The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325
ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
VOLUME 6.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius.
Edited by
Alexander Roberts, D.D.
&
James Donaldson, LL.D.
Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes, by
A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Fathers of the Third Century:
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius.
——————————
AMERICAN EDITION.
Chronologically arranged, with brief notes and prefaces, by
A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.
Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω.
The Nicene Council
Introductory Notice.
————————————
In this volume a mass of
fragmentary material See the Edinburgh
series.
The moral grandeur and predominance of the See of Alexandria are also here conspicuously illustrated. The mastery which its great school continued to exercise over Christian thought, hegemony in the formation of Christian literature, its guardian influence in the development of doctrinal technology, and not less the Divine Providence that created it and built it up for the noble ends which it subserved in a Clement, an Origen, and an Athanasius, will all present themselves forcibly to every reflecting reader of this book. One half of this volume presents the Alexandrian school itself in its glorious succession of doctors and pupils, and the other half in the reflected light of its universal influence. Thus Methodius has no other distinction than that which he derives from his wholesome corrections of Origen, and yet the influence of Origen upon his own mind is betrayed even in his antagonisms. He objects to the excessive allegorizing of that great doctor, yet he himself allegorizes too much in the same spirit. Finally we come to Arnobius, who carries on the line of Latin Christianity in Northern Africa; but even here we find that Clement, and not Tertullian, is his model. He gives us, in a Latin dress, not a little directly borrowed from the great Alexandrian.
This volume further demonstrates—what I have so often touched upon—the historic fact that primitive Christianity was Greek in form and character, Greek from first to last, Greek in all its forms of dogma, worship, and polity. One idea only did it borrow from the West, and that not from the ecclesiastical, but the civil, Occident. It conformed itself to the imperial plan of exarchates, metropoles, and dioceses. Into this civil scheme it shaped itself, not by design, but by force of circumstances, just as the Anglo-American communion fell in with the national polity, and took shape in dioceses each originally conterminous with a State. Because it was the capital of the empire, therefore Rome was reckoned the first, but not the chief, of Sees, as the Council of Nicæa declared; and because Byzantium had become “New Rome,” therefore it is made second on the list, but equal in dignity. Rome was the sole Apostolic See of the West, and, as such, reflected the honours of St. Paul, its founder, and of St. Peter, who also glorified it by martyrdom; but not a word of this is recognised at Nicæa as investing it even with a moral primacy. That was informally the endowment of Alexandria; unasserted because unquestioned, and unchallenged because as yet unholy ambition had not infected the Apostolic churches.
It is time, then, to disabuse the West of its
narrow ideas concerning ecclesiastical history. Dean Stanley
rebuked this spirit in his Lectures on the Eastern
Church. See p. 3, ed. of
1861. “Hinter
dem Berge sind auch Leute.”
“The Greek Church,” says Dean Stanley, “reminds us of the time when the tongue, not of Rome, but of Greece, was the sacred language of Christendom. It was a striking remark of the Emperor Napoleon, that the introduction of Christianity itself was, in a certain sense, the triumph of Greece over Rome; the last and most signal instance of the maxim of Horace, Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit. The early Roman church was but a colony of Greek Christians or Grecized Jews. The earliest Fathers of the Western Church wrote in Greek. The early popes were not Italians, but Greeks. The name of pope is not Latin, but Greek, the common and now despised name of every pastor in the Eastern Church.…She is the mother, and Rome the daughter. It is her privilege to claim a direct continuity of speech with the earliest times; to boast of reading the whole code of Scripture, Old as well as New, in the language in which it was read and spoken by the Apostles. The humblest peasant who reads his Septuagint or Greek Testament in his own mother-tongue on the hills of Bœotia may proudly feel that he has access to the original oracles of divine truth which pope and cardinal reach by a barbarous and imperfect translation; that he has a key of knowledge which in the West is only to be found in the hands of the learned classes.”
Before entering on the study of this volume, the
student will do well to read the interesting work which I have
quoted; Late editions
are cheap in the market. It is filled with the author’s
idiosyncrasies, but it is brilliant and suggestive. Lect. vii.
p. 268. On the verse of Horace (Ep., i. book ii. 155), see
Dacier’s note, vol. ix. 389. He
adds: “Alexandria, till the rise of Constantinople,
was the most powerful city in the East. The prestige of its
founder still clung to it.” That is,
of “the pope,” as Wellington was called
“the duke.” But Cyprian was called
papa, even by the Roman clergy.
In the light of these all-important historic
truths, these volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers have been elucidated
by their American editor. He owes his
own introduction to a just view of these facts to a friend of his
boyhood and youth, the late Rev. Dr. Hill of the American Mission in
Athens. He was penetrated with love for Greek Christians.
Gregory Thaumaturgus.
[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A.]
Introductory Note
to
Gregory Thaumaturgus.
————————————
[a.d.
205–240–265.] Alexandria continues to be the head of
Christian learning. Vol. ii. pp.
165, 342.
Our Gregory has given us not a little of his
personal adventures in his panegyric upon his master, and for his
further history the reader need only be referred to what follows.
But I am anxious to supply the dates, which are too loosely left to
conjecture. As he was ordained a bishop “very young,”
according to Eusebius, I suppose he must have been far enough under
fifty, the age prescribed by the “Apostolic Canons”
(so called), though probably not younger than thirty, the
earliest canonical limit for the ordination of a presbyter. If we
decide upon five and thirty, as a mean reckoning, we may with
some confidence set his birth at a.d. 205,
dating back from his episcopate, which began a.d. 240. He was a native of Neo-Cæsarea, the
chief city of Pontus,—a fact that should modify what we have
learned about Pontus from Tertullian. Vol. iii. p.
271.
If he tarried even a little while in Berytus, as seems probable, his knowledge of law was, doubtless, somewhat advanced. It was the seat of that school in which Roman law began its existence in the forms long afterward digested into the Pandects of Justinian. That emperor speaks of Berytus as “the mother and nurse” of the civil law. Caius, whose Institutes were discovered in 1820 by the sagacity of Niebuhr, seems to have been a Syrian. So were Papinian and Ulpian: and, heathen as they were, they lived under the illumination reflected from Antioch; and, not less than the Antonines, they were examples of a philosophic regeneration which never could have existed until the Christian era had begun its triumphs. Of this sort of pagan philosophy Julian became afterwards the grand embodiment; and in Julian’s grudging confessions of what he had learned from Christianity we have a key to the secret convictions of others, such as I have named; characters in whom, as in Plutarch and in many retrograde unbelievers of our day, we detect the operation of influences they are unwilling to acknowledge; of which, possibly, they are blindly unconscious themselves. Roman law, I maintain, therefore, indirectly owes its origin, as it is directly indebted for its completion in the Pandects, to the new powers and processes of thought which came from “the Light of the World.” It was light from Galilee and Golgotha, answering Pilate’s question in the inward convictions of many a heathen sage.
It is most interesting, therefore, to find in our Gregory one who had come into contact with Berytus at this period. He describes it as already dignified by this school of law, and therefore Latinized in some degree by its influence. Most suggestive is what he says of this school: “I refer to those admirable laws of our sages, by which the affairs of all the subjects of the Roman Empire are now directed, and which are neither digested nor learnt without difficulty. They are wise and strict (if not pious) in themselves, they are manifold and admirable, and, in a word, most thoroughly Grecian, although expressed and delivered to us in the Roman tongue, which is a wonderful and magnificent sort of language, and one very aptly conformable to imperial authority, but still difficult to me.” Nor is this the only noteworthy tribute of our author to Roman law while yet that sublime system was in its cradle. The rhetorician who introduced him to it and to the Latin tongue was its enthusiastic eulogist; and Gregory says he learned the laws “in a thorough way, by his help.…And he said one thing to me which has proved to me the truest of all his sayings; to wit, that my education in the laws would be my greatest viaticum,—my ἐφόδιον (for thus he phrased it);” i.e., for the journey of life. This man, one can hardly doubt, was a disciple of Caius (or Gaius); and there is little question that the digested system which Gregory eulogizes was “the Institutes” of that great father of the civil law, now recovered from a palimpsest, and made known to our own age, with no less benefit to jurisprudence than the discovery of the Philosophumena has conferred on theology.
Thus Gregory’s Panegyric throws light on the origin of Roman law. He claims it for “our sages,” meaning men of the East, whose vernacular was the Greek tongue. Caius was probably, like the Gaius of Scripture, an Oriental who had borrowed a Latin name, as did the Apostle of the Gentiles and many others. If he was a native of Berytus, as seems probable, that accounts for the rise of the school of laws at a place comparatively inconsiderable. Hadrian, in his journey to Palestine, would naturally discover and patronize such a jurist; and that accounts for the appearance of Caius at Rome in his day. Papinian and Ulpian, both Orientals, were his pupils in all probability; and these were the “sages” with whose works the youthful Gregory became acquainted, and by which his mind was prepared for the great influence he exerted in the East, where his name is a power to this day.
His credit with our times is rather impaired than
heightened by the epithet Thaumaturgus, which clings to his name
as a convenient specification, to distinguish him from the
other See
Dean Stanley’s Eastern Church and Neale’s
Introduction.
To like popular love of the marvellous I attribute
the stupid story of a mock consecration by Phædimus. If a
slight irregularity in Origen’s ordination gave him such lifelong
troubles, what would not have been the tumult such a sacrilege as this
would have occasioned? Nothing is more probable than that
Phædimus related such things as having occurred in a
vision; Recall
Cyprian’s narratives, vol. v., and this volume infra, Life
of Dionysius of Alexandria.
We are already acquainted with the eloquent letter of Origen that decided him to choose the sacred calling after he left the school at Cæsarea. The Panegyric, which was his valedictory, doubtless called forth that letter. Origen had seen in him the makings of a κῆρυξ, and coveted such another Timothy for the Master’s work. But the Panegyric itself abounds with faults, and greatly resembles similar college performances of our day. The custom of schools alone can excuse the expression of such enthusiastic praise in the presence of its subject; but Origen doubtless bore it as philosophically as others have done since, and its evident sincerity and heartfelt gratitude redeem it from the charge of fulsome adulation.
For the residue of the story I may refer my readers to the statements of the translator, as follows:—
Translator’s Notice.
We are in possession of a
considerable body of testimonies from ancient literature bearing on the
life and work of Gregory. From these, though they are largely
mixed up with the marvellous, we gain a tolerably clear and
satisfactory view of the main facts in his history, and the most patent
features of his character. Thus we
have accounts of him, more or less complete, in Eusebius (Historia
Eccles., vi. 30, vii. 14), Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, xxix.
74; Epist. 28, [See p.
5, supra. Cave pronounces it “without
precedent,” but seems to credit the story.] [So Gregory
Nyssen says. It would have been impossible, otherwise, for him to
rule his flock.]
The surname Thaumaturgus, or Wonder-worker,
at once admonishes us of the marvellous that so largely
connected itself with the historical in the ancient records of
this man’s life. He
could move the largest stones by a word; he could heal the sick; the
demons were subject to him, and were exorcised by his fiat; he could
give bounds to overflowing rivers; he could dry up mighty lakes; he
could cast his cloak over a man, and cause his death; once, spending a
night in a heathen temple, he banished its divinities by his simple
presence, and by merely placing on the altar a piece of paper bearing
the words, Gregory to Satan—enter, he could bring the
presiding demons back to their shrine. One strange story told of
him by Gregory of Nyssa is to the effect that, as Gregory was
meditating on the great matter of the right way to worship the true
God, suddenly two glorious personages made themselves manifest in his
room, in the one of whom he recognised the Apostle John, in the other
the Virgin. They had come, as the story goes, to solve the
difficulties which were making him hesitate in accepting the
bishopric. At Mary’s request, the evangelist gave him then
all the instruction in doctrine which he was seeking for; and the sum
of these supernatural communications being written down by him after
the vision vanished, formed the creed which is still preserved among
his writings. Such were the wonders believed to signalize the
life of Gregory.
————————————
A Declaration of Faith. The title
as it stands has this addition: “which he had by revelation
from the blessed John the evangelist, by the mediation of the Virgin
Mary, Parent of God.” Gallandi, Veterum Patrum
Biblioth., Venice, 1766, p. 385. [Elucidation, p. 8,
infra.]
————————————
There is one God, the
Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and
Power and Eternal Image: χαρακτῆρος
ἀϊδίου. μόνος ἐκ
μόνου . λόγος
ἐνεργός. περιεκτική. ποιητική. ἀΐδιος
ἀϊδίου. ὕπαρξιν. πεφηνός. The words
δηλαδὴ
τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις are
suspected by some to be a gloss that has found its way into the
text.
εἰκών. So John of
Damascus uses the phrase, εἰκὼν τοῦ
Πατρὸς ὁ
Υἱὸς, καὶ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ, τὸ
Πνεῦμα, the Son is the Image of
the Father, and the Spirit is that of the Son, lib. 1, De fide
orthod., ch. 13, vol. i. p. 151. See also Athanasius,
Epist. 1 ad Serap.; Basil, lib. v. contra Eunom.;
Cyril, Dial., 7, etc. χορηγός. ἀπαλλοτριουμένη. See also Gregory Nazianz., Orat., 37, p. 609. δοῦλον.
Gregory Nazianz., Orat., 40, p. 668, with reference
apparently to our author, says: Οὐδὲν τῆς
Τριάδος
δοῦλον, οὐδὲ
κτιστον, οὐδὲ
ἐπείσακτον,
ἤκουσα τῶν
σοφῶν τινος
λέγοντος—
In the Trinity there is nothing either in servitude or created, or
superinduced, as I heard one of the learned say. ἐπείσακτον. In one codex
we find the following addition here: οὔτε
αὔξεται
μονὰς εἰς
δυάδα, οὐδὲ
δυὰς εἰς
τριάδα—Neither
again does the unity grow into duality, nor the duality into
trinity; or = Neither does the condition of the one grow into
the condition of the two, nor that of the two into the condition of the
three. [See
valuable note and Greek text in Dr. Schaff’s History, vol.
ii. p. 799.]
————————————
The story of the
“Revelation” is of little consequence, though, if this were
Gregory’s genuine work, it would be easy to account for it as
originating in a beautiful dream. But it is very doubtful whether
it be a genuine work; and, to my mind, it is most fairly treated by
Lardner, to whose elaborate chapter concerning Gregory every scholar
must refer.
Credibility, vol. ii. p. 635. Vol. v.
p. 423.
Cave’s learned judgment is more favourable;
and he gives the text Cave,
Lives of the Fathers, vol. i. p. 402, ed. Oxford,
1840.
Gallandi, Biblioth. Vet. Patr., iii. 387.
————————————
Chapter I. [The wise
benevolence of our author is more apparent than his critical
skill. No book more likely to puzzle a pagan inquirer than
this: so the metaphrase gives it meaning and consistency; but,
over and over again, not Solomon’s meaning, I am persuaded.]
These words speaketh
Solomon, the son of David the king and prophet, to the whole Church of
God, a prince most honoured, and a prophet most wise above all
men. How vain and fruitless are the affairs of men, and all
pursuits that occupy man! For there is not one who can tell of
any profit attaching to those things which men who creep on earth
strive by body and soul to attain to, in servitude all the while to
what is transient, and undesirous of considering aught heavenly with
the noble eye of the soul. And the life of men weareth away, as
day by day, and in the periods of hours and years, and the determinate
courses of the sun, some are ever coming, and others passing
away. And the matter is like the transit of torrents as they fall
into the measureless deep of the sea with a mighty noise. And all
things that have been constituted by God for the sake of men abide the
same: as, for instance, that man is born of earth, and departs to
earth again; that the earth itself continues stable; that the sun
accomplishes its circuit about it perfectly, and rolls round to the
same mark again; and that the winds τὰ
πνεύματα, for which
some propose ῥεύματα, streams, as
the ἄνεμοι are mentioned in their own
place immediately. νῦν
ἐκκλησιάςων. ποικιλωτάτην. ἀτοπία
Chapter II.
Judging, therefore, that it stood thus with this matter,
I decided to turn to another manner of life, and to give myself to
pleasure, and to take experience of various delights. And now I
learned that all such things are vain; and I put a check on laughter,
when it ran on carelessly; and restrained pleasure, according to the
rule of moderation, and was bitterly wroth against it. And when I
perceived that the soul is able to arrest the body in its disposition
to intoxication and wine-bibbing, and that temperance makes lust its
subject, I sought earnestly to observe what object of The text is,
τυφλός
τε ὢν τὴν
πρόσοψιν καὶ
ὑπὸ τοῦ
σκότους τῶν
πραγμάτων
ἀφῃρημένος,
for which it is proposed to read, τυφλός τε ὢν
καὶ τὴν
πρόσοψιν ὑπὸ
τοῦ σκότους,
etc. Or, as the
Latin version puts it: And, in fine, when I considered the
difference between these modes of life, I found nothing but that, by
setting myself, etc.
ἀνδρείας.
For this present time is filled with all things
that are most contrary The text
reads ἐναντιωτήτων,
for which Codex Anglicus has ἑναντιωτάτων. Or, age. πλάσμα. Or,
Him. The Greek
text is, καιροσκόπος
δή τις
πονηρὸς τὸν
αἰῶνα τοῦτον
περικέχηνεν,
ἀφανίσαι
ὑπερδιατεινόμενος
τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ
πλάσμα, ἐξ
ἀρχῆς αὐτῷ
μέχρι τέλους
πολεμεῖν
ᾑρημένος. It is
well to notice how widely this differs from our version of iii.
11: “He hath made everything beautiful in his time,”
etc. The text is,
ᾧ τινι οὖν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν,
ἐκεινα
φοβερά τε
ὁμοῦ καὶ
θαυμαστά. σύστασιν. [The key to
the interpretation of this book, as to much of the book of Job, is
found in the brief expostulation of Jeremiah (
Chapter IV.
And leaving all these reflections, I considered
and turned in aversion from all the forms of oppression συκοφαντιων. The text
is, βίᾳ
καταβλημένοι
τῶν
ἐπαμυνόντων
ἢ ὅλως
παραμυθησομένων
αὐτοὺς πάσης
πανταχόθεν
κατεχούσης
ἀπορίας. The sense is
not clear. It may be: who are struck down in spite of those
who protect them, and who should by all means comfort them when all
manner of trouble presses them on all sides. χειροδικαι. Following the
reading of Cod. Medic., which puts τιθέμενος
for τιθέμενον.
[See Cyprian, vol. v. p. 493, note 7, this series.] προτροπάδην. χρηματίσασθαι. κοινωνίαν
ἅμα βίου
ἐστείλαντο. ἀνακτησομένου. The text is,
καὶ
νύκτωρ
σεμνότητι
σεμνύνεσθαι,
for which certain codices read σεμνότητι
φαιδρύνεσθαι,
and others φαιδρότητι
σεμνυνεσθαι. Jerome cites
the passage in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes [iv. 12]. Τοὺς ὅσοι
προγενέστεροι.
The sense is incomplete, and some words seem missing in the text.
Jerome, in rendering this passage in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes,
turns it thus: ita autem ut sub sene rege versati sint;
either having lighted on a better manuscript, or adding something of
his own authority to make out the meaning.
δία τὸ
ἑτέρου
ἀπειράτως
ἔχειν.
Chapter V.
Moreover, it is a good thing to use the tongue
sparingly, and to keep a calm and rightly balanced εὐσταθούσῃ. ἐν
τῇ περὶ
λόγους
σπουδῇ. ἀνδρείους. καθορᾶν.
ἁρπακτικά in the
text, for which the Cod. Medic. has ἁρπακτά. ἐνθυμούμενος.
Chapter VI.
Moreover, I shall exhibit in discourse the
ill-fortune that most of all prevails among men. While God may
supply a man with all that is according to his mind, and deprive him of
no object which may in any manner appeal to his desires, whether it be
wealth, or honour, or any other of those things for which men distract
themselves; yet the man, while thus prospered in all things, as though
the only ill inflicted on him from heaven were just the inability to
enjoy them, may but husband them for his fellow, and fall without
profit either to himself or to his neighbours. This I reckon to
be a strong proof and clear sign of surpassing evil. The man who
has borne without blame the name of father of very many children, and
spent a long life, and has not had his soul filled with good for so
long time, and has had no experience of death meanwhile,
θάνατον
πεῖραν οὐ
λαβών, for which we must read probably
θανάτου, etc. The text
gives, ἤπερ τῷ
πονηρῷ…ἀναμετρησαμένῳ
ἀγαθοτητα μὴ
ἐπιγνῳ, for which we may read
either ἤπερ τῷ
πονηρῷ…ἀναμετρησάμενος…ἐπιγνῷ, or
better,…ἀναμετρησαμένῳ…ἐπιγνῶναι. ἐξίστηαι. τοῦ
ὀφθῆναι.
Chapter VII.
For though a man should be by no means greatly
advantaged by knowing all in this life that is destined to befall him
according to his mind (let us suppose such a case), nevertheless with
the officious activity of men he devises means for prying into and
gaining an apparent acquaintance with the things that are to happen
after a person’s death. Moreover, a good name is more
pleasant to the mind
κατορθοῦται. Calumny,
συκοφαντία.
ἔνστασιν. λόγων δέ,
etc. But Cod. Medic. reads, λόγον δέ, etc., = it
is right to commend a speech not in its beginning, but in its end.
φανερωτέρα,
for which φανοτέρα is
proposed.
περιγίγνεται.
ὑπείκων.
αὐτήκοος
. ὅμοιος. The text is
evidently corrupt: for τὴν γυναῖκα,
γῆν τινά, etc., Cotelerius
proposes, τὴν
γυναῖκα,
σαγήνην
τινά, etc.; and Bengel, πάγην
τινά,
etc. κατέχει ἢ
εἰ. This use of ἢ εἰ
is characteristic of Gregory Thaumaturgus. We find it again
in his Panegyr. ad Orig., ch. 6, ἢ εἰ
καὶ παρὰ
πάντας, etc. It may be
added, therefore, to the proofs in support of a common authorship for
these two writings. ἐπόπτην. σωφροσύνην. [Our English
version gives no such idea, nor does that of the LXX. The
σωφροσύνη
of our author is discretion, or perhaps entire balance
of mind. Wordsworth gives us the thought better in his
verse: “A perfect woman, nobly planned.” It was
not in Judaism to give woman her place: the Magnificat of
the Virgin celebrated the restoration of her sex.] Upright,
ἁπλοῖ.
ἐπισπῶνται.
Chapter VIII.
Moreover, wisdom, when it is found in a man, shows
itself also in its possessor’s face, and makes his countenance to
shine; as, on the other hand, effrontery convicts the man in whom it
has taken up its abode, so soon as he is seen, as one worthy of
hatred. And it is on every account right to give careful heed to
the words of the king, and by all manner of means to avoid an oath,
especially one taken in the name of God. It may be fit at the
same time to notice an evil word, but then it is necessary to guard
against any blasphemy against God. For it will not be possible to
find fault with Him when He inflicts any penalty, nor to gainsay the
decrees of the Only Lord and King. But it will be better and more
profitable for a man to abide by the holy commandments, and to keep
himself apart from the words of the wicked. For the wise man
knows and discerneth beforehand the judgment, which shall come at the
right time, and sees that it shall be just. For all things in the
life of men await the retribution from above; but the wicked man does
not seem to know verily λίαν. ψυχήν. πρόνοια.
Chapter IX.
Now I thought at that time that all men were
judged worthy of the same things. And if any wise man practised
righteousness, and withdrew himself from unrighteousness, and as being
sagacious avoided hatred with all (which, indeed, is a thing well
pleasing to God), this man seemed to me to labour in vain. For
there seemed to be one end for the righteous and for the impious, for
the good and for the evil, for the pure and for the impure, for him
that worshipped ἰλασκομένου. The text
gives, κἀκείνην δὲ
ματαίως, etc. κἂν
πολλοῖς
καταφρόνητος
ᾖ; so the Cod. Bodleian. and the Cod. Medic. read.
But others read πολύ = an object of great
contempt. For καταφρόνητος
the Cod. Medic. reads εὐκαταφρόνητος.
Chapter X.
Moreover, flies falling into myrrh, and suffocated
therein, make both the appearance of that pleasant ointment and the
anointing therewith an unseemly thing; The text
gives χρίσιν, for which Cod.
Medic. reads, χρῆσιν, use. ἰλάσασθαι. Reading
ἀλλὰ μήν for ἀλλὰ μή.
στελεου, for which
others read στελέχους. οὐκ ἑπ᾽
ἀγαθῷ
συγκομίζων. ἑπαύξων
αὐτὸς τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ
ἄδικον καὶ
ὠκύμορον
δύναμιν. ἀργυρίῳ
ἀγώγιμοι.
Chapter XI.
Moreover, it is a righteous thing to give (to the
needy) of thy bread, and of those things which are necessary for the
support of man’s life. For though thou seemest forthwith to
waste it upon some persons, as if thou didst cast thy bread upon the
water, yet in the progress of time thy kindness shall be seen to be not
unprofitable for thee. Also give liberally, and give a portion of
thy means to many; for thou knowest not what the coming day
doeth. The clouds, again, do not keep back their plenteous rains,
but discharge their showers upon the earth. Nor does a tree stand
for ever; but even though men may spare it, it shall be overturned by
the wind at any rate. But many desire also to know beforehand
what is to come from the heavens; and there have been those who,
scrutinizing the clouds and waiting for the wind, have had nought to do
with reaping and winnowing, putting their trust in vanity, and being
all incapable of knowing aught of what may come from God in the future;
just as men cannot tell what the woman with child shall bring
forth. But sow thou in season, and thus reap thy fruits whenever
the time for that comes on. For it is not manifest what shall be
better than those among all natural things.
ὁποῖα αὐτῶν
ἔσται ἀμείνω
τῶν φυέντων,
perhaps = "which" of those natural productions shall be the better.
καταχρῆσθαι.
Chapter XII.
Moreover, it is right that thou shouldest fear God
while thou art yet young, before thou givest thyself over to evil
things, and before the great and terrible day of God cometh, when the
sun shall no longer shine, neither the moon, nor the rest of the stars,
but when in that storm and commotion of all things, the powers above
shall be moved, that is, the angels who guard the world; so that the
mighty men shall fail, and the women shall cease their labours, and
shall flee into the dark places of their dwellings, and shall have all
the doors shut. And a woman shall be restrained from grinding by
fear, and shall speak with the weakest voice, like the tiniest bird;
and all the impure women shall sink into the earth; and cities and
their blood-stained governments shall wait for the vengeance that comes
from above, while the most bitter and bloody of all times hangs over
them like a blossoming almond, and continuous punishments impend like a
multitude of flying locusts, and the transgressors are cast out of the
way like a black and despicable caper-plant. And the good man
shall depart with rejoicing to his own everlasting habitation; but the
vile shall fill all their places with wailing, and neither silver laid
up in store, nor proved gold, shall be of use any more. For a
mighty stroke
καθέξει
πληγή. Œcolampadius renders
it, magnus enim fons, evidently reading πηγή. The text
is, ἐν τῷ
κοιλώματι
παυσαμένης
χρόνον τε
περιδρομῆς,
for which we may read, ἐν τῷ
κοιλώματι,
παυσαμενῆς
χρόνων τε
περιδρομῆς.
Others apparently propose for παυσαμενῆς
, δεξαμενῆς =
at the hollow of the cistern. The text
is, καὶ τῆς
δι᾽ υδατος
ζωῆς
παροδεύσαντος
τοῦ
λουτροφόρου
αἰῶνος. Billius
understands the age to be called λουτροφόρου,
because, as long as we are in life, it is possible to obtain remission
for any sin, or as referring to the rite of baptism.
ηλῳ
ἐμπερονηθέντα.
The Septuagint reads, λόγοι σοφῶν
ὡς τὰ
βούκεντρα
καὶ ὡς ἧλοι
πεφυτευμένοι,
like nails planted, etc. Others read πεπυρωμένοι, igniti. The Vulg. has, quasi clavi
in altum defixi.
περὶ τὸ
προσῆκον, for which
some read, παρὰ
τὸ προσῆκον,
beyond or contrary to what is fitting.
ἐπόπτης. [The
incomparable beauty of our English version of this twelfth chapter of
Koheleth is heightened not a little by comparison with this
turgid metaphrase. It fails, in almost every instance, to extract
the kernel of the successive στίχοι of this
superlatively poetic and didactic threnode. It must have been a
youthful work.]
Of
the holy Gregory, archbishop of Neo-Cæsareia, surnamed
Thaumaturgus, concerning those who, in the inroad of the barbarians,
ate things sacrificed to idols, or offended in certain other
matters. Gallandi, iii. p. 400. [Written a.d. 258 or 262.] There are scholia in Latin
by Theodorus Balsamon and Joannes Zonaras on these canons. The
note of the former on the last canon may be cited:—The present
saint has defined shortly five several positions for the penitent; but
he has not indicated either the times appointed for their exercise, or
the sins for which discipline is determined. Basil the Great,
again, has handed down to us an accurate account of these things in his
canonical epistles. [Elucidation II.] Yet he, too, has
referred to episcopal decision the matter of recovery through penalties
[i.e., to the decision of his comprovincial bishops, as in
Cyprian’s example. See vol. v. p. 415, Elucidation XIII.;
also Elucidation I. p. 20, infra.
————————————
Canon I.
The meats are no burden to
us, most holy father,
[Elucidation III. p. 20.]
Canon II.
Covetousness is a great evil; and it is not
possible in a single letter to set forth those scriptures in which not
robbery alone is declared to be a thing horrible and to be abhorred,
but in general the grasping mind, and the disposition to meddle with
what belongs to others, in order to satisfy the sordid love of
gain. And all persons of that spirit are excommunicated from the
Church of God. But that at the time of the irruption, in the
midst of such woful sorrows and bitter lamentations, some should have
been audacious enough to consider the crisis which brought destruction
to all the very period for their own private aggrandizement, that is a
thing which can be averred only of men who are impious and hated of
God, and of unsurpassable iniquity. Wherefore it seemed good to
excommunicate such persons, lest the wrath (of God) should come upon
the whole people, and upon those first of all who are set over them in
office, and yet fail to make inquiry. For I am afraid, as the
Scripture says, lest the impious work the destruction of the righteous
along with his own.
τοῦ
φωτός for the received πνεύματος.
Behold, did not Achar
Canon IV.
Let no one deceive himself, nor put forward the
pretext of having found such property. For it is not lawful, even
for a man who has found anything, to aggrandize himself by it.
For Deuteronomy says: “Thou shalt not see thy
brother’s ox or his sheep go astray in the way, and pay no heed
to them; but thou shalt in any wise bring them again unto thy
brother. And if thy brother come not nigh thee, or if thou know
him not, then thou shalt bring them together, and they shall be with
thee until thy brother seek after them, and thou shalt restore them to
him again. And in like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so
shalt thou do with his raiment, and so shalt thou do with all lost
things of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou mayest
find.”
Canon V.
But others deceive themselves by fancying that
they can retain the property of others which they may have found as an
equivalent for their own property which they have lost. In this
way verily, just as the Boradi and Goths brought the havoc of war on
them, they make themselves Boradi and Goths to others.
Accordingly we have sent to you our brother and comrade in old age,
Euphrosynus, with this view, that he may deal with you in accordance
with our model here, and teach you against whom you ought to admit
accusations,
ὧν δεῖ τὰς
κατηγορίας
προσίεσθαι.
Canon VI.
Concerning those who forcibly detain captives escaped from the
barbarians.
Moreover, it has been reported to us that a thing has happened in your country which is surely incredible, and which, if done at all, is altogether the work of unbelievers, and impious men, and men who know not the very name of the Lord; to wit, that some have gone to such a pitch of cruelty and inhumanity, as to be detaining by force certain captives who have made their escape. Dispatch ye commissioners into the country, lest the thunderbolts of heaven fall all too surely upon those who perpetrate such deeds.
Canon VII.
Concerning those who have been enrolled among the barbarians, and who
have dared to do certain monstrous things against those of the same
race with themselves.
Now, as regards those who have been enrolled among
the barbarians, and have accompanied them in their irruption in a state
of captivity, and who, forgetting that they were from Pontus, and
Christians, have become such thorough barbarians, as even to put those
of their own race to death by the gibbet
ξυλῳ.
ακροάσεως.
Canon VIII.
Concerning those who have been so audacious as to invade the houses of
others in the inroad of the barbarians.
Now those who have been so audacious as to invade
the houses of others, if they have once been put on their trial and
convicted, ought not to be deemed fit even to be hearers in the public
congregation. But if they have declared themselves and made
restitution, they should be placed in the rank of the
repentant.
τῶν
ὑποστρεφόντων.
Canon IX.
Concerning those who have found in the open field or in private houses
property left behind them by the barbarians.
Now, those who have found in the open field or in their
own houses anything left behind them by the barbarians, if they have
once been put on their trial and convicted, ought to fall under the
same class of the repentant. But if they
[Partially elucidated below in (the spurious) Canon XI. See
Marshall’s Penitential Discipline of the Primitive
Church.]
Canon X.
And they who keep the commandment ought to keep it
without any sordid covetousness, demanding neither recompense,
μηνυτρα, the price of
information.
σῶστρα, the reward for
bringing back a runaway slave.
εὕρετρα, the reward of
discovery.
Canon XI.
[This canon is rejected as spurious. Lardner,
Credib., ii. p. 633.]
Weeping
πρόσκλαυσις,
discipline.
ἀκρόασις.
ἐν τῷ
νάρθηκι.
ὑπόπτωσις.
σύστασις. ἁγιασμάτων.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(The title, p. 18.)
This is a genuine epistle, all but the eleventh canon. It is addressed to an anonymous bishop; one of his suffragans, some think. I suppose, rather, he consults, as Cyprian did, the bishop of the nearest Apostolic See, and awaits his concurrence. It refers to the ravages of the Goths in the days of Gallienus (a.d. 259–267), and proves the care of the Church to maintain discipline, even in times most unfavourable to order and piety. The last canon is an explanatory addition made to elucidate the four degrees or classes of penitents. It is a very interesting document in this respect, and sheds light on the famous canonical epistles of St. Basil.
II.
(Basil the Great, p. 18, note.)
The “Canonical Epistles” of St. Basil are not private letters, but canons of the churches with which he was nearest related. When there was no art of printing, the chief bishops were obliged to communicate with suffragans, and with their brethren in the Apostolic See nearest to them. See them expounded at large in Dupin, Ecclesiastical Writers of the Fourth Century, Works, vol. i., London, 1693 (translated), p. 139, etc.
III.
(Most holy father, p. 18.)
This expression leads me to think that this epistle is addressed to the Bishop of Antioch or of some other Apostolic See. It must not be taken as a prescribed formula, however, as when we say “Most Reverend” in our days; e.g., addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury. Rather, it is an expression of personal reverence. As yet, titular distinctions, such as these, were not known. In the West existing usages seem to have been introduced with the Carlovingian system of dignities, expounded by Gibbon.
Delivered by Gregory Thaumaturgus in the Palestinian
Cæsareia, when about to leave for his own country, after many
years’ instruction under that teacher. [Circa
a.d. 238.] Gallandi, Opera,
p. 413.
————————————
Argument I.—For Eight Years Gregory Has Given Up the Practice of Oratory, Being Busied with the Study Chiefly of Roman Law and the Latin Language.
An excellent
καλόν, for
which Hœschelius has ἀγαθόν.
ἄπειρος, for which
Hœschelius has ἀνάσκητος.
ἀκωλύτῳ, for which Bengel
suggests ἀκολούθῳ. εὐειδεῖ,
for which Ger. Vossius gives ἀψευδεῖ. [See my
introductory note, supra. He refers to Caius, Papinian,
Ulpian; all, probably, of Syrian origin, and using the Greek as their
vernacular.]
συγκείμενοι,
which is rendered by some conduntur, by others confectæ
sunt, and by others still componantur, harmonized,—the
reference then being to the difficulty experienced in learning the
laws, in the way of harmonizing those which apparently oppose each
other.
ἀκριβεῖς, for which
Ger. Vossius gives εὐσεβεις,
pious. [A
noteworthy estimate of Latin by a Greek.] εἰ καὶ
βουλητόν, etc., for
which Hœschelius gives οὔτε
βουλητόν, etc. The Latin version gives, non enim
aliter sentire aut posse aut velle me unquam dixerim.
But we, like any of the poor, unfurnished with
these varied specifics
φαρμάκων.
χαρακτῆρας
τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς
τύπων.
ἀσπασάμενοι
ἡδέως, ἐπεὶ
καὶ
περιφρονήσαντες.
The passage is considered by some to be mutilated. The text
is, ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐκ
τρίτων αὖθις
ἄλλως
κωλύει,, etc. For ἄλλως Hœschelius gives ἄλλα δή, Bengel follows him, and
renders it, sed rursum, tertio loco, aliud est quod
prohibet. Delarue proposes, ἀλλὰ
γὰρ ἓν τρίτον
αὖθις ἄλλως
κωλύει.
τὸ δὲ
πολὺ τῆς
ἕξεως. This is
the rendering according to the Latin version. The text is,
ἀπεσκευασμένου
ἤδη μείζονι
παρασκευῇ
μεταναστάσεως
τῆς πρὸς τό
θεῖον. Vossius reads,
μετ᾽
ἀναστάσεως.
ὧν ἥττων
φροντις κατ᾽
ἀξίαν τε καὶ
μὴ,
λεγομένων. The
text is, μὴ καὶ
ψυχρὸν ἢ
πέρπερον ᾖ,
where, according to Bengel, μή has the force of ut non dicam. But the
text reads, οὐκ
εὐλόγως.
ἀσαφῶν. But Ger. Voss has
ἀσφαλῶν, safe.
Argument III.—He is Stimulated to Speak of Him by the Longing of a Grateful Mind. To the Utmost of His Ability He Thinks He Ought to Thank Him. From God are the Beginnings of All Blessings; And to Him Adequate Thanks Cannot Be Returned.
Ingratitude appears to me to be a dire evil; a
dire evil indeed, yea, the direst of evils. For when one has
received some benefit, his failing to attempt to make any return by at
least the oral expression of thanks, where aught else is beyond his
power, marks him out either as an utterly irrational person, or as one
devoid of the sense of obligations conferred, or as a man without any
memory. And, again, though Reading
ὅτῳ, with Hœschelius, Bengel, and the Paris
editor, while Voss. reads οτι.
παναγεῖ, which
in the lexicons is given as bearing only the good sense,
all-hallowed, but which here evidently is taken in the
opposite.
Argument IV.—The Son Alone Knows How to Praise the Father Worthily. In Christ and by Christ Our Thanksgivings Ought to Be Rendered to the Father. Gregory Also Gives Thanks to His Guardian Angel, Because He Was Conducted by Him to Origen.
But let us commit the praises and hymns in honour
of the King and Superintendent of all things, the perennial Fount of
all blessings, to the hand of Him who, in this matter as in all others,
is the Healer of our infirmity, and who alone is able to supply that
which is lacking; to the Champion and Saviour of our souls, His
first-born Word, the Maker and Ruler of all things, with whom also
alone it is possible, both for Himself and for all, whether privately
and individually, or publicly and collectively, to send up to the
Father uninterrupted and ceaseless thanksgivings. For as He is
Himself the Truth, and the Wisdom, and the Power of the Father of the
universe, and He is besides in Him, and is truly and entirely made one
with Him, it cannot be that, either through forgetfulness or unwisdom,
or any manner of infirmity, such as marks one dissociated from Him, He
shall either fail in the power to praise Him, or, while having the
power, shall willingly neglect (a supposition which it is not lawful,
surely, to indulge) to praise the Father. For He alone is able
most perfectly to fulfil the whole meed of honour which is proper to
Him, inasmuch as the Father of all things has made Him one with
Himself, and through Him all but completes the circle of His own being
objectively,
ἐκπεριών in the text,
for which Bengel gives ἐκπεριϊών, a
word used frequently by this author. In Dorner it is explained as
= going out of Himself in order to embrace and encompass
Himself. See the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, A.
II. p. 173 (Clark).
λόγος. [The
unformed theological mind of a youth is here betrayed.] The
text gives μεληγορείν,
for which others read μεγαληγορεῖν.
The text
gives ἐμοὶ, etc.,…συμφερον
ειναι
καταφαίνεται. Bengel’s idea of the sense is followed
in the translation.
Argument V.—Here Gregory Interweaves the Narrative of His Former Life. His Birth of Heathen Parents is Stated. In the Fourteenth Year of His Age He Loses His Father. He is Dedicated to the Study of Eloquence and Law. By a Wonderful Leading of Providence, He is Brought to Origen.
For my earliest upbringing from the time of my
birth onwards was under the hand of my parents; and the manner of life
in my father’s house was one of error,
τὰ
πάτρια ἔθη τὰ
πεπλανημένα. [The
force of the original is not opprobrious.] Reading
ἣ δή. Others give ἢ δή;
others, ἤδη; and the conjecture ἢ ἡβη, “or my youth,” is also
made.
λόγου.
Word. The
text, however, gives ἀλέκτρῳ.
αἰτιῶν, causes.
Reading τούῳ
ἐπὶ νοῦν
βαλών.
ἐφόδιον. The
text is ἀποχέουσα.
Hœschelius gives ἀπέχουσα. ῾Ρωμαϊκωτέρα
πῶς. The text
is, οὐδὲν
οὅτως
ἀναγκαῖον ἦν
ὅσον ἐπὶ
τοῖς νόμοις
ἡμῶν, δυνατὸν
ὂν καὶ ἐπὶ
τὴν ῾Ρωμαίων
ἀποδημῆσαι
πόλιν. Bengel takes ὅσον as παρέλκον.
Migne renders, nullam ei fuisse necessitatem huc veniendi, discendi
leges causa, siquidem Romam posset proficisci. Sirmondus
makes it, nulla causa adeo necessaria erat qua possem per leges
nostras ad Romanorum civitatem proficisci. The text
gives ἐκπονήσαντες.
Casaubon reads ἐκποιήσοντες.
εὔλογον.
σύμβολα.
δί
αὐτοῦ. Bengel understands
this to refer to the soldier. The text
is, την
ἀληθῆ δι᾽
αὐτοῦ περὶ
τὰ τοῦ λόγου
μαθήματα. Bengel
takes this as an ellipsis, like τὴν ἑαυτοῦ,
τὴν ἐμὴν
μίαν, and similar phrases, γνώμην or ὁδόν, or some such word, being
supplied. Casaubon conjectures καὶ ἀληθῆ, for
which Bengel would prefer τα
ἀληθῆ.
οἰκονομίαν.
Argument VI.—The Arts by Which Origen Studies to Keep Gregory and His Brother Athenodorus with Him, Although It Was Almost Against Their Will; And the Love by Which Both are Taken Captive. Of Philosophy, the Foundation of Piety, with the View of Giving Himself Therefore Wholly to that Study, Gregory is Willing to Give Up Fatherland, Parents, the Pursuit of Law, and Every Other Discipline. Of the Soul as the Free Principle. The Nobler Part Does Not Desire to Be United with the Inferior, But the Inferior with the Nobler.
And from the very first day of his receiving us
(which day was, in truth, the first day to me, and the most precious of
all days, if I may so speak, since then for the first time the true Sun
began to rise upon me), while we, like some wild creatures of the
fields, or like fish, or some sort of birds that had fallen into the
toils or nets, and were endeavouring to slip out again and escape, were
bent on leaving him, and making off for Berytus
[I think Lardner’s inclination to credit Gregory with some
claim to be an alumnus of Berytus, is very fairly
sustained.]
θρεμμάτων. The text
here is, ταῦθ᾽
ἅπερ ἡμᾶς
ἀνέσειε,
μάλιστα
λέγων και
μάλα
τεχνικῶς, τοῦ
κυριωτάτου,
φησὶ, τῶν ἐν
ἡμῖν λόγου,
ἀμελήσαντας. The text
gives ἐκ πρώτης
ἡλικίας, which Bengel takes to be an error for the absolute
ἐκ πρώτης, to which
ὴμέρας would be supplied.
Casaubon and Rhodomanus read ὁμιλίας for ὴλικίας.
ἄτακτον.
Argument VII.—The
Wonderful Skill with Which Origen Prepares Gregory and Athenodorus for
Philosophy. The Intellect of
But after he had thus carried us captive at the
very outset, and had shut us in, as it were, on all sides, and when
what was best
τὸ
πλεῖον. The text
gives συμβλύσαντα
ὡς, for which Casaubon proposes συμφύσαντα
εἰς ἕν, or
ὡς ἕν. Bengel suggests συμβρύσανρα
ὡς ἕν.
νόθον. The text
gives ἐκεῖ, for which Hœschelius and Bengel
read είκῆ.
τελειοῦθαι
δὲ τῇ
βλάσψῃ.
ὑπ᾽
ἀλλήλων. τριβόλους. The words
ἀλλὰ
κεκρυμμένα
are omitted by Hœschelius and Bengel.
ἐι τι
῾Ελληνικὸν ἢ
βάρβαρόν
ἐστι τῇ
φωνῇ.
Argument VIII.—Then in Due Succession He Instructs Them in Physics, Geometry, and Astronomy.
Nor did he confine his efforts merely to that form
of the mind which it is the lot of the dialectics to regulate; The text
is, καὶ μὴ
τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ
εἶδος
διαλεκτικὴ
κατορθοῦν
μόνη
εἴληχε.
Argument IX.—But He Imbues Their Minds, Above All, with Ethical Science; And He Does Not Confine Himself to Discoursing on the Virtues in Word, But He Rather Confirms His Teaching by His Acts.
Moreover, as to those things which excel all in
importance, and those for the sake of which, above all else, the
whole
πᾶν τὸ
φιλόσοφον.
Hœschelius and Bengel read πῶς, etc. The text
gives ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, for
which Bengel reads ἐφ᾽
ἑαυτῆς.
ἐκχέοντα
ἡμᾶς.
ἐπιστήμη, science.
τὰ
πρῶτα Θεῷ
ἶσον εἶναι
τὸν σοφὸν
ἄνθρωπον.
Argument X.—Hence the Mere Word-Sages are Confuted, Who Say and Yet Act Not.
Now I beg of the philosophers of this present time, both
those whom I have known personally myself, and those of whom I have
heard by report from others, and I beg also of all other men, that they
take in good part the statements I have just made. And let no one
suppose that I have expressed myself thus, either through simple
friendship toward that man, or through hatred toward the rest of the
philosophers; for if there is any one inclined to be an admirer of them
for their discourses, and wishful to speak well of them, and pleased at
hearing the most honourable mention made of them by others, I myself am
the man. Nevertheless, those facts (to which I have referred) are
of such a nature as to bring upon the very name of philosophy the last
degree of ridicule almost from the great mass of men; and I might
almost say that I would choose to be altogether unversed in it, rather
than learn any of the things which these men profess, with whom I
thought it good no longer to associate myself in this
life,—though in that, it may be, I formed an incorrect
judgment. But I say that no one should suppose
φιλοτιμίᾳ,
for which φιλονεικίᾳ
is read. The text
is, ἢ κακῶν ἂν
ἔλεγον, etc. The Greek
ἤ and the Latin aut are
found sometimes thus with a force bordering on that of
alioqui.
ἀφραίνομεν.
The Paris editor would read ἀφραίνω
μέν.
Argument XI.—Origen is the First and the Only One that Exhorts Gregory to Add to His Acquirements the Study of Philosophy, and Offers Him in a Certain Manner an Example in Himself. Of Justice, Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. The Maxim, Know Thyself.
He was also the first and only man that urged me
to study the philosophy of the Greeks, and persuaded me by his own
moral example both to hear and to hold by the doctrine of morals, while
as yet I had by no means been won over to that, so far as other
philosophers were concerned (I again acknowledge it),—not rightly
so, indeed, but unhappily, as I may say without exaggeration, for
me. I did not, however, associate with many at first, but only
with some few who professed to be teachers, though, in good sooth, they
all established their philosophy only so far as words went.
ἀλλὰ γὰρ πᾶσι
μέχρι
ῥημάτων τὸ
φιλοσοφεῖν
στήσασιν. The
text is, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ
ἀλήθειαν
ἡμῖν, οὐ
κομψείαν
ἐπηγγείλατο
ὁ λόγος
ἄνωθεν. The Latin rendering
is, sed quia veritatem nobis, non pompam et ornatum promisit oratio
in exordio. The text
is, καίτοι
γε εἰπεῖν
ἐθέλων εἶναι
τε ἀληθές.
Bengal takes the τε as
pleonastic, or as an error for the article, τ᾽
ἀληθές. The εἶναι in ἐθέλων
εἶναι he takes to be the use of the
infinitive which occurs in such phrases as τὴν πρώτην
εἶναι, initio, ἑκὼν
εἶναι, libenter, τὸ δὲ νῦν
εἶναι, nunc vero, etc.; and, giving ἐθέλων the sense of μέλλων, makes
the whole = And yet I shall speak truth. The text
is, καὶ
ἡμᾶς
ἑτέρους. The phrase
may be, as it is given above, a delicate expression of difference, or
it may perhaps be an elegant redundancy, like the French à nous autres. Others read, καὶ ἡμᾶς
καὶ
ἑτέρους. The
reading in the text gives, οὐ
λόγων
ἐγκρατεῖς
καὶ
ἐπιστήμονας
τῶν περὶ
ὁρμῶν, τῶν δὲ
ὁρμῶν αὐτῶν·
ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα
καὶ λόγους
ἄγχων, etc. Others would arrange
the whole passage differently, thus: περὶ ὁρμῶν,
τῶν δὲ ὁρμῶν
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὰ
ἔργα καὶ τοὺς
λόγους ἄγχων.
Καὶ, etc. Hence Sirmondus renders
it, a motibus ipsis ad opera etiam sermones, reading also
ἄγων apparently. Rhodomanus gives,
impulsionum ipsarum ad opera et verba ignavi et negligentes,
reading evidently ἀργῶν. Bengel solves
the difficulty by taking the first clause as equivalent to οὐ λόγων
ἐγκρατεῖς
καὶ
ἐπιοτήμονας…αὐτῶν τῶν
ὁρμῶν
ἐγκρατεῖς
καὶ
ἐπιστήμονας.
We have adopted this as the most evident sense. Thus ἄγχων is retained unchanged, and is
taken as a parallel to the following participle ἐπιφέρων, and as
bearing, therefore, a meaning something like that of ἀναγκάζων.
See Bengel’s note in Migne.
θεωρίᾳ.
διὰ τὴν
ἰδιοπραγίαν
τῆς ψυχῆς, perhaps
just “the private life.”
ἑαυτοῖς τε
καὶ τοῖς
προσιοῦσιν. The text
is, τὸ πρὸς
ἑαυτὴν
εἶναι. Migne proposes either to
read ἑαυτούς, or to supply
τὴν
ψυχήν.
ὃ δὴ καὶ
δαιμόνων τῷ
μαντικωτάτῳ
ἀνατίθεται.
σωφροσύνην,
σώαν τινὰ
φρόνησιν, an
etymological play.
ἐπιτηδεύσεσιν.
Argument XII.—Gregory Disallows Any Attainment of the Virtues on His Part. Piety is Both the Beginning and the End, and Thus It is the Parent of All the Virtues.
It is true, indeed that in consequence of our dull
and sluggish nature, he has not yet succeeded in making us righteous,
and prudent, and temperate, or manly, although he has laboured
zealously on us. For we are neither in real possession of any
virtue whatsoever, either human or divine, nor have we ever made any
near approach to it, but we are still far from it. And these are
very great and lofty virtues, and none of them may be assumed by any
common person, The
text is, οὐδὲ
τῷ τυχεῖν. Migne
suggests οὐδέ
τῷ θέμις
τυχεῖν = nor is it legitimate for
any one to attain them. The text
is, ὑπομονῆς
ἡμῶν. Vossius and others omit the
ἡμῶν. The Stuttgart editor gives this
note: “It does not appear that this should be connected by
apposition with ἀνδρείας
(manliness). But Gregory, after the four virtues which
philosophers define as cardinal, adds two which are properly
Christian, viz., patience, and that which is the hinge of
all—piety.” The
word is προήγορον.
It may be, as the Latin version puts it, familiaris, one in
fellowship with God.
ἐξομοιώθητι
προσελθεῖν.
Others read ἐξομοιωθέντα
προσελθεῖν.
Argument XIII.—The Method Which Origen Used in His Theological and Metaphysical Instructions. He Commends the Study of All Writers, the Atheistic Alone Excepted. The Marvellous Power of Persuasion in Speech. The Facility of the Mind in Giving Its Assent.
And besides all his other patient and laborious efforts,
how shall I in words give any account of
μηδὲν
ἐκποιουμένους.
Casaubon marks this as a phrase taken from law, and equivalent to,
nihil alienum a nobis ducentes. The
text is, ἧς
οἵονται. We render
with Bengel. The Latin interpreter makes it = Even those who
frequent the temples do not deem it consistent with religion to touch
anything at all profane.
Argument XIV.—Whence the Contentions of Philosophers Have Sprung. Against Those Who Catch at Everything that Meets Them, and Give It Credence, and Cling to It. Origen Was in the Habit of Carefully Reading and Explaining the Books of the Heathen to His Disciples.
Is it not thus that contradictory and opposing
tenets have been introduced, and all the contentions of philosophers,
while one party withstands the opinions of another, and some hold by
certain positions, and others by others, and one school attaches itself
to one set of dogmas, and another to another? And all, indeed,
aim at philosophizing, and profess to have been doing so ever since
they were first roused to it, and declare that they desire it not less
now when they are well versed in the discussions than when they began
them: yea, rather they allege that they have even more love for
philosophy now, after they have had, so to speak, a little taste of it,
and have had the liberty of dwelling on its discussions, than when at
first, and without any previous experience of it, they were urged by a
sort of impulse to philosophize. That is what they say; and
henceforth they give no heed to any words of those who hold opposite
opinions. And accordingly, no one of the ancients has ever
induced any one of the moderns, or those of the Peripatetic school, to
turn to his way of thinking, and adopt his method of philosophizing;
and, on the other hand, none of the moderns has imposed his notions
upon those of the ancient school. Nor, in short, has any one done
so with any other. [The
ultimate subjugation of Latin theology by Aristotelian philosophy, is a
deplorable instance of what is here hinted at, and what Hippolytus has
worked out. Compare The text
is, οὐκ
ἄλλην τινὰ
(εἰ δεῖ τ᾽
ἀληθὲς
εἰπεῖν) ἔχων
ἢ τὴν πρὸς
τῆς
φιλοσοφίας
ἐπὶ τάδε τὰ
δόγματα
ἄλογον
ὁρμήν· καὶ
κοίσιν ὧν
οἴεται
ἀληθῶν (μὴ
παράδοξον
εἰπεῖν ᾖ) οὐκ
ἄλλην ἢ τὴν
ἄκριτον
τύχην. Vossius would read,
πρὸς
τὴν
φιλοσοφίαν
καὶ ἐπὶ τάδε
τὰ δόγματα.
Migne makes it = nulla ei erat alia sententia (si verum est
dicendum) nisi cæcus ille stimulus quo ante philosophiæ
studium in ista actus erat placita: neque aliud judicium eorum
quæ vera putaret (ne mirum sit dictu) nisi fortunæ
temeritas. Bengel would read, πρὸ τῆς
φιλοσοφίας. The text
is, ἐπεὶ καὶ
ἀβοήθητος,
ἑαυτὸν
χαρισάμενος
καὶ
ἐκδεχόμενος
εἰκῆ ὥσπερ
ἕρμαιον, τοῖς
προκαταλαβοῦσιν
αὐτὸν
λόγοις. Bengel proposes ἐνδεχόμενον…ἕρμαιον, as = lucrum
insperatum.
καθαρῷ—ἕρκει. Sirmondus gives, puro
campo. Rhodomanus, reading ἀέρι,
gives puro aëre. Bengel takes ἕρκος, septum, as derivatively =
domus, fundus, regio septis munita.
λόγος. The text
is, εἴ τις
εἴη κατ᾽
αὐτῶν τῶνδέ
τινων
φιλοσόφων.
Bengel suggests καταντῶν.
[Beautiful testimony to the worth and character of Origen!
After St. Bernard, who thought he was scriptural, but was
blinded by the Decretals (no fault in him), Scripture and
testimony (as defined to be the rule of faith by Tertullian and
Vincent) ceased to govern in the West; and by syllogisms (see
vol. v. p. 100) the Scholastic system was built up. This became
the creed of a new church organization created at Trent, all
the definitions of which are part of said creed. Thus the
“Roman-Catholic Church” (so called when created) is a
new creation (of a.d. 1564), in doctrine
ever innovating, which has the least claim to antiquity of any
Church pretending to Apostolic origin.]
Argument XV.—The Case of Divine Matters. Only God and His Prophets are to Be Heard in These. The Prophets and Their Auditors are Acted on by the Same Afflatus. Origen’s Excellence in the Interpretation of Scripture.
With respect to these human teachers, indeed, he
counselled us to attach ourselves to none of them, not even though they
were attested as most wise by all men, but to devote ourselves to God
alone, and to the prophets. And he himself became the interpreter
of the prophets
ὑποφητεύων.
ὑπηχῶν.
[A noble
sentence. The text
gives ὡς
ἀκούσωσιν with
Voss. and Bengel. The Paris editor gives ἀκούουσιν.
ἄῤῥητον.
Barbarian.
σωματοτροφεῖν
παχυνομένους.
Argument XVI.—Gregory Laments His Departure Under a
Threefold Comparison; Likening It to Adam’s Departure Out of
Paradise.
