removed hence (?) would not be able to conquer on account of its defeat, and that Evil which was left behind could have been easily conquered on account of its smallness. For in proportion as the Particles of the Evil were plucked up from day to day and removed, so the Particles of the Good would have been strengthened from hour to hour, and would have conquered.

Instead of a Separation by a bad plan, the Evil Constituent could have been lessened by increasing the Good Constituent.

But instead of these two desirable things which I have just mentioned, lo, on the contrary two hateful things are done. For the Good Particles which have been refined are tormented and then they escape, and the Parts which remain, see, they are tormented and are unable to escape. For their smallness is swallowed up in the abundance of the Evil. As for those, therefore, who say that Evil and Good are mixed together, and that these Constituents conquer, and are conquered, it is not right for them to weaken the Evil by Laws and Commandments. [P. 164, l. 21.] For in this way the Evil is not weakened. But they should make for themselves measures and weights, and wherever they see that the evil Constituent is great in a man, let them rather pour into him two measures of Good in order that the Constituent may outweigh the other. For thus experience in mixings teaches. For cold things are mixed in hot things in order that the heat may be mixed (?) and that they may not be... [And when the heat has been [L. 37.] lessened it cannot] turn [again to its fierceness]....

How the Good is overwhelmed.

[It must be] therefore, that, as they say that the Souls are 'refined and go up' (so also) the Evil... [gains power] because the numerous Parts of the Good are 'refined and go [P. 165, l. 20.] up.'... to those Parts which are left behind... How are they able to conquer? For behold the Foulness of all these their companions which have been refined has been added to them. [P. 32.] And what mouth ventures to say that these Souls [can escape from the Evil].... But what mouth ventures to say that these |cxi Souls.... And what mouth ventures to say and to fabricate the Teaching....

* * * * * * *

Concerning the relative strength of Good and Evil when mixed.

So that it was swallowed up in "the bitter Sea." But [P. 166, 19.] easily does the Falsehood lie which the Truth easily exposes. But if the false (Teachers) prepare again for themselves other escapes, again other bonds are prepared for them. For even if that Darkness is great in that it covers all places yet the Light is greater than it, in that it drives it from every place. But that thou mayest know that when a great quantity of the Good is mixed with Evil, then the Evil is able to conquer, let us ask them again, why of all these Particles that are mixed at present with the Evil, one drop only was not mixed with the Evil from the beginning? [P. 167.]

If they say that even one Part of all these Parts which are mixed at present would be able to conquer the Evil, how is the majority of the Parts conquered by the Evil? But if they say that the sole purpose for which the Good was mingled (with the Evil) is that it (i.e., the Good) may overcome the great quantity of the Evil, they confess, though they do not wish to do so, that when that good Constituent preponderates in its quantity then the fierceness of the Evil is conquered. Easily, therefore, does every Teaching fail which says that the Good is refined and goes up from the Evil. For addition would be necessary, and the Good would be added in order that by the quantity of the Good the fierceness of the Evil might be lessened.

If all Souls are from one source how do they manifest such diverse tendencies? Is their Source divided against itself?

But let Error be scourged by the inquiries of Truth in order that its disciples also may be confounded when they are convicted (and made to see) how greatly they err. For if, as they say, all the Souls are from one Nature, and their Nature is pure and beautiful, how can there be found in them two tendencies which are divided against one another? For there are among the Souls some who err and some who do not err; some who sin, and some who are pronounced righteous; [P. 168.] some who love the Good, and some who hate it. Let them tell us, therefore, what is the cause of this division that the Souls are thus divided against one another so that they are |cxii quite unlike, nor do they agree with the source from which they came. If their Essence is not like its Nature it is found that their source is divided against itself. And lo, in virtue of what it is, a great Evil dwells in it, and the perturbation in it cannot be purged away because it is an Essence of which, in virtue of what it is, the Foulness cannot be refined. Why then, O Mani, did not the Souls come from this Good Part to wage war with the Darkness, since before the war they had had a great war in their own Domain, inasmuch as their Essence was divided against itself?

The Souls, moreover, do not continue in Goodness.

And even of these pure Souls (it must be said that) their nature is not pure continually. But it happens even to these that they sometimes... [are pure and] sometimes they sin. And it is found that even in the case of this source the tendency of its nature does not always abide in it, inasmuch as its fruits are bitter and sweet.

Can Freewill change its Essence.

And if they say that the Souls have Freewill, then how is their Freewill found to blaspheme against their Essence? And how also is their Will capable of being divided against their Root? [P. 169, l. 11.] And how is one Entity able to be the opposite of itself?... [L. 17.] And see that when half of it has a contest with its (other) [L. 26.] half... for its divided Will... with its Essence, nor is all of [L. 39.] it tasted.... How much more does it give evidence that in the divided fruit which comes from it, its self-contradictory character is indicated! For if that Root is homogeneous, and its Parts homogeneous, how does the Freewill which comes from it bring reproach by its fruits upon the [Father] of Souls?

The Good Will could not be affected by Satan.

[P. 170, l. 5.] And if they say that the Souls have this Freewill, and this Freewill is from the Pure One, and by the craft of Satan, this Freewill goes astray... and how was their wise Will taught... their former Freewill perished, and [they obtained] another [L. 37.] Freewill instead of the Freewill, and a Will.... (How is it possible) to persuade this Will which is not capable of being persuaded? But if the separation of (these) things occurred through force, and the Evil returned to its Root, and its Will also returned with it, and the Good also went to its Nature and its |cxiii Freewill was drawn away with it, while this cleansing is [P. 171.] thought to be a good thing, it is afterwards brought to nought. For there is no true foundation among the false (Teachers), and on this account the thing which is built up with trouble afterwards collapses without trouble. For, lo, it is the [opinion] of the false. (Teachers) that through their Will they always and for ever forget. (?) And how does the good Will which is mixed in them not remind them? And it was not enough that it did not remind them at all, but the reminder itself forgot along with them. And, again, how are there others who did not forget, and the Will of Error was not able to make them forget? And if these who forgot forgot because of the Body with which they were clothed, lo, these also who did not forget were clothed with the flesh.

Why did the Soul not resist Satan? Samson resisted his enemies. But the Soul is not only subdued but actually reviles its Father.

And that thou mayest know that the Will of the Soul is always hateful, seeing that Freewill exists by virtue of its own nature, though it be not good; for Satan did not at all 'intoxicate' the Souls by means of the Foulness of his force in order that the Soul might not know when it does Evil that these things are evil. Even if it had been so it is (worthy [P. 172.] of) great blame, that, just as a thing which comes from the Pure One has a nature which may err and cause to err, and Satan mocks it as one mocks a drunkard,—and surely it was he who intoxicated the Soul and mocked it,—the Soul did not intoxicate him by its breath so that it might mock him. And as for those who as enemies were mocking at Samson (saying), Was he a Nazarite of God, seeing that all uncleanness mocked him, (was he) a strong man, seeing that a woman brought him low, and mocked at the hair of his head? the mockers of Samson were mocked; for a just inquiry mocks them, when it demands, and seeks to know how this Soul which proceeds from the Good, and this holy being which proceeds from the Pure, and this wise being which proceeds from the Knowing, and this chaste being which proceeds from the Venerable, how did the Evil One intoxicate it (i.e., the Soul), by means of his Foulness, and all this (Evil) mock it, and put |cxiv to shame its chastity and render contemptible its venerability and cause its wisdom to err, and defile its purity? And what is more than all else (is the fact) that he made a disciple of it and taught it to insult God, whom they call the Father of Souls; and Samson was so far from [P. 173.] blasphemy that he actually prayed to God. But the pure Soul though it comes from God (reviles) as they say... [L. 8.] and it is found... when it blesses God and curses its Root and reviles God its Father....

[Ll. 17, 19] And what force (constrained them)... (they) rebel against him and become his enemies. Neither have all those Souls come thence to whom this has happened here, for they proceeded from their Father in order that they might not come (hither) and go astray from him and blaspheme against him. And if from the time when they came hither they went astray here, perhaps there would be an excuse before they came, because anything which is from the place of God....

* * * * * * *

[P. 174, l. 29.] So that he restrained from blasphemy those who remained beside him, and gives victory to those who are sent from him. And he (i.e., the Good Being) would have shown his foreknowledge as one who knows all.

Concerning the Soul's foreknowledge of its rebellion and what it would indicate.

But if those Souls who came and rebelled, came also thence, they would know before they came that when they " came they would rebel against him. And they did not only rebel from the time when they came here, but also when they were there beside him they are found to have been rebellious against him, inasmuch as they possessed a rebellious knowledge. For one of two things is necessary, either that they [P. 175, l. 8.] knew or that they did not know. If they knew, then they would be disloyal to him, and if they did not know then on the other hand, they would have been in Error there before they came (hither), and there was always room for disloyalty and error in him; and he could not be at rest from strife even when the Enemy outside of him did not molest him. For if his enemies injure him because they are disloyal to him, then it is a division inside of him which is able to |cxv contend with him. And if he was not disloyal to himself, how are the Souls which come from him disloyal to him?

A Refutatory Summary.

And who will [stop up] this (gushing) spring of questionings, seeing that the things which have been said are many, and those which stand are not a few? And in proportion as one contradicts this false Teaching it is found that failures are crowded in the whole of it, and, therefore, that according to their saying, their Teacher was drunk in very truth. For he fights as a drunkard who falls wherever he turns himself. [P. 176.] But for a space let us submit and accept from them the thing which the Truth cannot accept. For we will make them think that they have come to conquer in order that they may allow themselves to be justly defeated.

If the Evil One intoxicated the Souls, they must have had kinship with the intoxicating thing.

For suppose that the Evil One really intoxicated the Souls who went astray, is it not clear then that the thing which intoxicates our nature is akin to our nature, neither can our nature be greedily captivated and become intoxicated by means of anything except because it pleases it exceedingly? For excess in drinking proves to us the pleasantness of wine, for because it is very pleasant it has been drunk in great quantities, and because he mixed much drink the drinker became much perturbed in mind. For if we are given wine to drink, or strong liquor, or anything which is pleasant to us, it intoxicates us. Likewise, too, the Evil One, and Satan intoxicates the Soul by means of those things which are pleasant to the Soul, that is to say, by falsehood and by pride, and by arrogance, together with all hateful things. And how were things which are foreign to its nature acceptable to the Soul? For if drunkards are captivated by means of wine [P. 177.] which is akin to our nature, the Souls would not be captivated by something which is the opposite of their nature. And if we receive drugs which are fiercely opposed to our nature in (a time of) great necessity, since there is a benefit for our pains in them, how is the Soul pleased with the wicked pleasurable (things) by means of which it is assuredly made sick?

The Evil One did not intoxicate the Soul; for it still remembers the Commandments, though it breaks them.

And those things which intoxicate us also take away our memory, so that the drunken ones who go astray are. not blamed; for they do not know that they are assuredly going |cxvi astray. But the Evil One who makes the Soul drunk with the pleasurable (things), cannot take from it the Recollection of the Commandments and Laws. For consider those who do the Commandment when they know the Commandment, and those who rebel against the Law (and) who are acquainted with the Law; not from lack of knowledge do Souls sin, but on account [L. 30.] of the arrogance, either of their Nature, as the false Teachers say, or of their Freewill as the true ones teach. For, though they know what righteousness is, they do evil; and though [P. 178.] they know uprightness, they commit follies; and though they know the truth, they become denied; and though they are aware of purity, they are made impure; and though an evil name is hateful to them, they take pleasure in the work of the Evil One; and though they confess the Good One, they are far from Good works. How, therefore, did the Evil One make them drunk as they say, seeing that they exist in all this perception? And if they did not know then they would not be blameworthy; but it is a very bad thing that, though they know they do not do, and though they are aware they do not practise.

The Soul and the works of Darkness.

And how do the Evil (Souls), who are not wont to learn, learn to do wisely, and how are the Good (Souls), who are wise by their knowledge, found to be unskilful in practice? For the Soul is untrained in that which concerns it, and its Adversary (?) is very cunning, for even... he compels men, for this Soul which they call 'Light,' when it practises the deeds of shame, goes into the Darkness in order to sin. And how did it turn its face from the Light its kinsman, and in Darkness perform the deeds of Darkness?

Why did not the Luminaries bring weapons to the Souls in their struggle?

And see the Sun in their blindness they actually worship it, and the Moon—such is their madness—they greatly magnify and call it "the Ship of Light which—as they say—bears away the burden of their Refinings to the House of Life," and these Shining Ones who bear burdens, did they not bear (and) bring victorious weapons to the Souls which failed in the war... [who failed because they were weak, and not because] [P. 179, l. 12.] their Will did not wish to conquer? |cxvii

The Soul not intoxicated or led captive by Satan. If the Soul is strong enough to revile Satan with words, its Freewill is strong enough to resist him.

But if they are so weak in their Nature their Nature is put to shame. And if they go astray by their knowledge they [discredit] their Root. And if... by their Will they are able to conquer... who say concerning the Soul that it became drunk, and was compelled since... (Satan) made it drunk by force.... But if the Soul is stronger than Satan seeing that when it practises Evil it verily denies Evil and [reviles] Satan.... Satan did not lead and carry it captive by force... [for [P. 179, l.26.] captives are not accustomed] to revile the king who takes them captive, and servants are afraid of their lords and disciples of their teachers. But how is the Soul not afraid to [rebuke [P. 180.] its master?], and lo, it is a bitter lodger (?) when it [stays] with him in his (?) beloved house. For the Body, as they say, is his (?) House, and... house of the Evil One. If the Evil One... [is master of his own house, how does he allow the Soul] to revile him? In the controversy of the true furnace this cannot stand. For he would not give it room (?) to [revile] him with words.... But if the Soul is stronger than he by its Freewill, as it is also stronger than he by its words and.... For it is found that it is the cause of Evil....

Freewill is 'independent' and does not come from a bound Element.

But if Freewill has the character of a 'bound Nature,'.... [how are there in] it sentiments which are unlike one another? And it is found that there are not two Entities which contend with one another, as Mani says, because they are Wills of one Existence... [For how do Entities contend with one another?]... but that which was created from nothing. And when it is changed from one thing to another thing? For an independent Will it (i.e., Freedom) has not, because it is bound in something from which it has come. For if it was (created) from an Entity... the Freedom of the Soul... [P. 181, l.13.] [depends] upon [the Entities].

And if they are good it is good just as if they are evil it is evil. And if the Entities are good or evil it is like them. And of necessity Freewill such as this is not at all Freewill, but a shadow either of the Entities or of 'bound Natures,' so that wherever they turn it (i.e., Freewill) turns with them in like manner. But that Freewill which was created from nothing |cxviii is not bound up with that nothing, because it does not even exist. And on this account it is not turned as a 'bound Shadow,' but it is changed as an independent Freewill.

But let us refute them a little, for whose correction even [P. 182.] much refutation is too little. Because the Souls come from something, as they say, it is found that their Freewill also is bound up with something, and it is not found that they are either pleasing or hateful, but if this true Root is pleasing they are mingled with it. But if they say that while the fountain is pure its Will is perturbed on account of its free Nature, then without Evil and Satan, in virtue of what it is, Freewill is able by its own power to produce many evils. And they acknowledge the truth unwillingly that Freewill has power to change its Wishes, since its Wishes are not bound up with a good or evil Essence. For if it is bound up with a good Nature or an evil Root, its wishes have no (free) power, but they are pipes in which Bitterness and Sweetness move along from the Roots with which it is bound up.

Souls are not conditioned by the nature of the Bodies in which they dwell.

But if they say that there are Bodies which are more evil than other Bodies, and Corporeal Frames which are fouler than others,—because (some) Bodies are fiercer than others, such Souls as chance upon perturbed Bodies are more perturbed than others who happen to come into gentle Bodies. But where they think that they have conquered there are they all the more taken captive. For if because of the Evil which [P. 183,l. 6.] was great in those Bodies, on that account the Souls that are in them make themselves exceedingly hateful, that is the [Cf. p. cvii.ff] argument which we mentioned above, (namely), that the Souls cannot remember, "because the Pollution of Error is (too) great for them, unless sweet Floods have come from their Home a second time, and lessened the Bitterness in which they were dwelling," or else (it must be) that the Souls who have been 'refined, and have gone up,' descend again that they may come to rescue their companions who have been overwhelmed so that they all may rescue all and go peacefully to their Domain; so that as all came to the struggle (together)... (so) they might go up from the struggle (together), and not be separated from one another. |cxix

Why then are Bodies not uniformly evil?

And lo, again [another word], how is it that since that Evil is a single Essence it does not agree with itself? For the part which is not evil like its companions is better than its companions.

Refutatory Summary and Conclusion.

For the Teaching which is fabricated by means of Error is [P. 184,l.3.] wont to be destroyed by itself. For they blaspheme against God, although He is their Maker; they blaspheme against the Body, although it is their Body; they blaspheme against marriage, although it is their Root; they blaspheme against... though... therefore... and who fast according to [P. 184, l. 19.] Error since (their words are) against the True One (?) who says that 'ye shall know them by their fruits'... [meaning thereby] [S. Matt, vii. 20.] that from their words ye shall recognize them. For their works are like our works as their fast is like our fast, but their faith is not like our Faith. And, therefore, rather than being known by the fruit of their works they are distinguished by the fruit of their words. For their work is able to lead astray and (yet) appear as fine, for its bitterness is invisible; but their words cannot lead astray, for their blasphemies are evident. And just as he who worships idols does not worship wood or [P. 185.] stone, but devils, so he who prays with the Manichaeans prays with Satan, and he who prays with the Marcionites (?) prays with Legion, and he who (prays) with the followers of Bardaisan (?) (prays) with Beelzebub, and he who (prays) with the Jews (prays) with Barabbas, the robber.

THE END OF WRITING THE FIVE DISCOURSES TO HYPATIUS AGAINST FALSE DOCTRINES.

[Syriac text omitted]

Text and Translation Society

Volumes already issued.

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE SELECT LETTERS OF SEVERUS, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis. Edited and Translated by E. W. BROOKS, M.A. Vol. I. Text, Parts I. and II. Vol.II. Translation, Parts I. and II.

THE CANONS OF ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, in Arabic and Coptic. Edited and Translated by Prof. W. RIEDEL (Griefswald) and W. E. CRUM.

A RABBINIC COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB, contained in a Unique MS. at Cambridge. Edited by W. ALDIS WRIGHT, with English. Translation by Dr. S. A. HIRSCH.

AN ANCIENT ARMENIAN VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE OF S. JOHN; also THE ARMENIAN TEXTS OF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA SCHOLIA DE INCARNATIONE, and EPISTLE TO THEODOSIUS UPON EASTER, the former incompletely preserved in Greek, the latter unknown in Greek or Latin. All Edited with English Versions, etc., by F. C. CONYBEARE, formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford.

THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR FRAGMENTS OF CHRONICLES, EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, AND OF THE NON-PESHITTO EPISTLES. Edited with full critical apparatus, etc., by Prof. GWYNN.

THE COPTIC (BOHAIRIC) TEXT OF THE MARTYRDOM OF ST. THEODORE "STRATELATES," from the Vatican MS., together with certain other Coptic texts. Edited by Mr. E. O. WINSTEDT, B.Litt.

Text and Translation Society

PUBLICATIONS (continued)

S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS OF MANI, MARCION, and BARDAISAN. Vol. I., The Discourses to Hypatius, ready. Vol. II., The Book of Domnus, in the Press. Vol. III., in Preparation. Edited and translated by the Rev. C. W. MITCHELL, M.A.

In Preparation

A TRANSLATION (the first in English) OF THE HOMILIES of APHRAATES. By H. L. PASS, M.A.

AN EDITION OF THE "BOOK OF HIEROTHEUS" OF BAR SUDAILI. By the Rev. A. S. DUNCAN JONES, M.A., and others.

AN ARABIC WORK BY ABU'L-HASSAN OF TYRE, ON SAMARITAN BELIEF AND PRACTICE. Edited by Dr. COWLEY and Prof. HOGG.

---------------------

PUBLISHED FOR THE SOCIETY BY

MESSRS. WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14 HENRIETTA STREET, W.C.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ Or perhaps "make them distant," see note (a), p. 138.

2. ¹ I.e., Had placed the Entities one below the other.

3. ² Cf. p. lxiii. l. 6.

4. ³ There seems to be an allusion here to the opening lines of the Hymn of the Soul; see 'Texts and Studies,' Vol. V, part 3.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, nd October 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _0_intro.htm

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Introduction

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Introduction

Text and translation Society

-------------

President

PROFESSOR F. C. BURKITT, CAMBRIDGE.

Vice-President

Mr. NORMAN MCLEAN, University Lecturer in Aramaic, Cambridge.

hon. Treasurer

Dr. A. COWLEY, Bodley's Librarian, Oxford.

Committee

The Rev. Professor W. E. BARNES, Cambridge.

Dr. J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, Joint Editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Mr. F. C. CONYBEARE, formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford.

Dr. S. A. COOK, Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Mr. A. G. ELLIS, India Office.

The Very Rev. J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, Dean of Wells.

Mr. J. F. STENNING, Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.

hon. Secretary

Miss CARTHEW, 6, Albert Place, Kensington, London, W.

THE REV. CHARLES WAND MITCHELL, M.A., C.F.

S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS

OF MANI, MARCION, AND BARDAISAN

TRANSCRIBED FROM THE PALIMPSEST B.M. ADD. 14623

BY THE LATE

C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F.

FORMERLY RESEARCH STUDENT EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

AND COMPLETED BY

A. A. BEVAN

AND

F. C. BURKITT

VOLUME II

THE DISCOURSE CALLED 'OF DOMNUS' AND SIX OTHER WRITINGS

PUBLISHED FOR THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY

BY

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE

14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON,

AND 7, BROAD STREET, OXFORD

1921

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

BY

WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.

PREFACE.

THE present Volume is the continuation and completion of that published in 1912 for the Text and Translation Society by the late C. W. Mitchell. After Mr. Mitchell's death at the Front ( rd May, 1917), the various papers and proof-sheets belonging to this work were placed in the hands of Prof. A. A. Bevan and of the present writer, then away in France. On a survey of the material it appeared that about half the Syriac text (pp. 1-128) had been passed for press and printed off; a good deal of the remainder was in type, but only partly corrected, and some was still only in MS. About half the translation was made, but still needing revision. Professor Bevan and I have therefore completed the text and the translation, and I have verified the Syriac, as far as my eyes would go, with the Palimpsest in the British Museum. We have further compiled a list of passages where corrections were necessary, both in the former Volume and in the earlier part of this.

I should have wished that at least part of the Introductory Essay might have been Mr. Mitchell's work, but the only thing of the sort among his papers was a rough draft of an Introduction, written before Volume I. was published, when what he had deciphered from the Palimpsest was a mere collection of detached fragments, not a continuous text. This being the case, no other course was open to me but to write a wholly new chapter, explanatory of the documents here edited.

CHARLES WAND MITCHELL, son of Mr. Robert Mitchell, Maple Braes, Lennoxville, Quebec, was born April 9, 1878. He was educated first at the little country school near his home, then at the Lennoxville Academy; he then had a distinguished career at Bishop's College University, Lennoxville, ending as a Lecturer in 1901. He came up to Cambridge in 1902 as an Advanced Student, passing the required standard in the Theological Tripos in 1903 and the Oriental Languages Tripos (Hebrew and Aramaic) in 1904. He must have worked hard and been well trained in |iv Canada, for in 1903 his knowledge and power of expression was much above that of the average student, and it was no surprise to those who had seen his work to hear that he gained the Tyrwhitt University Scholarship (Hebrew) in 1903, and the Jeremie Prize (Septuagint, etc.) in 1904.¹

In the following year (1905) Mitchell was appointed Hebrew Master at Merchant Taylors' School, London, a post which he held till he went out to the Front as a Chaplain. He was ordained in 1907, and took his M.A. in 1912.

The very sympathetic notices that appeared in various papers and periodicals at the time of Mitchell's death speak of his varied interests in Merchant Taylors' School, in the parish work of S. Thomas, Telford Park, Streatham Hill, with which he was connected, and of his admirable devotion as an Army Chaplain in the most acute form of Active Service. It is right here, however, to give the chief place to his services to Oriental scholarship, by which indeed he will be permanently remembered.

A full though characteristically modest account of his work of decipherment will be found in the Preface to Volume I. Mitchell had begun before he left Cambridge to work at the portion of S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations, which had been published by Overbeck in 1865, but never translated into English; ² his new post at Merchant Taylors' School allowed him leisure and also easy access to the British Museum, where the MS. of the Refutations has its home. This MS., which in its original state must have been a very handsome book, now survives in two parts, very differently preserved. The first 19 leaves (i.e. two quires) are very much in their original condition; they are as legible to-day as when they were written some 1400 years ago, and any one who knows the Syriac alphabet and the ordinary rules of Syriac grammar can transcribe them. This is the portion published long ago by Overbeck (B.M. Add. 14574). The remaining 88 leaves (i.e. nine quires), or very nearly five-sixths of the whole, were turned into a Palimpsest in 823 A.D.; that is to say, the quires were unbound, the sheets of vellum washed, so that the writing was effaced, and then when covered with fresh writing the leaves were bound up into a new volume (B.M. Add. 14623), the new order of the leaves being of course |v quite different from the old. These operations were very thoroughly carried out. It is difficult entirely to eradicate older writing in this way, but the excellent facsimiles given in Vol. I. will shew the reader that the MS. has a most discouraging appearance to any one who sets out to read the older text. I myself had spent some time over it twenty years ago, and did not feel inclined to go on.³ It was Mitchell's great merit that he had the courage to go on. He began to copy out what he found legible, and gradually the new fragments amounted to a considerable body of text, which he began to print.

In 1908 the work of printing was stopped by what he describes as 'a fortunate turn of events,' i.e. by the decision of Dr. Barnett, keeper of Oriental manuscripts in the British Museum, to apply a reagent to the illegible portions of the palimpsest. The happy result is described in Mitchell's preface. What however is not to be found there is a statement of the fact that it was Mitchell's patience and perseverance in transcribing so much of the faded writing that moved the authorities of the British Museum to relax their usual rules.

It is not to be supposed that even after the reagent has been applied it is an easy matter to make out the older writing of B.M. Add. 14623. It is hard enough to verify what has been correctly deciphered, and doubly difficult to make out the text for the first time. To do it needs patience, determination, a good knowledge of Syriac idiom and of Ephraim's style, and specially good and trained eyesight. All these Mitchell had, with the result that he was able to transcribe whole columns of text that at first sight seem absolutely invisible. He made mistakes now and then, of course, but the general correctness of his decipherments has been attested by the discovery in other MSS. of short extracts from the Refutations.⁴

The text of these Refutations, which shed such a flood of light upon religious and philosophical thought in the Euphrates Valley sixteen centuries ago, will always be connected with the name of C. W. Mitchell, but his interests and activities were in no way confined to the past. He was a man of fine physique, and an enthusiastic teacher and leader of boys and young men. And he never forgot that he was a Canadian. When the first Canadian contingent came over and landed at Plymouth he felt it impossible that they should be in the post of danger and he stay behind in England, and in 1915 he became a Chaplain to the Forces, first |vi at Shorncliffe, then with Bishop Gwynne during the winter of 1915-16 at General Head Quarters, and finally, as he wished, he went to the Front as Chaplain to the th Battalion East Yorks.

I have written, at length about Mitchell's services to Oriental and Patristic literature, because this is the place to do so and because his permanent fame will be connected with that side of his activity. But I have no doubt, if testimony be worth anything in human affairs, that it was as a Padre in the very Front Line that he found the life that was most congenial to his whole being. "One sees here," he wrote to me from France (28 Feb., 1916), "another palimpsest: and ancient features in town and countryside are disappearing beyond all the subtleties of chemistry to restore." Yet he was still more concerned about his men. "He was always up near the men," wrote Col. de la Perelle, his Commanding Officer, himself a Canadian, "nothing on earth could keep him away;" and it was while he was helping the doctor to bandage the wounded near the firing, line that he was fatally wounded near Monchy, on May 3, 1917.

It is impossible not to regret that one who had so many and such varied gifts of service and encouragement for his fellow-countrymen should have had his career cut short so early. But this at any rate may be said of C. W. Mitchell, that it was given to him to exhibit the example of a life of singular consistency, devoted to the highest ideals that he saw before him. His decipherment of S. Ephraim's Refutations is a permanent contribution to Syriac literature and to the understanding of ancient religious ideas, and when in the future scholars ask what manner of man it was that made this contribution to our knowledge of the distant Past, they will learn that it was one who felt he could not give real help and real encouragement to men in danger and discomfort without himself sharing in the danger and discomfort to which they were exposed, and who met an early death because he did share in the dangers of these others.

He lies buried outside Arras, near the Amiens Gate.

" A good life hath but few days:

But a good name endureth for ever." ⁵

F. C. BURKITT.

ST. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS

VOLUME II

1. * As an "Advanced Student" under the then regulations Mitchell's name does not appear in the regular Class List, but merely as having attained the required standard.

2. + A not very satisfactory German translation is given in K. Kessler's Mani (Berlin, 1889).

3. * My results were published in S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel (Texts and Studies vii 2), Cambridge, 1901, pp. 73, 74.

4. + See p. cxii.

5. * Ecclus. xli 13.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 10th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _1_bardesan.htm

Against Bardaisan's "Domnus": S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921) pp. i-xxii

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921) pp. i-xxii

AGAINST BARDAISAN'S "DOMNUS."

A DISCOURSE MADE BY THE BLESSED SAINT [P. 1] EPHRAIM AGAINST THE DISCOURSE WHICH IS CALLED "OF DOMNUS," WHICH WAS COMPOSED BY BARDAISAN AGAINST THE PLATONISTS.

KNOW, O my beloved, that in (?) everything it is right for us to know the (just) Measure of everything. For by this knowledge all [advantages] are found, just as... all injuries are produced by all arrogance. For whenever we know how to approach anything by measure there is nothing that is able to hurt us. For even those hurtful things are not able to hurt us as long as we approach them by measure.

But that thou mayest know how great is the victory of correct measure, see that nowhere does it put us in the wrong; for even in the case of fire, though it is a harmful thing, when our bodies [P. 2.] approach it by measure an advantage is produced for us out of its harmfulness. And if without measure starving men make use of food death is produced for them out of its (i.e. the food's) vital force. O correct measure, which produces out of hurtful things advantages for those who may be hurt!

For as heavy burdens teach weakness to excuse itself from (lifting) any weight which it is unable to bear, so it would be right also for an uninstructed imagination to refrain from an investigation in which it is unable to speak convincingly. For some have been found who are wise in something or other, but |ii have come near to be detected ¹ in directions where they themselves are not wise. For their boldness has made them think that because they are wise in one direction, so also they are wise in all directions.

But any craftsman who makes a promise about any craft which has. not been learnt by him is reproved when he approaches the work which belongs to that craft. But if a craft is able to [P.3] reprove him who does not know how to deal with it, investigation is not too feeble to reprove also by its silence the ignorant man who desires to approach it (i.e. investigation) as one who knows. For wise men, perfect and righteous, have humbled themselves that they might be as though they were ignorant men even in that which they knew—not that they wished to destroy their knowledge, but that by making themselves needy the Fulness which is enough to fill up all our needs might incline towards them. If therefore such just men as knew were not arrogant, how shall we sinful ones be arrogant in such matters as we do not know? For whoever comes forward humbly as a learner, that humility of his places him under the weakness of confessing that he does not know; but whoever comes forward with arrogance as one who knows, he is one who has exalted himself above (the limit of) moderation, because arrogance knows not how to be subject to moderation. For if arrogance allowed itself to be subject to moderation, it would not be arrogance at all. For arrogance [P.4] cannot be arrogance unless it exalts itself [above its proper measure... for a man is not to be blamed (by being asked) why he does not know something which he could not know] [l.10]. But if he says 'I know,' whereas it is known that he cannot know it, [then his arrogance is really arrogance, because though he does not know] he is unwilling to be humble [l.22].... And if he teaches another.... For he who is humble and learns from a teacher, he is able...

* * * * * * *

[P.5 l.27] Thus the Greeks spoke words of knowledge and... they said also various things that were in [metaphor] and as if in parables, and these without the tradition (of their meaning) no one [can] know...

* * * * * * *

|iii we (?) blame the speaker, because he is not able to know what he [p. 6. l.9] says.

But this which I have mentioned is found in the case of great sages, namely that one confesses 'I do not know.' For this is their great knowledge that when they do not know a thing they confess that they do not know it. For that same knowledge is able to accuse ignorance, because that ignorance cannot accuse itself. For if a man confesses about something that he knows it and again about something else that he does not know it, he gains a victory as about that which he knows. For in both these cases he has spoken the truth, and because he does not lie in either of them his truth is victorious, since it triumphs and defeats fasehood and is crowned.

But thou knowest that it is said in the book (called) 'Of Domnus' that "the Platonists say that there are sw&mata and also a0sw&mata," that is to say, corporeal and incorporeal things. But these inquiries do not belong to the Platonists, even if they [P. 7.] are written in the writings of the Platonists; but they are the inquiries of the Stoics which Albinus ² introduced into his book which is called 'Concerning the Incorporeal,' according to the custom followed by sages and philosophers who in their writings set forth first the inquiries of their own party and then exert themselves to refute by their arguments the inquiries of men who are opposed to their school of thought.

But in the writings of the Stoics and the Platonists this took place, for the Platonists say that there are sw&mata and a0sw&mata, and the Stoics too (say) the same thing. But they do not agree in opinion as they agree in terms. For the Platonists say that corporeal and incorporeal things exist in nature and substance, whereas the Stoics say that all that exists in nature and substance is corporeal (lit. is a body), but that which does not exist in nature, though it is perceived by the mind, they call incorporeal. But the Philosopher of the Syrians (i.e. Bardaisan) made himself a laughing-stock among Syrians and Greeks, not only in that he [P. 8.] was unable to state but also in that he did not really know the |iv teaching of Plato; and in (his) simplicity he hastened to calumniate Plato by (ascribing to him) the inquiries of others, though Plato had a great struggle against these (very) inquiries, which Bardaisan thinks belong to Plato.

But these inquiries (were conducted) according as the Stoics invented names for things, and because they (were expressed) as in parables...

* * * * * * *

[l.24] [as I have said above, Bardaisan accepts (as literal fact) the parables of the Stoics.]

* * * * * * *

[l.38] When [a man sees] a fire [burning] in a Temple or a [Palace] the sight [compels] him to be confused, and he will run in every direction, because he cannot extinguish that great fire... that [P.9] weakness hastens to contend for great things, and though it knows that its insignificance cannot produce conviction it is no longer able to remain quiet: lo, our insignificance also [is stirred up by the hearing of these errors, and though our insignificance knows] that it can[not] produce conviction about these things, yet it cannot refrain from argument about them.

[l.21] But see... "for they have not the three dimensions (to_ trixh~ diastaton)," namely length and breadth and height, nor do they [have] colour (?) ¹ "... " and time and place... and outline and length and breadth and the [marks] that things are known [by]."

But... that a man should say concerning the sun that it is mortal,... it is on account of the appearance which he sees in the sun that he says this concerning it; for it is produced (lit. born) in the East and... in the South... and extends (its rays) as far as the West... and called the sun mortal, he [P.10] hastens to blame (it); for he who blames is himself blameworthy. The fact therefore that the Stoics have called these things incorporeal I [admit] that I may say how and why and wherefore.

[l.19]... but they are names applied to (?) corporeal things and substances. For they have begun by saying concerning Space, namely (that) this Space exists in name and in meaning, as.I have said; for because it has a name (lit. by reason of its name) |v it is expressed by a sound and because it has a meaning it is perceived by the mind. And, because it is perceived by the mind, if thou, O hearer, dost not hear (at all) with the mind thou canst not hear it. For consider that it is a necessary result that Space should both exist and not exist. And if these two (possibilities) cannot (both) be, Space cannot exist and receive a name, that is to say, exist in name, though it has no body or substance. [P. 11] For all things, whether they be substances or bodies, can exist in this thing (i.e. Space) which is incorporeal.

But if Space likewise has a body and substance, it is found that it is not Space but something which is in the midst of Space; so that the truth is found (to be) that the Space in which all bodies exist has no body or substance. For if it is a body it is limited somewhere; but if it is limited it touches upon some body and is (thereby) limited. And again, what is that thing in the midst of which it is placed, so that it is a companion and a limiter for it (i.e. for Space)? But if that body is an impediment to it, then also again something surrounds that body; that is to say, that Space which belongs to it (i.e. the aforesaid "something ") cannot be surrounded by anything. And on this account note carefully with thy mind, 0 hearer, and see that necessity compels (us) to say that that Space will not have a body.³ For as long as we say that Space is some kind of body by that (statement) the [P.12] former reasoning continues to be overthrown and built up (afresh). And again let us turn back to the truth concerning it, namely to say that it (i.e. Space) is incorporeal and also that on account of this it is not in a place, as the Stoics have said. For that which can dwell in the midst of a place ⁴ is not (itself) a place, for one place cannot dwell in the midst of (another) place; and if it be not so, all those things which were said above have been confuted. For if one corporeal Space be discovered which has substance and another Space be discovered which is incorporeal, then the corporeal may dwell in the midst of the incorporeal—this is a thing which can be stated indeed, but cannot be (in reality). But I venture to say... as many have thought, even though |vi they were unable to demonstrate (it) in practice. But that two places exist (?) in one another one cannot even... assert... [P.13] For because a single entity is found...

* * * * * * *

[l.17] which is also a substance, from that substance there is produced in us a likeness to this (substance)...

* * * * * * *

we cannot produce out of a shadow another shadow. No other Space can exist besides this, though, because of the heaven and earth that came into being, in the midst of the created things that came into being inside the world distinctions have arisen that are called 'Places,' either [North] or [West].⁵ Now these are names of lands or habitations; but the Place in the midst of which these places are, that is what we say is incorporeal.

[P.14] Can it be therefore that because this place has no substance it is not (really) a place?... we are not able to demonstrate. Both things therefore have been found to be true, (namely) that it exists and that it does not exist, that is to say, that it exists in name and meaning, but that it does not exist in body and substance. And a thing which does not exist in substance is a thing to which these three dimensions do not belong. For everything which is a substance or a body has three dimensions (?). And on this account also they have not wished [to reckon] God Who [is above all] with the things they call incorporeal, nor can they (do so), because of that which they were saying, that... is a body. Now this Space also has neither length nor breadth; for these are names of measurements (which belong) to bodies [P.15] that exist in the midst of it.... it is necessary that these three dimensions (?) should be found (to belong) to them. But just as that Space includes (lit. has received) all bodies, though it has no body, so it includes all measurements though it cannot be subject to measurement.

For see that Height and Depth also are (so) named on account of the heavens. But store up (?) these things in thy mind, |vii and see that there is not any other body in the middle but only Space, which is incorporeal. And when thou hast considered (the matter) thus, create in thy mind height and depth—art thou able (to do so)? For which of the directions wilt thou call Height, and which again wilt thou name Depth, seeing that height is called Height on account of the heavens above thee? When therefore the cause on account of which it has been called Height is removed it is clear that the Space which remains has neither height nor depth. And so also (it may be said of) Length and Breadth—they have arisen and exist through corporeal causes. And when those causes are removed it is clear that these [P. 16.] names likewise do not exist. For (in the case of) that Space of which we are speaking, through what (i.e. in relation to what) does its height become high, and through what does its length become long, seeing that these measurements belong to substances, so that when the extent and dimension of a substance is long it is called the Length? And because one side is shorter in its measurement it is called the Breadth, while also (in the case of) a Round it is likewise clear for what reasons it is (called) a round.

But that thou mayest know that the Bardesanists have not even heard that Philosophers have... seeing that this length and breadth is placed by Bardaisan in that measurement of Space, when he says that "Space also has been measured that it holds so much (i.e. a definite quantity)." For if he supposes that Space is measurable it is necessary that length and breadth also should belong (?) to Space, a statement which I have contradicted above.

[This] same length and breadth therefore the Philosophers have there also [perhaps] called incorporeal, and just as Space is measured in virtue of what it is (?), so they reckon them (i.e. [p. 17.] length and breadth) in virtue of what they are, so that thou mayest know that they also are things distinct from Space, that is to say, they are names and notions, but not bodies and |viii substances. For thou measurest a body which has length, but length itself, which is produced by a name and is called Length, thou canst not measure (and) ascribe to it three dimensions, for this Length is produced by the conjunction of body and speech.⁶ For the body produced the measure, and speech produced this name which is called Length. Thou art able therefore to measure the extent and width of that body, and when thou hast measured (it) thou givest the name of Length to that which thou hast measured. But thou canst not turn round (and) measure the name which is called Length, because it is not a substance at all; for it is a bare name whereby the notion of that which thou hast measured is perceived (by the mind).

[P. 18.] Since then this name has no substance, let us say therefore that it does not exist. And how does it not exist, seeing that apart from this name no creature can be measured? Therefore also this name which is called Length both exists and does not exist. And so also all words both exist and do not exist, but they exist (as) signs by means of which we understand everything {that} has body and substance, whereas they (i.e. words) have no body, and though by means of them we speak about all substances they themselves have no substance.

For I say that I buy and I sell; but the thing which I buy or sell is some substance, whereas these verbs⁷ and the nouns called 'buying' and 'selling' have no substance. Therefore substances which are bought or sold have these three dimensions, but these nouns have them not, for they are incorporeal. And that I may not write to thee at great length (it is enough to say that) thou hast often heard this with respect to Time and Number [P. 19.] and with respect to everything which is incorporeal. For with regard to everything which is like these or similar to these, (we may say that) its branches divide there, for these (i.e. Time and Number) are the roots from which all the branches shoot forth. And though it would suffice that thou shouldst know all of them by means of a single one nevertheless they (i.e. philosophers) |ix have abundantly demonstrated these things to him who seeks them, in order to assist the weakness of the seeker.

Hear therefore with respect to a sign (shmei~on) and a line that they too are incorporeal things (dependent) on bodily substances which exist, that is to say, a horse or an eagle or one of the various bodies and substances. When some one begins to portray them..., at the (very) commencement, when thou seest, thou knowest whether he wishes to portray a horse or a lion, and before the artist portrays (anything) on the tablet, the likeness of the horse is portrayed in his mind, and if the artist wishes to add (extra) limbs thou blamest him by reason of the substance of the horse which the truth fashions.

But if I say to thee, "I intend to draw a line," thou knowest not what (line) I shall draw for thee; for a line has not any [P. 20.] substance, as a horse has a substance, so that if he (i.e. the artist) adds or subtracts thou canst convict him. But if thou thinkest, "He is drawing a straight line," he draws for himself a crooked one; and if thou thinkest that he is making it (to consist) of four angles he can make it (to consist) of eight¹ angles. For when artists portray the likenesses of bodies which they perceive they cannot add or subtract anything; and when they portray the likenesses of substances which they do not perceive they portray them in their proper colours and shapes. And if he adds in one of the substances anything which is not in the (true) image of that substance, he is blamed. But in the case of a line he adds and subtracts anything that he wishes, and he is not blamed, because there is no real substance (which is) the likeness of that line so that thou couldst blame him. And because it has not substance it does not exist, and because it does not exist we have on that account also called it incorporeal.

But Bardaisan has said that even a line is measured by that body, whatever it be, in which it is. Hear this (word) as (thou [P. 21.] hast heard) that which I have said concerning Space, in the case of which the terms Length and Breadth are used, not, however, (as applying) to it but to that which exists in Space. For consider that before a horse is portrayed it is pictured in thy mind, and thou knowest what is its length and breadth. But (in the case |x of) a line, before it is formed thou knowest not its length and breadth, because it has not length and breadth. For if they belonged to it it would be known before it is formed, as the length and breadth of all animals is known in our mind before they are portrayed, except such animals as are invisible to us, or the likenesses of angels, whose length and breadth, when we see them once, are pictured in our mind as (in the case of) those things which are visible to us. But (in the case of) a line, though thou seest it always, thou hast never yet limited it, and this (is) because, as I said, it has no 'bound' likeness or fixed body (such) that if the draftsman of the line departs from the likeness he can be [P.22] blamed. That line therefore has no length or breadth before it is formed on the tablet, in the way that even before a man is born we know the fashion of his length and breadth; but this line, which has no substance, when it is drawn (lit. falls) upon a tablet or upon (some other) body these three dimensions arise for it. But they (i.e. the dimensions) belong, not to it, but to that thing with which it is associated; for if they were its own they would belong to it even apart from this tablet.

But I say to thee briefly — there are these three classes which are incorporeal, one class (consisting) of fixed nouns which are given to bodies and substances; and another class of nouns which are given to notions, like these of Space and Time and Number; and another class (consisting of) verbs which are used with reference to anything. And whereas these three classes are incorporeal, they have nevertheless called these seven names only "incorporeal." And why (none) but these names, seeing that 'Gold' and 'Silver,' even if these also are names (or 'nouns'), [P.23] are a0sw&mata, i.e. incorporeal? Nevertheless, because they have been given to bodies and substances, they also are corporeal names. When therefore thou hearest a name which some one uses and he calls out 'gold,' or 'silver,' or 'eagle,' or 'earth,' at the mere mention of the name thy imagination fixes itself on the corporeal substance, and thou knowest whether it be soft or hard, or bitter or sweet. And so also when some one speaks to thee of colours. But if, on the contrary, he mentions to thee 'Time' or 'Number' thy imagination does not fix itself on |xi bodies or substances. For what substance belongs to Time, or what body belongs to Number or Space? Nor dost thou know whether they be black or white, whether they be soft or hard.

And if thou sayest that likewise Height and Length are names and are used of bodies and substances, [I reply] that at first they exist by themselves and stand without the support of any body whatsoever, but afterwards [they are applied] also to [P. 24.] bodies according to common usage; for a man says 'length' even though bodies and their extent have not previously been mentioned, for "the name of Length and Breadth—these names exist by themselves without the support of any body"; but afterwards a man says "the length of a stone" and "the breadth of it"—these, lo, stay upon the bodies by favour. But if thou sayest 'Iron' or 'Brass,' with the name there stays the substance also, and the name of Iron or Brass cannot be said (i.e. without implying the qualities of these substances)....

* * * * * * *

... And on this account they are 'bound' names, and these also [l. 33.] [are attached] to 'bound' substances; for these names of Iron or Brass or Stone... but it is right (?) that incorporeal names [l. 42.] should be detached, and, because they are not as 'bound' substances, perhaps on account of this they have called them a0sw&mata.

* * * * * * *

... that indeed 'there is a time for everything' ⁸... [P.25 l.18]

* * * * * * *

(Here follows) yet another fashion (of argument). There is [p. 26] nothing which is not named as being in Space or in a place. [l. 2.] There is nothing which is not in Time and subject to Time and performed within (the limits of) Time. There is nothing which has not or does not become subject to Number and Measure. There is nothing which does not possess Length and Breadth. There is no body or person who does not bear a Mark by means of which he (or it) is distinguished from others, like the point which distinguishes one word from another. There is nothing |xii which is formed or written without a Line being in its form or in its writing. There is no clang or buzzing or humming or sound without one of these seven sounds, or of those seven vowels (?), or seven Syllables, being in it. And therefore here (i.e. in this connection) also the Stoics made the seven syllables a0sw&mata, so as to include everything within them just as (they include) these writings which have no sound.

But just as there are names of horses which are derived from the Sun, that is to say 9Hliodro&moj, and from Fire, (that is) [P. 27.] Purola&mpoj, and again from Water, Ph&gasoj, so there are among our names other names which are derived from each of those seven names, besides these words, which are verbs and not names, as I said above.