Here, truly, is the paradise of comfort; here are
true gladness and pleasure, as we have enjoyed them during this period
which is now at its end—no short space indeed in itself, and yet
all too short if this is really to be its conclusion, when we depart
and leave this place behind us. For I know not what has possessed
me, or what offence has been committed by me, that I should now be
going away—that I should now be put away. I know not what I
should say, unless it be that I am like a second Adam and have begun to
talk, outside of paradise. How excellent might my life be, were I
but a listener to the addresses of my teacher, and silent myself!
Would that even now I could have learned to be mute and speechless,
rather than to present this new spectacle of making the teacher the
hearer! For what concern had I with such a harangue as this? and
what obligation was there upon me to make such an address, when it
became me not to depart, but to cleave fast to the place? But
these things seem like the transgressions that sprung from the pristine
deceit, and the penalties of these primeval offences still await me
here. Do I not appear to myself to be disobedient
ἀπειθεῖν. Bengel
and Hœschelius read ἀπελθεῖν, withdraw.
ἁπλοῦς ἀρά
τις εἶναι
νενόμισται
ἀνδρὶ
προφήτῃ. Migne refers
us to
θεολόγους, used probably of the prophets here—namely of Ezekiel,
Daniel, and others carried into exile with the people. On this
usage, see Suicer’s Thesaurus, under the word
θεολόγος, where
from the pseudo-Areopagite Dionysius he cites the sentence, τῶν
θεολόγων εἷς,
ὁ
Ζαχαρίας, and again, ἕτέρος τῶν
θεολόγων
᾽Ιεζεκιήλ. The text
is, καὶ φῶς
τὸ ἡλιακὸν
καὶ τὸ
διηνεκὲς,
ἡμέρας ὕπερ
ἡμῶν
προσομιλούντων
τοῖς θείος
μυστηρίοις
καὶ νυκτὸς ὧν
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ
εἶδέ τε καὶ
ἔπραξεν ἡ
ψυχὴ ταῖς
φαντασίαις
κατεχομένων
. Bengel proposes ὕπαρ for ὕπερ, so as to keep the antithesis between
ἡμέρας ὕπαρ
and νυκτὸς
φαντασίαις;
and taking ἡμέρας and νυκτός as temporal
genitives, he renders the whole thus: cum interdiu, per visa,
divinis aderamus sacramentis: et noctu earum rerum, quas viderat
de die atque egerat anima, imaginibus detinebamur.
[“In dreams I still renew the rites,”
etc.—William Croswell.]
αὐλεῖν. The Jews had
the harp, and so the word ψάλλειν is used of
them in the preceding. But here, in speaking of himself, Gregory
adopts the term οὔτε
αὐλεῖν, ne tibia quidem
canere. Bengel supposes that the verb is changed in
order to convey the idea, that while the Jews only had to give up the
use of instruments expressive of joyful feeling, Gregory feared he
would himself be unable to play even on those of a mournful
tone,—for in ancient times the pipe or flute was chiefly
appropriated to strains of grief and sadness.
Argument XVII.—Gregory Consoles Himself.
But why should I utter such lamentations?
There lives still the Saviour of all men, even of the half-dead and the
despoiled, the Protector and Physician for all, the Word, that
sleepless Keeper of all. We have also seeds of truth which thou
hast made us know as our possession, and all that we have received from
thee,—those noble deposits of instruction, with which we take our
course; and though we weep, indeed, as those who go forth from home, we
yet carry those seeds with us. It may be, then, that the Keeper
who presides over us will bear us in safety through all that shall
befall as; and it may be that we shall come yet again to thee, bringing
with us the fruits and handfuls yielded by these seeds, far from
perfect truly, for how could they be so? but still such as a life spent
in civil business
[He was still proposing for himself a life of worldly
occupation. Here turn to Origen’s counsel,—a sort of
reply to this Oration,—vol. iv. p. 393, and Cave’s
Lives, etc., vol. i. p. 400.] The text
is, διεφθαρμένας
μὲν τῇ
δυνάμει, ἢ
ἀκάρπῳ ἢ
κακοκάρπῳ
τινὶ, μὴ καὶ
προσδιαφθαρησομένῃ
δὲ παρ᾽
ἡμῶν, etc. Bengel reads μέν τοι for
μὲν τῇ,
and takes μὴ
καί as = utinam ne.
Argument XVIII.— Peroration, and Apology for the Oration.
Wherefore let me now have done with this address, which I have had the boldness to deliver in a presence wherein boldness least became me. Yet this address is one which, I think, has aimed heartily at signifying our thanks to the best of our ability,—for though we have had nothing to say worthy of the subject, we could not be altogether silent,—and one, too, which has given expression to our regrets, as those are wont to do who go abroad in separation from friends. And whether this speech of mine may not have contained things puerile or bordering on flattery, or things offending by excess of simplicity on the one hand, or of elaboration on the other, I know not. Of this, however, I am clearly conscious, that at least there is in it nothing unreal, but all that is true and genuine, in sincerity of opinion, and in purity and integrity of judgment.
Argument XIX.—Apostrophe to Origen, and Therewith the Leave-Taking, and the Urgent Utterance of Prayer.
But, O dear soul, arise thou and offer prayer, and
now dismiss us; and as by thy holy instructions thou hast been our
rescuer when we enjoyed thy fellowship, so save us still by thy prayers
in our separation. Commend us and set us constantly
παραδίδου
καὶ
παρατίθεσο.
ἐμβάλλοντα
ἡμῖν τὸν
θεῖον φόβον
αὐτοῦ,
παιδαγωγὸν
ἄριστον
ἐσόμενον. The
Latin version makes the ἐσόμενον refer to the
φόβον: divinumque nobis
timorem suum, optimum pædagogum immittens, = and inspiring
with the godly fear of Himself as our choicest guide.
οὐ γὰρ
ἐν τῇ μετὰ
σοῦ
ἐλευθερίᾳ
καὶ
ἀπελθόντες
ὑπακούσομεν
αὐτῷ. Bengel paraphrases it
thus: hac libertate quæ tecum est carebo digressus; quare
vereor ut Deo posthac paream, ni timore saltem munitus
fuero.[He may probably have been only a
catechumen at this period. This peroration favours the
suspicion.]
Elucidations.
————————————
Neale, in his valuable
work, The
Patriarchate of Alexandria, London, 1847. The
ultimate influence of the school itself, Neale pronounces “an
enigma” (vol. i. p. 38).
But, as to the sharpness of modern censures upon
Origen’s conspicuous faults, I must suggest three important
considerations, which should be applied to all the Ante-Nicene
doctors: (1) How could they who were working out the formulas of
orthodoxy, be expected to use phrases with the skill and precision
which became necessary only after the great Synodical period had
embodied them in clear, dogmatic statements? (2) How could the
active intellect of an Origen have failed to make great mistakes in
such an immensity of labours and such a variety of works? (3) If,
in our own day, we indulge speculative minds in large liberties so long
as they never make shipwreck of the faith, how much more should we deem
them excusable who were unable to consult libraries of well-digested
thought, and to employ, as we do, the accumulated wealth of fifty
generations of believers, whenever we are called to the solemn
responsibility of impressing our convictions upon others? The
conclusion of Dr. Neale’s review of Origen balances the praise
and blame accorded to him by those nearest to his times; Vol. i.
p. 33.
————————————
A Sectional Confession of
Faith.
Edited in Latin by Gerardus Vossius, Opp. Greg. Thaum.,
Paris, 1662, in fol.; given in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus by
Cardinal Mai, Script. Vet., vii. p. 170. Vossius has the
following argument: This is a second Confession of Faith, and one
widely different from the former, which this great Gregory of ours
received by revelation. This seems, however, to be designated
an ἔκθεσις τῆς
κατὰ μέρος
πίστεως, either
because it records and expounds the matters of the faith only in
part, or because the Creed is explained in it by
parts. The Jesuit theologian Franc. Torrensis (the
interpreter and scholiast of this ἔκθεσις) has, however,
rendered the phrase ἡ
κατὰ
μέρος
πίστις, by the Latin fides non
universa sed in parte. And here we have a fides non
universa sed in parte, according to him,—a creed not of all
the dogmas of the Church, but only of some in opposition to the
heretics who deny them. [The better view.]
————————————
I.
Most hostile and alien to
the Apostolic Confession are those who speak of the Son as assumed to
Himself by the Father out of nothing, and from an emanational
origin;
οἱ τὸν
Υἱὸν ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων καὶ
ἀποστελλομένης
ἀρχῆς εἶναι
ἐπίκτητον
λέγοντες τῷ
Πατρί. [Note, Exucontians = Arians.]
ἀκοινωνήτους
καὶ ξένας
εἰσάγοντες
λατρείας.
ἐν μονάδι τὸ
τριπλοῦν
ἀσεβῶς κατὰ
σύνθεσιν.
II.
But the Church’s Confession, and the Creed
that brings salvation to the world, is that which deals with the
incarnation of the Word, and bears that He gave Himself over to the
flesh of man which He acquired of Mary, while yet He conserved His own
identity, and sustained no divine transposition or mutation, but was
brought into conjunction with the flesh after the similitude of man; so
that the flesh was made one with the divinity, the divinity having
assumed the capacity of receiving the flesh in the fulfilling of the
mystery. And after the dissolution of death there remained to the
holy flesh a perpetual impassibility and a changeless immortality,
man’s original glory being taken up into it again by the power of
the divinity, and being ministered then to all men by the appropriation
of faith.
ἐν τῇ πίστεως
οἰκειώσει.
III.
If, then, there are any here, too, who falsify the
holy faith, either by attributing to the divinity as its own what
belongs to the humanity—progressions,
προκοπάς.
δόξαν
τὴν
ἐπιγινομένην.
μόρφωσις
τῶν ὅλων.
τὴν
κτίσιν.
IV.
One therefore is God the Father, one the Word, one
the Spirit, the life, the sanctification of all. And neither is
there another God as Father,
οὔτε
Θεὸς ἕτερος
ὡς Πατήρ.
ἀργόν. This
seems the idea in the sentence, οὐ γὰρ
ἐξισωσθήσεται
τῷ κτίσματι
αὐτὸ κατ᾽
οὐδένα
τρόπον, ἵν᾽
ὡς ὑπ᾽
ἐκείνου
ἔκτισται,
οὕτω καὶ
αὐτὸ κτίσῃ
τὰ ἄλλαα.
V.
Again, when one speaks of the Holy Spirit as an
object made holy,
ἡγιασμένον
ποίημα.
Trias. [See vol. ii. p. 101.]
Trias. [See vol. ii. p. 101.]
Monas.
συναριθμεῖν.
τὰ
πρόσφατα.
VI.
Moreover, the capital element of our salvation is the
incarnation of the Word. We believe,
περικλεισμὸς
ἐν νεύματι.
δύναμιν.
πολιτευσάμένος.
συγκεκραμένος.
τὸ
πάθος. Meaning
here the whole work and business of the incarnation, and the redemption
through the flesh.—Migne.
VII.
But some treat the Holy Trinity
Trias.
ἀνυπόστατον.
δημιουργίας.
φυσικῶς
ἐν Τριάδι
μαρτυρουμένη.
πατρῷον.
VIII.
Now the person in each declares the independent
being and subsistence.
τὸ
εἶναι αὐτὸ
καὶ
ὑφεστάναι
δηλοῖ. By the
ἰδιότητα τοῦ
Πατρός is meant here the
divinity belonging to the Father.—Migne.
οὐκ
ἐστιν ὡς ἓν
τὰ δύο ἐν τῷ
ἑνί.
καθ᾽ ὃ
θεότης μιᾶς
κυριότητος.
τῷ
ἰδιώματι τοῦ
Πατρός.
IX.
The same position we hold respecting the Spirit, who has
that unity with the Son which the Son has with the Father.
Wherefore let the hypostasis of the Father be discriminated by the
appellation of God; but let not the Son be cut off from this
appellation, for He is of God. Again, let the person of the Son
also be discriminated by the appellation of Lord; only let not God be
dissociated from that, for He is Lord as being the Father of the
Lord. And as it is proper to the Son to exercise lordship, for He
μέρος
γὰρ ἅπαν
ἀτελὲς τὸ
συνθεσεως
ὑφιστάμενον.
ἀρχῆς.
ἀρχή.
X.
And again, if the impious say, How will there not
be three Gods and three Persons, on the supposition that they have one
and the same divinity?—we shall reply: Just because God is
the Cause and Father of the Son; and this Son is the image and
offspring of the Father, and not His brother; and the Spirit in like
manner is the Spirit of God, as it is written, “God is a
Spirit.”
Κοσμοποιΐας.
XI.
And again, writing to those same Romans, he
says: “But I have written the more boldly unto you in some
sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me
of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles
might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I have
therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things
which pertain to God. For I dare not to speak of any of those
things which Christ hath not wrought by me, [A
reference to his canon, perhaps, recorded in
[It is
evident that St. Paul founded the Church at Rome. St. Peter (see
note 13, supra) could only have come to Rome to look after the
Jewish disciples there. Elucidation, p. 47, infra.]
XII.
Again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he
says: “For my speech and my preaching was not in the
enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.”
XIII.
Seest thou that all through Scripture the Spirit is
preached, and yet nowhere named a creature?
The
text is, οὕτω
γὰρ (τὸ
ἀποστέλλον)
καὶ τὸ
ἀποστελλόμενον,
οἰκείως ἂν
πιστεύοιτο,
καθ᾽ ὁ, etc.
XIV.
But if they say, How can there be three Persons,
and how but one Divinity?—we shall make this reply: That
there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God
the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit;
and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as the Son is the
Image of God the Father, who is One,—that is, He is God of God;
and in like manner the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and that,
too, of nature according to the very substance,
φυσικῶς
κατ᾽ αὐτὴν
τὴν οὐσιαν.
οὐσία.
ἀρχή.
πρωτότυπος.
XV.
We therefore acknowledge one true God, the one
First Cause, and one Son, very God of very God, possessing of nature
the Father’s divinity,—that is to say, being the same in
substance with the Father; Note
the phrase here, afterwards formulated, ὁμοούσιον τῷ
Πατρί. [This phrase, with abundant
other tokens, makes it apparent that the work is not
Gregory’s. It is further evident from section xviii.
I should be glad to think otherwise.]
καὶ
θεοποιὸν ἐκ
τῆς οὐσιας
τοῦ Θεοῦ
υπάρχον.
δοῦλα.
προσκύνησιν.
ἶσον ἐν ἴσῳ
γενόμενον τῷ
σώματὶ.
XVI.
And since some have given us trouble by attempting
to subvert our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and by affirming of Him
that He was not God incarnated, but a man linked with God; for this
reason we present our confession on the subject of the aforementioned
matters of faith, and reject the faithless dogmas opposed
thereto. For God, having been incarnated in the flesh of man,
retains also His proper energy pure, possessing a mind unsubjected by
the natural
ψυχικῶν.
θεοποιηθῶμεν.
XVII.
We believe therefore in one God, that is, in one
First Cause, the God of the law and of the Gospel, the just and good;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, true God, that is, Image of the true God,
Maker of all things seen and unseen, Son of God and only-begotten
Offspring, and Eternal Word, living and self-subsistent and
active,
ἐνεργόν.
XVIII.
We acknowledge that the Son and the Spirit are
consubstantial with the Father, and that the substance of the Trinity
is one,—that is, that there is one divinity according to nature,
the Father remaining unbegotten, and the Son being begotten of the
Father in a true generation, and not in a formation by will,
ποιήσει
ἐκ
βουλήσεως.
κινήσει. [For the spiritual κινήσις, vol. iii.
note 6, p. 622.]
[Evidently after the Nicene Council; the
consubstantiality, as a phrase and test of orthodoxy, belonging
to the Nicene period.]
διαπέμπων.
XIX.
One is the Son, both before the incarnation and
after the incarnation. The same (Son) is both man and God, both
these together as though one; and the God the Word is not one person,
and the man Jesus another person, but the same who subsisted as Son
before was made one with flesh by Mary, so constituting Himself a
perfect, and holy, and sinless man, and using that economical position
for the renewal of mankind and the salvation of all the world.
God the Father, being Himself the perfect Person, has thus the perfect
Word begotten of Him truly, not as a word that is spoken, nor yet again
as a son by adoption, in the sense in which angels and men are called
sons of God, but as a Son who is in nature God. And there is also
the perfect Holy Spirit supplied
χορηγούμενον.
πνοήν.
XX.
And that the holy Trinity is to be worshipped
without either separation or alienation, is taught us by Paul, who says
in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all.”
XXI.
And again Paul says: “That mortality
might be swallowed up of life. Now He that hath wrought us for
the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of
the Spirit.”
XXII.
And again, speaking also of the children of Israel
as baptized in the cloud and in the sea, he says: “And they
all drank of the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was
Christ.”
καλῶς
ἂν εἴχεσθε.
Referring perhaps to
XXIII.
Seest thou that the Spirit is inseparable from the
divinity? And no one with pious apprehensions could fancy that He
is a creature. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Hebrews he writes
again thus: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them
witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and
gifts of the Holy Ghost?”
διότι.
εἰρημένην.
From the book against the Monophysites by Leontius of Jerusalem,
in Mai, Script. Vet., vol. vii. p. 147.
To maintain two natures
φύσεις.
φύσεις.
ἀδιπλασιάστως.
δύναμις.
Elucidations.
————————————
(The minister…to the Gentiles, p. 43.)
If St. Peter had been at Rome,
St. Paul would not have come there (
Origin says so, expressly. See Cave, Lives, i. p.
230.
That compendious but superficial little work,
Smith’s History of the First Ten Centuries, The
Student’s Eccl. Hist., London, 1878.
It accepts the statement that the earliest application of this
term, by way of eminence, to the Bishop of Rome, is found in Evnodius
of Pavia, circa a.d. 500.
Robertson, vol. i. p. 560.
————————————
Fragment from the Discourse.
Mai, Spicil. Rom., vol. iii. p. 696, from the Arabic
Codex, 101.
Gregory Thaumaturgus,
Bishop of Neo-Cæsareia in Pontus, The
Arabic Codex reads falsely, Cæsareæ Cappadociæ.
I see in all three essentials—substance,
genus, name. We speak of man, servant, curator
(curatorem),—man, by reason of substance; servant, by
reason of genus or condition; curator, by reason of denomination.
We speak also of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: these, however,
are not names which have only supervened at some after period, but they
are subsistences. Again, the denomination of man is not in
actual fact a denomination, but a substance common to men, and is the
denomination proper to all men. Moreover, names are such as
these,—Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: these, I say, are
names. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the
names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is
and subsists,—which is the essence of God. The name also of
the nature signifies subsistence; Or,
the name signifies the subsistence of the nature—Nomen quoque
naturæ significat subsistentiam.
τὸ κατ᾽
ἔννοιαν.
προφορικόν.
ἀρθρικόν.
On these terms, consult the Greek Fathers in Petavius, de
Trin., book vi. [See Elucidation below.]
Elucidation.
————————————
Petavius, to whom the
translator refers his readers, may be trusted in points where he has no
theory of his own to sustain, but must always be accepted with
caution. The Greek Fathers in this very series, from
Justin
Vol. i. pp. 164, 166, 170, 178, 190–193, 263, 272;
Irenæus, Ibid., 468, 546, etc. Vol.
iii. p. 628. Compare (same volume) notes 15, p. 602, and 1, p.
604.
Vol. ii. p. 98, notes 1, 2; also p. 103, note 5. Vol.
iii. p. 299, note 19.
Wherein is Given Also the Formula of
Excommunication, and an Explication is Subjoined to Each. Works of
Grester, vol. xv. p. 434, Ratisbon, 1741, in fol., from a manuscript
codex.
————————————
Topic I.
If any one says that the body of Christ is uncreated, and refuses to acknowledge that He, being the uncreated Word (God) of God, took the flesh of created humanity and appeared incarnate, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could the body be said to be uncreated? For the uncreated is the passionless, invulnerable, intangible. But Christ, on rising from the dead, showed His disciples the print of the nails and the wound made by the spear, and a body that could be handled, although He also had entered among them when the doors were shut, with the view of showing them at once the energy of the divinity and the reality of the body.
Yet, while being God, He was recognised as man in
a natural manner; and while subsisting truly as man, He was also
manifested as God by His works. This
paragraph is wanting in a very ancient copy.
Topic II.
If any one affirms that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with the divinity, and refuses to acknowledge that He, subsisting Himself in the form of God as God before all ages, emptied Himself and took the form of a servant, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could the flesh, which is conditioned by time,
be said to be consubstantial
ὁμοουσιος.
Topic III.
If any one affirms that Christ, just like one of
the prophets, assumed the perfect man, and refuses to acknowledge that,
being begotten in the flesh of the Virgin,
Reading ἐκ
παρθένου for
ἐκ
παθόντος.
Explication.
How could it be said that Christ (the Lord)
assumed the perfect man just like one of the prophets, when He, being
the Lord Himself, became man by the incarnation effected through the
Virgin? Wherefore it is written, that “the first man was of
the earth, earthy.”
Topic IV.
If any one affirms that Christ was born of the seed of man by the Virgin, in the same manner as all men are born, and refuses to acknowledge that He was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, and became man of the seed of David, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could one say that Christ was born of the seed of
man by the Virgin, when the holy
Topic V.
If any one affirms that the Son of God who is before the ages is one, and He who has appeared in these last times is another, and refuses to acknowledge that He who is before the ages is the same with Him who appeared in these last times, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could it be said that the Son of God who is
before the ages, and He who has appeared in these last times, are
different, when the Lord Himself says, “Before Abraham was, I
am;”
Topic VI.
If any one affirms that He who suffered is one, and that He who suffered not is another, and refuses to acknowledge that the Word, who is Himself the impassibie and unchangeable God, suffered in the flesh which He had assumed really, yet without mutation, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could it be said that He who suffered is one,
and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, “The
Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again
the third day from the dead;”
Topic VII.
If any one affirms that Christ is saved, and
refuses to acknowledge that He is the Saviour of the world, and the
Light of the world, even as it is written,
Explication.
How could one say that Christ is saved, when the
Lord Himself says, “I am the life;”
Topic VIII.
If any one affirms that Christ is perfect man and
also God the Word in the way of separation,
διαιρετῶς.
Explication.
How could one say that Christ is perfect man and
also God the Word in the way of separation, when the Lord Himself says,
“Why seek ye to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God?”
Or, and
incorruptible.
Topic IX.
If any one says that Christ suffers change or
alteration, and refuses to acknowledge that He is unchangeable in the
Spirit, though corruptible
[Christ’s flesh being incorruptible, transubstantiation cannot be
true: the holy food is digested in its material part.]
Explication.
How could one say that Christ suffers change or
alteration, when the Lord Himself says, “I am and change
not;”
Topic X.
If any one affirms that Christ assumed the man only in part, and refuses to acknowledge that He was made in all things like us, apart from sin, let him be anathema.
How could one say that Christ assumed the man only
in part, when the Lord Himself says, “I lay down my life, that I
might take it again, for the sheep;”
Topic XI.
If any one affirms that the body of Christ is void
of soul and understanding,
ἄψυχον και
ἀνόητον.
Explication.
How could one say that the body of the Lord
(Christ) is void of soul and understanding? For perturbation, and
grief, and distress, are not the properties either of a flesh void of
soul, or of a soul void of understanding; nor are they the sign of the
immutable Divinity, nor the index of a mere phantasm, nor do they mark
the defect of human weakness; but the Word exhibited in Himself the
exercise of the affections and susceptibilities proper to us, having
endued Himself with our passibility, even as it is written, that
“He hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows.”
Topic XII.
If any one says that Christ was manifested in the world only in semblance, and refuses to acknowledge that He came actually in the flesh, let him be anathema.
Explication.
How could one say that Christ was manifested only in semblance in the world, born as He was in Bethlehem, and made to submit to the circumcising of the flesh, and lifted up by Simeon, and brought up on to His twelfth year (at home), and made subject to His parents, and baptized in Jordan, and nailed to the cross, and raised again from the dead?
Wherefore, when it is said that He was
“troubled in spirit,”
Wherefore He says, “Be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world.”
In behalf of this grace let us glorify the Father, who has given His only begotten Son for the life of the world. Let us glorify the Holy Spirit that worketh in us, and quickeneth us, and furnisheth the gifts meet for the fellowship of God; and let us not intermeddle with the word of the Gospel by lifeless disputations, scattering about endless questionings and logomachies, and making a hard thing of the gentle and simple word of faith; but rather let us work the work of faith, let us love peace, let us exhibit concord, let us preserve unity, let us cultivate love, with which God is well pleased.
As it is not for us to know the times or the
seasons which the Father hath put in His own power,
Or, the
name of God.
Elucidations.
————————————
These “twelve anathemas,” as they are called, do evidently refute the Nestorians and later heretics. Evidently, therefore, we must assign this document to another author. And, as frequent references are made to such tests, I subjoin a list of Œcumenical or Catholic Councils, properly so called, as follows:—
1. Jerusalem,
against Judaism,
As widely different from the other councils as the Apostles from
their successors, and part of its decisions were local and
temporary. For all that, it was the greatest of councils, and
truly General.
2. Nicæa,
against Arianism (1), These
numbers indicate the ordinary reckoning of writers, and is correct
ecclesiastically. The Council of Jerusalem, however, is the base
of Christian orthodoxy, and decided the great principles by which the
“General Councils” were professedly ruled.
3. Constantinople (I.), against Semi-Arianism (2), a.d. 381.
4. Ephesus, against Nestorianism (3), a.d. 431.
5. Chalcedon, against Eutychianism (4), a.d. 451.
6. Constantinople (II.), against Monophysitism (5), a.d. 553.
7. Constantinople
(III.), against Monothelitism (6),
Theological students are often puzzled to recall the councils in
order, and not less to recall the rejected heresies. I have found
two mnemonics useful, thus: (1) INCE and (CCC) three
hundred; (2) JAS. NEMM. Dulce est desipere,
etc.
a.d. 325 to 680 is the Synodical
Period. Gregory I. (Rome) placed the first four councils
next to the four Gospels.
These are all the undisputed councils. The Seventh Council, so called (a.d. 537), was not a free council, and was rejected by a free council of the West, convened at Frankfort a.d. 794. Its acceptance by the Roman pontiffs, subsequently, should have no logical force with the Easterns, who do not recognise their supremacy even over the councils of the West; and no free council has ever been held under pontifical authority. The above list, therefore, is a complete list of all the councils of the undivided Church as defined by Catholic canons. There has been no possibility of a Catholic council since the division of East and West. The Council of Frankfort is the pivot of subsequent history, and its fundamental importance has not been sufficiently insisted upon.
A
Topical Discourse by our holy father Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus,
bishop of Neo-Cæsareia in Pontus, addressed to Tatian.
————————————
You have instructed us,
most excellent Tatian, [A
person not known.] [True
to the universal testimony of the primitive Fathers as to Holy
Scripture.]
First of all, then, I shall propose to inquire by
what criterion the soul can, according to its nature, be apprehended;
then by what means it can be proved to exist; thereafter, whether it is
a substance or an accident;
[Aristotle, Physica. Elucidation I.]
For these are the questions which are wont, above
all, to be discussed, in any inquiry about the soul, as most important,
and as best calculated to mark out its distinctive nature. And as
demonstrations for the establishing of these matters of investigation,
we shall employ those common modes of consideration
ἐννοίαις.
εὐπαράδεκτα.
I. Wherein is the Criterion for the Apprehension of the Soul.
All things that exist are either known by
sense
αἰσθήσει.
νοήσει.
φαντασίαν.
ἐνεργειῶν.
II. Whether the Soul Exists.
Our body, when it is put in action, is put in
action either from without or from within. And that it is not put
in action from without, is manifest from the circumstance that it is
put in action neither by impulsion
ὠθούμενον.
ἑλκόμενον.
III. Whether the Soul is a Substance.
That the soul is a substance,
οὐσία.
τῶν
ἐναντίων
παραμέρος
εἰναι
δεκτικόν,
παραμέρος, here
apparently = in turn, though usually = out of turn. The text
has an apparent inversion: τὸ ἐν ᾧ τὴν
ὕπαρξιν ἔχον
καὶ οὗ ἄνευ
εἶναι μὴ
δυνάμενον,
αἴτιον
ἐκείνου
εἶναι τοῦ ἐν
ᾧ ἐστί. There is also a variety of reading:
καὶ ὁ
ἄνευ τοῦ
εἶναι μὴ
δυνάμενον.
IV. Whether the Soul is Incorporeal.
That the soul is in our body, has been shown
above. We ought now, therefore, to ascertain in what manner it is
in the body. Now, if it is in juxtaposition with it, as one
pebble with another, it follows that the soul will be a body, and also
that the whole body will not be animated with soul,
ἔμψυχον.
πολυμερής.
σύνθετον.
ὄγκον.
Again, if the soul is a body, it is put in action either from without or from within. But it is not put in action from without; for it is moved neither by impulsion nor by traction, like soulless things. Nor is it put in action from within, like objects animated with soul; for it is absurd to talk of a soul of the soul: it cannot, therefore, be a body, but it is incorporeal.
And besides, if the soul is a body, it has sensible qualities, and is maintained by nurture. But it is not thus nurtured. For if it is nurtured, it is not nurtured corporeally, like the body, but incorporeally; for it is nurtured by reason. It has not, therefore, sensible qualities: for neither is righteousness, nor courage, nor any one of these things, something that is seen; yet these are the qualities of the soul. It cannot, therefore, be a body, but is incorporeal.
Still further, as all corporeal substance is divided into animate and inanimate, let those who hold that the soul is a body tell us whether we are to call it animate or inanimate.
Finally, if every body has colour, and quantity,
and figure, and if there is not one of these qualities perceptible in
the soul, it follows that the soul is not a body.
[These are Aristotle’s accidents, of which, see
Thomas Aquinas and the schoolmen passim.]
V. Whether the Soul is Simple or Compound.
We prove, then, that the soul is simple, best of all, by those arguments by which its incorporeality has been demonstrated. For if it is not a body, while every body is compound, and what is composite is made up of parts, and is consequently multiplex, the soul, on the other hand, being incorporeal, is simple; since thus it is both uncompounded and indivisible into parts.
VI. Whether Our Soul is Immortal.
It follows, in my opinion, as a necessary
consequence, that what is simple is immortal. And as to how that
follows, hear my explanation: Nothing that exists is its own
corrupter,
φθαρτικόν.
Besides, everything that is put in action by something else, and does not possess the principle of life in itself, but gets it from that which puts it in action, endures just so long as it is held by the power that operates in it; and whenever the operative power ceases, that also comes to a stand which has its capacity of action from it. But the soul, being self-acting, has no cessation of its being. For it follows, that what is self-acting is ever-acting; and what is ever-acting is unceasing; and what is unceasing is without end; and what is without end is incorruptible; and what is incorruptible is immortal. Consequently, if the soul is self-acting, as has been shown above, it follows that it is incorruptible and immortal, in accordance with the mode of reasoning already expressed.
And further, everything that is not corrupted by the evil proper to itself, is incorruptible; and the evil is opposed to the good, and is consequently its corrupter. For the evil of the body is nothing else than suffering, and disease, and death; just as, on the other hand, its excellency is beauty, life, health, and vigour. If, therefore, the soul is not corrupted by the evil proper to itself, and the evil of the soul is cowardice, intemperance, envy, and the like, and all these things do not despoil it of its powers of life and action, it follows that it is immortal.
VII. Whether Our Soul is Rational.
That our soul is rational, one might demonstrate by many arguments. And first of all from the fact that it has discovered the arts that are for the service of our life. For no one could say that these arts were introduced casually and accidentally, as no one could prove them to be idle, and of no utility for our life. If, then, these arts contribute to what is profitable for our life, and if the profitable is commendable, and if the commendable is constituted by reason, and if these things are the discovery of the soul, it follows that our soul is rational.
Again, that our soul is rational, is also proved
by the fact that our senses are not sufficient for the apprehension of
things. For we are not competent for the knowledge of things by
the simple application of the faculty of sensation. But as we do
not choose to rest in these without inquiry,
ἐπεὶ μηδὲ
στῆναι περὶ
αὐτὰ
θέλομεν.
νοῦς.
Finally, because we do nothing without having
first marked it out for ourselves; and as that is nothing else than
just the high prerogative
ἀξίωμα. [Elucidation
II.]
————————————
I.
(Substance or accident, p. 54.)
This essay is
“rather the work of a philosopher than a bishop,” says
Dupin. He assigns it to an age when “Aristotle began to
be in some reputation,”—a most important concession as
to the estimate of this philosopher among the early faithful. We
need not wonder that such admissions, honourable to his candour and to
his orthodoxy, brought on him the hatred and persecutions of the
Jesuits. Even Bossuet thought he went too far, and wrote against
him. But, the whole system of Roman dogma being grounded in
Aristotle’s physics as well as in his metaphysics,
Dupin was not orthodox in the eyes of the society that framed Aristotle
into a creed, and made it the creed of the “Roman-Catholic
Church.” Note, e.g., “transubstantiation,”
which is not true if Aristotle’s theory of accidents,
etc., is false. See
Bacon’s apophthegm, No. 275, p. 172, Works, London,
1730.
II.
(Prerogative of the soul, p. 56.)
If this “Discourse” be worthy of
study, it may be profitably contrasted, step by step, with
Tertullian’s treatises on kindred subjects. Vol. iii.
pp. 175–235, this series. Vol.
iii. pp. 463, 474; also pp. 532, 537, 557, 570, and 587.
Compare, also, Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 199,
etc. E.g.,
vol. ii. p. 157, etc. Vol. ii.
pp. 440, 584 (Fragment), and what he says of free-will.
[This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the
festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25.
But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast
of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the
records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at
Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his
Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii.
p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the
selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no
more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the
Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all
observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the
Annunciation.]
————————————
The First Homily.
On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin
Mary. The
secondary title is: The First Discourse of our holy father
Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cæsareia in Pontus,
on the Annunciation to the most holy Virgin Mary, mother of God.
Works of Gregory Thaumaturgus by Ger. Voss, p. 9.
To-day are strains of
praise sung joyfully by the choir of angels, and the light of the
advent of Christ shines brightly upon the faithful. Today is the
glad spring-time to us, and Christ the Sun of righteousness has beamed
with clear light around us, and has illumined the minds of the
faithful. To-day is Adam made anew,
ἀνακεκαίνισται;
others ἀνακέκληται,
recovered.
ξύλα.
δένδρα.
Others,
ὁσίως, piously.
Or,
διό, wherefore. Or,
καλέσουσι,
they shall call.
χόρευσα. Or,
τῷ τῆς
καρδίας
φρονήματι, in the
thoughts of her heart.
ὑπόθεσιν; others
ὑπόσχεσιν, the
promise.
καὶ
λαμπάδα
φωτὸς
ἀπαστράπτεις
.
θεοφόρων
. Or,
ὑποδέχου καὶ
μάνθανε, and receive thou
and learn.
φανέρωσιν.
Or,
archangel. Or,
archangel. Or,
gifted with grace. Or,
rejoice.
τοῦ
νοητοῦ ἡλίου
ἡ ἀνατολή; others,
ἡλίου τῆς
δικαιοσύνης,
the rising of the Sun of righteousness.
λειμών.
ἀσκήσεως; better
κυήσεως,
conception. There is
a similar passage in Ephræm’s discourse, De Margarita
Pretiosa, vol. iii.
Most of the holy fathers, and patriarchs, and
prophets desired to see Him, and to be eye-witnesses of Him, but did
not attain hereto. And some of them by visions beheld Him in
type, and darkly; others, again, were privileged to hear the divine
voice through the medium of the cloud, and were favoured with sights of
holy angels; but to Mary the pure virgin alone did the archangel
Gabriel manifest himself luminously, bringing her the glad address,
“Hail, thou that art highly favoured!” And thus she
received the word, and in the due time of the fulfilment according to
the body’s course she brought forth the priceless pearl.
Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which
has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say,
“Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the ark of Thy
sanctuary.”
ἁγιάσματος.
πρεσβεύων. Or,
and they shall worship Him.
πρωτότοκον
πασῆς τῆς
κτίσεως. [Or,
the heir, etc.]
Or, the
Bread of life.
Or,
righteousness. Or, the
whole administration of the economy in an unutterable mystery.
On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin
Mary. “The
Encomium of the same holy Father Gregory, bishop of Neo-Cæsareia
in Pontus, surnamed Thaumaturgus on the Annunciation to the all-holy
Mary, mother of God, and ever-virgin.”
Discourse Second.
It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices,
all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, the
annunciation to the holy mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to
her by the angel, “Hail, thou that art highly
favoured!” For first of all wisdom Or,
before all wisdom. Or, gifted
with grace. Or, gifted
with grace.
εν τῇ
ταφῇ; others, ἐν τῇ
ἁφῇ = in the touch or union of the holy
body.
ἄγαλμα.
Clearly, then, did the prophet behold in type Him
who was born of the holy virgin, whom thou, O holy virgin, wouldest
have had no strength to bear, hadst thou not beamed forth for that
time Or, by
His throne. Or
example, κατόρθωμα. Or,
truth.
Cf.
Or,
justifying observances, δικαιώματα. Cf.
Or, ye
will find eternal life.
It brings us the glad tidings of this economy of
the Saviour altogether to be praised, to wit, that to them who had
wandered astray the way of salvation was shown, and that to the
despairing the grace of salvation was made known, which blesses all in
different modes; searching after the erring, enlightening the blinded,
giving life to the dead, setting free the slaves, redeeming the
captives, and becoming all things to all of us in order to be the true
way of salvation to us: and all this He does, not by reason of
our goodwill toward Him, but in virtue of a benignity that is proper to
our Benefactor Himself. For the Saviour did all, not in order
that He might acquire virtue Himself, but that He might put us in
possession of eternal life. He made man, indeed, after the image
of God, and appointed him to live in a paradise of pleasure. But
the man being deceived by the devil, and having become a transgressor
of the divine commandment, was made subject to the doom of death.
Whence, also, those born of him were involved in their father’s
liability in virtue of their succession, and had the reckoning of
condemnation required of them. “For death reigned from Adam
to Moses.”
ὁμοιούμενος. Or,
joy.
Thus the holy Virgin, while still in the flesh,
maintained the incorruptible life, and received in faith the things
which were announced by the archangel. And thereafter she
journeyed diligently to her relation Elisabeth in the
hill-country. “And she entered into the house of Zacharias,
and saluted Elisabeth,”
Or, and
with the bound feet of her child in the womb.
Or,
resurrection.
μέχρις
ἑαυτοῦ.
ἐν τοῖς
ἄκροις τῶν
νοητῶν
βασιλειῶν.
Others read νότου = in the high places of
the kingdoms of the south. The close
is otherwise given thus: To whom be the glory and the power unto
the ages of the ages. Amen.
The Third Homily.
On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin
Mary. “The
Third Discourse by the same sainted Gregory, Bishop of
Neo-Cæsareia, surnamed Thaumaturgus, on the Annunciation to the
all-holy Virgin Mary, mother of God.”
Again have we the glad tidings of joy, again the
announcements of liberty, again the restoration, again the return,
again the promise of gladness, again the release from slavery. An
angel talks with the Virgin, in order that the serpent may no more have
converse with the woman. In the sixth month, it is said, the
angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man.
Or,
angelic.
ὑπερορίοις
μέλεσιν. Or, and
after her.
νυμφοτόκε.
The Latin version gives it as = sponsa, simul et mater.
[Apostrophe not worship.]
ἱσόῤῥοπον.
On the Holy Theophany, or on
Christ’s Baptism. “A
Discourse by our sainted Father Gregory, Bishop of Neo-Cæsareia,
surnamed Thaumaturgus, on the Holy Theophany, or, as the title is also
given, on the Holy Lights.”
O ye who are the friends of Christ, and the
friends of the stranger, and the friends of the brethren, receive in
kindness my speech to-day, and open your ears like the doors of
hearing, and admit within them my discourse, and accept from me this
saving proclamation of the baptism
καταδύσεως.
Or,
armies. Or
subaltern, ἐν τῂ
στρατιωτικῇ
μορφῇ.
Or,
because for my sake Thou hast been born as I have been.
Or, of
the perfect Light; to wit, the Father.
When I baptize others, I baptize into Thy name, in
order that they may believe on Thee, who comest with glory; but when I
baptize Thee, of whom shall I make mention? and into whose name shall I
baptize Thee? Into that of the Father? But Thou hast the
Father altogether in Thyself, and Thou art altogether in the
Father. Or into that of the Son? But beside Thee there is
no other Son of God by nature. Or into that of the Holy
Spirit? But He is ever together with Thee, as being of one
substance, and of one will, and of one judgment, and of one power, and
of one honour with Thee; and He receives, along with Thee, the same
adoration from all. Wherefore, O Lord, baptize Thou me, if Thou
pleasest; baptize me, the Baptist. Regenerate one whom Thou didst
cause to be generated. Extend Thy dread right hand, which Thou
hast prepared for Thyself, and crown my head by Thy touch, in order
that I may run the course before Thy kingdom, crowned like a
forerunner, and diligently announce the good tidings to the sinners,
addressing them with this earnest call: “Behold the Lamb of
God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”
Or, the
Hebrews.
Or,
with my name. Or, to
the Saviour’s object.
Elucidations.
————————————
I can do no better than follow Dupin as to the authorship of these Homilies. He thinks the style of Proclus (of Constantinople) may be detected in them, though the fourth is beyond him for eloquence, and has even been thought worthy of St. Chrysostom. It was produced after Nicæa, and probably after Ephesus, its somewhat exaggerated praises of the θεοτόκος being unusual at an earlier period. The titles of these Homilies are the work of much later editors; and interpolations probably occur frequently, by the same hands.
A
discourse of Gregory Thaumaturgus published by Joannes Aloysius
Mingarelli, Bologna, 1770.
————————————
Grant thy blessing, Lord.
It was my desire to be silent, and not to make a
public The codex
gives δημοσιεύουσαν,
for which we read δημοσιεύειν. The
codex gives ἀτελής, for which
εὐτελής is read by
the editor. Reading
θαῤῥούντως
for θαῤῥοῦντος. This is
supposed by the Latin annotator to refer to the bishop, and perhaps to
Phædimus of Amasea, as in those times no one was at liberty to
make an address in the church when the bishop was present, except by
his request or with his permission. Or, the
Word.
σφίγξωσι. Or,
keys.
κυβιστῶντες. Χριστότητος,
for which, however, χρηστότητος, benignity, is suggested. [Sometimes are intended
ambiguity.]
μεταβάσει.
συγκαταβάσει. Or,
benignity.
Elucidations.
————————————
The feast of All Saints is very ancient in the Oriental churches, and is assigned to the Octave of Pentecost, the Anglican Trinity Sunday. See Neale, Eastern Church, vol. ii. pp. 734, 753. In the West it was instituted when Boniface III. (who accepted from the Emperor Phocas the title of “Universal Bishop,” a.d. 607) turned the Pantheon into a church, and with a sort of practical epigram called it the church of “All the Saints.” It was a local festival until the ninth century, when the Emperor Louis the Pious introduced it into France and Germany. Thence it came to England. It falls on the 1st of November.
The gates of the church at Rome are the same which once opened for the worship of “all the gods.” They are of massive bronze, and are among the most interesting of the antiquities of the city.
The modern gates of St. Peter’s, at Rome, are offensive copies of heathen mythology; and among the subjects there represented, is the shameful tale of Leda,—a symbol of the taste of Leo X.
A
fragment. (Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Biblioth., xiv. p. 119;
from a Catena on Matthew, Cod. ms. 168,
Mitarelli.)
————————————
(
“The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
The single eye is the love
unfeigned; for when the body is enlightened by it, it sets forth
through the medium of the outer members only things which are perfectly
correspondent with the inner thoughts. But the evil eye is the
pretended love, which is also called hypocrisy, by which the whole body
of the man is made darkness. We have to consider that deeds meet
only for darkness may be within the man, while through the outer
members he may produce words that seem to be of the light: The text
is apparently corrupt here: ἄξια
μὲν σκότους
πράγματα
ἐννοούμενον
ἔσωθεν· διὰ
δὲ τῶν ἔξωθεν
μερῶν φωτὸς
εἶναι
δοκοῦντα
προφέον
ῥήματα. Migne suggests
ἐννοοῦμεν
τόν and προφέροντα.
[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A.]
Introductory Note
to
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria.
————————————
[a.d.
200–265.] The great Origen had twin children in Gregory and
Dionysius. Their lives ran in parallel lines, and are said to
have ended on the same day; and nobly did they sustain the dignity and
orthodoxy of the pre-eminent school which was soon to see its bright
peculiar star in Athanasius. Dionysius is supposed to have been a
native of Alexandria, of heathen parentage, and of a family possessed
of wealth and honourable rank. Early in life he seems to have
been brought under the influence of certain presbyters; and a voice
seemed to speak to him in a vision
Epistle to Philemon, infra.
For a year or two he fed his flock in peace; but
then troubles broke in upon his people, even under the kindly reign of
Philip. Things grew worse, till under Decius the eighth
persecution was let loose throughout the empire. Like Cyprian,
Dionysius retired for a season, upon like considerations, but not until
he had been arrested and providentially delivered from death in a
singular manner. On returning to his work, he found the Church
greatly disturbed by the questions concerning the lapsed, with which
Cyprian’s history has made us acquainted. In the letter to
Fabius will be found details of the earlier persecution, and in that
against Germanus are interesting facts of his own experience. The
Epistle to the Alexandrians contains very full particulars of the
pestilence which succeeded these calamities; and it is especially
noteworthy as contrasting the humanity and benevolence of Christians
with the cruel and cowardly indifference of the pagans towards the
dying and the dead. Seditions and tumults followed, on which we
have our author’s reflections in the Epistle to Hierax, with not
a few animated touches of description concerning the condition of
Alexandria after such desolations. In the affair of Cyprian with
Stephen he stood by the great Carthaginian doctor, and maintained the
positions expressed in the letter of Firmilian. Vol. v.
p. 390, this series.
Translator’s Introductory Notice.
For our knowledge of the
career of this illustrious disciple of Origen we are indebted chiefly
to Eusebius, in the sixth and seventh books of his Historia
Ecclesiastica, and in the fourteenth book of his Præparatio
Evangelica.
There are also passages, of larger or smaller extent, bearing
upon his life and his literary activity, in Jerome (De viris
illustr., ch. 69; and Præfatio ad Lib., xviii.,
Comment. in Esaiam), Athanasius (De Sententia Dionysii,
and De Synodi Nicænæ Decretis), Basil (De Spiritu
Sancto, ch. 29; Epist. ad Amphiloch., and Epist. ad
Maximum). Among modern authorities, we may refer specially to
the Dissertation on his life and writings by S. de Magistris, in the
folio edition issued under his care in Greek and Latin at Rome in 1796;
to the account given by Basnage in the Histoire de
l’Eglise, tome i. livre ii. ch. v. p. 68; to the complete
collection of his extant works in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca
Patrum, iii. p. 481, etc.; as well as to the accounts in
Cave’s Hist. Lit., i. p. 95, and elsewhere. [Not,
however, as an inferior, but as one bishop in those days remonstrated
with another, and as he himself remonstrated with Stephen. See
infra.] Hist.
Eccl., viii. 7.
The Works of Dionysius.
Extant Fragments.
————————————
Part I.—Containing Various Sections of the Works.
————————————
I.—From the Two Books on the
Promises. In
opposition to Noëtus, a bishop in Egypt. Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl., vii. 24 and 25. Eusebius introduces this extract in
the following terms: “There are also two books of his on
the subject of the promises. The occasion of writing these was
furnished by a certain Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the
promises which were given to holy men in the sacred Scriptures were to
be understood according to the Jewish sense of the same; and affirmed
that there would be some kind of a millennial period, plenished with
corporeal delights, upon this earth. And as he thought that he
could establish this opinion of his by the Revelation of John, he had
composed a book on this question, entitled Refutation of the
Allegorists. This, therefore, is sharply attacked by
Dionysius in his books on the Promises. And in the first of these
books he states his own opinion on the subject; while in the second he
gives us a discussion on the Revelation of John, in the introduction to
which he makes mention of Nepos.” [Of this Noëtus, see
the Philosophumena, vol. v., this series.]
————————————
1. But as they
produce a certain composition by Nepos, As it is
clear from this passage that this work by Dionysius was written against
Nepos, it is strange that, in his preface to the eighteenth book of his
Commentaries on Isaiah, Jerome should affirm it to have been composed
against Irenæus of Lyons. Irenæus was certainly of the
number of those who held millennial views, and who had been persuaded
to embrace such by Papias, as Jerome himself tells us in the
Catalogus and as Eusebius explains towards the close of
the third book of his History. But that this book by
Dionysus was written not against Irenæus but against Nepos, is
evident, not only from this passage in Eusebius, but also from Jerome
himself, in his work On Ecclesiastical Writers, where he speaks
of Dionysius.—Vales. [Compare (this
series, infra) the comments of Victorinus of Petau for a
Western view of the millennial subject.]
τῆς
πολλῆς
ψαλμῳδίας.
Christophorsonus interprets this of psalms and hymns composed by
Nepos. It was certainly the practice among the ancient Christians
to compose psalms and hymns in honour of Christ. Eusebius bears
witness to this in the end of the fifth book of his
History. Mention is made of these psalms in the Epistle of
the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and in the penultimate
canon of the Council of Laodicea, where there is a clear prohibition of
the use of ψαλμοὶ
ἰδιωτικοί in the
church, i.e., of psalms composed by private individuals. For this
custom had obtained great prevalence, so that many persons composed
psalms in honour of Christ, and got them sung in the church. It
is psalms of this kind, consequently, that the Fathers of the Council
of Laodicea forbid to be sung thereafter in the church, designating
them ἰδιωτικοί, i.e.,
composed by unskilled men, and not dictated by the Holy Spirit.
Thus is the matter explained by Agobardus in his book De ritu
canendi psalmos in Ecclesia.—Vales. [See vol. v., quotation from
Pliny.]
ταυτῆ
μᾶλλον ᾗ
προανεπαύσατο: it may mean, perhaps, for the way in which he has gone to
his rest before us.
κατεπαγγελλομένων,
i.e., diu ante promittunt quam tradunt. The metaphor
is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise
great and marvellous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them
on the rack by daily expectation, in order to confirm their judgment
and reverence by such suspense in the conveyance of knowledge, as
Tertullian says in his book Against the
Valentinians.—Vales. [Vol. iii.
p. 503.] Reading
ἐλπίζειν
ἀναπειθόντων
for ἐλπιζόμενα
πειθόντων, with
the Codex Mazarin.
2. After certain other matters, he adds
the following statement:—Being then in the
Arsinoitic
ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ
᾽Αρσενοείτῃ.
In the three codices here, as well as in Nicephorus and Ptolemy, we
find this scription, although it is evident that the word should be
written ᾽Αρσινοειτῃ
, as the district took its name from Queen Arsinoe.—Vales.
εἱ καὶ
φαίνοιντο.
There is another reading, εἱ
καὶ μὴ
φαίνοιντο,
although they might not appear to be correct.
Christophorsonus renders it: ne illis quæ fuerant
ante ab ipsis decreta, si quidquam in eis veritati repugnare videretur,
mordicus adhærerent præcavebant.
ἡπλωμέναις
ταῖς
καρδίαις.
Christophorsonus renders it, puris erga Deum ac simplicibis
animis; Musculus gives, cordibus ad Deum expansis; and
Rufinus, patefactis cordibus. [The picture here given of a
primitive synod searching the Scriptures under such a presidency, and
exhibiting such tokens of brotherly love, mutual subordination (
3. Then, a little further on, he speaks
of the Revelation of John as follows:—Now some before our
time have set aside this book, and repudiated it entirely, criticising
it chapter by chapter, and endeavouring to show it to be without either
sense or reason. They have alleged also that its title is false;
for they deny that John is the author. Nay, further, they hold
that it can be no sort of revelation, because it is covered with so
gross and dense a veil of ignorance. They affirm, therefore, that
none of the apostles, nor indeed any of the saints, nor any person
belonging to the Church, could be its author; but that
Cerinthus, This
passage is given substantially by Eusebius also in book iii. c. 28. The text
gives ὀνειροπολεῖν,
for which for which ὀνειροπολεί
or ὠνειροπόλει
is to be read.
δι᾽ ὧν
εὐφημότερον
ταῦτα ᾠήθη
ποριεῖσθαι.
The old reading was εὐθυμότερον
; but the present reading is given in the mss.,
Cod. Maz., and Med., as also in Eusebius, iii. 28, and in Nicephorus,
iii. 14. So Rufinus renders it: et ut aliquid
sacratius dicere videretur, legales aiebat festivitates rursum
celebrandas. [These gross views of millennial perfection
entailed upon subsequent ages a reactionary neglect of the study of the
Second Advent. A Papal aphorism, preserved by Roscoe, embodies
all this: “Sub umbilico nulla religio.” It was
fully exemplified, even under Leo X.] [The
humility which moderates and subdues our author’s pride of
intellect in this passage is, to me, most instructive as to the limits
prescribed to argument in what Coleridge calls “the faith of
reason.”]
4. After this, he examines the whole book
of the Revelation; and having proved that it cannot possibly be
understood according to the bald, literal sense, he proceeds
thus:—When the prophet now has completed, so to speak, the
whole prophecy, he pronounces those blessed who should observe it, and
names himself, too, in the number of the same: “For
blessed,” says
διεξαγωγῆς
λεγομένης.
Musculus renders it tractatum libri; Christophorsonus gives
discursum; and Valesius takes it as equivalent to οἰκονομίαν,
as διεξαγαγεῖν
is the same as διοικεῖν.
And a little further on he
adds:—John, moreover, nowhere gives us the name,
whether as of himself directly (in the first person), or as of another
(in the third person). But the writer of the Revelation puts
himself forward at once in the very beginning, for he says:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which He gave to him to show to
His servants quickly; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His
servant John, who bare record of the Word of God, and of his testimony,
and of all things that he saw.”
5. What John this is, however, is
uncertain. For he has not said, as he often does in the Gospel,
that he is the disciple beloved by the Lord, or the one that leaned on
His bosom, or the brother of James, or one that was privileged to see
and hear the Lord. And surely he would have given us some of
these indications if it had been his purpose to make himself clearly
known. But of all this he offers us nothing; and he only calls
himself our brother and companion, and the witness of Jesus, and one
blessed with the seeing and hearing of these revelations. I am
also of opinion that there were many persons of the same name with John
the apostle, who by their love for him, and their admiration and
emulation of him, and their desire to be loved by the Lord as he was
loved, were induced to embrace also the same designation, just as we
find many of the children of the faithful called by the names of Paul
and Peter.
It is worth while to note this passage of Dionysius on the
ancient practice of the Christians, in giving their children the names
of Peter and Paul, which they did both in order to express the honour
and affection in which they held these saints, and to secure that their
children might be dear and acceptable to God, just as those saints
were. Hence it is that Chrysostom in his first volume, in his
oration on St. Meletius, says that the people of Antioch had such love
and esteem for Meletius, that the parents called their children by his
name, in order that they might have their homes adorned by his
presence. And the same Chrysostom, in his twenty-first homily on
Genesis, exhorts his hearers not to call their children carelessly by
the names of their grandfathers, or great-grandfathers, or men of fame;
but rather by the names of saintly men, who have been shining patterns
of virtue, in order that the children might be fired with the desire of
virtue by their example.—Vales. [A
chapter in the history of civilization might here be given on the
origin of Christian names and on the motives which should influence
Christians in the bestowal of names. The subject is treated,
after Plato, by De Maistre.]
6. And from the ideas, and the expressions, and
the collocation of the same, it may be very reasonably conjectured that
this one is distinct This is
the second argument by which Dionysius reasoned that the Revelation and
the Gospel of John are not by one author. For the first argument
he used in proof of this is drawn from the character and usage of the
two writers; and this argument Dionysius has prosecuted up to this
point. Now, however, he adduces a second argument, drawn from the
words and ideas of the two writers, and from the collocation of the
expressions. For, with Cicero, I thus interpret the word
σύνταξιν.
See the very elegant book of Dionysius Hal. entitled Περὶ
συντάξεως
ὀνομάτων—On the
Collocation of Names; although in this passage σύνταξις
appears to comprehend the disposition of sentences as well as
words. Further, from this passage we can see what experience
Dionysius had in criticism; for it is the critic’s part to
examine the writings of the ancients, and distinguish what is genuine
and authentic from what is spurious and counterfeit.—Vales.
7. And furthermore, on the ground of
difference in diction, it is possible to prove a distinction between
the Gospel and the Epistle on the one hand, and the Revelation on the
other. For the former are written not only without actual error
as regards the Greek language, but also with the greatest elegance,
both in their expressions and in their reasonings, and in the whole
structure of their style. They are very far indeed from betraying
any barbarism or solecism, or any sort of vulgarism, in their
diction. For, as might be presumed, the writer possessed the gift
of both kinds of discourse, The old
reading was, τὸν
λόγον, τὴν
γνῶσιν. Valesius expunges
the τὴν
γνῶσιν, as disturbing the sense,
and as absent in various codices. Instead also of the reading,
τόν τε
τῆς σοφίας,
τόν τε τῆς
γνώσεως, the same editor
adopts τόν τε
τῆς γνώσεως,
τόν τε τῆς
φράσεως, which is the
reading of various manuscripts, and is accepted in the
translation. Valesius understands that by the ἑκάτερον
λόγον Dionysus means the λόγος
ἐνδιάθετος
and the λόγος
προφορικός,
that is, the subjective discourse, or reason in the mind, and the
objective discourse, or utterance of the same. [The
jealousy with which, while the canon of New Testament Scripture was
forming, every claim was sifted, is well illustrated in this remarkable
essay. Observe its critical skill and the fidelity with which he
exposes the objections based on the style and classicality of the
Evangelist. The Alexandrian school was one of bold and original
investigation, always subject in spirit, however, to the great canon of
Prescription.]