But leave all of them (?), and hear the sound of the tongue, which has in it and within it (musical) tones, which convey a meaning to the hearer when they are varied in the mouth, and these tones and variations of the voice are called verbs, such as, 'eat,' 'drink,' 'rise,' 'sit.' Now these are variations of the tongue within the mouth and changes of sound, but the sound, because it exists (?), has been apprehended (lit. overtaken) by the hearing; whereas the meaning of these variations of the tongue and of sound is perceived by the mind. For nothing which reaches the hearing is (actually) severed from the tongue or from the sound, as if thou givest a piece of thy flesh or of thine eyelids thou givest some substance which can be felt and seen. But in this case (i.e. when the above-mentioned words were uttered) the ear heard thine own voice as it came. And [P. 28.] if they (i.e. the speakers) are Persians, the mind fails to perceive the meaning of the words, though the ear did not fail to hear the sound. But if the meaning were any sort of substance, the ear would perceive it also, just as it perceives the sound. And lo! also by a gesture a man conveys a meaning, and in this case hearing is in abeyance and thou hearest with the eye (?). And (yet) nothing is severed from the gesture or from the things written and reaches the eye, but [the eye] sees something [of |xiii which] the meaning is seen by the mind — it (i.e. the mind) perceives it. And even an unlearned eye sees a book because it is really a thing seen. But these senses... do not perceive... the meaning (of the book), because that meaning is not seen by the eye, nor tasted by the mouth, nor smelt, nor handled. But that meaning which is heard by the ear in the sound can attach itself (lit. can come) to a gesture, and the ear does not hear it in the gesture, but the eye [sees] that whereby really the meaning was spoken.... but it has not departed to (any other) place, [P. 29.] because it exists (?). But the meaning can be expressed (?) by anything, because it is incorporeal.

So all these words and names of everything that exist are not bodies but meanings (or notions), so that they may not wander about among all words and names.... For during the day and [l. 19.] the night all objects (?) which are in space are visible to us. And so even (in the case of) these six notions which are associated with this (space), it is not the notions themselves that are visible or audible, but that thing has an appearance of its own and a special mark ¹ of its own. For without a voice I hear its voice, even when no one has spoken to me about it. But the notions, if thou dost not speak to me ² about them, have no voice, but within (the compass of) thine own voice thou utterest those notions which have no voice. But it is here that Bardaisan erred and went astray, for he said concerning notions that they are audible. But the Stoics did not err, for they said that they (i.e. notions) are perceived by the mind. [P. 30.]

* * * * * * *

[l. 5.]... sight perceives with the eye, voice with the tongue, smell with the nostrils, taste with the palate, but touch [with all] the body, and these things are 'bound ' and not separable; but notions are not 'bound' [to one sense, for if] thou think 'surely it is bound up with the voice, consider...

[l. 27.] For see that unless thou hast sung or called I know not whether thy voice is beautiful or not, and unless thou hast seen (something) it is also the same (as regards) thy sight, and unless |xiv them hast smelt it is also the same (as regards) thy sense of smell, and unless thou hast heard I know not whether thy hearing be quick, and so also (with) thy foot and thy hand. For as regards each of these a man is able to learn it (i.e. its qualities) by means of it. But as regards thy notions, even without thy tongue and thy voice I can know by means of writings whether they (i.e. thy notions) are good or wise, though writings are (only) signs of [P. 31.] notions. For writings are divided up into syllables, but a notion is not divided; and a book, moreover, is visible, whereas a notion is not visible. And it is not right that the Greeks should be blamed for the appellations which they bestowed. For these appellations were not invented with a view to judgement and discussion, but for the notion of why it was so. It would therefore not be right that we should pass judgement on a thing which was not designed for judgement but for (expressing) a notion. For authors would not even have been able to compose anything, if they did not employ these appellations. For those things are known which introduce judgement and discussion.

For even these very words which are spoken are included within these seven a0sw&mata, for from these same seven Names [every]thing begins to be spoken, while the limner asserts concerning Geometry that with its lines all works and all designs are made, and (also) what the Greeks called e0pifa&neia, Manifestation, i.e. the appearance of anything whatsoever, for there is nothing, either of things visible or of things invisible, which has not an appearance of its own.⁹

But the causes of appearance are these: that is, according [P. 32.] as the intervening distance is far or near, and according to the |xv greatness or smallness of the object seen, and according to the healthiness or unhealthiness of the eye itself, and moreover according to the faintness or intensity of the light which reveals (the object); for by much light the eye is dazzled and that object which is (usually) visible is swallowed up or hidden, as the stars by the sun. On the one hand therefore the darkness is a revealer, like the light, since in the darkness the stars are bright and visible, which are hidden by the light, as the sons of darkness (are hidden) by the day.

But the cause of the eye failing (lit. slipping) is that the sight of the eye wanders by reason of the distance of the (intervening) distance, and on that account it (i.e. the eye) does not see. But if there were something in which the sight might be shut up, as in a tube, [the sight] would be able to go forth to see that object which it cannot (now) see on account of the distance...

* * * * * * * [P.33]

But again [in the case] of the stars, that same (intervening) l. 19. distance which belongs to them by day belongs to them also by night, and the eye which could not see them by day was able to see them by night. And why (is this so), unless it be that the darkness is for the eye as it were a tube and its sight is concentrated and goes up to the stars, while the light of the stars, on the other hand, descends to the eye as it were into a pit? And so too a fire by night is seen from a great distance, but by day it is not seen even a quarter of this distance.

* * * * * * * [p.34]

[ll. 5-20.] [Even by day the stars might be seen, if the light of the sun was obscured.]... he (?) cannot see by that light which is [l. 38.] outside (of the eye) that which he saw by the light which is within (the eye). Consider again and fix the eyes also on the sun, and see that, if the light is not concentrated (into the eye) little by little and (so) conies to its place, the eye cannot see. And again, if a lamp be extinguished at night on the [P. 35.] way, observe that because the eye is distracted by the rays of the lamp (it is only) when it has concentrated the light into itself little by little that it can see. |xvi

But that thou mayest learn well how tubes concentrate scattered things and propel (lit. send) them, consider also the fire-hoses (si/fwnej), and see to what a height they propel and scatter the unstable water. Consider moreover aqueducts and see how water is collected in cisterns and pipes and (then) it ascends and does service on heights that are hard of access. And so would the eye be able to see from afar, if there were instruments to (assist) the eyesight. Look also at the mouth of a kiln, how it concentrates and sends forth the smoke, and it circles and is carried up on high. But when the smoke goes out into the open air it wanders (i.e. is dissipated) and is scattered and swallowed up after the manner of the aforesaid eyesight. Consider moreover the breath which we send forth from our mouth gently, and see that when it is concentrated in the furnace [P. 36.] of a blacksmith or in the fireplace of a goldsmith its blast goes forth strongly because of its concentration. Furthermore, if this wind that blows is compressed between the clefts of a mountain, or in the opening through a wall its breath beomes stronger because of its accumulation. Consider moreover a trumpet, and see that the voice which in us was weak and, when it went forth from us, wandered (i.e. was dissipated), as soon as its wandering motions are concentrated in the trumpet, observe how far the concentration of that voice carries. Again, make (lit. take) an experiment for thyself, (namely) if thou openest thy mouth wide and criest, thy voice wanders and is weak; but if thou compressest thy lips a little on the outer side and makest with them as it were a spacious hollow on the inner side thy voice is concentrated and increases, especially if thou art looking downward and not upward. Again, observe a carpenter (and see) that when he considers the straightness of the wood— because the sight of his eye is scattered as long as it (i.e. his eye) is altogether open—the workman closes half of his eye, that he may concentrate it (i.e. the sight) against the straightness of [P. 37.] the wood.

Again, inhale breath from thy mouth and inhale also from thy nostrils, and see that the inhaling power of thy nostrils is strong enough to concentrate (and) bring in the air, because the nostrils are compressed and hollow (?) like cavities and tubes. And if |xvii a workman is comparing (?) depth with height he makes a small hole for himself, in order that he may concentrate and cause to pass through it the sight of the eye, and that he may estimate (lit. weigh) the extent (lit. surface) of the depth and reckon it in comparison with the height. But I say that if smell and heat were concentrated they likewise would be found travelling to a distance. But it must be so; for rest cannot be stable, because that air which sets things in motion (lit. the dragger of things) is (constantly) travelling and knows not how to rest. For it is by the air that everything is drawn along.

Consider again that he who blows a flute or he who utters cries with a mouth that inhales and exhales the air (does so) in order that the air may be a vehicle for the voice or the flute-blowing. For the air is a vehicle for everything. Moreover when a man looks in the direction of the sun, if he does not place [P. 38.] his hand above his eyes and shelter them, their sight is not concentrated (enough) to look (steadily). And likewise when a man carries a lamp, if he does not spread his hand above the lamp and ward off the rays from his eyes, his eyesight is scattered and cannot travel to a distance. And when a man looks into a basin of pure water he sees in the collected water below the colour of the sky and likewise a bird, if it happens to fly above the aforesaid basin.

But because everything is given to us by measure, we also see by measure, along with everything else. For beings above and below, along with everything which is created, act by measure. But if there be some who exceed (others), as (it may be said) that cattle eat more than birds, and a wild beast drinks more than creeping things, and the sun is brighter than the stars, though (even so) all these are subject to measure. For increase the blaze and see that the heat increases; and likewise the sight becomes less through much fasting, and when the sight [P. 39.] is weak errs (lit. slips). But the contrivances which I have mentioned assist our weakness.

Know moreover that Dark and Light are the opposites of one another; the opposite indeed is not assisted by its opposite, nor is Light injured by that which is akin to it, but the sight (is |xviii injured) by the Light, because the sight wanders right and left, like water that wanders in a plain. But in the dark, because it (i.e. the sight) does not wander right and left, and as... in a tube... and the sight [comes] up to the torch or the..., on that account they are seen by the eye; and the sun does not hide the stars when it rises—for light does not become the opposite of the star which is akin to it—but the rays scatter the sight of the eye and it (the eye) cannot see the stars. For lo! a lamp, although (?) it is seen at noon on account of its nearness... that which is swallowed up is seen neither by reason of distance nor yet on [P. 40.] account of nearness (?). But light cannot swallow up anything because its concentrated nature... nor does it swallow up the darkness; the darkness is wholly destroyed and ceases (to exist), because there was nothing in the sky, for it (i.e. the darkness) is incorporeal.

There are these two natures only coming to meet one another, namely sight and the illuminated object; the latter comes with its light visibly towards the eye, and sight goes to meet the illuminated object invisibly, like the invisible scent which comes from visible blossoms. For if it were not the fact that some sight (or other) is sent out and goes forth from the eyes, how would those animals which see by night see in the darkness? For there is no light of which we can say that it is.... For the rays do not belong to the eyes nor... nor to the water, but to the light which comes and strikes its rays upon it (i.e. the water); [P. 41.] and if the beams were striking upon a mirror and turning back to it (i.e. are reflected towards the eye), they are thought to belong to the mirror. But if they belonged to the mirror, they would be seen in it also at night, in the absence of the light; for also when the sun diffuses (its light) upon the water, lo! thou seest the sun and its rays (therein), but we do not say that that which is seen in the water belongs to the water. And when it (i.e. the sun) declines and the shadow in its turn falls upon the water, how can we see the rays in the water, seeing that they are not in the water? For everything that is polished, |xix when the light of the sun strikes upon it... so that when the sun shines upon them the sight (of the eye) which gazes at them wanders. But as for dark-coloured stones and (other) black substances, know that also upon them when the rays strike the light is spread, but (only) on those white substances, which are akin to the light, does the light show its power. Nor again do rays go forth from unpolished bodies or from substances that [P. 42.] do not glitter,¹⁰ as they go forth from polished objects or from substances that glitter. But as everything which falls into a mirror is seen when it sinks into the midst of the mirror and is thought to belong to the mirror, although it does not belong to it, so also those rays were thought to belong to the mirror, although they did not belong to it, as I have said. But as when hard substances strike against one another a sound is engendered ¹¹ from between them—and it was not the case that that sound was (previously) within them and was inaudible, for it is their nature to engender ¹¹ a sound by striking together—in like manner also (in the case of) the eye and the illuminated object, by the striking of both of them, in combination with one another, sight is engendered ¹¹ in the eye.

As therefore heat that goes forth from a fire, and rays from a lamp, and perfume from spices are weakened when they go far from their sources, so also the sight diminishes as it goes to a distance. For (only) in a small measure is perfume deposited [P. 43.] in a blossom and light in a lamp and heat in a fire; on this account also they penetrate to a distance (only) in a measure and begin to grow weak as they go to a distance. For (in the case of) fountains of abundant water their flow is even, because there is an abundant and material (lit. solid) outflow. But effulgence perfume, and heat are not corporeal, nor do they really flow like a literal (lit. bound) fountain. For lo! the voice which is in us is a thing bound within us, and as it goes away it likewise grows faint, and by the mechanism of a trumpet it becomes something |xx different, by reason of the strength and clearness which are added to it. But as when the radiance of a lamp is abundant and copious this amount of light would be able to contend with the long measure of a great distance, so the amount of the sun's light suffices for the measure of all space; and so also the amount of water (suffices) for the measure of the earth. So, because the [P. 44] extent of the distance is greater in its measure than the amount of the light of the eye, on this account from afar even large objects appear small. For as these things again mix one with another unequally, but are...

* * * * * * *

[l.14.] is perceived.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P. 45, l.15] on account of which not even those things which are before the eyes of the man are tested by him, since even the summits and depths of the earth, together with the summit and lower parts of the sky, both help and harm. For the sky is like a circular belt, that is to say, like an arch, and that which is placed at its summit does not appear like that which is placed in its lower parts. Let the moon when it rises from the East show how great is its circle and full and... its disc. But there are those who say that because the moon [is affected by the power] of the sun, which is in the West, it (i.e. the moon) appears thus, and... at dawn, when the moon reaches, the lowest part [of the West], the light of the sun rises from the East; and it is not thought... [P. 46.] its disc.... And again there are those who say that, because it rises from the Ocean, on that account its appearance is great and its disc is glorious and beautiful. But I say that, because it rises suddenly and its light shines into the darkness, on that account it appears to the eye to be great, though its size has not received any augmentation (?) and no further radiance has been added to its light. Thus although these four examples are equal, as I have said, these contrivances which I have enumerated for thee above have not yet failed; for they are helpful to a certain |xxi measure. For a man calls, and there is a certain measure to which his voice reaches, but (lit. and) when the contrivance of the trumpet steps in it causes the voice to pass over that former (?) limit. Oh! what a thing is Contrivance! since it makes Nature to become something different. And on that account there is no excuse for the sinner, seeing that Nature itself is compelled to follow the will, when that will desires to compel Nature. For P. 47. God created the world and adorned it with natural objects; and, (yet) if contrivance had not afterwards adorned the world, the world would be a waste. And that I may bring to thee a testimony from near at hand, consider thy limbs, that is to say, thy senses, and see that God created them as (He created) natural objects which are bound (by necessity). But by the gift which comes from Him thou teachest thine eye another (kind of) sight, (that) of many books, of seals, of pearls and the like. Again thou teachest thy hand to write and to work at a forge and to engrave, and so also (thou teachest) thine ear the hearing of many sounds.

And again, as for what Bardaisan says, that "if a perfume or a voice reach to us we should all equally perceive them"—lo! in the case of the light, which reaches all eyes equally, why does one man see more than another? If he says that (it is) because of weakness or disease or other things of the same kind, it all tends to show that what he has now failed (to apply, namely) that if a p. 48. perfume approached us equally we should all perceive it equally. For it (sometimes) happens that he who is near a thing does not see it, while another, though he is far off, sees that object which is placed on the (very) eye of the former. And so likewise (he errs) in that he says concerning the voice also that "it reaches the ear of (every) man equally, if his ear is not dull."

But from this very thing learn that if, moreover, thou diffusest a perfume by measure in all directions thou wilt see that all (men) are not able to smell equally; nor do they hear equally, nor... foods touch all mouths equally, and yet all mouths [l. 33.] do not taste equally

* * * * * * *

But so Bardaisan juggled ¹² even by names and supposed that [P. 49.] |xxii the nature (of things) is like their names. For because 'light' in the Aramaic language is called as masculine, and 'eye' feminine in the same, he hastily coupled them together in a foolish phrase, saying that "Light, like a male, sows perception in the Eye." And lo, he, Bardaisan, calls the moon feminine ¹³ in the Aramaic language: when therefore (?) the eye looks at the moon, does that female sow perception in a female? Well, then, because in the Greek language 'sun' and 'eye' are both called masculine, when the eye looks at the sun a male sows perception in a male, according to the teaching of Bardaisan!

END OF DISCOURSE COMPOSED AGAINST BARDAISAN.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ For the rendering, see Galatians vi 1, syr. vg.

2. ¹ Albinus (c. 152 A.D.) wrote an Introduction (Ei0sagwgh&) to the Platonic Dialogues, but the work here referred to is different and does not seem to be extant.

3. ¹ Lit. 'will belong to that which is incorporeal.' On p. 11, 1. 44, add [Syriac] at the end of the line.

4. ² Here and in what follows it has been found necessary to render athra sometimes by ' Place ' and sometimes by ' Space.'

5. ² The words in square brackets are uncertain; perhaps they are place-names.

6. ¹ Lit. 'between body and word.'

7. ³ In Syriac a Verb is called a 'word' ([Syriac]) and a Noun is called a 'name'.

8. ³ Ecclesiastes iii 1.

9. ⁶ Compare Aristotle, Metaphysica vi 2, 2: "It is held by some that the boundaries of a body, such as the visible surface (e0pifa&neia) and outline (grammh&) and extreme points (stigmh&) and its isolation (mona&s), are real (unsai/ai), more real than the solid itself."

10. ² A word used of gaudy attire in the Life of Rabbula 18919. The Note to p. 42, 1. 2, should be deleted.

11. ⁴ Note, in view of Ephraim's argument against Bardaisan (p. xxii), that the word for 'engender ' is, literally, 'give birth to.'

12. ¹ Lit. 'sailed about': see p. 221, 1. 35, and delete the Note, p. 48, 1. 48

13. ² 'Moon' is either masculine or feminine in Syriac.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 10th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _2_marcion .htm

Against Marcion I. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Marcion I.

AGAINST MARCION I.

ANOTHER (DISCOURSE) AGAINST THE (FALSE) TEACHINGS. [P. 50.]

To the true Scriptures of the Church all the Teachings bear witness that they are true; but as for the Scriptures belonging to the Teachings, only the Teachings bear witness concerning them, because the Scriptures of the Church do not appeal to the testimony of the Scriptures of the Teachings. Moreover to our Scriptures the Jews bear witness, for in every place.... For inasmuch as God knew that the Teachings were about to go forth into the world He worked great Signs beforehand... and the dividing of the sea and the cloud, and the Pillar and the Quails and the Manna and all the Signs and all the Wonders....

* * * * * * *

in order that they might bear witness concerning that people [p. 51, l.4.] that it was the people of God.... Moreover (to?) other countries some of them were scattered formerly, and (they bear witness) to-day concerning the aforesaid Jews and concerning their laws, as that (passage) in which it says,¹ 'The LORD hath brought evil upon this place, as He said.'

But the Edicts which had been written by Nebuchadnezzar and by Darius were deposited among the archives of the aforesaid kingdom first of all, and then they were sent to the (various) countries. And lo! also the kings of the countries bear witness concerning the books of the Hebrews in the chronicles which |xxiv belong to them, according to that which is said in Ezra, 'Learn and see that this city is a warlike city from of old,' together with that other (passage in) which he says. 'Learn again and see that [P. 52.] Darius commanded concerning this city that it should be built.' ² Thus the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Egypt were inscribed in the archives of Aegyptus; and, again, the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Babylon were in the annals belonging to the kings of Babylon, and also (in those) belonging to the Greeks, and the Romans likewise, as well as (in) those of the aforesaid country of Jerusalem. For lo! even to this day Tablets ³ which are even now inscribed and set up bear witness to the people of the aforesaid city that they must not venture to enter within their limits.⁴ All these witnesses which I have enumerated to thee, together with the aforesaid teachings (and) together with the Hebrews, are witnesses to our Scriptures that they are true. But to the Scriptures of the aforesaid teachings, as I have stated before, those teachings alone bear witness. And would that they all bore witness to the Scriptures of one another! ⁵ For even if this were thought to be in their favour, inasmuch as their witnesses were many, yet it would be all against them that the testimony of each one of them about [P. 53.] his fellow was a denial of his own teaching. For how could he be veracious who proclaims Seven Gods, when another asserts after him in confirmation who proclaims only Two Gods? Or how could he who proclaims Three Gods assert (anything) in confirmation of both of them? Thus all the teachings are refuted by the Jews, because the Scriptures belonging to the Jews are truer than all the teachings. But the Jews themselves, who by means of their true Scriptures have been able to overcome many teachings, are refuted by the Church....

[l. 29.]Therefore to the one God whom we proclaim, the Jews bear |xxv witness together with the Marcionites (?)... Bardaisan together with Mani. For though Bardaisan said [seven Entities constitute] the world he nevertheless said concerning the Law that it was given by God. And Mani again, though he said that [He] who spoke, by the Prophets exists as the result of a 'mixture,' nevertheless said concerning Him that He is in heaven. And Marcion, though he introduced a 'Stranger,' nevertheless, (while) he was crying out all the [time (?)] about the [...] of [P. 54.] the 'Maker' and about His preaching and about the people that is His, yet our Scriptures that are in the hands of the Marcionites were bearing witness on [our] behalf. But the blasphemies [of] the Marcion[ites]—it is [the books of] the Marcionites only that bear witness to them.⁶

The followers [of Marcion] therefore name our God 'the Just One': yet we see that His worshippers are afflicted in this world, and His prophets were... in the region of the Maker... but on the other hand (lit. side) we see that the unjust and the doers of evil enjoy themselves, and He is found to be good towards evil men and something different towards those who are His own. For He promises enjoyments to those who keep His commandments, and lo! afflictions surround them. And He said concerning the unjust 'Cursed art thou.'... And he who is blessed according to the Law runs on foot in front of him who is cursed in the Scriptures; for Elijah the prophet ran in front of Ahab the unjust, while Ahab the... was sitting in his chariot. [P. 55.] Again, the prophets of Baal were battening at Jezebel's table, and the true prophets [were] housing themselves in caves.

The followers (?) of Marcion say concerning each of these things, that is, concerning the justice of the Just One and concerning the grace of their own (God), that it did not come and bring relief to the just in this world (?). But [see that] the grace of the Maker [lo,] is extended even over the followers of Marcion. |xxvi And if they say that an Alien Force is opposed to them, who is it, on the other hand, who is opposed to Mercy? And, again, who constrained Him that His mercy should afford a covering to Philosophers and Magians and all manner of doctrines? And (as for) the babes and the seed-corn and the plants and the possessions of the followers of Marcion, who causes them to grow? And who sends down the rain for them, or who causes the sun to shine for them? Who commands the earth to bear them, and governs the sky for them? Thou seest that all the grace of our Maker is (shown) towards the followers of Marcion [P. 56.] and moreover towards those who are ungrateful like them; but in the case of the righteous and the prophets the contrary of these things (takes place), namely humiliation and ignominy. For Jeremiah the prophet is cast into a miry pit, while Zedekiah, an unjust man, is living in luxury. Or can it then have been the case that an Alien severe One [came and was favouring] the wicked and oppressing the good?

But it was not the Stranger—who did not exist—that had... already announced earthly things to the simple-minded, while, on the other hand, among all of us he taught the likeness of true things by means of his faithful ones and by means of his righteous ones; by means of these two (methods he taught) two classes of persons, namely the class of the mature (?), and another (consisting) of the simple-minded. For he gladdened the simple-minded with promises of the earth, and oppressed (?) the mature by severe afflictions. But let us see to what our own affliction is like; is it like that of [the simple-minded] or that of his prophets? If we are like the prophets in our afflictions, how do the followers of Marcion say that (only) in recent times have afflictions been [P. 57.] announced? And, again, let us ask the Jews also, that is to say, the Jews and the righteous ones who were among them, Whom ought we to resemble? [The others] rather than them we ought to resemble.

Let them then look at us and at the righteous, and let them see if we are like them in our afflictions. And if we are like the righteous in our afflictions, it is also the fact that the Law is |xxvii with us. For unto whom was it right that the Law of the afflicted and destitute ones should be given, to us the afflicted and destitute, or to those who even until to-day are expecting to go up to Jerusalem, and are eagerly looking till now for the milk and honey? Thou seest, therefore, O Marcion, that if in the midst of all this maturity the simple-mindedness of the Jews has not been outgrown (lit. weaned), since these (qualities) still exist in them, how could numerous countries attain to maturity, seeing that one country (i.e. the country of the Jews) with all this exertion was not able to attain to maturity?

But if the associates of Marcion, whom we have left behind (in our discussion), come and agree with him and say to us, If the Creator was one and knew that Adam would sin against Him, [P. 58.] why then did the Creator create?—let all the sects (lit. teachings) know that they too are included in this (objection). For why did not their Gods come or prevent (it), so that he (i.e. Adam) should not be created, or so that they might set right and assist that which had been created? For why did not their Gods prevent the Maker from creating that which is not good? And if they did not prevent Him at that time, who will send (?) after them to-day? And perhaps it was for that reason that God caused Adam to dwell for nine hundred and thirty years outside the enclosure of the Tree of Life, in order that it might be seen that there was no other God who could be found to break into the enclosure, which the Just One had enclosed by means of the Cherub and the point of the sword,⁷ and to bring him (i.e. Adam) in. For if there had been another God more compassionate than this one and stronger than our Maker, he would have broken into the enclosure—which was not then broken into— and would have brought the mortal Adam into the presence of the Tree of Life, that he might eat thereof, so that, just as in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Knowledge we all die, [P. 59.] likewise in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Life we might all live by means of him. But if he remained for nine hundred |xxviii and thirty years outside the enclosure of Paradise and did not find any other God to bring him inside the enclosure of Paradise, and afterwards (God) dissolved him and caused him to return to his dust, and no other God was found to raise him from the dust—acknowledge, O Marcion, the justice of Him who said, I am God and there is none beside Me!

But if Marcion says that the sole reason that the Stranger did not come previously was that at the last his grace might be seen, [let him know] that God had already shown a small measure of grace in connection with His justice, so that His great grace was not deemed strange when it was manifested in its time. And therefore He who showed a small measure of grace towards Adam at that time—when no strange God had shown his grace towards him—is known to be the same (God) who showed great [P. 60.] grace at this time, (a grace) of which they say that it is the grace of the Stranger. For God had decreed this in His justice concerning Adam, (saying) that 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' For our God decreed justly and in order that He might in His love warn Adam who was existing in a good state, lest he should exist in an evil state. But when Adam did not take warning and fell from grace, Justice overtook him, according as it (had) decreed that 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' But God turned in [the way] of grace and tempered the harshness of justice, that Adam might not die that very day but that he might live nine hundred and thirty years [and] then die.

[As He gave to Adam] nine hundred and thirty years at that time on account of His compassion, (so) He has kept him alive even now in the life everlasting on account of His grace. For He gave to him in the beginning a temporal life, in order to show that.... For He gave to Adam in mercy—which (signifies [P. 61.] that) He gave to him by means of our Lord—life everlasting. But if they apply the term 'strangeness' to every (?) grace, then (?) also in relation to Adam 'strangeness' was displayed. For the same (God) decreed that, 'In the day that thou eatest |xxix thou shalt die'—and how is He found keeping him alive for nine hundred and thirty years?

About John, again, from whence... let the Jews therefore be asked whether John did come, or no.... [If he says] that John did come, from whence hast thou this, O Marcion? [1.38.] Perhaps he says from the testimony to Isu....⁸

* * * * * * *

[P.62] The Jews say that in the days of the Messenger the King's Son [l. 6.] also comes, seeing that John also when he [heard] the report of [Isu] that he had come [asked] him, 'Hast thou then come, or look we for another?' ⁹ And he (i.e. John the Baptist) does not say, 'they look,' but 'we look,' in order to show that he and his contemporaries, in his own days and in those of his contemporaries, were looking for Him.

If therefore the Jews say that if Elijah comes the Messiah also has come, and (as) John thought concerning Isu, when He came, that He was he, was not this because he firmly believed that he was to come in his own days, even John's? On that account he thought concerning Him, when He came, that it was he, or did not even John know when the Messiah was to come? And why then did he (i.e. John) come? If he came to smooth the way before Him, then he came to clear away stones. But if he came to call sinners to repentance and to baptize the [P. 63.] repentant, he was sent to purge away sins by means of water. It is evident that these were prepared as it were for the guest-chamber of Him that was to come, and it is manifest that He has come. If He dwells in pure hearts, He is therefore spiritual; but if He who was coming was not spiritual, because He was David's Son, let him (i.e. Marcion) explain to us which was the way that John (was) smoothing for Him. For in honour of kings, or kings' sons, ways are levelled and stones cleared away before them. But before (the coming of) this One he said that minds should be purified. What is probable? That David's Son...¹⁰ |xxx not to David himself? Or can it be that David also, in the days of his sovereignty, was dwelling in minds and not in palaces? And if David was dwelling in palaces, and also David's son is to dwell in palaces, what (was) John preparing for him? minds instead of palaces? Or can it be that John smoothed ways and prepared palaces, though he was not even dwelling in the cultivated land?

[P. 64.] But nevertheless, although John was the Messenger of the kingdom, he did not go straight to the capital of the kingdom. Why did he leave the cultivated land and go out to the desert? Or can it be that he who sent him came into the desert and that on that account he who was sent also was preaching in the desert? But if they drove him out, did they not treat him rightly? For what did they see in him that was likely to make them believe that he was the Messenger of Him who was coming? Perhaps (they were convinced by) the fact that he was imprisoned, or that he was removed, or that the girl played with his skull! But perhaps thou wilt say that they did these things to John by the power of Herod. And if he is the Messenger of that Messiah to all nations, was he really not greater than Herod even there? Or can it be that even the general of Herod was greater than the King of the. nations?... But if thou sayest that these men, on account of their subjection, were more submissive [P. 65.] than..., whereas Herod was not subjected and submissive but he subjected....

* * * * * * *

[l. 20.] For if in truth he was His herald... a Messenger for the [l. 28.] King. Can it be that he who is coming is really persecuted [1. 34.] like his Messenger?... Or is he really killed like him? But if at his coming [they did] not [recognise him, how does he] resemble him (i.e. John)?

* * * * * * *

[P. 66, 1. 29.]... For even if he were not 'in his days,' but yet were really like him in every respect, this would suffice, even by itself, to refute them (by showing) that he cannot be 'strange' to one whom he resembled in every respect. And if this one point would suffice to refute them, how much more credible will it be [p. 67.] that he is not 'strange' to this man (?) also who happened to |xxxi be in his days, seeing that at the mouth of two witnesses every word is established!

But if thou sayest that therefore not (only) John is like Isu, but also Elijah and Jeremiah, who preceded him, thou sayest well. But are these whom thou citest like him or not? If they are like him, lo! it is against thee that thou canst not turn round (?) and say that by chance, as it were, John only happened to be like him. But lo! thou saidst that there are many men of former times who are like John, and these are all like Isu, so that now we have found that humility existed before Isu. And if humility existed before him, what is that one new thing which he brought with him (and) which was not in those three (i.e. John, Elijah, and Jeremiah) and in their other associates who were like them?

Why forsooth do they say that there was no fasting (in the world), seeing that when all the scattered groups (lit. fragments) of the followers of Marcion are gathered together they cannot keep the fast of Ezekiel, nor have they (ever) prayed, nor do they (now) pray, a prayer like that of the friends of Daniel? ¹¹ [P.68] If they say, 'We are praying the whole day,' let us see whether their prayer is accepted. But perhaps they will say, '(It is.) for how do you know that it is not accepted?' I say, 'From the fact that He does not do for them here (?) anything at all.' And if they say that He does (something) for them, let them show (it) us, and we will accept (it)! For Daniel used to pray three times a day and by means of his prayer he interpreted dreams and brought back the People from Babylon, and angels used to come to him at the time of his prayer. But the Marcionites, because they pray more than Daniel, as they say, will not accomplish more than he, nor even as much as he, but less than he. But since they pray more than the righteous, as they say, and yet are not answered even as much as sinners (are answered), it is clear that, because they pray to one who does not exist, on that account they are not heard or answered when they |xxxii pray. But if we pray concerning great and heavenly things, [P. 69, 1.6.] these are additions.... What is the new (kind of) prayer which he brought with him?

* * * * * * *

[1. 21.] Perhaps thou wilt say that these things were not announced in the Old (Testament), for in the New (Testament)....

[P. 70.] * * * * * * *

[1. 17.] by means of the prophet, and speaks thus that he should give again his cheek to him who smites....

* * * * * * *

[1. 36.] to the prophets he sent it and also to Isu. And if Isu did not send the prophets and the Maker did not send Isu, then from these same sufferings of the prophets Isu [took an example] that [P. 71.] he might adorn himself with them in the midst of the world when he came; because he saw that these very (qualities) were pleasing (lit. chosen) and agreeable to one who loves, he invested himself with them and made use of them, so that he might attract the inhabitants of our world by the humility which was pleasing to them. And if he attracts us by something that is pleasing to us, how can that which is pleasing to us be strange to our nature? For even if they had not been in the prophets, but are greatly pleasing to our nature (it would equally follow"). Or do they say that he changed our nature and (the nature) of the former prophets? Who changed their nature? Was it Isu? Wilt thou not then tell us that he was in the world? And if he was in the world, then the world was in him ¹²; and if the world was in him, he is the Creator's Son, as the Scriptures say, and he is not the Stranger's Son, as the followers of Marcion erroneously assert. But if he was not in the world,¹³ who previously sowed in our world the pleasing qualities of Isu?

Did then the Maker really know that by means of these he (i.e. Isu) was destined to lead created beings astray, and did He give them to us beforehand, in order that we might not go astray [P. 72.] after Isu when he came? And where is that (passage which |xxxiii says) that 'there is none that knoweth the Father save the Son'?¹⁴ [P. 72.] And again, that which says that 'none of the princes of the world knew him'? ¹⁵ And if it be that because the Maker did know He announced them to us beforehand, did He not thereby really lead us astray so that we should think concerning Isu that he was from Him, when he announced these very things which He also had announced to us? But let us suppose that these things belong to Isu; can it be that he actually changed the prophets, and that they were then able to fulfil these commandments? And if he actually changed the prophets, how can he announce to us that we should accomplish them, when he has not yet changed our nature? In virtue of the fact that he incites us by 'Blessed are the humble in their spirit,' ¹⁶ will he really change our nature? And if five hundred Beatitudes do not change our nature, if he utters (lit. gives) them we are not able to fulfil in this nature that which we are not able to fulfil in this nature without a change. Or is it because he cannot that he does not change it? Or because he does not wish? If he cannot, how was he able to change the nature of the former ones? And if, though he was able, he really did not wish, how did he consent to change (that) of the former ones? And if he [P. 73.] did not wish to change (them), why will he change us by means of laws which are strange to our nature? But if the laws are akin to our nature, and our nature to the laws, where is that' Strangeness ' of the Stranger?...

That thou mayest know that these others also [agree] with [l. 26.] these former ones which I have enumerated to thee [I will cite] the words of David, when he says,¹⁷ 'My knees are weak through fasting, and my flesh is wasted for want of ointment,' and Job says,¹⁸ 'Sackcloth have I girded on my skin, and I have sprinkled my head with dust.' And again David says,¹⁹ 'I have made sackcloth my raiment.' Who therefore remains to the Stranger? |xxxiv [P. 74.]... of those things which Isu commanded there is found in our Scriptures; so that if he preached mercy, it is found in David... mercy is more (?) pleasing to Him than fasting from bread (?), for he says,²⁰ ' This is not the fast which I have chosen, saith the LORD, that thou shouldst bend thy neck like a rush and spread out sackcloth and ashes for thyself, but this is the fast which I have chosen, saith the LORD, that thou shouldst loose the bonds of iniquity, and give thy bread to the hungry, and bring the alien into thine house.' And, again, if fasting is pleasing to the Stranger, lo, Elijah and Elishah and the sons of the prophets (are examples thereof), and lo, John, who fasted in his own days (i.e. in the days of the Stranger)! If then these (persons) are pleasing [to the Just God], as also they are indeed pleasing to Him, why does He torment His friends here? Either there is something compassionate [in Him and gracious] to these who are here tormented; or if there is nothing [He is] very wicked, and they are wronged [by Him] on whose account they are here tormented! And how [is manifested] the Justice of the Just One?

[P.75] [See] also, O Marcion, that [these] two Gods, namely the Maker and the Stranger, are both of them angry at the same thing, and take pleasure in the same thing, and are gratified by the same thing. For the Maker is angry at hateful things, and the Good (God) also is angry at hateful things — if it be right to admit that the Good (God) is angry with those who have committed no offence whatever against Him. And so also both of them are gratified by good things, for... it is evident that they are both angry at adultery and theft and other hateful things, and that they are both gratified by sackcloth and fasting and prayer. For what has happened to these two Gods that they should have one will? Is it not clear that either there is (only) One God, or that they are both One, for as one they both will with one will?

And that thou mightest know that this is so, the Maker sanctified Moses and sent him to Egypt, and since Moses wished to take his wife with him by force, He (i.e. the Maker) constrained |xxxv him by means of an angel²¹ to send her back, that He might show how pleasing holiness is to Him. And the Stranger also acted likewise towards Simon (Peter), although he did not [P. 76.] compel him; and (the fact) that he did not compel him, was it because it did not [become] Him to compel, not only because He is good but also because He is not our Creator? And again, when the People had been sanctified, He did not allow them to approach the holy mountain because they were turning again to married life; but the People were standing at a distance, and Moses the holy was speaking, and God was answering with a voice. And again, the disciples also were standing in silence, and Simon only was speaking. And perhaps thou wilt say, Was there not among them John, a virgin, and were not all his companions holy? (But I reply, Nay—) for here (i.e. at Sinai) also were not the People holy in relation to the Maker? And Joshua was a virgin, and ²² he (i.e. Moses) was brought in with Joshua only. Lo! here also it is found that Isu resembles the Maker; for the Maker sanctified the chief of His prophets, and Isu sanctified the chief of His apostles.

But if on account of the holiness which He preached you [P. 77.] think concerning Him that He is a Stranger, then (are we to suppose that) Elijah was caught up to the heavens of the Stranger? For He ²³ would not have taken up and made to ascend to His heavens one who by his holiness wished to be the opponent of the Creator, who wished that by means of marriage the creation should be fruitful and multiply. For by the case of Elijah, so to speak, all the creation of the Creator has been made void. But how could Elijah have been received (into the heavens) on account of that one thing?... For the [P. 78, l.14.] priest was not allowed to enter the Tabernacle unless he was sanctified in his body... But if that single [virgin] of the [l.38.] Maker had preceded those many [virgins] of the Stranger, |xxxvi it would be right that that Maker who had preceded (the [P. 79. l.16.] Stranger) should be called... since there is no other who was before him, so as to enable us to say that he (i.e. the former) was the cause of him (i.e. of the latter), and that this one imitated him, since he was the latter and imitated the Maker. How is he the Stranger? Since therefore we have found that the prophets are like to one another in humility, and John to all of them, and all of them to Isu, how then can the Stranger, who resembles them all, be strange to them all? Or can it be that they give the name of 'Strangeness' to that which is similar? Well, then, the prophets also, who resemble one another, are 'strange' to one another! And if thou sayest that thou wilt not compare creatures to God — for 'how (?) can creatures who have been humbled resemble a God who has been humbled?' — (I ask) then, Is it because Isu was humbled whereas the Maker was not humbled that [P. 80.] strangeness arises? Well, then, according to thy reasoning, because the Father of Isu is not humbled together with Isu who was humbled, the Stranger also, who was not humbled, is strange to His son who was humbled. And if the Stranger who was not humbled is not strange to His son who was humbled, then it is not because one was humbled and the other was not humbled that the Strangeness arises but because Strangeness consists in Strangeness to the nature (of some one). But if Isu who was humbled resembles the Stranger who was not humbled, how much more will Isu who was humbled resemble the Maker who was humbled! For in what consists the fact that Isu was humbled? Is it not in this that he was manifested to men and taught them to do what is good? If this is not also (found) in the case of the Maker, they (i.e. the Marcionites) speak truly. And if not even this was lacking to Him, why do they utter blasphemy by means of the Strangeness which they introduce? Did He not enter into the abode of Abraham and eat? And if it was right that we should say that He ate and that He was manifested to Moses and to Elijah and to Isaiah and to Daniel and the rest of the prophets — and that thou mightest not say |xxxvii that He was manifested only to righteous men, whereas the Stranger (was manifested) to sinners—lo, He was manifested [P. 81.] to the whole People without exception! And if thou sayest that they were righteous, (I answer) Lo, on account of their iniquity they all fell in the wilderness and, except in the case of two, they did not enter into the land of promise. We have thus compared Isu with the Maker, and it has been seen that the Maker was antecedent to Isu in humiliation. And if thou sayest that Isu was actually crucified, thou sayest that it seemed so (?), and not the truth. And if thou addest that He also went down to Sheol and ascended, thou sayest (it) without believing (it). For thou dost not confess the [coming to life of] the body. But inasmuch as (?) it is true that He was actually manifested, the Maker anticipated Him in manifestation. How therefore canst thou liken Isu to that Stranger, who is strange to Him in every respect? And (why) dost thou wish, on the other hand, to account Him strange to the Maker when He resembles Him in every respect?

But if Marcion still persists in cavilling, let him be asked again as to whether he believes the word of the Stranger or not. If he believes it, what did He (i.e. the Stranger) testify concerning John? That John forsooth was a liar, or a true man? Did [P. 82.] He say concerning him that he was in error, or that he was an enlightener of such as are in error? If then John is a true man, and not a reed shaken by every wind,²⁴ why [therefore] is he shaken and does he think about Jesus ²⁵ that he [was] the Messiah of the Law. And if [John knew] the word of Isu to be 'No,' [lo,] then Isu really lied in that he said concerning John that he (i.e. John) did send to him. But if in truth John was shaken and sent to Isu, the word of Isu was also a lie, when he testified concerning John that he was not a reed shaken by every wind.

Thus both of these assertions cannot stand. For either he was shaken, or he was not shaken. If he was shaken he was a |xxxviii reed, and why did he (i.e. Isu) say that he was not a reed? And if he was not a reed, then he was not shaken. And can it be that he wrote (a letter) and dispatched it to him, and sent to him (saying), 'Art thou He that cometh?' But it is wonderful to hear that John believes in David's Son, and yet Isu bears witness [P. 83.] in saying concerning him that he was not a reed and he has been found to be going astray after the Stranger, though the Messiah who is (mentioned) in the Law is strange to him (i.e. to the Stranger) in every respect. And were it not for the testimony of Isu, who said that he was not a reed, it would have been possible to say that because John was humble and happened (to live) in the days of Isu who preached humility, by reason of his humility which resembled his (i.e. the humility of Isu) he abandoned the exalted Son of David and loved the humble Isu; but that (passage) which says that he was not a reed does not permit us to hold this opinion concerning John.

But as for this John, who erred [in thinking that it was necessary] that he should send to Him, did he really know the time, or did he send to Him though he knew that it was not He? And what then compelled him to send to Him? If (it was) that his disciples might learn from Isu...

* * * * * * * [P. 84.]

[l. 40.] And if thou sayest that because He is kind He did not wish [P. 85.] to [injure] John, then because He is kind will He not [condemn] the heathen and the [wicked] and [will] He bear witness to all the [1. 41.] [false] teachings that they are true?... and, what is greater than all things which (consist) of dust and ashes (?), He caused them to attain to all this discernment; if He secretly [P. 86.] punishes them for their grievous sins, He becomes an evil Being (?).

And if they say that the sole reason that Isu said concerning |xxxix John 'Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me,' ²⁶ was in order that he might show that he did not communicate (lit. deliver over) to him that other (utterance) which he said concerning him, that he was not a reed—why did he say it? But if the sole reason of his saying it was in order to show that John was true in his teaching, then he did not send to Isu, and Isu himself made him (i.e. the Evangelist) a liar who recorded that John sent to him, when (in reality) John did not send to him. And if what he said is true, namely that he sent to him, then is not John true? And if Isu had wished to send to him (saying) 'I am He,' would he not have been going astray after him? But he said 'Blessed is he if he is not offended in me.' Whom then do they call a stumbling-block? Is it not he who turned back from (being) with him? John therefore was one who believed in Isu, and on that account Isu sent (saying) 'Blessed is he if he remains steadfast and is not offended in me.' Or can it be that by means of the beatitude he actually wished to deceive John? And was [P. 87.] John deceived or not? If he was not deceived, then the bribe of the Stranger was lost. And did not the Stranger know that his bribe would not be accepted by John? And if he knew, why did he allow his bribe to be lost, that is to say, the bribe of that praise of his?

But concerning Moses and Elijah who were found on the mountain in company with Isu, what do they (i.e. the Marcionites) say that they were doing in his presence? But they say that they were guardians there. And what. pray, were they guarding, since there was nothing on the mountain? And if there had been anything on it, the Maker would have had the Cherub and the point of the sword with which to surround the mountain.²⁷ And if because Isu was a stranger to Him (i.e. to the Maker) they were guarding the mountain for Him, then, as between the mountain and the sanctuary, which of them was greater ²⁸ to the Maker, that He should cease to guard His city and |lx His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard a mountain in which there was nothing? If He did not set forth [P.88.] some symbol there for us, let them tell us what such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, 'You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither?... did he make war against the Maker or...?...

* * * * * * *

[l. 38.] These [two, why] were they sent? For the Maker had myriads [l. 46.] of angels, if to make war [He desired]... Or were they with [P. 89.] him to say to him (i.e. to Isu): "If thou art really buying, in order to buy mankind,²⁹ what is the price of mankind? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy -two from the [flock] ³⁰ of another?... ³¹ Or can it be that thou art taking mankind [l. 12.] hence? And art thou not, lo, he that said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them? ³² Why then didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to [1. 27.] buy?]"... If again they returned and said to him "[As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, if thou didst take them beforehand, nothing hinders (?): this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why?—was this mountain also really required for thee? And if it is required for thee, give |lxi the price of it, seeing thou hast gone up; and if it is not intended by thee to buy the mountain, get down off it; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." If such words were [P. 90.] put forward (lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase... it would not be right for a good Being to injure, [l. 14.] much less those whom he had not yet even purchased! And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness, He would surely, not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain? And did Isu say to the Maker, 'Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price '? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent?'

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn)? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him? Can it be that they had come to fight? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets? And which of the sides conquered there or lost? But that battle, what was it for? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind?... [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose,... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and... [P.93.] against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' ³³ [for] He had sent only two against them.

[1.10.] But [if] they say, ' If... is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him? How] could two men [overcome] three? [Were they just] two men — and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead — to fight [a God]! Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come? So that if He had come, He would have been killed! Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either |lxiii the Maker's or the Stranger's? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] ³⁴ after men, why was he [lo,] unable to [P. 94.] create this? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it)? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu)? And from which heavens did He call? Was it from the heaven of the Maker? And why did He descend to it? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is [P. 95.] not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker?

For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think that in order that mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on that account the voice was coming to them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow the opinion which they had concerning Isu. But if even the voice |lxiv which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto).

For if there had been a battle, the Maker would not have remained silent, He who even when there was another God did not [P. 96.] refrain from (saying) 'I am God and there is none beside.' And if when there were idols, whose nature showed (lit. answered) that they were not gods, He was proclaiming 'I am He and there is none beside,' (can we suppose that) in a case when a God was warring against a God the Creator went into a hiding-place, that the creation might go astray after the Stranger? For if in connection with idols He had been silent, (yet) here it would be right for Him to cry out. How much more when He was not silent even towards dead idols! But seeing that the questions relating to a war have, as in a (real) war, overcome and silenced the question of purchase, now that the tale about a war has come to an end, let us turn to the question of purchase. Explain to us then, What is the purchase which the Stranger made, and from whom did He purchase it? And, moreover, by means of what did He purchase it? And that thing by means of which he purchased that which He purchased, of what nature was it? Was that which He gave of the nature of the aforesaid Good Being, or did He really create (something) and give (it)? And was not that which the Stranger created fairer than that which the Maker created for Himself? And if that which He (i.e. the Stranger) created for Himself was fairer, why did He [P. 97] sell unadvisedly and become a laughing-stock? And if that which He gave was something smaller, the weakness of the Stranger was seen in His creative action. And how was the wise Just Being persuaded to give to the Stranger something great in return [P.98. 17] for something small?... Was it... bodies that are from HULE that he bought, or souls? And if it was souls, |lxv then why [did he not buy] the bodies?... they say that [l. 32.] because the souls had been polluted (lit. had become turbid) He came to purify them. But if those souls were not polluted, then did not the Stranger who purchased them make a. mistake about them? And even if the souls were polluted, on which account he came to buy them, [was he not alien to their nature?]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * [P. 99.]