II.—From
the Books on Nature.
Against the Epicureans. In Eusebius, Præpar.
Evangel., book xiv. ch. 23–27. Eusebius introduces this
extract in terms to the following effect: It may be well now to
subjoin some few arguments out of the many which are employed in his
disputation against the Epicureans by the bishop Dionysius, a man who
professed a Christian philosophy, as they are found in the work which
he composed on Nature. But peruse thou the writer’s
statements in his own terms.
————————————
I. In Opposition to Those of the School of Epicurus Who Deny the Existence of a Providence, and Refer the Constitution of the Universe to Atomic Bodies.
Is the universe one coherent whole, as it seems to be in
our own judgment, as well as in that of the wisest of the Greek
philosophers, such as Plato and Pythagoras, and the Stoics and
Heraclitus? or is it a duality, as some may possibly
οὐσίαν.
ἀπρονόητον.
τῶν
ἀμερῶν.
ὄγκους.
ἐκληρονόμησε
τὸ ὄνομα. Eusebius
subjoins this remark: ταῦτ᾽
εἰπὼν, ἑξῆς
ἀνασκευάζει
τὸ δόγμα διὰ
πολλῶν, ἀτὰρ
δὲ διὰ
τούτων, = having said thus
much, he (Dionysius) proceeds to demolish this doctrine by many
arguments, and among others by what follows.—Gall.
II. A Refutation of This Dogma on the Ground of Familiar Human Analogies.
How, shall we bear with these men who assert that
all those wise, and consequently also noble, constructions (in the
universe) are only the works of common chance? those objects, I mean,
of which each taken by itself as it is made, and the whole system
collectively, were seen to be good by Him by whose command they came
into existence. For, as it is said, “God saw everything
that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
The
text is, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
ἀπὸ τῶν
μικρῶν τῶν
συνήθων καὶ
παρὰ πόδας
νουθετούντων,
etc. We adopt Viger’s suggestions and read νουθετοῦνται. The text
is, ἑκατέρας
συνεκόμισε
καιριον, for which Viger
proposes εἰς
τὸν
ἑκατέρας, etc. The text
gives, ὁράτωσαν γὰρ
τὰς ἀθεάτους
ἐκεῖνοι, καὶ
τὰς ἀνοήτους
νοείτωσαν,
οὐχ ὁμοίως
ἐκείνῳ, etc. The passage
seems corrupt. Some supply φύσεις as the subject
intended in the ἀθεάτους and
ἀνοήτους; but
that leaves the connection still obscure. Viger would read, with
one ms., ἀθέτους instead of
ἀθάετους, and makes
this then the sense: that those Epicureans are bidden study more
closely these unregulated and stolid (ἀνοήτους) atoms, not
looking at them with a merely cursory and careless glance, as David
acknowledges was the case with him in the thoughts of his own imperfect
nature, in order that they may the more readily understand how out of
such confusion as that in which they are involved nothing orderly and
finished could possibly have originated. [P. 86, note 2,
infra.]
[The reproduction of all this outworn nonsense in our age claims
for itself the credit of progressive science. It has had
its day, and its destiny is to be speedily wiped out by the next school
of thinkers. Meanwhile let the believer’s answer be found
in
ἀῤῥύθμους.
III. A Refutation on the Ground of the Constitution of the Universe.
Or who can bear to hear it maintained, that this
mighty habitation, which is constituted of heaven and earth, and which
is called “Cosmos” on account of the magnitude and the
plenitude of the wisdom which has been brought to bear upon it, has
been established in all its order and beauty by those atoms which hold
their course devoid of order and beauty, and that that same state of
disorder has grown into this true Cosmos, Order? Or who can
believe that those regular movements and courses are the products of a
certain unregulated impetus? Or who can allow that the perfect
concord subsisting among the celestial bodies derives its harmony from
instruments destitute both of concord and harmony? Or, again, if
there is but one and the same substance
οὐσίας.
φύσεως.
ἀκήρατα.
αἰώνια.
μακραίωνα.
περσέα, a sacred tree of
Egypt and Persia, the fruit of which grew from the stem.
The text
gives διαφθορᾶς,
for which Viger suggests διαφορᾶς.
φιλοκρίνων.
ἀψύχων.
ἀγελάρχης.
Then we have what follows:—But if neither the word, nor the choice, nor the order of a ruler is laid upon them, and if by their own act they keep themselves right in the vast commotion of the stream in which they move, and convey themselves safely through the mighty uproar of the collisions, and if like atoms meet and group themselves with like, not as being brought together by God, according to the poet’s fancy, but rather as naturally recognising the affinities subsisting between each other, then truly we have here a most marvellous democracy of atoms, wherein friends welcome and embrace friends, and all are eager to sojourn together in one domicile; while some by their own determination have rounded themselves off into that mighty luminary the sun, so as to make day; and others have formed themselves into many pyramids of blazing stars, it may be, so as to crown also the whole heavens; and others have reduced themselves into the circular figure, so as to impart a certain solidity to the ether, and arch it over, and constitute it a vast graduated ascent of luminaries, with this object also, that the various conventions of the commoner atoms may select settlements for themselves, and portion out the sky among them for their habitations and stations.
Then, after certain other matters, the discourse
proceeds thus:—But inconsiderate men do not see even
things that are apparent, and certainly they are far from being
cognisant of things that are unapparent. For they do not seem
even to have any notion of those regulated risings and settings of the
heavenly bodies,—those of the sun, with all their wondrous glory,
no less than those of the others; nor do they appear to make due
application of the aids furnished through these to men, such as the day
that rises clear for man’s work, and the night that overshadows
earth for man’s rest. “For man,” it is said,
“goeth forth unto his work, and to his labour, until the
evening.”
[Our author touches with sagacity this crux of
theory: whence comes force, the origin and the
perpetuation of impetus? Christianity has thus anticipated
the defects of “modern science.”]
ταῖς
ἐπικάρποις.
After a short break he proceeds
thus:—Moreover, those stars which form a community so
multitudinous and various, which these erratic and ever self-dispersing
atoms have constituted, have marked off by a kind of covenant the
tracts for their several possessions, portioning these out like
colonies and governments, but without the presidency of any founder or
house-master; and with pledged fealty and in peace they respect the
laws of vicinity with their neighbours, and abstain from passing beyond
the boundaries which they received at the outset, just as if they
enjoyed the legislative administration of true princes in the
atoms. Nevertheless these atoms exercise no rule. For how
could these, that are themselves nothing, do that? But listen to
the divine oracles: “The works of the Lord are in judgment;
from the beginning, and from His making of them, He disposed the parts
thereof. He garnished His works for ever, and their
principles
ἀρχάς.
Again, after a little, he proceeds thus:—Or
what phalanx ever traversed the plain in such perfect order, no trooper
outmarching the others, or falling out of rank, or obstructing the
course,
των
ἀτόμων
τομεῖς.
οὕτω
σφενδονισθέντος. This
sentence, which is quoted as from the Scriptures, is found nowhere
there, at least verbatim et ad litteram. [
IV. A Refutation of the Same on the Grounds of the Human Constitution.
Further, those men understand neither themselves
nor what is proper to themselves. For if any of the leaders in
this impious doctrine only considered what manner of person he is
himself, and whence he comes, he would surely be led to a wise
decision, like one who has obtained understanding of himself, and would
say, not to these atoms, but to his Father and Maker, “Thy hands
have made me and fashioned me.”
[
ἐδωδὴ ωσπερ
φορολογοῦσα.
Hence we shall only run over in a summary way, at
present, some few of the works of an all-wise Providence; and after a
little we shall, if God grant it, go over them more minutely, when we
direct our discourse toward one who has the repute of greater
learning. So, then, we have the ministry of the hands, by
which all kinds of works are wrought, and all skilful professions
practised, and which have all their various faculties furnished them,
with a view to the discharge of one common function; and we have the
shoulders, with their capacity for bearing burdens; and the fingers,
with their power The
text is, καὶ τὰ
ἄλλα δι᾽ ὅσων
ἐμφανῶς ἡ
διοίκησις
τῆς
ἀνθρωπείου
μεμηχάνηται
διανομῆς. Viger
proposes διαμονῆς for
διανομῆς, and
renders the whole thus: “ac cætera quorum vi
humanæ firmitatis et conservationis ratio continetur.” The
text is, ὧν ὁμοίως
τοῖς ἄφροσιν
ἔχοντες οἱ
σοφοὶ τὴν
κρίσιν, οὐκ
ἴσχουσι τὴν
γνῶσιν. We adopt
Viger’s suggestion, and read χρῆσιν for κρίσιν. We read,
with Viger, θεότητα for
ἀθεότητα. The
text gives οἱ
μὲν γὰρ εἰς
ἣν ἂν
οἰηθῶσιν
ἀθεότητα, etc., which
might possibly mean something like this: There are some who refer
the whole economy to a power which these (others) may deem to be no
divinity (but which is) the highest intelligence in all things, and the
best benefactor, etc. Or the sense might be = There are some who
refer this most intelligent and beneficent economy to a power which
they deem to be no divinity, though they believe the same economy to be
the work of a wisdom, etc. The
text is, ἡμεῖς δὲ
ὕστερον ὡς ἂν
οἶοί τε
γενώμεθα, κἂν
ἐπιπολῆς,
ἀναθεωρήσομεν.
Viger renders it thus: “Nos eam postea, jejune fortassis et
exiliter, ut pro facultate nostra, prosequemur.” He
proposes, however, to read ἐπὶ
πολλοῖς
(sc. ῥήμασι or λόγοις) for ἐπιπολῆς. The
text is, χειρουργίαι
τούτων ὑπ᾽
ἀνθρώπων
εὕρηνται
σωματουργῶη.
Viger proposes σωματουργοί,
“handicrafts for the construction of such bodies have been
discovered by men.”
κόσμων. [See note 6,
p. 88, supra.]
ἀκοσμίαν.
V. That to Work is Not a Matter of Pain and Weariness to God.
Now to work, and administer, and do good, and exercise care, and such like actions, may perhaps be hard tasks for the idle, and silly, and weak, and wicked; in whose number truly Epicurus reckons himself, when he propounds such notions about the gods. But to the earnest, and powerful, and intelligent, and prudent, such as philosophers ought to be—and how much more so, therefore, the gods!—these things are not only not disagreeable and irksome, but ever the most delightful, and by far the most welcome of all. To persons of this character, negligence and procrastination in the doing of what is good are a reproach, as the poet admonishes them in these words of counsel:—
“Delay not aught till the
morrow.”
Hesiod’s Works and Days, v. 408.
And then he adds this further sentence of threatening:—
“The lazy procrastinator is ever wrestling
with miseries.”
Ibid., v. 411.
θεοπρεπῆ.
ἀμελῶς. The
text gives, διὰ
τὸ τῆς πείρας
ἀληθές. We adopt
Viger’s emendation, ἄηθες.
[“Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.”
But see Hippolytus (vol. v.), and compare Clement, vol. ii. pp.
565–567, this series.]
τύχην.
ὑποθηκῶν.
εἴδωλον.
πρόφασιν.
φύσει
γὰρ γνώμη
τυχῇ
μάχεται. Viger
refers to the parallel in Tullius, pro Marcello, sec. 7:
“Nunquam temeritas cum sapientia commiscetur, nec ad
consilium casus admittitur.”
εὐτυχῆ.
Fortune, τύχην.
ἐμφρονεστάτην.
τρέφοντες. The text
gives, ἡδυ ὄν αὐτοῖς
εἶναι τὸ
φιλοσοφεῖν.
Viger suggests ἡδιον for ἡδυ
ὄν.
δωτῆρας
ἐάων. See Homer,
Odyssey, viii. 325 and 335.
θέούς.
διὰ τὸ
θέειν.
δημιουργίαν
αὐτοῖς ἢ
κατασκευήν.
θεοποιησωσιν.
ἐκ τοῦ
θεῖναι.
ποιῆσαι. The
text gives, οὓς
ἐν τῷ κενῷ
κατεῖδε
θεούς. Viger proposes
τούς for
οὕς.
συγκροτῶν. For
ἀτόμων Viger suggests ἀτμῶν, “of vapours.” Or,
giving them to drink.
The text
is, ἐπὶ τῇ πάντων
κρίσει. Viger suggests
κτίσει, “at the
creation of all things.” The
quotation runs thus: καὶ πάντα
κατὰ τὴν
αὐτοῦ
πρόσταξιν
πέφηνε
καλά. Eusebius adds the remark
here: “These passages have been culled by me out of a very
large number composed against Epicurus by Dionysius, a bishop of our
own time.” [Among the many excellent works which have
appeared against the “hopelessly blinded” Epicureans of
this age, let me note Darwinism tested by Language, by E.
Bateman, M.D. London, Rivingtons, 1877.]
III.—From the Books Against Sabellius.
In Eusebius, Præpar. Evangel., book vii. ch.
19.
Eusebius introduces this extract thus: “And I shall
adduce the words of those who have most thoroughly examined the dogma
before us, and first of all Dionysius indeed, who, in the first book of
his Exercitations against Sabellius, writes in these terms on
the subject in hand.” [Note the primary position of
our author in the refutation of Sabellianism, and see (vol. v.) the
story of Callistus.]
————————————
These certainly are not to be deemed pious who
hold that matter is ungenerated, while they allow, indeed, that it is
brought under the hand of God so far as its arrangement and regulation
are concerned; for they do admit that, being naturally passive
παθητήν.
πρὸς
τοὺς
ἀθεωτάτους
πολυθέους.
IV.—Epistle to Dionysius Bishop of Rome.
Fragments of a second epistle of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, or of
the treatise which was inscribed the “Elenchus et
Apologia.” [A former epistle was written when Dionysius (of
Rome) was a presbyter.]
————————————
From the First Book.
1. There certainly was not a time when God
was not the Father.
And in what follows (says Athanasius) he professes that Christ
is always, as being the Word, and the Wisdom, and the
Power.
2. Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not from Himself, but from the Father.
And after a few words he says of the Son Himself:—
3. Being the brightness of the eternal
Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. For since light is
always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists,
because light is perceived to exist from the fact that it shines, and
it is impossible that light should not shine. And let us once
more come to illustrations. If the sun exists, there is also day;
if nothing of this be manifest, it is impossible that the sun should be
there. If then the sun were eternal, the day would never end; but
now, for such is not really the state of the case, the day begins with
the beginning of the sun, and ends with its ending. But God is
the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor shall ever
fail. Therefore the eternal brightness shines forth before Him,
and co-exists with Him, in that, existing without a beginning, and
always begotten, He always shines before Him; and He is that Wisdom
which says, “I was that wherein He delighted, and I was daily His
delight before His face at all times.”
And a little after he thus pursues his discourse from the same point:—
4. Since, therefore, the Father is eternal,
the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. For where there is the
begetter, there is also the offspring. And if there is no
offspring, how and of what can He be the begetter? But both are,
and always are. Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the
Brightness. And since He is a Spirit—for says He,
“God is a Spirit”
Scil. Wisdom.
And again he says:—
5. Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father.
From the Same First Book.
6. But when I spoke of things created, and
certain works to be considered, I hastily put forward illustrations of
such things, as it were little appropriate, when I said neither is the
plant the same as the husbandman, nor the boat the same as the
boatbuilder.
From Athan., Ep. de decret. Nic. Syn., 4. 18. [See
remarks on inevitable discrepancies of language and figurative
illustrations at this formative period, vol. iv. p. 223.]
From the Same First Book.
7. It was said above that God is the spring of all good things, but the Son was called the river flowing from Him; because the word is an emanation of the mind, and—to speak after human fashion—is emitted from the heart by the mouth. But the mind which springs forth by the tongue is different from the word which exists in the heart. For this latter, after it has emitted the former, remains and is what it was before; but the mind sent forth flies away, and is carried everywhere around, and thus each is in each although one is from the other, and they are one although they are two. And it is thus that the Father and the Son are said to be one, and to be in one another.
From the Second Book.
8. The individual names uttered by me can
neither be separated from one another, nor parted.
Ex Athan., Ep. de decret. Nic. Syn., 4. 17.
After a few words he adds:—
9. Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity.
From the Same Second Book.
10. But if any quibbler, from the fact that
I said that God is the Maker and Creator of all things, thinks that I
said that He is also Creator of Christ, let him observe that I first
called Him Father, in which word the Son also is at the same time
expressed.
Ibid., 4. 20.
11. That neither must this saying be thus
blamed;
Athanasius adds (ut supra, 4. 21), that Dionysius gave various
replies to those that blamed him for saying that God is the Maker of
Christ, whereby he cleared himself.
From the Same Second Book.
12. In the beginning was the
Word.
Ex Athan., Ep. de decret. Nic. Syn., 4. 25. [P. 94,
notes 1, 2, infra.]
From the Third Book.
13. Life is begotten of life in the same way
as the river has flowed forth from the spring, and the brilliant light
is ignited from the inextinguishable light.
Ex Athan., Ep. de decret. Nic. Syn., 4. 18.
From the Fourth Book.
14. Even as our mind emits from itself a
word,
Ex Athan., Ep. de decret. Nic. Syn., 4. 25. [P. 94,
notes 1, 2, infra.]
Emanant. [P. 49, supra, and vol. iii. p. 299, this
series.]
Sermonem. [So Tertullian, Sermo, vol. iii. p. 299,
note 19.]
About the Middle of the Treatise.
15. If, from the fact that there are three
hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether
they like it or no, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity
altogether. Ex
Basilio, lib. de Spir. Sancto, chap. 29.
And Again:
For on this account after the Unity there is also
the most divine Trinity.
Ibid. cap. penult., p. 61.
The Conclusion of the Entire Treatise.
16. In accordance with all these things, the
form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived
before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both
acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now
writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus
Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen. Of
the work itself Athanasius thus speaks: Finally, Dionysius
complains that his accusers do not quote his opinions in their
integrity, but mutilated, and that they do not speak out of a good
conscience, but for evil inclination; and he says that they are like
those who cavilled at the epistles of the blessed apostle.
Certainly he meets the individual words of his accusers, and gives a
solution to all their arguments; and as in those earlier writings of
his he confuted Sabellius most evidently, so in these later ones he
entirely declares his own pious faith. [Conf. Hermas, vol.
iii. p. 15, note 7, with note 2, supra.]
V.—The
Epistle to Bishop Basilides.
Containing explanations which were given as answers to questions
proposed by that bishop on various topics, and which have been received
as canons. [The Scholium, p. 79, is transposed from
here.]
————————————
Canon I.
Dionysius to Basilides, my beloved son, and my brother, a fellow-minister with me in holy things, and an obedient servant of God, in the Lord greeting.
You have sent to me, most faithful and
accomplished son, in order to inquire what is the proper hour for
bringing the fast to a close
ἀπονηστίζεσθαι
δεῖ. Gentianus Hervetus renders this by
jejunandus sit dies Paschæ; and thus he translates the word
by jejunare, “to fast,” wherever it occurs, whereas
it rather means always, jejunium solvere, “to have
done fasting.” In this sense the word is used in the
Apostolic Constitutions repeatedly: see book v. chap. 12,
18, etc. It occurs in the same sense in the 89th Canon of the
Concilium Trullanum. The usage must evidently be the same
here: so that it does not mean, What is the proper hour for
fasting on the day of Pentecost? but, What is the hour at which the
ante-paschal fast ought to be terminated—whether on the evening
preceding the paschal festival itself, or at cockcrowing, or at another
time?—Gall. See also the very full
article in Suicer, s.v. I
give the beginning of this epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria also as
it is found in not a few manuscripts, viz., ἐπέστειλάς
μοι…τῇ τοῦ πάσχα
περιλύσει,—the
common reading being, τὴν
τοῦ πάσχα
ἡμέραν. And the
περίλυσις
τοῦ πάσχα
denotes the close of the paschal fast, as Eusebius (Hist.
Eccles. v. 23) uses the phrase τὰς τῶν
ἀσιτιῶν
ἐπιλύσεις,—the
verbs περιλύειν,
ἀπολύειν,
ἐπιλύειν,
καταλύειν,
being often used in this sense.—Cotelerius on the Apostolic Constitutions, v.
15.
ἀφ᾽
ἑσπέρας. [Note this
and the Nicene decision which made the Alexandrian bishop the authority
concerning the paschal annually, vol. ii. Elucidation II. p.
343.]
πάνυ
μεμετρημένην.
κατὰ
καιροὺς
ἐνηλλαγμένους.
τῇ
ἐπιφωσκούσῃ
μιᾷ
Σαββάτων.
τῆ
ἐπιφωσκούσῃ
εἰς μίαν
Σαββάτων.
κοινότητα.
νύκτα
βαθείαν.
ὀψέ, late.
παρὰ
τοῦτο…προεληλύθει.
ὄρθρου
βαθέος.
προϋποφαινομένην
αὐτὴν
ἐωθινὴν
ἐμφανίζει.
πρὸ
νυκτὸς ἔγγυς
ἤδη μεσούσης
ἀνιέντας.
ὡς παρ᾽ ὀλίγον
προκαταλύοντας
τὸν δρὸμον.
[ That is,
as Balsamon explains, the six days of the week of our Lord’s
passion. To
these canons are appended the comments of Balsamon and Zonaras, which
it is not necessary to give here.
Canon II.
The question touching women in the time of their
separation, whether it is proper for them when in such a condition to
enter the house of God, I consider a superfluous inquiry. For I
do not think that, if they are believing and pious women, they will
themselves be rash enough in such a condition either to approach the
holy table or to touch the body and blood of the Lord. Certainly
the woman who had the issue of blood of twelve years’ standing
did not touch the Lord Himself, but only the hem of His garment,
with a view to her cure.
Canon III.
Moreover, those who are competent, and who are
advanced in years, ought to be judges of themselves in these
matters. For that it is proper to abstain from each other by
consent, in order that they may be free for a season to give themselves
to prayer, and then come together again, they have heard from Paul in
his epistle.
Referring to the relations of marriage, dealt with in
Canon IV.
As to those who are overtaken by an involuntary
flux in the night-time, let such follow the testimony of their own
conscience, and consider themselves as to whether they are doubtfully
minded
διακρίνονται.
[The
entire absence of despotic authority in these episcopal teachings is to
be noted.
Part II.—Containing Epistles, or Fragments of Epistles.
————————————
Epistle I.—To Domitius and
Didymus.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 11.
————————————
1. But it would be a superfluous task for me
to mention by name our (martyr) friends, who are numerous and at the
same time unknown to you. Only understand that they include men
and women, both young men and old, both maidens and aged matrons, both
soldiers and private citizens,—every class and every age, of whom
some have suffered by stripes and fire, and some by the sword, and have
won the victory and received their crowns. In the case of others,
however, even a very long lifetime has not proved sufficient to secure
their appearance as men acceptable to the Lord; as indeed in my own
case too, that sufficient time has not shown itself up to the
present. Wherefore He has preserved me for another convenient
season, of which He knows Himself, as He says: “In an
acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I
helped thee.”
2. Since, however, you have been
inquiring
Reading ἐπειδὴ
πυνθάνεσθε,
for which some codices give ἐπεὶ
πυνθάνεσθαι.
στρατηγῶν.
Christophorsonus would read στρατηγοῦ
in the sense of commander. But the word is used here
of the duumviri, or magistrates of Alexandria. And
that the word στρατηγός
was used in this civil acceptation as well as in the
common military application, we see by many examples in
Athanasius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and others. Thus, as Valesius
remarks, the soldiers (στρατιωτῶν)
here will be the band with the centurion, and the attendants
(ὑπηρετῶν) will be the
civil followers of the magistrates.
This happened in the first persecution under Decius, when
Dionysius was carried off by the decision of the prefect Sabinus to
Taposiris, as he informs us in his epistle to Germanus. Certainly
any one who compares that epistle of Dionysius to Germanus with this
one to Domitius, will have no doubt that he speaks of one and the same
event in both. Hence Eusebius is in error in thinking that in
this epistle of Dionysius to Domitius we have a narrative of the events
relating to the persecution of Valerian,—a position which may
easily be refuted from Dionysius himself. For in the persecution
under Valerian, Dionysius was not carried off into exile under military
custody, nor were there any men from Mareotis, who came and drove off
the soldiers, and bore him away unwillingly, and set him at liberty
again; nor had Dionysius on that occasion the presbyters Gaius and
Faustus, and Peter and Paul, with him. All these things happened
to Dionysius in that persecution which began a little before Decius
obtained the empire, as he testifies himself in his epistle to
Germanus. But in the persecution under Valerian, Dionysius was
accompanied in exile by the presbyter Maximus, and the deacons Faustus,
and Eusebius, and Chæremon, and a certain Roman cleric, as he
tells us in the epistle to Germanus.—Valesius.
3. And a little further on, he proceeds
thus:—And they concealed themselves in the city, and secretly
visited the brethren. I refer to the presbyters Maximus,
Dioscorus, Demetrius, and Lucius. For Faustinus and Aquila, who
are persons of greater prominence in the world, are wandering about in
Egypt. I specify also the deacons who survived those who died in
the sickness,
ἐν τῇ νόσῳ.
Rufinus reads νήσῳ, and renders it, “But of
the deacons, some died in the island after the pains of
confession.” But Dionysius refers to the pestilence which
traversed the whole Roman world in the times of Gallus and Volusianus,
as Eusebius in his Chroniconand others record. See
Aurelius Victor. Dionysius makes mention of this sickness again
in the paschal epistle to the Alexandrians, where he also speaks of the
deacons who were cut off by that plague.—Vales.
περιστολὰς
ἐκτελεῖν.
Christophorsonus renders it: “to prepare the linen cloths
in which the bodies of the blessed martyrs who departed this life might
be wrapped.” In this Valesius thinks he errs by looking at
the modern method of burial, whereas among the ancient Christians the
custom was somewhat different, the bodies being dressed out in full
attire, and that often at great cost, as Eusebius shows us in the case
of Astyrius, in the Hist. Eccles., vii. 16. Yet
Athanasius, in his Life of Antonius, has this sentence:
“The Egyptians are accustomed to attend piously to the funerals
of the bodies of the dead, and especially those of the holy martyrs,
and to wrap them in linen cloths: they are not wont, however, to
consign them to the earth, but to place them on couches, and keep them
in private apartments.”
Epistle II.—To
Novatus.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 45.
————————————
Dionysius to Novatus
Jerome, in his Catalogus, where he adduces the beginning of this
epistle, gives Novatianus for Novatus. So in the Chronicon
of Georgius Syncellus we have Διονύσιος
Ναυατιανῷ.
Rufinus’ account appears to be that there were two such
epistles,—one to Novatus, and another to Novatianus. The
confounding of these two forms seems, however, to have been frequent
among the Greeks. [See Lardner, Credib., sub voce
Novat. Wordsworth thinks the Greeks shortened the name, on
the grounds which Horace notes ad vocem
“Equotuticum.” Satires, I. v.
87.] We
read, with Gallandi, καὶ
ἦν οὐκ
ἀδοξυτέρα
τῆς ἕνεκεν
τοῦ μὴ
ἰδωλολατρεῦσαι
(sic) γινομένης, ἡ
ἕνεκεν τοῦ μὴ
σχίσαι
μαρτυρία.
This is substantially the reading of three Venetian codices, as
also of Sophronius on Jerome’s De vir. illustr., ch. 69,
and Georgius Syncellus in the Chronogr., p. 374, and Nicephorus
Callist., Hist. Eccles., vi. 4. Pearson, in the Annales
Cyprian.,
Epistle
III.—To Fabius,
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 41, 42, 44. Certain
codices read Fabianus for Fabius, and that form is adopted also by
Rufinus. Eusebius introduces this epistle thus: “The
same author, in an epistle written to Fabius bishop of Antioch, gives
the following account of the conflicts of those who suffered martyrdom
at Alexandria.”
————————————
1. The persecution with us did not commence
with the imperial edict, but preceded it by a whole year. And a
certain prophet and poet, an enemy to this city,
καὶ
φθάσας ὁ
κακῶν, etc. Pearson,
Annales Cyprian. ad ann., 249 § 1, renders it rather
thus: “et prævertens malorum huic urbi vates et
auctor, quisquis ille fuit, commovit,” etc.
εὐσέβειαν
τὴν
θρησκείαν
δαιμόνων.
Valesius thinks the last three words in the text ( = service to their
demons) an interpolation by some scholiast. [Note θρησκείαν =
cultus,
2. First, then, they seized an old man of
the name of Metras, and commanded him to utter words of impiety; and as
he refused, they beat his body with clubs, and lacerated his face and
eyes with sharp reeds, and then dragged him off to the suburbs and
stoned him there. Next they carried off a woman named Quinta, who
was a believer, to an idol temple, and compelled her to worship the
idol; and when she turned away from it, and showed how she detested it,
they bound her feet and dragged her through the whole city along the
rough stone-paved streets, knocking her at the same time against the
millstones, and scourging her, until they brought her to the same
place, and stoned her also there. Then with one impulse they all
rushed upon the houses of the God-fearing, and whatever pious persons
any of them knew individually as neighbours, after these they hurried
and bore them with them, and robbed and plundered them, setting aside
the more valuable portions of their property for themselves, and
scattering about the commoner articles, and such as were made of wood,
and burning them on the roads, so that they made these parts present
the spectacle of a city taken by the enemy. The brethren,
however, simply gave way and withdrew, and, like those to whom Paul
bears witness,
3. But they also seized that most admirable
virgin Apollonia, then in advanced life, and knocked out all her
teeth, [To this
day St. Apollonia is invoked all over Europe; and votive offerings are
to be seen hung up at her shrines, in the form of teeth, by those
afflicted with toothache.]
τὰ τῆς
ἀσεβείας
κηρύγματα.
What these precisely were, it is not easy to say. Dionysius
speaks of them also as δύσφημα
ῥήματα in this epistle, and as
ἄθεοι φωναί
in that to Germanus. Gallandi thinks the reference is to the
practice, of which we read also in the Acts of Polycarp, ch. 9, where
the proconsul addresses the martyr with the order: λοιδόρησον
τὸν
Χριστόν—Revile
Christ. And that the test usually put to reputed Christians by
the early persecutors was this cursing of Christ, we learn from Pliny,
book x. epist. 97. [Vol. i. p. 41.] Or,
shrink from.
ἐφέστιον, for which
Nicephorus reads badly, ᾽Εφέσιον.
ἐπιπολύ.
ἀθλίους. But Pearson
suggests ἄθλους, ="when insurrection
and civil war took the place of these persecutions.” This
would agree better with the common usage of διαδεχομαι.
ἀσχολίαν του
πρὸς ἠμας
θυμοῦ
λαβόντων. The
Latin version gives “dum illorum cessaret furor.” W.
Lowth renders, “dum non vacaret ipsis furorem suum in nos
exercere.”
4. But speedily was the change from that
more kindly reign This
refers to the death of the Emperor Philip, who showed a very righteous
and kindly disposition toward the Christians. Accordingly the
matters here recounted by Dionysius took place in the last year of the
Emperor Philip. This is also indicated by Dionysius in the
beginning of this epistle, where he says that the persecution began at
Alexandria a whole year before the edict of the Emperor Decius.
But Christophorsonus, not observing this, interprets the μεταβολὴν
τῆς
βασιλείας as
signifying a change in the emperor’s mind toward the
Christians, in which error he is followed by Baronius, ch.
102.—Vales. In this
sentence the Codex Regius reads, τὸ
προῤῥηθὲν
ὑπὸ τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν
παραβραχυ τὸ
φοβερώτατον, etc., ="the one intimated beforetime by our Lord, very nearly
the most terrible one.” In Georgius Syncellus it is given
as ἠ παρὰ
βραχύ. But the reading in the
text, ἀποφαῖνον,
“setting forth,” is found in the Codices Maz., Med.,
Fuk., and Savilii; and it seems the best, the idea being that this
edict of Decius was so terrible as in a certain measure to represent
the most fearful of all times, viz., those of
Antichrist.—Vales.
ἀπήντων
δεδιότες.
οἱ δὲ
δημοσιεύοντες
ὑπὸ τῶν
πράξεων
ἤγοντο. This is rendered by
Christophorsonus, “alii ex privatis ædibus in publicum
raptati ad delubra ducuntur a magistratibus.” But
δημοσιευοντες
is the same as τὰ
δημόσια
πράττοντες,
i.e., decurions and magistrates. For when the edict of Decius was
conveyed to them, commanding all to sacrifice to the immortal gods,
these officials had to convene themselves in the court-house as usual,
and stand and listen while the decree was there publicly recited.
Thus they were in a position officially which led them to be the first
to sacrifice. The word πραξεις occurs often in
the sense of the acts and administration of magistrates: thus, in
Eusebius, viii. 11; in Aristides, in the funeral oration on Alexander,
τὰ δ᾽
εἰς πράξεις
τε καὶ
πολιτειας,
etc. There are similar passage also in Plutarch’s
Πολιτικὰ
παραγγέλματα, and in Severianus’s sixth oration on the
Hexameron. So Chrysostom, in his eighty-third homily on Matthew,
calls the decurions τοὺς τὰ
πολιτικὰ
πράττοντας.
The word δημοσιεύοντες,
however, may also be explained of those employed in the departments of
law or finance; so that the clause might be rendered, with
Valesius: “alii, qui in publico versabantur, rebus ipsis et
reliquorum exemplo, ad sacrificandum ducebantur.” See the
note in Migne.
ἰσχυριζόμενοι
here for διισχυριζόμενοι
.—Vales.
πρὸς τὸ
ἑξῆς
ἀπεῖπον. It may also
mean, “renounced the faith in the prospect of what was before
them.”
5. But there were also others, stedfast and
blessed pillars of the Lord, who, receiving strength from Himself, and
obtaining power and vigour worthy of and commensurate with the force of
the faith that was in themselves, have proved admirable witnesses for
His kingdom. And of these the first was Julianus, a man suffering
from gout, and able neither to stand nor to walk, who was arranged
along with two other men who carried him. Of these two persons,
the one immediately denied Christ; but the other, a person named
Cronion, and surnamed Eunus, and together with him the aged Julianus
himself, confessed the Lord, and were carried on camels through the
whole city, which is, as you know, a very large one, and were scourged
in that elevated position, and finally were consumed in a tremendous
fire, while the whole populace surrounded them. And a certain
soldier who stood by them when they were led away to execution, and who
opposed the wanton insolence of the people, was pursued by the outcries
they raised against him; and this most courageous soldier of God, Besas
by name, was arranged; and after bearing himself most nobly in that
mighty conflict on behalf of piety, he was beheaded. And another
individual, who was by birth a Libyan, and who at once in name and in
real blessedness was also a true Macar, A
blessed one. Alluding to
μετὰ
πολύν. But Codices Med., Maz.,
Fuk., and Savilii, as well as Georgius Syncellus, read μετ᾽ οὐ
πολύν, “after a short
time.”
ξυστῆρας.
6. And along with these there were four
women. Among them was Ammonarium, a pious virgin, who was
tortured for a very long time by the judge in a most relentless manner,
because she declared plainly from the first that she would utter none
of the things which he commanded her to repeat; and after she had made
good her profession she was led off to execution. The others were
the most venerable and aged Mercuria, and Dionysia, who had been the
mother of many children, and yet did not love her offspring better than
her Lord. Here
Valesius adds from Rufinus the words καὶ
᾽Αμμωνάριον
ἕτερα, “and a second
Ammonarium,” as there are four women mentioned.
7. Heron also, and Ater,
In Georgius Syncellus and Nicephorus it is given as
Aster. Rufinus makes the name Arsinus. And in the old
Roman martyrology, taken largely from Rufinus, we find the form
Arsenius.—Vales. In his
Bibliotheca, cod. cxix., Photius states that Isidorus was
full brother to Pierius, the celebrated head of the Alexandrian school,
and his colleague in martyrdom. He also intimates, however, that
although some have reported that Pierius ended his career by martyrdom,
others say that he spent the closing period of his life in Rome after
the persecution abated.—Ruinart.
8. There was also a body of
soldiers,
σύνταγμα
στρατιωτικόν.
Rufinus and Christophorsonus make it turmam militum.
Valesius prefers manipulum or contubernium. These
may have been the apparitors or officers of the præfectus
Augustalis. Valesius thinks rather that they were
legionaries, from the legion which had to guard the city of Alexandria,
and which was under the authority of the præfectus
Augustalis. For at that time the præfectus
Augustalis had charge of military affairs as well as civil.
βάθρον. Valesius
supposes that what is intended is the seat on which the accused sat
when under interrogation by the judge.
θριαμβεύοντος
αὐτούς. Rufinus makes it,
“God thus triumphing in them;” from which it would seem
that he had read δι᾽
αὐτούς. But θριαμβεύειν
is probably put here for θριαμβεύειν
ποιεῖν, as βασιλεύειν
is also used by Gregory Nazianzenus.
9. Moreover, others in large numbers were
torn asunder by the heathen throughout the cities and villages.
Of one of these I shall give some account, as an example.
Ischyrion served one of the rulers in the capacity of steward for
stated wages. His employer ordered this man to offer sacrifice;
and on his refusal to do so, he abused him. When he persisted in
his non-compliance, his master treated him with contumely; and when he
still held out, he took a huge stick and thrust it through his bowels
and heart, and slew him. Why should I mention the multitudes of
those who had to wander about in desert places and upon the mountains,
and who were cut off by hunger, and thirst, and cold, and sickness, and
robbers, and wild beasts? The survivors of such are the witnesses
of their election and their victory. One circumstance, however, I
shall subjoin as an illustration of these things. There was a
certain very aged person of the name of Chæremon, bishop of the
place called the city of the Nile.
That is, Nilopolis or Niloupolis. Eusebius, bishop of the
same seat, subscribed the Council of Ephesus.—Reading.
τὸ
᾽Αράβιον
ὄρος. There is a Mons
Arabicusmentioned by Herodotus (ii. 8), which Ptolemy and
others call Mons Troïcus.—Vales.
This passage is notable from the fact that it makes mention of
the Saracens. For of the writers whose works have come down to us
there is none more ancient than Dionysius of Alexandria that has named
the Saracens. Ammianus Marcellinus, however, writes in his
fourteenth book that he has made mention of the Saracens in the Acts of
Marcus. Spartianus also mentions the Saracens in his
Niger, and says that the Roman soldiers were beaten by
them.—Vales. [“The barbarous
Saracens:” what a nominis umbra
projected by “coming events,” in this blissfully
ignorant reference of our author! Compare Robertson,
Researches, on the conquest of Jerusalem.]
10. Those sainted martyrs, accordingly, who
were once with us, and who now are seated with Christ,
As to the martyrs’ immediate departure to the Lord, and
their abode with Him, see Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the
Flesh, ch. xliii., and On the Soul, v. 55. [Vol. iii.
p. 576; Ib., p. 231.]
That the martyrs were to be Christ’s assessors, judging the
world with Him, was a common opinion among the fathers. So, after
Dionysius, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, in his fifth book,
Against the Novatians. Photius, in his
Bibliotheca, following Chrysostom, objects to this, and explains
Paul’s words in
συνδικάζοντες.
See a noble passage in Bossuet, Préface sur
l’Apocal , § 28.
Dionysius is dealing here not with public communion, such as was
the bishop’s prerogative to confer anew on the penitent, but with
private fellowship among Christian people.—Vales.
ἄδικον
ποιησώμεθα is
the reading of Codices Maz., Med., Fuk., and Savil., and also of
Georgius Syncellus. Others read ἄδεκτον
ποιησόμεθα,
“we shall treat it as inadmissible.” The
words καὶ
τὸν Θεὸν
παροξύνομεν,
“and provoke God,” are sometimes added here; but they are
wanting in Codices Maz., Med., Fuk., Savil., and in Georgius
Syncellus.
11. But I shall give a more particular
account of one case here which occurred among us:
Eusebius introduces this in words to the following effect:
“Writing to this same Fabius, who seemed to incline somewhat to
this schism, Dionysius of Alexandria, after setting forth in his letter
many other matters which bore on repentance, and after describing the
conflicts of the martyrs who had recently suffered in Alexandria,
relates among other things one specially wonderful fact, which I have
deemed proper for insertion in this history, and which is as
follows.”
That is, none either of the clergy or of the people were moved by
his prayers to consider him a proper subject for absolution; for the
people’s suffrages were also necessary for the reception into the
Church of any who had lapsed, and been on that account cut off from
it. And sometimes the bishop himself asked the people to allow
absolution to be given to the suppliant, as we see in Cyprian’s
Epistle 53, to Cornelius [vol. v. p. 336, this series], and in
Tertullian On Modesty, ch. xiii. [vol. iv. p. 86, this
series]. Oftener, however, the people themselves made
intercession with the bishop for the admission of penitents; of which
we have a notable instance in the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of
Antioch about that bishop who had ordained Novatianus. See also
Cyprian, Epistle 59 [vol. v. p. 355].—Vales.
In the African Synod, which met about the time that Dionysus
wrote, it was decreed that absolution should be granted to lapsed
persons who were near their end, provided that they had sought it
earnestly before their illness. See Cyprian in the Epistle to
Antonianus [vol. v. p. 327, this series].—Vales.
ἀφίεσθαι. There
is a longer reading in Codices Fuk. and Savil., viz.: τῶν θείων
δώρων τῆς
μεταδόσεως
ἀξιοῦσθαι
καὶ οὕτως
ἀφιεσθαι, “be
deemed worthy of the imparting of the divine gifts, and thus be
absolved.”
Valesius thinks that this custom prevailed for a long time, and
cites a synodical letter of Ratherius, bishop of Verona (which has also
been ascribed to Udalricus by Gretserus, who has published it along
with his Life of Gregory VII.), in which the practice is
expressly forbidden in these terms: “And let no one presume
to give the communion to a laic or a woman for the purpose of conveying
it to an infirm person.”
ἀποβρέξαι.
Rufinus renders it by infundere. References to this
custom are found in Adamanus, in the second book of the Miracles of
St. Columba, ch 6; in Bede, Life of St. Cuthbert, ch. 31,
and in the poem on the life of the same; in Theodorus Campidunensis,
Life of St. Magnus, ch. 22; in Paulus Bernriedensis, Life of
Gregory VII., p. 113.
ὁμολογηθῆναι.
Langus, Wolfius, and Musculus render it confiteri,
“confess.” Christophorsonus makes it in numerum
confessorum referri, “reckoned in the number of
confessors:” which may be allowed if it is understood to be
a reckoning by Christ. For Dionysius alludes to those
words of Christ in the Gospel: “Whosoever shall confess me
before men, him will I confess also before my
Father.”—Vales.
Epistle
IV.—To Cornelius the Roman Bishop.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 46.
————————————
In addition to all these, he writes likewise to Cornelius at Rome after receiving his Epistle against Novatus. And in that letter he also shows that he had been invited by Helenus, bishop in Tarsus of Cilicia, and by the others who were with him—namely, Firmilian, bishop in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus in Palestine—to meet them at the Council of Antioch, where certain persons were attempting to establish the schism of Novatus. In addition to this, he writes that it was reported to him that Fabius was dead, and that Demetrianus was appointed his successor in the bishopric of the church at Antioch. He writes also respecting the bishop in Jerusalem, expressing himself in these very words: “And the blessed Alexander, having been cast into prison, went to his rest in blessedness.”
Epistle V.—Which is the
First on the Subject of Baptism Addressed to Stephen, Bishop of
Rome.
In the second chapter of the seventh book of his
Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says: “To this
Stephen, Eusebius wrote the first of his epistles on the matter of
baptism.” And he calls this the first, because
Dionysius also wrote other four epistles to Xystus and Dionysius, two
of the successors of Stephen, and to Philemon, on the same subject of
the baptizing of heretics.—Gallandi.
————————————
Understand, however, my brother,
Eusebius introduces the letter thus: “When he had addressed
many reasonings on this subject to him (Stephen) by letter, Dionysius
at last showed him that, as the persecution had abated, the churches in
all parts opposed to the innovations of Novatus were at peace among
themselves.” [See vol. v. p. 275.]
καὶ ἔτι
προσωτέρω.
These words are omitted in Codices Fulk, and Savil., as also by
Christophorsonus; but are given in Codices Reg. Maz., and Med., and by
Syncellus and Nicephorus.
Baronius infers from this epistle that at this date, about 259
a.d., the Oriental bishops had given up their
“error,” and fallen in with Stephen’s opinion, that
heretics did not require to be rebaptized,—an inference, however,
which Valesius deems false. [Undoubtedly so.] The
name assigned by the pagans to Jerusalem was Ælia. It was so
called even in Constantine’s time as we see in the Tabula
Peutingerorum and the Itinerarium Antonini, written
after Constantine’s reign. In the seventh canon of the
Nicene Council we also find the name Ælia. [Given by Hadrian
a.d. 135.] The
words κοιμηθέντος
᾽Αλεξάνδρου
are given in the text in connection with the clause Μαρῖνος ἐν
Τύρῳ. They must be transposed
however as in the translation; for Mazabanes had succeeded Alexander
the bishop of Ælia, as Dionysius informs us in his Epistle to
Cornelius. So Rufinus puts it also in his Latin
version.—Vales.
Alluding to the generous practice of the church at Rome in old times in
relieving the wants of the other churches, and in sending money and
clothes to the brethren who were in captivity, and to those who toiled
in the mines. To this effect we have the statement of Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to Soter, which Eusebius cites in his
fourth book. In the same passage, Eusebius also remarks that this
commendable custom had been continued in the Roman church up to his own
time; and with that object collections were made there, of which Leo
Magnus writes in his Sermones.—Vales. [Note this to the eternal honour of this See
in its early purity.]
The Same, Otherwise Rendered. [In
vol. v., to illustrate the history of Cyprian, reference is made to
this letter; and in the Clark edition another rendering is there given
(a preferable one, I think) of this same letter, which I have thought
better to reserve for this place. It belongs here, and I have
there noted its appearance in this volume.]
But know, my brother, that all the churches
throughout the East, and those that are placed beyond, which formerly
were separated, are now at length returned to unity; and all the
presidents
[προεστῶτες. See Euseb., Hist. Eccles., book viii. capp. 2, 3 and 4;
also vol. v., this series, as above mentioned.]
Epistle VI.—To
Sixtus, Bishop.
Dionysius mentions letters that had been written by him as well to the
Presbyters Dionysius and Philemon as to Stephen, on the baptism of
heretics and on the Sabellian heresy.
————————————
1. Previously, indeed, (Stephen) had written letters about Helanus and Firmilianus, and about all who were established throughout Cilicia and Cappadocia, and all the neighbouring provinces, giving them to understand that for that same reason he would depart from their communion, because they rebaptized heretics. And consider the seriousness of the matter. For, indeed, in the most considerable councils of the bishops, as I hear, it has been decreed that they who come from heresy should first be trained in Catholic doctrine, and then should be cleansed by baptism from the filth of the old and impure leaven. Asking and calling him to witness on all these matters, I sent letters.
And a little after Dionysius proceeds:—
2. And, moreover, to our beloved co-presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, who before agreed with Stephen, and had written to me about the same matters, I wrote previously in few words, but now I have written again more at length.
In the same letter, says Eusebius, Lib.
vii. ch. 6. [i.e.,
Sixtus II.]
3. For since of the doctrine, which lately has been set on foot at Ptolemais, a city of Pentapolis, impious and full of blasphemy against Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; full of unbelief and perfidy towards His only begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word made man, and which takes away the perception of the Holy Spirit,—on either side both letters were brought to me, and brethren had come to discuss it, setting forth more plainly as much as by God’s gift I was able,—I wrote certain letters, copies of which I have sent to thee.
Epistle
VII.—To Philemon, a Presbyter.
Of Sixtus, bishop of Rome. [a.d.
257].
————————————
I indeed gave attention to reading the books and
carefully studying the traditions of heretics, to the extent indeed of
corrupting my soul with their execrable opinions; yet receiving from
them this advantage, that I could refute them in my own mind, and
detested them more heartily than ever. And when a certain brother
of the order of presbyters sought to deter me, and feared lest I should
be involved in the same wicked filthiness, because he said that my mind
would be contaminated, and indeed with truth, as I myself perceived, I
was strengthened by a vision that was sent me from God. And a
word
Then, says Eusebius, he subjoins some things parenthetically about all heresies:—
This rule and form I have received from our blessed Father Heraclus: For thou, who came from heresies, even if they had fallen away from the Church, much rather if they had not fallen away, but when they were seen to frequent the assemblies of the faithful, were charged with going to hear the teachers of perverse doctrine, and ejected from the Church, he did not admit after many prayers, before they had openly and publicly narrated whatever things they had heard from their adversaries. Then he received them at length to the assemblies of the faithful, by no means asking of them to receive baptism anew. Because they had already previously received the Holy Spirit from that very baptism.
Once more, this question being thoroughly ventilated, he adds:—
I learned this besides, that this custom is not
now first of all imported among the Africans [I find
that it is necessary to say that the “Africans” of Egypt
and Carthage were no more negroes than we “Americans” are
redmen. The Carthaginians were Canaanites and the Alexandrians
Greeks. I have seen Cyprian’s portrait representing him as
a Moor.]
Epistle VIII.—To
Dionysius. At
that time presbyter of Xystus, and afterwards his successor. He
teaches that Novatian is deservedly to be opposed on account of his
schism, on account of his impious doctrine, on account of the
repetition of baptism to those who came to him.
————————————
For we rightly repulse Novatian, who has rent the Church, and has drawn away some of the brethren to impiety and blasphemies; who has brought into the world a most impious doctrine concerning God, and calumniates our most merciful Lord Jesus Christ as if He were unmerciful; and besides all these things, holds the sacred laver as of no effect, and rejects it, and overturns faith and confession, which are put before baptism, and utterly drives away the Holy Spirit from them, even if any hope subsists either that He would abide in them, or that He should return to them.
Epistle IX.—To
Sixtus II. Of a
man who sought to be introduced to the Church by baptism, although he
said that he had received baptism, with other words and matters among
the heretics.
————————————
For truly, brother, I have need of advice, and I
crave your judgment, lest perchance I should be mistaken upon the
matters which in such wise happen to me. One of the brethren who
come together to the church, who for some time has been esteemed as a
believer, and who before my ordination, and, if I am not deceived,
before even the episcopate of Heraclas himself, had been a partaker of
the assembly of the faithful, when he had been concerned in the baptism
of those who were lately baptized, and had heard the interrogatories
and their answers, came to me in tears, and bewailing his lot.
And throwing himself at my feet, he began to confess and to protest
that this baptism by which he had been initiated among heretics was not
of this kind, nor had it anything whatever in common with this of ours,
because that it was full of blasphemy and impiety. And he said
that his soul was pierced with a very bitter sense of sorrow, and that
he did not dare even to lift up his eyes to God, because he had been
initiated by those wicked words and things. Wherefore he besought
that, by this purest laver, he might be endowed with adoption and
grace. And I, indeed, have not dared to do this; but I have said
that the long course of communion had been sufficient for this.
For I should not dare to renew afresh, after all, one who had heard the
giving of thanks, and who had answered with others Amen; who had stood
at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands
[Vol. v. See a reference to Cyril’s Catechetical
Lectures.]
Epistle
X.—Against Bishop Germanus.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 40, vii. 11.
————————————
1. Now I speak also before God, and He
knoweth that I lie not: it was not by my own choice,
οὑδεμίαν
ἐπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ
βαλλόμενος. In Codex Fuk. and in the Chronicon of Syncellus it
is ἐπ᾽
ἐμαυτῷ. In Codices Maz.
and Med. it is ἐπ᾽
ἐμαυτόν. Herodotus
employs the phrase in the genitive form—βαλλόμενος
ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
πέπρηχε, i.e., seipsum in consilium adhibens, sua sponte
et proprio motu fecit.
ἁλλὰ καὶ
πρότερον.
Christophorsonus and others join the πρότερον, with
the διωγμοῦ, making it
mean, “before the persecution.” This is contrary to
pure Greek idiom, and is also inconsistent with what follows; for by
the αὐτῆς
ὥρας is meant the very hour at which the
edict was decreed, διωγμός here
having much the sense of “edict for the
persecution.”—Vales. There
was a body of men called frumentarii milites, employed under the
emperors as secret spies, and sent through the provinces to look after
accused persons, and collect floating rumors. They were abolished
at length by Constantine, as Aurelius Victor writes. They were
subordinate to the judges or governors of the provinces. Thus
this Frumentarius mentioned here by Dionysius was deputed in obedience
to Sabinus, the præfectus
Augustalis.—Vales.
οῖ
παῖδες. Musculus and
Christophorsonus make it “children.” Valesius prefers
“domestics.”
2. Then, after a certain break, he narrates the events which befell him after his flight, subjoining the following statement:—Now about sunset I was seized, along with those who were with me, by the soldiers, and was carried off to Taposiris. But by the providence of God, it happened that Timotheus was not present with me then, nor indeed had he been apprehended at all. Reaching the place later, he found the house deserted, and officials keeping guard over it, and ourselves borne into slavery.
3. And after some other matters, he
proceeds thus:—And what was the method of this marvellous
disposition of Providence in his case? For the real facts shall
be related. When Timotheus was fleeing in great perturbation, he
was met
ἀπήντετό τις
τῶν
χωριτῶν. In Codices
Maz., Med., Fuk., and Savil., ἀπήντα is written; in Georgius
Syncellus it is ἀπηντᾶτο.
χωριτῶν rendered
indigenarum by Christophorsonus, and incolarum,
“inhabitants,” by the interpreter of Syncellus; but it
means rather “rustics.” Thus in the Greek Councils
the τῶν
χωρῶν
πρεσβύτεροι,
presbyteri pagorum, are named. Instead of χωριτῶν, Codices
Maz., Med., and Fuk. read χωρικῶν; for
thus the Alexandrians named the country people, as we see in the
tractate of Sophronius against Dioscorus, and the Chronicon of
Theophanes, p. 139.
ἀστρώτων
σκιμπόδων.
φοράδην
ἐξήγαγον. The
φοράδην may mean, as
Valesius puts it, in sella, “on a stool or
litter.”
4. I fear that I run the risk of being
charged with great folly and senselessness, placed as I am under the
necessity of giving a narrative of the wonderful dispensation of
God’s providence in our case. Since, however, as one says,
it is good to keep close the secret of a king, but it is honourable to
reveal the works of God,
τὸ
τελευταῖον
ἐπι τὸ πρῶτον
ἀνατρέχοντι,
i.e., to begin by interdicting him from holding Christian assemblies,
while the great question was whether he was a Christian at all, would
have been to place first what was last in order and consequence.
5. Hear also the words which were uttered by
both of us as they have been put on record.
ὑπεμνηματίσθη.
ἀγράφως.
Germanus had accused Dionysius of neglecting to hold the
assemblies of the brethren before the persecutions broke out, and of
rather providing for his own safety by flight. For when
persecution burst on them, the bishops were wont first to convene the
people, in order to exhort them to hold fast the faith of Christ; there
infants and catechumens were baptized, to provide against their
departing this life without baptism, and the Eucharist was given to the
faithful.—Vales.
6. Then after some other matters he
says:—Moreover, we did not withdraw from the visible
assembling of ourselves together, with the Lord’s
presence.
αἰσθητῆς
μετὰ τοῦ
Κυρίου
συναγωγς.
ὡς εἶπον. Codices Maz. and
Med. give εἰπεῖν, “so to
speak;” Fuk. and Savil. give ὡς
εἶπεν ὁ
ἀπόστολος,
“as the apostle said.” See on
[
ἡμᾶς δὲ
μᾶλλον ἐν
ὁδῷ καὶ
πρώτους
καταληφθησομένους
ἔταξεν.
7. Now when I received the command to depart
to Cephro, I had no idea of the situation of the place, and had
scarcely even heard its name before; yet for all that, I went away
courageously and calmly. But when word was brought me that I had
to remove to the parts of Colluthion,
τὰ
Κολλουθίωνος,
supplying μέρη,
as Dionysius has already used the phrase τὰ μέρη τῆς
Λιβύης. This was a district
in the Mareotic prefecture. Thus we have mention made also of
τὰ
Βουκόλου, a certain tract in Egypt, deriving its name from
the old masters of the soil. Nicephorus writes Κολούθιον,
which is probably more correct; for Κολλουθίων
is a derivative from Colutho, which was a common name in Egypt.
Thus a certain poet of note in the times of Anastasius, belonging to
the Thebaid, was so named, as Suidas informs us. There was also a
Coluthus, a certain schismatic, in Egypt, in the times of Athanasius,
who is mentioned often in the Apologia; and Gregory of
Nyssa names him Acoluthus in his Contra Eunomium, book
ii.—Vales.
κατὰ
μέρος
συναγωγαί.