And if they should say that 'He purifies the nature of [l. 8.] the Souls'... because 'a fire is kindled in mine anger and [l. 19.] it will burn unto the lowest Sheol.' ³⁵ If He is a nature from whom fire is kindled and it then consumes Him in His turn, (in the case of) everything else which is found to belong to that nature fire will therefore be kindled from it and will then consume it in its turn. For if thou bringest some of the water of the sea into a royal city bitterness is (still) in it. And so too. the souls which (come) from the Maker are polluted as the source (lit. root) from which those souls came is polluted. For it is unlikely that they will say that the fruits are changed when the root of the fruits is not changed. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed? But the Apostle says,³⁶ 'Eve shall live on account of her children': then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the |lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo! one affection is found in both of them; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other); for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain....

[P. 102.]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST THE (FALSE) TEACHINGS.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ² Jeremiah xl 2 ff.

2. ² Ezra iv 15, vi 1 ff. (paraphrased).

3. ³ This refers to the sth~lai set up round the Temple; one of these was discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. Ephraim probably knew of them through Josephus (B J v 5, 2).

4. ⁴ I.e. Foreigners are not to enter the Jews' sacred limits. The MS. clearly reads [Syriac], p. 52, 1. 42.

5. ⁵ This is meant ironically.

6. ¹ For the details of the reconstruction of this passage, see the list of Corrigenda. The Palimpsest is to me (F. C. B.) illegible.

7. ² The 'Cherub' and the 'point of the sword' are taken verbatim from Gen. iii 24 syr.vg, but the enclosure (or 'hedge') of the Tree of Life is not a Biblical phrase.

8. ¹ Isu. It is clear from these treatises that this transliteration of the Greek 0Ihsou~s must have been used by the Syriac-speaking Marcionites, but it is not preserved elsewhere in extant Syriac literature, the genuine Semitic form Yeshu' or 'Isho' (i.e. Joshua) being found without exception.

9. ² Luke vii 19, but differing from the Syriac Bible.

10. ³ Hole in MS.

11. ² Ephraim seems to have regarded the Song of the Three Children as an integral part of the Book of Daniel.

12. ² See John i 10 (C, not syr.vg).

13. ³ Delete the footnote, p. 71, 1. 37.

14. ¹ Luke x 22 (not as in the Syriac Bible).

15. ² 1 Cor. ii 8 (knew it, syr.vg.).

16. ³ Matt, v 5 and 3 inaccurately cited).

17. ⁵ Ps. cix 24.

18. ⁶ Job xvi 15.

19. ⁸ Ps. lxix 11 ¹².

20. ¹ Isaiah lviii 5 ff. (not quite accurately cited).

21. ¹ See Exod. iv 24-26: the same view of the passage is taken by Aphraates (Wright, p. 110, 1. 11 — Pat. Syr. i 257) and by Ephraim elsewhere (ES i 205C).

22. ³ See Exod. xxiv 13.

23. ⁴ I.e., apparently, the Creator.

24. ² Luke vii 24.

25. ³ [Syriac] does appear to be the reading of the palimpsest. It is the only occurrence of the ordinary Syriac form of the name 'Jesus' in the anti-Marcionite treatises.

26. ¹ Luke vii 23, but the wording is that of Matt, xi 6 C. Epiphanius (Haer. 324) says Marcion read this 'corruptly' (parhllagme/non), referring the application of the saying to John: we may infer that the corruption consisted in reading e0a_n mh_ for o j e0a_n mh_.

27. ² See Gen. iii 24, and above, p. 58.

28. ³ Read as in the text, and delete the note to p. 87, l. 37.

29. ³ Or, 'men,' and so throughout the paragraph.

30. ⁶ This word (p. 89, 1. 9) is illegible, but for the idea of ' flocks' and ' shepherds ' in Marcionite sources, see p. 106, 1. 40 ff.

31. ⁷ The three illegible lines must express something like " before the price was agreed upon."

32. ⁹ See Eph. i 4.

33. ² Luke ix 35, as in syr.C, and often elsewhere in Ephraim.

34. ¹ P. 94, 1. 3, is illegible, but the sense seems to be as above.

35. ³ Deut. xxxii 22. The use of this verse by Marcionites as a proof-text is attested also by Eznik (J. M. Schmid's tr., p. 200).

36. ⁷ 1 Tim. ii 15: [Syriac] (p. 100, 1. 11) is right, and the note should be deleted. The reading and interpretation of the passage agrees with Ephraim's own Commentary (Ephr. arm in Epp. Pauli, p. 248).

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _3_marcion .htm

Against Marcion II. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Marcion II.

AGAINST MARCION II.

* * * * * * *

[P.103, l.5] about which Zechariah says, 'Lo! thy King cometh unto thee,' in order to show us (?) that he is a king. And that other (passage) which Daniel uttered,¹ 'One like a son of men came, and to him He gave the kingdom.' And one (coming) was in humility, as all the Prophets bear witness about [it], and the other in [exaltjation, as the Scriptures bear witness

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.104, l. 19] But. just as, O Marcion, when David [mentioned] the Messiah who is (foretold) in the Law, our Lord proved from David that he (i.e. the Messiah) is not David's son—and the matter remained in doubt among the Scribes—in like manner, when John recognised our Lord....

* * * * * * *

[l.43] And when [he] explained that he is David's son that cometh, how being David's son is he the Lord of David, seeing that David [P. 105.] testifies and our Lord confirms? As Malachi testifies concerning John, 'Behold I send my messenger before thee,' and our Lord confirms it that John was Elijah, give me evidence from the other Scriptures that John is [the messenger] of whom Malachi spake.

Therefore according to the testimony of David and the confirmation of [our Lord], David's son, concerning this son of David [and] about this Lord of [David], are there then two Messiahs or two natures? For [if in some respects he is the son of David] and in some respects the lord of David, is it not [clear that the |lxviii two natures come together and] are mingled as one, and in relation to the manhood (he is) the Messiah and in relation to the Godhead [he is lord]. For why was a body required for God?

* * * * * * *

[P.106 l.30.]... so that if ye believe and do not doubt and "if there is in you belief," is it false belief, like (the belief) of that blind man ² or the belief of strangeness?

"Because John was near to die, he sent his flock by the hand of two under-shepherds to the Lord of the flock: our Lord began to teach concerning him—' Did ye go out to see a great man on account of his raiment?' " This man, the meek and humble, [P. 107.] and, if not, a trembling reed shaken by every wind, does he not thus go astray [a little], and is bent and beaten about by all manner of reports? Because he knew whose coming he announced (lit. before whom he announced), for the witness of the truth and the herald of the kingdom of the Lord of the kingdom is taught by the truth. If our Lord Isu, therefore, bore witness to John that he was meek, let us learn from this humility which of the Messiahs the humble herald resembles (lit. approaches), that Messiah (who is) the source of humility, or that one at whose side thousands fall. For it is necessary that the herald of the dispensation (lit. time) should be himself similar to the dispensation. But Malachi says, The messenger of the covenant, lo! he cometh, and who endureth the day in which he cometh?' But if the herald is humble and meek, and he who is heralded is set on high and exalted, lo, in this also there is strangeness!

But (as for) our Lord who says, 'John is greater than all who are born of women,' not because he saw the greatness of the herald, as ye say, that it was great and splendid like that of him who was heralded, (it was not) on account of this that He [P. 108.] said (it). Either give us the splendour of John which was eminently great as (befitted) that of the herald who (went) before the Pre-eminent One, or explain to us why our Lord called him great. For even as all the prophets were 'just,' like Him |lxix who sent them, so also this man, His herald, is like Him who is heralded. For if the greatness of him who is heralded is not shown in the announcement concerning him, who will believe that he is a great one? And if He performed signs, read (of them), and if He worked miracles, declare (them). For (with regard to) those messengers whom our Lord sends at the last and that token which appears before that terrible coming, is the sign (shmei~on) thereof terrible and glorious like the thing itself, or can it be that it is alien to Him in His lowliness?

But it was not Moses or one of the prophets who said concerning John "He is greater than all who are born of women." What is there about him ³ that magnifies John? But can it be that the bonds of Herod magnify him, or that the head-asking of the daughter of Herodias exalts him, or that the executioner confirms for him (the application of) that (passage), 'Who can endure the day in which he cometh?' A herald who was humbled [P. 109.] and slain came before Him who comes on the clouds to destroy the slayers, and a lowly messenger who did not stand up for himself was sent before the King before whom no created beings can stand! And he with whose head the girl played, who will believe that he was the apostle of that ⁴ Stone which will cause all falsehood to pass away?... and let us bring forward the aspects of the two Messiahs, and let us look at the aspect of John and see which Messiah he resembles — that Stranger [in whose] days he came beforehand, or this (Messiah) who is in the Law, of whom as yet not even a rumour had been heard; for even from... and proximity (?) it was possible to learn their true nature. Set therefore the two Messiahs over against one another, and set John between (them); with whom then does the slain herald agree, with the slayer or with the slain one? Whom does the meek and [despised] one resemble? Him who was |l humbled or the shatterer of all...? And if it was because [P. 110.] John announced the coming of that Messiah (lit. announced before that Messiah) that he became great, it is still the same thing; for he caused us to ascribe the majesty of that King to the herald and the messenger who preceded Him, as is also the custom of kings and their messengers.⁵ Or can it be that the majesty of him who was to come consisted in humility? For lo! [the majesty] of humility was also upon His herald, together with the rest (of His qualities). But because John was the messenger of the kingdom he was also wholly forgotten by them (?). When he comes, that Just One and the greater of the [two] Messiahs, does a herald or a messenger go before him? Or [will it be sudden?],⁶ that terrible coming of His, and does no messenger and herald come before it? But if another herald does come before it,... he is greater than John. For that majesty which was ascribed to John bears witness concerning this (Being) that He is greater than John. And is that messenger who comes before that subjugator of the nations thus subjected [P. 111.] and humbled and persecuted as John was? If thus is his coming (?), the contest is ours, for if the messenger is thus humbled and scorned, how does the lowly announce the coming of the Mighty One, and the scorned (announce) the coming of the Exalted One? Who will believe that he is the Messenger of the Saviour in a case where he cannot stand up for himself, or does not show terrible signs and does not cast fear and trembling upon mankind? But if the messenger who comes is great and mighty, how necessary is it that He too should be great! For (He is) like the Sun, and the herald also is a ray that precedes Him. If therefore it is so — as indeed it is — John, the humbled and lowly, announced the coming of Isu, who differs, by reason of his lowliness, from that high exalted King who is coming; and he is alien, by reason of his abasement, to that mighty messenger who is sent before the face of that Mighty One. But does the Messiah come to save Israel or to torment it? If he comes to |li save it, his messenger therefore convicts of sins or preaches salvation. But if he is one who convicts, when they repent [P. 112.] then they are saved. And if they do not wish to repent, does he preach to them ease or salvation? But if he preaches destruction to them, all those things which Israel expects are annulled. And if he preaches salvation to them, by his character of Saviour he offers them a foretaste of the great salvations which come after him, as Moses did in Egypt.

Let us see therefore what foretaste of salvation John offered to them; and, in the second place, lo, the Jews acknowledge all (manner of) prophets and righteous men, and this man, who is greater than all of them, they not only slew but do not even acknowledge! When therefore the Just and Upright One comes, whom this persecuted and slain one announced beforehand, will He avenge his ill-treatment and murder and the refusal to acknowledge him upon all the tribes of the Jews, who unto the last continually refuse to acknowledge him, or will He not? If He does not avenge (him), where is the Just One who delivered even the observer of the Law (and) avenged him on the Gentiles? ⁷ This man, who is greater than all the Prophets, [P. 113.] He does not avenge! And if He executes vengeance on all these Tribes, who disbelieve in John and continue to do so, then He who comes is the destroyer of the Jews and not their Saviour. For those who slew His messenger slew Him Himself, and those who deny His herald are not able to acknowledge Him.

But if when all these sins are openly committed (lit. are in the midst) they are not punished, why was it necessary that John should come to baptize and absolve from transgressions, seeing that not one of the transgressions is punished?

But there is no one who is kinder than He who forgives all these transgressions; and how is it that this justice shows neglect, (this justice) which in no case neglected to punish? Has that grace which comes to Israel at the last compelled us to say that it is alien to that justice which wrote for Israel ⁸ 'blow for blow'? But if sins are punished, that baptism which remits sins is necessary at the last; for lo, the baptism of John ceased |lii (to exist) among the Jews thenceforward. Who therefore can [P 114.] bring it (back), and who can baptize, now that John is dead? And if it (i.e. baptism) is not necessary at the last, why was it formerly necessary? Is it withheld by Grace or by Justice?

But (thou wilt say), ' Lo, these very things by means of which thou judgest me, (by asking) why they are not found in connection with John, are the things by means of which thou too art judged as to why they are not found in connection with John. For lo, the prophet testifies and our Lord confirms that those things which are said concerning Elijah are fulfilled in him (i.e. in John).' But I say that the herald is like Him who is heralded, that as about Him terrible things are written and as if in this world He is doing them, but it is at the last He is ready to do them. But the roots (i.e. causes) of retribution, since they come from this quarter, prophecy takes up, in order to pluck the fruits from their roots, according to that (passage), 'Lo, the kingdom of God among you!' ⁹—And they did not (then) see those good things and the pleasures of the Kingdom, but because He is the root of the aforesaid pleasures [P. 115.] He says 'Lo, the Kingdom!' Because those words which John proclaimed [give an earnest of what is to come]¹⁰ he called things of Yonder things of Here, just as in the case of a murderer who is slain after twenty years, the hour in which he committed the murder has slain him, as (it befell) Adam.¹¹

And if thou sayest. that they likewise teach that there is a proof (?) respecting these associates (?), then also the Messiah who is (mentioned) in the Law has two comings, one in which he deposited pledges, and another in which he redeems pledges. For from the actions of John I demonstrate (that he has) two comings, one to which the actions (?) of John bear witness that it was not a Lowly One who came to announce the advent of the Exalted One, and another (coming) promised by (lit. the promises of) Malachi in the passage "He cometh as a fiery furnace," that is to say, on account of the retribution which was hidden in the preaching of John, (the retribution) which |liii is revealed at the last, as he said also concerning his Lord, "Thousands shall fall at thy side," ¹² and "Peace at the last," ¹³ and as that (passage says), 'The LORD God shall give him the throne of David his father.' ¹⁴

Now the Baptism at the hands of John was so alien that not [P. 116.] even the angels, and righteous men and prophets were aware of it; let that Strangeness, therefore, of which no one was aware, appear in the days of this Strangeness of Isu, of whom no one had been informed; but it was right that the Strangeness of our Lord should be bound together with the Strangeness of John by the conduct of our Lord, as John also was with the Law: Old Testament and New Testament (meet) in the new Baptism of John.

But nevertheless if our Lord was David's Son, as all the prophets bear witness, and if He was not David's Son, as David too testifies and our Lord also confirms, on your account then it was said that He is not David's Son, so that this very Strangeness to which ye have recourse might be found within the Scriptures, in order that your error might be hampered from running (abroad) throughout the world.

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ Or, ' He came like a son of men ': this peculiar phrase is that of syr.vg, Dan. vii 13.

2. ¹ I.e. the blind man who called Jesus 'son of David' (Luke xviii 38). P. 100, 1. 17, appears to read 'Thy faith hath saved thee ' (Luke xviii 42).

3. ¹ Lit. ' this set in the midst.'

4. ⁴ See Dan. ii 34, seq.

5. ² I.e. An ambassador must be treated with the respect due to a king.

6. ⁴ I cannot make out l. 27.

7. ¹ Probably an allusion to Dan. vi.

8. ² Exod. xxi 25.

9. ² Luke xvii 21 SC (not syr.vg).

10. ³ I cannot translate or amend p. 115, ll. 5-7.

11. ⁴ See Gen. ii 17 ("in the day when, thou eatest thereof," etc.).

12. ¹ Psalm xci 7.

13. ² Psalm xxxvii 37.

14. ³ Luke i 32.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _4_marcion .htm

Against Marcion III. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Marcion III.

AGAINST MARCION III.

ANOTHER DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

[P. 117.] IF the organs ¹ of the body suffice for the gifts of the Good (God), O Marcion, that is to say, the eye for His light, and the ear for His voice, why then does the body not live at the last? But if the body does not suffice for these good things at the last, no[thing] else in this world suffices for them. Therefore neither is the heart sufficient for knowledge of the Stranger, nor hearing for the study (lit. reading) of Him. Moreover, as to the fact that the souls do not sin in the Kingdom, is it because of their nature, which is good, that they do not sin? And how then did the evil body change the good nature? But if the Stranger changes them there, though they are evil, what sin did the body commit [P. 118.] so as to be deprived of this desirable change? But if the souls are good there, is it because they enter that region that they are good, or are they good from the point where they stripped off their bodies? If this desirable state be due to the place, let the body also enter into it, and likewise all men [in whom] are sins....

* * * * * * *

[P. 119, l.5]... [And as] Fire is not [separated from Heat, so Evil is not constituted apart from its power. But how and wherefore does that which is hot retain its natural heat, when that which is cold did not remain in its natural state? If therefore it is an Existence and an Entity, they are [not] changed in nature. But if that creative power has made out of nothing something good, it [can] be changed in character. For this ye have learnt, (namely) that they are created from nothing, because a thing which is created from nothing can be changed into |lv anything. And if it is not created, it is always 'bound' by its essential nature; for, (in the case of) a thing which can be changed into anything, its change bears witness concerning it that it [does not come] from an unchangeable Existence. But if it is possible for the souls to strip off their bodies, they (i.e. the souls) are purged of all evils. Why did he who came come? Was it to bring life to the body which [P. 120.] [was] without life, or to come and change the soul which was (already) alive?... And henceforth they are dragged again [l. 17.] from struggle to struggle, and therefore also weapons and crucifixion are necessary to them (?) in the Kingdom. And if not, for what reason are the souls which are very evil here not evil there? For if this is due to the place then also their Creator is able to bring them up to a place which is raised above and higher than HULE. And if they say that they (i.e. the souls) cannot conquer even there, (I reply that) if it be the fact that the Stranger constrains us to conquer in the region of Evil and (in) the body of Sin, how much more will the Maker give us the victory in a place which is raised above Evil and also above the body of Sin! But if even thus it (the soul) cannot conquer, it is then unjust in the Stranger to demand of us victory in a [P. 121] region where there is no possibility of our being victorious. But if, when the souls have stripped off the body of Sin and are lifted up again to a region which is raised above Sin, the souls are still polluted even there, how do they say that in that region of the Good they are purged? And why then do they blame the body by asserting that 'it causes the soul to sin,' when in reality, in all this interval of time, the nature of the soul is found to be evil? And how at the present time do the souls become good in the Kingdom? For if the Stranger creates a new mode of existence (lit. another creation) for them there, if He is able to change the mode of existence of the soul, it may be that He can change the soul's nature. But if the nature is changed by creative power, then the evil was not in the essence (of the soul) but in the creative power, and hence the Maker can change |lvi the nature according to His will, as also other created beings testify who serve according to the will of their Creator. And therefore when Isu came to us, He ought to have made use of [P. 122.] creative power and not of preaching, for creative power changes natures, whereas preaching does not; and this is proved to thee by craftsmen, that is to say, even by potters and smiths.

But if when our Lord came He did not wish to change the natures, was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to change the natures? Was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to destroy that which was well adjusted? Or was it as an evil and envious Being that He did not wish to adjust that which was badly constructed? But if it was because our Lord saw it to be rightly fashioned that He did not even adjust any part of it, how do they say that the Maker repented of the work to which our Lord Himself testified that it was rightly fashioned? Or how again, when our Lord praises it, do they find fault with it? But know that by the fact that He praised the latter one it is seen that He agrees with the former one, and by the fact that they find fault they themselves are seen to disagree with the latter (and) also with the former. But in which (respect) is our Lord seen to have praised the work of the Maker? Is it not by the fact that [they find fault, but He was] [P. 123.] one who repaired the normal arrangement? ² For it was not abnormal eyes, alien to nature, that our Lord gave to the blind man, but eyes in accordance with nature. [If He were] a Stranger, it would be reasonable that just as He gave us laws which were alien to the Maker in like manner He should give us also physical organs which are alien to the Maker. But if He changed laws but did not wish to change physical organs, it is seen that the organs are (works) of God, and our Lord, who changed the laws from generation to generation, did not change the organs in any generation.

But they say, 'The sole reason of His not changing (them) was that they might not think concerning Him that He was a Stranger, and (so) persecute Him.' The laws therefore which He changed, did He change them in order that they might |lvii think concerning Him that He was not a Stranger? In which of the two circumstances, then, was strangeness most powerfully to be seen, in the change of laws or in the change of organs? For even a feeble human being can change laws, but (only) a powerful Maker can change organs. Would that He had changed [the] mind and had not changed the law, so that [a man] might see its excellence and not its difficulty! For when new creations came to pass [in] men more strangeness [P. 124.] [would arise]....

* * * * * * *

For just as by the fact that He [changed] the laws He shewed [l. 22.] strangeness, [so] by the fact that He did not change the bodily organs He annulled the strangeness. But if our Lord [made] the two of them one — for He gave to the hearers additional interpretations which were not in the Law, but He did not give to those who were to be healed additional organs which were not in nature, (it was) in order that when contumacious persons treat Him as a stranger because He abrogated laws they may be convicted of error by the fact that He maintained the normal arrangement of nature. Again, He gave new laws and maintained primeval nature, in order that when He is treated as a stranger on account of the new laws primeval nature may come forward and prove concerning Him that He is not the son of a [P. 125] stranger.

But if He is a stranger, as they assert concerning Him, then this thing which He did was exceeding foolish; for He abrogated the former commandments and maintained the former nature. For, as I have already said, He ought, as a strange law-giver, to have created on that account a strange nature also, so that, just as His law was seen to be something more than the former law, in like manner His creation also might be seen to be something more than the creation of the Creator. But if "in His law our Lord was a stranger, but in His action one of the household," ³ this is (a description of) the foolish Marcion, who is partly inside and partly outside. And they ought therefore, if they are lovers of true things, to remain in doubt; for if they called Him a stranger on account of the new sayings which He uttered, then |lviii because He did not create a strange creation the bold preaching ought to have been buried in silence (lit. confined within silence). For the Marcionites preach two things concerning our Lord which are at variance with each other, for "He abrogated the former laws and healed injured organs." But here this man, [P. 126.] whoever he may be, is seen to be alien to the creation in virtue of his teaching and akin to it in virtue of his activity.⁴ But let us see which is the true 'strangeness,' that which consists in sayings or that which consists in deeds. If that which consist in sayings is true, their contentious doctrine is true, but if that which consists in deeds is true our faith has received the crown.

Let us know therefore who was a stranger to the world— Ho who instituted in it new laws, or He who created in it strange creatures? For He who institutes in the world new laws is not a stranger to the world, since in that world new laws have been issued from generation to generation; but He who created strange creatures was perhaps considered to be a stranger, since no strange creature has (ever) appeared in the world. If therefore the Marcionites proclaim that our Lord gave eyes to the blind, it is a good thing that from their own mouth their condemnation is proclaimed. For instead of bestowing strange eyes, that it might be known that He was a stranger, He restored to health these former ones, that it might be known that He is that (Being) who existed in former times. But this thing, which they proclaim to others, is to themselves a thing unheard of; for their hearing [P. 127.] is at variance with their tongue, just as their intention is at variance with their Maker. For the Creator and Lawgiver abolished the former laws and gave other laws, but He did not abolish the former sun and create another sun; again He replaced the Old Covenant (diaqh&kh) by a New Covenant, but He did not abolish the old heaven and create another heaven. With regard therefore to Him who creates natures and gives laws, just as it was easy for Him to change laws so it would have been easy for Him to change natures. But wherefore He who changed laws did not wish to change the creation thou mayest hear from us abundantly, if there is not with thee that contentiousness which is wont to resist abundant (proofs), which, though it is |lix supposed that with its labour it really acquires them, does not [know] that it is driving away from beside itself an acquisition without labour. For the contention of the hearer is [an impediment to] the gifts that come forth from the mouth of the speaker.

Hear therefore why it was that He who abolished the former laws did not abolish the former creatures! He created the creatures in accordance with His own perfection, but He gave [P. 128.] many laws in account of our imperfection. For if we had abided perfectly by the law which He has written on the heart—(the law) which was followed by Abel and by Enoch who did not taste death—laws varying from nation to nation would not even be required. Thus where the creatures (are concerned, permanence of species is due to) the perfection of the Creator, who in all respects is perfect; and where laws (are concerned, the diversity is due to) the imperfection of man, who in all respects is audacious. God, therefore, did not abolish the former creatures, lest we should think that He had actually received advice or had been taught to create creatures superior to the former creatures; but He gave many laws, that in many (ways) He might restrain the audacity which did not abide by the former law which was written on the heart.

But man, on account of his imperfection, when he does something, is taught by his experience of former things to do something more than (those) former things; whereas the Creator, since He is perfect in His Wisdom, even before He creates, each separate thing that He wishes to do is completely visible to Him: But perhaps thou wilt say, 'Lo, creatures were transformed in Egypt!' They were transformed in Egypt on [P. 129.] account of the tyranny of Pharaoh, but they did not undergo transformation on account of ⁵...

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.130. l.29][For the Will that bound the course of Nature ⁶ (is able to alter it) and we learn that He who relaxed the Laws was Himself the |lx [l. 38.] establisher of the Laws.] For a composite nature cannot remain in its composite state without the... power of its Creator, and a law cannot be annulled without the good will of its Maker; [P. 131.] for where there is power to make there is also wisdom which directs the things that are made, and where there is Justice which punishes sins there is also Grace.... For consider that One who is good cannot shew mercy save to those who have transgressed His just law, for if He has compassion with regard to the law of another He has deflected from goodness and also ignored justice, so as to incline altogether towards iniquity. For that Stranger who becomes the pardoner of debtors necessarily wrongs the creditor. "But," it is said, "He paid our debt by His death." But know that we owed a real debt: if therefore He died in reality, He also paid our debt in reality; but if it was in appearance that He died, that debt of ours also was paid in by a fraud. Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act [P. 132.] wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. "But," it is said, "though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how ⁷ do they bring in the term 'purchase'? [Call] Him therefore a doer of violence and not a purchaser. But if He made a real purchase, as one who acted humbly, how was 'might' involved in the affair? For either let them choose for themselves that He purchased as a humble and true (Being), or else let them choose for themselves that He did violence, as one who is mighty and tyrannical.

But since the followers of Marcion were ashamed to be sponsors for the term 'violent robbery' (as applicable) in the case of the Stranger, they have used with reference to Him the term 'purchase in humble fashion,' and because they are refuted in |lxi the matter of the purchase, they have used with reference to Him the term 'might,' so that when it is asserted against them that He did violence they say that He merely purchased, and when again it is asserted against them that the Maker did not wish to sell his possessions they say that He (i.e. the Stranger) is mightier than He (i.e. the Maker). Each of the (two) assertions [P. 133.] therefore annuls the other. For if it is a 'purchase in humble fashion,' consent (lit. will) and not compulsion is involved, but if the purchaser overcomes by force he does not really purchase but seizes by violence. If therefore they introduce (the mention of) His might, which is a plausible term, (the notion of) violent robbery comes in with it...

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.134, l.26] let them learn that it is a doctrine (artificially) constructed and..., which has no foundation (lit. root); for the poets likewise construct fables out of bare names, their fables being devoid of foundation, for the poets make use of names...

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.135, l. 21.] On that account He gave that which is His own in order that He may take that which is not His own. And again, if there is no affinity between the purchaser and the seller, in their mutual action, they cannot give to one another or receive from one another. For that which they give is profitable to both, and again that which they receive is pleasing and profitable to both. But if they have heard only the word 'purchase' and hence have introduced the mention of 'strangeness' (lit. and from it have named strangeness), they ought to have made mention of 'strangeness' from the days of Isaiah onwards, who said ⁸ "For nought have ye been sold," and thenceforward it would have been a purchase in reality, that the People was sold, that it should serve its masters. But if there is no strangeness in [P. 136.] a real purchase, how can there be strangeness in a fraudulent |lxii purchase? But if they say that the Just One did not perceive the Good One, (I reply) 'And how was it that that Good and Humble One came to purchase something which its owner did not wish to sell—something which it did not even enter His mind to sell?' But if they say something that pleases them they must hear something that does not please them. For it pleases them to say this, that this Just One did not perceive that Good One; but it does not please them that some man should say concerning that Good One that He robs with violence. But this (statement) which does not please them is derived from that (statement) which pleases them. For if the Just One did not perceive the Good One, He therefore did not even contemplate the selling of His possessions to Him, for lo, He did not even perceive that He (i.e. the Good One) existed! But if He did not perceive Him and moreover did not contemplate the selling (of anything) to Him, it necessarily follows that if He sold (anything) He was compelled by force to sell that which He did not [P. 137.] wish to sell. But perhaps they may say that even if the Good One compelled the Just One by force it was only for our salvation that He compelled Him by force. Know that in this respect He was on a level with all robbers. For he also who goes forth to take by robbery a possession that is not his own puts pressure on the possessor by reason of his love for the possession; and, in a word, all those who take away things from their owners; it is because of the love which they have for the things themselves that they grieve the heart of their possessors. But they say, "Even if the Good One put pressure on the Just One by snatching us from Him, He only took us to Himself in a loving manner." (But this is no argument), for what thief is there who will steal a precious pearl from his neighbour and will not keep it lovingly and carefully after taking it away? And on this supposition all evil-doers are found to be acting, not in an evil manner, but mercifully and kindly. For what robber is there who goes forth to take away or to filch something hateful and [undesirable] in his own eyes? Why therefore have the [P. 138.] Marcionites adorned with fair titles One who in His conduct is not different from evil-doers? But far be it from us to speak thus concerning our Lord! But it is only on account of them (i.e. |lxiii the Marcionites) that we are obliged to say these things for their refutation, so that if they are convinced these things will not be reckoned to us to our detriment, on account of the advantage (which accrues) to them, and if they are not convinced they will pay the penalty for it, that their confusion (of mind) led us to use words that are not seemly. But even if we utter the blasphemy (only) with our lips, and not in our heart, nevertheless who is there who wishes to taste, even with his lips (only), the deadly poison? For as to that which is not seemly, would that it had never in our life (?) entered our mind!

But nevertheless let us return to our former subject, which we abandoned for a while on account of the pretext of 'purchase.' If therefore before the coming of Isu this [convention] ⁹ existed, O Marcion, that is to say, that though laws were changed from generation to generation the order of nature ¹⁰ was fixed and. continued (lit. came) through all generations, we see that if our [P. 139.] Lord came and diverged from this [convention] ⁹ of the Maker it is evident that He was 'strange' to the Maker. But if He proceeded in accordance with this order it is manifest that this beseemed the Son that His steps should hasten in the footprints of Him that begat Him, for He also... But the Son [1. 17.] also preserved by His healing the normal arrangement of the former body, that He might testify, as their Father did, that the creatures were created aright from the Beginning. Our Lord therefore is not found to resemble a destroyer, nor a stranger, for He did not injure healthy organs... nor, again, when He healed did He bestow abnormal organs, nor, again, did He [make it [1. 33.] appear] to them by His creative power that He was alien to the Maker, but He preserved organs that were healthy, and cured organs that were hurt. But (?) He who preserves healthy organs, in order that they may not be hurt, plainly testifies concerning Him who created them that He is perfect and (that) it is not right that His arrangement should be hurt. But He who [P. 140.] sets in order organs that have been hurt testifies concerning |lxiv a creative power (shared) in common, (namely) that He is a fellow-workman to Him who set them in order from the Beginning; and it is evident that it was a love (shared) in common which constrains Him to set in order by a common mode of workmanship the common work. For when the work of a craftsman is injured it cannot be set right save by him who made it, or by a fellow-workman to him who made it. These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker. But His active power itself deprives those who deprive Him of active power, especially because that active power of His was repairing the work of the Creator. But it is clearly seen that this is a thing learnt from Him, (I mean) that primeval Teacher who is the Architect of the creation. But this active power was sent as to the first of creatures,¹¹ in order that it might be known that by this same active power the creatures had been created. For the repair of a work can only be wrought by means of that workmanship which set it in order.

[p. 141.] But when this perfect Disciple of that perfect Architect came, not that He was a learner, nor was His Teacher instructed, in virtue of that workmanship which (proceeded) from Himself (and) in which the normal arrangements were included from the Beginning—when He came, therefore, He ordered aright the hands which He had made, that they might give alms to those who lacked health, whereas He found them (such) that, instead of giving alms from that which was their own, they committed thefts from that which was not their own. But because the hands did not perform that service on account of which He created them He was empowered, as a just Maker, to command that the hands should wither up. But instead of this He commanded that hand which was withered to be stretched forth; ¹² for He knew the effrontery of the Marcionites, that if when He was restoring and repairing the corruption of the natures they call Him 'strange' to Nature, if His deed had been contrary to Nature how much more would they have considered Him 'strange'? But because they are perverse, perhaps if our Lord [P. 142.] had done contrary to Nature they would not have considered |lxv Him 'strange!' But even if they had been as it were able to learn perversely, yet for the upright Teacher it was not seemly that because of the perverse ones He also should teach perversity,

* * * * * * *

[P.113 1. 16.] a rent worse than the former one ¹³... ' unless' they were willing to learn. For if in the [straight] way the followers of Marcion are not [able to walk, in slippery places how] can they [direct] their goings? ¹⁴

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ For this translation of haddame, generally rendered 'limbs,' see p. xxi, 1. ] 1, where Ephraim says "by thy haddame, that is, by thy senses."

2. ² P. 122, ll. 44, 45, are obscure, but the sense seems to be as above.

3. ² This is evidently quoted as a Marcionite saying.

4. ¹ The same word as is translated 'creative power,' pp. lv (last line), lxiii f.

5. ¹ Here follows a very illegible page, containing an allusion to Hezekiah and the Sundial (Isaiah xxxviii 8), p. 129, 11. 15-22.

6. ² Not quite the same phrase as James iii 6.

7. ¹ Lit. "How do they name purchase in the midst? "

8. ¹ Isaiah lii 3.

9. ² The word [Syriac], which occurs twice in this context, is legible in the Palimpsest. It is probably a distortion of some foreign word, e.g. to_ eu0a&reston or the Latin orbita.

10. ³ Lit. 'natures,' i.e. the various distinct species.

11. ¹ Cf. Colossians i 15.

12. ² Luke vi 10.

13. ² Luke v 36 (Matt, ix 16).

14. ³ The concluding sentence is mostly illegible, but the reference to the ' rent' is clear. [...]

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _5_bardaisan.htm

Stanzas Against Bardaisan. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Bardaisan

AGAINST BARDAISAN.

A DISCOURSE AGAINST BAKDAISAN. ¹

[P. 143.]

I. BARDAISAN, lo, declares--that even without the sin of Adam--the Body would turn to its dust,--that Flesh does not cleave to Spirit,--that the dregs run downward--and the fine material upward,--and...--the one its height and the other its depth.

II. His opinion is diseased, similar--to the infirmity of Bardaisan,--his whole mythology is sickly.--"For if," says he, "[it is] by Adam--we die the Death of here below,--it would have been right that He who came--should have given Life here below--that he might render recompense for the usury paid."

III. But our judges are judged--before that Truth which is from judgement;--they are being judged, the judges--of all [P. 144.] judgements that [are] judged in error.--The truth of it judges the judges,--for Verity [cometh] in judgement;--by its truth it is the victor--of the wickedness hidden in the judges.

IV. When by artifice Error judges--that it may conquer the truth,--it is judged secretly--by the knowledge of the truth. --Wherefore not again has Verity [come]--if open audacities have changed it,--for its victory in truth--holds the crown over it.

V. To the word of truth... the healthy ear [is a test:]... --the healthy mouth also is a test²--to fruit sweet [and bitter]--the mouth teaches the taste--to the eye that has erred by the sight.

VI. For that inexperience--of the eye which sees [all forms]--is obedient to the mouth which tries [all] tastes--[that thou] |lxvii mayest learn [thereby the wholesomeness] of fruits; [so] also the inexperience -- of the ear that hears all words -- (is obedient) to the heart that tries all words -- that thou mayest learn thereby the force of the words.

VII. Let us be like to the ordinary (physical) body -- whose [P. 145.] organs are equal in love, -- for the sound organ that has stumbled -- its fellow that is skilful admonishes it. -- Let the lover[s] of truth also become -- one Body against Error -- that [our] lack may be filled --...

VIII. A true decision bears witness -- that the transgression of Adam -- turned the Body to a principle ³ -- that looses the fixing of its life, -- for if we have seen that our Lord also -- fixed the mortal Body -- with life that cannot be loosed -- His truth has borne away the crown.

IX. Our disputation has entered a contest -- that from two sides, lo, is approached, -- that on two sides it may be crowned, -- for in that one involves the other -- in the common contest they are alike. -- For if our Lord put on the Body -- with the life of Paradise He rewarded it, -- because it lost its life there.

X. Compare, then, and let us take the [trial]s -- of our Lord that thou mayest know, if they are like -- to bodily and mortal ones, -- whether He put on the Body, or not. -- Begin then with the Birth -- and go on to finish with the Death -- and include in the middle -- His human mode of life.⁴

XI. For they are bound one to the other -- His truths that bound Error; -- in that His Death persuades us about His [P. 146.] Birth -- that He put on a mortal Body; -- His Resurrection bears witness to His Death -- that the Body which died was raised. -- For His Birth is bound up with His Death, -- and His Death is bound up with His Resurrection.

XII. For our Lord has fixed the traditions -- of His truth like the bodily organs, -- [which] He has fixed in one another, -- that when contention and Error -- wish to cut off an organ -- the Body all of it wails -- and the organs [from all] sides -- are crying out about that one which is cut off.

XIII. The Truth is living and life-giving to all, -- lo, the |lxviii tastes of it bear witness to it.--For lo, by a myriad trials-- the affair of our Lord is learnt,--that in the Body He died and was raised,--and His Birth and His Death have become a test ⁵--for the very Body which He put on,--that not in appearance and fraud did He put it on.

XIV. [When] He confessed His [mys]tery to Thomas,--who by touch wished to examine Him,--He gave His Body to the touch of the hand,--that the sense of touch also should be a [P. 147.] test to Him;--there came to him the word of Truth,--that will cast out all contention,--"For a spirit hath not bones"; ⁶-- in truth He put on His bodily organs.

XV. For even if... --proclaims that our Lord was clothed with a Body,--Contention stops up its ears--and in perversity proclaims something else,--that our Saviour did not put on the Flesh.--And if its perversity in truth justifies us--how much more will His correctness justify us?

XVI. But I think that Truth--thus conquers Error--not when... --the eloquent... to run,--but... with Him--his running surpasses their running,--as.. --.. and is crowned.

XVII. * * * * * * *

for what reason and wherefore--the Body cannot for ever--be accompanied for ever by the soul.

XVIII. [For] if we say that it is a House--...

[P. 148.] XIX. For a snare, lo, is spread--...

XX. And if...

XXI. These things that [are] supposed --to be strange to one another,--[and also] are not acceptable to one another--are one, and are from one, and in one,--for they exist in one creation --and from one Air are nourished--and by one Death are cut off --and to one Working are obedient. |lxix

XXII. But see the seed, that as...

... -- that in the bosom of its mother it may take refuge, -- and [P. 149.] leaven out of all bosom[s] -- in the mass of dough takes refuge alone. -- The bosom of the earth is the opposite of the [seed], -- and when aforetime it was growing up in it -- in the mode of [its species] it grew up.

XXIII. * * * * * * *

XXIV. * * * * * * *

-- whether the Will [of] the Creator -- begat the wealth of diversities -- that are regarded as opposites, -- or that there are Entities, strangers -- and not related to one another -- and...

XXV. That Error much distresses me --...

... in the Beginning, -- that what they say about the end -- [P. 150.] we may say to them about the beginning.

XXVI. I know that if...

XXVII. * * * * * * *

XXVIII. * * * * * * *

XXIX. * * * * * * *

XXX. What good therefore [has] death, -- if when life abounds --...

* * * * * * *

XXXI.⁷ Now let us turn for a little -- to a question. which [P. 151.] is before this, -- that she may not be bereaved by having been left -- let Truth then run to meet her -- holding fast the victory of her sister -- and announcing to her about Error, -- that it had become a mark for the arrows -- that she also may begin to mock at it.

XXXII. Body and Soul have been invited -- to Paradise, and in Paradise -- they were honoured and returned in disgrace, -- they were disgraced and have returned in honour; -- Body and Soul entered together, -- Body and Soul went out together, -- by death they were separated one from the other, -- and in resurrection again they are joined. |lxx

XXXIII.⁸ The death that God decreed--for Adam after he sinned,--it is not the wicked killing--whereby men kill their fellow-men;--the killing of Abel the righteous--was from the Free-will that wronged him,--and the death of Adam the sinner--was from the justice that requited him.

XXXIV. It was not the case then because--the killing of Abel the righteous was previous--to the death of Adam the sinner ⁹--that Abel died first--by that death that is from God: [P. 152.] --Free-will in its audacity--made an assault on Abel in its envy,--and brought in lulling before death.

XXXV. By that sentence from the Judge--Adam died first,--by that killing from Man--Abel was killed first; ¹⁰--they stand in the domain--of Justice and of Free-will,--Justice is not wronged--and Free-will is not constrained.

XXXVI.¹¹ And lo, there go down from the beginning--the two ways of death,--one of sentence and one of killing.--For as Free-will brought in--killing before death in the Beginning,--so Justice brought in--death after sin.

XXXVII. He¹² Who knew beforehand that the killed-- would be killed by the killers--by the lulling set a bound to their life--though He be far from the blame--of the killers who have dared to kill,--and is far also from (the blame for) the accident-- of the killed man who is killed by sudden death.

XXXVIII. If therefore one who is killed--goes not in sentenced time it is an accident,--and if he goes in his time it [P. 153.] is a scandal--for it justifies the one who killed him,--yet God is high--above accident and also above scandal;--it is not an accident, in that the sentenced time drew nigh--and it is not a scandal, in that there is about to be a judgement. |lxxi

XXXIX. But however much, lo, they are explained--these things have need of explanation,--for it is hard (to explain) how--there should chance in the one hour--the hidden sentenced time of him who is killed--and also the will of the killer,--that the man killed should go in his sentenced time--and the killer with his weapon be held guilty.

XL. Let us turn aside now from these things--for it was not these things we are concerned with;--an investigation against those in error--we have been concerned with to conquer therein.--For not a little loss is it--that has entered through Bardaisan,--that inexperienced folk who have heard have suffered loss--of the merchandise of their lives.

XLI. And that ignorant folk may not go astray,--saying that "Abel, he died first,"--and disturb the comparison--that is struck between our Lord and Adam:--let them know that killing is of man--but the sentenced time is from God;--for as regards Abel wickedness killed him,--but as regards Adam the [P. 154.] Just One made him die.

XLII. But not even for this will there be--an opportunity for thee to hinder the inexperienced--in that as regards our Lord it was men who killed Him--and as regards Adam the Just One made him die:--Adam that sinned against Justice-- God in the sentenced time made him die,--but our Lord that killed wickedness--by wicked men was the killing of Him.

XLIII. If the Body depends upon the Soul,¹³--lo, the Soul also like the Body--upon another Power depends wholly-- namely, on that Power which gives life to everything.--And as (in the case of) the Soul if it lets go--of the Body, it (the Body) is undone and falls to pieces,--the Power also that gives life to the Soul--if it lets it go, it (the Soul) is undone.

XLIV. If the Body, that is mixed with--the Soul and is its companion,--they say cannot cleave to it,--the light one, because of the weight of it (the Body),--how can they cleave,-- Entities corporeal and heavy,--to that Power which is above everything subtle--to live in it for ever and ever?

XLV. Well, then, let us also say--that if the Body because of its weight--breaks away from the limpid Soul,--that limpid [P. 155.] |lxxii substance is also separated--from the Power that is more limpid than it,--[and as] in the case of the Body--the same retribution comes to it (the Soul)--from that Power which took hold of it.

XLVI. For to both of them it (the Soul) is strange--to that limpid one and to the turbid one;--to the turbid one because of the impurities,--[to] the limpid one because of its refinement.-- If the one is for ever in it--the Body would be ever beside it;--it does cleave to that which is more limpid than [it],--and that which is more [turbid] than it cleaves to it.

XLVII. For it is not the Power of its nature--...

* * * * * * *

XLVIII. As for the Entities that Bardaisan brought in-- he is to be accused because he taught--that one is heavier¹ than its fellow--and one is lighter than its fellow;--he put the evil ones as the lower,--he put the good ones as the upper,--he put Light and Wind as fine,--Fire and Water as heavy.

XLIX. If the lower one... --does not adhere to the one higher than it,--neither does Water that is corporeal-- [P. 156][cleave] to Fire that is lighter,--nor Fire to limpid Wind--nor does Wind cleave to Light,--nor any of them to God--Who is higher than all of them and more refined.

L. But if they are acceptable as friends,--all these Entities to one another,--those that are heavy and those that are light,-- and possess and are possessed by one another,--that Highest One who gave them their level--does not treat the lowest one as alien;--and if He treat the lowest one as alien--He cannot treat the middle one as akin.

LI. For on one side of the two is with him--weakness or wickedness;--but if He be Evil, how is He the Good One?-- and if He be weak, how is He the Creator?--and if as the Good One He humiliated Himself--unto the middle (Entities) which were at strife,¹⁴--all of them with all He would have reconciled--that His kindness might not suffer loss.

LII.¹⁵ But look upon Man--and see that all of them are reconciled:--his heat is from Fire,--his cold from Wind,--his |lxxiii dampness from Water,--his dryness from the Dust;--in the midst of him dwells Life,--creative power holds him firm.

LIII. And even if these (theories) were so,--that things [P. 157.] should be so would be difficult,--as, if there were Entities,--it would be difficult that they should be made (into anything).--an Entity cannot be destroyed,--an Entity cannot be arranged;--in that it is an Entity it is indestructible,--in that it is an Entity it is unarrangeable.

LIV. That Creator Who is unable--to destroy the Entities that exist--by the same analogy again is unable--to arrange the Entities that exist;--for He did not create the existence-- therefore He cannot destroy it,--He did not moreover arrange its fixing--therefore He cannot undo it.

LV and LVI.¹⁶ And if He cannot undo--the existence of other Entities,--(an existence) which is bound by its Nature,-- the Maker also is unable--to make anything and arrange (it).-- But let Him make the trial,--the very Maker from Himself,-- that as He cannot be arranged--the Entities cannot be made;--by this moreover we shall understand as--the Body consists by the Soul,--the heavy by the power of the light,--the Soul also is similar to the Body--in regard to the Power that is more subtle than all.

LVII and LVIII.¹⁷ Against them let us say their words,-- [P. 158.] who say that the Stranger--blew His Life into the Entities and girded them;--how to strange Life--are the Entities akin so that they lived?--If indeed the Stranger blew His Life--into the Entities so that they became alive,--the Soul makes itself akin to the Body,--as He made His Life akin to the Entities--that had been strangers to His Life.--But if by the Master the servants lived,--how much more does the Body live--by the life of the Soul its colleague?

LIX. "Reason," as they say,--"is the strange Leaven that is hidden--in the Soul," which is without knowledge;--to the Body and Reason it is strange!--If so be then the Body cannot--cleave to the Soul, being earthy,--neither can it (the Soul) cleave--to the Reason which is Divine. |lxxiv

LX. We have therefore no contest--to expla[in] and persuade them--that are thrown into the contest;--and when struggling on their behalf--their struggle will be on our behalf,--for them the labour and for us the crown,--that when arguing on behalf of the Soul--their argument becomes (one) on behalf of the Body.

[P. 169.] LXI.¹⁸ Let us demonstrate therefore all the more--from the created things that are before us:--for lo, Fire is subtle--in comparison with Water that is corporeal,--[and] Wind [also in comparison with] Light--it also is denser than Light;--the Soul also in comparison with the Body--as their saying goes is "subtle"--and in comparison with Reason it is "corporeal."

LXII. Let us demonstrate therefore that all--Natures are devoured by one another,--substances' both corporeal and spiritual.--For oil is devoured by Flame,--and Flame is devoured by Wind;--and the oil is not perceptible in Flame--and Flame is not [perceptible] in Wind,--for everything is easy to the Possessor of all things.

LXIII.¹⁹ Water again is placed in the middle--between Winter and Summer,--so that if the cold be fierce--it makes it a bodily substance--that embodies it in a hard form,--and if the heat be fierce--it makes it a spiritual substance--that absorbs it in a subtle way.

LXIV. * * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.160] LXV. [And if so be] that Bardaisan says--that because of its weight it (the Body) remains therein,--from the fine [substance] of the Soul;--lo, when the heavy one de[parts]--[there departs] also the light part,--like a vapour [and a puff of air (?) it becomes] --and like a breath it is for a while--and flies away lightly. LXVI. Lo,... --of the Entities that Bardaisan brought |lxxv in,--corporeal ones as he says,--in all Folds and Limbos-- If there be any corporeal it is refined--,... created all according to His Will.

LXVII. * * * * * * *

LXVIII. When the resurrection comes to pass--this comes to pass as the result of it;--and if every one had been raised... -- [p. 161.]

* * * * * * *

LXIX.... in Adam... all... were dying--though as yet they were not born,--from the womb...

* * * * * * *

LXX. * * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

LXXI. The Second Adam also--... and was raised up in Sheol,--He brings all that are [there],--in Him they were living secretly,--and when their resurrection drew nigh--there sprang upon them the voice of.... --in that as a dead man made the living die--the voice of resurrection makes them alive. LXXII. For that first Thousand --is the type of that last [P. 162.] Thousand,--in that as the death of Adam put to death--all those that that Thousand [had brought to life]... delivered--one that flew away and one that was rescued.

LXXIII. Our Lord also in the last Thousand--raises the Dead by His resurrection--in that all the Dead are found in His Thousand,--and there comes the Deluge of Fire--in the midst of which the Wicked sink--and the Righteous in it are delivered;--like Enoch the living [are] snatched away,--in the manner of Noah the Dead are rescued.

LXXIV. But Bardaisan in this has erred--and wishes to make us also err therein,--in this [he has greatly gone astray;]--he has died, and caused all [his comrades] to die.--" Our Lord also, (says he) Who was raised,--(why) did He not raise all Bodies,--that as their undoing was in Adam--their reconstruction should be by our Lord? " |lxxvi

[P. 163.] LXXV. Lo, Adam not at the moment -- when he died and fell did he cast down everything. -- but he died in his sin -- and the world died in the sentence on him; -- our Lord also not at the moment -- when He was raised did He raise everything. -- but He lived by His glorious acts -- and the world lived in the pledge He gave.

LXXVI. In the hour that Adam died and fell -- the earth was full of living beings, -- and on his account only did Death reign; -- our Lord also gave life now -- when Sheol was full of the dead -- on His account only does Resurrection reign. -- Death spread from one on all, -- from [one also] spread Resurrection.

LXXVII. It did not suffice Bardaisan to look -- upon [the matter from both (?)] sides; -- on the one side he looked only -- and not even on that as it is, -- for his eye did not [see] clearly, -- that when he was declaring about Adam, -- he that has slipped in one thing -- has slipped in everything.

LXXVIIL But he does not know that that Body -- which died in Adam the Messiah has made alive. -- The Nails bear witness to His dying. -- the Watchers bear witness to His Resurrection, -- and the Nails that came out of the furnace -- have become furnaces (i.e. tests) for our Truth; -- the fixing of them admonished [P. 164.] Thomas that He was not -- raised with [?] His Soul by Himself.

LXXIX.²⁰ Bardaisan insists that if so be -- that these Bodies died in Adam -- it was right for our Lord Who came -- that He should raise up the Bodies from the grave; -- but if the Bodies He did not raise, -- it is clear that the death of the Soul -- Adam brought in by his sins, -- for the Souls which he brought down to Sheol -- our Lord brought up with Him.

LXXX. He [finis]hes his word with another, -- "for lo," says he, " our Lord says -- 'Every one that keepeth My word -- death for ever he shall not taste,' ²¹ -- and lo, all those who kept it have died -- [... ²²]" -- For he has confused and dissolved words -- to the confusion of the inexperienced ear. |lxxvii

LXXXI. And [the] word the argument of which is something else--he makes into stuff for his argument,--for he considered about this same death--that the Souls which are hindered in every place--in all depths and Limbos ²³--and that "have kept the word of our Lord,"--... from within the Body,-- are exalted to the Bridal chamber of Light!

LXXXII. According to the doctrine of Bardaisan--the Death that Adam brought in--was a hindrance to Souls--in [P. 165] that they were hindered at the Crossing-place--because the sin of Adam hindered them,--"and the Life," he [says], "that our Lord brought in--is that He taught verity and ascended,--and [brought] them across into the Kingdom."

LXXXIII. "Therefore," he says, "our Lord taught us-- that 'every one that keepeth My Word--death for ever he shall not taste,'--that his Soul is not hindered--when it crosses at the Crossing-place--like the hindrance of old--wherewith the Souls were hindered--before our Saviour had come. LXXXIV. He is caught in one of two things:--in that every one that kept the Word of our Lord--(and) died before our Lord;... --but if he is hindered at the Crossing-place--his soul has tasted Death,--and if he had crossed the Crossing-place--what is that which he said about our Lord.--that He had crossed it first of all?

LXXXV.²⁴ For if Lazarus when he died--had gone up to the Bridal-chamber of Light--an injury ²⁵ our Lord did him--in that He turned him back to his body the Prison-house; --and that which our Lord was saying--to Martha, that "Thy Brother shall rise," ²⁶--from whence then did He say he [P.166] should rise--from the height, or from the deep?

LXXXVI. As a Physician He did justly--in that sin the |lxxviii bringer of pains--He was rooting out from mankind;--for that Primal Serpent--had bitten the Primal Adam--not with teeth but with advice,--He ²⁷ too healed the wound--with commands and not with drugs.

LXXXVIL If the Soul it was He came to teach--according to their word it would be right--that the Souls in Sheol He should teach--that they should not steal nor commit adultery;--and if in Sheol it is not for Souls--to lend or be in debt, then--to Body-and-Soul in its contest--He comes to conquer and to crown.

LXXXVIII.²⁸ An example He depicted--and a likeness He impressed--and a mirror He fixed by His Body,--that was victorious and tasted suffering--and was raised and put on glory;-- and He taught that every one who thus--conducts himself is [P. 167.] thus glorified--and he that fights thus conquers--and he that conquers thus is crowned.

LXXXIX.²⁹ Adam, too, by him He depicted--an example for every one to look at,--that he sinned and was sorry and brought to confusion--and was cursed and went forth and was brought low--and departed and was undone and destroyed,-- and He taught that every one whose support is wickedness --even his profit is loss.

XC.³⁰ In both worlds he is mocked at,--in both worlds he carries disgrace:--by the steps that Adam went down,--by them it was our Lord brought him up.--In the beginning He gave him verity--instead of the falsehood that the Serpent gave him,-- in the end He gave him Life--instead of Death that the Tree gave;--He conjoined with him his life,--the equilibrium of which Death had divided.

XCI. Seeing that of all Bodies that die--the Body of our Lord rose only--Bardaisan erred and supposed--that it was the Souls that our Lord raised up,--and he did not consider that the death also of Adam--had reigned in Adam first,-- |lxxix and thus after nine hundred years--the leaven of it had spread in all generations.

XCII. Our Lord also when He was raised up--in Him Life [P. 168.] reigned first,--like the Death that reigned in Adam;--and as with Adam after a period--his Death reigned over all,--our Lord also after a time--His Resurrection was reigning over all,-- that the usuries paid might be like to one another.

XCIII.³¹ His Leaven that makes all alive spread--in all the lump of the Dead--that, lo, is kneaded in the bosom of Sheol,-- so that if after nine hundred years--the Leaven of Death reigned in us,--lo, after a little--His living Leaven will conquer mortality.

XCIV.³² And now if so be this suffices,--as also it does suffice,--this argument of ours has been spoken--about the Body and about its Resurrection;--the rest of the discourse of it which remains,--the matter of it shall be ours for another day,--that we may gain by our disputation--discoveries about our Faith.

XCV. Where he has fallen we have risen,--and where he has slipped we have been strengthened,--and where he failed we seem--to have acquired the fortunes of Adam,--in that wickedness ruled over Him in the beginning,--Death ruled over [P. 169] him in the end,--in that his Body and his Soul sinned together--Death divided his equilibrium.

XCVI. I give thanks to Thee, my Lord,--that Thou hast not stinted me, nor hast Thou filled me:--Thou hast not stinted me that I may grow,--and Thou hast not filled me, so that I may ask.--Satiety knows not how to ask,--and hunger ceases not to beg;--Thou hast satisfied me to abate my hunger,--Thou hast made me hungry to awake my supplication.

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST BARDAISAN.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ The general metrical scheme of this piece is a stanza of eight lines of seven syllables each, but several stanzas have a line too few or too many and three lines are a syllable too short (x 8, lii 1, xciv 1).

2. ⁴ Lit. 'furnace,' as in lxxviii 5, 6, and elsewhere.

3. ² Lit. 'root.'

4. ³ Stanza x, 1. 8, has only six syllables.

5. ² Lit. 'furnace': see lxxviii 5 f.

6. ³ Luke xxiv 39.

7. ² Stanzas xxxi-xlii are preserved also in the upper writing of B.M. Add. 14623: see Introduction.

8. ¹ B.M. 17193 contains St. xxxiii-xlii, and B.M. Add. 14731 contains St. xxxiii-xxxvi, xli-xlii.

9. ² Sinner] guilty, 14731.

10. ³ xxxv 3, and by that killing of Man, 17193. 4, Abel was the first killed one, 17193.

11. ⁴ Stanza xxxvi is legible in the Palimpsest, except the first line; it is preserved in the upper writing, also in B.M. Add. 17193 and 14731, which come from another exemplar. Yet in all these the stanza has only seven lines. Therefore some of the other stanzas, preserved only in the Palimpsest, which have less than the eight lines, are probably irregular owing to the author, not to a defect in the transmission.

12. ⁵ xxxvii 1. He] God, 17193 (unmetrically).

13. ¹ See Vol. I, p. civ, and the Corrigenda in this volume.

14. ² Lit. 'had been angry' ([Syriac], sic.), p. 156, 1. 30.

15. ³ Omit [Syriac] (sic), p..156, 1. 34, so that Stanza lii, line 1, has only six syllables: see the Note at the beginning of this Discourse.

16. ¹ Stanzas lv and lvi together have only fourteen lines.

17. ² Stanzas lvii and lviii together have only thirteen lines.

18. ¹ Stanza lxi has nine lines.

19. ² Stanza lxiii has only seven lines.

20. ¹ Stanza lxxix has nine lines.

21. ⁴ John viii 51 f.

22. ⁵ I cannot translate this line, p. 164, 1. 24.

23. ¹ For the ' Seven Limbos,' see p. 204, 1. 44 f.

24. ⁵ Stanzas lxxxvi-xciv are preserved also in the upper writing: see Introduction.

25. ⁶ injury]+then 14623 (unmetrically).

26. ⁷ John xi 23.

27. ¹ He] our Lord, 14623 (unmetrically).

28. ² Stanza lxxxviii is also preserved in B.M. Add. 12155 and 14532, without variation, except that 12155 reads 'He was' for 'that was' in l. 4. Stanza lxxxviii has nine lines in all four copies.

29. ³ Stanza lxxxix has only seven lines.

30. ⁴ Stanza xc has ten lines.

31. ¹ Stanza xciii has only seven lines.

32. ² The first line of Stanza xciv (otherwise a regular one of eight lines) has a syllable short: see the Note at the beginning of this Discourse.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _6_virginity.htm

A Discourse On Virginity S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). On Virginity

ON VIRGINITY.

A DISCOURSE OF S. EPHRAIM ON VIRGINITY.

[p. 170.]

I.¹ PUT off, O Body, that Old Man ² which is altogether hateful, that it may not wear out the newness that thou inhabitest and hast put on; for the recompense of its interest is contrary with its clothes, in that if thou hast been renewed it will return and wear thee out: O Body, hear my counsels! Put it off ³ by (good) conduct, that it may not clothe thee in (bad) habits.

II. For, lo, our Lord has made thee, O Body, new in water, and the Architect of Life has built thy oldness, in that He formed with His Blood and built for it a shrine for His habitation; do [P. 171.] not let dwell instead of Him that Old Man in the shrine He has renewed: O Body, if thou dost make God to stay in thy shrine, thou also wilt be a temple of His kingdom and a priest of His sacrifice.

III. For this Old Man is reproved by Nature that teaches and the Book that proclaims, for its wickedness is between two just things, that if it sins in respect of what is without law, its Nature will reprove it, and if it sins in respect of law, the Book will reprove it. Lo, it wounds and they heal; on the track of wickedness they bring in regret, whereby he that sins is healed. |lxxxi

IV. Him that rebels they treat with contempt, and him that returns they bind up his wounds; they justify the Judge, they reprove the rebels, they care for and heal those who return: for they know that they will be measured with one Evil one, who hurts everything, who is fresh in every generation, and is a companion to every one, and hurts every hour; they also are companions to every one, and are fresh in every generation, and are found at every hour.

V. Hearken to Nature and Law declaring his evil corruptions! For the People (of Israel) who committed adultery under the Law, [P. 172.] and the Peoples who fornicated without Law, changed their Nature and behaved contrary to their Nature; Nature and Law have appealed against him, whose dispositions the Disturber has corrupted.

VI. The humble ones have stolen away from marriage under pretext of discipleship, and when they are halfway he (the 'Old Man') has set behind them the shame of stumbling and in front of them hateful desire; being ashamed to revert to marriage, they fall and are taken in the snares.

VII. How light are thy wings, O Virginity, that soar ⁴ and go up to where thy Bridegroom sits at the right hand of the Lord of the Heights! Flee from the counsel of the deceiver, for he who apportions debt to the inexperienced is wont to cast his whole property for nothing to the loss of the merchants (?).

VIII. He impoverished the treasures of great Adam, who with his money acquired a weight of debt. O Body, do not borrow from him that does not ask back what he has lent, that if thou pay him his silver the debt impoverishes.

IX. For accompanying its desires are apprehension and [P. 173.] doubt and contempt with disgrace, and they reject and give pain to the doers of them, and the faces only are open and pure of the chaste ones who have put it (? the 'old man') off; do not be joined, O Body, with hateful love, of which however much the deed is dead, the anxiety of it lives secretly.

X. Subtle and cunning is his (the 'Old Man's') discipleship, in that by all sorts (of means) he will be bestowing his gifts upon the good. The mouth of the poor he stops with his bread; with |lxxxii his free meals he sells free-men into slavery. The belly he has bribed and it has been corrupted; (he has bribed) the eye to overlook, and the mouth to keep silence, and the ear to make ⁵ his hateful reports. His silent wine is talkative in those that drink it; it babbles in their voices instead of its master.

XI. For he is cunning, in that first he puts on the mouth of his. snare food as a bait; his love goes in front of his corruption, like Judas, who kissed and killed. The Pure One kissed the unclean, to teach that his kisses are a poison and death is moulded by them secretly; this is one who if thou raise him up will recompense thee with a fall, who when he rises lulls to sleep, the desire of whom is deadly. And thy own flesh makes it live and resurrects it (this desire), and when it is alive therein it turns and kills it. O Body, if thou give life to deadness, there will be death also for thy life.

XII. Let Fire be a demonstration for thee, that is buried and dead in secret, and the rubbing of wood with wood brings it to life for the destruction of both of them; but when it (i.e. Fire) has come to life it turns to burn the substance that brought it to life by its companionship. Oh, the evident illustration!— that Wood is made a grave for Fire, and when the one has been resurrected from it, it is destroyed by that one!

XIII. For Freedom is as life and as soul to the desires, and by it they live; and if from it thou cut and cast them off they become dead. It is given authority that by its will faults stand and by its will sins fall; it is the likeness of the Most High whose Power upholdeth everything, and if He should withdraw it everything would fall.

XIV. The Judge is just, in that He does not immediately [P. 175.] a man has sinned requite him. Wherefore regret comes because of two things: that if he repents it will have wiped out his wickedness, and if he rebels it will have taken away from him all excuse; wherefore in all faults regret is on the watch to carry witness to the court of Justice.

XV. Learn, O Body, Repentance and not every-day regret; for Repentance is as ⁶ a Healer to our wounds, but this regret is a stalk of straw, and it brings a relapse of pains every day. |lxxxiii

XVI. The signature is on every tax-collector's bond for him who owes money; so by the same illustration regret is a tax-collector in its silence for him that is in debt for sins. O Body, if thou hast accustomed thyself to repent and again thou sin, thy regret is the signature of thy bond.

XVII. It is written ⁷ that if a man have wronged his wife, her parents shall go forth and declare her virginity, because the judges could not see the secret things; the tokens of virginity on the veil were declaring the truth before the judges. But because thy own Bridegroom is one that seeth secret things, [P. 176.] to thy secret Lord in virginity ⁸ show the secret things in the flesh; not in thy veil⁹ but in thy body shew injuries, and do not¹⁰ in veils thy own virginity shew to thy Bridegroom.

XVIII. In the guise of a lamb the cunning Amnon ¹¹ approached the ewe, and when he had deceived her about what was hers he did what was his; in that he saw that virginity was rebellious in her nest, the healthy wolf that made himself ill deceitfully made her enter his den and so trapped her; the invalid that was torpid got up to the contest and snatched away the crown that was for her shame.

XIX. That Athlete who saw that as long as he was standing he did not throw, and he hasted and fell, and so threw off and broke the yoke with cohabitation, and dared even to adultery, and the wicked one who sowed in the chamber his harvest, in his field the sword ruined him, who had ruined virginity, and he who had spotted it with its blood washed in his own blood. They made him drunk and rose up and dragged him away; and for that he had ill-treated the sheep, vengeance was demanded in the time of sheep-shearing. [P. 177.]

XX. If a virgin be ill-treated in the field Moses the Stammerer,¹² the advocate of truth, he is persuaded about her that "the girl cried out and there is no help." For thine own self, O virginity, |lxxxiv who is there to persuade, that in the midst of peace art taken captive and art silent? Do not give thyself to captivity in the midst of peace, that peace may not bind thee in the court of Justice.

XXI. As for the married women and virgins that were in Midian, he killed those which had played the harlot and kept alive those on whom was set the seal of virginity. But if virginity kept alive heathen women, how much more will it keep alive pure ones?

XXII. And lo, in the chamber and lo, in the field they are lying in wait for thee, O Virginity! Thou didst enter the chamber; the cunning Amnon stole thy wealth; thou didst go forth into the field, the brigand Shechem robbed thy treasure. Whither wilt thou go, O lonely Dove? For lo, many in every place are they that hunt for thee!

XXIII. The hunters of thee, O Virginity, that have hunted thee are hunted; by the contrary are they requited. For [P. 178.] Shechem,¹³ who met with thee in the field and took thee captive, in his house they slaughtered him; and Amnon again, who in the chamber lay in wait for thee and took thee captive, in the field they dragged him off. They ruined thee and they were ruined; and there was drawn in their case an illustration that he who ruins thee is ruined.

XXIV. O Virginity, inexperienced Dove, cunning is thy hunter and thou art innocent, ingenious is thy deceiver and thou art simple! in that Amnon who under pretence of food was seeking what he was not seeking, and with food for which he was not hungry served the desire of the flesh for which he was hungry. O the Deceiver, who was seeking that which he did not require, that under pretext of it he might be finding thee!

XXV. For he asked her for tarts ¹⁴—alas for the expert in tarts!—she went in and placed (them) for the uplifted at heart: the serpent was clothed in the appearance of sickness that the hand might contemptuously spare him and so he might strike her. He whose desire deceived virginity and polluted it, wrath deceived the desire and ruined him, |lxxxv

XXVI. Tamar rent her tunic, for she saw she had lost her [P. 179.] virginity. She got a tunic instead of that tunic; her virginity that she had lost was not got again. The rents of her garment workmen sufficed to heal; but the loss of her virginity for One alone is easy to heal. O Virginity, whose loss is easy for all, and whose reparation for the Creator of all alone is easy!

XXVII. Tamar feared to keep silence and was ashamed to speak; hut because she could not keep silence nor speak she rent her clothes, that the open rents might be heralds for the secret virginity that was ruined. Ah, the confusion and dismay of the king's daughter, whose pearls that were hanging on her could not console her for the one that was lost!

XXVIII. She was a King's daughter on whose limbs were carried stones and beryls, but the virginity alone surpassed them all; wherefore the unclean one despised the beryls and chose the pearl, he rejected the coin-ornaments and snatched the tokens of [P. 180.] virginity. The thief knows thy value, O Virginity, but thou didst not perceive how much thou art worth.

XXIX. From the royal jewel-house he chose out and stole the pearl, which when he got it left him, that pearl which is lost away from its owner and does not remain in the treasure of the thief!

XXX. Eve ¹⁵ the inexperienced found the Serpent, the poisonous one whose words are sweet; she cherished him with love, and he smote her to destruction. Do not find for thyself also the treasure-trove of Eve. that thou mayest not find for thyself in it regret. For if she had shut the door of her hearing before his speaking, the door of Paradise would not have been shut in her own face; in that she gave a place within her mind to the word of the Evil One, the pure Garden vomited and cast her out.

XXXI. Keep thy bosom in sanctity that the pure bosom of Paradise may receive thee. Do not become dust, the food of the accursed Serpent, for dust is his bread, and thou art chosen salt, which if it go bad cannot afresh become new salt. [P.181] |lxxxvi

XXXII. Jephthah's ¹⁶ Daughter who washed in her blood was baptized and she sent up from herself the pearl that rooted out ¹⁷ fear, and to the treasure on high it ascended; the girl that stretched out her neck to the slaughter of the sword, the pure pearl consoled her that went with her. And she that here destroys virginity, apprehension becomes her companion in the day of remembrance, and in the Resurrection fear becomes her leader before the Judge, though she have greatly repented.

XXXIII. Jephthah's Daughter wished to die, so that the vow of her father might not be made void: do not thou make void with thine eyes the vow of virginity that thy mouth has vowed. Jephthah poured out the blood of his daughter; but thy own Bridegroom, his holy Blood was shed for thy fault.

XXXIV. Lo, therefore the unique Blood bought the virgin blood with which thy door is sealed, in the likeness of doors that [P. 182.] were sealed with the blood sprinkled in the midst of Egypt ¹⁸; for as often as that same blood was sealed upon the doors outside, life was dwelling within after the type of virginity in peace.

XXXV. Oh, the blood that was a wall to the treasure of life, that was within it and by it conquered death! That is, that as they were a little wearied in sprinkling it and (as) it comforted them much by its protection, thy perfection and thy virginity are walls that keep and are kept; that inasmuch as they are kept safe for a little they have kept safe much.

XXXVI. The married woman wished to die that adultery might be made void; the virgin died that the vow might not be made void. If so be therefore that cohabitation, the mother of seed, wished to die that it might not receive stolen seed whose sower is accursed, let not the virgin steal the unclean seed, for a pure embryo is the embryo in the midst of her.

XXXVII. Do not leave off, O Body, from the virginity that [P. 183.] by grace has revived our country, and as a sojourner dwells in our land. And if any one persecute her and uproot her nest, because she cannot turn and build it her wing quickly takes up on high the bird of the height, that grows old in one nest and if disturbed ¹⁹ she has left it for ever. |lxxxvii

XXXVIII. And when the friendship of Angels has flown away there enters in its place the Devil's friend Desire, that is the adversary of Virginity. Joseph persecuted her from within his body, that the friendship of Angels might not dwell in it; with the Angels she doth flee to go forth. And who is there who will not weep that instead of that peaceful one there entered in and dwelt in him one full of sores? ²⁰

XXXIX. Let youthfulness be afraid of Wine that despoiled the old age of Lot. But if Wine did that which is difficult, that women by him should have stolen pregnancy, how much more forsooth will it do that which is easy, that men by it should steal virginity? The girls despoiled the treasure of the old man; keep thou ²¹ thy treasure-house from those that are young.

XL. Be afraid again of Wine in that it disgraced Noah the [P. 184.] precious; and he that had conquered the Deluge of water from a handful of wine was conquered, and him that the Flood which was outside him did not overcome, the wine which was within him in silence did steal. If wine disgraced and cast down Noah, the head of families and tongues, thee forsooth, O lonely one, how it will conquer!

XLI. Do not trust in wine, for it is an impostor and an agitator that surrenders thy fortress, that the captive-taker may come and take captive thy freedom into handmaidenship, that thy love may follow his will.

XLII. And when moreover thou hast lost thy true Bridegroom and got in his stead a false one, when thou hast the consolation that even if thou hast lost but yet thou hast found (what will it profit thee,?): because his love is lying and deceitful and alights on everything, it does not cleave to thee, and then the regret will be great.

XLIII. When on this side and on that thou art deserted and art orphaned on two sides, the True One will have left thee [P. 185.] because thou hast left him, and the lying companion that thou |lxxxviii hast loved will have let go of thee and left thee at the cross-roads; and whither then will thy gaze wander, a simple Dove ²² that has uprooted her nest and gone forth in her love after a Serpent?

XLIV. Thy Pearl is a pearl that from two thieves flies away to be lost, for it is Merchants who are single that can get it, and if they have become unclean both of them lose it. O Pearl, that is greater than all! And he is the fool, with his hands he presents the Pearl to the Thief!

XLV. It is easier for him that is drunk with wine than for him that is drunk with hateful love, for the counsel and teaching of wide-awake hours are dreams to him, and a beating is like no beating. Strong fetters are weak to him; despised is the rod, and weak is a stick, and disregarded is the cane. Admonition [P. 186.] is to him a story, and reproof like a tale passes through his ears; contemptuous usage is like a treat and spitting in the face like dew.

XLVI. For there is not in his heart a path-finder for the words that have beaten upon his ears. The gates of his ears are open, one opposite the other; the word that goes in into his one ear goes out on the opposite side through the other. The speech that they pour into him is driven outside, it goes forth altogether; his teacher supposes that the teaching goes in, but he does not perceive that he pours it all out, and it is spilt, because there is no place in his mind to receive.

XLVII. For filled and heaped and choked up are the bosoms of his imaginations from the drop of evil love, that has dropped there and become a great sea; and lo, arguments plunge and emerge,²³ like sailors whose ships have been wrecked, and lo, the thought there is unclean, like a ship that has no skipper, and when Law like a sailor wishes to bring it into a good harbour [P. 187.] it struggles with its sailor and loves its own loss.

XLVIII. O Youthfulness, mistress of (various) courses (of life), do not complete [thy] courses in the maze of desires; when that which works in thee and takes away thy strength has |lxxxix dismissed and left thee (it will be) that thy Old Age may come to mockery, because a hateful course thou hast kept for shame.

XLIX. Lighten, O Youthfulness, thy course in the contest, that a crown may adorn thy Old Age; for when Old Age has faded and its intelligence diminished, they remember the humility of its Youthfulness, which concentrated its intelligence; men abhor it seeing the blemishes of its Body, but they cherish it seeing its secret plants of the Spirit.

L. Paint, O Youthfulness, thy victories on thy members, by which thou wilt become precious when thou growest old: paint on thy hands all charitable acts, with the visiting of the sick seal thy footsteps; paint on thy heart the image of thy Lord.

LI. And if the nailed-up Tablets that the carpenter has constructed and the painter painted have become precious, yea, are [P. 188.] revered by reason of the Figure of Royalty, how much more therefore will thy limbs become precious, on which are painted the images of thy King?

LII. Youthfulness is like a branch of fine fruits that is fair in the summer, and when its fruits and its leaves have been stripped off it becomes hateful, and every one turns his face from it, and what was desired of all becomes the despised of all. O inexperience! do not shew thy beauty to those outside, which when it has become hateful and aged those that see despise it.

LIII. O Eye! let not the beauty of Youthfulness take thee captive, in which are hidden the blemishes of Old Age. For the limbs of youthful vigour, a fair spectacle, carry them, but Old Age convicts them, that a borrowed beauty was dwelling upon them, one that while yet it stays and alights goes off and flies away.

LIV. But if there should chance to be a royal captivity, and thy humility should be exposed in the field, the unclean compulsion of the captor argues for thee that thou art holy, as Sarah also [P. 189.] was holy in the unclean bosom of foul Pharaoh, she whose heart with her free-will did not commit adultery; her will was a priest to her bodily frame, and with its hyssop it purged the body that was defiled by force. For as a priest can cleanse the |xc temple in which he serves, so a pure Will can cleanse the Body, the Temple in the midst of which it acts as a priest.

LV. For it is a marvel in Man, that though he is one, he is to himself a Temple, he is to himself a Priest, he is to himself a Pontiff, he is to himself a Sacrifice; he is the Offering, and he is the Offerer of the Offering: for he is like that Lamb of God, who was to Himself everything.

END OF DISCOURSE ON VIRGINITY.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ The whole of this Discourse was copied out by the monk Aaron (B.M. Add. 14623, foll. 23a¹-25a¹) from the old MS. before the writing was effaced. Where the transcript can be checked by the still legible portions of the original it is found to bo quite faithful, the few variations being almost all due to the adoption of a more modern style of spelling.

The text, both in the Palimpsest and in Aaron's transcript, is divided up into paragraphs or stanzas, which I have numbered, as in the case of the previous piece, but the Discourse on Virginity is not in regular metre. On this question, and the relation of the piece to the Hymns de Virginitate, printed at the end of Lamy's Ephraim, vol. ii, see the Introduction.

2. ² See Col. iii 9.

3. ³ +therefore Aa.

4. ¹ See p. 35, 1. 34, and Overbeck, p. 123, 1. 12.

5. ¹? = to transmit.

6. ² as] om. Aa.

7. ¹ See Deut. xxii 13 ff. Aa begins ' For it is...'

8. ² ' to thy Lord in thy virginity,' Aa,

9. ³ in thy veil], ' in beauty,' Aa (sic).

10. ⁴ 'and do not' (conj.)] 'virginity,' Palimpsest (sic), 'virginity and do not,' Aa. Apparently a mere scribes' blunder, the scribe of the Palimpsest having written [Syriac] before [Syriac].

11. ⁵ 2 Sam. xiii.

12. ⁶ See Exod. iv 11, and Overbeck, p. 150, 1. 20: cf. also Deut. xxii 27.

13. ¹ Gen. xxxiv 2, 25 f.

14. ² 2 Sam. xiii 5 ff. The Peshitta has the same word for 'cakes' and 'hearts.'

15. ¹ A new paragraph should clearly begin here, but it does not even begin a new line in the Palimpsest. Aaron's transcript has an ordinary stop before 'Eve,' not the ornamental stop which marks a paragraph.

16. ¹ Judges xi 30 ff: syr.vg also has 'Nephtah' for ' Jephtah.'

17. ² ' moved away,' Aa.

18. ³ Exod. xii 21 ff.

19. ⁴ Lit. ' taken up'—the same word as in the preceding line.

20. ¹ The reference must be to the Story of Joseph and Asenath (E. W. Brooks, The Book of Joseph and Asenath, S.P.C.K., Hellenistic-Jewish Texts, No. 7). In this tale, though both hero and heroine are represented as the perfection of beauty and virtue, yet the affair ends in a real marriage, which to Ephraim was a sad falling-off!

21. ² +' therefore,' Aa.

22. ¹ Dove] 'Fish,' Aa. This absurd blunder is of interest, because it also occurs in the transliteration into Syriac of "Aenon near Salim" (John iii 23), where syr. C-vg. have 'En Yon, while syr. S and the Arabic Diatessaron have 'En Non.

23. ² The same phrase occurs in Ephraim's Comm. on Genesis (ES 1 15A), where it is used of the Light not yet concentrated in Sun and Moon.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _7_mani.htm

Against Mani. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Against Mani.

AGAINST MANI.

ANOTHER DISCOURSE AGAINST MANI.

[P. 190.]

LET Mani be asked about that Archon, that if he be from the Evil Part, that is, from an essence loving adultery, as they say, why did he say 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' etc.? (Let him be asked this) that thou mayest know that he (the Archon) commanded that which was approved by him. And because of sins he extirpated the Hebrews altogether... and [if] he [1. 15.] is a Mixed Being, half and half, he ought to command that... how did he say 'There is none beside Me'? And how [1. 22.] again did he kill Jesus? And if 'men were intoxicated, they would not pay attention to these things, not even if he had commanded,' then a command to sin was really pleasant to [P. 191.] the sinners. For if when he said 'Do not commit adultery' they did go on committing adultery, how much more if he had commanded them to commit adultery! But if he is a lover of Good things and on account of them makes commands, let them say who was annulling his commandments that they should not be performed? If Satan was annulling them, lo, they are both from the one evil Essence, as they say! How is it fighting half with the Good and half with the Evil? But if because in this one the mixture of Good was greater this very thing is pleasing to him, then evil beings are good beings in whom he has not made another power greater. And lo, evil beings like good ones become related to him! And why then did that Archon not receive Jesus, the Good? For lo, as they say, there is a means whereby the Good may be mixed with him and be accepted by him, (so) that if it is mixed with him it is acceptable to him. Till Jesus had come, then, he was mixing (for men) his good words, why did he not mix in them (i.e. in |xcii men) Good Parts? When even those good words that are mixed in him he does not accept, neither therefore can he accept [P. 192.] the Parts. For as his evil hearing is strange to the good Word, so also his hateful essence is strange to the better Part. For if with their will the evil ones accept the mixture of Parts, how did they not accept the mixture of Words? And if by force the Parts are mixed in them, why does the Good expect the Words to be mixed in them of their own (free-)will?

But see that in fruits and in seeds and in fountains there exists evil that kills, but good that gives life [is also] in them for men, how does the evil overcome the good? For lo, the good is in the majority. In fruits...

* * * * * * *

[P. 193.] [how was the ' mixture ' arranged in wolves and lambs? If (the Maker) had wished, could not he have arranged for HULE the bodily organs of lambs?]

* * * * * * *

[1. 40.]... for it would have been right that He (the Maker) should do to Himself that very thing which He does to others. But [they] say 'Even the Maker does first to [Himself] what He does to [P. 194.] others.' But let them know that the Maker [did] what He did

* * * * * * *

[1. 13.] that is, that it will preserve itself and will destroy the other. That Entity, if it is an Entity, how does it bring forth anything the taste of which is not in its own essence and nature?

* * * * * * *

[1. 31.] [If] the Maker [rejoices] in it and also that which is made rejoices in it, that is, God and man, then the Destroyer will be grieved at that destruction and (so will) the destroyed, except things given in legislation on the condition that the chastiser is satisfied by them and the transgressor is grieved by them? But as when a transgressor becomes of the same will as the chastiser there is no suffering, so when one who is to be destroyed submits to the [P. 195.] will of the destroyer there will be no destruction. And as the will of the chastiser is not that he should suffer, so also will be the will of the destroyer, that is, that he should not be pained. For the just Entity, as it is just in itself, so it is just also towards another: the contrary then of this should be found in the case of |xciii the wicked Entity. For the just Entity does not destroy itself nor others; the wicked Entity, what is it?—one that preserves itself as a just one and treats one that has not transgressed against it as a wicked one: which very thing with many (others), and more than many, bears witness against it that it is not an Entity but a compound.

And if they should say that the Sons of Darkness are divided one against another, then also about each one of them is said the same that is spoken about all of them, that is, that each one of them is divided also against his own members, as he is divided also against his mates. For if there is concord in each one of them it should be found in all of them, and so division also; and if they with themselves are at war and do not cease from war one with another, how did they come to make war with the [P. 196.] Light? For lo, that adversary that they have among themselves, it is either because he is akin to the Light their adversary, or he is a third party made to be an adversary to both of them, to [which] we ought to give a place and essence by itself. And then, in the nature of Light also is there an adversary? But if there is none, because it is one nature, what I have said above has been verified, that it is because of two natures mingled in one another that division arises, as also Body and Soul bear witness. But which of the natures is greater, O Mani? The Dark or the Light? If the Dark was greater, it could not be overcome by Light. But if Sons of the Dark be killed, as they say, why not all of them, if so be that their nature is mortal? And if so be that at the End it is actually bound, because it does not die, then he is refuted, in that he lied about their death.¹

And for what reason do the Natures hate one another? For lo, Body and Soul that are from him (the Archon) are friendly to one another! And if (it is) because one is mingled with the other, for the mixture can change our nature, then because, lo, in Body and in Soul there has been a change [have they [p. 197. l.4] become one nature?]...

* * * * * * *

|xciv

[l. 45.]... for all I require... about these mixed things... how [P. 198.] [can] Heat receive Cold and be warm like it seeing that this Essence is in Heat? But if by mixture with its fellow it becomes not-itself, then also [Evil] by mixture with Good becomes not-itself. And what then...

* * * * * * *

[1. 16.] But know that if the strife becomes a discussion about one of the created things, it is from created things their fellows that we will bring an analogy for witness and not from a divine Nature. For God Who is not made—it is not possible for us to take an analogy from Him for things made; so also about Entities—we do not take from created things an analogy for them, except from their own selves. Now let us take an analogy from this great Entity, about Whom we all bear witness, that if it can be subject to ² these sufferings it is necessary that we [P. 199.] believe about these other Entities also that they also can be subject to these sufferings; but if the witness of this Entity (is) that it is not subject to these sufferings, it clears all the Entities that exist, that they also are [not] subject to these sufferings. Therefore by the witness of the True Entity the word of Error has been vanquished which brought Entities into the world. But if without witness thou compellest me to believe thee that there are Entities, be thou also compelled without evidence to believe me that there is no other Entity but the One. I have no witness greater than thy defeat, for what is the victory of the athlete but the vanquishing of his opponent? Nor again can Entities remove themselves from those places that they are in, for who set them there that he should remove them thence?

Now as to that thou blamest me, (saying) 'why is Evil found in the midst of the works of the Good, for that Good one that thou speakest about, is not Evil really found in the midst of His works?' But if Evil in His works is mingled, how hast thou been profited by the new and strange opinion that thou hast [P. 200.] brought in? For is it by the Evil that thou art offended or by the opinion? If by the Evil thou art offended, how hast thou been profited by the purification whereby thou dost purge out the dregs |xcv from the [clear substance], for lo, the poison that is in the midst of His works is killing thee! But if the opinion offends Freewill, Him that generated the opinion we ought to call the Evil. For see, that if that Evil is still established in our midst, Him therefore we are required to judge and blame for the Evil who was able to take away the Evil from our midst. For if no Evil ought to be found in the midst of His good works, how, lo, is it found? For it is from that very thing which thou blamest that thou shouldest be blamed. For if it (the Evil) is left as a defect— worse and worse! And if again it is left as a surplus, it is possible that by some means or other Good will be the cause of Evil. But if it is so, then the matter would be worse if Evil had not existed, for this would be a great evil, that those Good things should be annulled which are accomplished by means [P. 201.] of Evils. Just as therefore when a physician does not do evil things then he does evil, especially that (thereby) the alleviations are annulled that are accomplished by means of pains and drugs, so when he does the evil, that evil is good, where all the cures are generated by it.

Therefore it is about Diseases that we are having a discussion. The diseases of the Body, are they from mixtures?—let the Mixer be blamed! But the diseases of the Soul, are they from Freewill?—let the Giver of it be blamed. But God forbid that He should be blamed, by blaming Whom the blamers of Him are to be blamed, because they have dared to blame Him that is not to be blamed! But from that which thou sayest to me, that 'Nothing can come to be, except from an Entity,' from this very saying learn that those Entities also cannot come to be. For this opinion of thine is harder than mine. For how will the Entities be found to be not made and not created? With thy mind taste this that I say. But thou sayest 'Dost thou not believe that the one Entity exists?' Then to Faith thou dost conduct [P. 202.] me, and not to Discussion. Thou therefore that compellest me to concern myself with Faith, what compels thee to compel me to run to Discussion and not to Faith? But if thou dost turn to Discussion I will leave Faith alone! What do I [acknowledge]? There exists an Entity, called God. But thou sayest ' Lo, the world exists; if thou wilt, call it an Entity, and |xcvi if thou wilt, [set down] that from Entities it is made. Is it not necessary for thee to acknowledge that that essence exists?' Then that necessity which has bound me to acknowledge this paradox that 'it cannot really be investigated, but it is believed without investigation'—that necessity has bound me to believe that 'from Nothing everything comes to be,' another paradox which without investigation is to be believed!

But instead of all these things which thou hast said above, this which is unexceptionable I say 'How dost thou compel me to believe that there exists a God invisible and intangible?' Wilt thou compel...

* * * * * * *

[P. 203.] and how Four Entities that are visible... Now the Fire devoured the Water and the Dust and the Stones and the Ox,³ and they became nothing. But a thing that exists in essence cannot become nothing. Now (this came to pass) that God might make known that from nothing created things [will become] nothing. If therefore thou dost not believe this, learn by experiment as a fool, because...

[l. 33.] Look at this, that God in the Beginning made the Earth from nothing, [and] He turned and generated everything from the Earth. For just as the Earth is from nothing and from it is everything, so in Fire everything (becomes) nothing, and at the last it also turns to nothing. But if thou say that this work is [P. 204.] subtly divided in the midst of the Air, pound and break up anything thou wilt and examine (?) it in the Sun that comes in through the window, and see that it appears to thee that thou dost see [it]; therefore also the flame of a fire [that] has gone out or Water that is dried up is (more) subtle.⁴

Let us say further against Mani that a thing which by sins was cast down from its place as a thing—by righteousness and by keeping the commandments could it be restored? If the ZIWANE also through sins were mixed with the Darkness, it is necessary that by means of fasting and prayer they should be 'refined.' But if it was in order that the Darkness might be |xcvii caught through them that they were mixed (with it); now that it has been caught, by all means it is required to know how the Sons of the Light may return to their place. And if so they do not go up, never can they return to their place. For if cleansing is required, as they say, 'fountains of refining' as others say, how [blind] is Bardaisan... to cleanse and to refine that which is mixed in the Sea and in the dry Land and in the Heaven and in the Earth and in all that is in them, and in the Seven Limbos ⁵ and in the Ten Firmaments, as they both have said? Therefore these their disciples make their words void. For if the refinings are many and great but their disciples are few [P. 205.] and dispersed, how by Five Initiates can that be separated and refined which thousands and myriads do not suffice for? For if they had been wise they ought to have contrived to find a Teaching suitable for a few, so that it might be believed that a few could suffice for it. For if any one set out that he with a few workmen would suffice to cut through a great mountain or to dam a mighty river, then by those feeble ones who are with him is it not clear that he is making a mock of himself? For with many and strong men that on which he set out is to be done, or not at all: how much more (is it absurd) that he set out with Five to do that for which Five Hundred was too few?

They also actually proclaim a refining and cleansing of all Rivers and Sources and Fountains, when between them all they cannot refine the water of a single Spring! And so look at everything, at Fruits and Produce and Crops and Vegetables and Fishes and Birds,—how many can eat of all these that are [P. 206.] in all quarters, both by sea and land? For if it were so as they say, Kings and their countries and Lords and their retinues and Captains of armies and their forces ought to be placed over these matters, so that by many coming from all quarters the Light which is in all quarters might be refined. But the Romans are omitted, who had not heard the news of the Refinings, and the Greeks and the Hebrews and the Barbarians and the Arabs, for they refine more than all, seeing that not even... escapes |xcviii them! All these therefore are unemployed in Refining, and 'a pair of Initiates refine,' they say, 'and cleanse the mixture' which is too great for all!

For if by the knowledge and the Faith of the school of Bardaisan and Mani the creation is being cleansed and refined, and otherwise there is no way, when do these feeble ones look forward by themselves to finish the creation? But if they should say that all peoples are refining and cleansing the Light from the Darkness, and the Good Parts from the Evil, know further that for their shame they are compelled to say so, though they on [P. 207.] all sides cannot avoid shame. For how is Light refined in the mouth of the unbelievers, and how are the Parts of the Soul [l. 10.] cleansed... how are they... to proclaim the truth about Refining, for lo, those also who do not believe cleanse and refine?

* * * * * * *

[l. 32.] that which is in their teaching, for lo, from Adam even unto Bardaisan and to Mani. Vainly then they were going and... [P. 208.]

* * * * * * *

[l. 17.] And if they should say for their shame that there were some of old time Teachers of the Truth,—for they say about Hermes in Egypt, and about Plato among the Greeks, and about Jesus who appeared in Judaea, that 'they are Heralds of that Good One to the world,'—(what does it prove)? For if so be that they did proclaim these (doctrines) of the Manicheans as they say, if Hermes knew the Primal Man, the Father of the ZIWANE, and if he knew the Pillar of Glory and the...⁶ of Splendour and the Atlas and the rest of the others that Mani proclaimed and even worships and prays to; and if Plato knew the Virgin of Light...⁷ and the Mother of the [Living], or the war or...,—but [P. 209.] he did know... and Hera and Athena and Aphrodite the adulterous Goddess!—and if Jesus proclaimed to them the Refining in Judaea, and if He taught the worship of the Luminaries that Mani worships, he who they say is the Paraclete, that comes |xcix after three hundred years: and when we have found that the teachings of these or their followers agree the one to the other, or those of one of them to those of Mani, there is justification! But if they do not agree, refutation is at hand. But why is it that Astrology, even though it is a lie, agrees with itself in its teaching, and Magianism with its tradition, and Geometry with its calculation, and Medicine with its book? And the disciples of Plato learned his teaching and teach it to this day, and the disciples of Jesus both learned and taught what they heard from Him; and so do the disciples of Marcion and Bardaisan and Mani. If they also with Hermes and Plato and Jesus and others from the Beginning were proclaiming a Refining in succession, as Mani says, how is it their disciples are not proclaiming their teaching in Egypt and in Greece and in Judaea like that which Mani teaches to-day? For how is what Jesus teaches like what [P. 210.] Mani teaches? So that by this teaching of our Lord, which is open and manifest let that one be convicted who has much wronged God and the Dead.

For Hermes taught that there was a Bowl,⁸ filled with whatever it was filled with, and that there are Souls excited by desire, and they come down beside it, and, when they have come close to it, in it and by reason of it they forget their own place. Now Mani teaches that the Darkness made an assault on the Light and desired it, while Hermes teaches that the Souls desired the Bowl; and this is a little (more) probable, even though both are lying, but it is (more) probable, because it, the Soul, desires to remain in the Body and delay in its Habitation and dwell in its House and be fondled in its Bosom. But Mani compels a man to hear him seriously though he is talking nonsense, for 'the Darkness (he says) loved the Light its opposite'—and how does Water love Fire that absorbs it, or Fire Water that quenches it? And how did Fire love Light? How, pray, will it be benefited by it? For 'Fire loved Fire, and Wind Wind, and Water Water.' Or, perhaps, are these Natures of Darkness [P. 211.] male and those from the Good One. female? And if not, what is the sense of this, that they loved one another? |c

These things therefore Hermes did not teach, nor did Jesus, because Jesus taught the opposite of all of them. For He quickened bodies and raised the dead, whereas neither Hermes nor Plato believe in the resurrection of the body.

But indeed how did Water love Water and both went astray? For, lo, if an evil man sink in water the evil Water drowns him and does not remember that it is of his race, and if a good man be drowned in water the good water does not recognise that it is of his family. And so the Wind loved the Wind and they became one thing—and against the just and the unjust they come up in the contrary direction and batter their faces! And so the Light makes no distinction between the unclean and the clean. And how do they worship that which has no discrimination? And if because of His grace,—neither the Water His fellow-kinsman is good which drowns the righteous, nor the Fire which burns the humble! And (see) that even the Sun burns the fruits and torments the reapers, and sees those that are oppressed with [P. 212.] its heat and does not produce the fruits as one that is good; and in the country of the far East ⁹ they say three things are at ease in the shade, Men and Cattle and Wild Beasts, for the Sun not to burn them with the fierceness of its rays. And how, pray, did the Sons of the Darkness endure its burning, seeing that bodies are of the same family as they are and they cannot endure its heat? For if this heat is of the same nature as these bodies, how is that which is of one Entity tormenting and being tormented from itself? And if it is from that other nature, then how could this which is injured endure that which injures? But it is wonderful and difficult and incredible that it even 'eagerly desired it and was pleased with it.'