When the suburbs were somewhat distant from the city, the brethren
resident in them were not compelled to attend the meetings of the
larger church, but had meetings of their own in a basilica, or some
building suitable for the purpose. The Greeks, too, gave the name
προάστειον
to places at some considerable distance from the city, as well as to
suburbs immediately connected with it. Thus Athanasius calls
Canopus a προάστειον;
and so Daphne is spoken of as the προάστειον
of Antioch, Achyrona as that of Nicomedia, and Septimum as that of
Constantinople, though these places were distant some miles from the
cities. From this place it is also inferred that in the days of
Dionysius there was still but one church in Alexandria, where all the
brethren met for devotions. But in the time of Athanasius, when
several churches had been built by the various bishops, the
Alexandrians met in different places, κατὰ μέρος
καὶ
διῃρημένως
, as Athanasius says in his first Apology to Constantius; only that on
the great festivals, as at the paschal season and at Pentecost, the
brethren did not meet separately, but all in the larger church, as
Athanasius also shows us—Vales.
8. Then, after some other matters, he
gives again the following account of what befell him:
—Germanus, indeed, boasts himself of many professions of
faith. He, forsooth, is able to speak of many adverse things
which have happened to him! Can he then reckon up in his own case
as many condemnatory sentences
ἀποφάσεις.
Maximus, in the scholia to the book of Dionysius the Areopagite, De
cœlesti hierarchia, ch. 5, states that Dionysius was by
profession a rhetor before his conversion: ὁ γοῦν μέγας
Διονύσιος ὁ
᾽Αλεξανδρεων
ἐπισκοπος, ὁ
ἀπὸ
ῥητόρων,
etc.—Vales.
τῶν
ἐναντίων
ἁπειλῶν.
This Sabinus had been prefect of Egypt in the time of Decius; it
is of him that Dionysius writes in his Epistle to Fabius, which is
given above. The Æmilianus, prefect of Egypt, who is
mentioned here, afterwards seized the imperial power, as Pollio writes
in his Thirty Tyrants, who, however, calls him general
(ducem), and not prefect of
Egypt.—Vales.
Epistle XI.—To
Hermammon.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 1, 10, 23. Eusebius
introduces this extract thus: “In an epistle to Hermammon,
Dionysus makes the following remarks upon Gallus” the
Emperor.
————————————
1. But Gallus did not understand the
wickedness of Decius, nor did he note beforehand what it was that
wrought his ruin. But he stumbled at the very stone which was
lying before his eyes; for when his sovereignty was in a prosperous
position, and when affairs were turning out according to his
wish,
κατὰ
νοῦν is the reading in the Codices Maz.,
Med., Fuk, and Savil., and adopted by Rufinus and others. But
Robertus Stephanus, from the Codex Regius, gives κατὰ ῥοῦν,
“according to the stream,” i.e., favourably.
2. And to John a revelation is made in like
manner:
Eusebius prefaces this extract thus: “Gallus had not held
the government two full years when he was removed, and Valerian,
together with his son Gallienus, succeeded him. And what
Dionysius has said of him may be learned from his Epistle to Hermammon,
in which he makes the following statement.”
ἐξουσία καὶ
μῆνες
τεσσαρακονταδύο.
The
text is, καὶ
τούτων
μάλιστα τὰ
πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὡς
οὕτως ἔσχε
συννοεῖν·
ἕως ἤπιος, etc.
Gallandi emends the sentence thus: καὶ αὐτοῦ
τὰ μάλιστα
πρὸ τούτων,
ὡς οὐχ οὕτως
ἔσχε,
συννοεῖν, ἔως
ἤπιος, etc. Codex Regius gives
ὡς
μὲν
ἤπιος. But Codices Maz. and Med.
give ἕως ἤπιος, while Fuk.
and Savil. give ἔως γὰρ
ἤπιος.
He means the Emperor Philip who, as many of the ancients have
recorded, was the first of the Roman emperors to profess the Christian
religion. But as Dionysius speaks in the plural number, to Philip
may be added Alexander Severus, who had an image of Christ in the
chapel of his Lares, as Lampridius testifies, and who favoured and
sustained the Christians during the whole period of his empire.
It is to be noted further, that Dionysius says of these emperors only
that they were said and thought to be Christians, not that they
were so in reality.—Gallandi
ἀρχισυνάγωγος.
Baronius thinks that this was that Magus who, a little
while before the empire of Decius, had incited the Alexandrians to
persecute the Christians, and of whom Dionysius speaks in his Epistle
to Fabius. What follows here, however, shows that Macrianus is
probably the person alluded to.
εὐδαιμονήσοντας.
So Codices Maz., Med., Fuk. and Savil. read: others give
εὐδαιμονήσαντας.
It would seem to require εὐδαιμονήσοντα,
“as if he would attain;” for the reference is evidently to
Valerian himself.
3. Afterwards he subjoins the
following:—Splendid surely were the thank-offerings, then,
which Macrianus brought them By
the αὐτοῖς some understand
τοῖς
βασιλεῦσι; others
better, τοῖς
δαίμοσι. According to
Valesius, the sense is this: that Macrianus having, by the help
and presages of the demons, attained his hope of empire, made a due
return to them, by setting Valerian in arms against the Christians.
ἐπὶ τῶν
καθόλου
λόγων. The Greeks gave this name
to those officials whom the Latins called rationales, or
procuratores summæ rei. Under what emperor Macrianus
was procurator, is left uncertain here.
οὐδὲν
εὔλογον οὐδὲ
καθολικὸν
ἐφρόνησεν.
There is a play here on the two senses of the word καθολικός ,
as seen in the official title ἐπὶ
τῶν καθόλου
λόγων, and in the note of character in
οὐδὲ
καθολικόν.
But it can scarcely be reproduced in the English.
οὐαὶ
τοῖς
προφητεύουσιν
ἀπὸ καρδίας
αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ
καθόλου μὴ
βλέπουσιν.
The quotation is probably from
Robertus Stephanus edits τῆς ἑαυτοῦ
ἐκκλησίας,
“from his Church,” following the Codex Medicæus.
But the best manuscripts give σωτηρίας. A
play upon the name Macrianus, as connected with μακράν, “at a
distance.” [This playfulness runs through the section.]
4. And again, after some other matters,
he proceeds thus:—For Valerian was instigated to these acts
by this man, and was thereby exposed to contumely and reproach,
according to the word spoken by the Lord to Isaiah:
“Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their own abominations
in which their souls delighted; I also will choose their
mockeries,
ἐμπαίγματα.
Christophorsonus refers this to Valerian. But evidently the
οὗτος
δέ introduces a different subject in Macrianus; and
besides, Valerian could not be said to have been originally unworthy of
the power which he aspired to.
τὸν
βασίλειον
ὑποδῦναι
κόσμον.
ἀναπήρῳ.
Joannes Zonaras, in his Annals, states that Macrianus was
lame.
ὧν ἠτυχει. So
Codex Regius reads. But Codices Maz., Med., and Fuk. give
ηὐτύχει, “in
which he succeeded.”
ἐξωμόρξατο.
5.
Eusebius introduces the extract thus: He (Dionysius) addressed
also an epistle to Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt; and after
giving an account of the wickedness of Decius and his successors, he
states many other circumstances, and also mentions the peace of
Gallienus. And it is best to hear his own relation as
follows. This
is rightly understood of Macrianus, by whose treachery Valerian came
under the power of the Persians. Aurelius Victor, Syncellus, and
others, testify that Valerian was overtaken by that calamity through
the treachery of his generals. προστάς. But
Valesius would read προσστάς,
adstans.
προσπελάσας
is the reading of three of the codices and of Nicephorus; others give
προπελάσας.
6. Then he further indicates the exact
time at which he wrote this account, as follows:—And it
occurs to me again to review the days of the imperial years. For
I see that those most impious men, whose names may have been once so
famous, have in a short space become nameless. But our more pious
and godly prince
[ Who ever
expressed himself thus,—that one after his seven years was
passing his ninth year? This septennium (επταετηρίς
) must designate something peculiar, and different from the time
following it. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power
which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of
that empire, Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honour
specially in Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however,
Gallienus had still much authority in Egypt. At length, in the
ninth year of Gallienus, that is, in 261, Macrianus the father and the
two sons being slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognised also
among the Egyptians. And then Gallienus gave a rescript to
Dionysius, Pinna, and Demetrius, bishops of Egypt, to re-establish the
sacred places,—a boon which he had granted in the former
year. The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about the
midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was written
by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from that, and
falls consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d.—Pearson, p. 72.
Gall.
Epistle XII.—To
the Alexandrians.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 22. Eusebius prefaces
the 21st chapter of his seventh book thus: “When peace had
scarcely yet been established, he (Dionysius) returned to
Alexandria. But when sedition and war again broke out, and made
it impossible for him to have access to all the brethren in that city,
divided as they then were into different parties, he addressed them
again by an epistle at the Passover, as if he were still an exile from
Alexandria.” Then he inserts the epistle to Hierax; and
thereafter, in ch. xxii., introduces the present excerpt thus:
“After these events, the pestilence succeeding the war, and the
festival being now at hand, he again addressed the brethren by letters,
in which he gave the following description of the great troubles
connected with that calamity.”
————————————
1. To other men, indeed, the present state
of matters would not appear to offer a fit season for a festival:
and this certainly is no festal time to them; nor, in sooth, is any
other that to them. And I say this, not only of occasions
manifestly sorrowful,
οὐχ
ὅπως τῶν
ἐπιλύπων is the
reading of Codices Maz., Med., and Savil.; others give, less correctly,
ἐπιλοίπων. The text
gives, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ εἴ
τις
περιχαρὴς ὃν
οἰηθεῖεν
μάλιστα, which is put
probably for the mere regular construction, ὃν
οἵοιντο ἀν
μάλιστα
περιχαρῆ.
Nicephorus reads, εἴ
τις
περιχαρης ὢν
οἰθείη. The idea is, that
the heathen could have no real festal time. All seasons, those
apparently most joyous, no less than those evidently sorrowful, must be
times void of all real rejoicing to them, until they learn the grace of
God.
2. Many terrible calamities, it is true, have also befallen us before this. For first they drove us away; and though we were quite alone, and pursued by all, and in the way of being slain, we kept our festival, even at such a time. And every place that had been the scene of some of the successive sufferings which befell any of us, became a seat for our solemn assemblies,—the field, the desert, the ship, the inn, the prison,—all alike. The most gladsome festival of all, however, has been celebrated by those perfect martyrs who have sat down at the feast in heaven. And after these things war and famine surprised us. These were calamities which we shared, indeed, with the heathen. But we had also to bear by ourselves alone those ills with which they outraged us, and we had at the same time to sustain our part in those things which they either did to each other or suffered at each other’s hands; while again we rejoiced deeply in that peace of Christ which He imparted to us alone.
3. And after we and they together had
enjoyed a very brief season of rest, this pestilence next assailed
us,—a calamity truly more dreadful to them than all other objects
of dread, and more intolerable than any other kind of trouble
whatsoever;
Dionysius is giving a sort of summary of all the calamities which
befell the Alexandrian church from the commencement of his episcopal
rule: namely, first, persecution, referring to that which began
in the last year of the reign of Philip; then war, meaning the civil
war of which he speaks in his Epistle to Fabius; then pestilence,
alluding to the sickness which began in the time of Decius, and
traversed the land under Gallus and Volusianus.—Vales.
4. To these statements he in due
succession makes this addition:—Certainly very many of our
brethren, while, in their exceeding love and brotherly-kindness, they
did not spare themselves, but kept by each other, and visited the sick
without thought of their own peril, and ministered to them assiduously,
and treated them for their healing in Christ, died from time to time
most joyfully along with them, lading themselves with pains derived
from others, and drawing upon themselves their neighbours’
diseases, and willingly taking over to their own persons the burden of
the sufferings of those around them. ἀναμασσόμενοι
τὰς
ἀλγηδόνας.
Some make this equivalent to mitigantes. It means properly
to “wipe off,” and so to become “responsible”
for. Here it is used apparently to express much the same idea as
the two preceding clauses.
μόνης
φιλοφροσύνης
ἔχεσθαι. The
phrase περίψημα
πάντων refers to
5. And they took the bodies of the saints on
their upturned hands,
ὑπτίαις
χερσι. [See Introductory Note, p.
77.]
καθαιροῦντες.
ὁμοφοροῦντες.
Compare Defoe, Plague in London.]
Epistle
XIII.—To Hierax, a Bishop in Egypt.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 21. The preface to
this extract in Eusebius is as follows: “After this he
(Dionysius) wrote also another Paschal epistle to Hierax, a bishop in
Egypt, in which he makes the following statement about the sedition
then prevailing at Alexandria.”
————————————
1. But what wonder should there be if I find
it difficult to communicate by letter with those who are settled in
remote districts, when it seems beyond my power even to reason with
myself, and to take counsel with Or,
for.
μεσαιτάτη
τῆς πόλεως.
Codex Regius gives τῶν
πόλεων. The sedition
referred to as thus dividing Alexandria is probably that which broke
out when Æmilianus seized the sovereignty in Alexandria. See
Pollio’s Thirty Tyrants.
ἄπειρος. But Codices
Fuk. and Savil. give ἄπορος,
“impracticable.”
ἀκροτόμου.
It may perhaps mean “smitten” here.
2. But now it always flows onward, polluted
with blood and slaughters and the drowning struggles of men, just as it
did of old, when on Pharaoh’s account it was changed by Moses
into blood, and made putrid. And what other liquid could cleanse
water, which itself cleanses all things? How could that ocean, so
vast and impassable for men, though poured out on it, ever purge this
bitter sea? Or how could even that great river which streams
forth from Eden,
᾽Εδέμ. Written
Γηών in Codex Alexandrinus, but Γεών in Codex Vaticanus.
ιχῶρας.
ὡμογέροντας.
Epistle
XIV.—From His Fourth Festival Epistle.
ἐκ τῆς δ᾽
ἑορταστικῆς
ἐπιστολῆς.
From the Sacred Parallels of John of Damascus, Works, ii. p. 753
C, edit. Paris, 1712. In his Ecclesiastical History, book
vii. ch. 20, Eusebius says: “In addition to these epistles,
the same Dionysius also composed others about this time, designated his
Festival Epistles, and in these he says much in commendation of
the Paschal feast. One of these he addressed to Flavius, and
another to Domitius and Didymus, in which he gives the canon for eight
years, and shows that the Paschal feast ought not to be kept until the
passing of the vernal equinox. And besides these, he wrote
another epistle to his co-presbyters at Alexandria.”
————————————
Love is altogether and for ever on the alert, and casts about to do some good even to one who is unwilling to receive it. And many a time the man who shrinks from it under a feeling of shame, and who declines to accept services of kindness on the ground of unwillingness to become troublesome to others, and who chooses rather to bear the burden of his own grievances than cause annoyance and anxiety to any one, is importuned by the man who is full of love to bear with his aids, and to suffer himself to be helped by another, though it might be as one sustaining a wrong, and thus to do a very great service, not to himself, but to another, in permitting that other to be the agent in putting an end to the ill in which he has been involved.
Elucidations.
————————————
(Apocalypse, note 7, p. 105, and note 9, p. 106.)
The moderation of Dionysius is hardly less
conspicuous than his fearlessness of inquiry in the questions he raises
about the Apocalypse. P. 84,
note 6. P. 82,
note 6.
See, in
the Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum of Gallandi, the Appendix to vol.
xiv., added from the manuscripts, after the editor’s death by an
anonymous scholar.
————————————
I.—A Commentary on the Beginning
of Ecclesiastes.
[Compare the Metaphrase, p. 9,
supra. Query, are not these twin specimens of
exegetical exercises in the school at Alexandria?]
————————————
Chapter I.
In like manner also
Matthew calls the Lord the son of David.
For what man is there who, although he may have become rich by toiling after the objects of this earth, has been able to make himself three cubits in stature, if he is naturally only of two cubits in stature? Or who, if blind, has by these means recovered his sight? Therefore we ought to direct our toils to a goal beyond the sun: for thither, too, do the exertions of the virtues reach.
Yes, unto the age,
εἱς τὸν
αἰῶνα.
εἱς
τὸὺς
αἱῶνας.
προαίρεσις.
I was vainly puffed up, and increased wisdom; not
the wisdom which God has given, but that wisdom of which Paul says,
“The wisdom of this world is foolishness with
God.”
εἶπε, for which
εἶδε,
“discerned,” is suggested.
Chapter II.
For it was for the sake of trial, and in accordance with
what comes by the loftier and the severe life, that he entered into
pleasure. And he makes mention of the mirth, which men call
so. And he says, “in good,” referring to what men
call good things, which are not capable of giving life to their
possessor, and which make
περιφοράν.
Laughter has a twofold madness; because madness
begets laughter, and does not allow the sorrowing for sins; and also
because a man of that sort is possessed with madness,
περιφερεται.
ὡς οἶνον.
Being directed, he says, by wisdom, I overcame
pleasures in mirth. Moreover, for me the aim of knowledge was to
occupy myself with nothing vain, but to find the good; for if a person
finds that, he does not miss the discernment also of the
profitable. The sufficient is also the opportune, Or,
temporary.
You see how he reckons up a multitude of houses
and fields, and the other things which he mentions, and then finds
nothing profitable in them. For neither was he any better in soul
by reason of these things, nor by their means did he gain friendship
with God. Necessarily he is led to speak also of the true riches
and the abiding property. Being minded, therefore, to show what
kinds of possessions remain with the possessor, and continue steadily
and maintain themselves for him, he adds: “Also my wisdom
remained with me.” For this alone remains, and all these
other things, which he has already reckoned up, flee away and
depart. Wisdom, therefore, remained with me, and I remained in
virtue of it. For those other things fall, and also cause the
fall of the very persons who run after them. But, with the
intention of instituting a comparison between wisdom and those things
which are held to be good among men, he adds these words, “And
whatsoever mine eyes desired, I kept not from them,” and so
forth; whereby he describes as evil, not only those toils which they
endure who toil in gratifying themselves with pleasures, but those,
too, which by necessity and constraint men have to sustain for their
maintenance day by day, labouring at their different occupations in the
sweat of their faces. For the labour, he says, is great; but the
art
τέχνη. Reading
προστιθεῖσα
for προτιθεῖσα.
ποιὸν
οὐ κινησις.
περισσεία.
ὃς ἐλεύσεται
ὀπίσω τῆς
βουλῆς
σύμπαντα ὅσα
ἔποιησεν
αὕτη.
He means the wisdom which comes from God, and which also
remained with him. And by madness and folly he designates all the
labours of men, and the vain and silly pleasure they have in
them. Distinguishing these, therefore, and their measure, and
blessing the true wisdom, he has added: “For what man is
there that shall
He does not say this in the way of
comparison. For things which are contrary to each other, and
mutually destructive, cannot be compared. But his decision was,
that the one is to be chosen, and the other avoided. To like
effect is the saying, “Men loved darkness rather than
light.”
That man always inclines earthward, he means, and
has the ruling faculty
τὸ
ἡγεμονικόν.
The run of the discourse in what follows deals
with those who are of a mean spirit as regards this present life, and
in whose judgment the article of death and all the anomalous pains of
the body are a kind of dreaded evil, and who on this account hold that
there is no profit in a life of virtue, because there is no difference
made in ills like these between the wise man and the fool. He
speaks consequently of these as the words of a madness inclining to
utter senselessness; whence he also adds this sentence, “For the
fool talks over-much;”
ἐκ
περισσεύματος.
περισσόν.
For the events that happen in this life are all
transitory, be they even the painful incidents, of which he says,
“As all things now are consigned to oblivion.”
καθότι
ἤδη τὰ πάντα
ἐπελήσθη.
22. “For that falls to man in all his labour.”
In truth, to those who occupy their minds with the distractions of life, life becomes a painful thing, which, as it were, wounds the heart with its goads, that is, with the lustful desires of increase. And sorrowful also is the solicitude connected with covetousness: it does not so much gratify those who are successful in it, as it pains those who are unsuccessful; while the day is spent in laborious anxieties, and the night puts sleep to flight from the eyes, with the cares of making gain. Vain, therefore, is the zeal of the man who looks to these things.
παρ᾽
αὐτοῦ.
The text
gives, πῶς δὲ
καὶ οὐκ παρὲκ
Θεοῦ ἀσώτων
βρωμάτων καὶ
μέθη.
Chapter III.
To “kill,” in the case of him who perpetrates unpardonable transgression; and to “heal,” in the case of him who can show a wound that will bear remedy.
A time to weep, when it is the time of suffering;
as when the Lord also says, “Verily I say unto you, that ye shall
weep and lament.”
When one thinks of the death which the
transgression of Adam brought on us, it is a time to mourn; but it is a
time to hold festal gatherings when we call to mind the resurrection
from the dead which we expect through the new Adam.
The fast of the Paschal week, and the feast that follows, are
here referred to. Of course the religious salutation of
the Hebrews (
A time to keep the Scripture against the unworthy, and a time to put it forth for the worthy. Or, again: Before the incarnation it was a time to keep the letter of the law; but it was a time to cast it away when the truth came in its flower.
A time to speak, when there are hearers who
receive the word; but a time to keep silence, when the hearers pervert
the word; as Paul says: “A man that is an heretic, after
the first and second admonition, reject.”
And this is true. For no one is able to
comprehend the works of God altogether. Moreover, the world is
the work of God. No one, then, can find out as to this world what
is its space from the beginning and unto the end, that is to say, the
period appointed for it, and the limits before determined unto it;
forasmuch as God has set the whole world as a realm of ignorance
in our hearts. And thus one says: “Declare to me the
shortness of my days.”
II.—The Gospel According to Luke.
An
Interpretation.—
————————————
παρενεγκεῖν.
But let these things be enough to say on the
subject of the will. This word, however, “Let the cup
pass,” does not mean, Let it not come near me, or approach
me.
οὐκ
ἔστι. Migne suggests οὐκέτι: “Let
it no more come near me.”
μετ᾽
αὐτόν. May it be, “and
next to Himself” (the Father)?
παρένεγκε.
ἐπιεικείας. The
text gives κἂν
τοῦτο πάλιν
τὸ
εἰκτικόν, etc.
Migne proposes, κἂν
τούτῳ πάλιν
τὸ εὐκτικόν
= and Matthew again describes the supplicatory and docile in Him. Reading
οὕτως for
οὔτε.
πατρικῆς.
And He certainly spake truth then.
Nevertheless He was not forsaken. But He drank out the cup at
once, as His plea had implied, and then passed away.
παρελήλυθε.
ἐκτροπίας
οἶνος.
τροπήν.
ἀνάκρασιν. The
text is, ἡμᾶς ὕγια
ἔδειξεν. Migne
proposes ὑγίασεν.
The phrase, “a sweat of blood,” is a
current parabolic expression used of persons in intense pain and
distress; as also of one in bitter grief people say that the man
“weeps tears of blood.” For in using the expression,
“as it were great drops of blood,” he does not declare the
drops of sweat to have been actually drops of blood.
[Note this somewhat modern “explaining
away.” It proves the freedom of our author from any
predisposition to exegetical exaggeration, if nothing more.
He says, “one thing and another,” not
as making a partition into two persons, but as showing the distinction
between the two natures. This
sentence is supposed to be an interpolation by the constructor of the
Catena.
And as, by voluntarily enduring the death in the flesh,
He implanted incorruptibility in it; so The
text is, τῆς
δουλείας. Migne
suggests, τῆς
δειλίας ="the feeling of our
fear.”
ἀναξηράνῃ. The
text is, οὐδὲ ἡ
σφόδρα
δειλότατος,
etc. We read, with Migne, εἱ instead of ἡ.
Of like import is also the sentence in the
narrative which tells us that an angel stood by the Saviour and
strengthened Him. For this, too, bore also on the economy entered
into on our behalf. For those who are appointed to engage in the
sacred exertions of conflicts on account of piety, have the angels from
heaven to assist them. And the prayer, “Father, remove the
cup,” He uttered probably not as if He feared the death itself,
but with the view of challenging the devil by these words to erect the
cross for Him. With words of deceit that personality deluded
Adam; with the words of divinity, then, let the deceiver himself now be
deluded. Howbeit assuredly the will of the Son is not one thing,
and the will of the Father another.
[Note the following sentence, without which, as explanatory, this might
be quoted as a Monothelite statement. Garbling is a
convenient resource for those who claim the Fathers for other false
systems.]
ἀρχήν.
[This seems to be a quotation from the Alexandrian Fathers
showing how early such questions began to be agitated. Settled in
the Sixth Council, a.d. 681, the last
“General Council.”]
γνώμη, gnomè.
θέλημα
γνωμικόν.
For in the most general sense it holds good that
it is apparently not possible for any man
μάλιστα
ἴσως παντι
ἀνθρώπῳ.
How wonderful this endurance of evil by the Lord, who
even kissed the traitor, and spake words softer even than the
kiss! For He did not say, O thou abominable, yea, utterly
abominable traitor, is this the return you make to us for so great
kindness? But, somehow, He says simply “Judas,” using
the proper name, which was the address that would be used by one who
commiserated a person, or who wished to call him back, rather than of
one in anger. And He did not say, “thy Master, the Lord,
thy benefactor;” but He said simply, “the Son of
man,” that is, the tender and meek one: as if He meant to
say, Even supposing that I was not your Master, or Lord, or benefactor,
dost thou still betray one so guilelessly and so tenderly affected
towards thee, as even to kiss thee in the hour of thy treachery, and
that, too, when
For as incurable wounds are wounds which cannot be
remedied either by severe applications, or by those which may act more
pleasantly upon them; Some
such clause as ιαθῆναι
δύναται requires to be
supplied here. Reading
οὕτω for
οὔτε. Reading
ᾡτινιοῦν for
ὁτιοῦν.
ῥυθμίζειν.
III.—On
Another
fragment from the Vatican Codex, 1611, fol. 291. See also Mai,
Bibliotheca Nova, vi. 1. 165. This is given here in a
longer and fuller form than in the Greek of Gallandi in his
Bibliotheca, xiv., Appendix, p. 115, as we have had it presented
above, and than in the Latin of Corderius in his Catena on
————————————
But let these things be enough to say on the subject of
the will. This word, however, “Let the cup pass,”
does not mean, Let it not come near me, or approach me. For what
can pass from Him must certainly first come nigh Him, and what does
thus pass from Him must be by Him. For if it does not reach Him,
it cannot pass from Him. Accordingly, as if He now felt it to be
present, He began to be in pain, and to be troubled, and to be sore
amazed, and to be in an agony. And as if it was at hand and
placed before Him, He does not merely say “the cup,” but He
indicates it by the word “this.” Therefore, as what
passes from one is something which neither has no approach nor is
permanently settled with one, so the Saviour’s first request is
that the temptation which has come softly and plainly upon Him, and
associated itself lightly with Him, may be turned aside. And this
is the first form of that freedom from falling into temptation, which
He also counsels the weaker disciples to make the subject of their
prayers; that, namely, which concerns the approach of temptation:
for it must needs be that offences come, but yet those to whom they
come ought not to fall into the temptation. But the most perfect
mode in which this freedom from entering into temptation is exhibited,
is what He expresses in His second request, when He says not merely,
“Not as I will,” but also, “but as Thou
wilt.” For with God there is no temptation in evil; but He
wills to give us good exceeding abundantly above what we ask or
think. That His will, therefore, is the perfect will, the Beloved
Himself knew; and often does He say that He has come to do that will,
and not His own will,—that is to say, the will of men. For
He takes to Himself the person of men, as having been made man.
Wherefore also on this occasion He deprecates the doing of the
inferior, which is His own, and begs that the superior should be done,
which is His Father’s, to wit, the divine will, which again,
however, in respect of the divinity, is one and the same will in
Himself and in His Father. For it was the Father’s will
that He should pass through every trial (temptation), and the Father
Himself in a marvellous manner brought Him on this course; not indeed,
with the trial itself as His goal, nor in order simply that He might
enter into that, but in order that He might prove Himself to be above
the trial, and also beyond it. And surely it is the fact that the
Saviour asks neither what is impossible, nor what is impracticable, nor
what is contrary to the will of the Father. It is something
possible, for Mark makes mention of His saying, “Abba, Father,
all things are possible unto Thee;” and they are possible if He
wills them, for Luke tells us that He said, “Father, if Thou be
willing, remove this cup from me.” The Holy Spirit
therefore, apportioned among the evangelists, makes up the full account
of our Saviour’s whole disposition by the expressions of these
several narrators together. He does not then ask of the Father
what the Father wills not. For the words, “if Thou be
willing,” were demonstrative of subjection and docility, not of
ignorance or hesitancy. And just as when we make any request that
may be accordant with his judgment, at the hand of father or ruler or
any one of those whom we respect, we are accustomed to use the address,
though not certainly as if we were in doubt about it, “if you
please;” so the Saviour also said, “if Thou be
willing:” not that He thought that He willed something
different, and thereafter learned the fact, but that He understood
exactly God’s willingness to remove the cup from Him, and as
doing so also apprehended justly that what He wills is also possible
unto Him. For this reason the other
δύναμις.
λιπαρῶς.
τοῦ
θανάτου τὸ
ὑψωμα.
παραφέρεις.
ει δὲ
οὐκ ἔπιον
αὐτὸ ἤδη καὶ
ἀνήλωσα·
ἀλλὰ δέος μή
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
πλήρης
ἐπικειμένου
καταποθείην.
κεκενωμένος. [In these
allegorical interpretations we see the pupil of Origen.]
IV.—An Exposition of Another
fragment, connected with the preceding on Christ’s prayer in
Gethsemane. Edited in a mutilated form, as given by Gallandi, in
his Bibliotheca, xiv. p. 117, and here presented in its
completeness, as found its the Vatican Codex 1611, f. 292,
b.
————————————
This prayer He also offered up Himself, falling
repeatedly on His face; and on both occasions He urged His request for
not entering into temptation: both when He prayed, “If it
be possible, let this cup pass from me;” and when He said,
“Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” For
He spoke of not entering into temptation, and He made that His prayer;
but He did not ask that He should have no trial whatsoever in these
circumstances, or Reading
ἤ for ην.
A
fragment. Edited from the Vatican Codex 1996, f. 78, belonging to
a date somewhere about the tenth century.
————————————
Now this word “I am” expresses His
eternal subsistence. For if He is the reflection of the eternal
light, He must also be eternal Himself. For if the light subsists
for ever, it is evident that the reflection also subsists for
ever. And that this light subsists, is known only by its shining;
neither can there be a light that does not give light. We come
back, therefore, to our illustrations. If there is day, there is
light; and if there is no such thing, the sun certainly cannot be
present. Reading
πολλοῦ
γε δεῖ. The text gives
πόλυ γε
δεῖ.
ἀτμίς. If this strange reading
ἀτμίς is correct, there is apparently
a play intended on the two words πνεῦμα and ἀτμίς, = if God is a πνεῦμα, which word
literally signifies Wind or Air, Christ, on that analogy, may be called
ἀτμίς that is to say, the Vapour or
Breath of that Wind.
VI.—Of the One
Substance. That
the Son is not different from the Father in nature, but connatural and
consubstantial with Him. From the Panoplia of Euthymius
Zigabenus in the Cod. xix. Nanianæ Biblioth.
————————————
The plant that springs from the root is something
distinct from that whence it grows up; and yet it is of one nature with
it. And the river which flows from the fountain is something
distinct from the fountain. For we cannot call either the river a
fountain, or the fountain a river. Nevertheless we allow that
they are both one according to nature, and also one in substance; and
we admit that the fountain may be conceived of as father, and that the
river is what is begotten of the fountain. [See
his explanations in the epistle to Dionysius p. 92, supra.]
VII.—On the Reception of the Lapsed to Penitence. A
fragment, probably by the Alexandrian Dionysius. This seems to be
an excerpt from his works On Penitence, three of which are
mentioned by Jerome in his De Script. Eccl., ch. 69. See
Mai, Classici Auctores, x. 484. It is edited here
from the Vatican Codex.
————————————
But now we are doing the opposite. For
whereas Christ, who is the good Shepherd, goes in quest of one
who wanders, lost among the mountains, and calls him back when he flees
from Him, and is at pains to take him up on His shoulders when He has
found him, we, on the contrary, harshly spurn such a one even when He
approaches us. Yet let us not consult so miserably for ourselves,
and let us not in this way be driving the sword against
ourselves. For when people set themselves either to do evil or to
do good to others, what they do is certainly not confined to the
carrying out of their will on those others; but just as they attach
themselves to iniquity or to goodness, they will themselves become
possessed either by divine virtues or by unbridled passions. And
the former will become the followers and comrades of the good angels;
and both in this world and in the other, with the enjoyment of perfect
peace and immunity from all ills, they will fulfil the most blessed
destinies unto all eternity, and in God’s fellowship they will be
for ever (in possession of) the supremest good. But these latter
will fall away at once from the peace of God and from peace with
themselves, and both in this world and after death they will abide with
the spirits of blood-guiltiness.
τοῖς
παλαμναιοις
δαίμοσι. Or, with the
demons of vengeance.
Note by the American Editor.
————————————
Frequent references to Gallandi, whose collection I have been unable to inspect, the cost of the best edition being about two hundred dollars, makes it worth while to insert here, from a London book-catalogue, the following useful memoranda: “Gallandii, Cong. Orat. (Andr.) Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum Antiquorumque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Græco-Latina; Opera silicet eorundum minora ac rariora usque ad xiii. Sæculum complexa, quorum clxxx. et amplius nec in Veteri Parisiensi, neque in postrema Lugdunensi edits sunt. Venet., 1765.
“The contents are given in Darling, col. 298–306. Of the three hundred and eighty-nine writers enumerated, it appears that nearly two hundred are not in the earlier collections.
“The contents of these great collections are, not the works of the Great Fathers, of whose writings separate editions have been published, but the works, often extensive and important, of those numerous Ecclesiastical writers whose works go, with the Greater Fathers referred to, to make up the sum of Church Patristic literature.”
Introductory Notice
to
Julius Africanus.
————————————
[a.d.
200–232–245.] In a former volume, strengthened by a
word from Archbishop Usher, Vol.
ii. p. 87, this series. Vol.
iv. p. 227. On St.
The reader will remember the specimen of our
author’s critical judgment which is given with the works of
Origen. Vol. iv.
p. 385.
It does not clearly appear, from the Edinburgh edition, who the translator is; but here follows the
Translator’s Introductory Notice.
The principal facts known to us in the life of
Africanus are derived from himself and the Chronicon of
Eusebius. He says of himself that he went to Alexandria on
account of the fame
Eusebius describes Africanus as being the author of a
work called κεστοί.
Hist. Eccl., vi. 31.
The works ascribed to Africanus, beside the Cesti, are the following:—
1. Five Books of Chronology.
Photius Cod.
34.
2. A very famous letter to Aristides, in which he endeavoured to reconcile the apparent discrepancies in the genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke.
3. A letter to Origen, in which he endeavoured to prove that the story of Susanna in Daniel was a forgery. A translation of this letter has been given with the Works of Origen.
The Acts of Symphorosa and her Seven Sonsare attributed in the mss. to Africanus; but no ancient writer speaks of him as the author of this work.
————————————
I.—The Epistle to Aristides.
————————————
I.
[Africanus on the Genealogy in the Holy
Gospels. This
letter, as given by Eusebius, is acephalous. A large portion of
it is supplied by Cardinal Angelo Mai in the Bibliotheca nova
Patrum, vol. iv. pp. 231 and 273. We enclose in
brackets the parts wanting in Gallandi, who copied Eusebius (Hist.
Eccl., i. 7). On this celebrated letter of Africanus to
Aristides, consult especially Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., i. 7); also
Jerome, comm. on
δικαίως.
[
II.
For Here
what is given in Eusebius begins. Reading
συνεπεπλάκη.
Migne would make it equivalent to “superimplexum
est.” Rufinus renders it, “Reconjunctum namque est
sibi invicem genus, et illud per Salomonem et illud quod per Nathan
deducitur,” etc.
ἀναστάσεσιν
ἀτέκνων. Rufinus and
Damascenus omit these words in their versions of the passage.
III.
But in order that what I have said may be made
evident, I shall explain the interchange The
reading of the Codex Regius is ἀκολουθίαν
, i.e., succession; the other leading mss.
give ἐπολλαγήν,
i.e. interchange or confusion. But in
our text in Here
Africanus applies the term “widow” (χηρεύουσαν)
to one divorced an well as to one bereaved.
κατὰ
λόγον.
Two things may be remarked here: first, that Africanus
refers the phrase “as was supposed” not only to the words
“son of Joseph,” but also to those that follow, “the
son of Heli;” so that Christ would be the son of Joseph by legal
adoption, just in the same way as Joseph was the son of Heli, which
would lead to the absurd and impious conclusion that Christ was the son
of Mary and a brother of Joseph married by her after the death of the
latter. And second, that in the genealogy here assigned to Luke,
Melchi holds the third place; whence it would seem either that
Africanus’s memory had failed him, or that as Bede conjectures in
his copy of the Gospel Melchi stood in place of Matthat (Migne).
[A probable solution.]
Other mss. read, “Adam the son of
God.”
IV.
Nor indeed is this incapable of proof, neither is
it a rash conjecture. For the kinsmen of the Saviour after the
flesh, whether to magnify their own origin or simply to state the fact,
but at all events speaking truth, have also handed down the following
account: Some Idumean robbers attacking Ascalon, a city of
Palestine, besides other spoils which they took from a temple of
Apollo, which was built near the walls, carried off captive one
Antipater, son of a certain Herod, a servant of the temple. And
as the priest The
word “priest” is used here perhaps improperly for
“servant of the temple,” i.e., ἱερεύς for ἱερόδουλος. So
Josephus styles him “procurator of Judea, and viceroy”
(ἐπιμελητὴς
τῆς
᾽Ιουδαίας, and
ἐπίτροπος). This whole
story about Antipater is fictitious. Antipater’s father was
not Herod, a servant in the temple of Apollo, but Antipater an Idumean,
as we learn from Josephus (xiv. 2). This Antipater was made
prefect of Idumea by Alexander king of the Jews, and laid the
foundation of the power to which his descendants rose. He
acquired great wealth, and was on terms of friendship with Ascalon,
Gaza, and the Arabians.
V.
But as up to that time the genealogies of the
Hebrews had been registered in the public archives, and those, too,
which were traced back to the proselytes
Several mss. read ἀρχιπροσηλύτων
for ἄχρι
προσηλύτων,
whence some conjecture that the correct reading should be ἄχρι τῶν
ἀρχιπροσηλύτων,
i.e., back to the “chief proselytes,”—these being, as
it were, patriarchs among the proselytes, like Achior, and those who
joined the Israelites on their flight from Egypt. This
word occurs in the Septuagint version of The
word δεσπόσυνοι
was employed to indicate the Lord’s relatives, as being His
according to the flesh. The term means literally, “those
who belong to a master,” and thence it was used also to signify
“one’s heirs.”
προειρημένην.
Nicephorus reads προκειμένην.
ἐκ τε τῆς
βίβλου τῶν
ἡμερῶν. By this
“Book of Days” Africanus understands those
“day-books” which he has named, a little before this,
ἱδιωτικὰς
ἀπογραφάς.
For among the Jews, most persons setting a high value on their lineage
were in the habit of keeping by them private records of their descent
copied from the public archives, as we see it done also by nobles among
ourselves. Besides, by the insertion of the particle τε, which is found in all our
codices, and also in Nicephorus, it appears that something is wanting
in this passage. Wherefore it seems necessary to supply these
words, καὶ
ἀπὸ μνήμης
ἐς ὅσον
ἐξικνοῦντο,
“and from memory,” etc. Thus at least Rufinus seems
to have read the passage, for he renders it: Ordinem
supradictæ generationis partim memoriter, partim etiam ex dierum
libris, in quantum erat possibile, perdocebant (Migne).
VI.
Matthan, descended from Solomon, begat
Jacob. Matthan dying, Melchi, descended from Nathan, begat Heli
by the same wife. Therefore Heli and Jacob are uterine
brothers. Heli dying childless, Jacob raised up seed to him and
begat Joseph, his own son by nature, but the son of Heli by law.
Thus Joseph was the son of both.
[Elucidation I.]
II.—Narrative of Events Happening in Persia on the Birth of
Christ. Edited
from two Munich codices by J. Chr. von Aretin, in his Beiträge zur Geschichte und Literatur, anno 1804,
p. ii. p. 49. [I place this apocryphal fragment here as a mere
appendix to the Genealogical Argument. An absurd appendix,
indeed.]
————————————
The best introduction to
this production will be the following preface, as given in
Migne:—Many men of learning thus far have been of opinion that
the narrative by Africanus of events happening in Persia on
Christ’s birth,
Which is extant in two mss. in the
Electoral Library of Munich, and in one belonging to the Imperial
Library of Vienna.
Events in Persia: On the Incarnation of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Christ first of all became known from
Persia. For nothing escapes the learned jurists of that country,
who investigate all things with the utmost care. The
facts,
The mss. read γάρ, for. The term
in the original (ἀλκλαρίαις)
is one altogether foreign to Greek, and seems to be of Arabic
origin. The sense, however, is evident from the use of synonymous
terms in the context. There is
a play upon the words, perhaps, in the original. The Greek term
for Juno (῞Ηρα) may be derived from ἔρα,
terra, so that the antithesis intended is, “She is
no longer called Earthly, but Heavenly.” i.e.,
Fountain, Spring, or Stream. The
initial letters of the Greek ᾽Ιησοῦς
Χριστὸς Θεοῦ
Υἱὸς Σωτήρ,
i.e., “Jesus Christ the Son of God the Savior,” when joined
together, make the word ἱχθύς, i.e., fish; and the fathers
used the word, therefore, as a mystic symbol of Christ, who could live
in the depth of our mortality as in the abyss of the sea. [Vol.
ii. p. 297.] i.e.,
as sea, land, and sky
Thus, then, the statues disputed with each other concerning Juno and Pege, and [at length] with one voice they said: When the day is finished, we all, gods and goddesses, shall know the matter clearly. Now, therefore, master, tarry for the rest of the day. For the matter shall certainly come to pass. For that which emerges is no common affair.
And when the king abode there and watched the statues, the harpers of their own accord began to strike their harps, and the muses to sing; and whatsoever creatures were within, whether quadruped or fowl, in silver and gold, uttered their several voices. And as the king shuddered, and was filled with great fear, he was about to retire. For he could not endure the spontaneous tumult. The priest therefore said to him, Remain, O king, for the full revelation is at hand which the God of gods has chosen to declare to us.
And when these things were said, the roof was opened,
and a bright star descended and
And when this word was spoken, all the statues fell upon their faces, that of Pege alone standing, on which also a royal diadem was found placed, having on its upper side a star set in a carbuncle and an emerald. And on its lower side the star rested.
And the king forthwith gave orders to bring in all the interpreters of prodigies, and the sages who were under his dominion. And when all the heralds sped with their proclamations, all these assembled in the temple. And when they saw the star above Pege, and the diadem with the star and the stone, and the statues lying on the floor, they said: O king, a root (offspring) divine and princely has risen, bearing the image of the King of heaven and earth. For Pege-Myria is the daughter of the Bethlehemite Pege. And the diadem is the mark of a king, and the star is a celestial announcement of portents to fall on the earth. Out of Judah has arisen a kingdom which shall subvert all the memorials of the Jews. And the prostration of the gods upon the floor prefigured the end of their honour. For he who comes, being of more ancient dignity, shall displace all the recent. Now therefore, O king, send to Jerusalem. For you will find the Christ of the Omnipotent God borne in bodily form in the bodily arms of a woman. And the star remained above the statue of Pege, called the Celestial, until the wise men came forth, and then it went with them.
And then, in the depth of evening, Dionysus
appeared in the temple, unaccompanied by the Satyrs, and said to the
images: Pege is not one of us, but stands far above us, in that
she gives birth to a man whose conception is in divine
fashion.
θείας
τύχης
σύλλημμα.
ἔλλραφος.
ἐμπράκτου. The
text gives θροβαδεῖ, for
which Migne proposes θορύβηθι.
πρακτικοὺς
φόρους.
The king then, without delay, sent some of the Magi under his dominion with gifts, the star showing them the way. And when they returned, they narrated to the men of that time those same things which were also written on the plates of gold, and which were to the following effect:—
When we came to Jerusalem, the sign, together with
our arrival, roused all the people. How is this, say they, that
wise men of the Persians are here, and that along with them there is
this strange stellar phenomenon? And the chief of the Jews
interrogated us in this way: What is this that attends
you,
τί τὸ
ἐπόμενον, perhaps
meant for, What business brings you?
ὑπὲρ
μαντείας
ἀρίστης
ὥσπερ
κατατοξευόμενοι.
And we came to that place then to which we were
sent, and saw the mother and the child, the star indicating to us the
royal babe. And we said to the mother: What art thou named,
O renowned mother? And she says: Mary, masters. And
we said to her: Whence art thou sprung?
ὁρμωμένη.
Βηθλεωτῶν.
Then said we to her: Mother, mother, all the gods of the Persians have called thee blessed. Thy glory is great; for thou art exalted above all women of renown, and thou art shown to be more queenly than all queens.
The child, moreover, was seated on the ground,
being, as she said, in His second year, and having in part the likeness
of His mother. And she had long hands,
μακρὰς
τὰς χεῖρας
according to Migne, instead of the reading of the manuscript,
μακρὶν
τὴν κῆραν
ἔχουσα.
σιτόχροος.
διοπετεῖ.
And taking the child up, each of us in turn, and
bearing Him in our arms, we saluted Him and worshipped Him, and
presented to Him gold, and myrrh, and frankincense, addressing Him
thus: We gift Thee with Thine own, O Jesus, Ruler of
heaven. Ill would things unordered be ordered, wert Thou not at
hand. In no other way could things heavenly be brought into
conjunction with things earthly, but by Thy descent. Such service
cannot be discharged, if only the servant is sent us, as when the
Master Himself is present; neither can so much be achieved when the
king sends only his satraps to war, as when the king is there
himself. It became the wisdom of Thy system, that Thou shouldst
deal in this manner with men. The
manuscripts give ἀντάρτας,
for which Migne proposes ἀνθρώπους or
ἀντεργάτας. [Unworthy, wholly so, of our author. This curious
specimen of the romances of antiquity might better have found
its place with other Protevangelia in vol. viii., this
series.]
And the child leaped and laughed at our caresses
and words. And when we had bidden the mother farewell,
συνταξάμενοι.
And we made speed to depart thence in all earnestness; and we reported in Jerusalem all that we had seen. Behold, then, the great things that we have told you regarding Christ; and we saw Christ our Saviour, who was made known as both God and man. To Him be the glory and the power unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
III.—The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus.
————————————
I.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 17, ed. Paris, 14
Venet.
On the Mythical Chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans.
The Egyptians, indeed, with their boastful notions
of their own antiquity, have put forth a sort of account of it by the
hand of their astrologers in cycles and myriads of years; which some of
those who have had the repute of studying such subjects profoundly have
in a summary way called lunar years; and inclining no less than others
to the mythical, they think they fall in with the eight or nine
thousands of years which the Egyptian priests in Plato falsely reckon
up to Solon. The
text is:…συμπίπτουσι
ταῖς ὀκτὼ
καὶ ἐννέα
χιλιάσιν
ἑτῶν, ἃς
Αιγυπτιων οι
παρὰ Πλατωνι
ἱερεῖς εις
Σόλωνα
καταριθμοῦτες
οὐκ
ἀληθεύουσι.
For why should I speak of the three myriad years of the Phœnicians, or of the follies of the Chaldeans, their forty-eight myriads? For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Cæsars.
II.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 19, al. 15.
When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of
heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I
found “the sons of God.” What is meant by the Spirit,
in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of
God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from
him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain
are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account
of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature,
being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of
God. The
text here is manifestly corrupt: ἐπιμιχθέντων
αὐτῶν, τὴν
ἀγανάκτησιν
ποιήσασθαι
τὸν Θεόν.
III.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 81, al. 65.
Adam, when 230 years old, begets Seth; and after living other 700 years he died, that is, a second death.
Seth, when 205 years old, begot Enos; from Adam therefore to the birth of Enos there are 435 years in all.
Enos, when 190 years old, begets Cainan.
Cainan again, when 170 years old, begets Malaleel;
And Malaleel, when 165 years old; begets Jared;
And Jared, when 162 years old, begets Enoch;
And Enoch, when 165 years old, begets Mathusala; and having pleased God, after a life of other 200 years, he was not found.
Mathusala, when 187 years old, begot Lamech.
Lamech, when 188 years old, begets Noe.
IV.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 21, al. 17.
On the Deluge.
God decreed to destroy the whole race of the
living by a flood, having threatened that men should not survive beyond
120 years. Nor let it be deemed a matter of difficulty, because
some lived afterwards a longer period than that. For the space of
time meant was 100 years up to the flood in the case of the sinners of
that time; for they were 20 years old. God instructed Noe, who
pleased him on account of his righteousness, to prepare an ark; and
when it was finished, there entered it Noe himself and his sons, his
wife and his daughters-in-law, and firstlings of every living creature,
with a view to the duration of the race. And Noe was 600 years
old when the flood came on. And when the water abated, the ark
settled on the mountains of Ararat, which we know to be in
Parthia; That
is, in Armenia. For
there was a hill Ararat in Phrygia, from which the Marsyas issued, and
the ark was declared to have rested there by the Sibylline
oracles. [But see vol. v. p. 149.]
V.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 83, al. 67.
Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood, are 2262 years.
VI. In
the same, p. 86, al. 68.
And after the flood, Sem begot Arphaxad.
Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begets Sala in the year 2397.
Sala, when 130 years old, begets Heber in the year 2527.
Heber, when 134 years old, begets Phalec in the year 2661, so called because the earth was divided in his days.
Phalec, when 130 years old, begot Ragan, and after living other 209 years died.
VII. In
the same, p. 93, al. 74. [Compare vol. v. p. 148.]
In the year of the world 3277, Abraham entered the promised land of Canaan.
VIII. In the
same, p. 99, al. 79. [רבַעָ is the verb.]
Of Abraham.
From this rises the appellation of the
Hebrews. For the word Hebrews is interpreted to
mean
IX. In
Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 100, al. 80.
Of Abraham and Lot.
When a famine pressed the land of Canaan, Abraham
came down to Egypt; and fearing lest he should be put out of the way on
account of the beauty of his wife, he pretended that he was her
brother. But Pharaoh took her to himself when she was commended
to him; for this is the name the Egyptians give their kings. And
he was punished by God; and Abraham, along with all pertaining to him,
was dismissed enriched. In Canaan, Abraham’s shepherds and
Lot’s contended with each other; and with mutual consent they
separated, Lot choosing to dwell in Sodom on account of the fertility
and beauty of the land, which had five cities, Sodom, Gomorrah, Adama,
Seboim, Segor, and as many kings. On these their neighbours the
four Syrian kings made war, whose leader was Chodollogomor king of
Ælam. And they met by the Salt Sea, which is now called the
Dead Sea. In it I have seen very many wonderful things. For
that water sustains no living thing, and dead bodies are carried
beneath its depths, while the living do not readily even dip under
it. Lighted torches are borne upon it, but when extinguished they
sink. And there are the springs of bitumen; and it yields alum
and salt a little different from the common kinds, for they are pungent
and transparent. And wherever fruit is found about it, it is
found full of a thick, foul smoke. And the water acts as a cure
to those who use it, and it is drained in a manner contrary to any
other water.
λήγει
τε παντὶ
ὕδατι πάσχων
τὰἐνάντια.
ὡς πορφύραν.
X.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 107, al. 86.
Of the Patriarch Jacob.
1. The shepherd’s tent belonging to
Jacob, which was preserved at Edessa to the time of Antonine Emperor of
the Romans, was destroyed by a thunderbolt.
Heliogabalus is probably intended, in whose time Africanus
flourished. At least so thinks Syncellus.
2. Jacob, being displeased at what had been
done by Symeon and Levi at Shecem against the people of the country, on
account of the violation of their sister, buried at Shecem the gods
which he had with him near a rock under the wonderful
terebinth,
On this terebinth, see Scaliger (ad Græca Euseb., p.
414); Franciscus Quaresimus, in Elucid. terræ sanctæ;
Eugenius Rogerius, etc.; and also Valesius, ad Euseb. De Vit.
Constant., iii. 53, notes 3 and 5.
Scaliger acknowledges himself ignorant of this word ἐκτενας. In the Eastern
Church it is used to denote protracted prayers (preces
protensiores) offered by the deacon on behalf of all classes of
men, and the various necessities of human life. See Suicer,
sub voce. Allatius thinks the text corrupt, and would
read, ἐφ᾽ ὃν τά
ὁλοκαυτώματα
καὶ τὰς
ἑκατόμβας
ἀνεφερον = on
which they offered both holocausts and hecatombs. [Littledale,
Eastern Offices, p. 253.]
XI.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 106, al 85.
From Adam, therefore, to the death of Joseph, according to this book, are 23 generations, and 3563 years.
XII.
In the same, p. 148, al. 118, from the Third Book of the
Chron. of Africanus.
From this record,
συντάγματος.
Others write Ogyges. Josephus (in Apionem), Euseb.
(de Præpar.). Tatian [vol. ii. p. 81], Clemens [not
so, vol. ii. p. 324], and others write Ogygus. The text
is, ὃς τοῦ πρωτοῦ
κατακλυσμοῦ
γέγονεν
ἑπώνυμος. The
word ἑπώνυμος is susceptible
of two meanings, either “taking the name from” or
“giving the name to.” ᾽Ωγυγια
κακα was a proverbial expression for
primeval ills. The
text is here, κατὰ
τὴν Αἴγυπτον
τοῦ λαοῦ μετὰ
Μωυσέως
ἔξοδον
γενέσθαι, for which we may read κατὰ τὴν ἑξ
Αἱγυπτου, etc.
῞Ωγυγον
᾽Ακταῖον ἢ
τὰ
πλασσόμενα
τῶν
ὀνομάτων.
Compare xiii. 6, where we have τὸν γὰρ μετὰ
῞Ωγυγον
᾽Ακταῖον, etc.
XIII.
From Georgius Syncellus, Chron., Third Book. In
Euseb., Præpar., x. 40. [Compare vol. ii. pp.
324–334.]
1. Up to the time of the Olympiads there is
no certain history among the Greeks, all things before that date being
confused, and in no way consistent with each other. But these
Olympiads
ἠκριβῶντο.
2. The most famous exile that befell the Hebrews, then—to wit, when they were led captive by Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon—lasted 70 years, as Jeremias had prophesied. Berosus the Babylonian, moreover, makes mention of Nabuchodonosor. And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecæ of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. For the date is a matter of agreement among them all. And Cyrus then, in the first year of his reign, which was the first year of the 55th Olympiad, effected the first partial restoration of the people by the hand of Zorobabel, with whom also was Jesus the son of Josedec, since the period of 70 years was now fulfilled, as is narrated in Esdra the Hebrew historian. The narratives of the beginning of the sovereignty of Cyrus and the end of the captivity accordingly coincide. And thus, according to the reckoning of the Olympiads, there will be found a like harmony of events even to our time. And by following this, we shall also make the other narratives fit in with each other in the same manner.
3. But if the Attic time-reckoning is taken
as the standard for affairs prior to these, then from Ogygus, who was
believed by them to be an autochthon, in whose time also the first
great flood took place in Attica, while Phoroneus reigned over the
Argives, as Acusilaus relates, up to the date of the first Olympiad,
from which period the Greeks thought they could fix dates accurately,
there are altogether 1020 years; which number both coincides with the
above-mentioned, and will be established by what follows. For
these things are also recorded by the Athenian There
is a difficulty in the text; Viger omits “Athenian.” The
Latin translator expunges the “and” (καί), and makes it = more careful
than all the Attic writers.
4. In accordance with this writing,
therefore, we affirm that Ogygus, who gave his name to the first flood,
and was saved when many perished, lived at the time of the exodus of
the people from Egypt along with Moses. The
original here, as in the same passage above, is corrupt. It gives
κατὰ
τὴν
Αἴγυπτον, which Migne
would either omit entirely or replace by ἀπ᾽
Αἰγύπτου.
5. So much, then, for the period prior to
Ogygus. And at his time Moses left Egypt. And we
demonstrate in the following manner how reliable is the statement that
this happened at that date. From the exodus of Moses up to Cyrus,
who reigned after the captivity, are 1237 years. For the
remaining years of Moses are 40. The years of Jesus, who led the
people after him, are 25; those of the elders, who were judges after
Jesus, are 30; those of the judges, whose history is given in the book
of Judges, are 490; those of the priests Eli and Samuel are 90; those
of the successive kings of the Hebrews are 490. Then come the
70 years of the captivity, These
words are inserted according to Viger’s proposal, as there is a
manifest omission in the text.
6. And from Moses, then, to the first Olympiad
there are 1020 years, as to the first year of the 55th Olympiad from
the same are 1237, in which enumeration the reckoning of the Greeks
coincides with us. And after Ogygus, by reason
7. It should be observed, further, that all the legendary accounts which are deemed specially remarkable by the Greeks by reason of their antiquity, are found to belong to a period posterior to Moses; such as their floods and conflagrations, Prometheus, Io, Europa, the Sparti, the abduction of Proserpine, their mysteries, their legislations, the deeds of Dionysus, Perseus, the Argonauts, the Centaurs, the Minotaur, the affairs of Troy, the labours of Hercules, the return of the Heraclidæ, the Ionian migration and the Olympiads. And it seemed good to me to give an account especially of the before-noted period of the Attic sovereignty, as I intend to narrate the history of the Greeks side by side with that of the Hebrews. For any one will be able, if he only start from my position, to make out the reckoning equally well with me. Now, in the first year of that period of 1020 years, stretching from Moses and Ogygus to the first Olympiad, the passover and the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt took place, and also in Attica the flood of Ogygus. And that is according to reason. For when the Egyptians were being smitten in the anger of God with hail and storms, it was only to be expected that certain parts of the earth should suffer with them; and, in especial, it was but to be expected that the Athenians should participate in such calamity with the Egyptians, since they were supposed to be a colony from them, as Theopompus alleges in his Tricarenus, and others besides him. The intervening period has been passed by, as no remarkable event is recorded during it among the Greeks. But after 94 years Prometheus arose, according to some, who was fabulously reported to have formed men; for being a wise man, he transformed them from the state of extreme rudeness to culture.