And if Fire was mixed with Fire, and Water with Water and Wind with Wind, it necessarily follows that Light also (was mixed) with Light! Now that these Natures are akin one to the other all reasonable beings know, apart from madmen—but perhaps even madmen apart from the Manicheans. For we [P. 213.] know the causes whereby Water is transformed, and witness is |ci borne uniformly to this that, lo, by trees it is transformed into Wine and into Oil and into the many tastes thereof. What therefore shall we say? That Wine is not akin to Water, or that Oil also is not of its family? And if Wine and Oil that, lo, are very distinct from Water, even though they seem to be strangers are not strangers, how much more is Water akin to Water, though it be bitter? For as it is diverse in plants so it is diverse in countries, though the true Word of Providence places it and the countries and the plants under the one Will that creates all things.

Furthermore we will confute them from another quarter, in that if Fire has been mixed with Fire, when pray are they being refined and separated one from the other? For if they were being refined they would also be recognised, in that Fire had become dimmer than it was because of the refining away of that other that was separated from it. For there are old men that have lived more than a hundred years and they have not perceived that this Fire after a hundred years is colder or dimmer than [P. 214.] that was, nor was that of a hundred years ago hotter or stronger or brighter or clearer than this; nor has Water become weaker than Water was, nor Wind than Wind; and (so) these Natures stir up an unfalsifiable refutation against those who wished to tell all these lies about plain things. For these Natures that have not become weaker and are not becoming weaker prove about Bardaisan and Mani that there is no sense in their teaching.

But if something from behind moved the Element of Wind and impelled it, as Bardaisan says, it would impel it towards its diameter,¹⁰ that is, against the Element of Light it would cast it. For opposite the Western one it is set in the East. For if from the North-West the Wind was hurled by whatever it was that hurled it and cast it on the Fire it did not make it go down below upon the Darkness in the middle; for it turned the Fire to the South, and took it away, and it went forth into empty Space. And because they are Atoms, as Bardaisan says, [P. 215.] inasmuch as it is in intention that the distinction between each of them is apprehended,¹¹ it is clear that the Entities were not also |cii hurled one into the other like bodies into bodies. And it is to be supposed about them in their own selves that Wind cannot set in motion the Light of the Sun.

But if the Elements were impelled from above downwards, what prevented it from impelling the Fire to go down alongside of the Darkness, if the pretext of Darkness was required for the Maker to make? And if the Wind blew, lo, it would have separated the Atoms, because they had not yet been mixed by the force of creative power. And even that Wind would not have been able to blow, because it had not yet even acquired the faculty of blowing by the regulation (of the Maker); for if by reason of creative power the Fire acquired brightness and the Light extension and Water flow, it is clear that before their regulation they did not have these (properties), nor did the Darkness, because it also still consisted of scattered Atoms.

For if when [the regulation] was not... the Water... [P. 216. l. 3[... and the Wind would not have sufficed of itself to blow and the Fire to [glow] and the Darkness to smoke, and the Light and the Fire and the Wind...

* * * * * * *

[l. 12.] and it would have been made more hateful than it was (before) by the regulation of this Maker, who they say really did make things more beautiful than they had been in their original essence. Or should we say the true (constitution) of this Fire is not of that which Bardaisan says?—for truly indeed it is not of it. It is not as if what I am saying does exist, but on the contrary I assert that it does not exist, not as one that likes it to be so, but as one that is convinced, not without consideration, but by prudent investigation. For if from the very same thing come Light, Wind, Darkness, experiment, vision—let us see therefore if this is established by its own power, without conjunction with anything [P. 217.] else, and let us see if it (the Fire) kindles Wind like chips of wood, or has power with Darkness as with reeds! And if this defect that it has to-day it did not have of old and that immemorial non-defect it does not have to-day, it is necessary that either the |ciii Maker really disturbed things ignorantly—which God forbid!—or that with a mouth that is not ashamed to repeat the truth the true conclusion may be said without shame, which is that that man spoke falsely who constructed Entities that do not exist. So that from these Entities, about which Bardaisan spoke, there is no way for created things like those (around us) to come into being, for they do not allow their natures, being 'bound' in essence, to come to regulation as the artificer asks. For creatures which are from nothing, as and also as much as it pleases the Maker, so He creates and fixes them: He changes, transfers, and dissolves, even illuminates.

But if they are Atoms of essence, as they say, that cannot be dissolved but can be concentrated, let them prove to one who [P. 218.] wishes to ask without contention how Natures that are not constructed can be constructed, unless the fixing of their essence has been dissolved, that is, their Atoms? But if they (the Atoms) had been actually dispersed, they are collected by wisdom and contracted by diligence, and therefore let us say to him what Bardaisan said to another.¹² And if the texture of the essence of these Atoms was really loosely woven and porous, that is, the dispersal of their nature, they can be concentrated by wisdom and condensed by artifice. And if this is all the 'creative power' it is very weak, in that its operation only went as far as putting things together. But if created things also were created out of these atoms, I want to learn how, when atoms cleave to atoms, a Soul comes into being, and when other things cleave to others a Body comes into being? What is the glue and paste that holds them from being dissolved? If this bandage also is made of atoms, yet another bandage is required also for the bandage itself to bind it, [seeing that] what is made of sand cannot bind atoms of sand to be one body, because it is not established even [P. 219.] for itself to bind its own self and substance.

For brass that is smelted from sand, as long as thou addest its atoms one to the other it increases and becomes a great heap of sand (only), that is, one does not cleave to the other |civ unless they go into the furnace and are dissolved one by one by Fire from the bond of their nature; and when the fixing of them one to the other is dissolved, then there comes to all of them one mixing [in] the melting-pot, and one power that moulds, like that of stones, which, if they are not dissolved and turned to lime, cannot be moulded and become one lump of brass. If therefore also these Atoms of Entities can each one of them be smelted, and their essence be destroyed though it be not regulated, and their nature be dissolved though it be not a composition, they have confessed though unwillingly that they were not even Entities but made things, and are not even Natures 'bound' in essence but Natures regulated by creative power, are not Creatures that have come into being from something but from nothing. [P. 220.] And if we adapt ourselves to them, whereas truth does not adapt itself to falsehood at all, if creatures were or are derived from Atoms, how was or is Knowledge and Intention derived from Atoms?

Now, there are some of their wise men, the hidden ones who perversely say something subtly, that 'there are other Atoms, of Reason and of Power and of Intention,' that is, three other Entities, that 'they have been sent from the LORD of All upon the Primal Darkness and upon [this] regulation' and 'some of these Atoms were mingled and are mingled with those others'; as Bardaisan says, that 'the Power of the Primal Utterance which remained in created things, it makes everything.'

* * * * * * *

[l. 35.] of ourselves, when we have no knowledge of ourselves. And therefore human nature is freed from all guiltinesses, and the blame has been attached to One Whom blame does not touch. But if this blasphemy cannot be believed, there is [P. 221.] found as it were a condition belonging to it that knowledge is not... from God, not even as heat from Fire. For if it were so, it would be necessary that as the heat of Fire is like itself and is not divided against itself, so also our knowledge would not be divided against God, if it were of God; and therefore that neither from God nor from the Entities is really his true self, seeing that from nothing the whole man was |cv created. And this one thing bears witness about everything, that it also was created from nothing.

But that thou mayest know that as far as these things assist Bardaisan, so far he draws them after his will, and where they fail him and are obscure, he too sails off in a vague way. For he declared that the names of the Months were not given without reason, but as allegories, and he began from First Teshri, for (he says) 'About the name of ¹³ first beginning this Month proclaims with its name,' and not to be lengthy, let us say rapidly that he went on and interpreted the names of the Months as far [P. 222.] as Nisan. And when he arrived at the name of Nisan and saw that its name did not suit his interpretation, nor those of the five other Months after it, he interpreted as far as that point and stayed, and explained as far as Adar and stopped.

But if from God allegories had been placed in the names of the Months, in all the Months of the year he would have designed allegories and types in their names. For lo, Nisan, that is greater than all,—and its name does not agree with its activity, that is, its name (does not agree) with the Redemption that took place in it. Because therefore there chanced to be names for the Months which chanced by accident he gathered from them an explanation and persevered and made from them interpretations, and brought things from the dialect of Beth Garmai and from the dialect of Edessa; and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte!

And see the fruit at variance with its root, in that his son is at variance with his explanation! For Bardaisan said and declared, that as if by Prophecy the First Month was called TESHRI, and the one after it MARHESHWAN, 'in which all things creep,' and [P. 223.] he did not say 'Teshri and Teshri.' ¹⁴ But his son, in order that he also might establish another allegory which he had himself put together, and also that pure lips might speak it and chaste ears hear it, did not say 'Teshri and Marheshwan' but 'Teshri and Teshri.' For he says thus in his Hymn: 'O TESHRI, Mother of the year, Produce for us another TESHRI,' and this he |cvi says about the Mother of Life, asking her to produce and leave behind a daughter after her own likeness.

So again Bardaisan said thus about the Entities and their colours; for he said 'the Light is white, the Fire is red, the Wind is blue, the Water is green,' though these (notions) are stolen by him from the Greeks. As therefore he declared that each of the Entities has a colour of its own, so each of them has its own smell, and its own taste, and its own texture,¹⁵ and its own voice. For five aspects each must be found for each of the Entities, corresponding to the five senses which we have; as [P. 224.] he said 'Everything that exists has its own Power and its own Colour and its own Aspect, and the rest of whatever belongs to it. Let him declare to us therefore what is the texture of Light, and what is the taste of Wind, and what is the smell of Fire, that thou mayest know that here also with the Natures he goes into them as far as he does go, as in the names of the Months, and he shewed from them as far as he did, so as to shew his Philosophy. And when other sides sank away from him and were hidden, he began sailing off, and when... and he did not establish himself upon them he paid no attention to them and passed over and began with something else, and beguiled his hearers to suppose that those other things also that had not been spoken of he knew all about, like those kindred matters which had been spoken of.

So again he put the Darkness because of its weight the lowest of all of them (i.e. of the Entities). And if the Darkness be the heaviest, know that the Water being lighter is above it in its boundary; and because Fire also is lighter than Water, it [P. 225.] must be that it is above the Water; and again because Wind also is lighter than Fire it is clear that it too is above the Fire; and because Light is lighter than Wind it is manifest that it is above the Wind. For each of them is lighter than the heavier one underneath it, but heavier than the lighter one above it. And in this correct proportion and just balance there is found the element of Water between the Darkness and the Fire, the one cold underneath it, and the other hot above it; and there ended the construction of the Aramaean Philosopher. |cvii

For if the Wind smote the Fire which was underneath it and bent it downwards, the Fire did not reach to the Darkness, for the great element of Water stands between it and the Darkness, and therefore that extinguishing Intermediary did not allow the arouser of the Darkness to rub against it and its smoke to diffuse so as to reach to its companion (in Darkness). For it is necessary that if the natures of the Entities are true to their names, if the Fire is a Fire in truth, and not an idle name, then the Water also is Water indeed. And if the opposite to the Fire [P. 226.] was the Water, then it did not let the Fire approach the Darkness. And because the Water was the neighbour of the Darkness, again cold on cold was added to the Darkness, the opposite of what those people designed (when they say) 'the heat melted its cold and its smoke was diffused'; whereas if it had diffused itself and gone up, because they stand one above the other as their Natures teach us, light and heavy, would not 'the beginning of the lowest part' of all of them alone have been destroyed, as Bardaisan says? For how can heavy and light things in one rank or in one boundary stand in equilibrium? The scales of a balance, or water and oil put in a vessel, prove that the lighter stands above and the heavier below. And therefore when 'the Darkness sought to go up and reach to the heels and the skirts of the upper Light,' when it 'made an assault to go up,' did it overwhelm completely the Water and the Fire and the Wind, and was 'the beginning [P. 227.] of the lowest part of the Light' only destroyed? And therefore they are refuted, and the School of Bardaisan cannot go on inventing from his principles.

Again the Manicheans say a thing that is refuted from itself; for their words are wont to quarrel one with the other, because they have not acquired unity from love nor equilibrium from truth. For they say that the Darkness has been mixed with Light, a word that may seem probable to the inexperienced, but to thinkers self-contradictory; and because that speaker was afraid of what he had said, in that he knew that many...

* * * * * * *

[P.228.] For as the Laws reprove the transgressors of the Laws, so [l. 7.] |cviii the Holy Scriptures reprove those who transgress beyond the limit of the Scriptures. But as robbers and thieves without law...

* * * * * * *

... to be land for their tares.

Therefore let them establish that if there are bound [Natures], that is, Light and Wind and Water and Fire... that knowledge is not in them. But if they are corporeal Bodies, things corporeal cannot eat spiritual Natures. But if from their skins are the Heavens, and from their excrement the Earth, and from their bo[nes] the Mountains, lo, they have...

* * * * * * *

... If from the sheath-skins again of their bodies came Heaven and Earth, what sheath-skins belong to Light and to Wind and to Fire and to Water and to Darkness? And therefore if all these sons of the Darkness...

The end of this Discourse is not preserved in the Palimpsest, but the missing part was probably not longer than two of these pages: see p. cxi.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. ¹ I.e. about the death of Entities. The subject of discussion is the nature of the Archon who rules this world.

2. ¹ Lit. 'fall under.'

3. ¹ Evidently a reference to 1 Kings xviii 38.

4. ² The meaning appears to be that mechanically pounded grit is after all visible, however small it be pounded, but dried-up water is quite invisible.

5. ¹ Syr. [Syriac]: see Against. Bardaisan LXXXI. (p. lxxvii).

6. ¹ The MS. has [Syriac bits], quite legible in a good light. Evidently the feggoka&toxos (Splenditenens) was named. We should have expected [Syriac] in the gap (Cumont, Eecherches, i, p. 22), but the traces are more like [Syriac].

7. ² Two words illegible.

8. ¹ For the doctrine of the Bowl or Vortex (krath&r), see Mead's Thrice-greatest Hermes, vol. i, pp. 414 f., 454: also Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i 12.

9. ² Lit. ' of the Sun-rising.'

10. ¹ I.e. its diametrically opposite Element.

11. ² I understand the word here translated 'intention' to refer to the Elements themselves, To use S. Paul's terminology, the fro&nhma of Fire, viz. 'to kindle,' is essentially distinct from that of Water, viz. 'to make wet.'

12. ¹ It is a pity that we do not know what Bardaisan said! The meaning seems to be that substances that can be divided and separated can be reconcentrated and regrouped.

13. ¹ The MS. has ' the name of the name of '—probably by a mere accident of transcription.

14. ² Teshri is October and Marheshwan November. These are the old Aramaic names: the Edessenes generally called October 'Teshri I', and November 'Teshri II.'

15. ¹ Lit. ' touch.'

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 12th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: ephraim _8_intro .htm

Introduction by F. C. Burkitt. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921).

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921). Introduction by F. C. Burkitt

|cx

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

A. GR. A.D.

MARCION left the Catholic Church 449 138

BARDAISAN born 11 July, 465 154

MANI born 527 216

" first proclaimed his Religion, 20 March, 553 242

" killed by Bahram (Varanes I) 586 273

S. EPHRAIM died 9 June, 684 373

For Marcion, Bardaisan, and Ephraim, these statements are taken from the Chronicon Edessenum (ed. Guidi, 1903). The date of Mani's birth is given by Mani himself in the Shapurakan (quoted by Al-Biruni, pp. 121, 190); his Religion is dated according to An-Nadim (Flügel, p. 149, corrected in Nöldcke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber, p. 412). The Chronicon Edessenum puts Mani's birth in 240 A.D., by a confusion with the date of the proclamation of Manicheism.

|cxi

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY

BY F. C. BURKITT

1. The MS. Sources.

THE texts edited in these volumes of S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations are the contents of a sixth-century MS. in the British Museum, the two parts of which are numbered Add. 14574 and Add. 14623. The technical description of these MSS. is given in a separate Note: it will suffice here to say that 14574 contains the first 19 leaves (i.e. the first two quires) in their original condition, while 14623 consists of the 88 leaves which a monk named Aaron used in 823 A.D. for transcribing a fresh volume of miscellaneous contents. The original writing was washed out, and as Aaron's own hand is both small and thick it is often very difficult to decipher the ancient script underneath; the new order of the leaves, moreover, bears no relation to the old, so that it was one of Mr. Mitchell's first difficulties to discover the original sequence of the fragments he transcribed. But this was happily and completely done, and one result was to establish the fact that, irregular as the order was, the 88 leaves of Add. 14623 contain nothing but leaves from the same ancient codex, and that no intermediate gaps occur. The 88 leaves of 14623 are actually the 88 leaves that once came after fol. 19 of Add. 14574. We may therefore reasonably infer that very little is missing at the end, and treat what survives as a connected whole.

From the scribe's point of view the volume consisted of two parts, of nearly equal size. Part I contained the Five Books addressed to Hypatius, edited in vol. i of this edition; this part has the headline 'Of Hypatius' at the middle and ends of the quires. Part II is more miscellaneous: it consists of seven pieces, none of which have any organic connexion with the others, though |cxii they are all by S. Ephraim. The first of these is directed against certain opinions of Bardaisan about Space and Perception which were contained in a work of his called 'Of Domnus (swYMdd).' Accordingly the scribe uses 'Of Domnus' for the headlines of his Part II, but the title is merely a scribe's fancy, and the remaining six pieces have nothing to do with Domnus. It is not even certain what the title 'Of Domnus' for the lost work of Bardaisan really signified. It may have been a work addressed to a certain Domnus, just as Ephraim's 'Of Hypatius' is the scribe's short title for Ephraim's Five Books addressed to Hypatius. But nothing is known of such a personage. There was a Domnus Bishop of Antioch, the rival of Paul of Samosata, in 269 A.D., but the name was not common in early times.

Following Ephraim's polemic against Bardaisan's Domnus come three tracts against Marcion, succeeded by a metrical discourse against Bardaisan, and a quasi-metrical discourse on Virginity. It is not easy to see why this latter piece was included in the collection, as it has nothing to do with the heresies attacked in the other pieces. Finally there is a prose tract against Mani, which appears to have concluded the volume; this work is quite distinct from the Discourses to Hypatius, and contains some important references to Manichean doctrines and nomenclature, as well as some direct quotations from lost works by Bardaisan and his school.

I have been able to supply from other sources a certain number of confirmations and additions to the text of Add. 14623, so ingeniously deciphered by Mr. Mitchell. These are: (1) a long quotation from Book IV and a short quotation from Book V of the Hypatius,¹ both taken from one of the ancient collections of doctrinal Extracts in which the Nitrian Library was so rich. The two quotations together make up 103 lines, which is just as long as one of the three-column pages of the MS, or as one of the pages of the English translation.² Short as the extracts are they afford a most valuable indication of the degree of accuracy which Mr. Mitchell was able to attain in the difficult work of decipherment, and encourage readers who cannot examine the Palimpsest |cxiii for themselves to accept the Syriac text as printed in these volumes with a very considerable measure of confidence.

(2) Similar extracts from the metrical Discourse against Bardaisan will be found noted in the text of this volume. The longest of these are taken from Add. 14623 itself, as the monk Aaron, before obliterating the ancient writing, copied out the equivalent of six pages of the printed Syriac, i.e. between two and three pages of the ancient MS. A good deal of the part thus copied out by Aaron and now preserved in the upper writing of 14623 is practically illegible in the ancient writing, so that the extracts make a considerable addition to our knowledge.

(3) Aaron copied out the whole of the Discourse on Virginity, which therefore survives entire. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the modern scholar, this is much the least interesting piece in the volume, but as in the case of the other extracts it enables us to check Mr. Mitchell's work in parts where the Palimpsest is too illegible to make a continuous text. It is curious that Mr. Mitchell should not have noticed these extracts from the lower text in the upper writing, all the more as the extracts from the Discourse against Bardaisan had been published long ago by Overbeck. But it was a fortunate oversight, for (as I said above) it enables us to check the accuracy of his work of transcription.

(4) The Discourse on Virginity, which is written in a poetical style, but not in any regular metre, was afterwards turned into metrical Hymns by a process of curtailment and transposition. This form survives in Vat. Syr. cxi. (A.D. 522) and some later MSS. in the British Museum. The text is printed by Lamy at the end of his vol. ii., but as we possess Aaron's transcript of the original there was no need to record the variations.

2. S. Ephraim as a Controversialist.

From the point of view of a modern scholar, whose chief interest is to recover the lost works and theories of ancient thinkers, whether orthodox or heterodox, S. Ephraim's literary methods are very unsatisfactory. He makes few direct quotations from the writers whom he is controverting, nor does he explain the |cxiv outlines of their system, or distinguish the books of his opponents. It is all piecemeal work. No effort is made to understand the opponent's system as a whole, but single debating points are taken, sometimes with a good deal of ingenuity, in order to shew the weak places of the adversary. As we do not possess the corresponding Marcionite or Bardesanian polemic against the Catholic system, the result is to give an impression of Catholic common sense as opposed to heretical fancy or perverseness.

This is unfortunate in two ways. At the time, no doubt, it was quite an effective method of convincing Ephraim's supporters that reason was on their side and folly on the side of the vaunted heretical philosophy. In our day it has sometimes an opposite effect. We see that justice is not being done to the heretics, that the Catholic writer, who alone now survives, is both judge and advocate. We dimly feel that the controversy is about great subjects, that these heretics were thinkers conscious of the difficulties of the greater problems of human life, some of which still perplex us. and we sometimes, by a kind of reaction, tend to assume that the heretical systems were really philosophical, nearer to our ways of thinking than the world in which the Catholic controversialist lived. At least we tend to assume that the systems of the greater heretics were consistent wholes.

Yet this is by no means certain. I venture to hope that a really consistent philosophy, unhampered by definitely wrong beliefs, whether about the physical or moral world, would have had more power of successful resistance. The religion both of Marcion and of Mani must have had in them much that corresponded to human needs, or they would not have had their long and honourable records of persistence under persecution; but they were both hampered by irrational elements.

One point may be urged in S. Ephraim's favour. So far as we know, though he is unsympathetic he is not unfair. He does not seem actually to misrepresent the theories of his opponents or to misquote them. The worst that can be said is that he seems totally unconscious of the difficulties involved in these controversies, and this all the more as his work is wholly critical and destructive, except to a certain extent in the treatise against Bardaisan's Domnus. He is content with picking holes in his antagonists |cxv and does not give us his own philosophy, except by scattered hints.

On this perhaps a few words may be said, mainly with regard to the meaning of certain Syriac terms. Ephraim may be described as a Monist and a Materialist. That is to say, he recognises only one self-existing original entity or being ()YtY), Ithya), viz. God. The opposite to an Ithya is )dYBB (p. 219, l. 41), i.e. a thing made. What we see around us in this world are made things, things which came into being by God's will. Properties and characters were given to made things by God's will, and so, if He wills it, their properties are liable to change. An Ithya, on the other hand, does not and cannot change; it has a 'bound nature ' ([Syriac]).

At the same time, created things do actually exist; they have 'substance,' which varies according to the 'nature' of the thing. For 'substance' the Syriac is [Syriac] (knoma), and for 'nature' [Syriac] (kyana). The word knoma is of considerable interest, inasmuch it has been chosen to render u9po&stasis, i.e. 'Person' in speaking of the Trinity, while bar kydna ('of the same Nature') is used for o9moou&sion. The special value of the use of these words in these treatises is that S. Ephraim is employing them philosophically, yet quite apart from their special theological use to render certain Greek technical terms.

I have translated knoma by 'substance,' but this meaning shades off into 'individuality,' and no doubt this was the aspect of the word that made it appropriate to render Hypostasis or Person in the Trinitarian sense. On p. 63, 1. 30, we find "David his knoma," i.e. "David in his own person," as distinguished from some son or descendant of David. Yet I think there is in knoma always the notion of reality, i.e. of materiality. Ephraim talks about 'black knome' (p. 41, 1. 36), and in p. 174, 1. 20, it is used of wood. The whole passage indeed is worth quotation, as it exhibits very well Ephraim's philosophy of substance. "Fire," he says, "is buried and dead imperceptibly (in wood), and the rubbing of one bit of wood with another brings it to life, to the destruction of both. For when it has come to life it turns and burns the substance which gave it life by being conjoined with it." That is to say, Fire is a separate substance really existing within |cxvi the substance of wood. On the other hand, verbal nouns like 'buying' and 'selling' have no substance (p. 18, 1. 34 f.); they are only notions in the mind.

Ephraim's argument to prove that Space has no substance should be read at length (pp. iv—viii). It seems to me a very creditable piece of reasoning, especially in view of the fact that he did not possess two pieces of mental apparatus which facilitate our discussions of such subjects. He had no word for 'Space' as such, which we can so easily represent to our eyes by the use of a capital letter and (where necessary) of inverted commas; and neither he nor his opponent Bardaisan had the idea of Cartesian axes, whereby all space is rendered manageable by dividing it into eight cubes all meeting at a definite point, from which measures can be taken.

What is perhaps more remarkable is that Ephraim does not regard Darkness as substantial (p. 40, 11. 7-12). No doubt he was helped to this view by the contrary views of Bardaisan and Mani, who held Darkness to be something positive.³ After all, it is partly a question of terminology. Whatever the corresponding Greek and Latin words may mean, 'Darkness' in English is wholly unsubstantial, the mere absence of Light. But [Syriac] (heshshoxa) in Syriac means the Dark substance, to_ skoteino&n quite as much as the state of Darkness, to_ sko&tos. In translating the notions of Bardaisan and Mani into English it is therefore often more appropriate to speak of the Dark or the Dark substance than of the Darkness.

Kydna, 'nature,' is exactly fu&sis. It implies generally a set of qualities or characteristics. No transliteration of ou0si/a is used in these treatises, and parsopa occurs only once (ii. p. 26, 1. 16), where it seems to mean 'person' in the ordinary English sense, i.e. 'individual.' |cxvii

3. The System of Marcion.

These treatises tell us more about Syriac-speaking Marcionites than is told in any other extant source. The main result is to shew that they were very similar in their beliefs and practices to the Marcionites elsewhere, especially as described in Eznik's well-known chapters against them.⁴ In fact, it is very likely that Eznik's account is not so much an original description of the Armenian Marcionites known to him as a translation from some early Syriac writer.

It is important to notice at the outset that S. Ephraim's polemic against Marcion differs in one respect from that of Tertullian and Epiphanius: there is no controversy about Marcion's Gospel. Marcion, who rejected the authority of the Old Testament as the work of the Adversary of Jesus, considered that most of the writings current among Christians had been interpolated in the interests of Judaism, and the only Gospel he received was a shortened recension of Luke. According to Tertullian and Epiphanius, with whom almost all modern scholars are in agreement, Marcion's Gospel was an arbitrary mutilation of the text, while Marcion no doubt regarded it as the genuine Evangel purged of alien elements. In any case it was obviously a variant form of the canonical Luke, and opponents of Marcion who were accustomed to use the Canonical Luke were concerned to vindicate the superiority of the text familiar to them. But Ephraim and the branch of the Catholic Church to which he belonged habitually used the Diatessaron, not the four separate Gospels. He seems to have been quite unfamiliar with the Gospels as separate literary works (though he knew something about the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel),⁵ and probably did not recognise Marcion's Gospel as being one of the Canonical Four used by Greek and Latin orthodox Christians. However that may be, he says nothing about it. Possibly he did not even know the Marcionite Gospel itself, and only bases his polemic on Marcionite theological and controversial works which quote it. |cxviii

The most striking new fact about Marcionite usage brought out by these treatises is that the Syriac-speaking Marcionites used a different transliteration of the name 'Jesus' from the orthodox. The ordinary Syriac for 'Jesus' is Ow Y (pronounced 'Isho' by Nestorians but Yeshu' by Jacobites), which is simply the Syriac form of the Old Testament name Joshua.⁶ This form Ow Y was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichees. It was therefore a surprise to find that Ephraim in arguing against Marcionites, and certainly in part quoting from their books or sayings, uses the form wsY, a direct transcription of the Greek )Ihsou~ (or 0Ihsou~j). As it is always written wsY, never wsY), I suppose the pronunciation intended is IESU rather than ISU, but I have retained Mitchell's ISU (vol. i. p. li), not only for uniformity but also because it was desirable to emphasise the strangeness of the form wsY.

When Ephraim uses this Marcionite transliteration he is evidently basing his argument on Marcionite texts. The question therefore does arise, how far his references to Gospel incidents are quotations from the Marcionite Gospel. My first impression on reading the First Discourse against Marcion (pp. 50-102) was that he was working on a copy of that Gospel, or at least was conscious of its main peculiarities. After an argument about Adam and the nature of his punishment he goes on to discuss the message of John the Baptist to ISU (pp. 61-87), and this is followed by a discussion of the Transfiguration. Both these incidents are contained in Marcion's Gospel, and most of the textual allusions might be regarded as taken from Luke, though the wording often differs from the ordinary Syriac. But a closer examination made this view more than doubtful: I think Ephraim was, as usual, quoting the Diatessaron loosely from memory, and I do not think there is any tangible evidence that he knew that certain of his Gospel references were taken from passages and incidents which had no place in Marcion's Gospel-book, so that their citation had no weight in an argument against Marcionites. Thus on p. 64, 1. 24, and p. 109,1. 13, he has sarcastic references to 'the girl,' i.e. the daughter of Herodias, playing with John the Baptist's head, |cxix while on p. 108, 1. 45, the 'soldier of the guard ' is mentioned. But the whole incident of Herod's banquet is absent from Luke, and therefore from Marcion's Gospel, while the 'soldier' (espuklatra) is mentioned only in Mk. vi 27. Again, on p. 72, 1. 26 f., Ephraim quotes 'Blessed are the meek in their spirit': this is an inaccurate combination of Matt, v 5 and Matt, v 3, but neither element of the quotation is represented in the Lucan Beatitudes, accepted by Marcion. Further, 'Blessed is he, except he be offended in me,' on p. 86, 1. f., agrees neither with the Syriac vulgate nor with the Sinai Palimpsest text of Lk. vii 23, but it does agree with the Curetonian text of Matt, xi 6. Finally, on p. 82, 1. 5, John is called a Light-bringer, which recalls Joh. v 35, but has no parallel in Luke.

These passages are decisive enough to shew that Ephraim, unlike Tertullian and Epiphanius, is not attempting to confute Marcion out of his own recension of the Gospel. Still less is there reason to regard the few references to S. Paul as taken from the Marcionite 'Apostle.' The most interesting of these, from a textual point of view, is the quotation of 1 Tim. ii 15 on p. 100, 1.10 f.,⁷ but the argument could have meant little to a Marcionite, because Marcion never accepted the Pastoral Epistles.

The most we can learn from Ephraim about the Biblical exegesis of the Marcionites comes from the few passages which he directly quotes from them. The two most striking of these are to be found on p. 106 in the Second Discourse and on p. 125 in the Third. On p. 106, 11. 38-42, Ephraim suggests that the only reason Marcionites can allege for John the Baptist believing at all in Jesus is a fantastic faith in the unknown: " 'Because,' they say (ml), 'John was near to die he sent his flock by the hand of the two under-shepherds to the Lord of the flock.' " And again, on p. 125, 11. 40-47, Ephraim says: "Two things the Marcionites proclaim about our Lord, which are contrary to each other, for they say (ml), 'He annulled former Laws and healed diseased organs.' " The interest of these simple sentences, which are |cxx shewn by the use of the particle ml to be quotations,⁸ is that they seem to be polemical, isolated bits of Marcionite answer to orthodox criticism. It is not to be expected that they will be very profound or convincing, because they deal with points on which the Marcionite theory was weakest, viz. the events of the Gospel history. John the Baptist was a specially inconvenient figure, for he is altogether linked up with the Old Testament and Jewish religion, and yet he appears as a forerunner of Jesus. If John recognised Jesus at all he must, as Epiphanius says (Haer. xlii, p. 325), have known of Him before, while to the Marcionites Jesus is the Son of the Stranger, and His coming was altogether unexpected and unprepared. And with regard to the second quotation, it is easy for Ephraim to shew the inconsistency of regarding the cure of human bodies or organs as good, seeing that the whole domain of matter, or Hyle, is accounted by Marcionites as altogether outside the plan of salvation.

One feature of Ephraim's polemic with the Marcionites that cannot help striking the reader who comes to it after reading the tracts against Bardaisan or Mani is its more Biblical character. The religion of Marcion was essentially Christian and Biblical. He is a Dissenter from the orthodox interpretation of the Bible, but his philosophy starts from it. Bardaisan, on the other hand, appears in these controversies as a Cosmologist or Natural Philosopher with a system of his own, who found in the Gospel, as he found in Greek philosophy, certain things which he adopted because they seemed to be in harmony with his own views. Mani also is a thinker, more or less independent of Biblical data. Both to Bardaisan and to Mani their cosmological notions are an essential part of their religion. But I have the impression, that Marcion was only a cosmologist by accident, that he was essentially concerned with morals and the working of the mind and what may be called the psychology of forgiveness.

Ephraim makes some telling points against him over the Voice at the Transfiguration. Marcion, we know, had a clumsy presentation of the Universe as consisting of three Regions, one 'above' the other. In the highest dwelt the Kind Stranger; |cxxi in the lowest, on the earth, was the domain of Matter; between them, above the earth, was the domain of the Creator or Maker, the God of Justice and Law, who had made Man out of Matter in his own image. When the Voice came at the Transfiguration, saying, 'This is My Son,' how, says Ephraim, did they know it was the Stranger's Voice, and not that of the God of the Law? If it was the Stranger, speaking from the heavens above us, how had He got there? This is a good debating point; but just as we see how very much easier the controversy between Ephraim and Bardaisan would have been, if they had considered Space as measured with Cartesian axes, so I venture to think Marcion would have made his meaning clearer if he had placed his Kind Stranger in a 'fourth dimension.'

The essential thing about the Kind Stranger who can and will forgive freely is that He is not in or of this tangible and measurable world. At least this is so, except in so far as the very notions in Marcion's mind are part of the whole of Nature. With this proviso, the whole of Marcion's system is essentially built upon the same lines as the religion outlined in Huxley's famous Romanes Lecture. Nature is red in tooth and claw, in this world an eye is exacted for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (or its equivalent). Action and reaction are equal and opposite, and the Law of the Conservation of Energy seems to be unbroken. But Man can imagine, more or less, another world where this is not the case, and his mind can take refuge in this fairyland, which is outside the visible universe.

Marcion did not, as a matter of fact, put his thoughts in this way. He was, as Ephraim says (p. lvii), 'half in and half out' of orthodox thought, and so was liable to charges of inconsistency. His great merit is that he felt the charm of the Gospel message apart from the sanction of the Old Testament. Ephraim starts off his polemic against Marcion by appealing to the miracles of the Exodus, and to alleged confirmations of Old Testament wonders in the archives of Egypt and Babylon, an argument which now only raises a smile. But Marcion's position is not similarly affected by modern discovery: the God to Whom he gave his allegiance was always outside of this visible world, and if the visible world has been found not to be geocentric that matters |cxxii less to him than to those whose God had His throne 'above the bright blue sky.'

Apart from their views about the Bible the Marcionites appear in these treatises as an ultra-pietistic school, who fast more than Ezekiel and pray more than Daniel. Indeed, they claim to pray all day (p. xxxi med.). The early orthodox Syriac-speaking Church esteemed virginity so highly, that we need not be surprised that Ephraim does not touch upon Marcion's rejection of Christian marriage. According to vol. i. p. 129, l. 1 (p. xciv), the Marcionites worshipped towards the West.

4. The System of Bardaisan.

The treatises of Ephraim add little fresh to what we knew already about Marcion and the Marcionites, but they do add greatly to our knowledge of Bardaisan's system. So scattered and piecemeal, however, are the bits of information which Ephraim gives us that I will begin by quoting what Moses bar Kepha says about him.⁹

"Bardaisan held about this world that it is composed of Five Entities (Ithye), viz. Fire and Wind and Water and Light and Darkness. Each of these was standing in its own region, Light in the East, Wind in the West, Fire in the South, Water in the North, the Lord of them all in the Height, and their Enemy, the Dark, in the Depth below. Once upon a time, whether from some external body or by chance, they were hurled one against another, and the Dark ventured to come up from the Depth to mingle together with them. Then the pure Entities began to run away and flee from the Dark and appealed to the mercy of the Most High to deliver them from the dirty colour that was mingled with them, i.e. from the Dark. Then, says he, at the sound of the commotion the Word (Memra) of the Intention of the Most High, which is the Christ, came down and cut off the Dark from being in the midst of the pure Entities, and it was hurled down and fell to the lower part of its nature, and He set |cxxiii up each of the Entities into its order in the mystery of the cross. And as for that mixture which came into being from the Entities and the Dark their enemy, He constituted from it this World and set it in the midst, that no further mixture might be made from them and that which has been mixed already, while it is being cleansed and refined by ¹⁰ conception and birth until it is perfect."

Moses bar Kepha died 903 A.D., more than five centuries after S. Ephraim, but this account exactly agrees with what we read about Bardaisan's system of the universe on pp. 214-5, so that it may be taken as substantially accurate and used as the starting-point of our description. The most essential feature of Bardaisan's system is that 'God' with him is not the Creator and Source of the stuff of which the Universe is made, but the Arranger of it into an ordered Cosmos. God is not the sole Ithya, the sole self-existent Being or Entity; besides God there are the four pure substances of Light, Wind, Fire, and Water, and the foul Dark substance. These only make up six Entities, while Ephraim everywhere treats Bardaisan as teaching that there are Seven ¹¹: it appears to me that the Seventh Entity is Space itself, concerning which Bardaisan said that 'God is in the midst of Space' (vol. i, p. xcvii). 'Greater,' says Ephraim, 'are the praises which Bardaisan uttered concerning Space than those which he uttered concerning the God in the midst of Space' (p. xcvi).

If Space be the Seventh Entity of Bardaisan, we see the point of Ephraim's elaborate discussion of the substantial existence of mathematical Space in the first of the treatises edited in this volume. Ephraim comes to the conclusion that Space is not a thing but a notion; to Bardaisan, on the other hand, it was a thing of limited extent,¹² outside of which nothing existed, while within it God and the Entities, good and bad, lived and moved and had their being.

The configuration of things before ever the world was, which is implied by Moses bar Kepha and by Ephraim on pp. ci, cii, |cxxiv may be represented by Fig. 1. Another configuration of the system of Bardaisan is set forth on p. cvi and in the metrical Discourse, Stanza XLVIII, p. 155, and is represented by Fig. 2. Ephraim tries to shew that each configuration is inconsistent with itself when used to explain the origin of our World, but he does not complain that the two configurations are inconsistent with each other. He is so quick to press debating points of this kind, that I think we may infer from his silence that the two configurations were put forward by Bardaisan less as absolute physical realities, than as presentations or diagrams explanatory of his ideas. No doubt Bardaisan taught that God and the uncreated Entities existed in Space before our World came into being, but the actual disposition of these Entities must, even to a Gnostic teacher of the nd century, have been conjectural. What Bardaisan was concerned to assert was that things were originally in a happy state of equilibrium, that something occurred to disturb this equilibrium whereby general disaster was threatened, but that God came to the rescue and confined within certain limits the damage already done and provided for its eventual reparation.¹³ This corresponds in a sense to the ordinary Christian doctrine of the 'Fall,' but it differs from it inasmuch as it puts the Fall before the construction of our World—nay more, it makes the Fall to be the cause of this World, not a regrettable incident occurring after this World had been made. In this, as we shall see, the Bardesanian doctrine agrees with Manichaeism: in fact, the religion of Mani becomes more comprehensible if the ideas of Bardaisan are recognised as one of its formative elements.

An accusation brought three times by Ephraim against |cxxv Bardaisan is that he picked out analogies here and there where they suited his theories, without attempting to consider the similar instances where his theories would not work. He 'sailed about,' ¹⁴ rather like a butterfly. No doubt the philosophy of S. Ephraim is more or less open to the same reproach, but it is likely enough that there was in Bardaisan something of the Dilettante. I shall therefore not attempt to exhibit his Philosophy as a system, when perhaps it never had essential coherence, but rather pick out features of interest which can be gathered from Ephraim's very unsympathetic refutations.

This world and its inhabitants having been the result of a pre-mundane accident, it is not surprising that Bardaisan did not believe in the resurrection of the body. Man, according to Bardaisan, is naturally mortal ¹⁵ (I); it was Abel, not Adam, who died first (XLI). Our Lord only raises Souls (XCI): if Death came from Adam's sin, our Lord ought to have rewarded His redeemed with life in this world (II, LXXIV, LXXIX). 'He that keepeth My Word shall not taste Death,' said our Lord, yet all have died; therefore He did not redeem the Body (LXXX). The Body is heavier than the Soul, and not really akin to it (I, LXI, LXV); it cannot cleave to it for ever (XLIV). The effect of Adam's sin was to prevent Souls after death from what Bardaisan calls 'crossing over,' while on the other hand the Life or Salvation brought by our Lord was that He enabled the Souls to cross over into the Kingdom (LXXXII) or, as it is elsewhere called, 'the Bridal-chamber of Light' (LXXXI, LXXXV).

The Body, according to Bardaisan, is incapable of thought, while the Soul is merely ignorant; following the imagery of the Gospel Parable (Matt, xiii 33), he says that the Leaven is the Divine faculty of Reason (mad'a) which God places in the Soul, where it works by its own inherent energy till the whole Soul becomes rational and therefore Divine (LIX, LXI). This Reason he regards as a 'stranger' in the Soul, i.e. it is a gift from God, not a mere natural development.¹⁶ |cxxvi

Bardaisan was evidently known as 'the Aramaean Philosopher,' ¹⁷ and no one has ever questioned his command over the language and literature of his native land. But on pp. iii—v Ephraim raises the question of his competence in Greek philosophical literature. He says that Bardaisan has mixed up the doctrines of Plato with those of the Stoics, which are contrary to Plato's own teaching, naming (but not quoting) a lost work of Albinus as proving his point. Further on (p. xxii), he accuses Bardaisan of basing his theories of vision upon the accidents of Aramaic gender, regardless of the fact that his analogies would not hold good in Greek. The question therefore arises: Did Bardaisan know Greek? Or rather, seeing that Bardaisan lived part of his life at the court of Edessa and therefore probably could speak Greek, had he a really first-hand knowledge of any department of Greek literature?

It is difficult to say for certain; the impression I get is that he had little or no first-hand knowledge of Greek writings, and I venture to hazard the conjecture that a good deal of the vaguely Hellenic air of the theories opposed by Ephraim is due to Harmonius, the son of Bardaisan, who is said by Theodoret (Haer. 22) to have studied at Athens and become familiar with the language and philosophy of Greece. Harmonius adhered to his father's doctrines; it seems only likely that some of the confusion between Platonic and Stoic teaching, pointed out by Ephraim in his treatise against Bardaisan's Domnus,¹⁸ may be due to the not too accurate learning of an Oriental student picked up in a Western University.¹⁹

But did S, Ephraim himself know Greek? According to the traditional Life, it was an acquirement of his latest years and ascribed to miracle, and this would fit in with the internal evidence of his genuine works, apart from the Domnus treatise. After all, Ephraim gives us no quotations from Plato or the Stoics, or even from Albinus (p. 7, 1. 9), and it is the same with the account of |cxxvii Hermetic doctrine in the final treatise (p. xcix). There is nothing in these treatises to prevent us from regarding the information about Greek literature and philosophy which they contain as based on hearsay. No doubt Ephraim was pretty well informed, and he may very likely have taken some pains to find out how far Bardaisan's statements were to be trusted. Possibly also other Syriac writers, some of whom may have known Greek, had done their best to controvert Bardaisan in the century and a half which elapsed between the publication of Domnus and S. Ephraim's refutations. In any case, the controversial tracts here edited do not compel us to ascribe to Ephraim linguistic and literary acquirements which the rest of the available evidence about him make improbable.

That Bardaisan really did regard things in general from a rather narrowly Mesopotamian point of view is clear from his curious etymologies of the names of the Months, about which Ephraim writes on p. cv. The Mesopotamian year began in October; the name of the first month was Teshri, and that of the second in early times was Marheshwan.²⁰ Teshri seems to be connected with sharri, 'to begin,' as teshmeshta, 'service,' is connected with shammesh, 'to serve'; Marheshwan might easily suggest the Syriac word rhash, 'to crawl' or 'creep,' though this derivation would not account for the final syllable. At any rate, Bardaisan brings forward these derivations, which Ephraim controverts on the common-sense ground that if the names of the months were significant they would all be significant, whereas Bardaisan failed to find a plausible Syriac derivation for Nisan, i.e. April, or for the months which follow.

We know, of course, more about ancient Kalendars than either Bardaisan or Ephraim. The names of the Mesopotamian months, used also by the Jews after the Exile, are Babylonian, and Marheshwan is known to be an Aramaic corruption of Arah samna, 'the eighth Month.' The Babylonian year began at the Vernal Equinox with the month Nisan; while the October beginning, which put Teshri in the first place, seems to have 'been the immemorial native Aramaean starting-point. In any case it goes back to 312 B.C., the beginning of the Seleucid Era. |cxxviii

The name Marheshwan for November was dropped by the Edessenes at least as early as the Diocletian persecution, and the first four months of the Syriac year were called Teshri I, Teshri II, Kanon I, Kanon II, instead of Teshri, Marheshwan, Kislew, Tebeth. It may be gathered from what Ephraim says on p. 222, l. 34, that the old name Marheshwan was in his days only used in Beth Garmai, i.e. in the district where Nineveh was and Mosul is.²¹

We learn, further, that the son of Bardaisan, i.e. almost certainly the Harmonius referred to above, speaks of Teshri II for November, whereas his father uses the old name Marheshwan. The extract quoted on p. 223, ll. 14-17, is interesting on several accounts. In the first place, it is in 7-foot metre: —

O Teshri, 'emma dshaqqa,

'audled lan Teshri hreqa.²²

"O Teshri, Mother of the Year,

Produce for us another Teshri!"

This is the metre in after years especially associated with S. Ephraim's own name, and so it bears out the tradition that Ephraim took the metres, which Harmonius is credited with having introduced into Syriac literature, and turned them into vehicles for orthodox doctrine.²³

Further, Ephraim tells us that this couplet refers to the 'Mother of Life,' asking her to produce and leave behind a daughter after her own likeness. This is quite in the same range of thought as the short extracts from Bardaisan Hymns quoted by Ephraim in the 55th of the Hymns against Heresies (ES. ii 557, 558). Those Hymns are said there to be written by the 'sons' of Bardaisan, while this couplet about Teshri is said to be written by his 'son.' Doubtless in either case Harmonius is meant. There is a distinct difference of atmosphere between this poetry and the words or opinions definitely given as those of Bardaisan himself. |cxxix

But, it may be asked, is not Bardaisan known to have been a poet? Did he not write the Syriac poem known (in modern times) as 'The Hymn of the Soul'? In reply I venture to urge that one result of the texts published in these volumes is to render any connexion of Bardaisan with any part of the 'Acts of Thomas' improbable. As I have published two separate translations of the great Hymn from the 'Acts of Thomas,' one of them under the name of The Hymn of Bardaisan,²⁴ a few remarks on this statement may not be out of place.

Even in the little¹ book called The Hymn of Bardaisan I had stated that it was doubtful whether it was the work of Bardaisan himself (p. 4), but I then thought it had been really made out that the Acts of Thomas were full of 'Bardesanian' teaching. By 1904, in the book called Early Eastern Christianity, I had become much less certain of this, and now after a very careful study of these 'Refutations' of S. Ephraim it appears to me that the doctrines of Bardaisan are altogether different from those of the Acts of Thomas. What, then, were, the reasons which made modern scholars assume any connexion between these schools of thought? My friend Prof. A. A. Bevan sums up Ephraim's accusations against Bardaisan, as known before the publication of these treatises, under three heads:—(1) denial of the resurrection of the body, (2) belief in a divine 'Mother,' (3) belief in eternal beings subordinate to the supreme God. These three heresies are all present in the 'Hymn of the Soul,' so that a presumption is created that its doctrine is Bardesanian.²⁵

It may be urged on the other side with regard to (1) that it is a common characteristic of almost all schools of early Christian thought except orthodox Catholicism. As to (2) there is very little to connect the 'Mother' referred to in Ephraim, Ed. Rom. ii. 557, with the Queen of the East in the Hymn. For the latter a much nearer parallel is found in that passage of Aphraates (Patr. Syr. i. 840¹²) which speaks of the Holy Spirit as a Christian's Mother. And as to (3) the subordinate divine Powers in the Hymn, the 'Nobles' who set their seal to the Letter of the |cxxx supreme 'King of Kings,' they are mere personages of the Heavenly Kingdom, the Celestial Hierarchy, while the 'eternal beings' set by Bardaisan alongside of God are material elements, the Light, the Wind, the Water, the Fire, and the crude Dark Stuff that exists in the depth below. Of these, the characteristic Ithye of Bardaisan, there is no trace in the Hymn of the Soul or in the rest of the Acts of Thomas.

But the reason against ascribing the Hymn to Bardaisan, which seems to me most clearly to emerge from a study of the Refutations published in this work, is the entire absence of the mythic and poetical element in all that Ephraim quotes from him. In these Refutations 'the Philosopher of the Aramaeans' appears as a matter-of-fact man of science, a teacher of positive doctrine about the physical constitution of the world in which we live. To us, no doubt, it is science falsely so called, speculations as groundless as his derivations of the names of the Months. But such as it is, it is positive doctrine about matter and sense-perception; there is no parabolic setting-forth of the meaning of human life or the ways of Divine redemption.

Moreover, the attitude of Bardaisan towards life is essentially different from that characteristic of the tale of Judas Thomas, including the great Hymn. The Acts of Thomas sets forth a philosophy of life essentially ascetic, and there is nothing ascetic in the attitude of Bardaisan. It is true that he regarded man as naturally mortal, and held that only the immortal soul is redeemed by Christ. But he did not reject marriage, as the Acts of Thomas does. In the Hymn itself there is nothing about marriage or generation, but the food and dress of 'Egypt' are regarded as unclean, and not merely as things temporary and perishable.

I venture to think that the reason which made it even plausible to suggest that the Hymn of the Soul came from the school of Bardaisan was the very little positive knowledge that we possessed of the actual teachings of Bardaisan. In the first volume of this work Mr. Mitchell, under the influence of the theory here controverted, was at pains to point out all the references and parallels to the Hymn of the Soul that he could find in the 'Refutations.' They are to be found on p. lxxxix and p. cvii of vol. i. Of these, the first merely deals with the meaning of the |cxxxi word sayka as a standing epithet for a Serpent or Dragon: I willingly admit that it must mean 'the Swallower,' not 'the Loud-breathing,' all the more because the ancient Greek translation of the Hymn itself is now found to translate the word by to_n katapo&thn. The other passage ²⁶ has really very little in common with the Hymn except the word shabra, i.e. 'childish' or 'inexperienced.' Certainly Ephraim cannot be referring directly to the Hymn in this passage, for he asks how the Soul leaves Understanding behind, or how the Soul forgets, whereas in the Hymn this is directly explained as the result of eating the unclean food of the Egyptians. It is much more probable that in vol. i. p. cvii, there is no reference at all to the Hymn, but only to that question, at all times interesting, as to how the Soul of man can have forgotten, if it really had had a conscious pre-existence.

5. The System of Mani.

The Refutations of Ephraim in the case of the doctrines of the Manichaeans, as in the case of the Marcionites, are chiefly useful as a confirmation and a check to our previous knowledge. The system of Mani, as it appears in these works, is essentially the same religion that is described and controverted in the Acta Archelai and by Titus of Bostra. The special value here of what S. Ephraim has to tell us comes from his early date and the fact that he writes in Syriac. He is only a little later than the other two authorities, and what he reports is undistorted by the veil of Greek language and thought. Ephraim died in 373, so that his Refutations appeared less than a century after Mani's own death.

Just as we started with the account of Bardaisan by Moses bar Kepha it will be convenient in dealing with Mani to follow the account of Theodore bar Khoni as set forth by Cumont in La Cosmogonie Manichéenne,²⁷ because this work gives us more of the actual Syriac terms used by Syriac-speaking Manichees than any other authority except our Refutations.

The Manichees taught their disciples that the first thing they had to do was to distinguish the Two Principles, that is |cxxxii to say, the Light, which is essentially Good, and the Dark, which is essentially Evil. Or rather it would perhaps be more accurate to say that Evil arises by a mixture of the Dark with the Light, and that when such a mixture has taken place, progress towards a better state of things, redemption, salvation, deliverance, is only to be obtained by straining out the Dark from the Light. Besides the Two Principles it was further necessary to understand the Three Moments, that is to say the Past, the Present, and the Future.²⁸ In the Past, the Dark and the Light were separate, but the Dark somehow conceived a passion for the Light its opposite and made an assault upon it, whereby a portion of the Light became mixed with the Dark, was in fact swallowed by it: in the process of this struggle the present world and the race of men came into being, not being wholly of the Light or of the Dark, but being essentially mixed and therefore evil, i.e. incongruous. In the Present the Intelligence which belongs essentially to the Light has contrived a mechanism, whereby the Light is being gradually refined from the Dark and the Dark confined by a wall or prison, so that never again can it overpass its boundary. In the Future, when this refining process is completed, all the Parts of the Light now imprisoned in Men and Animals and Plants will have been refined away: what is left will be burnt out, so far as it is destructible, and the remainder, being wholly of the Dark, will join the original powers of darkness in their eternal prison.

The Two Principles of Light and Dark are thus alone primitive: the ultimate cause not only of that which we see around us, but even of the hierarchy of Light, has been the Attack made by the Dark upon the region of Light. Evil began by Darkness desiring the Light (i. p. xxix); it conceived a passion for Good and made an assault on it (i. pp. xxv, xlix, lxxviii; ii. p. xcix med.), it felt, touched, ate, sucked, tasted, and swallowed it (i. pp. xliv, lxxxv). Mani naturally could not explain, any more than Bardaisan could, how this first disturbance of the eternal order took place, but he seems somewhere to have expressed it, that it was as if the Dark from a far distance smelt and perceived that there was 'something pleasant' beyond his region (i. p. lx). Ephraim misses |cxxxiii the point when he merely seizes on it to ask how the Light was far distant from the dark when the two regions lay side by side: Mani's point is, that the beginning of Evil is unregulated desire.

It will be convenient to notice here the asceticism of the Manichaean religion, because it influences even the terms of Mani's cosmology. All generation was to Mani doubly hateful, for it was a fresh mixture. To take life was to cut the Parts of Light imprisoned in a living body; to produce fresh life was to perpetuate a state of things that ought never to have been. It was equally wrong to sow and to reap, and the Initiates—the Righteous (zaddike), as they called themselves—were not willing even to break bread lest they pain the Light which is mixed with it (i. p. xxx), their food, as we learn from other sources, being wholly prepared for them by mere disciples. In accordance with this the Manichaeans appear to have avoided all words which describe the production of the Hierarchy of Light by words like 'beget,' or even 'create.' We hear of the Father of Greatness, and the Mother of the Living, but the Primal Man is not styled their Son: Mani seems to have carried through the idea of the Logos, or mere Word, as the producing organ. The Father of Greatness neither espouses the Mother of Life nor begets the Primal Man, but calls ()rq)—and they exist.²⁹ There is no syzygy of the Aeons in Manicheism, as in the system of Valentinus; Ephraim suggests a marriage of the various elements of Light and Dark (ii. p. xcix end), but only by way of sarcasm. When therefore the ZIWANE are called 'Sons' of the Light and the Primal Man is called their 'Father,' these words of relation are used only in a general way to denote origin.

According to Theodore bar Khoni the Manichees called the |cxxxiv ultimate Supreme Good Being [Syriac], i.e. 'the Father of Greatness' but neither He nor His five Attributes or Manifestations, viz. Intelligence, Reason, Thought, Imagination, Intention, are mentioned as such in Ephraim's Refutations. The 'Mother of the Living' is just named in ii. p. xcviii. On the other hand 'the Primal Man' and his five ZIWANE come in for frequent notice. The Primal Man ([Syriac]) is not Adam, but a Heavenly Being evoked for the purpose of repulsing the attack of the Dark upon the realm of Light. According to Ephraim (i. p. xc) the Manichees interpreted John i 4 as referring to this personage, but as he truly remarks the 'Greek' has a plural (to_ fw~s tw~n a0nqrw&pwn).

The first combat between Light and Dark ended in the victory of the latter. The Dark struck the Primal Man senseless and 'swallowed' his Five ZIWANE. That these were five in number is stated in i. pp. lxxix, xc, xcvii. The odd thing is that they are never directly enumerated. From p. lxxix we learn that four of them were Light, Wind, Water, and Fire, but what was the fifth? Our chief Arabic source (Flügel, Fikrist, p. 87) says 'the gentle breeze,' ³⁰ the Acta Archelai vii says u lh. There is evidently some confusion here. Cumont, following Beausobre, thinks of a palaeographical confusion between YLH and AHP, but if this were all it remains curious that Ephraim never names the Air as one of the Sons of the Light.

The word Ziwana (? Brilliant) seems to have applied to others of the heavenly Hierarchy, for Theodore speaks of Jesus the Ziwana, who aroused Adam to consciousness (Cumont, p. 46).

The Manichees appear to have been unwilling to represent this all-important combat as entirely a victory for the Dark. |cxxxv On the one hand the Primal Man was left lying unconscious on the field and his Ziwane were swallowed by the Dark, on the other both Ephraim (i. p. lxxix) and Titus of Bostra (A 17) tell us that the Ziwane were used by the Primal Man as a bait (de/lear) to catch the Sons of the Dark and so to return them to their own place.

However that may be, the result was that Light was mixed with the Dark, and the problem then was, first, how to restrain the Sons of the Dark, and secondly, how to separate the Light that had been mixed in them. These Sons of the Dark were called by Manichees [Syriac] (Archons), a word which always has in Syriac the sinister significance of a Demoniac Ruler. In vol. ii. p. xci it is twice used in the singular of the Evil Power.

The Primal Man recovered from his swoon, and aided by fresh Light-powers ³¹ he 'hunted the Sons of the Dark and flayed them, and made this Sky from their skins, and out of their excrement he compacted the Earth, and of their bones he forged and raised and piled up the Mountains' (i. p. xxxiii), and he did all this in order to strain out from them by rain and dew the 'Parts of the Light' that had been mixed in them. According to Theodore bar Khoni this mixed material world, composed of the parts of the Archons, who yet have particles of Light mingled in their substance, is held in place by five heavenly powers, who are also named in Greek and Latin sources. They are

[Syriac] Feggoka&oxoj Splenditenens

[Syriac]

Rex Honoris

[Syriac]

Adamas Heros

[Syriac]

Gloriosus Rex

[Syriac] 0Wmofo&roj Atlas Maximus

Of these the [Syriac] (Sabbala), the Supporter, is mentioned in ii. 20839 (=p. xcviii), and the Splenditenens in the preceding line. Unfortunately only the latter half of the title is legible. The former part (end of l. 37) cannot be read, but it was certainly not [Syriac] or [Syriac]. To me it looks more like [Syriac] or [Syriac], but the fact is that the script has perished. This is all the more |cxxxvi provoking as the meaning of the Syriac word used by Theodore is doubtful.³²

The Archons being thus chained up, Theodore tells us that a certain amount of the absorbed Light was refined out of them at once, and from it was made the Sun and Moon and the Stars. But much yet remained in the Archons, and so a new personage was contrived, the Messenger ([Syriac]), called also the Virgin of Light by Ephraim, who 'manifests her beauty to the Archons, so that they long to run after her' (i. p. lxi f.).³³ As a result, the details of which may be studied in Cumont's Note (pp. 54-68), plants and animals were produced on the Earth by the Archons, who, fearing to lose all the Light they had absorbed, at last produce a new being, Adam, which they form in the image of God, i.e. in the image of the Primal Man, the divine Once again their design fails, for Jesus the Zawana comes, it is not explained how, to Adam as he lies inert upon the ground. Adam looks at himself and recognises who he is, i.e. that he is a being at least partly made of the Light.³⁴ 'Jesus made him stand up and gave him to eat of the Tree of Life.³⁵ Then Adam looked and wept, he lifted up his voice like a roaring lion, he tore his hair, he beat his breast, and said, "Woe, woe to the creator of my body, to him who has bound my soul to it, and to the rebels who have enslaved me!" '³⁶ Ephraim does not refer to this striking passage, which Cumont regards as the actual peroration of the Epistula Fundamenti, one of the most widely read writings of Mani.

So much for the Past. In the Present, according to Mani, a great mechanism has been contrived for refining out of the world what is left of the Parts of the Light that had been absorbed: the arrangement of this mechanism was in fact the salvation |cxxxvii brought by Jesus, when He came on earth and those that saw Him supposed erroneously that He was really a man.³⁷ By it the Light that is separated out is conveyed to the Moon, whereby it waxes for fifteen days, and then when full discharges its load of Light for another fifteen days into the Sun.

The Pillar of Glory ([Syriac]) is named in ii. 208, 1. 37 (=p. xcviii), the only place where the original Syriac term is known to occur. This 'Pillar' is either the way up to the Moon, as the Fihrist seems to imply, or that in which redeemed souls wait till all is fulfilled, as is stated in the Acta Archelai. In either case the Manichees appear to have meant by it the Milky Way. It is also called in the Acta Archelai the Perfect Man, Vir perfectus. Epiphanius changes a0nh&r into a0h&r, but thereby the imagery is spoilt, for it is evidently taken from Eph. iv 13 (ei0s a ndra te/leion): the redeemed souls are collected in the Pillar of Glory till all the particles of the absorbed Light have been refined out of the substance of the Archons and the Primal Man is perfect again.³⁸

The most potent agents in refining out the Light are, of course, the fully initiated disciples of Mani, but exactly how they did it cannot be ascertained from S. Ephraim, for obvious reasons. It is not very difficult to be sarcastic with this part of the Manichaean system, and Ephraim takes advantage of most of the obvious openings. What is more interesting is the very small number of the highest class of Initiates, the KPHALPALE ([Syriac], ii. 205⁷, 206²⁷). In the first of these passages Ephraim speaks of Five, in the second of a Pair, which perhaps means much the same thing. Certainly these personages were able to give all their time to their mysterious work, for there was very little else that it was permitted to a fully initiated Manichee to do. They might neither take life nor produce it, whether animal or vegetable, so that agriculture and cooking were as much taboo as murder and aiultery. In i. p. xciii Ephraim depicts the initiate Manichee women, the ZADDIKATIIA, as sitting idle from religious motives. It is curious to hear a fellow-countryman of S. Alexius and S. Simeon Stylites rebuking the unworldly inactivities of the Manichees! |cxxxviii

In general, as may be seen from the peroration of the Hypatius Discourses, the lives of the Manichaean devotees must have been spent in a manner not unlike that of the 'Sons of the Covenant' and other Christian ascetics of the East: 'their works are like our works, as their fast is like our fast' (i. p. cxix). No doubt they spent a good deal of their time in transcribing and ornamenting their sacred writings, as may be gathered from S. Augustine and from the remains of very handsome MSS. dug up in Turfan in Central Asia. In this they were followers of Mani himself, who 'painted in colours on a scroll the likenesses of the wickednesses which he created out of his mind' (i. p. xciii).

As to the Future, the Manichees, like the Christians, looked forward to a victorious end of the present state of things. When all the Parts of the Light have been refined out of the base material, Evil, which is the result of the mixture of Light and Dark, will have disappeared. The Earth of Light ([Syriac]), in which God dwells and which is itself Divine (i. pp. lviii, lix, xcvi), will be complete and inviolate, and the powers of the Dark will be confined inside their own domain, round which BAN, the Heavenly Builder, has now built a wall and fence, to be the Grave of the Darkness for ever (i. pp. xxx, xlvi, lxxv).

Such are the main outlines of the system of Mani, on almost every part of which the Refutations of S. Ephraim throw a certain amount of fresh light. This is not the place to attempt a critical study of the sources and connexions of this fantastic Religion, that had in spite of almost continual persecution so long and sometimes so victorious a career. I shall only bring forward one point, on which the Refutations curiously confirm the evidence of the Acta Archelai, of Titus of Bostra, and of Evodius, as its elucidation seems to have an important bearing upon the origin of Mani's stock of ideas.

Evodius, the friend and correspondent of S. Augustine, tells us (De Fid. c. Manich. 5) that the Manichees taught that the Souls which deliberately preferred Darkness to Light and the sensual life to redemption will remain for ever conjoined with matter in the region of the Dark. Such souls, together with the rest of the Dark substance from which all the Light has been extracted, will |cxxxix be compacted together in a great round Clod (globus). Titus of Bostra tells us the same,³⁹ and the same doctrine is set forth in the Acta Archelai x, the original Greek of which, as quoted by Epiphanius, speaks of the evil man as being for ever dedeme/nos ei0s th_n bw~lon. In agreement with all this we read at the end of the Third Discourse to Hypatius (i. p. 87, 1. 35 ff.): ⁴⁰ 'How do they say that some of these Souls who have sinned much and done much wickedness and blasphemed much and have been guilty of great unbelief, those which are found like dregs in the midst of that which they call BOLOS, as they say, that when the Fire dissolves all, within it is collected every thing that is mixed and mingled in created things from the Lights, and "those souls who have done much wickedness are assigned to the realm of the Darkness when it is tortured." '

It is clear from all these testimonies that the Manichees not only held this doctrine, but that they called this mass of burning filth the BOLOS, a word which is not Syriac at all, but the Greek for 'a clod.' ⁴¹

Alexander of Lycopolis, himself a heathen, treats Manichaeanism as a New Christianity. This view of it has been unpopular in recent years, for modern scholars have preferred to see in it a more or less independent Oriental Religion, and have tended to consider the form of it which spread to the West and to which Augustine was for so many years a convert as an adaptation fitted to a land where Catholic Christianity had become the established religion. But the name of the Bolus, now attested in the Syriac of Ephraim, cannot have come from anything but a Greek source. It suggests to us that Mani drew his inspiration from the West as much as, if not more than, from the East around him.

And the Bolus does not stand alone. That Mani did call himself the 'Paraclete' is confirmed by Ephraim (ii. p. 209¹¹),⁴² but |clx this term, though Greek, would have been taken by him from the Syriac Bible. More to our purpose is the fact that the Receivers of the Light, i.e. the Sun and Moon, called [Syriac] in i. 20⁴²=p. xxviii, are elsewhere called [Syriac] (i. 15⁴³=p. xxxvi, i. 28⁶=p. xlii), i.e. u9pode/ktai, a word not very common in literature, the only meaning given for it in Sophocles' Lexicon being 'receivers of taxes.' ⁴³ Here again, therefore, a Manichee technical term is taken from the Greek.

HYLE, i.e. u lh, is another Greek term which according to Ephraim is used by all three of the systems which he is controverting, but it is only really prominent in Marcion's terminology (i. pp. lxiii, xcix, c') and, if it was really used by the Manichees in the East, it was no doubt borrowed by them from the Marcionites or the Bardesanians.⁴⁴

Perhaps the truest idea of the direction of Mani's thought may be gathered from the titles of his seven chief works, catalogued for us by An-Nadim.⁴⁵ Five of these, the Mysteries, the Giants, the Precepts, the Treasure (and we may add the Living Gospel, omitted by An-Nadim), tell us nothing. One, the Shapurakan, was composed in Persian for the benefit of Sapor the Sasanian Monarch, but the seventh, which Alfaric identifies with the Epistula Fundamenti, bore the Greek title of Pragmatei/a.

Whether Mani himself knew Greek is another matter. If we have been right in calling in question Bardaisan's first-hand knowledge of Greek literature it will not be likely that Mani the Babylonian had much real acquaintance with genuine Greek books or thought. What I have in view is the question whether the system of Mani is to be thought of as a form of Oriental Religion which took on a Christian veneer in the Catholic West, or as a peculiar and eclectic Christian Gnosticism. The Greek terms to which I have here called attention appear to me to shew that the non-Oriental, Western, element in Mani's system is much larger than the scholars of the last sixty years have tended to admit.

In particular I cannot agree with the Swedish scholar |clxi Dr. Gillis Wetter in his attempt to represent Manicheism, apart from the personal influence of Mani, as a sort of offshoot of the Mandaean religion.⁴⁶ Brandt is on the contrary of opinion that 'in the verifiable parallels the Mandaean versions seem to be secondary,' and says further: "The religious teachings of the two faiths, however, were essentially distinct in character; the fundamental dualism of the Manichaean system—a doctrine that finds a soteriological design even in the creation of the world, and involves an ascetic mode of life—is far removed from the Mandaean view' (E.R.E., MANDAEANS, § 18). On the other hand Dr. Wetter is doubtless right in laying emphasis on the personal influence of Mani himself, the Prophet of his own new Religion.⁴⁷ The missionary impulse, maintained over two hundred years, the notable steadfastness in danger and persecution, which characterise the Manichees, prove that their bizarre and unscientific theology was to them in some respects a satisfaction of their needs, a way of salvation from the perplexities of this painful world. And if history has any general lesson to teach us about new Religions, it is that they arise when a system or view of the world, which is not too far away from popular aspiration, is combined with a forceful and attractive personality.

Much, therefore, in the initial success of the new Religion depended on Mani himself. And much in the new Religion appealed at once to human religious instincts. It is natural to wish to be a son of the Light. Children cry in the Dark, and 'a pleasant thing it is to behold the sun,' even in sultry Mesopotamia. Moreover Mani seemed to his followers to have explained what the old religions which had gone before him had only hinted at. But beyond these generalities the philosophy which underlies the whole structure has even now a certain appeal, still perceptible through its fantastic barbarian trappings. The Religion of Mani does explain the presence of Evil in the world we live in, and it does combine practical pessimism with ultimate optimism—perhaps the most favourable atmosphere for the religious sentiment. It is true that the Manichees regarded the world we live in as the result of a regrettable accident, so that no |clxii true improvement is possible till it is altogether abolished. As regards this world they are frankly pessimistic: it was bad to begin with, and it will go from bad to worse. But they believed that Light was really greater and stronger than the Dark, that in the end all that was good in their essence would be collected in the domain of Light, a realm altogether swayed by Intelligence, Reason, Mind, good Imagination, and good Intention; and though at the same time there would always exist another region, dark, and dominated by unregulated Desire, it would only be peopled by beings for whom such a region was appropriate, and they would be separated off for ever from invading the region of Light and so producing another Smudge, such as our present world essentially is, according the Manichean view.

To sum up, the Religion of Mani can hardly be comprehended as a heresy from orthodox Catholicism in the sense that Monophysitism, or Arianism, or Montanism, or even Marcion's religion, are 'heresies.' If Arianism be the brother of Catholicism, the Manichean religion is at most a cousin. And Ephraim's Refutations go far to shew that the connecting links are the philosophy of Bardaisan and the organisation of the Marcionites. In common with the Marcionites the followers of Mani were organised as a community of unmarried ascetics with a recognised penumbra of adherents, who supported and maintained them. The orthodox in the Euphrates Valley seem to have organised themselves in Ante-Nicene times on much the same way, but as soon as the Government of the Roman Empire became Christian the Syriac-speaking Church followed the customs of the West, and the Bnai Kyama became an order within the Church instead of its rank and file. But to the Marcionites and to the Manichees the monastic constitution was essential, as it is to the Buddhists further East.⁴⁸ From the Marcionites also Mani may very well have derived his rejection of the authority of the Old Testament.

The relation of the thought of Mani to Bardaisan is even closer, as will have appeared even in this slight sketch of their |clxiii respective doctrines. In fact we learn from the Fihrist (Flügel, p. 102) that the very first chapter of Mani's Book of the Mysteries was concerned with the Daisanites, i.e. the followers of Bardaisan. With Bardaisan Mani shares the concepts of the attack by the primordial Dark upon the Pure elements of Light, Wind, Fire, and Water, the control of the damage done by the Good God, and a plan for the eventual redemption of souls from the power of the Dark element.

It has been said of a prominent English statesman that his mind fastens on images and banns concepts: I fancy that this is the difference between Mani and Bardaisan. Bardaisan's cosmology is a conflict of forces, Mani's is a drama enacted by a crowd of supernatural persons. Mani, and (so far as we know) Mani alone, excogitated the Splenditenens, the monstrous story of the androgynous Virgin of Light, and the fantastic explanation of the waxing and waning of the Moon. The odd thing is that it should have found so much credence, not only in the immediate time and place of Mani the Founder, but even in the far West for a time and for so many centuries in Central Asia.

No doubt the religion of Mani shews many signs of its strictly Babylonian origin. The mere fact that the special region of Evil was placed in it towards the south shews that its home was an over-hot country. No doubt also many features in it are akin to Persian or even to old-Babylonian religion and never had their counterparts in Greek thought, whether Christian or Pagan. Nevertheless the 'Christian' element remains fundamental. This is clear above all from the important role played in Manicheanism by the creation or formation of Adam and Eve. The Manichee myth is quite different from the story in Genesis, but it is founded upon that story. Mani, like Marcion, rejected the Book of Genesis—which is only another way of saying that his system of thought had been profoundly influenced by it. But Genesis and all the lore connected with Genesis came to Mani from the West, from the Greek-speaking lands, or, as in the case of that which he took from Bardaisan, from sources profoundly influenced by Greek thought, Christian and Heathen.

To conclude this Essay, let me quote the very weighty judgement of Professor Alfaric upon the religion of Mani and its |clxiv literature (Les Écritures Manichéennes, i. 128): 'The Persian, Arab, and Chinese authors who have written upon the Manichees supply what is lacking in their Latin, Greek, and Syriac predecessors. They generally speak in more direct terms about the Manichean works quoted, because they are less afraid of their diffusion, and being less earnest in their polemics they give us a more objective view. Moreover some of them, such as An-Nadim and Al-Biruni, have in any case more historic sense than Hegemonius (the reputed author of the Acta Archelai), Epiphanius or even Augustine. But they know very little about Christianity, and they do not take much interest in doctrines which are derived from it. Thus they are apt to pass over specifically Christian details in Manicheism which belong to the Bible, and to throw into high relief the reminiscences of pagan mythology which interested them more, thereby giving a false idea of the Manichean literature.'

F. C. BURKITT.

NOTE ON THE MS. OF THE REFUTATIONS.

On pp. (6) and (7) of Vol. I Mr. Mitchell gave Tables showing the ancient and the present arrangement of the Quires of the MS, so far as the parts edited in Vol. I were concerned. These are repeated here, together with the parts edited in Vol. II.

TABLE I

SHOWING THE RELATION OF PRIMITIVE QUIRES TO THE MODERN ARRANGEMENT

Ancient

Modern

Quire and Leaf

Quire and Leaf

I

Original order preserved in B.M. Add. 14574

II

Original order preserved in B.M. Add. 14574

B.M. Add. 14623

III 1 = Folio 14 = II 6 — — — — — ┐

2 = 10 =

2 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 9 =

1 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 12 =

4 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 16 =

8 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 11 =

3 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 15 =

7 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 18 =

10 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 17 =

9 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 13 =

5 — — — — — ┘

IV 1 = Folio 19 = III 1 — — — — — ┐

2 = 22 =

4 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 21 =

3 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 23 =

5 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 20 =

2 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 27 =

9 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 24 =

6 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 26 =

8 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 25 =

7 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 28 =

10 — — — — — ┘

V 1 = Folio 29 = IV 1 — — — — — ┐

2 = 36 = IV 8 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 44 = V 6 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 34 = IV 6 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 46 = V 8 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 41 = V 3 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 33 = IV 5 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 43 = V 5 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 31 = IV 3 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 38 = IV 10 — — — — — ┘

VI 1 = Folio 42 = V 4 — — — — — ┐

2 = 39 = V 1 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 35 = IV 7 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 47 = V 9 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 37 = IV 9 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 30 = IV 2 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 40 = V 2 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 32 = IV 4 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 48 = V 10 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 45 = V 7 — — — — — ┘

VII 1 = Folio 64 = VII 5 — — — — — ┐

2 = 75 = VIII 7 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 71 =

3 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 74 =

6 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 77 =

9 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 70 =

2 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 73 =

5 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 76 =

8 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 72 =

4 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 63 = VIII 6 — — — — — ┘

VIII 1 = Folio 59 = VII 1 — — — — — ┐

2 = 66 =

8 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 67 =

9 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 65 =

7 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 78 = VIII 10 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 69 =

1 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 62 = VII 4 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 60 =

2 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 61 =

3 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 68 =

10 — — — — — ┘

IX 1 = Folio 88 = IX 10 — — — — — ┐

2 = 52 = VI 4 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 56 = VI 8 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 84 = IX 6 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 57 = VI 9 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 50 = VI 2 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 83 = IX 5 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 51 = VI 3 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 55 = VI 7 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 79 = IX 1 — — — — — ┘

X 1 = Folio 85 = IX 7 — — — — — ┐

2 = 58 = VI 10 — — — — ┐ |

3 = 80 = IX 2 — — — ┐ | |

4 = 86 = IX 8 — — ┐ | | |

5 = 54 = VI 6 — ┐ | | | |

6 = 53 = VI 5 — ┘ | | | |

7 = 81 = IX 3 — — ┘ | | |

8 = 87 = IX 9 — — — ┘ | |

9 = 49 = VI 1 — — — — ┘ |

10 = 82 = IX 4 — — — — — ┘

XI 1 = Folio 8 = I 8

2 = 7 =

7

3 = 6 =

6

4 = 5 =

5

5 = 4 =

4

6 = 3 =

3

7 = 2 =

2

8 = 1 =

1

9 = [Not extant] =

10 = [Not extant] =

At the time of the making of the Palimpsest foll. 42 and 45, 80 and 87, must have been refolded, so that what had been the inner pages became outer pages.

Headlines on the th and 10th versos of each ancient Quire, e.g. [Syriac] fol. 37a (= VI. 5), and [Syriac] fol. 57a (= IX. 5). "When therefore we find [Syriac] on fol. a. we must infer that it is the th leaf of Quire XI, which therefore has lost two leaves. Similarly Quire I of Add. 14574 has lost one leaf, the text beginning on the verso |clxvii of what would have been I. 2. No doubt there was a blank guard-leaf at the beginning, now torn off; probably there was as much at the end. What is lost therefore is most likely not more than one or two pages of text, possibly only a few lines.

TABLE II

GIVING THE TRANSCRIBED LEAVES OF THE PALIMPSEST ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THEIR NUMBERING IN THE CATALOGUE, AND THE PAGES OF VOL. I AND VOL. II ON WHICH THE TEXT OF EACH LEAF BEGINS

Folio 1 begins in Vol. II, p.225

Folio 30 begins in Vol. I, p. 176

2 " 220

31 " 146

3 " 218

32 begins in Vol. II p. 1

4 " 215

33 begins in Vol. I p. 137

5 " 211

34 " 124

6 " 207

35 " 164

7 " 202

36 " 115

8 " 198

37 " 173

9 begins in Vol. I p. 33

38 " 151

10 " 28

39 " 160

11 " 46

40 " 181

12 " 37

41 " 133

13 " 63

42 " 155

14 " 23

43 " 142

15 " 50

44 " 120

16 " 42

45 belongs in Vol. II, p. 10

17 " 59

46 begins in Vol. I, p. 129

18 " 55

47 " 168

19 " 68

48 belongs in Vol. II, 6

20 " 85

49 " 190

21 " 77

50 " 126

22 " 72

51 " 135

23 " 81

52 " 108

24 " 94

53 " 175

25 " 103

54 " 170

26 " 98

55 " 139

27 " 89

56 " 113

28 " 107

57 " 122

29 " 111

58 " 155

Folio 59 begins in Vol. II, p. 60

Folio 74 begins in Vol. II, p. 28

60 " 90

75 " 19

61 " 94

76 " 46

62 " 85

77 " 32

63 " 55

78 " 77

64 " 14

79 " 145

65 " 72

80 " 159

66 " 64

81 " 180

67 " 68

82 " 194

68 " 99

83 " 131

69 " 81

84 " 118

70 " 37

85 " 150

71 " 23

86 " 164

72 " 51

87 " 185

73 " 41

88 " 104

[Syriac text omitted]

SYRIAC TEXT

Text and Translation Society

Established for the purpose of editing and translating Oriental Texts chiefly preserved in the British Museum.

Volumes already issued.

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE SELECT LETTERS OF SEVERUS, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis. Edited and Translated by E. W. BROOKS, M.A. Vol. I. Text, Parts I. and II. Vol.II. Translation, Parts I. and II. 1902-4.

THE CANONS OF ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, in Arabic and Coptic. Edited and Translated by W. RIEDEL and W. E. CRUM. 1904.

A RABBINIC COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB, contained in a Unique MS. at Cambridge. Edited by W. ALDIS WRIGHT, with English. Translation by Dr. S. A. HIRSCH. 1905.

AN ANCIENT ARMENIAN VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE OF S. JOHN; also THE ARMENIAN TEXTS OF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA SCHOLIA DE INCARNATIONE, and EPISTLE TO THEODOSIUS UPON EASTER. All Edited with English Versions, etc., by F. C. CONYBEARE, M.A. 1907.

THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR FRAGMENTS OF CHRONICLES, EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, also THE NON-PESHITTO CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Edited with full critical apparatus, etc., by the Rev. Dr. J. GWYNN. 1909.

COPTIC TEXTS ON S. THEODORE. Edited and Translated by E. O. WINSTEDT, B.Litt. 1910

S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS OF MANI, MARCION AND BARDAISAN. Edited and Translated from the Palimpsest in the British Museum, by the Rev. C. W. MITCHELL, M.A. Vol. I. The Discourse to Hypatius. 1912.

EUPHEMIA AND THE GOTH, with the Acts of the Confessors of Edessa. Edited and examined by F. C. BURKITT. 1913.

TWO COMMENTARIES ON THE JACOBITE LITURGY, BY GEORGE BISHOP OF THE ARAB TRIBES AND MOSES BAR KEPHA; TOGETHER WITH THE SYRIAC ANAPHORA OF S. JAMES, AND A DOCUMENT ENTITLED The Book of Life, by Dom R. H. CONNOLLY, M.A. and H. W. CODRINGTON, B.A. 1913.

In preparation.

AN EDITION OF THE 'BOOK OF HIEROTHEUS' OF STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI. By the Rev. F. S. MARSH, M.A.

PUBLISHED FOR THE SOCIETY BY

MESSRS. WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14 HENRIETTA STREET, W.C.

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac - only 1, in this case, has been omitted. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, Syriac using SPEdessa font, free from here.

1. ¹ For details, see the List of Additions and Corrections.

2. ² It is about 2¼ pages of the printed Syriac.

3. ¹ On this subject see the remarkable catena of passages, brought forward in illustration of Milton's Paradise Regained iv 397—400, by J. E. B. Mayor in the Journal of Philology LVI, pp. 289—292 (1903). To S. Basil the Darkness was an evil Power, but to S. Augustine, as to S. Ephraim, it was only the absence of Light.

4. ¹ Eznik of Kolb, Against the Sects, trans. by J. M. Schmid (Vienna, 1900), pp. 172-178, 204-5 [German tr. RP]; the original Armenian of the most important sections is to be found in Petermann's Grammar and Chrestomathy, pp. 14-17.

5. ² See, for instance, vol. i. p. xc.

6. ¹ No distinction is made in the Syriac Old Testament between the various spellings of the name Joshua in Hebrew (Yehoshua', Yeshua').

7. ¹ Ephraim's argument is: "'Eve,' says the Apostle, 'shall be saved because of her progeny': well, then, the 'Creator' will be saved because of the Souls which owed their origin to Him!"

8. ¹ ml corresponds exactly to 'inverted commas,' but unfortunately there is no corresponding word or sign to mark the ends of quotations.

9. ¹ Text and Translation given in F. Nau's Bardesanes (Patrologia Syriaca I, vol. ii, p. 513-515).

10. ¹ Read dOB for dxB. For the meaning see Early Eastern Christianity, p. 160, note 2.

11. ² E.g. p. 53, 1. 4; ES. ii 550 D.

12. ³ "Space is measurable and holds so much," p. 16, 1. 33-35 (=p. vii).

13. ¹ See the Bardesanian Dialogue De Fato, ad fin. (Patr. Syriaca, ii 611), where stress is laid on the regulation (tukkana) of the Elements or Natures, and their mixture (muzzaga) in this present Cosmos, whereby their primordial vehemence is mitigated.

14. ¹ Pp. 48, 221, 224.

15. ² The numbers refer to the Stanzas in the Metrical Discourse.

16. ³ In the De Fato (col. 572, 11. 6-9) Man is regarded as being composed of Reason (or mental Faculty), of Soul, and of Body. Here mad'e is used in the plural.

17. ¹ So p. 225, l. 25: on p. 8, l. 1, the title is 'Philosopher of the Aramaeans.'

18. ² See p. iii. f.

19. ³ Epiphanius, Haer. 477, represents Bardaisan as skilled both in Syriac and Greek, but that seems to come from his mistaken idea that the De Fato is a Greek original, not a translation from the Syriac.

20. ¹ Marsouanhs, Josephus, Ant. i. 3, 3.

21. ¹ Teshri, in Babylonian Tashritum, ia really derived from a root akin to sharri, 'to begin,' but it seems to mean 'Dedication,' not 'beginning.' In any case it was only the seventh month of the Babylonian Year.

22. ² I here use Greek letters for the aspirated sounds.

23. ³ Sozomen, H.E. iii 16. Ephraim says of Bardaisan himself that 'he brought in measures' ([Syriac] ES. ii 554A), but Harmonius may very well have been the first to introduce strict scansion.

24. ¹ Essex House Press, 1899. The other translation is in Early Eastern Christianity, 1904, a revised form of which will be found, in THE QUEST, vol. v. (July, 1914).

25. ² See Bevan, The Hymn of the Soul, p. 5.

26. ¹ See the Corrigenda in this volume to vol. i. p. 158.

27. ² Recherches sur le Manichéisme par Franz Cumont, I. La Cosmogonie Manichéenne d'après Théodore bar Khôni, Brussels, 1908 (cited as Cumont).

28. ¹ On the Two Principles and the Three Moments, see P. Alfaric, Les Écritures Manichéennes, ii. 66 f.

29. ¹ Cumont, p. 14, has practically this explanation. H. Pognon, Coupes de Khouabir, p. 185, note 1, points out that )rq for ' create ' occurs also in Mandaean writings, and is inclined to see in it a dialectical peculiarity, but it seems to me that this use of the word 'to call,' instead of )rB or dlw), is due to theological and philosophical tendencies, not to dialect. W. Brandt is evidently of the same opinion, for he says (E.R.E., art. MANDAEANS, § 9): "The word [Hebrew], 'call,' as used for 'call into being,' can be traced to the Biblical Genesis." This )rq is translated evoquer by Cumont: the Acta Archelai used proba&llein. This Manichee term is also attested by An-Nadim (Flügel's Mani, p. 65, l. 5).

30. ² [???] Augustine (c. Faust, ii 3) seems to have had aer: see Flügel's Mani, p. 213.

31. ¹ These (Cumont, p. 20) are the Friend of the Lights, the Great Ban, and the Living Spirit. Of these only Ban is mentioned by S. Ephraim (i. pp. xxx, xlvii, lxxv).

32. ¹ The Greek and the Latin terms must surely represent the general meaning, all the more as one of the chief functions of Splenditenens is to hold the world suspended, like a chandelier. It seems to me probable that tpc must be an adaptation of the Assyrian sabit (Assurnazirpal, for instance, calls himself sabit liti, 'holder of hostages'). Compare also the Jewish Aramaic [Hebrew], 'tongs.'

33. ² The Virgin of Light is named also in ii. 208, 1. 44.

34. ³ Cumont, p. 46 f.

35. ⁴ According to the Acta Archelai x Jesus was Himself the Tree of Life. But the text may not be sound.

36. ⁵ Cumont, p. 48 f.

37. ¹ Acta Archelai viii.

38. ² It should be noted that the belief that the Spirits of the Just live on in the Milky Way is Stoic: see Somnium Scipionis (circa med.).

39. ¹ Tit. Bost. A 41: the sinful souls... e0n th~| bw&lw| e0mpagh&sasqai a ma th~| kaki/a le/gwn.

40. ² Mr. Mitchell's translation, p. lxxii, should be corrected and note ¹ deleted.

41. ³ So little is swlwB a Syriac word that the ancient Syriac version of Titus of Bostra (made before 411 A.D.) transliterates it in the form bolara (T.B. 31¹⁶).

42. ⁴ Naturally this only means 'I am the one that Jesus in the Gospel said would come,' not 'I am the Holy Spirit': see Flügel's Mani, note ⁵⁶.

43. ¹ It occurs in this sense in Fayum Towns Papyri, No. cxliii.

44. ² It seems to me possible that u lh was used by Greek-speaking Manichees as an equivalent for the Syriac heshshoxa, the elemental Dark.

45. ³ Flügel's Mani, p. 72 f.

46. ¹ Gillis Pison Wetter, Phos (Uppsala, 1914), pp. 106-120.

47. ² Ibid., p. 112.

48. ¹ There is no tangible evidence that Mani derived any part of his system from Buddhist sources. No doubt his missionaries represented their message as the true Buddhism, just as in Christian lands they represented their message as the true Christianity.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 13th September 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aphrahat_dem .htm

Aphrahat, Demonstration II: On Love. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 14 (1930) pp.18-31

Aphrahat, Demonstration II: On Love. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 14 (1930) pp.18-31

DE CARITATE

TRANSLATED FROM THE SYRIAC OF APHRAATES

By Frank Hudson Hallock

1. Surely, beloved, all the law and the prophets depend upon the two commandments, as our Saviour said: "The law and the prophets are too little to convince him who will not be persuaded." Therefore our Saviour said: "On these two commandments hang the law and the prophets," that is: "A man shall love the Lord His God with all his soul, and with all his might, and with all his substance"; and that a man also "shall love his neighbor as himself."

2. And when thou proceedest to the examination of these two commandments, upon the power of which depends all the law and the prophets, thou mayest perceive if these two commandments, on which depends all the power of the law and the prophets, are received in the hearts and in the minds of men, or if the law and the prophets which have been written, have not been sought, as it is written that "for the just the law is not appointed, but for the evil doers." On account of the wicked, therefore, the law has been appointed. And if righteousness had remained among men law would not have been needed. Again, if a law had not been appointed, the power of God would not have been known in all our generations, and in all the miracles which He showed. By the transgression of the commandment of the house of Adam death was decreed against the world, and the power of God manifested when all men arise at the end which removes the rule of death. On account of the sinners which were in the days of Noah the power of God was manifested in the waters of the flood. And Abraham, because he observed the righteousness which is in the law before the law was appointed, had manifested in him the power of God by means of righteousness, when he brought back the spoil of Sodom by the power of his God and did not put forth his hand upon the booty; and |19 God said to him after that day: "Thy reward is multiplied by thy righteousness." And he upon whom the law had not been imposed manifested the works of the law, which the law of his righteousness did not require. Thus also in the case of Isaac and Jacob his sons, there was no necessity for them (to obey the law), because the law had not yet been imposed for their righteousness, for their father commanded them to act worthily and justly; as it is written that the Lord said concerning Abraham: "I know him, that he will command all his sons after him that they keep all My commandments." Also Joseph kept the righteousness which is in the law when he was not obedient to his mistress. For he said: "How shall I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" And Moses also, for he observed the righteousness which is in the law when he denied that he should be called a son to the daughter of Pharoah; on account of this the Lord made him worthy that through him He gave the law to His people. For all these manifested the works of the law, also for their righteousness the law had not been imposed and they were a law unto themselves.

3. When the time of the law was at hand it was added on account of transgression. And He showed that it was an addition. And wherefore, then, was this addition? except on account of the calling of the Gentiles which was foretold before the law was promised. And that law was the keeper and teacher until that Seed should come in whom the Gentiles were blessed. For the word of the oath which was promised to Abraham is also a covenant of the promise; God said unto him, "In thy seed shall all the Gentiles be blessed." And this word, which is a covenant, placed four hundred and thirty years before the law, was a promise to Abraham that the Gentiles in his seed, which is Christ, should be blessed. And the law was four hundred and thirty years after these things. For when Abraham received this promise he was eighty-five years old, and from that time until Jacob went to Egypt was two hundred and five years, and from the time that Jacob went to Egypt and until the people came forth by the hand of Moses was two hundred and twenty-five years.

4. And the cause of their sojourning is designated, for the children of Israel abode four hundred and thirty years in the land of Egypt. And wherefore, beloved, when they dwelt there two hundred and twenty-five years was four hundred and thirty years written for |20 them? if not on account of that hour of which God said to Abraham: "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land which is not theirs, and they shall serve among them, and they shall bring them into bondage four hundred years. For at that time in which this word was spoken to Abraham, there shall be unto thee an offspring, by faith it was formed in the heart of Abraham, as it is written: "Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." And also the word concerning the servitude which his sons should serve in Egypt was conceived in the heart of Abraham, and he began to be anxious as to how his seed should be in servitude, and his heart was serving in Egypt. Likewise also Isaac and Jacob were taking thought about the servitude, and they were in thought serving in the midst of Egypt. And the bondage was promised concerning the seed of Abraham before they were born; for the word was fifteen years before the birth of Isaac, and the promise of the bondage was two hundred and five years before their entering Egypt, and the promise that in the seed of Abraham all peoples should be blessed was four hundred and thirty years before the law. And the law was not able to make void the promise, henceforth the law was an addition with regard to this word of promise until the time should come.

5. And that word was preserved one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four years from the time it was promised to Abraham until the Advent, and that word was in observation one thousand three hundred and sixty-four years after the imposition of the law. And the word was four hundred and thirty years older than the law, and when it came it made ineffectual observances of the law. And the law and the prophets are included in these two commandments or which our Lord spoke, for the word is written: "All the law and the prophets prophesied until John the Baptist." And our Lord said: "I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them." Again it is written: "The truth of the law is through Jesus."

6. And how, then, were the law and the prophets lacking, when it was necessary that they should be fulfilled? if not because the testament was hidden in them which is itself the word of promise. For that testament which was given to Moses was not sealed until this last testament should come, which is also the first, because it was promised, it was signed by the death of Him who was to come of the testament, and the two testaments were confirmed (N.B. this |21 whole passage is obscure and the translation, following the Latin rather closely, little more than a guess): "And He made them both one, and the law of the commandments He abolished by His precepts." For the uses of the law are abolished by the advent of our Life-giver, and He offered up Himself in the place of the sacrifices which are in the law, and He was led as a lamb to the slaughter in the place of the lambs of propitiation, and He was killed for us (as) a fattened bull, that there might be no necessity for us to offer the offspring of cattle. He came and He was lifted up upon the cross; oblations and sacrifices are not required from us; He gave His blood in place of all men, that the blood of animals might not be required of us; He entered the sanctuary which was not made by hands, and He became the priest and minister of the holy place. For from the time in which He came He abolished the observances which are of the law, and from the time that they bound Him the festivals were bound for them by chains; and because they wished to judge the innocent One He took the judges away from them; and because they rejected His kingdom He took away the kingdom from them, for He came whose the kingdom is; and He ascended a living sacrifice in our stead and abolished their sacrifices, and the children of Israel remained without sacrifices and without altar, and without putting on the ephod and placing of incense; and He took away from them seers and prophets because they had not heard the great Prophet; and the former covenant was fulfilled by the latter, and the works which are in the law have grown old and become antiquated and fit for destruction, for from the time the new was given the old was abolished. And it was not only from the time of the advent of our Saviour that sacrifices were rejected, but even before (that) time their sacrifices did not give pleasure to Him, as it is written: "I will not eat the flesh of calves, and the blood of goats I will not drink"; but "sacrifice to God thanksgiving and accomplish thy vows to the Highest." And again He said: "A broken heart God does not reject." And again He said: "I have not desired sacrifices and by holocausts of peace (offerings) I have not been reconciled." "The sacrifices of God are an afflicted spirit." And also Isaiah the prophet said: "A multitude of your sacrifices I have not required, said the Lord." And again He said to them: "I hate and reject your feast days, and I will not smell in your sacrifices." |22

7. And this again is the word on which our Saviour says the law and the prophets depend, beautiful and good and seemly. For our Lord spake thus: "A single letter yudh shall not pass from the law or the prophets until all is done." For He took the law and the prophets and made them depend upon two commandments, and did not abolish anything from them. And when thou shalt look well at this word, so it truly is. The observation of that which is in the law and of everything which is written in it is an example of that word, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy might, and with all thy heart"; and of everything which was done by the law, for it lead them to love the Lord their God; and a man shall love his neighbor as his own flesh. And these two commandments above are from the whole law. And when thou shalt set thy heart and look intently unto the law, in the beginning of all the law (thou shalt find) it is written thus: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee up from the land of Egypt. Thou shalt not make to thyself, My people, any image or any similitude." And the man who does not make another god has under him the word on which hangs the law and the prophets. Remember, beloved, that I have written for thee that the law is not imposed for the righteous, for he who observes righteousness is above the commandments and the law and the prophets; and the word which our Lord speaks is true: "The letter yudh shall not pass from the law and from the prophets," for by the two commandments He seals (them) and makes them depend.