XIV.
From Georgius Syncellus, Third Book. In the Chron.
Paschal., p. 104, ed. Paris, 84 Venet.
Æschylus, the son of Agamestor, ruled the Athenians twenty-three years, in whose time Joatham reigned in Jerusalem.
And our canon brings Joatham king of Juda within the first Olympiad.
XV. From
the same, Book III., and from Book IV. In Syncellus p. 197, al.
158.
And Africanus, in the third book of his History,
writes: Now the first Olympiad recorded—which,
however, was really the fourteenth—was the period when
Corœbus was victor; The
text is, ἀναγραφῆναι
δὲ πρώτην τὴν
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην, etc.
XVI.
From Book v. In Eusebius, Demonst. Evang., Book
VIII. ch. ii. p. 389, etc. The Latin version of this section is
by Bernardinus Donatus of Verona. There is also a version by
Jerome given in his commentary on
On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel.
1. This passage, therefore, as it stands thus,
touches on many marvellous things. At present, however, I shall
speak only of those things in it which bear upon chronology, and
matters connected therewith. That the passage speaks then of the
advent of Christ, who was to manifest Himself after seventy weeks, is
evident. For in the Saviour’s time, or from Him, are
transgressions abrogated, and sins brought to an end. And through
remission, moreover, are iniquities, along with offences, blotted out
by expiation; and an everlasting righteousness is preached, different
from that which is by the law, and visions and prophecies (are) until
John, and the Most Holy is anointed. For before the advent of the
Saviour these things were not yet, and were therefore only looked
for. And the beginning of the numbers, that is, of the seventy
weeks which make up 490 years, the angel instructs us to take from the
going forth of the commandment to answer and to build Jerusalem.
And
2. It remained in this position,
accordingly, until Nehemiah and the reign of Artaxerxes, and the 115th
year of the sovereignty of the Persians. And from the capture of
Jerusalem that makes 185 years. And at that time King Artaxerxes
gave order that the city should be built; and Nehemiah being
despatched, superintended the work, and the street and the surrounding
wall were built, as had been prophesied. And reckoning from that
point, we make up seventy weeks to the time of Christ. For if we
begin to reckon from any other point, and not from this, the periods
will not correspond, and very many odd results will meet us. For
if we begin the calculation of the seventy weeks from Cyrus and the
first restoration, there will be upwards of one hundred years too many,
and there will be a larger number if we begin from the day on which the
angel gave the prophecy to Daniel, and a much larger number still if we
begin from the commencement of the captivity. For we find the
sovereignty of the Persians comprising a period of 230 years, and that
of the Macedonians extending over 370 years, and from that to the
16th Jerome
in his version gives the 15th (quintum decimum).
3. It is by calculating from Artaxerxes, therefore, up to the time of Christ that the seventy weeks are made up, according to the numeration of the Jews. For from Nehemiah, who was despatched by Artaxerxes to build Jerusalem in the 115th year of the Persian empire, and the 4th year of the 83d Olympiad, and the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes himself, up to this date, which was the second year of the 202d Olympiad, and the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, there are reckoned 475 years, which make 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365¼ days. For the latter exceeds the period of twelve months, according to the moon’s course, by 11¼ days. Hence the Greeks and the Jews insert three intercalary months every 8 years. For 8 times 11¼ days makes up 3 months. Therefore 475 years make 59 periods of 8 years each, and 3 months besides. But since thus there are 3 intercalary months every 8 years, we get thus 15 years minus a few days; and these being added to the 475 years, make up in all the 70 weeks.
XVII. In
Syncellus, p. 307, al. 244.
On the Fortunes of Hyrcanus and Antigonus, and on Herod, Augustus, Antony, and Cleopatra, in Abstract.
1. Octavius Sebastus, or, as the Romans call
him, Augustus, the adopted son of Caius, on returning to Rome from
Apollonias in Epirus, where he was educated, possessed himself of the
first place in the government. And Antony afterwards obtained the
rule of Asia and the districts beyond. In his time the Jews
accused Herod; but he put the deputies to death, and restored Herod to
his government. Afterwards, however, along with Hyrcanus and
Phasælus his brother, he was driven out, and betook himself in
flight to Antony. And as the Jews would not receive him, an
obstinate battle took place; and in a short time after, as he had
conquered in battle, he also drove out Antigonus, who had
returned. And Antigonus fled to Herod the Parthian king, and was
restored by the help of his son Pacorus, which help was given on his
promising to pay 1000 talents of gold. And Herod then in his turn
had to flee, while Phasælus was slain in battle, and Hyrcanus was
surrendered alive to Antigonus. And after cutting off his ears,
that he might be disqualified for the priesthood, he gave him to the
Parthians to lead into captivity; for he scrupled to put him to death,
as he was a relation of his own. And Herod, on his expulsion,
betook himself first to Malichus king of the Arabians; and when he did
not receive him, through fear of the Parthians, he went away to
Alexandria to Cleopatra. That was the 185th Olympiad.
Cleopatra having put to death her brother, who was her consort in the
government, and being then summoned by Antony to Cilicia to make her
defence, committed the care of the sovereignty to Herod; and as he
requested that he should not be entrusted with anything until he was
restored to his own government, The
sense is doubtful here: καὶ ὡς
οὐδὲν ἠξίου
πιστεύεσθαι
ἔστ᾽ ἂν
καταχθῇ εἰς
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
ἀρχήν, etc. There
is a break here in the original.
2. For three years they besieged Antigonus,
and then brought him alive to Antony. And Antony himself also
proclaimed Herod as king, and gave him, in addition, the cities Hippus,
Gadara, Gaza, Joppa, Anthedon, and a part of Arabia, Trachonitis, and
Auranitis, and Sacia, and Gaulanitis; This is
according to the rendering of the Latin version. Here
again there is a blank in the original.
3. Cleopatra shut herself up in a
mausoleum, The
text is corrupt here. It gives, ἐν τῷ
μεσαιολίῳ, a word
unknown in Greek. Scaliger reads Μαισαιόλιον.
Goarus proposes Μαυσωλαῖον,
which we adopt in the translation.
i.e., sun and moon.
4. After the taking of Alexandria the 188th
Olympiad began. Herod founded anew the city of the
Gabinii,
Samaria was so named in reference to its restoration by Gabinius,
the proconsul of Syria. See Josephus (Antiq., book xiv.
ch. x.), who states that Gabinius traversed Judea, and gave orders for
the rebuilding of such towns as he found destroyed; and that in this
way Samaria, Azotus, Scythopolis, Antedon, Raphia, Dora, Marissa, and
not a few others, were restored.
It was now the 189th Olympiad, which (Olympiad) in
the year that had the bissextile day, the 6th day before the Calends of
March,—i.e., the 24th of February,—corresponded with the
24th year of the era of Antioch, whereby the year was determined in its
proper limits. The
text is: ἦν
᾽Ολυμπιὰς
ρπθ᾽, ἥτις
πρὸ * καλανδῶν
Μαρτίων κατὰ
᾽Αντιοχεῖς
κδ᾽ ἔτει
ἤχθη, δι᾽ ἧς
ἐπὶ τῶν
ἰδίων ὁρίων
ἔστη ὁ
ἐνιαυτός.
In every fourth year the 24th day of February ( = vi. Cal. Mart.) was
reckoned twice. There were three different eras of Antioch, of
which the one most commonly used began in November 49 b.c. Migne refers the reader to the notes of Goarus
on the passage, which we have not seen. The sense of this obscure
passage seems to be, that that period formed another fixed point in
chronology.
XVIII.
In Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 322 or 256.
On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour’s Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection.
1. As to His works severally, and His cures
effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the
resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set
forth by His disciples and apostles before us. On the whole world
there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an
earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown
down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his
History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of
the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day
according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day
before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when
the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other
time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the
last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an
eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically
opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the
majority with it; and let this por
ἕν τι κατὰ τὴν
ὄψιν. [Vol. iii. p. 58, Elucid. V.,
this series.]
2. From Artaxerxes, moreover, 70 weeks are
reckoned up to the time of Christ, according to the numeration of the
Jews. For from Nehemiah, who was sent by Artaxerxes to people
Jerusalem, about the 120th year of the Persian empire, and in the 20th
year of Artaxerxes himself, and the 4th year of the 83d Olympiad, up to
this time, which was the 2d year of the 102d Olympiad, and the 16th
year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, there are given 475 years,
which make 490 Hebrew years, since they measure the years by the lunar
month of 29½ days, as may easily be explained, the annual period
according to the sun consisting of 365¼ days, while the lunar
period of 12 months has 11¼ days less. For which reason the
Greeks and the Jews insert three intercalary months every eight
years. For 8 times 11¼ days make 3 months. The 475
years, therefore, contain 59 periods of 8 years and three months
over: thus, the three intercalary months for every 8 years being
added, we get 15 years, and these together with the 475 years make 70
weeks. Let no one now think us unskilled in the calculations of
astronomy, when we fix without further ado the number of days at
365¼. For it is not in ignorance of the truth, but rather by
reason of exact study,
διὰ τὴν
λεπτολογίαν. Or,
on a table; ὡς ἐν
γραφῇ.
3. Each year in the general consists of 365
days; and the space of a day and night being divided into nineteen
parts, we have also five of these. And in saying that the year
consists of 365¼ days, and there being the five nineteenth
parts…to the 475 there are 6¼ days. Furthermore, we
find, according to exact computation, that the lunar month has 29½
days.… The
text in the beginning of this section is hopelessly corrupt.
Scaliger declares that neither could he follow these things, nor did
the man that dreamt them understand them. We may subjoin the
Greek text as it stands in Migne: Μεταξυ δὲ
τοῦ λέγειν
τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν
ἡμερῶν τξε,
καὶ
τετραμορίου,
καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ
ιθ᾽ τῆς
νυχθημέρου,
μερῶν έ…εἰς τὰ υοέ,
ἡμέραι τὸ
παράλληλον
εἰσὶ *, καὶ
τετραμόριον.
῎Ετι γε μὴν
τὸν τῆς
σελήνης μῆνα
κατὰ τὴν
ἀκριβῆ
λεπτολογίαν
εὑρισκομεν
κθ᾽, καὶ
ἡμισείας
ἡμέρας καὶ
νυκτὸς
διαιρεθείσης
εἰς μέρη σέ,
τούτων τὰ ο᾽,
καὶ
ἥμισυ…ἃ γίνεται
ἐννενηκοστοτέταρτα
τρία.
καταγίνεται.
4. As far, then, as is in our power, we have
taken the Scripture, I think, correctly; especially seeing that the
preceding section about the vision seems to state the whole matter
shortly, its first words being, “In the third year of the reign
of Belshazzar,”
XIX. In
Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, ch. xxix. § 73;
Works, vol. iii. p. 61, edit. Paris. [Elucidation
II.]
For we who both know the measure of those
words, For
ῥημάτων, words, three
mss. give ῥητῶν, sayings. For
ἡμῖν Πατρί there
is another reading, ἡμων
πατράσι = to Him who gave to
our fathers.
These words, “and our Lord,” are wanting in three
mss.
IV.—The Passion of St.
Symphorosa and Her Seven Sons.
Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, vol. i. Proleg. p. lxxi. and p.
329.
————————————
The text is given from the edition of Ruinart. His preface, which Migne also cites, is as follows: “The narrative of the martyrdom of St. Symphorosa and her seven sons, which we here publish, is ascribed in the mss. to Julius Africanus, a writer of the highest repute. And it may perhaps have been inserted in his books on Chronography,—a work which Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., vi. 31) testifies to have been written with the greatest care, since in these he detailed the chief events in history from the foundation of the world to the times of the Emperor Heliogabalus. As that work, however, is lost, that this narrative is really to be ascribed to Africanus, I would not venture positively to assert, although at the same time there seems no ground for doubting its genuineness. We print it, moreover, from the editions of Mombritius, Surius, and Cardulus, collated with two Colbert mss. and one in the library of the Sorbonne. The occasion for the death of these saints was found in the vicinity of that most famous palace which was built by Adrian at his country seat at Tiber, according to Spartianus. For when the emperor gave orders that this palace, which he had built for his pleasure, should be purified by some piacular ceremonies, the priests seized this opportunity for accusing Symphorosa, alleging that the gods would not be satisfied until Symphorosa should either sacrifice to them or be herself sacrificed; which last thing was done by Hadrian, whom, from many others of his deeds, we know to have been exceedingly superstitious, about the year of Christ 120, that is, about the beginning of his reign, at which period indeed, as Dio Cassius observes, that emperor put a great number to death. The memory of these martyrs, moreover, is celebrated in all the most ancient martyrologies, although they assign different days for it. The Roman, along with Notker, fixes their festival for the 18th July, Rabanus for the 21st of the same month, Usuardus and Ado for the 21st June. In the Tiburtine road there still exists the rubbish of an old church, as Aringhi states (Rom. Subter., iv. 17), which was consecrated to God under their name, and which still retains the title, To the Seven Brothers. I have no doubt that it was built in that place to which the pontiffs in the Acta, sec. iv., gave the name, To the Seven Biothanati, i.e., those cut off by a violent death, as Baronius remarks, at the year 138.” So far Ruinart: see also Tillemont, Mém. Eccles., ii. pp. 241 and 595; and the Bollandists, Act. S.S. Junii, vol. iv. p. 350.
1. When Adrian had built a palace, and
wished to dedicate it by that wicked ceremonial, and began to seek
responses by sacrifices to idols, and to the demons that dwell in
idols, they replied,
See Eusebius, Life of Constantine, ii. 50.
The Martyrologies celebrate their memory on the 10th June:
one of the Colbert mss. gives Zoticus
for Getulius. A
Colbert ms. gives
“laudantes” = praising.
2. The Emperor Adrian said to the holy
Symphorosa: “Either sacrifice thou along with thy sons to
the omnipotent gods, or else I shall cause thee to be sacrificed
thyself, together with thy sons.” The blessed Symphorosa
answered: “And whence is this great good to me, that I
should be deemed worthy along with my sons to be offered as an oblation
to God?” This
response, along with the next interrogation, is wanting in the Colbert
manuscript. Sur.,
Card., and the Colbert Codex give “Zoticus.”
3. Then, on another day, the Emperor Adrian
ordered all her seven sons to be brought before him in company; and
when he had challenged them to sacrifice to idols, and perceived that
they yielded by no means to his threats and terrors, he ordered seven
stakes to be fixed around the temple of Hercules, and commanded them to
be stretched on the blocks there. And he ordered Crescens, the
first, to be transfixed in the throat; and Julian, the second, to be
stabbed in the breast; and Nemesius, the third, to be struck through
the heart; and Primitivus, the fourth, to be wounded in the navel; and
Justin, the fifth, to be struck through in the back with a sword; and
Stracteus, The
Colbert Codex reads “Extacteus;” Cardulus gives
“Stacteus,” by which name he is designated beneath by them
all.
4. The next day again the Emperor Adrian
came to the temple of Hercules, and ordered their bodies to be carried
off together, and cast into a deep pit; and the pontiffs gave to that
place the name, To the Seven Biothanati. In one
of the Colbert codices, and in another from the Sorbonne, there is a
passage inserted here about the death of Adrian, which is said to have
happened a little after that of these martyrs.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Joseph the son of both, p. 127.)
The opinion that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary was unknown to Christian antiquity. In the fifteenth century it was first propounded by Latin divines to do honour (as they supposed) to the Blessed Virgin. It was first broached by Annius of Viterbo, a.d. 1502. Christian antiquity is agreed that:—
1. Both genealogies are those of Joseph.
2. That Joseph was the son of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were either own brothers or half-brothers; so that,—
3. On the death of one of the brothers, without
issue, the surviving brother married his Routh,
Reliqu. Sacræ, vol. ii. pp. 233, 339, 341, 355.
Compare also vol. ii. 334 and 346, this series.
4. Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke gives his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.
II.
(Conclusion, cap. xix. p. 138.)
On Jewish genealogies, note Dean
Prideaux,
Also on the Seventy Weeks (p. 134, supra),
vol. i. pp. 227–240 and 322.
Origines Sacræ, vol. i. pp. 64–120.
Lardner repeatedly calls our author a “great
man;” and his most valuable account,
Works, vol. ii. pp. 457–468. See
Introductory Notice, p. 123, note 4, supra.
————————————
Note.
————————————
The valuable works of Africanus are found in vol. ix. of the Edinburgh edition, mixed up with the spurious Decretals and remnants of preceding volumes. I am unable to make out very clearly who is the translator, but infer that Drs. Roberts and Donaldson should be credited with this work.
[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Anatolius and Minor Writers.
————————————
Instead of reprinting a disjointed mass of “Fragments,” I have thought it desirable to present them in a group, illustrative of the Alexandrian school. I give to Anatolius the deserved place of prominence, marking him as the meet successor of Africanus in ability if not in the nature of his pursuits. His writing and the testimony of Eusebius prove him to have been a star of no inferior magnitude, even in the brilliant constellation of faith and genius of which he is part.
These minor writers I have arranged, not with exclusive reference to minute chronology, but with some respect to their material, as follows:—
I. Anatolius, a.d. 270.
II. Alexander of Cappadocia, a.d. 250.
III. Theognostus, a.d. 265.
IV. Pierius, a.d. 300.
V. Theonas, a.d. 300.
VI. Phileas, a.d. 307.
VII. Pamphilus, a.d. 309.
Anatolius and Minor Writers.
————————————
Anatolius of Alexandria.
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d.
230–270–280.] From Jerome De
illustr. viris., ch. 73. [The dates which are known suggest
conjectural dates of our author’s birth and death.]
In the 32d chapter of the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical
History.
[“There were giants in those days.” How gloriously,
even in the poverty and distress of the martyr-ages, the cultivation of
learning was established by Christianity!] [This
Eusebius was a learned man, born at Alexandria.]
First
edited from ancient manuscript by Ægidius Bucherius, of the
Society of Jesus.
————————————
I.
As we are about to speak on the subject of the
order of the times and alternations of the world, we shall first
dispose of the positions of diverse calculators; who, by reckoning only
by the course of the moon, and leaving out of account the ascent and
descent of the sun, with the addition of certain problems, have
constructed diverse periods,
Circulos. [Note the reference to Hippolytus.]
Gressus. Vol. v. p. 3; also Bunsen, i. pp. 13, 281.]
[It seems probable that the hegemony which Alexandria had
established in all matters of learning led to that full recognition of
it, by the Council of Nicæa, which made its bishop the dictator to
the whole Church in the annual calculation of Easter. Vol. ii.
343.]
i.e., “smith” or “brasier,” probably from
his assiduity.
Lunæ vii. Perhaps, as Bucher conjectures, Lunæ xiv.,
fourteen days, &c. The
text is doubtful and corrupt here.
Aliquid stillicidii.
II.
There is, then, in the first year, the new moon of
the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen
years, on the six and twentieth day of the month called by the
Egyptians Phamenoth.
[The Church’s Easter-calculations created modern astronomy,
which passed to the Arabians from the Church. (See
Whewell’s Inductive Sciences.) They preserved it,
but did not improve it, in Spain. Christianity re-adopted it, and
the presbyter Copernicus new-created it. The court of Rome (not
the Church Catholic) persecuted Galileo; but it did so under the lead
of professional “Science,’” which had darkened the
human mind, from the days of Pythagoras, respecting his more
enlightened system.] The
word is ἄφεσις, which Valesius makes
equivalent to ἀφετηρια,
the rope or post from which the chariots started in the race, and so =
starting-point.—Tr.
περιοδου.
III.
Nor is this an opinion confined to ourselves
alone. For it was also known to the Jews of old and before
Christ, and it was most carefully observed by them.
πρὸς
αὐτῶν—others read πρό, before them.
Anatolius writes that there were two Agathobuli with the surname
Masters; but I fear that he is wrong in his opinion that they were more
ancient than Philo and Josephus. For Agathobulus, the
philosopher, flourished in the times of Adrian, as Eusebius writes in
his Chronicon, and after him Georgius
Syncellus.—Vales.
᾽Αριστοβούλου
τοῦ πάνυ—Rufinus
erroneously renders it Aristobulum ex Paneade, Aristobulus of
Paneas. Scaliger also, in his Animadversiones
Eusebianæ, p. 130, strangely thinks that the text should be
corrected from the version of Rufinus. And Bede, in his De
Ratione Computi, also follows the faulty rendering of Rufinus, and
writes Aristobulus et Paniada, as though the latter word
were the proper name of a Jewish writer, finding probably in the
Codex of Rufinus, which he possessed, the reading
Aristobulus et Paneada, which indeed is found in a very ancient
Paris manuscript, and also in the Codex Corbeiensis. But
that that Aristobulus was not one of the seventy translators, as
Anatolius writes, is proved by Scaliger in the work cited above.
This Aristobulus was also surnamed διδάσκαλος, or Master, as we see from the
τὰ
διαβητήρια
θόειν.
IV.
But this Aristobulus also adds, that for the feast of the Passover it was necessary not only that the sun should pass the equinoctial segment, but the moon also. For as there are two equinoctial segments, the vernal and the autumnal, and these diametrically opposite to each other, and since the day of the Passover is fixed for the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, the moon will have the position diametrically opposite the sun; as is to be seen in full moons. And the sun will thus be in the segment of the vernal equinox, and the moon necessarily will be at the autumnal equinox.
V.
I am aware that very many other matters were
discussed by them, some of them with considerable probability, and
others of them as matters of the clearest demonstration,
κυριακὰς
ἀποδείξεις—Christophorsonus
renders it ratas; Rufinus gives validissimas
assertiones. The Greeks use κύριος in this sense,
κυρίαι
δίκαι,
δοξαι, &c., decisive,
valid, judgments, opinions, &c. The
text gives ἀπαιτῶν ὧν
περιῄρηται,
&c.; various codices read ἀπ᾽
αὐτῶν, &c. Valesius now
proposes ὕλας
ἀπαιτῶν· ᾧ
περι
ᾑρηται, I shall pass on
without…for the veil is removed from me. An
apocryphal book of some antiquity, which professes to proceed from the
patriarch of that name, but of whose existence prior to the Christian
era there is no real evidence. The first author who clearly
refers to it by name is Tertullian. [Vol. iii. p. 62, and iv.
380.]
VI.
And, therefore, in this concurrence of the sun and
moon, the Paschal festival is not to be celebrated, because as long as
they are found in this course the power of darkness is not overcome;
and as long as equality between light and darkness endures, and is not
diminished by the light, it is shown that the Paschal festival is not
to be celebrated. Accordingly, it is enjoined that that festival
be kept after the equinox, because the moon of the fourteenth, xiv.
luna. The Romans used the phrase luna prima,
secunda, &c., as meaning, the first, second day, &c.,
after new moon.—Tr.
VII.
To us, however, with whom it is impossible for all these things to come aptly at one and the same time, namely, the moon’s fourteenth, and the Lord’s day, and the passing of the equinox, and whom the obligation of the Lord’s resurrection binds to keep the Paschal festival on the Lord’s day, it is granted that we may extend the beginning of our celebration even to the moon’s twentieth. For although the moon of the 20th does not fill the whole night, yet, rising as it does in the second watch, it illumines the greater part of the night. Certainly if the rising of the moon should be delayed on to the end of two watches, that is to say, to midnight, the light would not then exceed the darkness, but the darkness the light. But it is clear that in the Paschal feast it is not possible that any part of the darkness should surpass the light; for the festival of the Lord’s resurrection is one of light, and there is no fellowship between light and darkness. And if the moon should rise in the third watch, it is clear that the 22d or 23d of the moon would then be reached, in which it is not possible that there can be a true celebration of Easter. For those who determine that the festival may be kept at this age of the moon, are not only unable to make that good by the authority of Scripture, but turn also into the crime of sacrilege and contumacy, and incur the peril of their souls; inasmuch as they affirm that the true light may be celebrated along with something of that power of darkness which dominates all.
VIII.
Accordingly, it is not the case, as certain
calculators of Gaul allege, that this assertion is opposed by that
passage in Exodus,
But
the text gives 12th.
IX.
But what wonder is it that they should have erred in the matter of the 21st day of the moon who have added three days before the equinox, in which they hold that the Passover may be celebrated? An assertion which certainly must be considered altogether absurd, since, by the best-known historiographers of the Jews, and by the Seventy Elders, it has been clearly determined that the Paschal festival cannot be celebrated at the equinox.
X.
But nothing was difficult to them with whom it was
lawful to celebrate the Passover on any day when the fourteenth of the
moon happened after the equinox. Following their example up to
the present time all the bishops of Asia—as themselves also
receiving the rule from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the
evangelist John, who leant on the Lord’s breast, and drank in
instructions spiritual without doubt—were in
[Vol. iii. p. 630. The convenire ad of Irenæus is
thus shown to be geographical, not ecclesiastical. Vol. i. pp.
415, 569.]
XI.
Moreover, the allegation which they sometimes make
against us, that if we pass the moon’s fourteenth we cannot
celebrate the beginning of the Paschal feast in light,
Lucidum.
Celeberrimus, honoured, solemn.
Solemn.
[The sanctification of the Lord’s Day is thus shown
to be a Christian principle. The feast of Easter was the Great
Lord’s Day, but the rule was common to the weekly
Easter.]
XII.
But this again is held by other wise and most acute men to be an impossibility, because within that narrow and most contracted limit of a cycle of nineteen years, a thoroughly genuine Paschal time, that is to say, one held on the Lord’s day and yet after the equinox, cannot occur. But, in order that we may set in a clearer light the difficulty which causes their incredulity, we shall set down, along with the courses of the moon, that cycle of years which we have mentioned; the days being computed before in which the year rolls on in its alternating courses, by Kalends and Ides and Nones, and by the sun’s ascent and descent.
XIII.
The moon’s age set forth in the Julian Calendar.
January, on the Kalends, one day, the moon’s first
(day); on the Nones, the 5th day, the moon’s 5th; on the Ides,
the 13th day, the moon’s 13th. On the day before the
Kalends of February, the 31st day, the moon’s 1st; on the Kalends
of February, the 32d day, the moon’s
XIV.
The Paschal or Easter Table of Anatolius.
Now, then, after the reckoning of the days and the
exposition of the course of the moon, whereon the whole revolves on to
its end, the cycle of the years may be set forth from the
commencement.
Annorum circuli principium inchoandum est.
Equinox / Moon / Easter / Moon
1. Sabbath / XXVI. / XVth before the Kalends of May, i.e., 17th April / XVIII.
2. Lord’s Day / VII. / Kalends of April, i.e., 1st April / XIV.
3. IId Day (ferial) / XVIII. / XIth before the Kalends of May, i.e., 21st April / XVI.
4. IIId Day / XXIX. / Ides of April, i.e., 13th April / XIX.
5. IVth Day / X. / IVth before the Kalends of April, i.e., 29th March / XIV.
6. Vth Day / XXI. / XIVth before the Kalends of May, i.e., 18th April / XVI.
7. Sabbath
Bissextile reckoning. [Compare note 2, p. 110,
supra.]
8. Lord’s Day / XIII. / Kalends of April, i.e., 1st of April / XX.
9. IId Day / XXIV. / XVIIIth before the Kalends of May, i.e., 14th March / XV.
10. IIId Day / V. / VIIIth before the Ides of April, i.e., 6th April / XV.
11. IVth Day / XVI. / IVth before the Kalends of April, i.e., 29th March / XX.
12. Vth Day / XXVII. / IIId before the Ides of April, i.e., 11th April / XV.
13. VIth Day / VIII. / IIId before the Nones of April, i.e., 3rd April / XVII.
14. Sabbath / XX. / IXth before the Kalends of May, i.e., 23rd April / XX.
15. Lord’s Day / I. / VIth before the Ides of April, i.e., 8th April / XV.
16. IId Day / XII. / IId before the Kalends of April, i.e., 31st March / XVIII.
17. IVth Day
Bissextile reckoning. [Compare note 2, p. 110,
supra.]
18. Vth Day / IV. / IId before the Nones of April, i.e., 4th April / XIV.
19. VIth Day / XV. / VIth before the Kalends of April, i.e., 27th March / XVII.
XV.
This cycle of nineteen years is not approved of by
certain African investigators who have drawn up larger cycles, because
it seems to be somewhat opposed to their surmises and opinions.
For these make up the best proved accounts according to their
calculation, and determine a certain beginning or certain end for the
Easter season, so as that the Paschal festival shall not be celebrated
before the eleventh day before the Kalends of April, i.e., 24th March,
nor after the
In quo autumnalis novissima pars vincitur.
Lunæ orsibus.
XVI.
Furthermore, as to the proposal subjoined to your
epistle, that I should attempt to introduce into this little book some
notice of the ascent and descent of the sun, which is made out in the
distribution of days and nights. The matter proceeds thus:
In fifteen days and half an hour, the sun ascending by so many minutes,
that is, by four in one day, from the eighth day before the Kalends of
January, i.e., 25th December, to the eighth before the Kalends of
April, i.e., 25th March, an hour is taken up;
Diminuitur. [This year (1886) we have the lowest possible
Easter.]
XVII.
Be not ignorant of this, however, that those four
determining periods,
Temporum confinia.
[Compare what is said of Hippolytus, vol. v. p. 3, this series.
See the valuable work of Professor Seabury on the Calendar, ed.
1872.]
Fabricius, Biblioth. Græca, ed. Harles, vol. iii. p.
462. Hamburg, 1793.
————————————
What is mathematics?
Aristotle thinks that all philosophy consisted of
theory and practice,
θεωρίας
καὶ
πράξεως.
The Chaldæans were the originators of astronomy, and the Egyptians of geometry and arithmetic.…
And whence did mathematics derive its name?
Those of the Peripatetic school affirmed that in
rhetoric and poetry, and in the popular music, any one may be an adept
though he has gone through no process of study; but that in those
pursuits properly called studies,
μαθήματα.
τὸ
ἐπιστημονικόν.
μάθησιν.
εἰλικρινῆ, absolute.
ὕλην.
νοητήν.
θεωρητικός.
τοὺς
πρὸς ἄλληλα
λόγους.
σώματα, substances.
What is mathematics?
Mathematics is a theoretic science
ἐπιστήμη
θεωρητική.
πρὸς
τὴν τῶν
ὑποπιπτόντων
δόσιν.
“Small at her birth, but rising every hour,
While scarce the skies her horrid (mighty) head can bound,
She stalks on earth and shakes the world
around.”
Iliad, iv. 442–443 (Pope).
For it begins with a point and a line,
σημείου
καὶ
γραμμῆς.
How many divisions are there of mathematics?
Of the more notable and the earliest mathematics
there are two principal divisions, viz., arithmetic and geometry.
And of the mathematics which deals with things sensible there are six
divisions, viz., computation (practical arithmetic), geodesy, optics,
theoretical music, mechanics, and astronomy. But that neither the
so-called tactics nor architecture,
τὸ
ἀρχιτεκτονικόν.
As to the circle having eight solids and six superficies
and four angles.…What branches of arithmetic have closest
affinity with each other? Computation and theoretical music have
a closer
ἀναλογίας.
As to mathematics having its principles
ἀρχάς, beginnings.
περιπέτεια,
reversal of circumstances on which the plot of a tragedy hinges.
A native of Abdera, in Thrace, born about 460 b.c., and, along with Leucippus, the founder of the
philosophical theory of atoms, according to which the creation of all
things was explained as being due to the fortuitous combination of an
infinite number of atoms floating in infinite space.
A famous physician, a native of Bithynia, but long resident in
great repute at Rome in the middle of the first century b.c. He adopted the Epicurean doctrine of atoms and
pores, and tried to form a new theory of disease, on the principle that
it might be in all cases reduced to obstruction of the pores and
irregular distribution of the atoms.
ὄγκοις.
That Pythagoras was not the only one who duly
honoured arithmetic, but that his best known disciples did so too,
being wont to say that “all things fit number.”
[
That arithmetic has as its immediate end chiefly
the theory of science,
τὴν
ἐπιστημονικὴν
θεωρίαν.
συλλήβδην
καταλαβεῖν
πόσα τῇ
ὡρισμένῃ
οὐσίᾳ
συμβέβηκεν.
Who among the mathematicians has made any discovery?
Eudemus A
native of Rhodes, a disciple of Aristotle, and editor of his works. A
native of Chios, mentioned by Plato in connection with Anaxagoras, and
therefore supposed by some to have been a contemporary of the latter
sage.
περίστασιν,
revolution. Of
Miletus, one of the sages, and founder of the Ionic school.
Of Miletus, born 610 b.c., the immediate
successor of Thales in the Ionic school of philosophy.
μετέωρος. Of
Miletus, the third in the series of Ionic philosophers.
απεχουσιν
ἀλλήλων.
————————————
Alexander of Cappadocia.
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d.
170–233–251.] Alexander was at first bishop of a
church in Cappadocia, but on his visiting Jerusalem he was appointed to
the bishopric of the church there, while the previous bishop Narcissus
was alive, in consequence of a vision which was believed to be
divine.
Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. 11. [Narcissus must have
been born about a.d. 121. Might have
known Polycarp.]
Ibid., vi. 46. [Narcissus lived till a.d. 237, and died a martyr, aged 116.]
[He was a pupil of Pantænus, continued under Clement, and
defended Origen against the severity of Demetrius. Two dates
which are conjectural are adjusted to these facts. I find it
difficult to reconcile them with those implied by
Eusebius.]
————————————
I. An Epistle to the People of
Antioch.
A fragment. In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., book vi. ch.
xi.
Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ,
sends greeting in the Lord to the blessed church of Antioch. Easy
and light has the Lord made my bonds to me during the time of my
imprisonment since I have learned that in the providence of God,
Asclepiades—who, in regard to the right faith, is most eminently
qualified for the office—has undertaken the episcopate of your
holy church of Antioch. And this epistle, my brethren and
masters, I have sent by the hand of the blessed presbyter
Clement, It
was the opinion of Jerome in his Catalogusthat the Clement
spoken of by Alexander was Clement of Alexandria. This Clement,
at any rate, did live up to the time of the Emperor Severus, and
sojourned in these parts, as he tells us himself in the first book of
his Stromateis. And he was also the friend of bishop
Alexander, to whom he dedicated his book On the Ecclesiastical
Canon, or Against the Jews, as Eusebius states in his Eccles.
Hist., book vi. ch. xiii. (Migne). [But from the third of
these epistles one would certainly draw another inference. How
could he, a pupil of Clement, describe and introduce his master
in such terms as he uses here?]
II.
From an Epistle to the Antinoites.
In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., book vi. ch. xi.
Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate in
this district before me, who is now also my colleague and competitor in
prayer for you,
συνεξεταζόμενός
μοι διὰ τῶν
εὐχῶν. Jerome renders it:
Salutat vos Narcissus, qui ante me hic tenuit episcopalem locum et
nunc mecum eundem orationibus regit.
ηνυκώς. The
text gives ὁμοίως ἐμοὶ
φρονῆσαι. Several
of the codices and also Nicephorus give the better reading, ὁμοίως ἐμοὶ
ὁμοφρονῆσαι,
which is confirmed by the interpretations of Rufinus and Jerome.
III. From an
Epistle to Origen.
In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ch. xiv.
For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God,
that the friendship subsisting between us from our forefathers should
be maintained unbroken, yea rather, that it should increase in fervency
and strength. For we are well acquainted with those blessed
fathers who have trodden the course before us, and to whom we too shall
soon go: Pantænus, namely, that man verily blessed, my
master; and also the holy Clement, who was once my master and my
benefactor; and all the rest who may be like them, by whose means also
I have come to know thee, my lord and brother, who excellest
all.
[This contemporary tribute confirms the enthusiastic eulogy of the
youthful Gregory. See p. 38, supra.]
IV. From an Epistle
to Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria.
In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ch. xix.
And he
Demetrius is, for honour’s sake, addressed in the third
person. Perhaps ἡ
σὴ
ἁγιότης or some such form
preceded.
ὁμιλεῖν. [This
precise and definite testimony is not to be controverted. It
follows the traditions of the Synagogue (
Note by the American Editor.
————————————
If Alexander died in the Decian persecution, it is noteworthy how far the sub-apostolic age extended. This contemporary of Cyprian was coadjutor to Narcissus, who may have seen those who knew St. John. See vol. i. p. 416, note 1, this series; also vol. i. p. 568, Fragment ii.
————————————
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 260. I can add
nothing but conjectures to the following:] Of this Theognostus we
have no account by either Eusebius or Jerome. Athanasius,
however, mentions him more than once with honour. Thus he speaks
of him as ἀνὴρ
λόγιος, an eloquent
or learned man. De
Decret. Nic. Syn., 25, Works, vol. i. part i. p. 230.
Epist. 4, to Serapion, sec. 9, vol. i. part ii. p. 702.
Bibl., cod. 106.
τοῦ
μακαρίου
Θεογνώστου
᾽Αλεξανδρέως
καὶ ἐξηγητοῦ
ὑποτυπώσες.
ἐξηγητοῦ.
ὑποτυπώσεις.
De Dei Creatione.
Defens. fid. Nic., sec. ii. chap. 10. [Bull always
vindicates where he can do so, on the principle of justice, for which I
have contended on p. v. (prefatory) of vol. iv.]
Divinit I. C., iv. 24.
Book iii., against Eunomius.
From His Seven Books of Hypotyposes or Outlines.
————————————
I.
From book ii. In Athanasius, On the Decrees of the
Nicene Council, sec. xxv. From the edition BB., Paris, 1698,
vol. i. part i. p. 230. Athanasius introduces this fragment in
the following terms:—Learn then, ye Christ-opposing Arians, that
Theognostus, a man of learning, did not decline to use the expression
“of the substance” (ἐκ
τῆς
οὐσίας). For,
writing of the Son in the second book of his Outlines, he has
spoken thus: The substance of the Son.—Tr.
The substance
οὐσία.
ἔξωθεν
ἐφευρεθεῖσα.
ἐκ μὴ ὄντων
ἐπεισήχθη. The
words in italics were inserted by Routh from a Catena on the Epistle to
the Hebrews, where they are ascribed to Theognostus: “He
Himself” is the Son.
ἀπόῤῥοια.
II. In
Athanasius, Epist. 4, to Serapion, sec. 11, vol. i. part ii. p.
703.
Theognostus, moreover, himself adds words to this
effect: He who has offended against the first term
ὅρον.
τελειώσει.
[i.e., making the disciples τέλειοι.
III. From
Athanasius, as above, p. 155.
Then he says again: As the Saviour converses
with those not yet able to receive what is perfect,
τὰ
τέλεια.
————————————
Pierus of
Alexandria.
[See Introductory Note, p. 143, supra; also p. 99, note 8,
supra.]
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 275.] Among
the very eminent men who flourished near his own time, Eusebius
mentions Pierius, a presbyter of Alexandria, and speaks of him as
greatly renowned for his voluntary poverty, his philosophical erudition
and his skill in the exposition of Scripture and in discoursing to the
public assemblies of the Church.
Hist. Eccl., vii. 32.
Perhaps only speculatively (see Frag. II. infra), not
dogmatically. Compare Wordsworth’s Platonic Ode on
Immortality.]
Lardner (part ii. book i. chap. xxiv.) does not think that there
was a commentary written by Pierius on this epistle, but only that the
word of Paul, mentioned below, was expounded at length in some work or
other by Pierius. Fabricius holds the opposite
opinion.—Tr.
See Eusebius as above, Jerome in the preface to Hosea,
Photius, cod. 118, 119; Epiphanius, 69, 2;
Lardner, part ii. book i. chap. 24; &c.
This
very brief quotation is preserved in Jerome’s Second Epistle to
Pammachius.
————————————
Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of
Cæsareia, Didymus, and Apollinaris, have interpreted this epistle
most copiously;
Latissime.
Vol. iv. p. 243, edit. Benedictin. [No doubt he does, as did his
Master, Christ, before him, and under the same limitations.
II.—A Section on the Writings of Pierius. From
the Bibliotheca of Photius, cod. 119, p. 300, ed. Hoeschel.
————————————
Different Discourses of the Presbyter Pierius.
There was read a book by Pierius the presbyter,
who, they say, endured the conflict Of
martyrdom.
λόγους.
ἐπιμελὲς
ἐνδεικνύμενος.
[e.g., his Platonic ideas, as explained in note 3, p. 156,
supra.]
ὐπόστασις.
[See my remarks, vol. iv. p. v., introductory.]
[Photos must often be received with a grain of salt.]
εἰς τον
λόγον. [On images, etc., Photius
is no authority.] The
text here is evidently corrupt. It runs thus: οἰκονομίας
δὲ λόγῳ
συγχωρηθῆναι
ματαιολογεῖ
ὡς οὐδὲν
ἦσαν ὡς ἕτερα
τὰ
γεγενημένα.
ὡς οὐδὲ
τυπον ἄλλον
ἔφερε μορφῆς,
ἀλλὰ μόνον
πτερυγων
κενολογεῖ
φέρειν αὐτὰ
σχῆμα. Hoeschelius proposes ὡς
οὐδὲν
ἦσαν, ὡς
ἕτερον ἦσαν,
ὡς ἕτερα, &c., and he
rejects the ὡς in ὡς
οὐδὲν
τύπον on the authority of four
codices.—Tr.
————————————
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 300.] Of this
Theonas we know extremely little. Eusebius
Hist. Eccl., vii. 32.
Præpositus cubiculariorum.
See Neander’s Church History, vol. i. p. 197
(Bohn). [Christians began to be preferred for their
probity. Diocletian’s reign at first gave the Church a long
peace (see vol. iv. p. 126) of well-nigh ten years.]
The Epistle of Theonas, Bishop
of Alexandria, to Lucianus, the Chief Chamberlain. In
Dacherii Spicilegium, iii. pp. 297–299.
————————————
Bishop Theonas to Lucianus, the Chief Chamberlain of Our Most Invincible Emperor.
I.
I give thanks to Almighty God and our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has not given over the manifesting of His faith throughout
the whole world, as the sole specific for our salvation,
In salutis nostræ unicum remedium.
Wherefore, my Lucianus, I neither suppose nor
desire that you should make it a matter of boasting, that by your means
many persons belonging to the palace of the emperor have been brought
to the knowledge of the truth; but rather does it become us to give the
thanks to our God who has made thee a good instrument for a good work,
and has raised thee to great honour with the emperor, that you might
diffuse the sweet savour of the Christian name to His own glory and to
the salvation of many. For just the more completely that the
emperor himself, though not yet attached
Ascriptus. [A
beautiful concern of our author for the honour of the Master seems to
have dictated this noble letter.
II.
Therefore you ought to strive to the utmost of
your power not to fall into a base or dishonourable, not to say an
absolutely flagitious way of thinking, lest the name of Christ be thus
blasphemed even by you. Be it far from you that you should sell
the privilege of access to the emperor to any one for money, or that
you should by any means place a dishonest account of any affair before
your prince, won over either by prayers or by bribes. Let all the
lust of avarice be put from you, which serves the cause of idolatry
rather than the religion of Christ.
Nudum.
Discharge the official duties to which you are
severally appointed with the utmost fear of God and affection to your
prince, and perfect carefulness. Consider that every command of
the emperor which does not offend God has proceeded from God
Himself; [See
note 1, p. 108, supra.]
Qui zelo fidei inceditis.
III.
But because, as I apprehend it, ye are assigned to different offices, and you, Lucianus, are styled the head of them all, whom, also, by the grace of Christ given you, you are able to direct and dispose in their different spheres, I am certain that it will not displease you if I also bring before your notice, in a particular and summary manner, some of my sentiments on the subject of these offices. For I hear that one of you keeps the private moneys of the emperor; another the imperial robes and ornaments; another the precious vessels; another the books, who, I understand, does not as yet belong to the believers; and others the different parts of the household goods. And in what manner, therefore, these charges ought, in my judgment, to be executed, I shall indicate in a few words.
IV.
He who has charge of the private moneys of the
emperor ought to keep every thing in an exact reckoning. He
should be ready at any time to give an accurate account of all
things. He should note down every thing in writing, if it is at
all possible, before giving money to another. He should never
trust such things to his memory, which, being drawn off day by day to
other matters, readily fails us, so that, without writing, we sometimes
honestly certify things which have never existed; neither should this
kind of writing be of a commonplace order, but such as easily and
clearly unfolds all things, and leaves the mind of the inquirer without
any scruple or doubt on the subject; a thing which will easily be
effected if a distinct and separate account is kept in writing of all
receipts, and of the time when, and the person by whom, and the place
at which they were made. [A
most important hint to the clergy in their accounts with the
Church.]
V.
Nor will the diligence and care of that servant be less
who has the custody of the robes and imperial ornaments. All
these he should enter in a most exact catalogue, and he should keep a
note of what they are and of what sort, and in what places stored, and
when he received them, and from whom, and whether they are soiled or
unsoiled. All these things he should keep in his diligence; he
should often review again, and he
VI.
In a similar manner should he conduct himself to
whose fidelity are entrusted the vessels of silver and gold, and
crystal or murrha,
Murrhine vessels were first introduced into Rome by Pompey. They
were valued chiefly for their variegated colours, and were extremely
costly. Some think they were made of onyx stone, others of
variegated glass: but most modern writers suppose that what is
meant was some sort of porcelain.
VII.
The most responsible person, however, among you,
and also the most careful, will be he who may be entrusted by the
emperor with the custody of his library. He will himself select
for this office a person of proved knowledge, a man grave and adapted
to great affairs, and ready to reply to all applications for
information, such a one as Philadelphus chose for this charge, and
appointed to the superintendence of his most noble library—I mean
Aristeus, his confidential chamberlain, whom he sent also as his legate
to Eleazar, with most magnificent gifts, in recognition of the
translation of the Sacred Scriptures; and this person also wrote the
full history of the Seventy Interpreters. If, therefore, it
should happen that a believer in Christ is called to this same office,
he should not despise that secular literature and those Gentile
intellects which please the emperor. [A lofty
spirit of liberal love for literature is here exemplified.] It is
from these words that the inference is drawn that this epistle was
written by a Greek.
He ought, therefore, to know all the books which the emperor possesses; he should often turn them over, and arrange them neatly in their proper order by catalogue; if, however, he shall have to get new books, or old ones transcribed, he should be careful to obtain the most accurate copyists; and if that cannot be done, he should appoint learned men to the work of correction, and recompense them justly for their labours. He should also cause all manuscripts to be restored according to their need, and should embellish them, not so much with mere superstitious extravagance, as with useful adornment; and therefore he should not aim at having the whole manuscripts written on purple skins and in letters of gold, unless the emperor has specially required that. With the utmost submission, however, he should do every thing that is agreeable to Cæsar. As he is able, he should, with all modesty, suggest to the emperor that he should read, or hear read, those books which suit his rank and honour, and minister to good use rather than to mere pleasure. He should himself first be thoroughly familiar with those books, and he should often commend them in presence of the emperor, and set forth, in an appropriate fashion, the testimony and the weight of those who approve them, that he may not seem to lean to his own understanding only.
VIII.
Those, moreover, who have the care of the
emperor’s person should be in all things as prompt as possible;
always, as we have said, cheerful in countenance, sometimes merry, but
ever with such perfect modesty as that he may commend it above all else
in you all, and perceive that it is the true product of the religion of
Christ. You should also all be elegant and tidy in person and
attire, yet, at the same time, not in such wise as to attract notice by
extravagance or affectation, lest Christian modesty be
scandalised. [The
teachings of Clement had formed the minor morals of Christians.
See vol. ii. book ii. pp. 237, 284.]
Besides this, your servants should be the most thoroughly honest, and circumspect, and modest, and as serviceable to you as possible. And see that you instruct and teach them in true doctrine with all the patience and charity of Christ; but if they despise and lightly esteem your instructions, then dismiss them, lest their wickedness by any hap recoil upon yourselves. For sometimes we have seen, and often we have heard, how masters have been held in ill-repute in consequence of the wickedness of their servants.
If the emperor visits her imperial majesty, or she
him, then should ye also be most circumspect in eye and demeanour, and
in all your words. Let her mark your mastery of yourselves and
your modesty; [Thus
is reflected the teaching of St. Paul,
IX.
And do thou, my dearest Lucianus, since thou art
wise, bear with good-will the unwise;
[Blessed spirit of primitive piety! Is not this rule too much
relaxed in our own Laodicean age?]
A happy adieu to you in Christ, my Lord Lucianus.
————————————
Phileas.
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 307.] From
Jerome De
vir. illustr., chap. 78.
Hist. Eccles., viii. 9 and 10. [His
diocese belonged to the region over which Alexandria had the primacy by
the “ancient usages.”]
Fragments of
the Epistle of Phileas to the People of Thmuis.
In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., viii. 10.
————————————
I.
Having before them all these examples and signs
and illustrious tokens which are given us in the divine and holy
Scriptures, the blessed martyrs who lived with us did not hesitate,
but, directing the eye of their soul in sincerity to that God who is
over all, and embracing with willing mind the death which their piety
cost them, they adhered steadfastly to their vocation. For they
learned that our Lord Jesus Christ endured man’s estate on our
behalf, that He might destroy all sin, and furnish us with the
provision needful for our entrance into eternal life. “For
He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself
of no reputation, taking upon Him the form of a servant: and
being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself unto death, even
the death of the cross.”
χριστοφόροι.
So Ignatius of Antioch was called θεοφόρος,
God-bearer. [Vol. i. pp. 45, 49, this series.]
II.
And to narrate their virtue and their manly
endurance under every torment, what language would suffice? For
as every one who chose was at liberty to abuse them, some beat them
with wooden clubs,
ξύλοις. What is
meant, however, may be the instrument called by the Romans
equuleus, a kind of rack in the shape of a horse, commonly used
in taking the evidence of slaves.
μαγγάνοις
τισί. The
text gives ἀμυντηρίοις
ἐκόλαζον, for which
Nicephorus reads ἀμυντηριοις
τὰς
κολάσεις. The
ἀμυντηρια were
probably the Latin ungulæ, an instrument of torture like
claws. So Rufinus understands the phrase.
ἡγεμών. That is probably
the Roman Præfectus Augustalis.
III.
And there were also some who, after the tortures,
were placed upon the stocks and had both their feet stretched through
all the four holes, so that they were compelled to lie on their back on
the stocks, as they were unable (to stand) in consequence of the fresh
wounds they had over the whole body from the scourging. And
others being thrown upon the ground lay prostrated there by the
excessively frequent application of the tortures; in which condition
they exhibited to the onlookers a still more dreadful spectacle than
they did when actually undergoing their torments, bearing, as they did,
on their bodies the varied and manifold tokens of the cruel ingenuity
of their tortures. While this state of matters went on, some died
under their tortures, putting the adversary to shame by their
constancy. And others were thrust half-dead into the prison,
where in a few days, worn out with their agonies, they met their
end. But the rest, getting sure recovery under the application of
remedies, through time and their lengthened detention in prison, became
more confident. And thus then, when they were commanded to make
their choice between these alternatives, namely, either to put their
hand to the unholy sacrifice and thus secure exemption from further
trouble, and obtain from them their abominable sentence of absolution
and liberation,
τῆς
ἐπαράτου
ἐλευθέρίας.
[It is impossible to accept modern theories of the
inconsiderable number of the primitive martyrs, in view of the
abounding evidences of a chronic and continuous persecution always
evidenced by even these fragments of authentic history. See vol.
iv. p. 125.]
Eusebius, after quoting these passages, adds:—“These
are the words of a true philosopher, and one who was no less a lover of
God than of wisdom, which, before the final sentence of his judge, and
while he lay yet in prison, he addressed to the brethren in his church,
at once to represent to them in what condition he was himself, and to
exhort them to maintain steadfastly, even after his speedy death, their
piety towards Christ.”—Tr.
The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis.
————————————
The Beginning of the Epistle of the
Bishops.
This epistle was first edited by Scipio Maffeius from an ancient
Verona manuscript in the Osserv. Letter, vol. iii. pp.
11–17, where is given the Fragment of a History of the
Meletian Schism. See Neander’s important remarks on
this whole document, Church History, iii. p. 310
(Bohn).—Tr.
Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to
Meletius, our friend and fellow-minister in the Lord, greeting.
Some reports having reached us concerning thee, which, on the testimony
of certain individuals who came to us, spake of certain things foreign
to divine order and ecclesiastical rule which are being attempted, yea,
rather which are being done by thee, we, in an ingenuous manner held
them to be untrustworthy, regarding them to be such as we would not
willingly credit, when we thought of the audacity implied in their
magnitude and their uncertain attempts. But since many who are
visiting us at the present time have lent some credibility to these
reports, and have not hesitated to attest them as facts, we, to our
exceeding surprise, have been compelled to indite this letter to
thee. And what agitation and sadness have been caused to us all
in common and to each of us individually by (the report of) the
ordination carried through by thee in parishes having no manner of
connection with thee, we are unable sufficiently to express. We
have not delayed, however, by a short statement to prove your practice
wrong. There is the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which
neither art thou thyself ignorant, established according to divine and
ecclesiastical order; for it is all for the good pleasure of God and
the zealous regard of better things.
Zelo meliorum.
[Parishes = dioceses (so called now); but they were very
small territorially, and every city had its “bishop.”
See Bingham, book ix. cap. 2, and Euseb., book v. cap. 23. Comp.
note 1, p. 106, supra.]
Bene nimis magna.
[The bishops of Alexandria are called popes to this day,
and were so from the beginning. See vol. v. p. 154.]
[Peter succeeded Theonas as sixteenth bishop and primate of
Alexandria. See vol. iv. p. 384; also Neale, Pat of Alex.,
i. p. 90.]
Oportuerat ex populo properare ac nos exigere pro merito.
Sub arguente. The
manuscript reads chrismata, for which schismata is
proposed.
Provisoris—perhaps rather, The
Provider—the saint who with careful forethought has
mapped out our proper course in such matters.
Erga illum providentiam.
The manuscript gives ordinando adnuntias, for which is proposed
ordinandi. Adnuntiamus.
Reading studeas for studetur.
The Conclusion of the Epistle of the Bishops.
After receiving and perusing this epistle, he
neither wrote any reply nor repaired to them in the prison, nor went to
the blessed Peter. But when all these bishops and presbyters and
deacons had suffered martyrdom in the prison at Alexandria, he at once
entered Alexandria. Now in that city there was a certain person,
by name Isidorus, turbulent in character, and possessed with the
ambition of being a teacher. And there was also a certain Arius,
who wore the habit of piety, and was in like manner possessed with the
ambition to be a teacher. And when they discovered the object of
Meletius’s passion
Cupiditatem. Ut
cogniscatur concupiscentia Meletii. The
text is—Commendans ei occasionem Meletius, separavit eos,
&c.; on which see especially Neander, iii. p. 311 (Bohn).
This epistle is given elsewhere. [This volume, infra.]
————————————
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 309.]
According to the common account Pamphilus was a native of Berytus, the
modern Beirût, and a member of a distinguished Phœnician
family. Leaving Berytus, however, at an early period, he repaired
to Alexandria and studied under Pierius, the well-known head of the
Catechetical school there. At a subsequent period he went to the
Palestinian Cæsareia, and was made a presbyter of the Church there
under Bishop Agapius. In course of the persecutions of Diocletian
he was thrown into prison by Urbanus, the governor of Palestine.
This took place towards the end of the year 307 a.d., and his confinement lasted till the beginning of the
year 309, when he suffered martyrdom by order of Firmilianus, who had
succeeded Urbanus in the governorship of the country. During his
imprisonment he enjoyed the affectionate attendance of Eusebius, the
Church historian, and the tender friendship which subsisted long
between the two is well known. It was as a memorial of that
intimacy that Eusebius took the surname of Pamphili. Pamphilus
appears to have given himself up with great enthusiasm to the promotion
of Biblical studies, and is spoken of as the founder of a theological
school in which special importance was attached to exposition. He
busied himself also with the transcription and dissemination of the
Scriptures and other writings, such as those of Origen, of whom he was
a devoted follower. At Cæsareia he established a great
public library,
[Another glorious product of the school of Alexandria.]
Απολ.
χοντρ.
Ρυφ.,
βοοκ ι. νυμ. 9,
Ωορκσ, ιι. π. 465.
Proprii operis nihil omnino scripsit, exceptis epistolis quas ad
amicos forte mittebat; in tantum se humiltate dejecerat.
Bibl. Cod., cxviii. p. 295.
Ibid., vi. 32.
Ibid., vii. 32.
Ibid., viii. 13.
[Evidently he impressed Eusebius as an extraordinary man in an age of
colossal minds, and we must lament the loss of his writings.]
This
ἔκθεσιςwas edited under
the name of Euthalius, Bishop of Sulce, towards the end of the
preceding century, by Laurentius Zacagnius, in the collection of
Monumenta Vetera, p. 428, published at Rome.
Fabricius also compared the edition of Montfaucon with the Roman.
This collation is added here.—Migne.
————————————
Having had ourselves the advantage of the method
and model received from our fathers and teachers, we attempt, in a
modest way, to give these in this exposition of the chapters,
entreating your forgiveness for the rashness of such an endeavour in us
who are young in point both of years and of study, The
text is νέοι
χρόνῳ τε καὶ
μαθημάτων,
ἑκάστου, &c.; for which Euthal., χρόνων τε
καὶ
μαθημάτων
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν
ἑκάστου.
συμπεριφορὰν
κομιζόμενοι. But
Euthal., διὰ
μὲν τοῦ
μέλανος…διὰ δὲ τοῦ
κινναβάρεως,
i.e., by the different colours of black and vermilion.
These marks are wholly wanting in the Coislin Codex, from which
Montfaucon edited the piece. But they are found in the Vatican
Codex.—Tr.
A. Of Christ’s teaching after His
resurrection, and of His appearing to the disciples, and of the promise
of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and of the spectacle and manner of
Christ’s assumption.
Euthal. adds, καὶ
περὶ τῆς
ἐνδόξου καὶ
δευτέρας
αὐτοῦ
παρουσίας, i.e.,
and of His glorious and second coming.
B. Peter’s discourse to those who were
made disciples, on the subject of the death and reprobation
ἀποβολῆς. But
Euthal. ἀποστολῆς, apostleship.
C. Of the divine descent
ἐπιφοιτήσεως.
D. Of the healing in (the name of) Christ of
the man lame from his birth; and of the discourse
κατηχήσεως. But
Euthal., αὐτῶν,
their.
ἐπιστασία.
Euthal. inserts περὶ
ἀπειλῆς, and of the threatening of the chief
priests.
ἐπὶ τῶ
ὀνόματι; but Euthal.,
ἐπὶ τὸ
ὄνομα.
Reading ἀνέσεως with Euthal.,
instead of ἀνανεώσεως.
E. Of the harmonious and universal fellowship of the believers; and also * of Ananias and Sapphira and their miserable end.
F. Of the apostles being cast into prison, and led out of it by night by the angel of the Lord, who enjoined them to preach Jesus without restraint; and * of the fact that, on the following day, the chief priests apprehended them again, and, after scourging them, sent them away with the charge not to teach any longer. Then * the trusty opinion of Gamaliel touching the apostles, together with certain examples and proofs.
G. Of the election of the seven deacons.
H. The rising and slanderous information of
the Jews against Stephen, and his address concerning the covenant of
God with Abraham, and concerning the twelve patriarchs. Also the
account of the famine and the buying of corn, and the mutual
recognition of the sons of Jacob, and of the birth of Moses and the
appearance of God
θεοφανεία.
I. Of the persecution of the Church and the burial of Stephen; also * of the healing of many in Samaria by Philip the apostle.
K. That the participation of the Holy Ghost
was not given
ἐδίδοτο; Euthal.,
δίδοται is given.
ὅτι οὐκ
ἀργυρίου; Euthal.,
οὐ δι᾽
ἀργυρίου.
L. That the Lord helps the good and the believing on the way to salvation, as is shown from the instance of the eunuch.
M. Of the divine call that came from heaven
for Paul to the apostleship of Christ; also * of the healing and the
baptism of Paul by the hand of Ananias, in accordance with the
revelation from God, and of his boldness of speech and his association
with the apostles by the instrumentality of Barnabas.
Euthal., διὰ
Βαρνάβαν, on
Barnabas’s account.
N. Of the paralytic Æneas who was cured by Peter at Lydda. Also * the account of Tabitha, the friend of widows, whom Peter raised from the dead by means of prayer in Joppa.
O. Of Cornelius, and what the angel said to
him. Also what was spoken
Euthal. inserts πάλιν,
again. The
text is ὧν εἶπεν ὁ
ἄγγελος, &c. But
Euthal., ὧν ὁ
ἄγγελος
ἐπεμαρτύρησε
καὶ
ὑφηγήσατο, which the angel testified and showed.
P. That Peter recounts to the apostles who
contended with him
διακριθεῖσι
πρὸς αὐτόν.
Q. The prophecy of Agabus respecting the
famine in the world, The
text gives οἰκουμενικῆς;
Euthal., οἰκουμένης.
R. The slaying of the Apostle James. *
Also the apprehension of Peter by Herod, and the account of the manner
in which the angel by divine command delivered him from his bonds, and
how Peter, after showing himself to the disciples by night, quietly
withdrew. Also of the punishment of the keepers, and then of the
miserable and fatal overthrow The
text gives κατασφαγῆς;
Euthal., καταστροφῆς.
S. The sending of Barnabas and Paul by the
Holy Ghost to Cyprus. * The things which he did
Euthal., εἰργάσαντο, they did.
T. Paul’s admirable
εὐθαλής.
U. How, when they had preached Christ in Iconium, and many had believed, the apostles were persecuted.
V. Of the man lame from his birth in Lystra who was healed by the apostles; on account of which they were taken by the people of the place for gods who had appeared on earth. After that, however, Paul is stoned there by the neighbouring people.
W. That according to the decree and judgment
of the apostles, the Gentiles who believe ought not to be
circumcised. Here, also, is the epistle of the apostles
themselves to those from among the Gentiles, on the subject of the
things from which they should keep themselves.
Reading φυλακτέων
with Euthal., instead of φυλακέων.
X. Of the teaching of Timothy, and of the
coming of Paul into Macedonia according to revelation. * Of the
faith and salvation of a certain woman Lydia, and * of the cure of the
damsel having a spirit of divination, on account of which the masters
of the damsel cast Paul into prison; and * of the earthquake and
miracle which happened there; and how the jailer believed and was
baptized forthwith that same night with all his house. The
text gives πανεύτιος;
Euthal., πανέστιος.
Montfaucon reads πανοικί.
Y. Of the tumult that arose in Thessalonica on account of their preaching, and of the flight of Paul to Berea, and thence to Athens.
Z. Of the inscription on the altar at Athens, and of the philosophic preaching and piety of Paul.
But
Euthal., Κρίσπου,
Crispus.
BB. Of baptism and the gift of the Holy
Ghost conferred by means of the prayer of Paul on those who believed in
Ephesus, and of the healing of the people. * Of the sons of
Sceva, and as to its not being meet to approach
προσχωρεῖν;
Euthal., ἐγχειρεῖν.
CC. Of the circuit of Paul, in which also we
have the account of the death of Eutychus and his restoration by prayer
in Troas; also Paul’s own pastoral exhortations
Euthal., παραίνεσις
ποιμαντική, pastoral exhortation.
DD. The prophecy of Agabus as to what should befall Paul in Jerusalem.
EE. The address of James to Paul touching the matter that he should not offer to keep the Hebrews back from the practice of circumcision.
FF. Of the tumult that was excited against
Paul in Jerusalem, and how the chief-captain rescues him from the
mob. * Also Paul’s speech
κατάστασις.
GG. What Paul endured, and what he said, and
what he did exactly
εὐθυβόλως, perhaps here, as Montfaucon makes it, sagaciously.
HH. Of the ambush planned by the Jews against Paul, and its discovery to Lysias; * and that Paul was sent to Cæsareia to the governor with soldiers and with a letter.
II. Of the accusation laid by Tertullus in Paul’s case, and of his defence of himself before the governor.
JJ. Of the removal of Felix and the arrival
of Festus as his successor, and of Paul’s pleading before
them,
Euthal., ἐπ᾽
αὐτοῦ, before him.
KK. The coming of Agrippa and Bernice, and
their inquiry into the case of Paul.
Euthal., κατὰΠαῦλον,
against Paul.
LL. Paul’s voyage to Rome, abounding in very many and very great perils. * Paul’s exhortation to those with him as to his hope of deliverance. The shipwreck of Paul, and how they effected their safety on the island of Melita, and what marvellous things he did on it.
MM. How Paul reached Rome from Melita.
NN. Of Paul’s discourse with the Jews in Rome.
There are in all forty chapters; and the sections
following these, and marked with the asterisk,
Euthal., διὰ
κινναβάρεως, with the vermilion.
————————————
Malchion.
————————————
Translator’s Biographical Notice.
[a.d. 270.]
Eusebius
Hist. Eccles., vii. 29.
ἀνὴρ
τά τε ἄλλα
λόγιος. De
viris illustr., ch. 71. In
Eusebius, vii. 30. [Elucidation I., p. 172.]
I.—The Epistle Written by Malchion,
In Name of the Synod of Antioch, Against Paul of Samosata.
————————————
To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellows in the ministry throughout the world, both bishops and presbyters and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under heaven, Helenus and Hymenæus and Theophilus and Theotecnus and Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, and Ælianus, and Paul and Bolanus and Protogenes and Hierax and Eutychius and Theodorus and Malchion and Lucius, and all the others who are with us, dwelling in the neighbouring cities and nations, both bishops and presbyters and deacons, together with the churches of God, send greeting to our brethren beloved in the Lord.
1. After some few introductory words, they
proceed thus:—We wrote to many of the bishops, even those who
live at a distance, and exhorted them to give their help in relieving
us from this deadly doctrine; among these, we addressed, for instance,
Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, and Firmilian of Cappadocia, those
men of blessed name. Of these, the one wrote to Antioch without
even deigning to honour the leader in this error by addressing him; nor
did he write to him in his own name, but to the whole
district,
παροικίᾳ [=
jurisdiction. See p. 163, note 3, supra.]
ἀρνησιθέου
.
2. After other matters again, they tell us
in the following terms of what manner of life he was:—But there
is no need of judging his actions when he was outside (the Church),
when he revolted from the faith and turned aside to spurious and
illegitimate doctrines. Nor need we say any thing of such matters
as this, that, whereas he was formerly poor and beggarly, having
neither inherited a single possession from his fathers, nor acquired
any property by art or by any trade, he has now come to have excessive
wealth by his deeds of iniquity and sacrilege, and by those means by
which he despoils and concusses the brethren, casting the injured
unfairly in their suit,
καταβραβεύων,
perhaps = "receiving" bribes from.
δουκηνάριος, the name given under the Emperors to those
procurators who received 200 sestertia of annual salary.
ὑπαγορεύων.
[Letters, e.g., from Zenobia.]
σήκρητον (from
the Latin secerno, to separate) was the name given to the
elevated place, railed in and curtained, where the magistrate sat to
decide cases.
κατασείουσι
ταῖς
ὀθόναις, alluding to the
custom of shaking the oraria or linen handkerchiefs as a token
of applause. [Elucid. II.]
3. For we may say, to anticipate a little
what we intend to write below, that he does not wish to acknowledge
that the Son of God came down from heaven. And this is a
statement which shall not be made to depend on simple assertion; for it
is proved abundantly by those memoranda which we sent you, and not
least by that passage in which he says that Jesus Christ is from
below. And they who sing his praise and eulogise him among the
people, declare that their impious teacher has come down as an angel
from heaven. And such utterances the haughty man does not check,
but is present even when they are made. And then again there are
these women—these adopted sisters,
συνεισάκτους
γυναῖκας,
priests’-housekeepers. See Lange on Nicephorus vi. 30, and
B. Rhenanus on Rufinus, vii. The third canon of the Nicene
Council in the Codex Corbeiensis has this title, De subintroductis
id est adoptivis sororibus. Of the subintroduced, that is, the
adopted sisters.See also on the abuse, Jerome, in the
Epistle to Eustochius. They appear also to have been
called commanentes and agapetæ. See the
note of Valesius in Migne. [Vol. ii. p. 47, and (same vol.)
Elucidation II. p. 57.]
ἱερατεῖον.
Referring either to
4. And on account of these things all are
groaning and lamenting with themselves; yet they have such a dread of
his tyranny and power that they cannot venture on accusing him.
And of these things, as we have said already, one might take account in
the case of a man who held Catholic sentiments and belonged to our own
number; but as to one who has betrayed
ἐξορχησάμενον,
danced away.
ἐμπομπεύοντα.
5. Then at the close of the epistle they
add the following words:—We have been compelled, therefore,
to excommunicate this man, who thus opposeth God Himself, and refuses
submission, and to appoint in his place another bishop for the Church
Catholic, and that, as we trust, by the providence of God—namely,
the son of Demetrianus, a man of blessed memory, and one who presided
over the same Church with distinction in former times, Domnus by name,
a man endowed with all the noble qualities which
κοινωνικὰ
γράμματα. On this
Valesius gives the following note:—The Latins call these
litteræ communicatoriæ, the use of which is of very
ancient date in the Church. They called the same also
formatæ, as Augustine witnesses in Epistle 163. There
were, moreover, two kinds of them. For there were some which were
given to the clergy and laity when about to travel, that they might be
admitted to communion by foreign bishops. And there were others
which bishops were in the way of sending to other bishops, and which
they in turn received from others, for the purpose of attesting their
inter-communion; of which sort the Synod speaks here. These were
usually sent by recently-ordained bishops soon after their
ordination. Augustine, Epistle 162; Cyprian, in the Epistle to
Cornelius, p. 320; and the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Sardica,
appear to refer to these, though they may refer also to the
formatæ. [Vol. i. p. 12, n. 9.]
II.—Fragments Apparently of the Same Epistle of the Synod of Antioch;
To Wit, of that Part of It Which It is
Agreed that Eusebius Left Unnoticed.
In Leontius of Byzantium, contra Nestor., book iii.,
towards the end.
————————————
He says, therefore, in the commentaries (they speak of Paul), that he maintains the dignity of wisdom.
And thereafter:
If, however, he had been united
Copulatus erat.
Congeneratum.
Secundum qualitatem.
And thereafter:
In what respect, moreover, does he mean to allege
that the formation
Formationem.
We say, that as the exterior and the interior man are one person,
so God the Word and humanity have been assumed as one person, a thing
which Paul denies.—Can.
And thereafter:
If he means to allege that Wisdom dwells in Him as
in no other, this expresses indeed the same mode of inhabitation,
though it makes it excel in respect of measure and multitude; He being
supposed to derive a superior knowledge from the Wisdom, say for
example, twice as large as others, or any other number of times as
large; or, again, it may be less than twice as large a knowledge as
others have. This, however, the catholic and ecclesiastical
canons disallow, and hold rather that other men indeed received of
Wisdom as an inspiration from without, which, though with them, is
distinct from them;
Alia est apud ipos.
And after other matters:
And they hold that there are not two Sons. But if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and if Wisdom also is the Son of God; and if the Wisdom is one thing and Jesus Christ another, there are two Sons.
And thereafter:
Moreover understand (Paul would say) the union
with Wisdom in a different sense, namely as being one according to
instruction and participation;
Secundum disciplinam et participationem. Paul of Samosata
used to say that the humanity was united with the Wisdom as instruction
(disciplina) is united with the learner by
participation.—Can. [See Hooker,
book v. cap. 52, sec. 4.]
And after other matters:
Neither was the God who bore the human body and
had assumed it, without knowledge
Expers.
Passionum, sufferings.
Principaliter.
Secundario, i.e., κατὰ
δεύτερον
λόγον.—Turrian.
συνουσιωμένος
τῷ
ἀνθρωπίνῳ.
In
Petrus Diaconus, De Incarnat. ad Fulgentium, ch. 6.
Among the works of Fulgentius, Epistle 16.
————————————
The compound is surely made up of the simple
elements, Ex
simplicibus fit certe compositum.
Compositionem.
Quia sapientia dispendium patiatur et ideo composita esse non
possit—the sense intended being perhaps just that Paul
alleged that the divine Wisdom admitted of being dispensed or imparted
to another, but not of being substantially united with
him.—Tr.
Exinanisset. Some
read alter in altero, others alter in altera.
IV.—A
Point in the Same Disputation.
From the same Acts in Leontius, as above.
————————————
Did I not say before that you do not admit that
the only-begotten Son, who is from all eternity before every creature,
was made substantially existent
οὐσιῶσθαι.
In toto Salvatore.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(The epistle written by Malchion, p. 169.)
Malchion, though a presbyter of Antioch, reflects the teaching of Alexandria, and illustrates its far-reaching influence. Firmilian, presiding at the Council of Antioch, was a pupil of Origen; and Dionysius was felt in the council, though unable to be present. Malchion and Firmilian, therefore, vindicate the real mind of Origen, though speaking in language matured and guarded. This council was, providentially, a rehearsal for Nicæa.
II.
(Putting a stop to psalms, etc., p. 170.)
Coleridge notes this, with an amusing comment on
Paulus Samosatenus,
Notes on English Divines, vol. i. p. 199.
Ibid., p. 313.
[Translated by the Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Archelaus.
————————————
[a.d. 277.] The Manichæan heresy, which was destined to operate so terribly against the Church and the purity of the Gospel, encountered its earliest successful antagonism in the Thebaid; and I have not doubted the wisdom of prefixing this Disputation to the veritable name and work of Alexander of Lycopolis, as important to the complete history of the great Alexandrian school. The Edinburgh translator of this work regards it as an “authentic relic of antiquity,” in spite of Beausobre, who treats it as a romance. I have forced myself, in this republication, to reject no theory of the Edinburgh collaborators to which I have not been able to give as much critical attention, at least, as they have evidently bestowed upon their work. It seems to me a well-sustained presumption that the work is fundamentally real, and Dr. Neander admits its base of fact. It is useful, at any rate, in its form and place, as here presented, and so much may be inferred from the following:—
Translator’s Introductory Notice.
A certain memorable
Disputation, which was conducted by a bishop of the name of Archelaus
with the heretic Manes, is mentioned by various writers of an early
date. Thus
Cyril of Jerusalem, in the sixth book of his Catecheses,
§§ 27 and 30, tells us how Manes fled into Mesopotamia, and
was met there by that shield of righteousness (ὅπλον
δικαιοσύνης) Bishop Archelaus, and was refuted by him in the presence of a number
of Greek philosophers, who had been brought together as judges of the
discussion. Epiphanius, in his Heresies, lxvi., and again
in his work De Mensuris et Poderibus, § 20,
makes reference to the same occasion, and gives some excerpts from the
Acts of the Disputation. And there are also passages of
greater or less importance in Jerome (De vir. illustr., ch. 72),
Socrates (Hist. Eccles., i. 22), Heraclianus bishop of Chalcedon
(as found in Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. xcv.), Petrus
Siculus (Historia Manichæorum, pp. 25, 35, 37), Photius
(Adversus Manichæos, book i., edited in the Biblioth.
Coislin., Montfaucon, pp. 356, 358), and the anonymous authors of the
Libellus Synodicus, ch. 27, and the Historia Hæreseos
Manichæorum in the Codex Regius of Turin. [See
Cyril’s text in Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp.
198–205.] As by
Zacagnius at Rome, in 1698, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum
Ecclesiæ Græcæ ac Latinæ; by Fabricius, in the
Spicilegium Sanctorum Patrum Sæculi, iii., in his edition
of Hippolytus, etc.
Biblioth., Cod. lxxxv. [Coleridge thinks
“Manes” himself a myth, “a doubtful
Ens.”] See
especially ch. 39 and 55. [Note reference to John de Soyres, vol.
v. p. 604, this series.]
De vir. illustr., ch. 72. Such
as the apparent confusion between ἀήρ and ἀνήρ in ch. 8, and again between
λοιμός and
λιμός in the same
chapter, and between πήσσει and πλήσσει in ch.
9, and the retention of certain Greek words, sometimes absolutely, and
at other times with an explanation, as cybi, apocrusis,
etc.
The precise designation of the seat of the
bishopric of Archelaus has been the subject of considerable diversity
of opinion. Socrates
Hist. Eccles., i. 22.
Hæres., lxvi. ch. 5 and 7, and De Mens. et
Pond., ch. 20.
Κασχάρων.
For elsewhere (Hæres., lxvi. 11) he writes
Κασχάρην, or,
according to another reading, which is held by Zacagnius to be corrupt
Καλχάρων.
And that form is followed by Petrus Siculus (Hist.
Manich., p. 37) and Photius (lib. i., Adv. Manich.), who, in
epitomizing the statements of Epiphanius, write neither
Κασχάρων nor
Καλχάρων, but
Καρχάρων.
Geogr., book. ii. ch. 7. Book
xviii. 23, and xxv. 20, 21.
Hist. Misc., xxii. 20.
Church History, ii. p. 165, ed. Bohn.
The date of the Disputation itself admits of
tolerably exact settlement. Epiphanius, indeed, De
Mensur. et Pond., ch. 20.
Cateches., vi. p. 140.
Chronicon, lib. post., p. 177.
That the Acts of this Disputation
constitute an authentic relic of antiquity, seems well established by a
variety of considerations. Epiphanius, for instance, writing
about the year a.d. 376, makes certain excerpts
from them which correspond satisfactorily with the extant Latin
version. Socrates, again, whose Ecclesiastical History
dates about 439, mentions these Acts, and acknowledges that he
drew the materials for his account of the Manichæan heresy from
them. The book itself, too, offers not a few evidences of its own
antiquity and authenticity. The enumeration given of the various
heretics who had appeared up to the time of Archelaus, the mention of
his presence at the siege of the city, In
ch. 24.
Catech., vi. p. m. 147. As in
the 12th, 25th, and 28th chapters.
[Compare Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. v. pp.
4–206, and his everywhere learned notes.]
Church History, ii. pp. 165, 166, ed. Bohn. [Compare
Robertson, vol. i. pp. 136–144.]
The Acts of the
Disputation Of
Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia.
————————————
1. The true
Thesaurus;
Treasury.
In Epiphanius, Hæres., lxvi. 10, it is
Marsipus.
Pietatis pretia. Nec
numero aliquo nec discretione ulla distinguit. For
distinguit, some propose distribuit.
Reading commonentur, as in the text. Commoventur is
also suggested, ="were deeply moved.” On the
attitude of the Christians of the primitive Church towards warfare, see
Tertullian’s De Corona Militis, ch. 11, and the twelfth
canon of the Nicene Council.
2. Marcellus, as might well
be expected, was exceedingly gratified by these incidents; and
summoning one of the prisoners, by name Cortynius, he inquired of him
the cause of the war, and by what chance it was that they were overcome
and bound with the chains of captivity. And the person addressed,
on obtaining liberty to speak, began to express himself in these
terms: “My lord Marcellus, we believe in the living God
alone. And we have a custom of such a nature as I shall now
describe, which has descended to us by the tradition of our brethren
in the faith, and has been regularly observed by us up to the
present day. The practice is, that every year we go out beyond
the bounds of the city, in company with our wives and children, and
offer up supplications to the only and invisible God, praying Him to
send us rains for our fields and crops. [The
similar institution of the Rogation fasts in the West is referred to
the fifth century. Pellicia, p. 372; Hooker, book v. cap. xli.
2.]
Reading cervicibus degravatis et laxis, demisso capite, frontem
genibus elidit. The text gives demerso.
3. When Marcellus, the man
of consummate piety, had heard this recital, he burst into a flood of
tears, touched with pity for misfortunes so great and so various.
But making no delay, he at once prepared victuals for the sufferers,
and did service with his own hand for the wearied; in this imitating
our father Abraham the patriarch, who, when he entertained the angels
hospitably on a certain occasion, did not content himself with merely
giving the order to his slaves to bring a calf from the herd, but did
himself, though advanced in years, go and place it on his shoulders and
fetch it in, and did with his own hand prepare food, and set it before
the angels. So Marcellus, in discharge of a similar office,
directed them to be seated as his guests in companies of ten; and when
the seven hundred tables were all provided, he refreshed the whole body
of the captives with great delight, so that those who had strength to
survive what they had been called to endure, forgot their toils, and
became oblivious of all their ills. When, however, they had
reached the fifteenth day, and while Marcellus was still liberally
supplying all things needful for the prisoners, it seemed good to him
that they should all be put in possession of the means of returning to
their own parts, with the exception of those who were detained by the
attention which their wounds demanded; and providing the proper
remedies for these, he instructed the rest to depart to their own
country and friends. And even to all these charities Marcellus
added yet larger deeds of piety. For with a numerous band of his
own dependants he went to look after the burying of the bodies of those
who had perished on the march; and for as many of these as he could
discover, of whatsoever condition, he secured the sepulture which was
meet for them. And when this service was completed he returned to
Charra, and gave permission to the wounded to return thence to their
native country when their health was sufficiently restored, providing
also most liberal supplies for their use on their journey. And
truly the estimate of this deed made a magnificent addition to the
repute of the other noble actions of Marcellus; for through that
whole territory the fame of the piety of Marcellus
4. Accordingly, At
this point begins the portion of the work edited by Valesius from the
Codex Bobiensis, which is preserved now in the Ambrosian Library.
The Codex Bobiensis reads Adda Turbonem. This Adda,
or Addas, as the Greek gives it below in ch. xi., was one of those
disciples of Manes whom he charged with the dissemination of his
heretical opinions in the East, as we see from ch. xi. Codex
Bobiensis adds, ad vesperam, towards evening. The
text gives veluti peregrinans. The Codex Bobiensis has
quippe peregrinans. On
the attention paid by the primitive Church to the duties of
hospitality, see Tertullian, De Præscriptionibus, ch.
20 [vol. iii. p. 252, this series]; Gregory Nazianzenus, in his
First Invective against Julian; also Priorius, De
literis canonicis, ch. 5, etc.; and Thomassin, De Tesseris
hospitalitatis, ch. 26. In
the text, ignotum; in the Codex Bobiensis, ignoratum.
5. On receiving the epistle,
then, Marcellus opened it, and read it in the presence of Archelaus,
the bishop of the place. And the following is a copy of what it
contained:
This letter, along with the reply of Marcellus, is given by
Epiphanius in his Heresies, n. 6, from which the Greek text is
taken.
Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you safe from this present evil world, and from its calamities, and from the snares of the wicked one. Amen.
I was exceedingly delighted to observe the love
cherished by you, which truly is of the largest measure. But I
was distressed at your faith, which is not in accordance with the right
standard. Wherefore, deputed as I am to seek the elevation of the
race of men, and sparing,
φειδόμενος.
The Latin gives subveniens, relieving. The
Greek text of Epiphanius gave πρὸς τὸ
ἀδιάκριτον.
Petavius substituted πρὸς τὸ μή
ἀδιάκριτον;
and that reading is confirmed by the Latin, uti ne indiscretos
animos geras.
ἀπὸ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ
φέρεσθαι.
ὧν τὸ τέλος
κατάρας
ἐγγύς. Cf. The
text gives ἐν τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
εὐαγγελίοις,
for which τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
ἐν τοῖς
εὐαγγελίοις
may be proposed.
τῆς
ἄλλης
δυσωδίας τῶν
γυναικῶν.
φείδῃ.
6. On reading this epistle,
Marcellus, with the kindest consideration, attended hospitably to the
needs of the bearer of the letter. Archelaus, on the other hand,
did not receive very pleasantly the matters which were read, but
“gnashed The
text gives infrendebat; the Codex Bobiensis has
infringebat.[It seems to be a proverb, and I have
so marked it. We should say, “he chafed like a
lion,” etc.]
Marcellus, a man of distinction, to Manichæus, who has made himself known to me by his epistle, greeting.
An epistle written by you has come to my hand, and I have received Turbo with my wonted kindness; but the meaning of your letter I have by no means apprehended, and may not do so unless you give us your presence, and explain its contents in detail in the way of conversation, as you have offered to do in the epistle itself. Farewell.
This letter he sealed and handed to Turbo, with
instructions to deliver it to the person from whom he had already
conveyed a similar document. The messenger, however, was
extremely reluctant to return to his master, being mindful of what he
had to endure on the journey, and begged that another person should be
despatched in his stead, refusing to go back to Manes, or to have any
intercourse whatever with him again. But Marcellus summoned one
of his young men, Ex
pueris suis.
Epiphanius, under this Heresy, num. 7, says that this was
a fort situated on the other side of the river Stranga, between Persia
and Mesopotamia. The
section extending from this point on to ch. xii. is found word for word
in the Greek of Epiphanius, num. 25.
If you are desirous of being instructed in the
faith of Manes by me, attend to me for a short space. That man
worships two deities, unoriginated, self-existent, eternal, opposed the
one to the other. Of these he represents the one as good, and the
other as evil, and assigns the name of Light to the former, and
that of Darkness to the latter. He alleges also that the
soul in men is a portion of the light, but that the body and the
formation of matter are parts of the darkness. He
maintains, further, that a certain commingling or blending
μιξιν
δὲ ητοι
σύγκρασιν.
προβάλλειν
ἐξ αὐτοῦ
δύναμιν. But the Codex
Bobiensis gives produxit ex virtute, put forth from His power
one, etc. The Codex Casinensis has produxerit et esse
virtutem, etc. The
text is simply καὶ
αὐτὴν
προβεβληκέναι
τὸν πρῶτον
ἄνθρωπον, τὰ
πέντε
στοιχεια. The
Latin, with emendations from the Codex Bobiensis and Epiphanius, gives
quâ virtute circumdedit primum hominem, quæ sunt quinque
elementa, etc., = with which power He begirt the first man, which
is the same as the five elements, etc. With slight differences
the Codex Bobiensis reads quâ circumdedit, and the Codex
Casinensis, quæ virtute.Petavius pointed out
that there is probably an omission in the text here. And from a
passage in Epiphanius, Hær., lxvi. n. 45, it has been
proposed to fill out the sentence thus: προβάλλειν
ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ
δύναμιν
μητέρα τῆς
ζωῆς, καὶ
αὐτὴν
προβεβληκέναι
τὸν πρῶτον
ἄνθρωπον,
αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν
μητέρα τῆς
ζωῆς τόν τε
πρῶτον
ἄνθρωπον τὰ
πέντε
στοιχεῖα.
The sense might then be that the good Father put forth from Himself a
power called the Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life put
forth the first man, and that the said Mother of Life and the
first man put forth (or constituted) the five elements. See the
note in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, v. p.
49. The
Codex Bobiensis omits the ventus, wind.
The Greek gives ἐστερέωσεν
ἐν τῷ
στερεώματι.
The Latin version has, “crucifixit eos in
firmamento.” And Routh apparently favours the reading
ἐσταύρωσεν =
crucified them, etc. Valesius and the Codex Bobiensis have,
“descendens eduxit principes Jesu, exiens in firmamentum quod
est,” etc.
εἰς
εἴδη ὀκτώ. The
Latin however, gives et sunt octo, “and they are
eight;” thus apparently having read εἰσὶ δὲ
ὀκτώ, instead of εἰς εἴδη
ὀκτώ.
i.e., one who bears on his shoulders, the upholder. Reading
ἐκ τῶν
κόλπων, de sinibus suis. But the Codex Bobiensis
gives de finibus, from His own territories. The
Greek text is, ὅπως αὐτῷ
τὴν
προσήκουσαν
ἐπιτιμίαν
δῷ. The Latin gives, “quo illum, ut par
erat, coerceret.” The Codex Bobiensis reads, “quod
illum, ut pareret, coerceret.” It is clear also that
Petavius read correctly ἐπιτιμίαν for
ἐπιθυμίαν in
Epiphanius.
τὰ
φυτά.
ἔδησεν. The Codex Bobiensis
gives, “vexit animam in eo.”
8. But when the living Father
perceived that the soul was in tribulation in the body, being full of
mercy and compassion, He sent His own beloved Son for the salvation of
the soul. For this, together with the matter of Omophorus, was
the reason of His sending Him. And the Son came and transformed
Himself into the likeness of man, and manifested But
certain codices read et parebat, “and was obedient,”
in stead of apparebat.
κάδους.
πορθμεῖν.
ἀπόκρουσιν.
The Codex Casinensis has apocrisin; but the Codex Bobiensis
gives apocrusin. The
text gives τῆς
ψυχῆς. But from the old Latin
version, which has animarum, we may conjecture that τῶν
ψυχῶν was read. The
Latin version has “vir perfectus,”—a reading
which is due apparently to the fact that the author had mistaken the
ἀήρ of the
Greek for ἀνήρ. [See note 2, p. 176,
supra.]
ὁ θερισμὸς
ἀρχων. The version of Petavius
has, “Sic et princeps alter, messor appellatus.”
Perhaps the reading should be ὁ θερισμοῦ
ἄρχων.
λοιμόν. Other codices
give famem, as reading λιμόν, famine.
ἐὰν δὲ
τὰ ἄνω τῆς
ῥίζης πόνῳ
σαλύσῃ. It may be also =
And if the upper parts of the root shake under the exertion.
9. I shall explain to you
also how it is that the soul is transfused into five bodies.
πῶς
μεταγγίζεται
ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς
πέντε
σώματα. But the Codex
Bobiensis reads transferuntur; and the Latin version gives
“quomodo et animæ in alia quoque corpora
transfunduntur” = how the souls are also transfused into other
bodies. The text
gives κελεφῶν, which is
spoken of in Migne as an unknown animal, though κέλεφος (thus
accentuated) occurs in ecclesiastical writers in the sense of a
leper. It is proposed to read ἐλεφαντιῶν,
“of elephants;” and so the Codex Bobiensis gives
“elephantorum corpora,” and Codex Casinensis has “in
elefantia eorum corpora,” which is probably an error for
“in elephantiacorum corpora.” Routh suggests
ἐλεφαντείων. [Reliqu. Sac., vol. v. p. 58.]
θερίασα, reaping.
νοῦς,
ἔννοια,
φρόνησις,
ἐνθύμησις,
λογισμός. The
Latin version renders, mens, sensus, prudentia, intellectus,
cogitatio. Petavius gives, mens, notio, intelligentia,
cogitatio, ratiocinatio.
τοῖς
ἀπαρχῆς
οὖσιν εἰς
σκότος. But the Latin
version gives “qui ex materia orti,” etc.—who, having
sprung from matter, are in darkness.
ὁρνίθιον.
Explained as a species of Egyptian tree, in which the fruit grows from
the stem. The Codex Casinensis has the strange reading, per se
ad illam, for perseam, etc. See also Epiphanius, num.
9.
εἰς τὰ
ὅλα σώματα.
πήσσει. But the Latin
version gives vulnerat, “wounds,” from the reading
πλήσσει. [Note
2, p. 176, supra.]
εὐσέβειαν.
But the Latin version gives alimenta.
εἰς τὰς
γενεάς. But the Latin
version has “pœnis subdetur gehennæ” = will
suffer the pains of hell. [Compare p. 185, infra,
“Gehen.”] But the
Latin version gives, “respondet ad eum qui ei detulit” = he
makes answer to the person who brought it to him. The text
is, καὶ
πάλιν εἰσιν
ἕτεροι
κόσμοι τινὲς,
τῶν φωστήρων
δυνάντων ἀπὸ
τούτου τοῦ
κόσμου, ἐξ ὧν
ἀνατέλλουσι.
Routh suggests οἴς
τινὲς, deleting ἐξ
ὧν. Reading
εἴ τις, as
in the text. Routh suggests εἴ τι, = As to everything existing in
this world, I have told you that the body thereof does, etc.
10. Now, with respect to
paradise, it is not called a cosmos. But
the Latin has “qui vocatur,” etc. = which is called,
etc. And Routh thereof proposes ὃς
καλεῖται for
οὐ
καλεῖται. The
text gives simply ἡ
γνῶσις. The Codex
Bobiensis has et scientia. Hence Routh would read
καὶ ἡ
γνῶσις, and the knowledge.
Retaining the reading ὑμῖν, though Petavius would substitute
ἠμῖν, us. [Routh corrects
Petav., R. S., vol. v. pp. 63, 64.]
ἁπλάριοι, in the Latin
version Simpliciores, a name apparently given to the Catholics
by the Manichæans. See Ducangii Glossarium mediæ et
infimæ Græcitatis. [Routh, v. p. 65, worth
noting.] The
text gives ὁ ἐστὶ
πρῶτος
ἄνθρωπος. Routh
proposes ὃ ἐστὶ, etc. Or,
they.
11. He holds also that God
has no part with the world itself, and finds no pleasure in it, by
reason of its having been made a spoil of from the first by the
princes, and on account of the ill that rose on it. Wherefore He
sends and takes away from them day by day the soul belonging to Him,
through the medium of these luminaries, the sun and the moon, by which
the whole world and all creation are dominated. Him, again, who
spake with Moses, and the Jews, and the priests, he declares to be the
prince of the darkness; so that the Christians, and the Jews, and the
Gentiles are one and the same body, worshipping the same God: for
He seduces them in His own passions, being no God of truth. For
this reason all those who hope in that God who spake with Moses and the
prophets have to be bound together with the said deity,
μετ᾽
αὐτοῦ ἔχουσι
δεθῆναι.
ἐπὶ τέλει. The
text is κάθως
αὐτὸς
ἔγραψεν· ῾Ο
πρεσβύτης,
etc. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “Sicut ipse senior
scripsit: Cum manifestam feceris,” etc., = As the elder
himself wrote: When thou hast, etc. The elder here
is probably the same as the third elder farther on. The
Greek is, ἀφίησι τὸν
βῶλον μετὰ
τοῦ νέου
αἰῶνος; but the Latin version
has the strangely diverse rendering, “dimittunt animam quæ
objicitur inter medium novi sæculi” = they let go the soul
that is placed in the midst of the new age. [Routh has
τὴν
βῶλον.]
ἀνδριάς. But
the Latin gives, “cum statuta venerit dies” = when the
appointed day has come.
αἱ δὲ
προβολαὶ
πᾶσαι.
πλοίῳ. [See Routh, p. 68,
on this locus mire depravatus.]
κυβερνῆται.
τεῖχος.
τῶν δύο
φύσεων. But the Latin
version gives duorum luminarium, and the Codex Casinensis has
luminariorum, the two luminaries.
Reading κλίματα, with
Petavius, for κλήματα. The
Codex Casinensis makes no mention of Thomas. Here
ends the Greek of Epiphanius.
12. When Turbo had made this
statement, Archelaus was intensely excited; but Marcellus remained
unmoved, for he expected that God would come to the help of His
truth. Archelaus, however, had additional cares in his anxiety
about the people, like the shepherd who becomes concerned for his sheep
when secret perils threaten them from the wolves. Accordingly
Marcellus loaded Turbo with the most liberal gifts, and instructed him
to remain in the house of Archelaus the bishop.
The words, the bishop, are omitted in the Codex
Bobiensis. But
Codex Bobiensis gives duodecim, twelve. But
the Codex Bobiensis gives trisolium, the trisole. Strabo,
book xv., tells us that the Persians wore high shoes.
Aërina, sky-like. [This portrait seems from life.]
Ducange in his Glossary, under the word Εβέλλινος,
shows from Callisthenes that the prophets or interpreters of sacred
things carried an ebony staff. [ The
text is, “vultus vero ut senis Persæ artificis et bellorum
ducis videbatur.” Philippus Buonarruotius, in the
Osservazioni sopra alcuni frammenti di vasi antichi di Vetro,
Florence, 1716, p. 69, thinks that this rendering has arisen from the
Latin translator’s having erroneously read ὡς
δημιουργοῦ
καὶ
στρατηγοῦ instead
of ὡς δημάρχου
καὶ
στρατηγοῦ.
Taking στρατηγοῦ, therefore, in the civil sense which it bears in various passages, he
would interpret the sentence thus: “His whole mien was like
that of an old Persian tribune and magistrate.” See
Gallandi’s note [in Routh, p. 71]. The
text is secretius factum, etc. Routh suggests secretius
factus, etc. The
Codex Bobiensis reads “Ægidius.”
Epiphanius gives Κλεόβουλος. Codex
Casinensis reads rectores, governors. And Epiphanius, num.
10, makes the first a professor of Gentile philosophy, the second a
physician, the third a grammarian, and the fourth a rhetorician. For
primum the Codex Casinensis reads plurima, = he began a
lengthened statement, etc. Thus
far Valesius edited the piece from the Codex Bobiensis.
13. My brethren, I indeed am
a disciple of Christ, and, moreover, an apostle of Jesus; and it is
owing to the exceeding kindness of Marcellus that I have hastened
hither, with the view of showing him clearly in what manner he ought to
keep the system of divine religion, so that the said Marcellus verily,
who at present has put himself, like one who has surrendered himself
prisoner, under the doctrine of Archelaus, may not, like the dumb
animals, which are destitute of intellect and understand not what they
do, be fatally smitten to the ruin of his soul, in consequence of any
failure in the possession of further facilities for setting about the
right observance of divine worship. I know, furthermore, and am
certain, that if Marcellus is once set right,
Reading emendato. Codex Casinensis gives enim
dato.
Patrem diaboli.
Referring, perhaps, to The
text gives, “ut insequerentur.…Verbum, et inimicum,”
etc. The sense seems to be as above, supposing either that the
verb insequerentur is used with the meaning of assailing,
persecuting, or that the ut is put for ut ne, as is the
case with the excæcat ut at the close of the sentence.
Reading
differens. But Codex Casinensis gives
disserens.
Transformare.
Informatum.
Cf.
In
inscitias ire vultis. It is proposed to read inficias =
and yet ye desire to deny the truth. Routh suggests, et
odistis et in inscitiam ire vultis = and ye hate it, and choose to
take your way into ignorance.
Supplying observetis in the clause ut legem, etc.
Prævaricatorem.
14. The judges
said: If you have any clearer statement yet to make, give us
some explanation of the nature Or,
standard.
Titulo.
Ergastula. Or,
in the wicked one. The
text gives “extra eum.” Routh suggests
Deum, outside of God.
Vas. The
text gives simply “quod Dei substantia,” etc. We may
perhaps adopt, with Routh, “quod si Dei,” etc.
Sedes. [“Thrones,” as in Milton.] Routh
suggests sidera, luminaries.
Ingenitæ.
Fructus. The
reference is to the ancient custom of using wax and certain earths and
clays for the purpose of affixing, by means of the ring, a seal with an
impression on any object which it was desired to secure. Thus
Herodotus, ii. 38, tell us how the Egyptians marked the pure victim by
wrapping it round the horns with papyrus, and then smearing some
sealing earth (γῆν
σημαντρίδα) on it, and stamping it with a ring. See also Cicero, Pro
Flacco, where he speaks of the laudatio obsignata
cretâ illa Asiatica; and Plautus, Pseudolus, Scene i.,
where he mentions the expressam in cera ex annulo suam imaginem,
etc. [Compare vol. v. p. 466, note 3, this series.]
15. The judges
said: We need not inquire as to the manner in which that
primitive commerce took place until we have first seen it proved that
there are two natural principles. For when once it is made clear
that there are two unbegotten natures, then others of your averments
may also gain our assent, even although something in them may not seem
to fit in very readily with what is credible. For as the power of
pronouncing judgment has been committed to us, we shall declare what
may make itself clear to our mind. We may, however, also grant to
Archelaus the liberty of speaking to these statements of yours, so
that, by comparing what is said by each of you, we may be able to give
our decision in accordance with the truth. Archelaus
said: Notwithstanding, the adversary’s intent is
replete with gross audacity and blasphemy. Manes
said: Hear, O judges, what he has said of the
adversary. The
text is “quid dixerit adversarii;” some propose
“quod” or “quia dixerit,” etc. The
manuscript reading is, “tam si quidem ex hoc arbitratus est se
affirmaturum.” For this it is proposed to read, as in the
translation, “tametsi quidem ex hoc arbitratus es me
affirmaturum.” The
text gives ingentem. Routh suggests inscientem,
stupid.
[Vol. iii. 301–302. See Coleridge (on Donne),
English Divines, vol. i. p. 87.]
Adopting the proposed reading, “et ideo duæ,
ingenitæ naturæ esse non possunt.” The text omits
the duæ, however; and in that case the sense would be
simply, And consequently there cannot be unbegotten natures; or
perhaps, And so they (the creatures) cannot be of an unbegotten
nature.
[
Propria.
Didicisti. But perhaps we ought to read dixisti, which you
have been uttering.
Aliena, of what is alien.
16. The judges
said: Convertibility translates the person whom it befalls
into another; as, for example, we might say that if a Jew were to make
up his mind to become a Christian, or, on the other hand, if a
Christian were to decide to be a Gentile, this would be a species of
convertibility, and a cause of the same. The text
runs thus: “ut si dicamus, Judæus, si velit fieri
Christianus, aut si Christianus velit esse gentilis, hæc species
est convertibilitatis et causa.” The
text gives convertibiles. Routh suggests
inconvertibiles, inconvertible. The
text is unum dicamus ingenitum. Routh suggests unum
bonum, etc. = Why should we not speak of only one unbegotten
good? The
text is, “quod si suis eum dicas extitisse malum, sine dubio ergo
ostenditur illum bonæ esse naturæ.” Routh
suggests, “quia istis suis adversatur qui mali sunt,” etc.
= The fact that he is adverse to those who are of his own kin, and who
are evil, would be a proof that he comes of a good nature.
Or, kin
to it, vicinum habet interitum.
The
text is, “creati hominis causa invenitur exstitisse
malitiæ,” for which we read “creatio hominis,”
etc.
17. Manes said:
Let it first be allowed on your side that there is an alien root of
wickedness, which God has not planted, and then I shall tell you its
fruits. Archelaus said: Truth’s reckoning does
not make any such requirement; and I shall not admit to you that there
is a root of any such evil tree, of the fruit whereof no one has ever
tasted. But just as, when a man desires to make any purchase, he
does not produce the money unless he first ascertains by tasting the
object whether it is of a dry or a moist species, so I shall not admit
to you that the tree is evil and utterly corrupt, unless the quality of
its fruit is first exhibited; for it is written, that “the tree
is known by its fruits.”
Ingenitam. The text
gives “quoniam quod futurum est nescio, homo enim sum, non
tamen,” etc. Routh suggests “quonam? quod
futurum,” etc. = What has that to do with the matter? The
future I know not, etc. The text
is, “sed homo a mala natura plasmatus manifestum est quia ipse
sit fructus,” etc.
18. The judges
said: We desire to have information from you on this point,
Manichæus, to wit, to what effect you have affirmed him to be
evil. Do you mean that he has been so from the time when men were
made, or before that period? For it is necessary that you should
give some proof of his wickedness from the very time from which you
declare him to have been evil. Be assured Routh,
however, points differently, so that the sense is: Be assured
that it is necessary to give some proof, etc.…For the quality of
a wine, etc. The
text is, “ex hominis tempore a se creati cur malus
ostendatur,” which is taken to be equivalent to, “ex
tempore quo hominem ipse creavit,” etc. The
reading adopted by Migne is, “si ergo ex eo homo est, mala
natura, demonstratur quomodo suus fuit, ut frequenter
ostendi.” Others put the sentence interrogatively = If man
takes his origin from him, (and) the evil nature is thus demonstrated,
in what sense was man his own, etc.? Routh suggests ex quo
for ex eo = If the evil nature is demonstrated just from the
time of man’s existence, how was man, etc.? The
reading is inutilitatem. But Routh points that this is
probably the translation of τὴν
εὐτέλειαν,
vilitatem, meanness.
Dominatione et observantiæ usu.
19. But if it seems
difficult for you to understand this, and if you do not acquiesce in
these statements, I may at all events try to make them good by adducing
illustrations. Contemplate man as a kind of temple, according to
the similitude of Scripture:
The
reading is scit et audit. Routh somewhat needlessly
suggests scite audit = he who hears intelligently. The
codex gives “hic enim qui exstruis.” It is proposed
to read “sic enim qui exstruit” = For in this very way he
who constructs. The
text gives “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit
corpus; Deus qui Creator,” etc. The Codex Casinensis reads
Deum. We adopt the emendation Deo and the altered
punctuation, thus: “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum
qui plasmaverit corpus Deo qui creator est animæ,” etc.
Reading “per conjunctionem” for the simple
conjunctionem.
20. On hearing these
argumentations, the multitudes who were present were exceedingly
delighted; so much so, indeed, that they were almost laying hands on
Manes; and it was with difficulty that Archelaus restrained them, and
kept them back, and made them quiet again. The judges
said: Archelaus has given us proof sufficient of the fact
that the body and soul of man are the works of one hand; because an
object cannot subsist in any proper consonance and unison as the work
of one hand, if there is any want of harmony in the design and
plan. But if it is alleged that one could not possibly have
sufficed to develop both these objects, namely, body and soul,
this is simply to exhibit the incapacity of the artificer. For
thus, even though one should grant that the soul is the creation of a
good deity, it will be found to be but an idle work so far as the man
is concerned, unless it also takes to itself the body. And if,
again, the body is held to be the formation of an evil deity, the work
will also none the less be idle unless it receives the soul; and, in
truth, unless the soul be in unison with the body by commixture and due
introduction, so Reading
“natus est et creatus.” The Codex Casinensis has
“natus est creatus.”
Codex
Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to
the Gentiles we read introducerent.
21. But now, what it is
necessary for me to say on the subject of the inner and the outer man,
may be expressed in the words of the Saviour to those who swallow a
camel, and wear the outward garb of the hypocrite, begirt with
blandishments and flatteries. It is to them that Jesus addresses
Himself when He says: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the
platter, but within they are full of uncleanness. Or know you
not, that He that made that which is without, made that which is within
also?”
The
Codex Casinensis gives a strangely corrupt reading here:
“primos discipulos subitos in cœnis, quod scientes
Dominus.” It is restored thus: “primos
discubitus in cœnis, quos sciens Dominus,” etc.
Dividitur.
Reading majus for the inept malus of the Codex
Casinensis.
Routh refers us here to Maximus, De Natura, § 2. See
Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 89–91. The
text is “multo inferior virtutis humanæ,” which is
probably a Græcism.
Reading ceu for the eu of the Codex Casinensis. The
Codex Casinensis gives “nec quæ vellem quidem,” for
which “nec æqualem quidem,” etc., is suggested, as in
the translation.
22. The judges
said: We know that a light shines through the whole house,
and not in some single part of it; as Jesus also intimates when He
says, that “no man lighting a candle puts it under a bushel, but
on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the
house.”
The
text gives a quo si, etc. Routh suggests atqui si,
etc.
Medietas.
Reading objectu…creaturarum, instead of obtectu,
etc., in Codex Casinensis. The
text of this sentence stands thus in Migne and Routh: “cui
enim non fiat manifestum, solem istum visibilem, cum ab oriente fuerit
exortus, et tetenderit iter suum ad occidentem, cum sub terram ierit,
et interior effectus fuerit ea quæ apud Græcos
sphæra vocatur, quod tunc objectu corporum obumbratus non
appareat?” The Codex Casinensis reads quod nunc
oblectu, etc. We should add that it was held by Anaximander
and others that there was a species of globe or sphere (σφαῖρα) which
surrounded the universe. [Vol. ii. p. 136. n. 2.]
Reading ex suimet ipsius umbra for exuet ipsius umbra,
which is given in the Codex Casinensis.
Plagam.
Ministrante. The
text is “Sicut autem ante,” etc. Routh suggests,
Sole adeunte, etc. Reading
“ex æquo et justo, solis fulgore,” etc. The
Codex Casinensis has “ex ea quo solis fulgure.” The
text is altogether corrupt—sed non intui hunc fieri ratus
sum; so that the sense can only be guessed at. Routh suggests
istud for intui. Codex
Casinensis gives “omni nisi,” for which we adopt
“omni nisu.”
23. The judges
said: If we consider that the light existed before the estate
of the creatures was introduced, and that there was no object in an
opposite position which might generate shadow, it must follow that the
light was then diffused everywhere, and that all places were
illuminated with its effulgence, as has been shown by what you have
stated just now; and as we perceive that the true explanation is given
in that, we assign the palm to the affirmations of Archelaus. For
if the universe is clearly divided, as if some wall had been drawn
through the centre of it, and if on the one side the light dwells, and
on the other side the darkness, it is yet to be understood that this
darkness has been brought accidentally about through the shadow
generated in consequence of the objects which have been set up in the
world; and hence again we must ask who it is that has built this wall
between the two divisions, provided you indeed admit the existence of
such a construction, O Manichæus. But if we have to take
account of this matter on the supposition that no such wall has been
built, then again it comes to be understood that the universe forms but
one locality, without any exception, and is placed under one power; and
if so, then the darkness can in no way have an ungenerated
nature. Archelaus said: Let him also explain the
following subject with a view to what has been propounded. If God
is seated in His kingdom, and if the wicked one in like manner is
seated in his kingdom, who can have constructed the wall between
them? For no object can divide two substances except one that is
greater than either,
Reading utriusque majus. The Codex Casinensis has
utrunque majus. The
text is dicit, for which dicitur may be adopted.
24. The judges
said: Tell us, O Manes, who designated the boundaries for the
kingdom of each, and who made the middle wall? For Archelaus begs
that due importance be attached to the practice of interrogation in
this discussion. Manes said: The God who is good,
and who has nothing in common with evil, placed the firmament in the
midst, in order to make it plain
Reading “patefaceret” for the “partum faceret”
of Codex Casinensis. The
text gives sine hoc uno. But perhaps Routh is right in
suggesting muro for uno = without this wall.
Some suppose that Archelaus refers here to the taking of Charræ by
the Persians in the time of Valerianus Augustus, or to its recapture
and restoration to the Roman power by the Eastern king Odenathus during
the empire of Gallienus. The
ballista was a large engine fitted with cords somewhat like a bow, by
which large masses of stone and other missiles were hurled to a great
distance. The
sense is obscure here. The text gives, “non substantia id
est proposito adversarius quis dejecit,” etc. Migne edits
the sentence without an interrogation. We adopt the interrogative
form with Routh. The idea perhaps is, Did no adversary with
materials such as the kings of earth use, and that is as much as to say
also with a determinate plan, overthrow, etc.? The
Codex Casinensis has “nec mirum putandum est consortio,”
etc. We read with Routh and others, si ejus consortio, or
quod ejus consortio, etc.
The
text gives simply, sicut enim hæc. Routh suggests
hæ.
Reading illæsis oculis for the illius oculis of
Codex Casinensis.
25. Manes said:
Not all receive the word of God, but only those to whom it is given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
The
text gives et jam quidem for the etiam quidem of the Cod.
Casin.
Apprehensus est hoc ingenio. For hoc here, Routh
suggests hic in reference to the leo so that the sense
might be = But by this plan the lion was caught, and hereafter He will
save the soul. The
text is, “Quando enim pastor, nonne David de ore leonis,”
etc. We adopt the amended reading, “Quando enim pastor hoc
fecit? Nonne David,” etc. Routh
would put this interrogatively = Can he bring out of the mouth or the
belly of the lion what it has once devoured? This
seems to be the sense intended. The text in the Codex Casinensis
runs thus: “Cur igitur quod possit non illud potius asseris
quod poterit propria virtute vincere leonem, si et pura Dei
potentia,” etc. For si et pura we may read sive
pura, or si est pura, etc. Routh
takes it as a direct assertion = It follows, then, that these two
objects are of one substance, etc. The
text runs, “sed aliud alio longe differre ignorantiam pastori
ascribimus;” for which we adopt the emendation, “sed alium
ab alio longe differre si dicamus, ignorantiam pastori
ascribimus.”
26. The judges
said: If you allege that the shepherd exposed the kid or the
lamb to the lion, when the said lion was meditating an assault Migne
reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an
assault. The
text gives si causa traditus, etc. Routh suggests sive
causa. Traditus, etc.; so that the sense would be, For
on what creature can the shepherd of the kids and lambs pronounce
judgment, seeing that he is himself proved to be in fault to them, or
to be the cause of their position? For the lamb, having been
given up, etc.
Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum.
Reading si quis for the simple quis of Codex
Casinensis.
Reading “quæstione rejecta” for the
relecta of Codex Casinensis. This
seems to be the general sense of the corrupt text here, et non longe
possit ei Paulus, etc., in which we must either suppose something
to have been lost, or correct it in some such way as this:
“ut non longe post sit ei Paulus.” Compare what Manes
says also of Paul and himself in ch. xiii. above. It should be
added, however, that another idea of the passage is thrown out in
Routh. According to this the ei refers to
Jesus, and the text being emended thus, etsi non longe
post sit ei, the sense would be: although not long after His
departure He had Paul as an elect vessel, etc. The allusion thus
would be to the circumstance that Manes made such a claim as he did, in
spite of the fact that after Christ’s departure Paul was gifted
with the Spirit in so eminent a measure for the building up of the
faithful.
Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis.
The
text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed
clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit,
or sit, or est.
Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction,
qui cum nec.
Reading confutatus for confugatus. The
text gives “et ideo ut consequenter erat,” etc. Codex
Casinensis omits the ut. Routh proposes, “et ideo
consequenter thesaurus,” etc. = and thus, of course, the treasure
was preserved, etc. Comp. ch. xxvii. and xxxiv.
The
text has, “sedens ipse per se,” etc.; for which we adopt
“sed et ipse,” etc. The
Codex Casinensis gives, “deinde die moriturus,” which may
be either a mistake for “deinde moriturus,” or a
contraction for “deinde die qua moriturus”—then on
the day that he was about to die, etc.
The codex has, “Sin autem conderem se dicens, exposceret,
devitarent persequi,” etc.; which is corrected to, “Sin
autem cohæredem se dicens exposceret, devitarent atque,”
etc., which emendation is followed in the translation.
Opus autem magis facere debere. The
same sort of argument is employed against the Montanists by Theodorus
of Heracleia on John’s Gospel, ch. xiv. 17. It
is remarked in Migne, that it is only in the heat of his contention
that this statement is made by Archelaus as to the date of the
appearance of Manes; for from the death of Christ on to the time of
this discussion there are only some 249 years. [Is it not
probable that here is a token of the spurious character of not a little
of this work?]
Reading “sed absit hoc a Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore
omnis animæ,” instead of the codex’s “sed absit
hanc a Domino Jesu Christo Salvatore omne animæ.” If
the reference, however, is to
Reading “abundantius vero conferens Paulo,” instead of the
corrupt text in the Codex Casinensis, “abundantibus vero
confitens Paulo.”