8. Hear now, beloved, the persuasiveness of this word. If a man should say: "Why was this word written, that the seat of the children of Israel should remain in the land of Egypt four hundred and thirty years, when in the promise which had been made to Abraham it was said to him that there should be four hundred years? And thirty were received in addition?" Now I will show thee, beloved, even as it was. For when the time of fulfillment of the four hundred years was come, Moses was sent that he might deliver them. "When he killed the Egyptian, and they rejected him as their saviour, and Moses fled to Midian, wrath was upon them so that they remained thirty years in Egypt. For they said to Moses: "Who has appointed thee ruler and judge over us?" And when they rejected their salvation the wrath of God withheld them for thirty years in the midst of Egypt, and Moses was thirty years |23 in Midian. Then, when affliction increased upon them, He lead them out of Egypt. God manifested this patience of His spirit; first He chastised them because they had rejected Moses, and secondly because they had completed the sins of the Amorites. He exceeded that which had been promised to Abraham and added thirty years to the people, and He had patience with the Amorites seventy years, thirty in Egypt and forty in the desert. And when the four hundred and thirty was completed, and the forty years for the consummation of the iniquities of the Amorites, He brought them into the land of promise.

9. Know moreover, beloved, that there is no law for God. For sometimes He increases and diminishes, and sometimes He adds to because it is little. For in the days of Noah on account of the sins of men He promised that the days of men should be one hundred and twenty years, and in the six hundredth year of the years of the life of Noah He destroyed them. For He said: "A hundred and twenty years they shall be upon the earth." And in the six hundredth year of the years of the life of Noah they were destroyed, and he took away these twenty years. And again it is written that when iniquity increased the sins of the house of Ephraim, when Jeroboam ruled over them, the son of Nebat, that he sinned and caused Israel to sin, and when they sinned He promised in their behalf by the prophecy of Isaiah the prophet, who said to them that after sixty-five years He will cut off Ephraim from the people. This word was in the first year of Ahaz, and in the fourth year of Hezekiah Shalmanasar, King of Assyria ('Ôtûr), came up against them, and after him Taglathphalasar, and he carried them into exile from their land. For Ahaz reigned over them sixteen years, and in the fourth year of Hezekiah the kings of Assyria ruled over them; so there were only twenty years and He cut off Ephraim from the people of Israel, and He took away from them forty-five years, and this time which at first He had appointed He did not complete according to that which He had decreed.

10. It was not as though it were unknown that He had promised in their behalf that things should be thus, and then the years were diminished and also were increased, but as known; for He knew the measure of that which was to come, and on account of His mercies He gave a time for repentance that men might be without excuse; and men despised the longsuffering of God, and when they |24 heard that there was much time until the wrath which was promised should come, becoming bold they sinned before Him and said: "That which the prophets say is prophesied for a remote time." On account of this when there arose a disputing concerning these things in the days of Ezekiel the prophet and they said: "That which hath been prophesied is for a remote time," He said to Ezekiel: "As I live," saith the Lord of dominions, "there shall not again be a delay to My words, for the word which I shall speak I shall shortly accomplish." And He cut off that which He had foretold, to give to men a time for repentance, that perhaps they might repent; but they despised the longsuffering of God and did not repent, and He also changed the time which He had appointed and decreed to them. And it was not done as if it were not known, but as it is written: "Woe to him that destroyeth! Ye were not destroyed; and who hath spoken falsely, and He did not speak falsely against you. For when ye have wished to destroy ye have been destroyed, and when ye have wished to speak falsely it hath been spoken falsely against you." Again it is written in Jeremiah: "If I shall speak against a people and against a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy them and to cause them to perish, and that nation shall turn from its wickedness, I also will make false My word, and I will turn away from them everything which I have spoken against them." Again Jeremiah said: "If I shall speak concerning a people and concerning a kingdom to build and to plant, and that people shall do iniquity before Me, I also will make false My word, and I will turn from it the good thing which I have spoken to benefit it."

11. Now, beloved, all these things have I written to thee because in what was said before, that is in the former discourse concerning faith, I have shown thee that in faith may be placed the foundation of this covenant in which we are established; and in this second discourse which I have written to thee I have reminded thee that all the law and the prophets depend upon two commandments, those which our Saviour spoke, and in these two commandments are included all the law and the prophets. And in the law faith is included, and by faith true love is established, which is from those two commandments, that after a man loves the Lord his God he shall cherish his neighbor as himself. |25

12. Now hear, beloved, concerning the love which is produced from those two commandments. For when our Life-giver came He showed the eagerness of love, for He said to His disciples: "This is My commandment that ye love one another." And again He said to them: "A new commandment I give you, that ye love one another." And again, when making clear concerning love, thus He warned them: "Love your enemies, and bless him who curses you; pray for those who deal hardly with you and persecute you." And this again He said to them: "If ye love him who loves you what is your reward? For if thou lovest him who loves thee thus also do the Gentiles, who loves them they love him." Again our Life-giver said: "If ye do good to him who does good unto you what is your reward? thus also do the publicans and sinners. But ye, because ye are called sons of God who is in heaven, be ye like Him who showeth mercy also upon those who renounce goodness." Again our Saviour said: "Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you; loose, and ye shall loosed; give, and it shall be given you." Again He spoke and put fear in us: "Unless ye forgive men who sin against you their sins, neither will the Father forgive you." For thus He warned and said: "If thy brother shall sin against thee, forgive him; and even if he shall sin against thee seven times in one day, forgive him."

13. And when Simon Peter (Kipho) heard this word he said to our Lord: "How many times, if my brother sin against me, shall I forgive him? Seven times?" Our Lord said to him: "Not only seven, but until seventy times seven (and) seven." Even if he shall sin against thee four hundred and ninety times, forgive him in one day" (this sentence has the particle indicating a quotation). And He is likened to His good Father who multiplied His forgiveness upon Jerusalem when He caused the children of Israel to go into captivity to Babylon, He scattered them seventy years, and when His mercies were revealed He brought them together to their land by means of Ezra the scribe, and He increased forgiveness unto them by the division of His day (which is) seventy weeks of years (cf. Ps. 90:4), four hundred and ninety years. And when they shed innocent blood He did not again exempt them on account of Jerusalem, but He delivered it over into the hands of its enemies, and they rooted it up, and they did not leave in it stone upon stone, and they did not leave its foundations for the |26 Lord. And He did not say to the children of Edom that vengeance should be recompensed them because they did not cry out against Jerusalem, "reveal it, reveal it, even to its foundations." But God by the division of His day forgave four hundred and ninety years, and He bore their iniquities; and then He rooted it up, and also He delivered Jerusalem into the hands of strangers. So our Life-giver commanded them that in one day a man should forgive his brother four hundred and ninety times.

14. But be not offended, beloved, by the word which is written unto thee, that by the division of His day God spared Jerusalem; for thus it is written by David in the ninetieth Psalms: "A thousand years in the eyes of the Lord are as a day which was completed and has passed away." And also our learned teachers say thus, that in the similitude of six days God made the world, and for the consummation of the world six thousand years were appointed, and there was to be a Sabbath of God in the similitude of the Sabbath which was after the six days, as our Saviour revealed and showed us concerning the Sabbath, for He spake thus: "Pray that your flight may not be in the Winter or on the Sabbath." And also the Apostle said: "There remaineth still a Sabbath of God. Let us give diligence also that we may enter into its rest."

15. Again when our Lord taught a prayer to His disciples, He said to them: "Thus shall ye pray, Forgive us our debts, and also we shall forgive our debtors." And again He said: "When thou desirest to offer an oblation, and thou rememberest that thou hast anger against thy brother, go away and be reconciled with thy brother, and then come (and) offer thy oblation." Lest when a man prayeth: "Forgive us our debts, and also we will forgive our debtors," he should be ensnared out of his own mouth, and it should be said to him by Him who receiveth prayers, thou thyself has not forgiven thy debtor, how shall it be forgiven to thee? And thy prayer shall remain upon the earth. And again our Lord shows us an example of that man who began to take a reckoning from his servants, and when his servant came into his presence who owed him ten thousand talents, and when his lord urged him that he give him what he owed him, and when he was unable to pay his debt to his lord, his lord commanded to release him and forgave him all that he owed. When that servant in his wickedness did not remember the forgiveness of his lord, how much he had |27 multiplied forgiveness towards him, and when he went forth he found one of his fellow-servants who owed him a hundred pence, and he held him, and choked him, and said to him, give me what thou owest me; and he did not receive the prayer which his fellow-servant asked from him, but going away he bound him in prison. And because he to whom much had been forgiven did not forgive his fellow-servant a little, he was given up to the officers who beat him until he gave what he owed. And He said to them: "Thus will My Father who is in heaven do to you if ye do not forgive each one his brother."

16. See again, beloved, how greatly the blessed Apostle magnified love when he said: "If ye are zealous of great gifts I will show you what is a more excellent gift." And he said: "If I have prophecy, and know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and all faith, so that I might remove a mountain, and love is not in me, I have gained nothing. And if I give all that I have to the poor to eat, and also deliver my body that it may be burnt, and love is not in me, again I have gained nothing." For he spake thus: "Love, its spirit is long-suffering and kind, and not envious, and also it is not boastful, and it is not puffed up, and does not seek anything which is pleasant for itself alone, but what is expedient for many. Love hopeth all things, suffereth all things, love is never cast down." Again he said: "Love is greater than all things." And the Apostle shows and demonstrates that after faith love excels, and on it a firm building has been established. And he shows prophecy to be built upon love, and mysteries to be made known by love, and knowledge to be fulfilled by love, and faith to be confirmed by love; and he who having faith moves a mountain, but has not love, profits nothing; and if a man give all that he has to the poor and his alms are not given in love, there is no advantage to him; and even if for the name of his Lord his body has been burnt in the fire, he has been in no wise profited. And again he shows that long-suffering, and patience, and kindness, and for a man not to envy his brother, these things are found in the fulness of love; and also patience, and humility and sweetness have been established in him by love. For faith has been erected upon the rock of a structure, and love is the bonds of the structure, and by it the walls of the house have been held together. And if a defect is found in the bonds of the house the whole structure |28 will fall; so also when dissention is found in love all faith falls. And faith was not able to drive away jealousy and contention until the love of Christ came, just as a structure cannot be well built until the walls have been fastened by bonds.

17. Again I will show thee, beloved, that love is more excellent than anything else, and by it the righteous ones of the old times were perfected. For it (i. e. the Scripture) shows concerning Moses that he gave himself in behalf of the sons of his people, and he wished that he might be blotted out of the book of life (if) only the people might not be blotted out. And also when they rose up against him to stone him, he offered up prayer before God in their behalf that they might be saved. And David also showed an example of love when he was persecuted by Saul, and a trap was continually set for his life so that they might kill him, and David by love was generously performing acts of mercies in behalf of Saul his enemy, who was seeking his life; and he was twice delivered into the hands of David, and he did not kill him and repaid good in place of evil. Because of this good did not depart from his house, and he who forsook him was forsaken. And Saul who repaid evil in place of good, evil did not depart from his house, and He called to God and He did not answer him, and he fell by the sword of the Philistines, and David wept over him bitterly. And David fulfilled beforehand the precept of our Saviour, who said: "Love your enemies," and "forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you." Thus David loved and was loved, and forgave and it was forgiven unto him.

18. And Elisha also showed love in respect to this, when his enemies came against him to take him so that they might do evil to him, and he, doing good to them, set forth bread and water before them and sent them away from him in peace; and he fulfilled the word which is written: "If thine enemy is hungry feed him, and if he thirsts give him to drink." And also Jeremiah the prophet in behalf of those who made him a captive in a pit and were continually putting him to torture, but he also prayed ardently for them before God. And it was (by) this example of those who went before (that) our Saviour taught us that we should love our enemies and pray for those who hate us. And if He commanded us to love our enemies and to pray for those who hate us, what shall be our excuse to Him in the day of judgment, who have hated our brothers and |29 our own members? Because we are of the Body of Christ and members of His members. For he who hates one of the members of Christ will be separated from the whole body, and he who hates his brother will be separated from the sons of God.

19. And it was thus that our Saviour taught us diligently to manifest love. For first He perfected it in Himself, and then He taught those who heard Him. And He reconciled our enmity with His Father because He loved us, and He yielded up His innocence in the stead of the debtors, and the Good in place of the evil ones was put to shame, and the Rich in our behalf was made poor, and the Living died in behalf of the dead, and by His death made alive our death. And the Son of the Lord of all took for our sake the form of a servant, and He to whom all things were subject subjected Himself that He might release us from the subjection of sin. And by His great love He gave a blessing to the poor in spirit, and He promised the peace makers they should be called His brothers and sons of God; and He promised the humble that they should inherit the land of life; and He promised the mourners that by their supplications they would be comforted; and He promised to the hungry fulness in His kingdom; and to those who weep that they should rejoice in His promise; and He promised to the merciful that they should be shown mercy; and to these who are pure in heart He said that they should see God; and again He promised to those who are persecuted on account of righteousness that they should go into the kingdom of heaven; and to those who are persecuted on account of His Name He promised a blessing and rest in His kingdom. And He changed our nature of dust and made us the salt of truth, and He delivered us from being the prey of the serpent, and He called us the light of the world; and He delivered us from the power of death; and He made us good instead of evil, and pleasing instead of hateful; and He appointed for us mercy instead of hatred; and He imparted to us the perfect man; and He brought forth good things from His treasures, and delivered us from him who brought forth evil things from the superfluities of his heart.

20. And because of His overflowing love He healed the plagues of the sick; He healed also the son of the centurion because of his faith; and He silenced the waves of the sea by His power; and because of His favor He drove from us the evil spirits who were legion; and by His mercy He restored to life the daughter of the ruler of the |30 synagogue; and again He cleansed the woman from the pollution of blood; and He opened the eyes of two blind men who had come to Him; and also He gave to the Twelve power and authority over all disease and infirmity, and also to us by their hands. And He prohibited us from the way of the Gentiles and of the Samaritans. And He gave power to us by His mercy that we might not fear when they brought us before the rulers of the world. And He set a division in the earth because of His great peace. And He forgave the many sins to the woman who was a sinner because of His mercies. And He made us worthy because of His grace that we might build a tower at His expense (S. Lk. XIV: 28; here there appears to be a certain play upon words; tower, magdol, being suggested by the reference to S. Mary Magdalene in the preceding sentence). And He cast out from us unclean spirits, and He made us a lodging place of His divinity, and sowed in us a good seed which should give fruit a hundredfold, and sixtyfold and thirtyfold. And He was placed in the midst of the world in the likeness of a treasure which is put in a field. And He manifested the power of His greatness when He was cast down from on high to the depth and was not harmed. And He satisfied the hungry who had grown faint with five loaves and two fishes, five thousand men besides woman and children, and manifested the greatness of His glory. And on account of His abundant love He heard the Canaanitish woman and raised up her daughter from her infirmity. And by the power of Him who sent Him He loosed the tongue of the man who was dumb, and who was also deaf; and the blind saw His light, and by means of Him they glorified Him who had sent Him. And when He went up into the mountain to pray the rays of the sun were overcome by His light. And He made His power known in the case of that boy upon whom a spirit had come, and at His word the demon went away. And He gave us an example and a pattern that we should become as children and enter the kingdom of heaven. And He spoke and made clear concerning the little ones that a man should not despise them, that their angels always see the Father who is in heaven. And again He showed His healing perfectly in the case of that man who was infirm thirty-eight years, and He magnified His mercy towards him and healed him. And again He gave us a command, that weshould forsake the world and be turned to Him; and He revealed to us that he who is a lover of the world is not able |31 to be pleasing to God, by the example of the rich man who trusted in his goods; and by the case of that man who was made merry by his riches, and his destruction was in sheol, and he asked for water on the tip of his little finger, and no man gave to him. And He hired us as laborers that we should work in His vineyard, which is the vineyard of truth. All these things our Saviour did unto us because of His great love. And we also, beloved, should be partakers of the love of Christ, while we love one another and fulfil these two commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets.

The Demonstration Concerning Love Is Completed.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aphrahat_dem .htm

Aphrahat, Demonstration VII: On Penitents. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 16 (1932) pp.43-56

Aphrahat, Demonstration VII: On Penitents. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 16 (1932) pp.43-56

APHRAATES ON PENITENTS

Translated by Frank H. Hallock.

Nashotah House, Nashotah, Wisconsin.

(The following Homily, issued in 336-337 A.D., is especially valuable for its advanced teaching on the administration of penance and on pastoral care; there is nothing in either Greek or Latin Patristic literature of an equally early date which is quite so precise on either of these subjects).

1. Of all those who are begotten, who have put on a body, there is only One innocent, that is our Lord Jesus Christ; just as He bore witness concerning Himself, for He said: "I have overcome the world" (S. John 16: 33). And the prophet also bore witness con-cerning Him: "He did not iniquity, neither was guile found in His mouth" (Mal. 2: 6). And the blessed Apostle said: "He who had not known sin made Himself sin in our behalf" (2 Cor. 5; 21). And how did He make Himself sin? if not because of His taking sin, when He Himself had not committed it, and His nailing it on His cross. Again the Apostle said: "There are many who run in the race course, but one received the crown (1 Cor. 9: 24). Furthermore, there is no other of the sons of Adam who, descending into the contest, has not been smitten and beaten; for sin has reigned from (the time) that Adam transgressed against the commandment; and from the many it (sin) had beaten, and the many it had smitten, and the many it had killed, there was not a man from the many (that) it had not destroyed, until our Saviour came, and took it, and nailed it on His cross. And even when it was nailed on the cross there was (still) its sting, and it will sting many until the end, and (then) its sting will be broken.

2. For all diseases there are medicines, and there will be healing when a skilled physician shall have found them. And for those who have been smitten in our conflict there is the medicine of penitence, and those who apply it to their wounds are healed. O physicians! disciples of our wise Physician, take to yourselves this remedy, that |44 by it ye may heal the wounds of the sick. For warriors who are smitten in battle at the hands of one who is fighting with them, when they have found for themselves a skillful physician, give themselves over to him for their healing, that he may make whole the parts where they have been wounded. And when a physician heals him who has been smitten in battle, he receives gifts and honor from the king. So, beloved, he who is laboring in our conflict, and his enemy comes against him and smites him, it is fitting to give to him the medicine of penitence, when the repentance of him who has been smitten has become great. For God does not reject the penitent, for Ezekiel the prophet said: "I take no delight in the death which the sinner dieth, but that he may turn from his evil way and live" (33:11).

3. For he who is wounded in battle is not ashamed to give himself into the hands of a skillful physician in order that he may overcome that which befell him (in) battle; and the king does not reject him who has been healed, but numbers and considers him with his army. So the man whom Satan has smitten ought not to be ashamed to confess his sin, and depart from it, and entreat for himself the medicine of penitence. For gangrene comes to the wound of him who is ashamed to show it, and harm comes to his whole body; and he who is not ashamed has his wound healed, and again returns to go down into the conflict. And he who becomes gangrenous is not able to be healed, and may not put on again the arms which he laid aside. So for him who has been conquered in our conflict there is this way that he may be healed, when he shall say "I have sinned", and shall entreat penitence. And he who is ashamed is not able to be healed, because he does not wish to make known to the physician who receives two pennies (perhaps an allusion to S. Luke 10:35) his wounds, that by his means all the places where he has been smitten may be healed.

4. And to you physicians also, disciples of our illustrious Physician, it is fitting that you should not withhold healing from him who needs healing. Whosoever shows his wound to you, give to him the medicine of penitence; and whosoever is ashamed to show his disease, ye shall exhort him not to conceal from you, and when he has revealed to you do not publish it, lest by means of it the innocent also should be considered as debtors by enemies and those who hate (them). The line of battle where the slain are falling is considered by their enemies the weakest of them all. And when those who are |45 smitten are found among them, those who have not been smitten bind up their wounds, and there is no revealing of their condition to the enemy. But if it is made known to everyone about them the whole army bears a bad name; and also the king, the leader of the army, is angry with those who exposed his army, and they are smitten with wounds which are worse than those of the ones who were smitten in battle.

5. But if those who have been smitten are not willing to show their wounds the physicians are not liable to any blame, because they did not heal the infirm who have been smitten. And if those who have been smitten are desiring to hide their wounds, they will not again be able to wear arms on account of the gangrene contracted in their bodies. And while there is gangrene in them, and they attempt to wear arms, when they are going down to engage in conflict, their arms will become hot upon them, and their wounds will become corrupt and putrified, and they will be killed. And when the corpses of those who have hidden from them their wounds are found, then all the shame of those who have concealed the wounds of their smiting is laughed at; and their corpses also will not be committed to a grave, and they will be regarded as fools, and evil, and ignorant.

6. And also the one who showing his wound has been healed is careful of the place which has been healed that he may not be struck in it a second time. For the healing of him who has been smitten a second time will be difficult for a skilled physician, for the wound which is in the scar will not have been healed completely; and also, although it may be healed again, he will not be able to wear arms, and when he shall venture to wear arms he will be taking to himself a kind of condemnation.

7. O you who have put on the arms of Christ! learn the arts of war, lest ye be conquered and thrown down in the battle. Our enemy is cunning and skillful, but his arms are weaker than ours. Therefore it is right for us to engage (in battle) with him, and to take away his arms, being vigilant in sleep; for he is not visible to us when he is fighting with us. We turn unto Him who sees him, that He may take him away from us.

8. Also I counsel you who have been smitten that ye be not ashamed to say: "We have fallen in the battle." Receive the medicine which is without price, and repent, and live, before ye are slain. Also I remind you physicians of that which is written in the |46 Scriptures of our wise Physician, that He does not forbid repentance. For when Adam had sinned He called him to repentance when He said to him: "Adam, where art thou?" (Gen. 3: 8). And he, hiding his sin from Him who beholds the heart, laid the blame upon Eve who had deceived him. And because he did not confess his sin death was decreed against him and against all his offspring. And Cain also was full of guile, and sacrifice was not accepted from him; and He gave to him (a place) of repentance, and he did not accept. For He said to him: "if thou hadst done well I would have accepted thy sacrifice; but thou hast not done well and thy sin will accompany thee" (Gen. 4: 7). And in the guile of his heart he slew his brother and was accursed, "and he was trembling and wandering on the earth" (Gen. 4: 12). And also to the generation in the days of Noah he gave one hundred and twenty years for repentance; and they were not willing to repent and, one hundred years being completed, He destroyed them.

9. See also, beloved, how much better this is when a man confesses and turns away from his iniquity. Our God does not reject the penitent. For the Ninevites increased their sins, and they received the preaching of Jonah when he declared an overthrow against them, and they repented, and God was moved with compassion towards them. And the sons of Israel also when they increased their sins, and He proclaimed repentance to them, and they did not receive it; for He called to them by Jeremiah and said: "Repent, (become) penitent sons, and I will heal your penitence." Again He proclaimed in the ears of Jerusalem and said: "Return unto Me, a penitent daughter". Again He said unto the sons of Israel: "Return and be restored from your evil ways, and from the wickedness of your works." And thus He said to the people: "If thou return unto Me, I will restore thee, and thou shalt stand before Me." And again He spoke thus and reproached them: "I have said, Return unto Me, inhabitant (fem.) of Israel with all thy heart, and she has not returned" (these are all loose quotations from Jere. 3 and 4:1). Again He took up a parable against them and reminded them of that which is written in the law, and He wished that the law might speak falsely for the sake of their repentance. For He said: "When a man takes a wife and she shall go forth from him and shall be unto another man, and if the other man who took her shall die or shall dismiss her, and she shall return unto her first husband, it will not be possible for her first husband to |47 take her again after she has been polluted; and if he shall take her, behold that land will surely be polluted. And now also I have taken thee, Jerusalem, to Myself, and thou hast become Mine, and thou hast gone from Me, and thou hast departed, and thou hast committed fornication with stones and trees. Now return unto Me, and I will receive thee, and in thy repentance I will loose the law" (Jere. 3: 1 sqq., and Dt. 24: 13 sqq., both loosely).

10. Be ye not afraid, O penitents, lest the hope which is written in the Scriptures be cut off; for it is fitting for the Spirit of God thus to warn, for a fearful warning is set in Ezekiel the prophet when He said to him: "If all his days a man shall do judgment and righteousness, and at the end of his days he shall do iniquity, in his iniquity he shall die. And if a man shall do iniquity all his days, and he shall repent and do judgment and righteousness, his soul shall live" (Ezek. 33: 18-19). By this one word He has warned the righteous that he should not sin and lose his course; and He gave hope to the wicked that he should turn from his iniquity and live. Again He said to Ezekiel: "Although I cut off the hope of the unrighteous, thou shalt surely warn him; also when I encourage the righteous, set thou fear before him that he may be warned" (abridged thought of Ezek. 33: 7-9). When I say to the sinner: "Thou shalt surely die; and thou dost not warn him, the sinner shall die in his iniquity, and is blood will I require from thy hand" (Ezek. 3: 18), because thou didst not warn him. "And if thou warn the sinner, the sinner shall live whom thou shalt warn, and thou shalt save thy soul. And when thou shalt say to the righteous: thou shalt surely live, and there shall be confidence to him concerning this, it was fitting for thee to warn him lest he be exalted and sin; and he who has been warned shall live, and thou shalt save thy soul" (Ezek. 3: 17-21 loosely). Give heed again, penitents, to the hand which is stretched forth and the calling to repentance, for He spoke also by Jeremiah the prophet and gave repentance. For thus He said: "If I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to cause it to perish; and that nation turn from its iniquity, I will turn away from it the evil which I had decreed against it. And if I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to plant and to build, and there shall be confidence in it concerning this, and it do that which is evil in My sight, I also will turn from it the good which I had promised concerning it" (Jere. 18: 7-10), and in its iniquity and in its sins I will cause it to perish. |48

11. Hear again also ye who hold the keys of the gates of heaven and open the gates to the penitent, believe that which the blessed Apostle hath said: "If a man from among you shall be troubled by sin, ye who are in the spirit, restore ye him in a spirit of gentleness; and be ye cautious lost perhaps ye also be tempted" (Gal. 6: 1). For the Apostle was afraid and warned them, for he said concerning himself: "Lest I who have preached to others should myself become reprobate" (r Cor. 9: 27). He who from among you is troubled by sin, do not hold him as an enemy, but be ye counsellors and admonishers to him as of a brother; for he whom ye have separated from among you has been swallowed up by Satan. Again he said: "We who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom. 15: 1). Again he said: "He who is lame should not be cast down, but should be healed" (Heb. 12: 13).

12. I say to you also, penitents, that ye should not withhold from your souls this counsel which is given for yourhealing. For he has said in the Scriptures: "He who confesseth his sins and passeth away from them, God will be moved with compassion in his behalf" (Prov. 28: 13). Behold the son who has squandered his goods, and when he returned unto his father he rejoiced over him, and received him, and killed for him the fatted ox, and his father was glad over his return. And he called his friends also that they might rejoice with him; and his father embraced him and covered him with kisses and said: "this my son was dead and is alive; he was lost and has been found (S. Luke 15: 32). And his father did not find fault with him about the goods which he had squandered.

13. And our Lord encouraged the penitents and said: "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (S. Luke 5:32). And again He said: "There shall be joy in heaven over onesinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who are not needing repentance " (S. Luke 15:7). The shepherd in concerned about that sheep who is lost from all the flock more than (about) those who have not wandered. For Christ died because of sinners, not because of the righteous, as He said by the prophet: "He bore the sins of many" (Isa. 53:12). And the Apostle said: "If while we were sinners God was reconciled with us by the death of His Son, how much more abundantly now in His reconciliation shall we live by His life" (Rom. 5:10).

14. God forgives him who confesses his sins. For when David |49 had sinned, Nathan the prophet came unto him and made known to him his sin and the punishment which he should receive. Then David confessed and said: "I have sinned." The prophet said to him: "The Lord also hath put away thy sin because thou last confessed" (2 Sam. 12: 13). And when he prayed he spoke thus: "Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil things before Thee" (Ps. 51: 4). And again he entreated God and said: "Lead not Thy servant into judgment, for in Thy sight no man living is justified" (Ps. 143: 2). And Solomon also spake thus: "Who can say, Thou hast made my heart clean, and I have been cleansed from sins" (Prov. 20: 9)? And also in the law it is written that Moses prayed before God and said: "Thou forgivest iniquity and sin, and surely Thou dost not justify" (Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18 loosely). And also when he wished that his people might be blotted out on account of their sins Moses spoke thus, when he entreated and supplicated and said: "Forgive Thy people its transgression, as Thou hast forgiven them from Egypt and up to to-day". And God said to him: "I forgive them according to Thy word" (Num. 14:19-20).

15. O ye who are entreating penitence, be ye like unto Aaron the chief of the priests who, when he had caused the people to sin by the calf, confessed about his sin and his Lord forgave him. And also David, the chief of the kings of Israel, confessed about his transgression, and it was forgiven him. And also Simon, the chief of the disciples, when he denied, (saying) that Christ hath never seen me, and he cursed and swore, "I do not know Him" (S. Mt. 26: 74) and when repentance came to him he multiplied tears in his weeping; our Lord received him, and made him the foundation, and called him Peter, the edification of the Church.

16. Be ye not foolish as Adam who was ashamed to confess his sin. And also be ye not likened to Cain who, when he was accused of killing his brother, said: "I do not know where Abel is, for I am not his keeper" (Gen. 4: 9). And be ye not lifted up on high in the mind in the likeness of the corrupt generation, and do not add iniquity to iniquity and increase your sins, thinking yourselves to be innocent while ye are debtors. Hearken to your first fathers who, even when they were righteous, subjected themselves to humiliation. For Abraham said: "I am dust and ashes" (Gen 18:27), and he held himself lowly as a thing of small consequence. And also David said: "The days of men are as a vapor" (Ps. 144: 4). And |50 Solomon spoke and admonished: "If the righteous shall scarcely be saved where shall the sinners and the impious be found" (Prov. 11:31; cf. 1 S.Peter 4: 18)?

17. I beseech thee, beloved by the mercies of God, not on account of that which I have written unto thee of God who does not reject the penitent, that thou do not let go thy fortitude and become lacking in repentance. To the needy only is repentance given. Therefore let this be (a care) to thee that there may not be need for repentance. This hand is stretched forth to sinners, and the righteous do not seek it. For alms are given to the poor, and the rich have no need for them. They give to the man who has been stripped by robbers, who is ashamed, that he may be clothed, that he may cover his shame. Do not lose that which thou be wearied in seeking it again, or (uncertain) whether thou canst find it again or not. And even when thou hast found much it is not like thy own possession; for he who has sinned and repented is not equal to him who has kept himself far from sin. Thou shouldest be loving the higher part and keeping far from that which is inferior; by thine arms the good should be fought for, lest thou be smitten in the battle, that thou mayest not have need for seeking a remedy, and be wearied in going the way to the house of the physician. And when thou art perfectly healed these scars will be recognized. Do not be confident that there will be healing for thee, and give thyself the name of one who is humble, but be greater by means of repentance. He who has torn his garment needs (a patch) upon it that it may be filled up, and even though it has been well sewn everyone discerns it. And he who breaks down a hedge built for him by toil, even though it be well (re-) built, it is called broken. And he whose house thieves break though, it has been laid open from within and the hole is recognized, and by great toil some of that which was lost may be regained. And he who cuts down his fruit tree, it will be a long time until it grows up again (lit. changes) and gives fruit. And he who opens up his drinking fountain, labors and toils until he closes it, and when it is well closed he fears lest, perhaps, the waters increasing, it should ruined. And he who gathers the flower of his vineyard at its season is deprived of the fruit of grapes. And there are blushes on the face of him who steals, and he toils and labors until the penalty his remitted to him. And he who throws down his work in a vineyard receives (his) pay and, his head bowed down, is unable to ask for more. And he who subdues the power |51 of his youth will rejoice in his old age. And he who does not drink of stolen waters will be refreshed at the fountain of life (N. B. The argument of this section is far from clear).

18. O ye who have been called to the conflict, hear the sound of the trumpet and be of good cheer. And also I speak to you, bearers of the trumpets, priests, doctors and wise men, assemble and say to all the people: "He who fears let him turn away from the conflict, lest he break the heart of his brethren, even as his heart (is broken). And he who has planted a vineyard let him return to his husbandry, lest being anxious about it he fail in the battle. And he who has married a wife and wishes to take her, let him return and rejoice with his wife. And he who has built a house let him return to it, lest perhaps he be mindful of his house and does not fight perfectly". Conflict is seemly only for those that, setting their faces to (those things which are) before them, are not mindful of anything which is behind them. For their treasures are before them, and all that which they plunder is their own, and they receive their profit from that which they win. Therefore, I speak to you, sounders of the trumpets, when ye have finished admonishing look to those who are turning back, and care for those who are remaining, and lead down to the waters of probation those who are assembling themselves for battle. Everyone who is strong the waters will prove, and those who are slothful will be separated thenceforth.

19. Hear then, beloved, this mystery which Gideon foresaw and showed figuratively. When he assembled the people for battle, the scribes, the fulfillers of the law, he admonished (according to) the words which I have written above unto thee; then many people with drew from the army, and when those who were left were chosen for battle, "the Lord said to Gideon, lead them down to the water and there prove them. He who laps up the water with his tongue (Jud. 7: 5) is eager and courageous to go forth to battle; "and he who falls down upon his belly to drink the water" is faint (hearted) and afraid to go forth to battle. Great, then, is this mystery, beloved, which Gideon foresaw, and it shows a type of baptism, and the mystery of the conflict, and an example of anchorites. For he foresaw and warned the people from the first by the probation of the water. Also when he tried them by the water from the ten thousand only three hundred men were chosen to wage war. This also agrees with the word of our Lord, who said: "many are called, few are chosen" (S. Mt. 22: 14). |52

20. For this reason it is fitting for the sounders of trumpets, the preachers of the Church, to warn all (who are in) the covenant of God ¹ before baptism, and to those who choose for themselves virginity and holiness, young men and virgins and those (wishing to. become) holy; and for the preachers to warn them and say: "He who sets his heart upon the natural state of fellowship (i.e. in matrimony), let him become united before baptism lest, perhaps, he fall in the conflict and be killed. And he who is afraid of this part of the struggle let him turn back lest, perhaps, he break the heart of his brethren as well as his own heart. And he who loves possessions let him turn back from the army lest, perhaps, when the battle shall prevail against him he should remember his possessions and turn back to them, for there is disgrace to him who turns back from the conflict". And he who does not offer himself, and does not yet put on arms, is not blamed if he turns back; but everyone who has offered himself and put on arms is derided if he turns back from the conflict. It is fitting to him to empty himself for the strife, for he may not be mindful of anything which is behind and turn back to it.

21. And when they have preached and delivered their message and warned all (who are in) the covenant of God, they will bring to the waters of baptism those who have been chosen for the conflict and have been tried. And after baptism they will take heed to those who are strong and to those who are weak; it is fitting to encourage the strong and, furthermore, they should openly turn back from the conflict those who are faint (hearted) and weak, lest when hardship approach them they should hide their arms and flee and be overcome. For He said to Gideon: "Lead down to the water" those who present themselves. And when he had brought the people down to the water "the Lord said to Gideon, all those who lap the water as a dog laps with his tongue" shall go with thee to battle. "And all those who throw themselves down to drink water shall not go with thee to battle." Great is this mystery, beloved, which he provided and showed (as) His sign to Gideon. For He said to him: "Everyone who laps the water as a dog laps is fit to go to battle." And from every living creature which has been created there is not one which loves his master and keeps watch over him by day and by night as does a dog, |53 and even when his master beats him severely he does not depart from him, and when he goes forth to the hunt with his master and a powerful lion meets his master he delivers himself over to death instead or his master. So are those strong who have been put to the test by the water; they follow their Master as the dogs, and they delivert themselves over to death for Him, and carry on His struggle valiant ly, and keep watch over Him by day and by night, and they roar like the dogs while they meditate upon the law day and night (cf. Heb. Ps. 1: 2), and they love the Lord, and they lick His wounds when they receive His Body, and they set Him before their eyes, and they lick Him with their tongues as a dog licks his master. And those who do not meditate upon the law are called "dumb dogs, who are not able to bark" (Isa. 56: 10); and all those who are not eager to last are called "greedy dogs, not knowing how to be satisfied" (Isa. 56:11). And those who are eager to seek mercies receive the bread of children, and they cast it to them (cf. S. Mt. 15: 26).

22. And again the Lord said to Gideon: "Those who fall down to drink water shall not go with thee to battle, lest they fall down and be conquered in battle." For those who falling down drank the water slothfully foreshowed a mystery. Wherefore, beloved, it is necessary for the ones who fall in the conflict not to be made like to these slothful ones, lest they turn back from the struggle and become a reproach to all their comrades.

23. Hear also, beloved this word lest, since I have persuaded thee from the Scriptures that God does not reject penitents, thou trust to thyself and venture to sin; and lest on account of what I have spoken to thee (any one) become remiss and be smitten (because) he does not seek repentance. For thus it is fitting for him to remain in sadness all his days, lest he become proud and condemnation be upon him. The servant who offends against his master changes his garment that his master may be reconciled to him, comes before (him), and makes himself obscure in his presence, that perhaps he may receive him. And when his master perceives that he is faithful to him, he forgives him his offence and is reconciled to him. For if he say to his master, "I have offended against thee," his master would show mercy to him; but if when he has offended he should say to his master, "I have not sinned, "he would add to the anger of his master against him. Remember, beloved, the son who squandered his goods, and when he confessed to his father he forgave him his wrongdoings. And also the |54 woman who had multiplied wrongdoings, when she came to the Lord He forgave her many sins and had mercy upon her. And Zacchaeus the publican was also a sinner, and he confessed his sins and the Lord forgave him. And also our Saviour spoke thus: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (S. Lk. 5: 32). For the Lord died for sinners, and His comming was not in vain. And also the Apostle said about himself: "I was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and a reviler (1 S. Tim. 1: 13), and God had mercy upon me. Again he spoke thus: "Christ died in our behalf" (1 Thess. 5: 9-10). For from the whole flock its Lord seeks the sheep which is lost, and finds it, and rejoices over it. And there is joy to the watchers of heaven when a sinner turns back from his iniquity. "For it is not the will of the Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (S. Mt. 18: 14), who have sinned and who have sought repentance for themselves. "For the Lord came not that He might call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Whosoever is sick among you we bear his sufferings, and whosoever offends we are afflicted in his behalf.

24. For when sickness comes to one of our members we occupy ourselves with his wound until he is made whole; and when one of our members is glorified the whole body shines and is beautiful; and when sickness comes to one of our members fever burdens the whole body. "Every one who shall cause one of these little ones to offend shall fall into the sea with the mill stone of an ass on his neck" (S. Mt. 18: 6). And he who rejoices over the evil of his brother shall soon be crushed himself. And he who treads with his foot upon his brother shall not be spared. For the wound of the scoffer there is no healing, and the sins of the mockers shall not be forgiven. For he who digs a pit shall fall into it; and he who rolls away a stone it shall return upon him. And he who stumbles and falls let him not say, every man is like me; and let not the rich man who draws near to poverty say, all the rich are like unto me, for if his prayer is heard who is there that will supply his loss?

25. All these things I have written unto thee, beloved, because in our age there are those who themselves choose to become solitaries, sons of a covenant, and religious. And we have engaged in conflict against our adversary, and our adversary is fighting against us that he may lead us back to the nature from which in our freedom we have separated ourselves. And there are some of us who are vanquished |55 and swallowed up, and when those who are vanquished justify themselves and, even though we know their sins, confirm themselves in that thought and do not wish to draw near to repentance, they, on account of their shame, die the second death, and are not mindful of Him who searches the consciences. And again there is one who confesses his sin, and penitence is not given to him. O master of the house of Christ, give penitence to thy fellow man, and remember that the Lord did not reject the penitent. Tares are sown in the field, and the Master of the seed does not permit His servants to purge the tares from among the wheat until the time of harvest. A net is spread in the sea, and the fish are not chosen until it is drawn to the top. Servants receive hire from their masters, and his master will judge the slothful servant. The wheat and the chaff are mingled together, and the Lord of the threshing-floor separates and cleanses (them). There are many who are called to the marriage feast, and His Lord casts out him who has not garments into the darkness. The wise and the foolish are standing together, and the Lord of the bride-chamber knows who shall enter.

26. O shepherds, disciples of the Lord, feed the flock and lead (it) well! Strengthen the sick, support the weak, bind up the broken, make whole the lame, and take heed to the fattened ones for the Lord of the flock. Be not likened unto an unskilled and foolish shepherd, who in his foolishness is not able to feed the flock, and whose arm is dried up, and whose eye has been blinded, because he said: "dying, let it die; and perishing, let it perish, and the flesh that is left shall be eaten by its companions ". And when the Chief of the shepherds comes He will condemn the unskilled and foolish shepherd who has not cared well for his fellow servants. And he who has shepherded the flock and led (it) well shall be called "a good and skillful servant" (cf. S. Mt. 25: 21), who has presented the flock to the Shepherd while it was intact. O watchers, watch well, and admonish all the people concerning the sword, lest it come and take away the soul. For that soul is taken away in its sins, and its blood will be required from your hands. But if the soul is taken away after admonition, that soul will be taken away in its own sins, and ye will not be trodden down. O fattened flock, do not smite the weak, lest ye be condemned in judgment by our great Shepherd when He shall come.

27. Receive this exhortation, beloved, which conducts the penitents and admonishes the righteous. This is a world of grace, and |56 until it is finished there is repentance in it. The time approaches in which grace vanishes and justice reigns; and in that time there is no repentance and justice rests tranquilly, because grace in its strength has prevailed. And when the time of justice approaches grace is unwilling to receive penitents, because a limit is set (at) the departure (from this life), thenceforth there is not again repentance. Read, beloved, and learn, and know, and perceive, for in regard to this every man is needing in part; for there are many who are running in the race course, and the victor receives for himself the crown, and every man according to his labor shall receive his reward.

The demonstration concerning penitents is completed

1. The reference is probably to monks; so Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, p. 375, explains the phrase as used there. See also F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, pp. 125 sqq.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_00_eintro.htm

The Chronography of 354. Introduction to the online edition

The Chronography of 354. Introduction to the online edition

About the text

Manuscripts

Order and contents of the Chronography

Additional notes on part 14: the 14 regions of Rome

Bibliography

In ancient Rome a wealthy Christian aristocrat named Valentinus received a codex containing an illustrated calendar for the year 354, together with a group of unillustrated documents, including a list of names of the consuls, prefects and bishops of the city Rome to that date. Other illustrated sections included depictions of the consuls of that year, and astrological signs. The calligraphy was of exceptional quality, being the work of the most famous calligrapher of the century, Furius Dionysius Filocalus. Indeed Filocalus, as a fellow Christian, had inscribed his own name alongside the wishes for Valentinus' well-being which adorned the opening page of the codex. The illustrations that accompanied the text were the earliest full-page illustrations in a codex in the history of Western art, and may also have been executed by Filocalus.

The original codex continued to be of use long after Valentinus' day. Polemius Silvius probably consulted it, almost a century later, for his own annotated calendar for the year 449. In the sixth century a planisphere for the year 579 was prepared, which seems to have been illustrated with copies of the illustrations from the codex of 354. Other traces of its existence are that St. Columbanus of Luxeuil may have copied its paschal cycle in 602, and an Anglo-Saxon work of 689 may refer to it.

The ancient codex still existed in the 9th century, when, because of its associations with the age of Constantine, a complete and faithful copy was made (the now lost Luxemburgensis). At the same time an unillustrated copy of the text was made, either directly from the original or from an intermediary. This latter is now St. Gall 878. After this point there is no further sign of the original autograph; indeed fewer than 20 fourth century codices survive altogether (see E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, Oxford, 1934, vol. 1: codices I, IV, XIV-XV).

In the renaissance, the discovery of the 9th century copy caused great excitement, inspiring several copies during the 16th and 17th centuries. Unfortunately leaves were lost during the renaissance, and the best copy (the Romanus), which was executed under the supervision of the scholar Nicholas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, was made after this event. On the death of Peiresc the Luxemburgensis was lost. Our knowledge of the text is thus from the surviving renaissance copies, no one of which is adequate by itself.

About the text

The text is a valuable compendium of raw data about Roman society, but because of its dry nature is less well known than it deserves. No single volume contains a printed edition of the Chronography as a whole, remarkable as this seems. Theodor Mommsen published part 6, the calendar, by itself in Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae. The remainder, without the illustrations, he published in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica Minora. The illustrations only appear in Michele Salzman's recent volume, and consist of photographs from manuscripts in monochrome, all no doubt in copyright.

On this site we present at the moment the Latin text of the calendar as it appears in ILA. Note that the text indicates games for a number of days which cover a set format. This is first visible in February, where the 'ludi gottici' begin on the th with the formula 'LUDI GOTTICI' and end on the 9th with the legend 'GOTTICI' and then the CM XXIIII (the number of chariot races). It is noticeable that some games which must have been created later have different numbers of chariot races, but 24 is by far the normal number. This pattern is repeated throughout. N with overscore is short for NATALIS (birthday). The meaning of the columns on the left (related to the lunar cycles) is not clear to me, and more information on this and other abbreviations would be very welcome.

The solar symbol in the original is under the word 'SOL...' for each month, but HTML makes this difficult to achieve on this page. Not all manuscripts have this symbol on the page, although Mommsen does not indicate this. The modern day of the month is present on the left in grey, but of course was not part of the original text.

Manuscripts

Siglum

Location

Shelfmark & Notes

Date /

Century

L

Lost Codex Luxemburgensis. Illustrated. 9th century manuscript copy of th century original. In B. there is a note indicating that it belonged to Jean Brenner. Brenner's son-in-law, Remacle Huart, was guardian of the archives of Luxemburg. On f.212 of B there is a further note which indicates that Brenner gave L to Christophe d'Asonville of Arras in the last years of Brenner's life. Brenner died in 1571. Christophe d'Asonville was the owner until his death, ca. 1608, but it was in the possession of his son-in-law, Renon de France, president of the council of Artois, until it passed to Peiresc. Held by Peiresc from 1620 until his death on 24 June 1637, after which it disappeared. Peiresc acknowledged that the true owner was the president of Arras, but he did not return it to him or let it out of his control.

Text and illustrations are described by Peiresc in a letter of 18 December 1620, published by Mommsen (MGH 1892, below), pp.17-29, and in Stern (1953), pp.14ff. The letter was written to his friend Girolamo Aleandro the Younger. At that time Aleandro was in the service of Maffeo Barberini, whose elevation to the papacy in 1623 as Pope Urban VIII explains in part the survival of Peiresc's letter in the Vatican library.

According to this letter, L began with the list of consuls (section VIII, below), continued with the unillustrated sections (IX-XIII) and ended with the illustrated sections (I-VII). Note that the same order is preserved in B. Mommsen reasoned that since the illustrated sections commenced with a title page, this section must have commenced the original manuscript; and such an order is preserved in V and Ber. today.

Some time after V. was copied from it, L lost a number of pages. Peiresc's description indicates the manuscript was already damaged when he got it in 1620. He only mentions sections I-XIII in his letter, and indicates that certain folios were missing. The section for astrological signs, for instance, was missing both its title page and the representations of Jupiter and Venus; the Calendar was missing the text for the months March-June, and the images for April-July. The R and B mss. reproduce this diminished L. Fortunately the Voss., V, and the 15th century German mss S and T were executed before L lost these folios.