28. Manes
said:
The opening sentences of this chapter are given in a very corrupt form
in our Codex Casinensis. Its text stands thus: “Tuum
et ipsius indicio comprehensus es; hæc enim versum te locutus,
ignorans, qui dum, me vis probra conjicere majori culpæ se
succumbit. Dic age mihi studias qua Tiberio usque ad Probum
defuncti sunt, dicent ad Jesum nolite nos judicare,” etc.
We have adopted these emendations: tuimet for tuum et;
adversum for versum; ignoras for ignorans; in me for
me; succumbis for se succumbit; si, ut ais, qui a, for
studias qua; and noli for nolite.
Supplying missurum, which is not in the codex. Reading
“noli nos tradere tormentis,” instead of the meaningless
“noli nostra de tormentis” of the codex.
Reading ut ais instead of ut eas.
Nec quemquam vivificat.
Reading reliqui per ordinem for the qui per ordinem of
the codex.
Reading “per hunc modum.” But the Codex Casinensis
gives “per hunc mundum”—through this world.
29. Manes said:
Is not that word also to the same effect which Jesus spake to the
disciples, when He was demonstrating those men to be unbelieving:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do?”
The
text is “sufficit tibi hæc sunt an habes et
alia.” Routh proposes “sufficientia tibi hæc
sunt,” etc.
Routh would make it = You will come under the
condemnation…you will have to bear: he
suggests eris ergo for ero ego, and feras
for feram.
Nec aliter nisi essent ingenita. Routh, however, would
read esset for essent, making it = and that death could
be nothing else than unbegotten.
Reading ex tempore for the corrupt exemplo re of the
codex.
The
text gives discere, to learn; but dicere seems the
probable reading.
30. The judges
said: Speak to those points, Archelaus, which he has just now
propounded. Archelaus said: By the prince of the
world, and the wicked one, and darkness, and death, he means one and
the same thing, and alleges that the law has been given by that being,
on the ground of the scriptural statement that it is “the
ministration of death,” as well as on the ground of other things
which he has urged against it. Well, then, I say
Reading inquam for the iniquam of the Codex
Casinensis. But Routh suggests iniquæ, in reference
to what has been said towards the close of ch. xxviii. The
codex gives, “cum eas inimica semper memoriæ ineresis sed
oblivio;” which is corrected thus, “cum eis inimica semper
memoriæ inhæsisset oblivio.”
The text writes it Juda.
This
would appear to be the meaning of these words, “transferens
semper usque ad tempus in similes illius,” if we suppose the
speaker still to be keeping
But after Moses had made his appearance, and had
given the law to the children of Israel, and had brought into their
memory all the requirements of the law, and all that it behoved men to
observe and do under it, and when he delivered over to death only those
who should transgress the law, then death was cut off from reigning
over all men; for it reigned then over sinners alone, as the law said
to it, “Touch not those that keep my precepts.”
Referring perhaps to
Reading interitui tradens for the interit ut tradens of
the codex.
Reading pacti for the acti of the codex.
Mors.
31. Listen also to what I
have to say on this other expression which has been adduced, viz.,
“Christ, who redeemed us from the curse of the
law.”
Recte videre. But perhaps we should read “recte
vivere,” to lead a righteous life. The
phrase is imaginariam legem.On this expression
there is a note in Migne, which is worth quoting, to this effect:
Archelaus calls the Old Testament an emblematic or imaginary
law, because it was the type or image of a future new law.
So, too, Petrus de Vineis, more than once in his Epistles, calls a
messenger or legate a homo imaginarius, as Du Cange
observes in his Glossary, because he represents the person by
whom he is sent, and, as it were, reflects his image. This word
is also used in a similar manner by the old interpreter of Evagrius the
monk, in the Disputation between Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria,
and Simon the Jew, ch. 13, where the Sabbath is called the
requies imaginaria of that seventh day on which God
rested. Hence Archelaus, in his answer to the presbyter Diodorus,
ch xli. beneath, devotes himself to proving that the Old Testament is
not to he rejected, because, like a mirror, it gives us a true image of
the new law.
Reading “invisibilia autem et intrinsecus.” The Codex
Casinensis has “invisibili autem et trinsecus.”
Absurdam, standing probably for ἄτοπον, which may also be =
flagitious.
The codex reads, “ultionem fecerat retorquebat.” We
adopt either “ultionem quam fecerat retorquebat,” or
“ultionem fecit retorqueri.”
This is one of those passages in which we detect the tendency of
many of the early fathers to adopt the peculiar opinions of the Jewish
rabbis on difficult points of Scripture. See also the
Disputation between Theophilus of Alexandria and the Jew Simon,
ch. 13. In accordance with the opinion propounded here by
Archelaus, we find, for instance, in the Scemoth Rabba, p. 157,
col. 1, that the making of the golden calf is ascribed to the Egyptian
proselytes. See the note in Migne. [The passage is a note
of antiquity and in so far of authenticity.]
The text is in quo nec scelerum pœnas
aliquando rependeret.
32. Moreover, as to this
word which is written in the Gospel, “Ye are of your father the
devil,”
Reading commonens for communis ne. Communiens is
also suggested.
We
have another instance here of a characteristic opinion of the Jewish
rabbis adopted by a Christian father. This notion as to the
intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men was a current
interpretation among the Jews from the times of Philo and Josephus, and
was followed in whole or in part by Tertullian, Justin, Irenæus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius,
etc. Consult the note in Migne; [also p. 131, note 2,
supra].
We give the above as a possible rendering. Routh,
however, understands the matter otherwise. The text is,
“alii vero in felicitate hominum filiabus admisti a
dracone afflicti,” etc. Routh takes the phrase in
felicitate as ="adhuc in statu felici
existentes:” so that the sense would be, “others,
while they still abode in the blessed estate, had intercourse,”
etc. [Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 118–122.]
Archelaus seems here to assign a twofold etymology for the name
devil, deriving the Greek διάβολος,
accuser, from διαβάλλω, in its
two senses of trajicere and traducere, to cross over and
to slander.
Reading
a nobis for the a vobis of the codex.
Ex
uno. The
sense is obscure here. The text runs, “Interimere debes
judicii ratione ut quis nostrum fallat appareat.” Migne
proposes to read rationem, as if the idea intended was
this: That, consistently with his reasonings, Manes ought not to
admit the fact of a judgment, because the notions he has propounded on
the subject of men and angels are not reconcilable with such a
belief.—If this can be accepted as the probable meaning, then it
would seem that the use of the verb interimere may be due to the
fact that the Greek text gave ἀνᾶιρεῖν, between the
two senses of which—viz. to kill and to remove—the
translator did not correctly distinguish. Routh, however,
proposes to read interimi, taking it as equivalent to
condemnari, so that the idea might be = on all principles of
sound judgment you ought to be condemned, etc. The
codex reads simply, Dei servare mandata. We may adopt
either Dei non servare mandata, as above, or, Dei servare vel
non servare mandata, in reference to the freedom of will, and so =
they may or may not keep the commandments. The
codex has præcedit, for which procedit is
proposed.
Reading “læderet—illuderetur.” But might
it not rather be “læderet—illidertur,”
not to bruise, but rather to be bruised, etc.?
This appears to be general sense of the very corrupt passage,
“Quo videntur ostenso nulli dubium est unusquisque in quamcunque
elegerit partem propria usus arbitrii potestate.” In Migne
it is amended thus: “Quo evidenter ostenso, nulli dubium
est, quod unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem, propria usus
fuerit arbitrii potestate.”
Adopting the emendation, “si a Deo bonus, ut asseris, mendacem
esse dixisti Jesum.” In the Codex Casinensis it stands
thus: “sic a Deo bonus ut as mendacem esse dixisti
Jesus.” But Routh would substitute “si a Deo
diabolus” = if the devil is from God. The
argumentation throughout this passage seems to rest on the fact that,
in support of the dogma of the evil deity, Manes perverted, among other
passages, our Lord’s words in There
are some words deficient in this sentence. The text reads,
“Manes dixit:…dico: et adjecit, Omnis qui conditor
est vel Creator aliquorum pater eorum…condiderit
appellatur.” It is proposed to supply jam before
dico, and quæ before condiderit.
Reading et effectum for the ut effectum of the codex. Or
it may be “cogitations,” reading cogitata for
agitata.
Conceptis in se doloribus.
The
text gives parturies. Routh suggests
parturiens. The sense then might be, But if you repent,
you will also deliver yourself of your burden like one who brings to
the birth.
Reading Domine for Dominum, which is given in the
text.
The quotation may refer to
Conturbari.
Translatis in se.
Pœnitentia. [
34. I think that you cannot
fail to understand this too, that the word “father” is but
a single term indeed, and yet one admitting of being understood in
various ways. For one is called father, as being the parent of
those children whom he has begotten in a natural way; another is called
father, as being the guardian of children whom he has but brought up;
and some, again, are called fathers in respect of the privileged
standing accruing through time or age. Hence our Lord Jesus
Christ Himself is said to have a variety of fathers: for David
was called His father, and Joseph was reckoned to be His father, while
neither of these two was His father in respect of the actuality of
nature. For David is called His father as touching the
prerogative of time and age,
Ætatis ac temporis privilegio.
Velociter.
Nec in aliquo remoratus.
The text gives “inter unius anni spatium,” for which
intra, etc., is proposed. With certain others of the
fathers, Archelaus seems to assign but one year to the preaching of
Christ and to His working of miracles. See ch. xlix. [Vol.
i. p. 391, this series.]
Referring probably to
Migne gives this sentence as a direct statement. We adopt the
interrogative form with Routh.
The text reads, “quem misit ad nos Paulum in Spiritus influxit
Spiritus,” etc. We adopt the emendation, “quem misit
ad nos Paulum in Spiritu. Influxit Spiritus,” etc.
Routh suggests, “Paulum cujus in spiritum influxit
Spiritus” = this Paul, into whose spirit the Spirit was
poured.
In conspectu regum et gentium.
Consecrans. [Vol. v. p. 290, note 8; also p. 409.]
Vult habere.
Reading “magnifico honore” for the “magnifico
hoc ore” of the codex.
Aut.
Undecim apostolis.
Christum.
Nihil minus feci vobis a cæteris apostolis.
35. These things, moreover,
he has said with the view of showing us that all others who may come
after him will be false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed, like an angel of light. What great thing
therefore is it, if his ministers also be transformed into the
ministers of righteousness?—whose end shall be according to their
works.
Avertere vos.
Infimo omnium apostolorum.
The
Codex Casinensis gives, “de Persida venientem monet;” for
which corrupt reading it is proposed to substitute “de Perside
venientem Manem,” etc.
Reading percipiendum with the Vulgate. But the Codex
Casinensis has perficiendum.
These
words falsi apostoli seem to be added by way of explanation, as
they are not found either in the Greek or the Vulgate.
Radicati.
Immobiles.
Audivimus.
The
text gives “circum cucurri,” perhaps for
“cursum cucurri.” The Vulgate has
“cursum consummavi.”
36. None of your
party, The
text gives “ex vobis.” But perhaps we should read
“ex nobis” = none of us. The
Codex Casinensis has “Galatam facies vicit, o nostras
feras”, for which we adopt the correction, “Galatam facies,
nec ita nos.” O
Satan! The Codex Casinensis gives “anathema esse
ana,” which may be an error, either for “anathema
es, Satana,” or for “anathema es et maranatha.”
[“O Satan” is less probable.] The
text is legum; for which regum, kings, is also
suggested.
The
text gives, “qui neque necessarium aliquem locum sortitus
es,” etc. Routh proposes “necessarii.”
The sense seems to be that Manes had nothing to prove any connection
between him and Christ.
Reading “quos luto,” etc., for the
“quod luto” of the codex.
[Note, against Canon Farrar and moderns, the persuasion of antiquity as
to the miraculous gift of tongues; the charismata of others,
also, besides the Apostles.] The text is, “quæ ne in
numerum quidem aliquem ducitur.”
The text gives “Quid dicabo,” which may stand for
“quid dicam;” or perhaps the translator intends to use
“dicare” in the sense of urge.
Reading barbare, for which the text offers barba.
Conscium. [For Mithras, see vol. iii. p. 475.] In
this sentence the sense is somewhat obscure, in consequence of the
corruptions of the text in the codex. We adopt the emendations
“locorum mysticorum,” for mysteriorum, and
“apud eos ludes” for ludis. In the end
of the clause Migne gives, as in the translation, “et tanquam
minus elegans,” etc. But Routh reads mimus =
and like an elegant pantomimist, etc.
The Codex Casinensis gives the sentence thus:
“…adveniat? suscitans mortuos? pene usque ad gehennam omnes
persequens, qui si ut obtemperare noluerit, plurimos deterrens
arrogantiæ metu, Quod est ipse circumdatus, aliis adhibet minas
vultus sui conversione circumdatio ludificat.” The
emendation adopted by Migne and Routh consist in removing these two
interrogative marks, and in reading qui sibi for qui si ut,
noluerint for noluerit, quo est for Quod est, adhibens for
adhibet, and et circumductione ludificans for the last
two words.
The sense is again obscure throughout this sentence, owing to the state
of the text. The codex gives us this clause, “nulli alio
atque posterum,” etc., for which “nulli alii æque in
posterum” is proposed.
37. Archelaus
said: Those sayings which are put forth by the blessed Paul
were not uttered without the direction of God, and therefore it is
certain that what he has declared to us is that we are to look for our
Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect one, who
Reading “qui solus,” for the sed, etc., of
the codex. See also
Inducias fortassis aliquas quærit.
Reading “non plane, non tam obscure,” etc., instead of the
“non plane nota,” etc., of the Codex Casinensis.
“Protectores,” on which term consult Ducangius in his
Glossary.
Signa, dracones, labaros.
The
text gives simply, sicut enim parva. We may adopt, with
Routh, “sicut enim cum parva,” etc.
38. And, in good truth, I
hold Marcion, and Valentinian, and Basilides, and other heretics, to be
sainted men when compared
Reading “sic ut istius comparatione,” for the “sicut
istius paratione” of the codex.
Reading se ductores, for the seductores, etc., of the
codex.
Seculis.
Continentes.
The
precise meaning and connection are somewhat obscure here. The
text gives, “verbum enim ducis obtinet locum, opera vero
regis.” And the idea is taken to be, that the actual work
of thoroughly doing away with the ignorance of men was something that
suited only the perfect King who was expected, and that had not been
accomplished by Manes.
Alluding to
Routh inserts interdum pœnitet = sometimes he uses the
penitential style, which Migne omits.
39. On hearing these
matters, those who were present gave great glory to God, and ascribed
to Him such praise as it is meet for Him to receive. And on
Archelaus himself they bestowed many tokens of honour. Then
Marcellus rose up; and casting off his cloak, The
text gives the plural form stolas, perhaps for
stolam.
The text gives fugere, apparently in the sense of
fugare.
[Note
the testimony against the persecution of heretics,—a
characteristic of early Christians which too soon began to disappear,
notably in Alexandria under Cyril.]
Excipi.
This Diodorus appears to be called Trypho by Epiphanius, on this
Manichæan heresy, n. 11.
Reading concionaretur for continuaretur.
Diodorus sends greeting to Bishop
Archelaus,
This epistle is also mentioned, and its argument noticed, by
Epiphanius, Hæres., 11.
40. I wish you to know, most
pious father, that in these days there has arrived in our parts a
certain person named Manes, who gives out that he is to complete the
doctrine of the New Testament. And in the statements which he has
made there have been some things, indeed, which may harmonize with our
faith; but there have been also certain affirmations of his which seem
very far removed from what has come down to us by the tradition of our
fathers. For he has interpreted some doctrines in a strange
fashion, imposing on them certain notions of his own, which have
appeared to me to be altogether foreign and opposed to the faith.
On the ground of these facts I have now been induced to write this
letter to you, knowing the completeness and fulness of your
intelligence in doctrine, and being assured that none of these things
can escape your cognizance. Accordingly, I have also indulged the
confident hope that you cannot be kept back by any grudge
Invidia.
[Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 251, this series.]
[Against Scripture and the torrent of patristic testimony, the men of
this generation have seen new dogmas imposed upon a great portion of
Christendom by the voice of a single bishop, and without synodical
deliberation or consent. The whole claim to
“Catholicity” perishes wherever such dogmas are
accepted.]
Resolvisse.
Reading cum populis for the cum populo of the text.
Faciat Deus.
In litteris formatum in lapidibus.
Reading “præparare et proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti
menti” for “præparet proximus fieri benignæ
hac,” etc., as it stands in the Codex Casinensis. Routh
suggests “præparare proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti
menti et continuo…consequemur” = to take care to draw near
to the gracious and liberal mind, and then we shall forthwith receive
steadily from it, etc.
41. On receiving this
epistle, Archelaus was astonished at the man’s boldness.
But in the meantime, as the case called for the transmission of a
speedy reply, he immediately sent off a letter with reference to the
statements made by Diodorus. That epistle ran in the following
terms:
This epistle is edited not only from the Codex Casinensis, but also by
Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis. The most important varieties
of reading shall therefore be noted.
Archelaus sends greeting to the presbyter Diodorus, his honourable son.
The receipt of your letter has rejoiced me
exceedingly, my dearly beloved friend. I have been given to
understand, moreover, that this man, who made his way to me before
these days, and sought to introduce a novel kind of knowledge here,
different from what is apostolic and ecclesiastical, has also come to
you. To that person, indeed, I gave no place: for
presently, when we held a disputation together, he was confuted.
And I could wish now to transcribe for your behoof all the arguments of
which I made use on that occasion, so that by means of these you might
get an idea of what that man’s faith is. But as that could
be done only with leisure at my disposal, I have deemed it requisite,
in view of the immediate exigency, to write a short reply to you with
reference to what you have written me on the subject of the statements
advanced by him. I understand, then, that his chief
Summum studium. But the Codex Bobiensis reads suum
studium.
Reading “ex subtegmine atque stamine,” etc., with the Codex
Bobiensis, instead of “subtemine et, quæ stamine,”
etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis. [A beautiful
anticipation of Augustine’s dictum, “The New
is veiled in the Old, the Old unveiled in the
New.”] We
read here “gloriam enim Domini in eodem speculamur.”
The Codex Bobiensis is vitiated here, giving gloriam um Domini,
which was changed by Valesius into gloriam Jesu, etc.
Reading, with the Codex Bobiensis, “speculum, cum nobis ipsam
imaginem,” etc., instead of “speculum nobis per ipsam
imaginem,” etc.
[Here is the literal use of the word “pædagogue,” with
which Clement took liberties. Vol. ii. p. 209, note 3, this
series.] Adopting “qui ad doctores a pædagogo,”
instead of “qui a doctore iis a pædagogo.”
“Dehonorare,” or, as in the Codex Bobiensis,
“dehonestare.”
Reading “opera ejus non indiget.” But the Codex
Casinensis gives “ore ejus,” etc. The Codex
Bobiensis reads here, “accidit vero post tempus ut is
qui…requireret,” etc. The other codex has,
“accedit vero post tempus is qui…requirere.” Reading
pro respectu with Codex Bobiensis. The other codex gives
prospectu. Reading
invenisse. The Codex Casinensis gives venisse. Routh
suggests pastor, the shepherd, for pater. Reading
cognata, with Codex Bobiensis, instead of cognita.
We
adopt the reading vides, instead of the faulty unde of
the Codex Casinensis.
Reading quamvis for quum. See
Infernum. [Sheol, rather, or Hades.] The
reading of the Codex Casinensis is, “rogavit dives simul uno
tempore ut edisceret majorem doctrinam.” But the other
codex gives, “uno tempore discere majorem doctrinam ab
Abraham” = entreated that he might learn the superior doctrine of
Abraham. For edisceret we may read with Routh
ediscerent.
42. But I shall also offer,
to the best of my ability, some expositions of the other words referred
to; that is to say, I shall show that Jesus neither said nor did aught
that was contrary to Moses. And first, as to the word, “An
eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,”
The
Codex Casinensis gives, “exige ab eo illa quæ fraudem
interceperat;” the other codex gives, “et exigi ab eo illa
quæ fraude interceperat.” The correct reading probably
would be, “exigi ab eo illa quæ per fraudem
interceperat.” We
adopt the conjecture of Valesius, viz., abstinentia. The
Codex Bobiensis gives absentia.
Reading inflammantur. It may perhaps be inflantur =
puffed up.
Reading et parum hoc est, with Codex Bobiensis, instead of the
et pauperum hoc est of Codex Casinensis. We may also
render it as ="but it is far from being the case that gifts are
cast,” etc. The
Codex Bobiensis reads inferuntur; the other codex gives
offeruntur, offered.
The
text gives sed abuti, and the Codex Bobiensis has sed et
abuti. But the reading ought probably to be sed et
uti, or sed etiam uti. Routh, however, notices that
abutor is found with the sense of utor.
Plane.
In
semetipsum causam circumcisionis excepit. [From
The
Codex Bobiensis gives, “viæ compendiosum nobis tramitem
demonstrare.” We adopt the reading, “viæ spatia
compendioso nobis tramite demonstrare.”
Compendia viæ.
Reading
“prævaricator” instead of
“prædicator.” The sense would seem strictly to
require, a debtor to the law.
Atramentum.
The
Codex Bobiensis gives, “figuli opus aufers aut
fictilium.” The Codex Casinensis has, “figuli opus et
ars aut fictilium.” We adopt “figuli opus aut ars
fictilium.”
Adopting “nequaquam” for “nec quemquam.” By
this he means the Epistle to the Romans, to which the first place among
the epistles of Paul was assigned from the most ancient times. In
Epiphanius, under heresy 42, it is alleged as an offence against
Marcion, that he put the Epistle to the Romans in the fourth place
among Paul’s epistles. See a note in Migne. [Again,
this expression is a note of genuine antiquity.]
43. I shall speak now with
the utmost brevity of the veil of Moses and the ministration of
death. For I do not think that these things at least can
introduce very much to the disparagement of the law. The text in
question,
Reading “propositus” for “propheticus.” The
Codex Casinensis has formatum; the other codex gives
firmatum.
The
text gives, “neque vero omnigene in ignobilitatem
redigitur,” etc. The Codex Bobiensis has, “neque vero
omni genere in nobilitate.” Reading
“scisse se differentias gloriæ,” etc. Codex
Bobiensis gives scis esse, etc. = you know that there
are differences.
Sicut et verbi ipsius natura persuadet. Reading
“natura persuadet.” But the Codex Bobiensis
gives demonstrat, demonstrates.
Non
revelatur quia in Christo destruitur.
The
text is, “hoc est velamen, quod erat positum super faciem Moysi,
quod est testamentum ejus,” etc.
The
reading in the text is, “non deficiet princeps ex Juda, neque dux
de femoribus ejus usquequo veniat,” etc. Codex Bobiensis
coincides, only giving “de femore ejus.” On the
whole quotation, which is given in forms so diverse among the old
versions and fathers, see Novatian, De Trin., ch. 9 [vol. v. p.
618], and Cyprian, Adv. Judæos, i. 21 [vol. v. p.
513]. The
text gives, “veniat, cujus est,” etc.
Prudentius Maranus on Justin’s Apology, i. § 32 [vol.
i. p. 173, this series], thinks this was originally an error of
transcription for cui jus est, which reading would
correspond very much with the ᾧ ἀπόκειται
of some of the most ancient authorities. See Cotelerius on
the Constitut. Apostol., i. 1, and the note in Migne. Qui
alligabit. But Codex Casinensis has “quia alligabit,”
and Codex Bobiensis “qui alligavit.”
Suffusi oculi. Codex Bobiensis gives “effusi
oculi.” See, on the whole, Grabe’s Dissert. De
variis vitiis LXX. interpret., 19, p. 36.
We
adopt the reading “Jesu Nave.” But the Codex
Bobiensis gives “Jesu Mane.” See a discussion on this
name by Cotelerius on the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 12. [Vol. i.
p. 145, this series.] For
circumcisionis Routh suggests circumstationis, which
might perhaps be taken as = these surroundings do not suit him.
The
text is, “sed et videbitis vitam vestram pendentem ante oculos
vestros.” The reference is apparently to
44. Now this word also has
the veil. For up to the time of Herod they did appear to retain a
kingdom in some sort; and it was by Augustus that the first enrolment
took place among them, and that they began to pay tribute, and to be
rated.
Censum dare.
Reading “sermonem, et ostendere ut intelligi dignum
est.” The Codex Bobiensis gives a mutilated version:
“sermonem, ut intelligi, dignum est.”
Reading “Moysi scientis,” which is the emendation of
Valesius. But Codex Casinensis gives “scientibus,”
and Codex Bobiensis has “scientes.”
Adopting “satiavit.” The Codex Bobiensis gives
“saturavit.”
Reading “in mari.” But the Codex Bobiensis has in
navi = on a ship.
The
text gives in justis. But the Codex Bobiensis has in
istis = in those men. The true reading may be in
injustis = in the unrighteous. See But
the Codex Casinensis gives “Deus omnium” = the God of
all.
45. On receipt of this
letter, Diodorus made himself master of its contents, and then entered
the lists against Manes. This he did too with such spirit, that
he was commended greatly by all for the careful and satisfactory
demonstration which he gave of the fact that there is a mutual
relationship between the two testaments, and also between the two
laws. [See
p. 215, supra.] Ex
nominibus. The Codex Bobiensis offers the extraordinary reading,
ex navibus.
Ingenita. We
read, with the Codex Bobiensis, “dicat homini, Loca mihi,”
etc. The Codex Casinensis has the meaningless reading,
“homini diviti,” etc.
Præsta. The text
of this obscure passage runs thus: “Quia ex quo duo sunt,
ingenitam habentes naturam, ex eo necesse est etiam habere unumquemque
ipsorum vetus Testamentum, et fient duo vetera Testamenta; si tamen
ambos antiquos et sine initio esse dicis.” The Codex
Bobiensis gives a briefer but evidently corrupt reading:
“ex quo duo sunt ingenita habentes naturam ipsorum Testamentum,
et fient,” etc.
Jamnem dico et Mambrem. [So in Vulg., except
“Jannes.”]
Gratiam gratia præstare et differre.
The
Codex Bobiensis gives, “exponere et a Patre ut
convenit.” For these meaningless words Valesius proposed to
read, “exponere et aperire ut convenit.” The Codex
Casinensis, however, offers the satisfactory reading, “exponere
et aptare convenit.” Here
ends the section edited by Valesius.
46. Next morning, however,
Archelaus suddenly made his appearance at this residence
Castellum. [Note, infra, the “holy
kiss.”] The text
runs: “tametsi prudentiam, gloriam etiam, nostrorum
nonnulli assecuti sunt, tamen hoc vos deprecor ut eorum quæ ante
me dicta sunt, testimonium reservetis.” Routh suggests
prudentia = Although by their prudence some have gained glory,
etc. Pro
ipsius impossibilitate. But Routh suggests that the
impossibiIitate is just an inexact translation of the
ἀδυνατία =
impotentia, incapacity, which may have stood in the Greek
text. Reading
“Marcelli viri illustris gratia.” The Codex
Casinensis has, “viri in legis gratia.”
The
text gives “similis facere astrologo,” for which Routh
proposes “similis factus est,” etc.
47. Then Manes, after
silence had been secured among all, thus began his address: Like
others, Archelaus, you too smite me with the most injurious words,
notwithstanding that my sentiments on the subject of God are correct,
and that I hold also a proper conception of Christ; and yet the family
of the apostles is rather of the character that bears all things and
endures all things, even although a man may assail them with revilings
and curses. If it is your intention to persecute me, I am
prepared for it: and if you wish to involve me in punishment, I
shall not shrink from it; yea, if you mean even to put me to death, I
am not afraid: “For we ought to fear Him only who is able
to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The text
is, “quibus utique repensari non possunt,”
etc. Routh proposes repensare. Reading
“sicut vox Jesu.” The Codex Casinensis gives,
“sicut vos Jesu.” Routh suggests servator.
The
text gives, “Virgo castissima et immaculata ecclesia,” =
the most pure virgin and spotless church. But the word
“ecclesia” is probably an erroneous addition by the hand of
the scribe. Or, as Routh hints, there may be an allusion, in the
word ecclesia, to the beginning of the twelfth chapter of
the Apocalypse. [See Pearson, On the Creed, art. iii. p.
290.] From
this it may perhaps be gathered that Marcellus had now come along with
Archelaus to the residence of Diodorus.
Scribere ausus est. Compare (note 1) p. 224,
infra.
The
text gives, “Quod si prior fefellit, causa ad scriptorem
rejicienda est.” [i.e., to the copyist; in this case the
corrupter.]
Consonantibus duntaxat.
48. On hearing these
statements, the multitudes assembled were greatly moved, as if they
felt that these reasonings gave the correct account of the truth, and
that Archelaus could have nothing to urge against them; for this was
indicated by the commotion which arose among them. But when the
crowd of auditors became quiet again, Archelaus made answer in the
following manner: No one, truly, shall ever be able to prove
himself mightier than the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither is
there found any name equal to His, as it is written:
“Wherefore God hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is
above every name.”
Sibi
ipsi.
Secundum id quod scriptorem fefellit. [i.e. on that
supposition.]
Reading “debuitne etiam” for the bad version of the Codex
Casinensis, “debuit et etiam.” The
text gives, “se ipso judicante,” for which
“te ipso,” etc., may be substituted. In
the Codex Casinensis the sentence stands in this evidently corrupt
form: “cum enim peccatis bonus et gravatus ad discipulatum
diligit.” We adopt the emendation given in Migne:
“cum enim peccatis onustos et gravatos ad discipulatum
delegit.”
Propitius esto, Domine.
Reading silere. The Codex Casinensis gives sinire,
which may be meant for sinere = give over. Pro
accidentium salute.
We have adopted Migne’s arrangement of these clauses.
Routh, however, puts them thus: And that it may be made more
intelligible to you, etc.,… (for in forgetfulness,
etc., you have turned off, etc.), listen to me now for a
brief space.
Reading “pondus belli toleraverant,” instead of the
“pondus bellico tolerarant” of the Codex Casinensis.
49. But in addition to all
that has been said already, I wish to adduce still further proof, so
that all may understand what impiety is contained in this assertion of
yours. For if your allegation is true, that He was not born, then
it will follow undoubtedly that He did not suffer; for it is not
possible for one to suffer who was not also born. But if He did
not suffer, then the name of the cross is done away with. And if
the cross was not endured, then Jesus did not rise from the dead.
And if Jesus rose not from the dead, then no other person will rise
again. And if no one shall rise again, then there will be no
judgment. For it is certain that, if I am not to rise again, I
cannot be judged. But if there is to be no judgment, then the
keeping of God’s commandments will be to no purpose, and there
will be no occasion for abstinence: nay, we may say, “Let
us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.”
Salva.
Reading in vobis. But the Codex Casinensis seems to give
in nobis, amongst us. But the
Codex Casinensis seems to make it fides nostra, our faith.
Initium.
Distinctio.
Minor.
It would seem that Archelaus read the passage in Matthew as
meaning, notwithstanding, he that is less, is, in the kingdom of
heaven, greater than he. Thus, he that is less is
understood to be Jesus in His natural relations. [A very
lean and hungry proculdubio of the author.] Routh
appends a note here which may be given. It is to this
effect: I am afraid that Archelaus has not expressed with
sufficient correctness the mystery of the Divine Incarnation, in this
passage as well as in what follows; although elsewhere he has taught
that the Lord Jesus was conceived by divine power, and in ch. xxxiv.
has called the Virgin Mary Dei genetrix, Θεοτόκος.
For at the time of the Saviour’s baptism the Holy Spirit was not
given in His first communication with the Word of God (which Word,
indeed, had been united with the human nature from the time of the
conception itself), but was only received by the Christ ἀνΘρωπίνως
and οἰκονομικῶς, and for the sake of men. See Cyril of
Alexandria, De Rectâ Fide, xxxiv. vol. v. 2, p. 153,
editio Auberti.[Routh, R.S., vol. v. p.
178.]
Parat.
Inferre coneris.
50. Manes said:
No one, certainly, who may be able to give a reply to what has just
been alleged by you need fear incurring the guilt of blasphemy, but
should rather be deemed thoroughly worthy of all commendation.
For a true master of his art,
Artifex.
Hominem.
Hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria. Or,
effect, per profectum.
Effect. [i.e., progressively.] Routh
puts this interrogatively = Is it then your position that He really is
a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood? Well, but if
so, then it will follow, etc.
Or, as.
Reading “sicut homo, hac opinione,” for the “sicut
homo ac opinione” of the Codex Casinensis. The
Codex Casinensis reads, “hanc quæstionem diffigenter aptare
tam manifestarem atque manifeste dissolverem.” We follow the
emendation, “hanc quæstionem diligenter aptatam
manifestarem,” etc. [A
signum verecundiæ which rebukes the awful
inquisitiveness concerning the conception of Mary which disgraced the
late pontiff, Pius IX. To what blasphemous pruriency of thought
and expression has not such an invasion of decency given rise!
See St. Bernard, Opp. tom. i. p. 392. He rebukes the
heresy as profane.] The
text gives tempus recusat. Routh proposes tempus
requirit = which the occasion requires.
This is a purely conjectural reading, “ut dicam silex,”
etc. The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut dicam dilere non
homo.” But Routh, in reference to ch. xv., throws out the
idea that we should read delire = thou dotard, or,
lunatic. [P. 190, supra, as if Manes = μανικὸς.]
Columbarium furem. The
text gives suæ. Routh suggests tuæ. The
text is, “non solum autem, sed adventus nomen
delebitur.” It may perhaps be = and not the foundation, but
the name, of an advent would be done away.
The
text gives “quo magnum,” etc., for which we adopt
“quod magnum,” etc.
Or
perhaps, = which was also, quod erat tabernaculum, etc. The
Codex Casinensis gives “Ignorabat autem propter qui genuisset
Filium Dei prædicabat regnum cœlorum, qui erat,”
etc. We follow generally the emendations adopted in Migne:
“Ignorabat autem propter quid genuisset Filium Dei, qui
prædicabat regnum cœlorum, quod erat habitaculum
magnum,” etc. Routh would read “genitus esset Filius
Dei,” etc.
Pugillum plenum solis mihi affer aut modium plenum.
Partis.
51. When Archelaus had
finished this speech, the crowds of people marvelled at the truth of
his doctrine, and expressed their vehement commendations of the man
with loud outcries, so that they exerted themselves most energetically,
and would have kept him from his return. The
text is, “et ultra ei non sinerent ad propria
remeare.” Routh suggests ultro for ultra.
Reading unus, instead of “vos, comitibus,”
etc.
Reading “quem etiam” instead of “quæ
etiam.” The
Codex Casinensis gives, “ipse quidem me dicere recusavit,”
etc. We adopt the correction in Migne, “sed ne ipse quidem
dicere recusavit,” etc.
Then, indeed, the multitudes became all the more excited, and crowded together to listen to Archelaus; for, in good sooth, the statements which were made by him offered them the greatest enjoyment. Accordingly, they earnestly urged him to tell them all that he pleased, and all that he had on his mind; and they declared themselves ready to listen to him there and then, and engaged to stay on even to the evening, and until the lights should be lit.
Stimulated therefore by their heartiness,
Archelaus began his address with all confidence in the following
terms:—My brethren, you have heard, indeed, the primary
causes
Superiores quidem causas Domini, etc.
Reading “sed et optimus architectus ejus, fundamentum,”
etc. The Codex Casinensis has the corrupt lection, “sed et
optimos architectos ei fundamentum,” etc. [Had this been
said of Peter?] Cf.
Cf.
Cf.
Various other forms are found for this name Scythianus.
Thus we find Scutianus and Excutianus,—forms which may have
arisen through mere clerical errors. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat.
gives Stutianus. [But see Routh, R. S., vol. v. p.
186.]
52. No one, however, has ever made
such an unblushing advance in the promulgation of these tenets as this
Scythianus. For he introduced the notion of a feud between the
two unbegottens, and all those other fancies which are the consequences
of a position of that kind. This Scythianus himself belonged to
the stock of This
seems the general idea meant to be conveyed. The text, which is
evidently corrupt, runs thus: “in qua cum eum habitaret cum
Ægyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” The Codex Reg.
Alex. Vat. reads, “in qua cum habitaret, et
Ægyptiorum,” etc. In Migne it is proposed to fill up
the lacunæ thus: “in qua cum diu habitaret, depravatus
est, cum Ægyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” Routh
suggests, “in qua cum ea habitaret,” etc. The
Codex Casinensis reads Terbonem for
Terebinthum.But in Cyril of Jerusalem, in his
Catechesis, 6, as well as in others, we regularly find
Τέρβινθον,
Terbinthum, or Terebinthum, given as the name of the
disciple of Scythianus. The form Tereventus is also given;
and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has Terybeneus. The
statement made here as to these books being written by Terebinthus is
not in accordance with statements made by Cyril and others, who seem to
recognise Scythianus alone as the author. As to the name
Terebinthus itself, C. Ritter, in his Die Stupa’s, etc.,
p. 29 thinks that it is a Græcized form of a predicate of Buddha,
viz., Tere-hintu, Lord of the Hindoos. Others take it
simply to be a translation of the Hebrew הלָא”, the
terebinth.See a note on this subject in
Neander’s Church Hist., ii. 166 (Bohn).
[Routh, ut supra, p. 187.]
Capitulorum.
Thesaurus. The
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. inserts here, “omnibus quæcunque ejus
fuerant congregatis” = gathering together all that was his.
Reading “habetur.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives
habitatur, is inhabited. The
Codex Casinensis gives, “sed aliud cujusdam homine.”
We adopt “sed alium Buddam nomine,” with which the
narratives of Cyril, Epiphanius, and others agree. Routh proposes
“alio Buddam nomine” = by another name, Buddas.
[Buddha is a title, not a name.] The
text gives “natum esse, simul et ab angelo.” The
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “natum se esse simulabat et ab
angelo.” On these
Persian priests, see Epiphanius on this heresy, num. 3. Reading
arguebant, with Routh, for arguebat.
Animosa exaggeratio.
Ante seculum. Or, in
the origins of things, in principiis.
Particeps ejus.
Reading tunc for nunc.
Solarium quoddam excelsum. The
Codex Casinensis gives, “ut inde ab aliquo convinci
possit.” But the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “ut ne
ab aliquo,” etc. We adopt, therefore, “ne ab
aliquo,” etc., taking the idea to be, as is suggested in Migne,
that Manes went up alone, because he feared that, if observed by Parcus
and Labdacus, the priests of Mithras, he might expose himself to
punishment at the hands of the Persian rulers for an offence against
their religion. [Manes here seems put for
Terebinthus.] Sub
terras eum detrudi per spiritum.
53. After this event all the
effects which he had brought with him from Egypt remained in her
possession. And she rejoiced greatly over his death, and that for
two reasons: first, because she did not regard his arts with
satisfaction; and secondly, because she had obtained such an
in But the
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “erat enim multum pecuniæ
arida”—for she had a great greed for money. But
Cyril, Epiphanius, and others, make the name Cubricus (Κούβρικος).
Versuum. This
may express with sufficient nearness the original, “nec Manem sed
Manes.” The
Codex Casinensis gives sexaginta regularly. The Codex Reg.
Alex. Vat. reads septuaginta, seventy.
Transfert eos. It may be also “translated
them.” The
text gives, “edictum proposuit in vita,” etc. For
in vita it is proposed to read invitans; and that is
confirmed by the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. We
adopt the reading “qui cubum, quod nomen est tali, ludere
solent.” The text gives, “qui cibum quod nomen est
tale eludere solent.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. seems to
read, “qui cubum quod nomen est aleæ ludere
solent.”
Ferri talento. The
text gives, “quique fugientes licet nunquam cessarunt,”
etc. Codex Reg. Alex. Vat has, “licet nunquam
cessarent” etc.
54. But after these events
they returned to their master, and reported what had befallen them; and
at the same thee they got an account of the numerous ills which had
overtaken him. When, therefore, they got access to him, as I was
saying,
Reading “dicebam.” But the Codex Casinensis gives
“dicebant,” and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has
“decebat”—as became them.
Reading “converti ad salutem,” for “conventi,”
etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis.
Conscribebantur. [Note this concerning the Christian
books.]
Nuntios. But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives “novitios,”
novices. The
text gives “fatigarent.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat.
gives “fugarent”—expel. The
text gives “invenientes.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat.
more correctly has “inveniens”—when he came upon.
55. On hearing this, the
multitude wished to seize Manes and hand him over to the power of those
foreigners who were their neighbours, and who dwelt beyond the river
Stranga, But
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “Stracum fluvium.” The
text gives, “evadere potuit dum nemo eum insequeretur. Sed
populus, cum Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione
teneretur,” etc. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads
“evadere potuit dum ne eum insequeretur is populus, et Archelai
quem libenter audiebant relatione tenerentur.” Routh
suggests, “dum eum nemo insequeretur, sed populus
Archelai,” etc.
The same Codex Vat. reads Adrabion here. The
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. ends with these words. [See p.
177, supra. A fair discussion as to authenticity.]
Inscripsi. Codex
Casinensis reads, “non ex Manen originem mali hujus Manes
esse.” We adopt the conjecture, “non ex Mane originem
mali hujus manasse.”
The following note on this Basilides may be given from
Migne:—“Although Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., iv. 7)
tells us that the Basilides who taught heresy shortly after the times
of the apostles was an Alexandrian, and opened schools of error in
Egypt, the Basilides mentioned here by Archelaus may still be one and
the same person with that Alexandrian, notwithstanding that it is said
that he taught his heresy among the Persians. For it may very
well be the case that Basilides left Alexandria, and made an attempt to
infect the Persians also with his heretical dogmas. At the same
time, there is no mention among ancient authorities, so far as I know,
of a Persian Basilides. The Alexandrian Basilides also wrote
twenty-four books on the Gospel, as the same Eusebius testifies; and
these do not appear to be different from those books of
Tractates which Archelaus cites, and from the Exegetics,
from the twenty-third book of which certain passages are given by
Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of his
Stromateis.It is not clear however, whether that
Gospel on which Basilides wrote was the Gospel of the Apostles, or
another which he made up for himself, and of which mention is made in
Origen’s first Homily on Luke, in Jerome’s prologue to his
Commentary on Matthew, and in Ambrose’s prologue to the Gospel of
Luke.” We may add that Gieseler (Studien und
Kritiken, i. 1830, p. 397) denies that the person meant here is
Basilides the Gnostic, specially on account of the peculiar
designation, Basilides quidam antiquior.But
his objections are combated by Baur and Neander. See the
Church History of the latter, ii. p. 50, ed. Bohn. The
text is, “aliis dictis proposuit adversariis.”
Perhaps we may read, “aliorum dicta,” etc. The
text is, “necessarium sermonem uberemque salutaris sermo
præstavit.” May it be = the word of salvation
furnished the word which was requisite, etc.? The
text is, “per parvulam divitis et pauperis naturam sine
radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullulaverit
indicat.” The reading seems defective. But the
general intention of this very obscure and fragmentary sentence appears
to be as given above. So Neander understands it as conveying a
figurative description of the two principles of light and darkness,
expressed in the Zoroastrian doctrine immediately cited,—the rich
being the good principle, and the poor the evil. He also supposes
the phrase “without root and without place” to indicate the
“absoluteness of the principle, that springs up all at once, and
mixes itself up with the development of existence.”—See
Church History, ii. 51 (Bohn). Routh confesses his
inability to understand what can be meant by the term
parvulam, and suggests parabolam.
Caput.
Alium. Routh
adopts the interrogative form here, so as to make the connection stand
thus: But is this the only topic which the book contains?
Does it not also contain another discussion, etc.?
Versibus.
Varietate. By the
barbari here are evidently meant the Persians.
Principles. The
text is, “non quæ esse dicebantur.” Routh
proposes, “non quæ factæ, or genitæ, esse
dicebantur,” = which were not declared to have been made.
From Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, vi. §
27–29. [And see the Introductory Notice, p.
175.]
————————————
The fragment is introduced by Cyril in the following
terms: —He, i.e., Manes, fled from prison and
came into Mesopotamia; but there he was met by that buckler of
righteousness,
Reading ὅπλον
δικαιοσύνης
. Others read ὅπλῳ = Archelaus met him with the buckler
of righteousness.
1. Archelaus said to Manes:
Give us a statement now of the doctrines you
promulgate.—Thereupon the man, whose mouth was like an open
sepulchre,
The
text gives καλοί. Routh seems to
prefer κακοί, evil.
2. Then Manes made the
following reply to him: And what manner of God now is it that
blinds one? For it is Paul who uses these words: “In
whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine in them.”
3. But even
although For
εἰ δὲ
δεῖ καὶ ὡς, etc.,
various codices read εἰ
δὲ δικαίως,
etc.
νοήματα, thoughts.
ψυχήν.
ὑπόστασις.
ἐφίεται.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Spotless virgin, etc. p. 223 and note 7.)
Oh that “foolish and
unlearned questions” had been avoided, as the Scripture
II.
(Get thee behind me, Satan, p. 224 and note 13.)
I adopt the views of those who reverently suppose that
when it was said, “Let us make man,” etc., Lucifer
conceived rebellion, and said, “This be far from Thee,
Lord;” fearing the creature made in God’s own image might
outshine himself. Hence our Lord applies the epithet
“Satan” to Peter when he ventures to use similar
language. Possibly there lurks a reference to this in such
language as
III.
(I shrink from repeating, p. 227 and note 10.)
The delicacy of feeling here expressed is most
honourable to the sentiment of the Church at this period. Not
till St. Bernard’s day was it hinted
St. Bernard, Opp., tom. i. Compare note 10, p. 227,
supra. See the Abbé Laborde on the
Impossibility, etc., translated by the editor of this series,
ed. Baltimore, 1855. Save
only by Mohammed.
(In presence of the catechumens, p. 235.)
Here is testimony to the catechumen system of the
primitive Church which appears to me not inconsistent with the period
to which it is assigned. No doubt this gradual instruction of the
disciple is based upon the example of our Lord Himself, who spoke in
parables,
General Note.
————————————
As I have not infrequently
treated the rise of the great Alexandrian school as an outcrop from the
learning and piety of Apollos, I take this space to record my
reasons: 1. Apart from the question in formal shape, I hold that
the character and influence of this brilliant Alexandrian must
have operated upon Alexandrian converts. 2. But the frequent
employment by the Alexandrians of the expressions ( See
vol. ii. p. 342, Elucidation II., this series. Note also, in the
same volume, what is said, pp. 166–167.
Lewin, St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 340.
[Translated by the Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A., Oxon.]
Introductory Notice
to
Alexander, Bishop of
Lycopolis.
Translated from Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Biblioth. The
reverend translator is styled in the Edinburgh edition, “Curate
of Ilminster, Somerset.”
————————————
[a.d. 301.] To the following account, translated from Galland, I prefix only the general date of Alexander’s episcopate. He was succeeded in the bishopric of Lycopolis by the turbulent Meletius, of whose schism we need not say anything here. But his early relations with the heresy of Manes, and his subsequent orthodoxy (in all which he was a foreshadowing of Augustine), render his treatise on the Manichæan opinions especially valuable.
Combefis conjectured that
Alexander was called Λυκοπολίτης
, as having been born at Lycus, a city of the Thebaid, and so by race
an Egyptian, and to his opinion both Cave and Fabricius are
inclined. But this conjecture is plainly uncertain, if we are to
trust Photius, in his Epitome De Manichæis, which
Montfaucon has edited.
Cf. Combef., Auctar. Noviss., part ii. p. 2; Cav.,
Dissert. de. Script. Eccl., incert. ætat. p. 2; Fabricius,
Bibl. Gr., tom. v. p. 287; Montfaucon, Bibl. Coisl., p.
349, seqq.
Photius, Epist. de Manich., Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p.
354.
Epiph., Hær., lxviii. n. 1, lxix. n. 2; Le Quien,
Oriens Christianus, tom. ii. p. 597.
Meletius of Lycopolis, a schismatical bishop of the third and
fourth centuries. Athanasius tells us that Meletius, who was
Bishop of Lycopolis in Upper Egypt at the time of the persecution under
Diocletian and his successors, yielded to fear and sacrificed to
idols: and being subsequently deposed, on this and other charges,
in a Synod over which Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, presided, determined
to separate from the Church, and to constitute with his followers a
separate community. Epiphanius, on the other hand, relates that
both Peter and Meletius, being in confinement for the faith, differed
concerning the treatment to be used toward those who, after renouncing
their Christian profession, became penitent, and wished to be restored
to the communion of the Church. The Meletians afterwards
co-operated with the Arians in their hostility to
Athanasius.—See Art. Meletius, in Smith’s
Biograph. Dict.—Tr.
διοικήσεις.
ἐπαρχίαι.
παροικία.
[More simply, the Church’s system naturally kept to the
lines of the civil divisions. A diœcese was, in fact,
a patriarchate; a province was presided over by a
metropolitan; a parish was what we call a
diocese. Before Constantine’s time these
arrangements existed for convenience, but were not invested with
worldly consequence. Neale adopts this twofold spelling
(diœcese and diocese) in his Alexandra,
vol. i. p. xiv.
But however it be, whether Alexander was called
Λυκοπολίτης
from his birthplace, or from his episcopal See, this is certain
and acknowledged, that he of good right claims for himself a place
among ecclesiastical writers, for he has given us an elaborate treatise
against the Manichæan tenets; and he is therefore styled by
Allatius auctor eruditissimus et φιλοσοφικώτατος, and his work libellus aureus. Allatius wrote out and
brought to light two passages from it, while as yet it was lying hid in
the libraries. From the inscription of the work, we learn that
Alexander was first a pagan; and afterwards, having given up the
religion of the Greeks, became an adherent of the Manichæan
doctrines, which he says that he learnt from those who were on terms of
familiar intercourse with the heresiarch, ἀπὸ τῶν
γνωρίμων τοῦ
ἀνδρός;
Cf. Alex., De Manich. placit., cap. 2.
This treatise of Alexander was first published by Combefis, with
a Latin version, in the Auctarium novissimum, Bibl. S. S.
Patrum,
A
treatise on their tenets by Alexander of Lycopolis, who first turned
from paganism to the Manichæan opinions.
————————————
Chapter I.—The Excellence of the Christian Philosophy; The Origin of Heresies Amongst Christians.
The philosophy of the
Christians is termed simple. But it bestows very great attention
to the formation of manners, enigmatically insinuating words of more
certain truth respecting God; the principal of which, so far as any
earnest serious purpose in those matters is concerned, all will have
received when they assume an efficient cause, very noble and very
ancient, as the originator of all things that have existence. For
Christians leaving to ethical students matters more toilsome and
difficult, as, for instance, what is virtue, moral and intellectual;
and to those who employ their time in forming hypotheses respecting
morals, and the passions and affections, without marking out any
element by which each virtue is to be attained, and heaping up, as it
were, at random precepts less subtle—the common people, hearing
these, even as we learn by experience, make great progress in modesty,
and a character of piety is imprinted on their manners, quickening the
moral disposition which from such usages is formed, and leading them by
degrees to the desire of what is honourable and good.
[Note the practical character of Christian ethics, which
he so justly contrasts with the ethical philosophy of the
heathen. This has been finely pointed out by the truly
illustrious William Wilberforce in his Practical View, cap. ii.
(Latin note), p. 25, ed. London, 1815.]
But this being divided into many questions by the
number of those who come after, there arise many, just as is the case
with those who are devoted to dialectics,
ἐν τοῖς
ἐριστικοῖς.
The philosophers of the Megarean school, who were devoted to
dialectics, were nicknamed οἱ
᾽Εριστικοί. See Diog. Lærtius.
Chapter II.—The Age of Manichæus, or Manes; His First Disciples; The Two Principles; Manichæan Matter.
So in these matters also, whilst in novelty of
opinion each endeavours to show himself first and superior, they
brought this philosophy, which is simple, almost to a nullity.
Such was he whom they call Manichæus,
Manes, or Manichæus, lived about a.d. 240. He was a Persian by birth, and this
accounts for the Parseeism which can be detected in his teaching.
He was probably ordained a priest, but was afterwards expelled from the
Christian community, and put to death by the Persian government.
His tenets spread considerably, and were in early youth embraced by St.
Augustine. [See Confess., iii. 6.]
Plato, Timæus, 51.
In substance, but not in words, Aristotle, Met.,
Book Λ 4 (1070´ b).
Chapter III.—The Fancies of Manichæus Concerning Matter.
It came to pass on a time that matter conceived a
desire to attain to the superior region; and when it had arrived there,
it admired the brightness and the light which was with God. And,
indeed, it wished to seize on for itself the place of pre-eminence, and
to remove God from His position. God, moreover, deliberated how
to avenge Himself upon matter, but was destitute of the evil necessary
to do so, for evil does not exist in the house and abode of God.
He sent, therefore, the power which we call the soul into matter, to
permeate it entirely. For it will be the death of matter, when at
length hereafter this power is separated from it. So, therefore,
by the providence of God, the soul was commingled with matter, an
unlike thing with an unlike. Now by this commingling the soul has
contracted evil, and labours under the same infirmity as matter.
For, just as in a corrupted vessel, the contents are oftentimes
vitiated in quality, so, also the soul that is in matter suffers some
such change, and is deteriorated from its own nature so as to
participate in the evil of matter. But God had compassion upon
the soul, and sent forth another power, which we call
Demiurge,
δημιουργὸς.
Chapter IV.—The Moon’s Increase and Wane; The Manichæan Trifling Respecting It; Their Dreams About Man and Christ; Their Foolish System of Abstinence.
He ordained this, forsooth, to supply to the
Demiurge,
δημιουργὸς.
Chapter V.—The Worship of the Sun and Moon Under God; Support Sought for the Manichæans in the Grecian Fables; The Authority of the Scriptures and Faith Despised by the Manichæans.
These things are the principal of what they say and
think. And they honour very especially the sun and moon, not as
gods, but as the way by which it is possible to attain unto God.
But when the divine virtue has been entirely separated off, they say
that the exterior fire will fall, and burn up both itself and all else
that is left of matter. Those of them who are better educated,
and not unacquainted with Greek literature, instruct us from their own
resources. From the ceremonies and mysteries, for instance:
by Bacchus, who was cut out from the womb, is signified that the divine
virtue is divided into matter by the Titans, as they say; from the
poet’s fable of the battle with the Giants, is indicated that not
even they were ignorant of the rebellion of matter against God. I
indeed will not deny, that these things are not
Chapter VI.—The Two Principles of the Manichæans; Themselves Controverted; The Pythagorean Opinion Respecting First Principles; Good and Evil Contrary; The Victory on the Side of Good.
They lay down two principles, God and Matter. If he (Manes) separates that which comes into being from that which really exists, the supposition is not so faulty in this, that neither does matter create itself, nor does it admit two contrary qualities, in being both active and passive; nor, again, are other such theories proposed concerning the creative cause as it is not lawful to speak of. And yet God does not stand in need of matter in order to make things, since in His mind all things substantially exist, so far as the possibility of their coming into being is concerned. But if, as he seems rather to mean, the unordered motion of things really existent under Him is matter, first, then, he unconsciously sets up another creative cause (and yet an evil one), nor does he perceive what follows from this, namely, that if it is necessary that God and matter should be supposed, some other matter must be supposed to God; so that to each of the creative causes there should be the subject matter. Therefore, instead of two, he will be shown to give us four first principles. Wonderful, too, is the distinction. For if he thinks this to be God, which is good, and wishes to conceive of something opposite to Him, why does he not, as some of the Pythagoreans, set evil over against Him? It is more tolerable, indeed, that two principles should be spoken of by them, the good and the evil, and that these are continually striving, but the good prevails. For if the evil were to prevail, all things would perish. Wherefore matter, by itself, is neither body, nor is it exactly incorporeal, nor simply any particular thing; but it is something indefinite, which, by the addition of form, comes to be defined; as, for instance, fire is a pyramid, air an octahedron, water an eikosahedron, and earth a cube; how, then, is matter the unordered motion of the elements? By itself, indeed, it does not subsist, for if it is motion, it is in that which is moved; but matter does not seem to be of such a nature, but rather the first subject, and unorganized, from which other things proceed. Since, therefore, matter is unordered motion, was it always conjoined with that which is moved, or was it ever separate from it? For, if it were ever by itself, it would not be in existence; for there is no motion without something moved. But if it was always in that which is moved, then, again, there will be two principles—that which moves, and that which is moved. To which of these two, then, will it be granted that it subsists as a primary cause along with God?
Chapter VII.—Motion Vindicated from the Charge of Irregularity; Circular; Straight; Of Generation and Corruption; Of Alteration, and Quality Affecting Sense.
There is added to the discourse an appendix quite
foreign to it.
τὸ
ἄτακτον.
Chapter VIII.—Is Matter Wicked? Of God and Matter.