The description of Peiresc also includes details of its execution. He records the colours of the inks used in the various sections, noting that the designs were executed in black ink on parchment and that the figures were drawn only in black ink. He adds that the text of the Calendar; the Kalends, Ides and names of the festivals celebrated on these days; and the astrological notations of the sun's movements in the various zodiac signs were written in red ink in majuscule lettering. (V reproduces this colour scheme for the inks used in the text of the calendar, as does R . In addition R includes the hebdomadal letters in red ink, a point not mentioned by Peiresc). He also notes that red ink was used in the unillustrated sections for every fourth year in the List of Consuls (VIII), for the headings in the list of Easter dates (IX) and for the headings in sections XI and XII; in the illustrated section it was used for the dedicatory page inscription. The colour scheme is consistent with Carolingian practise, and, for the calendar, reproduces the use of red and black still to be seen on calendars carved on walls in antiquity.

The colour scheme is reproduced to some extent in the copies. R has much less of the red ink, however, apart from the dedicatory page, names of the months in the natales Caesarum, and the days in the astrological sections; R and V follow L, except in adding the hebdomadal letters.

The height of the figures in V (185x210mm) is very close to that in R (180x200mm) suggesting that L had a similar size page. This is within the limits of known th century codices.

Peiresc judged that the handwriting showed an th or 9th century copy of a th century original. While he lived before the invention of paleography, his judgements in other cases have generally been upheld. The analysis of certain letter forms in R as 17th century imitations of Carolingian also supports this date.

9th

R Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Codex Vaticanus Barberini latinus 2154. Illustrated. Copied from L in 1620. Described by Stern, pp. 14ff. Some illustrations in monochrome in Salzman. Note that the additional image for January is a renaissance invention. The manuscript was sent to Aleandro the Younger in December 1620. This manuscript alone contains the illustrations of the cities, the imperial dedication, the illustrations of the two consuls for the year, and the architectural decoration for the lists beginning with the Natales Caesarum. 1620

R Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Codex Vaticanus latinus 9135. Illustrated. Copied from R at the same time as R was copied from L. Described by Stern, pp. 14ff. Some illustrations in monochrome in Salzman. 1620

B Brussells, Bibliothèque Royale Codex Bruxellensis 7543-7549. Illustrated. Copied from L between 1560 and 1571, after the loss of several folios. Description in Mommsen p.29f; by Gaspar and Lyna, Les principaux mss à peintures de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, vol. 1 (1937). Some illustrations in monochrome in Salzman. A note at the front indicates that B. belonged to Jean Brenner of Nalbach, secretary of state and delegate to the provincial council of Luxemberg; his son-in-law was in charge of the archives in Luxemburg, and Brenner clearly owned L. B. concentrates more on the text than the illustrations. 1560-1571

V Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Codex Vindobonensis 3416. Illustrated. Copied from L ca. 1500-1510, before the loss of several pages. Description in Mommsen, p.31; by J.H. Hermann, Die illustrierte Handschriften und Inkunabel in Wien..., vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1923), pp.1-5. Some illustrations in monochrome in Salzman. This is the most important manuscript of the Chronography and the basis of the edition. V is very important for the study of the illustrations, because it was copied before L had lost several folios. It was owned by Dr. Fuchsmagen, and this and its style indicate that it was copied in the Nuremberg region between 1500-1510. The design of the images suggests that they were carried out by someone from the school of H. Vischer, possibly even Peter Vischer himself, whose group was closely connected to the Nuremberg circle of A. Dürer. Only V and Voss. contain illustrations of all 12 months. V also contains an illustrated dedication page, copied from a later edition. The illustrations in V show sylistic -- late gothic -- rather than substantive differences from R. However, unlike R, V does sometimes omit elements of the image which are unfamiliar to a Renaissance copyist, or may have been unclear in L. 1500-1510

G St. Gallen, Bibliothèque du Convent Codex Sangallensis 878. Not illustrated. Copied either from the original codex or a lost intermediary. Described by Mommsen, p.32ff. C.L.Verkerk, Aratea: A review of the literature concerning Ms. Vossianus lat. q. 79 in Leiden University Library, Journal of Medieval History 6 (1980) pp.245-287 considers the ms. 9th century and prior to 842; But B.S.Eastwood, Origins and contents of the Leiden Planetary Configuration (Ms. Voss. Q. 79, fol. 93v): an artistic astronomical schema of the early middle ages, Viator 14 (1983), p. 1-40, considers it was written in the th century. 9th

Voss. Leiden, Bibliothek der Rijksuniversiteit Codex Leidensis Vossianus latinus q. 79, folio 93v. Illustrated. This is not a manuscript of the codex; but a single page copied from a th century manuscript, and appended to a manuscript of the Aratea. This page contains miniature illustrations, set within a planisphere. Each month is depicted in its own medallion, and placed in a circle between the signs of the zodiac. The configuration of the planets allows us to conclude that the original was drawn up on 28 March 579. Certain of these illustrations seem to have been copied from either the original manuscript of the codex of 354, or a copy of it. However it cannot be used without reserve, as some modifications can also be seen. Described by Stern, G. Thiele, Antike Himmelsbilder, Berlin (1898), pp.138-141, and W.Köhler and F. Mütherich, Die karolingische Miniaturen, vol. 4: Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars, Berlin (1971). 9th - probably before 842

Ber. Bern, Bibliothèque municipale Codex Bernensis 108. Not illustrated. Copied from L in the 10th century for bishop Werinhar de Strasbourg. Described by Mommsen, p.30. 10th

A Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale Codex Ambiensis 467. Not illustrated. Copied from L ca. 1608-1620 (so Mommsen: Stern thinks 1622-8, for Renon de France, president of the tribunal of Malines from 1622 on). Description in Mommsen p.30 and Stern p.15ff. A note at the front (in a different hand) reads "ex cod. ms. antiquissimo d.n. de Francia praesidentis. in parlamento. Machliniensi." Mommsen gives the shelfmark wrongly as 407.

Berl. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Codex Berolinensis lat. 61, folios 231r-237r (new pagination). Illustrated. Copied from L before 1604, according to Stern. Description by Mommsen (p.30ff) and Stern. An illustration in monochrome in Salzman.

S Rome, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana Codex Vaticanus Palatinus latinus 1370, ff. 79-100. Illustrated. Copied in the region between Ulm and Nuremberg. Part of the S group which were all copied in Germany and all contain certain illustrations copied either from the th century manuscript or a now lost copy. The illustrations supply images missing from L, notably of the planets Jupiter and Venus, and four signs of the Zodiac: the Ram (=Ares), the Bull (=Taurus), the Twins (=Gemini) and the Crab (=Cancer). Described by Stern; monochrome illustration in Salzman. 1472

S Darmstadt, Stadtbibliothek Ms. 266. Illustrated. German 'S' type ms. Described by Stern. 15th

S Salzburg, Studienbibliothek Ms. Cod. V , G 81-83. Illustrated. German 'S' type ms. Described by Stern. 15th

S Lost Illustrated. German 'S' type ms. Written in Southern Germany (Swabia) dated to the second half of the 15th century. Described by A. Brown in Archaeologia 47 (1883), 337-360; noted by Stern, p.22. 15th

T Tübingen, Universitätbibliothek Ms. Md 2. It was copied from either L, or the original th century codex, or an intermediary. Either dated to 1404 or (according to Stern) between 1450-75. Written at Ulm. Includes the illustrations of Jupiter and Venus missing from all other mss except the S-group. Monochrome illustrations in Salzman. 1404

There are two further mss. worth mentioning, which were copied from R . These are the illustrations of the months in Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana Ashburnham 1061, and the illustrations of the months in the Library of Windsor Castle, vol. 196: Designs of Cassiano del Pozzo, nos. 11363-11374, fols. 124-135. Stern believes that the illustrations in the Library of Windsor Castle were copied from R . In a letter of 17 May 1629, however, Peiresc mentioned that he prepared these designs and sent them to the Chevalier del Pozzo (so Mommsen, p.12, n.2). The designs themselves provide no clear indication of whether they were copied from L or R .

There is also a 10th century manuscript in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Boulogne-sur-Mer, Ms. 188. On fol. 30r is a planisphere generally thought to be copied from the same source as that in Voss. A copy of the Boulogne planisphere can be found in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Bern, Ms. 88, on fol. 11v.

Order and contents of the Chronography

The manuscripts of the text do not all contain all the same sections. Here is a list of all the sections. Following each section is a list in brackets of the mss that contain it, and on which pages. (Sections in brackets and starred were probably or certainly not in the original codex).

I. Dedication to Valentinus. (R , fol.1; B, fol. 197; V, fol. 1)

II. The four city Tyches: images of the spirits of the cities of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Trier. (R , fols. 2-5)

III. Imperial Dedication. (R fol.6, then List of Natales Caesarum, then R fol. 7; B fol. 198)

IV. The 7 planets, and their legends. (R , fols.8-12; legends only in S, G, fols.240v-241; B. fols 198v-200v, but missing Jupiter and Venus).

V. Effectus XII Signorum. (S, G, fol 241).

VI. Calendar. Illustrations and text of the months.

Illustrations of February, March, August-December. (R , fols. 16-23; B, fols. 201-202; Berl. fols 231-237)

Text of January, February, July-December. (R , fols 232-239; B, fols 203-211)

Text of December (Ber. fol. r)

Texts and illustrations for twelve months (V, fols. 2-15)

Illustrations (in miniature) for twelve months (Voss. fol. 93v)

Distichs of the months (S,G, fols. 301v-302; R , fols. 16-23; R , fols. 232-239; Ber. fol. 1 (=verse 24))

[Tetrastichs of the months. (R fols 16-23; R fols 232-239)]

VII. Portraits of the consuls, Augustus Constantius and Caesar Gallus. (R , fols. 13, 14).

VIII. List of consuls 508 B.C. - A.D. 354. (V, fols. 25-38; Ber. fols.2-13; B. fols. 190r-191v).

IX. Easter cycle A.D. 312-358, with a continuation (albeit incorrect) to 410.

X. List of Urban Prefects of Rome from 254 - 354 A.D., ending with Vitrasius Orfitus, who took office on 8 December 353. (B, fols. 193v-195; V. fols. 40v-43v, 46v).

XI. Depositions of the Bishops of Rome from 255 - 352, ending with the last deceased bishop, Julius, d. 352. (B, fol. 195; V., fol. 46; A, fol. 1)

XII. Depositions of the Martyrs. (B, fol. 195v; V, fol. 44; A, fol. 1)

XIII. List of the bishops of Rome, ending with Liberius who took office in 352 A.D. (V, fols. 44v-45v, 65v-66; A, fols. 2- v)

[XIV. Regions of the city of Rome (Notitia). This notitia is dated 334-357 A.D. (V, fols. 66v-69v; not present in B, despite what Stern says).]

[XV. World Chronicle (Liber generationis) from creation to A.D.334. (V, fols. 55v-62v)]

XVI. Chronicle of the City of Rome (Chronica Urbis Romae) from the kings of Rome until the death of Licinius in A.D.324. (V, fols. 62-65v, 70; S, G, fol. 303)

[XVII. Vienna Annals (Fasti Vindobonenses) A.D. 390-573/575 (V, fols 15-24, 47-53; S, G, fol. 303) ]

In addition some sections have an independent life, and appear by themselves in other manuscripts (e.g. the Notitia (part 14) and Liber Generationis (part 15)). Details about these appear at the end of each section.

Additional notes on part 14: the 14 regions of Rome

The division of Rome into 14 regions was an act of Augustus in 7 BC, who also reorganised and renewed various state religious functions (Suetonius, Aug. 30; Cassius Dio, LV, 8, 7). Initially they were designated by number only, and this use is documented down to the creation of the vicomagistri (street-wardens) in 136 AD. However unofficial names soon came into existence (Suetonius, Caes. 39; Aug. 5; Nero 12), although these never enjoyed official status.

There are two questions about the catalogue of the 14 regions of Rome which have wearied scholars and have still not been finally resolved. What did the first editor of the catalogue intend to do with these entries? -- and in what age did he live?

In the 19th century it was generally accepted that the lists delimited the regions by listing places on the boundaries. This was the opinion of Sarti, Bunsen, Becker, Preller and Jordan. The theory was refined by Lanciani, who noted the preference for roads and piazzas, which such a system would naturally favour. But against this is the obvious evidence, that the catalogue contains places or monuments which are inside the regions; and indeed each region begins with 'continet' (=contains). Consequently Huelsen, Richter and Nordh have rejected this theory. Nordh has proposed that the original text consisted of a list of districts within each region, and a subsequent editor, unaware of the purpose of the document, then transformed it by including many other places and monuments which did not denominate a district.

This leads us to the question of the date of the work. It lists the basilica, porch and baths of Constantine, all of which were built after October 312 after the victory of Constantine over Maxentius. But the arch, built in 315-6, is missing (the one given in Region XI should be identified with the 'Janus Quadrifons' of the Forum Boarium). Although other arches, such as those of Titus and Septimus Severus, are also missing, this could be taken as evidence that the text was compiled between October 312 and 315-6. Nordh suggested that his proposed original version should be backdated to the age of Diocletian, when Rome received an independent administration separate from the dioceses; and that the later monuments should be considered later additions. There are risks in this approach, but Nordh is right to point out the absence of Christian monuments as suggesting a pre-Constantinian basis, and to highlight military bodies like the praetorians that no longer existed in the days of Constantine. The text also contains administrative statistics, probably from the office of the city prefecture.

The text has not reached us in its original form, but in two later forms. The first of these has no title in the manuscripts in which it is found, and is referred to by modern scholars as the Notitia urbis Romae regionum XIV. The other does have a title, which is Curiosum urbis Romae regionum XIIII. The term curiosum is of course the work of some barbarous copyist.

The Notitia must date to 334 AD or later, as it refers to the equestrian statue of Constantine, dedicated in that year. It must date before 357, when the sixth obelisk was erected in the Circus Maximus by Constantius II.

The Curiosum does mention this obelisk, which means that it dates later than 357. Polemius Silvius uses the Curiosum in his calendar written in 449 AD, which therefore is the terminus ante quem for this recension. Some would suggest the absence of mention of the walls restored by Honorius in 403 is also significant; but then neither recension mentions the walls built by Aurelian in 270-82.

Nordh on the other hand assesses both texts depending on how far they have travelled from his hypothetical primitive text, rather by the presence or absence of monuments. He notes the adjective "divus" assigned to Constantine, making both versions post-Constatinian. He came to the conclusion that the Curiosum was the earlier text.

The statistics at the end of the text do not agree with the body of either version. This suggests that they have an independent origin, even allowing for corruptions in transmission.

The manuscripts of the Curiosum are:

Siglum

Location

Shelfmark & Notes

Date /

Century

A

Rome, Vatican Vatican latin 3321. Parchment. Written in uncial, probably in central Italy (so Lowe, Cod. Lat. Antiquiores I, p. 6). Must derive from a manuscript in capitals, as it shows characteristic letter exchanges. Contents:

On the guard-leaf at the front is the handwriting of Fulvio Orsini: «Lexicon di voce sacre et profane con alcune operette di Isidoro Ispa lense, et altri, scritto di Lettere maiuscole, in 4° in carta pergamena, tocco dal Panormita. Fulv. Urs. »

After the guard-leaf are two unnumbered pages in uncial.

Glossarium

Synonyma, with later addition

Differentiae verborum Hisidori iunioris, i.e. Etymologiae

In the middle of the last, on ff. 225b-228b, the Curiosum.

On the last folio are the words «Ant. Panormitae »

th

B

Rome, Vatican Vatican latin. 1984. Parchment. Written in various hands at various times. Contents:

Extracts of the Breviarium of Eutropius, with the additions of Paul the Deacon and Landolfo Sagace.

Curiosum, on ff. a- b.

Miraculum primum.

Capitolium Rome.

The concordat of Worms

A list of emperors from Augustus to Constantius II

The start of the reigns of the Assyrians, Amazons, and Scythians

The fall of Troy

An extract of the Historia Francorum

Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum (incomplete)

Historia Apolloni regis Tyri

Alexandri Macedonis epistulam ad Aristotlem

Another extract of the Historia Langobardorum

Extracts of the controversies of the Lombards with the popes

The false decretal of Adrian I

Extracts from the Liber Pontificalis on Zachariah, Stephen II and III, Leo III

"atti di pontefici mescolati ad annali romani"

11-12

C

Rome, Vatican Vatican latin 3227. Parchment, in Beneventan minuscule. The codex seems to have belonged to the abbey of Monte Cassino. In the margin of f. 24a is written "Casinum" and on the last folio "Raynaldus dei gratia", who was abbot between 1137-1155. According to Lowe (The Beneventan Script, p. 362) the ms is early 12th century; Bannister (Monumenti Vaticani di paleografia musicale latina, Lipsia, 1913, p. 125, n. 356) agrees, except that he thinks the Philippics and Versus late 11th century. Contents:

On the guard-leaf is a note in the hand of Fulvio Orsini: « Philippiche di Cicerone di Lettera Longobarda, Sogno di Scipione, et P. Vittore epitomato. Fui. Urs. ».

Cicero, Philippics

Versus XII Sapientum (Poet. lat. min. ed. Baehrens, IV, p. 139, n. 141)

The hymn, O Roma nobilis

Love-poem: O admirabile Veneris ydolum

The description of the regions of Rome, on ff. 81a-83a.

Cicero, Somnium Scipionis

11-12

D

Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana Laurentianus pluteo 89 sup. 67. Parchment. Top margin of f. 1 reads: Descriptiones terrarum et aquarum a romanis script[oribus]. The codex contains a selection in compressed form of the texts contained in the now lost Spirensis manuscript of the Notitia Dignitatum. Contents:

Ps. Eticus, Cosmographia (wrongly titled Orthographia)

Itinerarium Provintiarum Antonii (Antonini) Augusti

Itinerarium maritimum, quae loca tangere navigaturus debeat

Itinerarium portuum vel positio navium;

De septem montibus Romanae urbis

De aquarum ductibus Romam rigantibus

Regiones urbis Romae cum breviariis suis (ff. 34b-37a) A contaminated form of the text, mingling the Notitia and the Curiosum. It cannot be connected to any manuscript of either, and has additional entries found in neither.

10

There is also a Syriac text.

The manuscripts of the Notitia are:

Siglum

Location

Shelfmark & Notes

Date /

Century

A

Vienna, National collection Latin. 162 (previously hist. prof. 629). Parchment. Contents:

Catalogue of the regions (ff. a- a)

Description of Constantinople

Latin-German glossary by Rabanus Maurus from Glossae spirituales iuxta Eucherium episcopum.

9th

B

Lost (formerly Cathedral of Speyer) This manuscript has been lost since the middle of the 16th century when it was cut up. The last 6 works were decorated with illustrations. Some of the copies reproduce these, with varying fidelity, which can be checked since a few leaves containing illustrations only ended up in Norfolk cottages as pictures in frames. The description of Rome was prefixed with an image of a female figure seated in majesty with a lance in one hand and a shield in the other. Over the top has been added « Urbs quae aliquando desolata, nunc clariosior [sic] piissimo im perio restaurato », probably a reference to the Carolingian restoration of an emperor. The manuscript cannot have been earlier than the th century, when Dicuil wrote, or later than the 10th, when copies were taken. Contents:

Situs et descriptio orbis terrarum (pseudo-Etico)

Itinerarium Antonini

De montibus et aquis urbis Romae

Liber de mensura orbis terrae (Dicuil)

Notitia Galliarum

Laterculus Polemii Silvii

De montibus, portis et viis urbis Romae

De rebus bellicis

Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi

Descriptio urbis Romae

Descriptio urbis Constantinopolitanae

De gradibus cognationum

Notitia Dignitatum.

8-10

a

Oxford, Bodleian Direct copy of the Spirensis. Ms. 19854, formerly Canonic. miscell. lat. 378. Parchment. Our catalogue is on ff. 81a-84a. Bought by the Bodleian in 1817; previously in Venice. At the end of the last text are the words: « Exemplata est hec cosmographia, que Scoti dicitur, cum picturis ex vetustissimo codice quem habui ex Spirensi bibliotheca, anno Domini mccccxxxvi, mense ianuario, dum ego Petrus Donatus, Dei pacientia episcopus Paduanus, vice sanctissimi domini Eugenii pape IIII generali Basiliensi concilio presiderem ». (This cosmography, which is called Scottish, was copied with the pictures from a very old codex which I have from the library of Speyer, AD 1436, January, while I, Pietro Donato, by the patience of God bishop of Padua, by the power of the most holy lord pope Eugenius IV was presiding at the general council at Basle). Following this subscription two additions were made:

Demensuratio provinciarum quae non erat in praecedenti codice, sed de antiquo libro excerpta. (not in the preceding manuscript, but excerpted from an ancient book)

Cyriaci Anconitani de septem mundi spectaculis (in Greek and Latin, in the hand of the same Cyriacus)

1436

b

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Probably a direct copy of the Spirensis. Paris. lat. 9661. Parchment. Our catalogue is on ff. 66a-68a. Not copied from Donato's copy. A monochrome image of the city of Rome with the details given above for Speyer is present in Valentini, opposite p.161.

15

c

Vienna, National library Direct copy of the Spirensis. Lat. 3103 (Salzburg, 18 b). Dated at the end "anno Domini 1484". Our catalogue written on ff. 65b-67b. Blank leaves have been left for the illustrations, but these were never made.

1484

d

Munich, State library Direct copy of the Spirensis. Latin. 10291 (Palat. 291) Parchment. Notitia on ff. 81a-84a. This copy, which is remarkable for the elegance of the characters and beauty of the illustrations, was executed in 1542, as is indicated under the image of Rome. At the front is this warning, written between 1544 and 1551: « Hic liber, cui titulus Itinerarium Antonini, ad verum atque archetypum exemplar descriptus Illustrissimo Principi ac domino domino Othoni Henrico, Comiti Palatino Rheni, utriusque Bavarie Duci &c. tanquam anti quitatis amatori atque indagatori studiosissimo, a venerabilibus ac honestis Cathedralis Ecclesie Spirensis Decano atque Canonico [Canonicis?] dono missus est». (This book, entitled Itinerarium Antonini, copied from the true and archetype exemplar to the most illustrious Prince and lord, Lord Otho Heinrich, Count Palatine of the Rhine, also Duke of Bavaria, etc,..., by the most venerable and honest deacon and canon of the Cathedral Church of Speyer, was sent as a gift). Cf. Seeck, Hermes IX (1875) pp.218-28 for all these copies. Note: In 1890 H. Omont discovered a folio of the Notitia Dignitatum among the mss. of Sir Thomas Phillipps in Cheltenham (ms. 16397), entitled Mappa Mundi, which read at the end: « Explicit Mappa Mundi scriptum per Antonium Angeli de Aquila, sub anno Domini Millesimo CCCCXXVII, de mense iulii, die XIII eiusdem mensis ». (End of Mappa Mundi, written by Antonio Angeli di Aquila, 13 July 1427). The text agreed with a, b, c and d and gave no new variants. If the text were complete, it would indicate a prior copy to any now known; that a copy written in 1427 did exist is witnessed by Girolamo Surita in his edition of the Itinerario di Antonino (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1600, p. 174): « codex bibliothecae Neapolitanorum regum, qui postea Cardinalis de Ursinis fuit, anno 1427 exscriptus ». (manuscript of the library of the king of Naples, which later belonged to Cardinal Orsini, written in 1427)

1542

Munich, State library Ms. lat. 794 (vict. 99) Copied from a copy of the Spirensis.

15

Madrid, Biblioteca Nazionale Ms. Res. 36 (once Q 129). Copied from a copy of the Spirensis.

15

Vienna, National Library Ms. 12825 (suppl. 14) Copied from a copy of the Spirensis.

15

Paris, BNF Ms. nouv. acquis. 1424. Copied from a copy of the Spirensis. Once owned by cardinal Francesco Soderini and probably copied for him between December 1523 and 1524.

1523-4

Vienna, National Library Ms. lat. 3102 (Salisburg. 30 b). Copied from 'c' (3103), although it says otherwise, by the order of Bernard di Cles, bishop of Trent, as the following note on f. 1 shows: « Librum hunc a satis incorrectum, incorrecte etiam est iussu nostro transcriptum ex antiquo exemplari reperto in Biblio theca Capitulari Spirensi, dum ibi essemus cum Se renissimo Rege Ferdinando &c. in conventu imperiali anno 1529. Bern. episcopus Trid. »

1529

Rome, Vatican Ms. Barberini lat. 809. Copied from a copy of the Spirensis.

16

C/V

Vienna, National Library Ms. 3416 (hist. prof. 452). Paper. ff.1-70 contain the Chronography of 354 (see above), including the Notitia. A marginal note on the outside gives the date of 1480, according to Valentini (p.82). ff. 71 onwards contain:

Chronica Polonorum of Vincent Kadlubek

De origine Getarum of Jordanes

1480

The following additional manuscripts are listed by Valentini as containing material which he dismisses as of no independent value for either family without being more precise:

Cambrai 554, saec. xii.

Florence, Laurenziana Aedil. Fior. Eccles. 87, saec. xiii.

National Library of Vienna lat. 609, saec. xiii.

Cod. Gaddianò rei. 148 of the bibl. Laurenziana di Firenze, saec. xiii.

Cod. Vatican lat. 3191, saec. xv, mutilated. Folio 15 contains this note: «Publio Vittore, et altre cose, scritto di mano del med.mo [del med.mo è cancellato e nell' interlineo è stato scritto di Pomponio Leto] in papiro, in o. Fulv. Urs. ». But the hand is not in fact that of Pomponio Leto, as a comparison with his known copies shows.

Cod. Vatican lat. 3851, sec. xv.

Bibl. dell'Escorial S. III, 27, sec. xv.

Cod. Vatican Ottob. lat. 2072, saec. xv.

Cod. Vatican Ottob. lat. 2089, saec. xv.

Cod. Vatican Urbin. lat. 452, saec. xv.

Bibl. Marciana, Venice 3731, saec. xv.

Bibl. Naz. di Roma Sessor. 286, saec. xv.

Bibl. Naz. di Napoli IV. D. 22, saec. xv.

National library, Vienna 3224, saec. xv.

Oxford, Bodleian, Canon. miscell. lat. 214, saec. xv.

The first printed edition of the 14 regions was by Gelenius, Notitia utraque cum orientis tum occidentis ultra Arcadii Honoriique caesarum tempora..., in 1552, at Basle, based around the Spirensis collection. Details of the subsequent publishing history are in Valentini, pp.86-88.

Bibliography

The following have been used in the preparation of this version:

T. MOMMSEN, "Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae ad C. Caesaris mortem", editio altera pars prior. Berlin: George Reimer (1893), pp.254-279. Contains the calendars of Philocalus and Polemius Silvius, and extracts from the introduction. It also contains a commentary on the calendars.

T. MOMMSEN, "Chronographus Anni CCCLIIII", Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquissimorum, part 9: Chronica Minora Saec. IV-VII, vol. 1. Berlin (1892), repr. Munich (1981). pp. 13-148. Reference from Salzman. The Latin text of much of it (unillustrated).

Michele Renee SALZMAN, On Roman Time: the codex-calendar of 354 and the rhythyms of urban life in late antiquity. University of California Press (1990). ISBN 0-520-06566-2. The source of almost all the information on this page.

H. STERN, Le Calendrier de 354. Etude sur son text et ses illustrations. Paris (1953). Reference from Salzman.

A. DEGRASSI, Inscriptiones Italiae, vol. 13: Fasti et elogia, fasc. 2: Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani (Rome, 1963). This contains the text of the calendar (pt.6) with a monochrome photograph of one page of a manuscript, and a valuable commentary.

Josef STRZYGOWSKI, Die Calenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354, Series: Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. vol. 1. Berlin:G. Reimer (1888) This contains monochrome photographs of the illustrations.

H. JORDAN, Topographie der Stadt Rom in Alterthum, Zweiter Band. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (1871). pp. 540-571 contain part XIV, with a parallel text from another source.

R. VALENTINI / G. ZUCHETTI, Codice topografico della città di Roma, Volume 1. Rome (1940) p. 63 ff. Part XIV with a complete commentary about each entry.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_01_dedicatio.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 1: title page and dedication. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 3.

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 1: title page and dedication. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 3.

Notes to the online text.

This monochrome photograph comes from Codex Vaticanus Barberini latinus 2154 (=R ), via STRZYGOWSKI, figure 3. The monogram contains the letters which make up VALENTINE FLOREAS IN DEO (Valentinus, may you flourish in God).

The triangles contain the text FVRIVS DIONYSIVS and FILOCALVS TITVLAVIT. (Furius Dionysius Filocalus illustrated this work).

The main text reads VALENTINE LEGE FELICITER (Valentinus, enjoy reading this), on the left VALENTINE VIVAS FLOREAS (Valentinus, may you live long and flourish), on the right VALENTINE VIVAS GAVDEAS (Valentinus, may you live long and rejoice).

This text was scanned by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_02_cities.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 2: Cities of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Trier. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 4-7.

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 2: Cities of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Trier. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 4-7.

Notes to the online text.

These monochrome photographs come from Codex Vaticanus Barberini latinus 2154 (=R ), via STRZYGOWSKI, figures 4-7.

This text was scanned by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_03_natales.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 3: Dedication to the emperor and birthdays of the Caesars. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 8-9; CIL 1, Berlin (1893) p. 255.

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 3: Dedication to the emperor and birthdays of the Caesars. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figure 8-9; CIL 1, Berlin (1893) p. 255.

[Transcription of right-hand image]

NATALES

CAESARVM

MENS·IANVAR

MENS·AVGUSTO

LVCI·AELI·CAESARIS·IDIB·IAN DIVI·PERTINACIS·KAL·AUG

DIVI·GORDIANI·XIII·K·IAN D·N·CONSTANTI·VII·IDV·AVG

DIVI·ADRIANI·IX·KAL·IAN DIVI·PROBI·XIIII·KAL·SEP

MENS·FEBRVAR

MENS·SEPTEMB

DIVI·CONSTANTINI·III·K·MAR DIVI·AVRELIANI·V·IDV·SEP

MENS·MARTIO DIVI·TRAIANI·XIIII·KAL·OCT

DIVI·CONSTANTI·PR·KAL·APR PII·ANTONINI·XIII·KAL·OCT

MENS·APRIL DIVI·AVGUSTI·IX·KAL·OCT

DIVI·SEVERI·III·IDV·APR

MENS·OCTOB

M·ANTONINI·VI·KL·MAI DIVI·ALEXANDRI·KAL·OCT

MENS·MAIO

MENS·NOVEMB

DIVI·CLAVDI·VI·IDVS·MAI DIVI·NERVAE·VI·IDV·NOV

MENS·IVNIO DIVI·VESPASIANI·XV·KAL·DEC

MENS·DECEMB

MENS·IVLIO DIVI·VERI·XVIII·KAL·IAN

DIVI·TITI·III·KAL·IAN

Notes to the online text.

These monochrome photographs come from Codex Vaticanus Barberini latinus 2154 (=R ), via STRZYGOWSKI, figures 8-9. Since there is a list of imperial birthdays on the right-hand page, I have transcribed this below the images, but taken it from the text printed in CIL, not from the image.

This text was scanned by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_04_planets_and_days.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 4: Pictures of the 7 planets with table of favourable and unfavourable days and hours. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figures 10-14.

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 4: Pictures of the 7 planets with table of favourable and unfavourable days and hours. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figures 10-14.

[Transcription]

Noct

Diur

I Mar. N

I Sat. N

II Sol. C

II Iov. B

III Ven. B

III Mar. N

IIII Mer. C

IIII Sol. C

V Lun. C

V Ven. B

VI Sat. N

VI Mer. C

VII Iov. B

VII Lun. C

VIII Mar. N

VIII Sat. N

IX Sol. C

IX Iov. B

X Ven. B

X Mar. N

XI Mer. C

XI Sol. C

XII Lun. C

XII Ven. B

Saturni dies N

Saturni dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, omnia obscura laboriosaque fiunt; qui nascentur periculosi erunt; qui recesserit non invenietur; qui decubuerit periclitabitur; furtum factum non invenietur.

[The day of Saturn and its hours, whether day or night, all things become obscure and laborious; those born will be sickly; those who hide will not be found; those who fall ill will perish; the hidden deed will not be found out.]

[Transcription]

Noct

Diur

I Ven. B

I Mar. N

II Mer. C

II Sol. C

III Lun. C

III Ven. B

IIII Sat. N

IIII Mer. C

V Iov. B

V Lun. C

VI Mar. N

VI Sat. N

VII Sol. C

VII Iov. B

VIII Ven. B

VIII Mar. N

IX Mer. C

IX Sol. C

X Lun. C

X Ven. B

XI Sat. N

XI Mer. C

XII Iov. B

XII Lun. C

Martis dies N

Martis dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, nomen militiae dare, arma militaria comparare utile est. qui nascentur periculosi erunt; qui recesserit non invenietur; qui decubuerit periclitabitur; furtum factum non invenietur.

[The day of Mars and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to give a name for military service, to obtain military weapons. Those born will be sickly; those who hide will not be found; those who fall ill will perish; the hidden deed will not be found out.]

[Transcription]

Noct

Diur

I Sat. N

I Mer. C

II Iov. B

II Lun. C

III Mar. C

III Sat. N

IIII Sol. N

IIII Iov. B

V Ven. B

V Mar. N

VI Mer. C

VI Sol. C

VII Lun. C

VII Ven. B

VIII Sat. N

VIII Mer. C

IX Iov. B

IX Lun. C

X Mar. N

X Sat. N

XI Sol. C

XI Iov. B

XII Ven. B

XII Mar. N

Mercuri dies C

Mercuri dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, vilicum actorem institorem in negotio ponere utile est. qui nascentur vitales erunt; qui recesserit invenietur; qui decubuerit cito convalescet; furtum factum invenietur.

[The day of Mercury and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to negotiate with a farm-manager, actor or shopkeeper. Those born will be healthy; those who hide will be found; those who fall ill will quickly recover; the hidden deed will be found out.]

[Transcription]

Noct

Diur

I Iov. B

I Lun. C

II Mar. N

II Sat. N

III Sol. C

III Iov. B

IIII Ven. B

IIII Mar. N

V Mer. C

V Sol. C

VI Lun. C

VI Ven. B

VII Sat. N

VII Mer. C

VIII Iov. B

VIII Lun. C

IX Mar. N

IX Sat. N

X Sol. C

X Iov. B

XI Ven. B

XI Mar. N

XII Mer. C

XII Sol. C

Lunae dies C

Lunae dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, stercus in agro mittere, putea cisternas fabricare utile est. qui nascentur vitales erunt; qui recesserit invenietur; qui decubuerit convalescet; furtum factum invenietur.

[The day of the Moon and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to put manure on the field, to make a cistern or well. Those born will be healthy; those who hide will be found; those who fall ill will recover; the hidden deed will be found out.]

[Transcription]

Noct

Diur

I Mer. C

I Sol. C

II Lun. C

II Ven. B

III Sat. N

III Mer. C

IIII Iov. B

IIII Lun. C

V Mar. N

V Sat. N

VI Sol. C

VI Iov. B

VII Ven. B

VII Mar. N

VIII Mer. C

VIII Sol. C

IX Lun. C

IX Ven. B

X Sat. N

X Mer. C

XI Iov. B

XI Lun. C

XII Mar. N

XII Sat. N

Solis dies C

Solis dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, viam navigium ingredi, navem in aquam deducere utile est. qui nascentur vitales erunt; qui recesserit invenietur; qui decubuerit convalescet; furtum factum invenietur.

[The day of the Sun and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to begin a journey by ship, or to launch a ship. Those born will be healthy; those who hide will be found; those who fall ill will recover; the hidden deed will be found out.]

[The image has been lost and only the text is preserved]

[Preserved text]

Iovis dies B

Iovis dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, beneficium petere, cum potente colloqui, rationem reddere utile est. qui nascentur vitales erunt; qui recesserit cito invenietur; qui decubuerit convalescet; furtum factum invenietur.

[The day of Jupiter and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to seek a benefit, to speak with the powerful, to pay an account. Those born will be healthy; those who hide will be found quickly; those who fall ill will recover; the hidden deed will be found out.]

[The image has been lost and only the text is preserved]

[Preserved text]

Veneris dies B

Veneris dies horaque eius cum erit nocturna sive diurna, sponsalia facere, pueros puellas in disciplina mittere utile est. qui nascentur vitales erunt; qui recesserit cito invenietur; qui decubuerit convalescet; furtum factum invenietur.

[The day of Venus and its hours, whether day or night, it is advantageous to bring about an engagement (to marry), to send boys and girls for instruction. Those born will be healthy; those who hide will be found quickly; those who fall ill will recover; the hidden deed will be found out.]

Notes to the online edition

Only five of the seven images of the planets have been preserved, which contain the table of fortunate and unfortunate hours. The five images are preserved in the Peiresc and Brussels copies. However all seven subscriptios are preserved in the St. Gall manuscript, although the copyist of this rearranged them in the order of the days of the week as they are today. The original order must have begun with Saturn, on the reverse of the page with the Natales Caesarum. The two missing images reflect the loss of a single page at this point in the archetype of all the illustrated copies. The order of the other four images varies, and Mommsen suggests that this reflects a quaternion coming loose in a later copy and a bifolium being reversed or inserted between the leaves of an existing earlier bifolium.

N = Noxia (harmful)

C = Communis (neutral)

B = Bona (healthy)

The seven planets in order are Saturn, Mars, Mercury, Luna (the moon), Sol (the sun), Jupiter, and Venus.

This text is reproduced from Mommsen, MGH, pp.42-45, with Strzygowski figures 10-14.

This text was scanned by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_05_zodiac.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 5: Signs of the Zodiac. MGH p.47.

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 5: Signs of the Zodiac. MGH p.47.

[Illustrations are lost]

[Images of the 12 signs here]

ARI. CAN. LIB. CAP.

In his signis tropicis luna cum erit, nummos mutuos dare vel accipere, testamentum facere, telam ordiri, lanas lavare, pecora castrare, conductum facere, migrare utile.

[When the moon is in these tropic signs, it is advantageous to lend or borrow money, to make a will, to begin weaving, to wash wool, to geld livestock, or to make a contract.]

TAV. LEO. SCO. AQV.

In his signis solidis luna cum erit, beneficium petere, cum potente colloqui, rationem reddere, instrumenta conficere, pueros puellas in disciplina mittere, fundamenta ponere, arbores inscrere, propagines facere, vites deprimere, terram proscindere, serere, metere utile est.

[When the moon is in these unbroken signs, it is advantageous to seek a gift, to talk with the powerful, to render an account, to collect tools, to send boys and girls for instruction, to lay foundations, to plant trees, to make cuttings, to sow, or to reap.]

GEM. VIR. SA. PIS.

In his signis duplicibus luna cum erit, viam navigium ingredi, navem in aquam deducere, olivam legere, vindemiam facere, calcem carbonem coquere, vina diffundere, barbam capillos facere utile est.

[When the moon is in these duplex signs, it is advantageous to begin a journey by ship, to launch a ship, to pick olives, to gather grapes, to make charcoal, to hand round wine, to comb the beard.]

Notes to the online edition

This page is lost from all the illuminated copies, together with the image of January which was on the other side. However the text had been preserved in the St. Gall manuscript.

This text was scanned by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: chronography_of_354_06_calendar.htm

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 6: the calendar of Philocalus. Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae, Berlin (1893) pp.256-278

The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 6: the calendar of Philocalus. Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae, Berlin (1893) pp.256-278. Die Calenderbilder, Berlin (1888) figures 19, 20, 22-28, 30, 32.

MENSIS IANVARIVS

habet dies XXXI.

1 A A A KAL·IAN SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

[Image of January has not been preserved]

2

B B IIII·NON DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

3

C C III LVD VOTORUM·NVNC·PATIO

4 B D D PRIDIE LVDI

5

E E NON LVDI

6

F F VIII·IDVS DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

7 C G G VII IANO·PATRI·CM·XXIIII

8

A H VI

9

B A V SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

10 D C B IIII

11

D C III DIES·CARMENTARIORVM

12

E D PRIDIE

13 E F E IDIB IOVI·STATORI·CM·XXIIII

14

G F XIX·KAL·FEB

15

A G XVIII CARMENTALIA

16 F B H XVII DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

17

C A XVI LVDI·PALATINI

18

D B XV LVDI

19 G E C XIIII LVDI

20

F D XIII N·GORDIANI·CM·XXIIII

21

G E XII LVDI

22 H A F XI LVDI

23

B G X SENATVS·LEGITIMVS SOL·AQVARIO

24

C H IX N·D·HADRIANI·CM·XXIIII

25 I D A VIII N·CHARTIS

26

E B VII

27

F C VI

28 K G D V

29

A E IIII

30

B F III

31 A C G PRIDIE

MENSIS FEBRVARIVS

habet dies XXVIII.

1

D H KAL·FEB N·D·HERCVLIS·CM·XXIIII

2

E A IIII·NON

3 B F B III SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

4

G C PRIDIE LVDI·GOTTICI

5

A D NON LVDI

6 C B E VIII·IDVS LVDI

7

C F VII LVDI·DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

8

D G VI LVDI

9 D E H V GOTTICI·CM·XXIIII

10

F A IIII

11

G B III GENIALICI·CM·XXIIII

12 E A C PRIDIE LVDI·GENIALICI

13

B D IDIB VIRGO·VESTA·PARENTAT SENAT·LEGIT

14 F C E XVI·KAL·MAR

15

D F XV LVPERCALIA

16

E G XIIII

17 G F H XIII QVIRINALIA

18

G A XII

19

A B XI

20 H B C X

SOL·PISCIBVS

21

C D IX FERALIA

22

D E VIII CARISTIA

23 I E F VII TERMINALIA

24

F G VI REGIFVGIUM

25

G H V LORIO·CM·XII DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

26 K A A IIII

27

B B III N·D·CONSTANTINI·CM·XXIIII

28

C C PRIDIE LVDI·VOTIVI

MENSIS MARTIVS

habet dies XXXI.

1 A D D KAL·MAR N·MARTIS·CM·XXIIII

2

E E VI·NON

3

F F V SENATVS·LEGITIMVS DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

4 B G G IIII

5

A H III ISIDIS·NAVIGIVM

6

B A PRIDIE

7 C C B NON IVNONALIA

8

D C VIII·IDVS

9

E D VII ARMa·ANCILIA·MOVENT

10 D F E VI

11

G F V

12

A G IIII

13 E B H III IOVI·CVLTORI·CM·XXIIII

14

C A PRIDIE MAMVRALIA SENATVS·LEGIT

15

D B IDIB CANNA·INTRAT

16 F E C XVII·KAL·APR

17

F D XVI LIBERALICI·CM·XXIIII

SOL·ARIETE

18

G E XV

19 G A F XIIII QVINQVATRIA

20

B G XIII PELVSIA

21

C H XII N·MINERVES

22 H D A XI ARBOR·INTRAT

23

E B X TVBILVSTRIVM

24

F C IX SANGVEM DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

25 I G D VIII HILARIA

26

A E VII REQVETIO

27

B F VI LAVATIO

28 K C G V INITIVM·CAIANI

29

D H IIII

30

E A III

31 A F B PRIDIE N·D·CONSTANTi·CM·XXIIII

MENSIS APRILIS

habet dies XXX.

1

G C KAL·APR VENERALIA·LVDI SEN·LEG

2

A D IIII·NON

3 B B E III N·DEI·QVIRINI·CM·XXIIII DIES·AEGYP

4

C F PRIDIE LVDI·MEGALESIACI

5

D G NON· LVDI

6 C E H VIII·IDVS LVDI

7

F A VII

8

G B VI N·CASTOR·ET·POLLVc·CM·XXIIII

9 D A C V LVDI

10

B D IIII MEGALESIACI·CM·XXIIII

11

C E III N·DIVI·SEVERI·CM·XXIIII

12 E D F PRIDIE LVDI·CERIALICI·CM·XXIIII

13

E G IDIB LVDI SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

14 F F H XVIII·KAL·MAI LVDI

15

G A XVII LVDI

16

A B XVI LVDI

17 G B C XV LVDI

18

C D XIIII LVDI SOL·TAVRO

19

D E XIII CEREALICI·CM·XXIIII

20 H E F XII

21

F G XI N·VRBIS·CM·XXIIII DIES·AEGYP

22

G H X

23 I A A IX

24

B B VIII

25

C C VII SERAPIA

26 K D D VI N·M·ANTONINI·CM·XXIIII

27

E E V

28

F F IIII

29 A G G III

30

A H PRIDIE LVDI·FLORALES

MENSIS MAIVS

habet dies XXXI.

1

B A KAL·MAI SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

2 B C B VI·NON LVDI

3

D C V FLORIALICI·CM·XXIIII DIES·AEGYP

4

E D IIII LVDI·MAXIMATI

5 C F E III LVDI

6

G F PRIDIE LVDI

7

A G non LVDI

8 D B H VIII·IDVS LVDI

9

C A VII MAXIMATI·CM·XXIIII

10

D B VI N·CLAVDI·CM·XXIIII

11 E E C V

12

F D IIII MARTIALICI·CM·XXIIII

13

G E III LVDI·PERSICI

14 F A F PRIDIE LVDI

15

B G IDIB LVDI·N·MERCVRI SENATVS·LEG

16

C H XVII·KAL·IVN LVDI

17 G D A XVI PERSICI·CM·XXIIII

18

E B XV N·ANNONIS

19

F C XIIII ZENZIARIVS

20 H G D XIII

SOL·GEMINIs

21

A E XII DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

22

B F XI

23 I C G X MACELLVS·ROSA·SVMAT

24

D H IX

25

E A VIII

26 K F B VII

27

G C VI

28

A D V

29 A B E IIII LVDI·HONOR·ET·VIRTVS·ZINZA

30

C F III LVDI

31

D G PRIDIE LVDI

MENSIS IVNIVS

habet dies XXX.

1 B E H KAL·IVN FABARICI·CM·XII

2

F A IIII·NON

3

G B III SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

4 C A C PRIDIE LVDI·IN·MINICIA

5

B D NON

6

C E VIII·IDVS COLOSSVS·CORONATVR

7 D D F VII VESTA·APERIT DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

8

E G VI

9

F H V VESTALIA

10 E G A IIII

11

A B III MATRALIA

12 F B C PRIDIE

13

C D IDIB· N·MVSARUM SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

14

D E XVIII·KAL·IVL

15 G E F XVII VESTA·CLVDITVR

SOL·CANCRO

16

F G XVI

17

G H XV

18 H A A XIIII ANNAE·SACRVM

19

B B XIII

20

C C XII DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

21 I D D XI

22

E E X

23

F F IX

24 K G G VIII FORTIS·FORTVNAE SOLSTITIVM

25

A H VII

26

B A VI

27 A C B V

28

D C IIII

29

E D III

30 B F E PRIDIE

MENSIS IVLIVS

habet dies XXXI.

1

G F KAL·IVL SENATVS·LEGITIMVS

2

A G VI·NON

3 C B H V FVGATO·LICINIO·CM·XXIIII

4

C A IIII

5

D B III LVDI·APOLLINARES

6 D E C PRIDIE LVDI DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

7

F D NON LVDI

8

G E VIII·IDVS LVDI

9 E A F VII LVDI

10

B G VI LVDI

11

C H V LVDI

12 F D A IIII LVDI

13

E B III APOLLINARES·CM·XXIIII

14

F C PRIDIE

15 G G D IDIB EQVIT·RO·PROB LVDI·FRANCICI

16

A E XVII·KAL·AUG LVDI

17

B F XVI LVDI SENAT·LEGIT SOL·LEONE

18 H C G XV ADVENT·D·CM·XXIIII DIES·AEGYPTIACVS

19

D H XIIII LVDI·VOTIVI

20

E A XIII FRANCICI·CM·XXIIII

21 I F B XII ADVENT·DIVI·CM·XXIIII

22

G C XI LVDI

23

A D X NEPTVNALICI

24 K B E IX

25

C F VIII N·D·CONSTANTINI·CM·XXIIII

26

D G VII LVDI·VOTIVI

27 A E H VI VICT·SARMATICAS·CM·XXIIII

28

F A V

29

G B IIII

30 B A C III VICT·MARCOMANNAS·CM·XXIIII

31

B D PRIDIE

MENSIS AVGUSTVS

habet dies XXXI.

1

C E KAL·AVG N·DIVI·PERTINACIS·CM·XXIIII

2 C D F IIII·NON

3

E G III SENATVS·LEGITIMVS