Is matter, in respect of alteration, an evil cause? It is thus proved that it is not more evil than good. For let the beginning of the change be from evil. Thus the change is from this to good through that which is indifferent. But let the alteration be from good. Again the beginning goes on through that which is indifferent. Whether the motion be to one extreme or to the other, the method is the same, and this is abundantly set forth. All motion has to do with quantity; but quality is the guide in virtue and vice. Now we know that these two are generically distinguished. But are God and matter alone principles, or does there remain anything else which is the mean between these two? For if there is nothing, these things remain unintermingled one with another. And it is well said that if the extremes are intermingled, there is a necessity for some thing intermediate to connect them. But if something else exists, it is necessary that that something be either body or incorporeal, and thus a third adventitious principle makes its appearance. First, therefore, if we suppose God and matter to be both entirely incorporeal, so that neither is in the other, except as the science of grammar is in the soul; to understand this of God and matter is absurd. But if, as in a vacuum, as some say, the vacuum is surrounded by this universe; the other, again, is without substance, for the substance of a vacuum is nothing. But if as accidents, first, indeed, this is impossible; for the thing that wants substance cannot be in any place; for substance is, as it were, the vehicle underlying the accident. But if both are bodies, it is necessary for both to be either heavy or light, or middle; or one heavy, and another light, or intermediate. If, then, both are heavy, it is plainly necessary that these should be the same, both among light things and those things which are of the middle sort; or if they alternate, the one will be altogether separate from the other. For that which is heavy has one place, and that which is middle another, and the light another. To one belongs the superior, to the other the inferior, and to the third the middle. Now in every spherical figure the inferior part is the middle; for from this to all the higher parts, even to the topmost superficies, the distance is every way equal, and, again, all heavy bodies are borne from all sides to it. Wherefore, also, it occurs to me to laugh when I hear that matter moving without order,—for this belongs to it by nature,—came to the region of God, or to light and brightness, and such-like. But if one be body, and the other incorporeal, first, indeed, that which is body is alone capable of motion. And then if they are not intermingled, each is separate from the other according to its proper nature. But if one be mixed up with the other, they will be either mind or soul or accident. For so only it happens that things incorporeal are mixed up with bodies.
Chapter IX.—The Ridiculous Fancies of the Manichæans About the Motion of Matter Towards God; God the Author of the Rebellion of Matter in the Manichæan Sense; The Longing of Matter for Light and Brightness Good; Divine Good None the Less for Being Communicated.
But in what manner, and from what cause, was matter
brought to the region of God? for to it by nature belong the lower
place and darkness, as they say; and the upper region and light are
contrary to its nature. Wherefore there is then attributed to it
a supernatural motion; and something of the same sort happens to it, as
if a man were to throw a stone or a lump of earth up
Chapter X.—The Mythology Respecting the Gods; The Dogmas of the Manichæans Resemble This: the Homeric Allegory of the Battle of the Gods; Envy and Emulation Existing In God According to the Manichæan Opinion; These Vices are to Be Found in No Good Man, and are to Be Accounted Disgraceful.
Moreover, they far surpass the mythologists in
fables, those, namely, who either make Coelus suffer mutilation, or
idly tell of the plots laid for Saturn by his son, in order that that
son might attain the sovereignty; or those again who make Saturn devour
his sons and to have been cheated of his purpose by the image of a
stone that was presented to him. For how are these things which
they put forward dissimilar to those? When they speak openly of
the war between God and matter, and say not these things either in a
mythological sense, as Homer in the Iliad;
Hom., Il., xx. 23–54.
Chapter XI.—The Transmitted Virtue of the Manichæans; The Virtues of Matter Mixed with Equal or Less Amount of Evil.
To other things, therefore, our discourse has come round
about again. For, because they say that God sent virtue into
matter, it is worth our while to consider whether this virtue, so far
as it pertains to good, in respect of God is less, or whether it is on
equal terms with Him. For if it is less, what is the cause?
For the things which are with God admit of no fellowship with
matter. But good alone is the characteristic of God, and evil
alone of matter. But if it is on equal terms with Him, what is
the reason that He, as a king, issues His commands, and it
involuntarily undertakes this labour? Moreover, with regard to
matter, it shall be inquired whether, with respect to evil, the virtues
are alike or less. For if they are less, they are altogether of
less evil. By fellowship therefore with the good it is that they
become so. For there being two evils, the less has plainly by its
fellowship with the good attained to be what it is. But they
leave nothing good around matter. Again, therefore, another
question arises. For if some other virtue, in respect of evil,
excels the matter
Chapter XII.—The Destruction of Evil by the Immission of Virtue Rejected; Because from It Arises No Diminution of Evil; Zeno’s Opinion Discarded, that the World Will Be Burnt Up by Fire from the Sun.
But that God sent virtue into matter is asserted without any proof, and it altogether wants probability. Yet it is right that this should have its own explanation. The reason of this they assert, indeed, to be that there might be no more evil, but that all things should become good. It was necessary for virtue to be intermingled with evil, after the manner of the athletes, who, clasped in a firm embrace, overcome their adversaries, in order that, by conquering evil, it might make it to cease to exist. But I think it far more dignified and worthy of the excellence of God, at the first conception of things existent, to have abolished matter. But I think they could not allow this, because that something evil is found existing, which they call matter. But it is not any the more possible that things should cease to be such as they are, in order that one should admit that some things are changed into that which is worse. And it is necessary that there should be some perception of this, because these present things have in some manner or other suffered diminution, in order that we might have better hopes for the future. For well has it been answered to the opinion of Zeno of Citium, who thus argued that the world would be destroyed by fire: “Everything which has anything to burn will not cease from burning until it has consumed the whole; and the sun is a fire, and will it not burn what it has?” Whence he made out, as he imagined, that the universe would be destroyed by fire. But to him a facetious fellow is reported to have said, “But I indeed yesterday, and the year before, and a long time ago, have seen, and now in like manner do I see, that no injury has been experienced by the sun; and it is reasonable that this should happen in time and by degrees, so that we may believe that at some time or other the whole will be burnt up.” And to the doctrine of Manichæus, although it rests upon no proof, I think that the same answer is apposite, namely, that there has been no diminution in the present condition of things, but what was before in the time of the first man, when brother killed brother, even now continues to be; the same wars, and more diverse desires. Now it would be reasonable that these things, if they did not altogether cease, should at least be diminished, if we are to imagine that they are at some time to cease. But while the same things come from them, what is our expectation of them for the future?
Chapter XIII.—Evil by No Means Found in the Stars and Constellations; All the Evils of Life Vain in the Manichæan Opinion, Which Bring on the Extinction of Life; Their Fancy Having Been Above Explained Concerning the Transportation of Souls from the Moon to the Sun.
But what things does he call evil? As for the sun and moon, indeed, there is nothing lacking; but with respect to the heavens and the stars, whether he says that there is some such thing, and what it is, it is right that we should next in order examine. But irregularity is according to them evil, and unordered motion, but these things are always the same, and in the same manner; nor will any one have to blame any of the planets for venturing to delay at any time in the zodiac beyond the fixed period; nor again any of the fixed stars, as if it did not abide in the same seat and position, and did not by circumvolution revolve equally around the world, moving as it were one step backward in a hundred years. But on the earth, if he accuses the roughness of some spots, or if pilots are offended at the storms on the sea; first, indeed, as they think, these things have a share of good in them. For should nothing germinate upon earth, all the animals must presently perish. But this result will send on much of the virtue which is intermingled with matter to God, and there will be a necessity for many moons, to accommodate the great multitude that suddenly approaches. And the same language they hold with respect to the sea. For it is a piece of unlooked-for luck to perish, in order that those things which perish may pursue the road which leads most quickly to God. And the wars which are upon the earth, and the famines, and everything which tends to the destruction of life, are held in very great honour by them. For everything which is the cause of good is to be had in honour. But these things are the cause of good, because of the destruction which accompanies them, if they transmit to God the virtue which is separated from those who perish.
Chapter XIV.—Noxious Animals Worshipped by the Egyptians; Man by Arts an Evil-Doer; Lust and Injustice Corrected by Laws and Discipline; Contingent and Necessary Things in Which There is No Stain.
And, as it seems, we have been ignorant that the
Egyptians rightly worship the crocodile and the lion and the wolf,
because these animals being stronger than the others devour their prey,
and entirely destroy it; the eagle also and the
Chapter XV.—The Lust and Desire of Sentient Things; Demons; Animals Sentient; So Also the Sun and the Moon and Stars; The Platonic Doctrine, Not the Christian.
Whence, then, come pleasure and desire? For these are the principal evils that they talk of and hate. Nor does matter appear to be anything else. That these things, indeed, only belong to animals which are endowed with sense, and that nothing else but that which has sense perceives desire and pleasure, is manifest. For what perception of pleasure and pain is there in a plant? What in the earth, water, or air? And the demons, if indeed they are living beings endowed with sense, for this reason, perhaps, are delighted with what has been instituted in regard to sacrifices, and take it ill when these are wanting to them; but nothing of this sort can be imagined with respect to God. Therefore those who say, “Why are animals affected by pleasure and pain?” should first make the complaint, “Why are these animals endowed with sense, or why do they stand in need of food?” For if animals were immortal, they would have been set free from corruption and increase; such as the sun and moon and stars, although they are endowed with sense. They are, however, beyond the power of these, and of such a complaint. But man, being able to perceive and to judge, and being potentially wise,—for he has the power to become so,—when he has received what is peculiar to himself, treads it under foot.
Chapter XVI.—Because Some are Wise, Nothing Prevents Others from Being So; Virtue is to Be Acquired by Diligence and Study; By a Sounder Philosophy Men are to Be Carried Onwards to the Good; The Common Study of Virtue Has by Christ Been Opened Up to All.
In general, it is worth while to inquire of these men, “Is it possible for no man to become good, or is it in the power of any one?” For if no man is wise, what of Manichæus himself? I pass over the fact that he not only calls others good, but he also says that they are able to make others such. But if one individual is entirely good, what prevents all from becoming good? For what is possible for one is possible also for all. And by the means by which one has become virtuous, by the same all may become so, unless they assert that the larger share of this virtue is intercepted by such. Again, therefore, first, What necessity is there for labour in submitting to discipline (for even whilst sleeping we may become virtuous), or what cause is there for these men rousing their hearers to hopes of good? For even though wallowing in the mire with harlots, they can obtain their proper good. But if discipline, and better instruction and diligence in acquiring virtue, make a man to become virtuous, let all become so, and that oft-repeated phrase of theirs, the unordered motion of matter, is made void. But it would be much better for them to say that wisdom is an instrument given by God to man, in order that by bringing round by degrees to good that which arises to them, from the fact of their being endowed with sense, out of desire or pleasure, it might remove from them the absurdities that flow from them. For thus they themselves who profess to be teachers of virtue would be objects of emulation for their purpose, and for their mode of life, and there would be great hopes that one day evils will cease, when all men have become wise. And this it seems to me that Jesus took into consideration; and in order that husbandmen, carpenters, builders, and other artisans, might not be driven away from good, He convened a common council of them altogether, and by simple and easy conversations He both raised them to a sense of God, and brought them to desire what was good.
Moreover, how do they say, did God send divine virtue into matter? For if it always was, and neither is God to be understood as existing prior to it, nor matter either, then again, according to Manichæus, there are three first principles. Perhaps also, a little further on, there will appear to be many more. But if it be adventitious, and something which has come into existence afterwards, how is it void of matter? And if they make it to be a part of God, first, indeed, by this conception, they assert that God is composite and corporeal. But this is absurd, and impossible. And if He fashioned it, and is without matter, I wonder that they have not considered, neither the man himself, nor his disciples, that if (as the orthodox say, the things that come next in order subsist while God remains) God created this virtue of His own free-will, how is it that He is not the author of all other things that are made without the necessity of any pre-existent matter? The consequences, in truth, of this opinion are evidently absurd; but what does follow is put down next in order. Was it, then, the nature of this virtue to diffuse itself into matter? If it was contrary to its nature, in what manner is it intermingled with it? But if this was in accordance with its nature, it was altogether surely and always with matter. But if this be so, how is it that they call matter evil, which, from the beginning, was intermingled with the divine virtue? In what manner, too, will it be destroyed, the divine virtue which was mingled with it at some time or other seceding to itself? For that it preserves safely what is good, and likely to be productive of some other good to those to whom it is present, is more reasonable than that it should bring destruction or some other evil upon them.
Chapter XVIII.—Dissolution and Inherence According to the Manichæans; This is Well Put, Ad Hominem, with Respect to Manes, Who is Himself in Matter.
This then is the wise assertion which is made by them—namely, that as we see that the body perishes when the soul is separated from it, so also, when virtue has left matter, that which is left, which is matter, will be dissolved and perish. First, indeed, they do not perceive that nothing existent can be destroyed into a nonexistent. For that which is non-existent does not exist. But when bodies are disintegrated, and experience a change, a dissolution of them takes place; so that a part of them goes to earth, a part to air, and a part to something else. Besides, they do not remember that their doctrine is, that matter is unordered motion. But that which moves of itself, and of which motion is the essence, and not a thing accidentally belonging to it—how is it reasonable to say that when virtue departs, that which was, even before virtue descended into it, should cease to be? Nor do they see the difference, that every body which is devoid of soul is immoveable. For plants also have a vegetable soul. But motion itself, and yet unordered motion they assert to be the essence of matter. But it were better, that just as in a lyre which sounds out of tune, by the addition of harmony, everything is brought into concord; so the divine virtue when intermixed with that unordered motion, which, according to them, is matter, should add a certain order to it in the place of its innate disorder, and should always add it suitably to the divine time. For I ask, how was it that Manichæus himself became fitted to treat of these matters, and when at length did he enunciate them? For they allow that he himself was an admixture of matter, and of the virtue received into it. Whether therefore being so, he said these things in unordered motion, surely the opinion is faulty; or whether he said them by means of the divine virtue, the dogma is dubious and uncertain; for on the one side, that of the divine virtue, he participates in the truth; whilst on the side of unordered motion, he is a partaker in the other part, and changes to falsehood.
Chapter XIX.—The Second Virtue of the Manichæans Beset with the Former, and with New Absurdities; Virtue, Active and Passive, the Fashioner of Matter, and Concrete with It; Bodies Divided by Manichæus into Three Parts.
But if it had been said that divine virtue both hath
adorned and does adorn matter, it would have been far more wisely said,
and in a manner more conducing to conciliate faith in the doctrine and
discourses of Manichæus. But God hath sent down another
virtue. What has been already said with respect to the former
virtue, may be equally said with respect to this, and all the
absurdities which follow on the teaching about their first virtue, the
same may be brought forward in the present case. But another, who
will tolerate? For why did not God send some one virtue which
could effect everything? If the human mind is so various towards
all things, so that the same man is endowed with a knowledge of
geometry, of astronomy, of the carpenter’s art, and the like, is
it then impossible for God to find one such virtue which should be
sufficient for him in all respects, so as not to stand in need of a
first and second? And why
Chapter XX.—The Divine Virtue in the View of the Same Manichæus Corporeal and Divisible; The Divine Virtue Itself Matter Which Becomes Everything; This is Not Fitting.
I, indeed, besides all these things, wonder that they do not perceive that they are making the divine virtue to be corporeal, and dividing it, as it were, into parts. For why, as in the case of matter, is not the divine virtue also passible and divisible throughout, and from one of its parts the sun made, and from another the moon? For clearly this is what they assert to belong to the divine virtue; and this is what we said was the property of matter, which by itself is nothing, but when it has received form and qualities, everything is made which is divided and distinct. If, therefore, as from one subject, the divine virtue, only the sun and the moon have their beginning, and these things are different, why was anything else made? But if all things are made, what follows is manifest, that divine virtue is matter, and that, too, such as is made into forms. But if nothing else but the sun and moon are what was created by the divine virtue, then what is intermixed with all things is the sun and moon; and each of the stars is the sun and moon, and each individual animal of. those who live on land, and of fowls, and of creatures amphibious. But this, not even those who exhibit juggling tricks would admit, as, I think, is evident to every one.
Chapter XXI.—Some Portions of the Virtue Have Good in Them, Others More Good; In the Sun and the Moon It is Incorrupt, in Other Things Depraved; An Improbable Opinion.
But if any one were to apply his mind to what
follows, the road would not appear to be plain and straightforward, but
more arduous even than that which has been passed. For they say
that the sun and moon have contracted no stain from their admixture
with matter. And now they cannot say how other things have become
deteriorated contrary to their own proper nature. For if, when it
was absolute and by itself, the divine virtue was so constituted that
one portion of it was good, and another had a greater amount of
goodness in it, according to the old tale of the centaurs, who as far
as the breast were men, and in the lower part horses, which are both
good animals, but the man is the better of the two; so also, in the
divine virtue, it is to be understood that the one portion of it is the
better and the more excellent, and the other will occupy the second and
inferior place. And in the same way, with respect to matter, the
one portion possesses, as it were, an excess of evil; while others
again are different, and about that other the language will be
different.
This passage and the following sentences are corrupt.
Possibly something is wanting.—Tr.
Chapter XXII.—The Light of the Moon from the Sun; The Inconvenience of the Opinion that Souls are Received in It; The Two Deluges of the Greeks.
Now, they say that the sun and the moon having by
degrees separated the divine virtue from matter, transmit it to
God. But if they had only to a slight degree frequented the
schools of the astronomers, it would not have happened to them to fall
into these fancies, nor would they
Chapter XXIII.—The Image of Matter in the Sun, After Which Man is Formed; Trifling Fancies; It is a Mere Fancy, Too, that Man Is Formed from Matter; Man is Either a Composite Being, or a Soul, or Mind and Understanding.
Neither is this to be regarded with slight attention. For if the divine virtue which is in matter be infinite, those things cannot diminish it which the sun and moon fashion. For that which remains from that finite thing which has been assumed is infinite. But if it is finite, it would be perceived by the senses in intervals proportionate to the amount of its virtue that had been subtracted from the world. But all things remain as they were. Now what understanding do these things not transcend in their incredibleness, when they assert that man was created and formed after the image of matter that is seen in the sun? For images are the forms of their archetypes. But if they include man’s image in the sun, where is the exemplar after which his image is formed? For, indeed, they are not going to say that man is really man, or divine virtue; for this, indeed, they mix up with matter, and they say that the image is seen in the sun, which, as they think, was formed afterwards from the secretion of matter. Neither can they bring forward the creative cause of all things, for this they say was sent to preserve safety to the divine virtue; so that, in their opinion, this must be altogether ascribed to the sun; for this reason, doubtless, that it happens by his arrival and presence that the sun and moon are separated from matter.
Moreover, they assert that the image is seen in the
star; but they say that matter fashioned man. In what manner, and
by what means? For it is not possible that this should fashion
him. For besides that, thus according to them, man is the empty
form of an empty form, and having no real existence, it has not as yet
been possible to conceive how man can be the product of matter.
For the use of reason and sense belongs not to that matter which they
assume. Now what, according to them, is man? Is he a
mixture of soul and body? Or another thing, or that which is
superior to the entire soul, the mind? But if he is mind, how can
the more perfect and the better part be the product of that which is
worse; or if he be soul (for this they say is divine virtue), how can
they, when they have taken away from God the divine virtue, subject
this to the creating workmanship of matter? But if they leave to
him body alone, let them remember again that it is by itself immovable,
and that they say that the essence of matter is motion. Neither
do they think that anything of itself, and its own genius, is attracted
to matter. Nor is it reasonable to lay it down, that what is
composed of these things is the product of this. To think,
indeed, that that which is fashioned by any one is inferior to its
fashioner
Chapter XXIV.—Christ is Mind, According to the Manichæans; What is He in the View of the Church? Incongruity in Their Idea of Christ; That He Suffered Only in Appearance, a Dream of the Manichæans; Nothing is Attributed to the Word by Way of Fiction.
Christ, too, they do not acknowledge; yet they speak of Christ, but they take some other element, and giving to the Word, designating His sacred person, some other signification than that in which it is rightly received, they say that He is mind. But if, when they speak of Him as that which is known, and that which knows, and wisdom as having the same meaning, they are found to agree with those things which the Church doctors say of Him, how comes it then that they reject all that is called ancient history? But let us see whether they make Him to be something adventitious and new, and which has come on from without, and by accident, as the opinion of some is. For they who hold this opinion say, as seems very plausible, that the seventh year, when the powers of perception became distinct, He made His entrance into the body. But if Christ be mind, as they imagine, then will He be both Christ and not Christ. For before that mind and sense entered, He was not. But if Christ, as they will have it, be mind, then into Him already existing does the mind make its entrance, and thus, again, according to their opinion, will it be mind. Christ, therefore, is and is not at the same time. But if, according to the more approved sect of them, mind is all things which are, since they assume matter to be not produced, and coeval so to speak with God, this first mind and matter they hold to be Christ; if, indeed, Christ be the mind, which is all things, and matter is one of those things which are, and is itself not produced.
They say it was by way of appearance, and in this
manner, that the divine virtue in matter was affixed to the cross; and
that He Himself did not undergo this punishment, since it was
impossible that He should suffer this; which assertion Manichæus
himself has taken in hand to teach in a book written upon the subject,
that the divine virtue was enclosed in matter, and again departs from
it. The mode of this they invent. That it should be said,
indeed, in the doctrine of the Church, that He gave Himself up for the
remission of sins, obtains credit from the vulgar, and appears likewise
in the Greek histories, which say that some “surrendered
themselves to death in order to ensure safety to their
countrymen.” And of this doctrine the Jewish history has an
example, which prepares the son of Abraham as a sacrifice to
God.
Chapter XXV.—The Manichæan Abstinence from Living Things Ridiculous; Their Madness in Abhorring Marriage; The Mythology of the Giants; Too Allegorical an Exposition.
They abstain also from living things. If, indeed,
the reason of their abstinence were other than it is, it ought not to
be too curiously investigated. But if they do so for this reason,
that the divine virtue is more or less absent or present to them, this
their meaning is ridiculous. For if plants be more material, how
is it in accordance with reason to use that which is inferior for food
and sustenance? or, if there be more of the divine virtue in them, how
are things of this sort useful as food, when the soul’s faculty
of nourishing and making increase is more corporeal? Now in that
they abstain from marriage and the rites of Venus, fearing lest by the
succession of the race the divine virtue should dwell more in matter, I
wonder how in thinking so they allow of themselves? For if
neither the providence of God suffices, both by generations and by
those things which are always and in the same manner existent, to
separate off the divine virtue from matter, what can the cunning and
subtlety of Manichæus effect for that purpose?
Chapter XXVI.—The Much-Talked-of Fire of the Manichæans; That Fire Matter Itself.
That fire, endowed indeed with the power of burning, yet possessing no light, which is outside the world, in what region has it place? For if it is in the world, why does the world hitherto continue safe? For if at some time or other it is to destroy it, by approaching it, now also it is conjoined with it. But if it be apart from it, as it were on high in its own region, what will hereafter happen to make it descend upon the world? Or in what way will it leave its own place, and by what necessity and violence? And what substance of fire can be conceived without fuel, and how can what is moist serve as fuel to it, unless what is rather physiologically said about this does not fall within the province of our present disquisition? But this is quite manifest from what has been said. For the fire existing outside the world is just that which they call matter, since the sun and the moon, being the purest of the pure, by their divine virtue, are separate and distinct from that fire, no part of them being left in it. This fire is matter itself, absolutely and per se, entirely removed from all admixture with the divine virtue. Wherefore when the world has been emptied of all the divine virtue which is opposed to it, and again a fire of this sort shall be left remaining, how then shall the fire either destroy anything, or be consumed by it? For, from that which is like, I do not see in what way corruption is to take place. For what matter will become when the divine virtue has been separated from it, this it was before that the divine virtue was commingled with it. If indeed matter is to perish when it is bereft of the divine virtue, why did it not perish before it came in contact with the divine virtue, or any creative energy? Was it in order that matter might successively perish, and do this ad infinitum? And what is the use of this? For that which had not place from the first volition, how shall this have place from one following? or what reason is there for God to put off things which, not even in the case of a man, appears to be well? For as regards those who deliberate about what is impossible, this is said to happen to them, that they do not wish for that which is possible. But if nothing else, they speak of God transcending substance, and bring Him forward as some new material, and that not such as intelligent men always think to be joined with Him, but that which investigation discovers either to be not existing at all, or to be the extreme of all things, and which can with difficulty be conceived of by the human mind. For this fire, devoid of light, is it of more force than matter, which is to be left desolate by divine virtue, or is it of less? And if it is of less, how will it overcome that which is of more? but if it is of more, it will be able to bring it back to itself, being of the same nature; yet will it not destroy it, as neither does the Nile swallow up the streams that are divided off from it.
Elucidation.
————————————
If anything could be more
dreary than the Manichæan heresy itself, it may be questioned
whether it be not the various views that have been entertained
concerning our author. I have often remarked the condensation of
valuable information given by Dr. Murdock in his notes upon Mosheim,
but he fails to get in the half that needs to be noted.
Mosheim, E. H., vol. i. p 383, note 5, Murdock’s
edition, New York, 1844. His references to Lardner in this case
do not accord with my copy.
Histoire des Manichéens (Lardner’s reference), pp.
236–237.
Credib., vol. vii. p. 574, ed. London, 1829.
According to this invaluable critic, the learned
are not able to agree concerning Alexander. Some think he
was a Christian, others believe that he was a heathen. Fabricius,
who places him in the fourth century, holds to this latter
opinion;
Lardner’s reference is: Bib. G., lib. v. c. 1,
tom. 5, p. 290. Long
extract from Cave ubi supra. He quotes the Latin of
Cave’s Diss. on Writers of Uncertain Date.
Lardner’s reference is to Photius, Contra Manich.,
i. cap. 11.
Lardner quotes from the Hist. des Manich., art. 16.,
Mémoires, etc., tom. iv.
Reference defective. See Lardner, Credib., vol. iii.
269. Here will be found (p. 252) a learned examination of
Archelaus, and what amounts to a treatise on these
Manichæans. For
Beausobre’s summary of Alexander’s deficiencies, see
condensed statement in Lardner, vol. iii. p. 575.
Nothing in his work, according to Lardner, proves that our author wrote near the beginning of the fourth century, and he decides upon the middle of that century as his epoch.
Alexander gives a very honourable character to the
genuine Christian philosophy, and asserts its adaptation to the common
people, and, indeed, to all sorts of men. Cap.
i. p. 241, supra. A beautiful exordium. A
recent writer, speaking of Potamiæna and Herais, virgin martyrs,
and catechumens of Origen, remarks, that “the number of young
women of high character who appreciated the teachings of this great
master, many of whom were employed as copyists of his works, is
creditable to the state of Christian society at that period”
(Mahan, Church Hist., p. 237). It was to avoid scandal as
well as temptation in his relations with these that he fell into his
heroic mistake. Cap.
xxiv. p. 251, supra. Who can imagine that the author of
this chapter is not a Christian? Observe what he says of
“the Word.”
Cap. xvi. p. 247. Cap.
xxiv. p. 251. Cap.
xxiv. p. 251.
He argues against their absurd opinion that Christ
was “Mind;” Cap.
xxiv. p. 251. Cap.
xxiv. p. 251.
Cap. xxiv. p. 251. Cap.
xxiv. p. 251. Note
the reference to the Old and New Testaments entire, p. 243,
supra. Cap.
xxv. p. 252, supra.
My reader will be somewhat amused with the terse summing-up of Lardner: “I am rather inclined to think he was a Gentile.…He was evidently a learned and rational man. His observations concerning the Christian philosophy deserve particular notice. To me this work of Alexander appears very curious.”
Peter.
[Translated by the Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria.
————————————
[a.d. 260
This first date is conjectural.
In Peter’s day Antioch was coming to be a school under the influence of Malchion’s genius and that of the bishops who withstood Paulus of Samosata. Malchion had taught there in the “School of Sciences,” and learning was once more to be made the handmaid of true religion. But Alexandria was still the seat of Christian illumination and the fountain of orthodoxy; its very ferment always clarifying its thought, and leaving “wine well refined,” and pure from the lees.
To this subject I shall have occasion to refer again in an elucidation subjoined to the works of Alexander (successor to Peter), in which, for a final view of the great Alexandrian school, I shall gather up some fragments in brief outline. Here it may be enough to remark, that, until the definite development of the school of Antioch (circa a.d. 350), I have regarded the whole Orient as dominated and formed by the brain of the grand metropolis of Egypt and the Pentapolis. I have considered the great Dionysius as really presiding in the Synod of Antioch, though absent in the body, and have regarded Malchion as his voice in that council, which we must not forget was presided over by Firmilian, a pupil of Origen, and a true Alexandrian disciple.
Peter’s conflict with Meletius shall be noted in an elucidation. We shall see that the heresy of Paulus as well as the Meletian schism are but chapters in one prolonged history, of which the outcrop was Arianism. Now, as to Alexandria we owe the intrepid defenders of truth in all these conflicts, we must not forget that they are to be judged by the product of their united testimony, and not by their occasional individualisms and infirmities of mind and speech while they were creating the theological dialect of Christendom and the formulas of orthodoxy.
Peter was able to maintain his canonical authority
against the mischievous rebellion of Meletius; and the history of this
schism is forcibly illustrative of those ἀρχαῖα ἔθη which
the Nicene Synod recognized, confirming the primacy of Alexandria, and
striving to suppress Meletianism by
Translator’s Introductory
Notice.
[After Gallandi, by the translator, the Rev. James B. H. Hawkins,
M.A.]
Eusebius alone, of the
more ancient writers, speaks in terms of the highest praise of Peter,
Bishop of Alexandria. He was, says he, a divine bishop, both for
the sanctity of his life, and also for his diligent study and knowledge
of the Holy Scriptures;
θεῖον
ἐπισκόπων
χρῆμα, βίου τε
καὶ ἀρετῆς
ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς
τῶν ἱερῶν
λόγων
συνασκήσεως. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., lib.
ix. cap. 6; lib. viii. cap. 13; lib. vii. cap. 32, towards the
end.
πρὸ τοῦ
διωγμοῦ
τρίσιν οὐδ᾽
ὅλοις
ἡγησάμενος
τῆς
Εκκλησίας.
Dodwell, Dissert. Sing. ad. Pears., cap. 6, sec. 21, p.
74.
Lequien, Oriens Christ, tom. ii. p. 397.
Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alex., p. 60.
St. Peter wrote in the fourth year of the
persecution, a.d. 306, some Canons Penitential
with reference to those who had lapsed. They are to be met with
in every collection of Canons. In the Pandecta
Canonum of Bishop Beveridge,
Συνοδικὸν.
Vol. ii. p. 8, fol., Oxon., 1672.
Tillemont, Mem., tom. v. p. 450.
Renaudot, l. c., p. 61, seqq.
The fragments of the other writings of this holy martyr,
which have been preserved by the Greeks, are here appended to the
Penitential Canons. For instance: (1) An extract from his
book De Deitate, which is extant in the Acta Conciliorum
Ephesini et Chalcedonensis; (2) Another fragment from the homily
De Adventu Salvatoris, cited by Leontius Byzantinus in his
first book against Nestorius and Eutyches; (3) An epistle of the same
prelate to the Alexandrine Church recently published, together with
some other old ecclesiastical monuments by Scipio Maffei.
Maffei, Osservazione Letterarie, tom. iii. p. 17.
Athanasius, Apol. contra Arian, sec. 39, tom. i. p.
177.
Maffei, l. c., p. 24.
Baronius, Ad Annum, 306, sec. 44. [Elucidation I.]
The
Genuine Acts of Peter.
As interpreted by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Apud Maium,
Spicilegii, tom. iii. p. 671. That Anastasius
Bibliothecarius translated from the Greek the Passion of St.
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, is affirmed by Anastasius himself in his
prologue, Ad Passionem Martyrum, MCCCCLXXX.,
published by Mabillon in the Museum Italicum, tom. i. part ii,
p. 80: “Post translatam a me ad petitionem
sanctitatis tunæ (he is addressing Peter, Bishop of Gavinum),
passionem præcipui doctoris et martyris, Petri
Alexandrinæ urbis episcopi.” And then an anonymous
biographer of
————————————
Were all the limbs of my
body to be turned into tongues, and all the joints of my limbs to utter
articulate sounds, it would noways be sufficient to express who, how
great and how good, was our most blessed Father Peter, Archbishop of
Alexandria. Especially incongruous do I consider it to commit to
paper what perils he underwent by tyrants, what conflicts he endured
with Gentiles and heretics, lest I should seem to make these the
subjects of my panegyric rather than that passion to which he manfully
submitted to make safe the people of God. Nevertheless, because
the office of the narrator must fail in narrating his inmost
conversation and wonderful deeds, and language is noways sufficient for
the task, I have considered it convenient to describe only those
exploits of his by which he is known to have attained to the
pontificate,
[Significant to find this term applied from Western thought to this
great bishopric by such a translator as Anastasius.]
[See p. 257, supra, and p. 263, infra, note 2. Not
his final rejection after the Nicene Council.]
Alexandria is a city of exceeding magnitude, which
holds the first place not only among the Egyptians, but the Thebans
also and the Libyans, who are at no great distance from Egypt. [He
is here speaking of its civil importance only.]
But because virtue is the mark of the zealot,
“it is the tops of the mountains that are struck by
lightning,”
Hor., Od., ii. 10, 11.
[Anastasius, more Romano, uses the Middle-Age terminology
as if it had existed in the Ante-Nicene period. So all the
successors of the apostles at Rome, including St. Peter himself, are
transformed into “Popes.” We owe this abuse to the
“False Decretals,” of which we treat hereafter. But
why is exploded fiction and demonstrated untruth perpetuated by
enlightened historians? See vol. v. p. 155.]
Nearly about the same time Arius, armed with a
viper’s craft, as if deserting the party of Meletius, fled for
refuge to Peter, who at the request of the bishops raised him to the
honours of the diaconate, being ignorant of his exceeding
hypocrisy. For he was even as a snake suffused with deadly
poison. Yet neither can the imposition of hands upon this false
one be imputed as a crime to this holy man, as the simulated magic arts
of Simon is not ascribed to Philip. Meanwhile, the detestable
wickedness of the Meletians increased beyond measure; and the blessed
Peter, fearing lest the plague of heresy should spread over the whole
flock committed to his care, and knowing that there is no fellowship
with light and darkness, and no concord betwixt Christ and Belial, by
letter separated the Meletians from the communion of the Church.
And because an evil disposition cannot long be concealed, upon that
instant the wicked Arius, when he saw his aiders and abettors cast down
from the dignity of the Church, gave way to sadness and
lamentation. This did not escape the notice of this holy
man. For when his hypocrisy was laid bare, immediately using the
evangelical sword, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out
and cast it from thee,”
This done, the storm of persecution suddenly abating, peace, although for a short time, smiled. Then this most choice priest of the Lord shone manifestly before the people, and the faithful began to run in crowds to keep the memory of the martyrs, and to assemble in congregations to the praise of Christ. Whom this priest of the divine law quickened with his holy eloquence, and so roused and strengthened that the multitude of believers increased continually in the Church. But the old enemy of salvation of man did not long remain quiet and look on these things with favouring eyes. For on a sudden the storm-cloud of paganism gave forth its hostile thunder, and like a winter shower struck against the serenity of the Church, and chased it away in flight. But that this may be understood more clearly, we must necessarily turn back to the atrocities of Diocletian, that impious one, and rebel against God, and also to Maximian Galerius, who at that time, with his son Maximin, harassed the regions of the East with his tyrannical sway.
For in the time of this man the fire of Christian persecution so raged, that not only in one region of the universe, but even throughout the whole world, both by land and by sea, the storm of impiety gave forth its thunder. The imperial edicts and most cruel decrees running hither and thither, the worshippers of Christ were put to death now openly, and now by clandestine snares; no day, no night, passed off free from the effusion of Christian blood. Nor was the type of slaughter of one kind alone; some were slain with diverse and most bitter tortures; some again, that they might want the humanity of kinsmen, and burial in their own country, were transported to other climes, and by certain new machinations of punishment, and as yet to the age unknown, were driven to the goal of martyrdom. Oh, the horrible wickedness! So great was their impiety that they even upturned from their foundations the sanctuaries of divine worship, and burned the sacred books in the fire. Diocletian of execrable memory having died, Constantinus Major was elected to administer the kingdom, and in the western parts began to hold the reins of government.
In these days information was brought to Maximin
about the aforesaid archbishop,
[Post-Nicene terminology, condemned even by the Gallicans, as, e.g.,
Dupin. Alexandria, founded by St. Mark, was virtually an
Apostolic See, though commonly called the Evangelic See.]
Thus watched the faithful at Milan around Ambrose, their bishop,
against whom the wrath of the Arian Empress Justina was directed,
according to the testimony of Augustine, who was an eye-witness.
Cf. Confess., lib. ix. cap. 7.
Arius, in the meanwhile, having as yet been
endowed only with the dignity of a Levite, [i.e.,
deacon;
Upon hearing this the man of God, moved with
indignation, put them aside, and, raising his hands to heaven,
exclaimed: “Do ye dare to supplicate me on behalf of
Arius? Arius, both here and in the future world, will always
remain banished and separate from the glory of the Son of God, Jesus
Christ our Lord.” The
Acta Combefisiana add, “quemadmodem ille Dei Filium a
paterna gloria et substantia sequestravit,” even as he has
separated the Son of God from the glory and substance of His
Father. But Arius had not as yet laid bare his heresy, but had
been excluded from the Church for joining in the Meletian schism, and a
suspicious course of action.
[“The dying are wont to vaticinate;” but the prophetic
charismata (
κολόβιον—this
is the tunicle, tunica, tunicella, dalmatica. It originally had
no sleeves; it is said that wide sleeves were added in the West about
the fourth century; and the garment was then called dalmatic, and
was the deacon’s vestment when assisting at the holy communion;
while that worn by sub-deacons, called by the Anglo-Saxons
“roc,” and “tunicle” generally after the 13th
century, was of the same form, but smaller and less ornamented (Palmer,
Orig. Liturgicæ, vol. ii. p. 314). The word, in its
classical use, meant an under-garment with its sleeves curtailed
(κολοβός)—i.e.,
reaching only half down to the elbow, or entirely without
sleeves. [But the reference here is clearly to St.
He continued: “Ye know too, beloved,
and ye know well, what has been the manner of my conversation amongst
you, and what conflicts I have endured from the idolatrous Gentiles,
who, being ignorant of the Lord and Saviour, do not cease in their
madness to spread abroad the fame
“Likewise also, on account of those
fortunate prelates, Phileus, I mean, Hesychius and Theodorus, who of
divine grace have received a worthy vocation, what great tribulation
agitated my mind. For these, as ye know, for the faith of Christ
were with the rest of the confessors wasted with diverse
torments. And because in such a conflict they were not only of
the clergy but of the laity also the standard-bearers and preceptors, I
on this account greatly feared lest they should be found wanting under
their long affliction, and lest their defection, which is terrible to
speak of, should be to many an occasion of stumbling and of denying the
faith, for there were more than six hundred and sixty confined along
with them within the precincts of a dungeon. Hence, although
oppressed with great labour and toil, I ceased not to write to them
with reference to all those predicted passages, Of
Scripture.
“Why should I speak to you about Meletius of Lycopolis? What persecutions, what treachery, he directed against me, I doubt not but that ye well know. Oh, the horrible wickedness! he feared not to rend asunder the holy Church, which the Son of God redeemed with His precious blood, and to deliver which from the tyranny of the devil He hesitated not to lay down His life. This Church, as I have begin to say, the wicked Meletius rending asunder, ceased not to imprison in dungeons, and to afflict holy bishops even, who have a little before us by martyrdom penetrated to the heavens. Beware therefore of his insidious devices. For I, as ye see, go bound by divine charity, preferring above all things the will of God. I know, indeed, that under their breath the tribunes whisper of my death with eager haste; but I will not from this circumstance open any communication with them, nor will I count my life more precious than myself. Nay, rather, I am prepared to finish the course which my Lord Jesus Christ hath deigned to promise to me, and faithfully render up to Him the ministry which from Him I have received. Pray for me, my brothers; you will not see me longer living in this life with you. Wherefore I testify before God and your brotherhood, that before all of you have I preserved a clean conscience. For I have not shunned to declare unto you the injunctions of the Lord, and I have refused not to make known to you the things which will hereafter be necessary.
“Wherefore take heed unto yourselves, and
the whole flock over which the Holy Ghost has appointed you as
overseers in succession—thee Achillas in the first place, and
next to thee Alexander. Behold with living voice I protest to
you, that after my death men will arise in the Church speaking perverse
things,
Cf.
[Another anachronism, but noteworthy as applied to the See of
Alexandria. See p. 261, note 2.]
Cf. St. Paul’s farewell address to the elders at Miletus,
[
These things having thus ended, it was everywhere published far and wide that Arius had not been cut off from the Catholic unity without a divine interposition. But that contriver of deceit, and disseminator of all wickedness, ceased not to keep hidden his viper’s poison in the labyrinth of his bosom, hoping that he should be reconciled by Achillas and Alexander. This is that Arius the heresiarch, the divider of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. This is he who with rash and wicked mouth, was not afraid to blaspheme the Lord and Saviour, beyond all other heretics; the Lord, I say, and Saviour, who out of pity for our human wanderings, and being sorely grieved that the world should perish in deadly destruction and condemnation, deigned for us all to suffer in the flesh. For it is not to be believed that the Godhead which is impassible was subject to the passion. But because the theologians and fathers have taken care in better style to remove from Catholic ears the blasphemies of this nature, and another task is ours, let us return to our subject.
This most sagacious pontiff
[Another anachronism; but, as applied to the Alexandrian primate, it is
a concession to truth. The word was already used in the West, but
not exclusively with respect to the Apostolic Sees. See vol. v.
p. 270, note 1.]
But they took him up and brought him to the place
called Bucolia, where the holy St. Mark underwent martyrdom for
Christ. Astonishing is the virtue of the saints! As they
carried him along, and beheld his great constancy and strength of mind
when in peril of death, on a sudden a fear and trembling came upon them
to such a degree, that none of them could look stedfastly into his
face. Moreover, the blessed martyr entreated them to allow him to
go to the tomb of St. Mark, for he desired to commend himself to his
patronage.
[Another anachronism. No such invocation of saints at this
period. See note 6, p. 261, supra.]
[Wholly apocryphal in all probability, or based on a mere
apostrophe. Such “patronage” was yet unknown.]
Having ended his prayer, he kissed the tomb of the
blessed evangelist, and of the other pontiffs who were buried there,
and went forth to the tribunes. But they seeing his face as it
had been the face of an angel, being terror-stricken, feared to speak
to him of his instant agony. Nevertheless, because God does not
desert those who trust in Him, He willed not to leave His martyr
without consolation in the moment of so great a trial. For lo! an
old man and an aged virgin, coming from the smaller towns, were
hastening to the city, one of whom was carrying four skins for sale,
and the other two sheets of linen. The blessed prelate, when he
perceived them, recognised a divine dispensation with reference to
himself. He inquired of them on the instant, “Are ye
Christians?” And they replied, “Yes.”
Then said he, “Whither are ye going?” And they
replied, “To the market in the city to sell these things that we
are carrying.” Then the most merciful father answered,
“My faithful children, God has marked you out, persevere with
me.” And they immediately recognising him, said,
“Sire, let it be as thou hast commanded.” Then
turning to the tribunes, he said, “Come, do what ye are about to
do, and fulfil the king’s command; for the day is now on the
point of breaking.”
[ The
Latin reads here: “Spread out, ye aged men, the skins which
ye are carrying.”
ἀγωνοθέτης—the
president of the Grecian games, the judge.
[Probably he wore ordinarily what afterwards became an
ecclesiastical ornament. So the casula and
other vestments were retained by the clergy after they ceased to be
commonly worn. Marriott, Vestiar. Christian., p.
198.] The omophorion, which is worn by every
Eastern bishop, resembles the Latin pallium, except that it is
broader, and tied round the neck in a knot. Cf. following
passage from Neale’s Introduction to the Translation of the
Eastern Liturgies: “But while the Gospel is being read,
the bishop lays aside his omophorion, thereby making
profession of his service to the Lord. For since it is the Lord
who is represented as speaking by the Gospel, and is, as it were,
Himself present, the bishop at that time ventures not to be arrayed
with the symbol of His incarnation—I mean, the omophorion;
but taking it off from his shoulders, he gives it to the deacon, who
holds it folded in his right hand, himself standing near the bishop,
and preceding the holy gifts. When he has finished the liturgy,
and comes to the communion, he again assumes the omophorion,
manifesting that before this he was one of the ministers, and was
afraid to put upon himself that holy garment. But when the work
is accomplished, and he goes on to elevate the bread, and to divide it
into parts, and to receive it himself, and distribute it to others, it
is necessary that he should put on all the sacred symbols of his
dignity; and since the omophorion is the principal vest of a
pontiff, he necessarily assumes that, and in that is partaker of the
most divine things.” [All this unknown to antiquity.]
Meanwhile the hands of the tribunes were
paralyzed, and looking upon one another in turn, each urged his fellow
to the deed, but they were all held fast with astonishment and
fear. At length they agreed that out of their common stock a
reward for the execution should be appointed, and that the man who
should venture to perpetrate the murder should enjoy the reward.
There was no delay, each of them brought forth five solidi. A
solidus or aureus worth 25 denarii, being 8½d.; it
was worth 17s. 8½d.; five solidi, £4, 8s. 6½d.
[More than $20.]
Auri sacra fames?” Virgil,
Æn., book iii. 56:— “O sacred hunger of pernicious gold, What bands of faith can impious
lucre hold?” —Dryden.
one of them, after the manner of the traitor Judas, emboldened
by the desire of money, drew his sword and beheaded the pontiff, on the
25th day of November, after he had held the pontificate twelve
years—three of which were before the persecution, but the nine
remaining were passed by him under persecutions of diverse kinds.
The blood-money being instantly claimed by the executioner, these
wicked purchasers, or rather destroyers, of man’s life quickly
returned, for they feared the multitude of the people, since, as I have
said, they were without their military escort. But the body of
the blessed martyr, as the fathers affirm who went first to the place
of execution, remained erect, as if instant in prayer, until many
people, coming together, discovered it standing
[Here “standing” = continuing. He knelt, no
doubt, to be beheaded; but the corpse remained in this
posture. A noble horse, shot on the field of Antietam, remained
on the field in an attitude of raising himself from the ground, as I
saw it myself.]
In the meanwhile an innumerable multitude of
either sex, flocking together from the populous city, with groans and
ejaculations asked each other in turn, being ignorant, in what manner
this had happened. In truth, from the least to the greatest, a
very great grief was prevalent amongst all. For when the chief
men of the city beheld the laudable importunity of the multitude, who
were busied in dividing his sacred spoils to keep them as relics, they
wrapped him up the tighter in the skins and linen sheets. For the
most holy minister of God was always clothed in sacerdotal vestments of
a white colour
[This may be credited. See Cyprian’s
Passion. But the technical names which follow seem an
anachronism if technically understood. I say this with no
spirit of objection to these vestments, however.]
[See Kingsley’s Hypatia. In Cyril’s time
this might have happened: one trusts that for Peter’s day
this, too, is an anachronism.]
And this, most prudent reader, I would not have
you regard as a wild fancy and superstition, since, if you learn the
cause of this novelty, you will admire and approve of the zeal and deed
of the populace. For this blessed priest, when he celebrated the
sacrament of the divine mysteries, did not, as is the ecclesiastical
custom, sit upon his pontifical throne, but upon its footstool
underneath, which, when the people beheld, they disliked, and
complainingly exclaimed, “Thou oughtest, O father, to sit upon
thy chair;” and when they repeated this frequently, the minister
of the Lord rising, calmed their complaints with tranquil voice, and
again took his seat upon the same stool. So all this seemed to be
done by him from motives of humility. But upon a certain great
festival it happened that he was offering the sacrifice of the
mass,
[Another anachronism, and Occidental also.]
[See vol. v. p. 256, note 6, and p. 259, Elucidation II.
Missa, a Latin word, has clearly no place here save by the Roman
rule of reading modern rites into antiquity. Thus, in
Raphael’s picture illustrating the story of
But the man of God sending for the clergy, with tranquil
and serene mind, charged them with rashness, saying, “How is it
that ye blush not for having joined the cry of the laity, and
reproaching me? Howbeit, since your reproach flows not from the
muddy torrent of arrogance, but from the pure fountain of love, I will
unfold [See
note 2, p. 265, supra.]
After this, how that wolf and framer of treachery,
that is Arius, covered with a sheep’s skin, entered into the
Lord’s fold to worry and torment it, or in what manner he was
enabled to attain to the dignity of the priesthood, let us employ
ourselves in relating in brief.
Achillas, the successor of Peter, admitted Arius to the priesthood.
Cf.
Perhaps Absalom, or it may be Ziba, is referred to. (
The Rest is Wanting.
[The Canonical Epistles of Basil have been heretofore mentioned.
Vol. v. p. 572, elucidation.]
With the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras.
————————————
The Canons of the Blessed Peter,
Archbishop of Alexandria, as They are Given in His Sermon on
Penitence.
These Canons of Peter of Alexandria are interesting as bearing upon the
controversy between Cyprian and the clergy of Carthage, with regard to
the treatment of the lapsed. They also bear upon the
subject-matter of the Novatian schism.
Canon I.
But since the fourth
passover of the persecution has arrived, it is sufficient, in the case
of those who have been apprehended and thrown into prison, and who have
sustained torments not to be borne,
Another reading is ἀνηκέστους,
“which cannot be cured.”
The marks of Jesus, στίγματα.
Cf.
Balsamon. The present canons treat of those who have in the persecution denied the faith, and are doing penance. And the first canon ordains, that upon those who after many torments have sacrificed to the gods, not being able by reason of frailty to persevere, and who have passed three years in penitence, other forty days should be enjoined, and that then they should be admitted into the Church. Observe these present canons which lay down various and useful rules in favour of those who have denied their God, and seek for repentance, and concerning those who have of their own accord sought martyrdom, and have lapsed, and then have again confessed the faith, and other things of the like nature. Consult also, for you will profitably do so, many canons of the Council of Ancyra.
Zonaras. Amongst those who in these turbulent times denied the faith, the holy Peter makes a distinction, and says, that upon those who had been brought before the tyrant, and thrown into prison, and who had endured very grievous torments, and intolerable scourgings, and such as could be cured by no care or medicine (for ἄκος signifies medical care, and ἀνήκεστον is the same as immedicabile), and other dreadful afflictions, and afterwards yielding, sacrificed to the gods, being betrayed as it were by the weakness of the flesh, which could not hold out under the pain unto the end, that for them the time past should suffice for punishment; since, indeed, says he, the fourth passover has now past since they made this very grievous fall. And although perhaps at first, when they approached in penitence, they were not received, yet because they did not of their own free-will proceed to sacrifice to the gods, and resisted long, and bear about with them the marks of Jesus, that is to say, the scars of the wounds which, in behalf of Christ, they have endured, and the third year has now elapsed since they first bewailed their fall, he decrees that, as an additional punishment, other forty days from the time that they came asking to be admitted to communion should be enjoined on them in the place of any further severity; during which they should exercise a still greater degree of penance, and should fast more earnestly, that is, with more attentive care, keeping guard over themselves, being watchful in prayer, meditating upon, that is, turning over perpetually in their minds, and saying in words, the text quoted by the Lord against the tempter, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”
Canon II.
But in the case of those who, after that they were
thrown into prison, and in the dungeon, as in a place besieged, endured
afflictions and
Balsamon. This canon enacts that those who have only been evil entreated in prison, and who without torment have lapsed, should be punished after the three years with an additional year. For though they obtained consolation, certain of the faithful ministering to them the necessaries of life, yet they ought to obtain pardon, as being those who have suffered severely for the faith.
Zonaras. In the second order, he places those who have only been thrown into prison, and evil entreated in the dungeon, and yet, though harassed by no torments, have offended; upon whom, besides the time past, the three years, namely, of which we have spoken, he proposes to inflict the penalty of an additional year, since they also, says he, have for Christ’s name endured hardness, even though it may be that they obtained some consolation from the brethren whilst in prison. For it is probable that the faithful, who were not in custody, ministered to those in bonds the necessaries of life, and brought to them some alleviation of their lot. Which things, indeed, they shall return many fold; for those consolations which they enjoyed in prison they shall vex themselves with penance, and afflict themselves in diverse ways, if they wish to be set free from the captivity of the devil, having become his captives and slaves by their denial of Christ. He subjoins the word of the prophet, taken from Isaiah, which he says that they ought to keep in remembrance.
Canon III.
But as for those who have suffered none of these things, and have shown no fruit of faith, but of their own accord have gone over to wickedness, being betrayed by fear and cowardice, and now come to repentance, it is necessary and convenient to propose the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree, as the Lord says: “A certain man had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering, said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it. And if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.” Keeping this before their eyes, and showing forth fruit worthy of repentance, after so long an interval of time, they will be profited.
Balsamon. Those who from fear only and timidity deserted the faith, and then had an eye towards repentance, the canon punishes with three years’ exclusion, according to the parable of the fig-tree in the Gospels. For the Lord said, Three years I come to it seeking fruit, and find none; but the vine-dresser replies, Lord, let it alone this year also.
Zonaras. But those, he says, who having suffered no hardness, have deserted from fear only and timidity, in that they of their own accord have approached to wickedness, and then looked towards repentance, their case the parable of the fig-tree in the Gospels will exactly suit. Let them keep this before their eyes, and show forth for an equal period labours worthy of penitence, and they shall be profited; that is, after the fourth year. For the Lord said, Three years I come to it seeking fruit, and find none; and the vine-dresser answered, Lord, let it alone this year also.
Canon IV.
To those who are altogether reprobate, and
unrepentant, who possess the Ethiopian’s unchanging
skin,
Balsamon. What has been previously said of the lapsed, has been said of the repentant. But against those who are unrepentant, he brings forward the cursing of another fig-tree, to which the Lord said, because of its unprofitableness, “No fruit grow on thee hence-forward for ever.”
Zonaras. What has been
previously said of the lapsed, has been said of the repentant.
Against those whom, from desperation or depraved opinion, are
impenitent, and carry about with them perpetually the inherent and
indelible blackness of sin, as of an Ethiopian’s skin, or the
leopard’s spots, he brings forward the cursing of another
fig-tree. To which the Lord said for
Canon V.
But upon those who have used dissimulation like
David, who feigned himself to be mad
Cf.
Balsamon. But if any have pretended to approach the altars, or to write their denial of the faith, and have not done this nakedly and openly, but by feigned arts have illuded those who offered them violence, as David did, who, when he was flying from Saul, and was amongst strangers, feigned himself to be mad, and thus escaped death. So they mocked the snares of their enemies, as children endowed with wisdom and prudence mock foolish children; for they deceived the impious heathen, in that they seemed to sacrifice, although they did not sacrifice, or perhaps they suborned heathens and infidels to take their place, and by these means they thought that they offered sacrifice; for them, he says, a period of six months will suffice for penance. For although they did not sacrifice, yet because they promised to sacrifice, or sent others to do so in their place, they are thought to stand in need of repentance, even though some of those who have given their testimony for the faith have pardoned individuals of them. He compares them to children, as not having manfully withstood the idolaters, but to prudent children, because by artifice they avoided doing sacrifice.
Zonaras. But if any have pretended to approach the altars, or to write their denial of the faith, but have not nakedly written down their abnegation, that is, not manifestly, not openly; but by a sort of trick have cheated those who offered them violence; as David, who while he was flying from Saul, and had come amongst strange people, feigned himself to be mad, and in this way avoided death. They mocked indeed, he says, the insidious devices of their enemies; as prudent children, endowed with wisdom and sagacity, and those who skilfully take counsel, deceive foolish children. Now he compares those to prudent children by whom the impious heathen were deceived, and those who though they did not sacrifice, yet seemed to sacrifice, prudent indeed, as having thus far avoided sacrificing; but children, in that they did not show forth a mature and manly spirit, and did not nobly resist the worshippers of idols, but covenanted to sacrifice, even though they suborned some in their places, heathens, forsooth, and infidels, and when these sacrificed, they were considered to have sacrificed. For men of this sort, he says, a period of six months will suffice for penance. For although they did not sacrifice, yet because they covenanted to sacrifice, or suborned others to do so, and thus themselves appeared to have sacrificed, they were judged to stand in need of repentance; even though some confessors might have pardoned individuals of them; for some of those who witnessed to the faith and suffered for it, pardoned those who by an artifice, as has been said, escaped offering sacrifice, and admitted them to communion with the faithful, because they studiously avoided offering sacrifice to demons. And on account of the fixing of this term of six months, he calls to remembrance the annunciation made by Gabriel, in the sixth month of the conception of the Forerunner, in which the Lord was conceived. Then he subjoins the words of the apostle.
Canon VI.
In the case of those who have sent Christian
slaves to offer sacrifice for them, the slaves indeed as being in their
master’s hands, and in a manner themselves also in the custody of
their masters, and being threatened by them, and from their fear having
come to this pass and having lapsed, shall during the year show forth
the works of penitence, learning for the future, as the slaves of
Christ, to do the will of Christ and to fear Him, listening to this
especially, that “whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or
free.”
Balsamon. The slaves who
under the commands and threatenings of their masters offered sacrifice,
this father punishes with a year’s exclusion; yet he pardons them
as having acted under the orders of a master, and does not inflict a
heavy punishment upon them. But yet since they are much more the
servants of Christ, even as they ought to fear Him more, he imposes on
Zonaras. Some have sent their own Christian servants, even against their will, to offer sacrifice in their stead. These servants, therefore, although not of their own free-will, but being compelled by their masters, they offered sacrifice, this father ordains shall pass a year in penance, and enjoins them to remember that, being of the number of the faithful, they are the servants of Christ, and that Him they ought rather to fear; for “whatsoever any man doeth,” says the great apostle, “the same shall he receive, whether he be bond or free.”
Canon VII.
But the freemen shall be tried by penance for
three years, both for their dissimulation, and for having compelled
their fellow-servants to offer sacrifice, inasmuch as they have not
obeyed the apostle, who would have the masters do the same things unto
the servant, forbearing threatening;
Balsamon. But upon the freemen, or the masters of the servant compelled to sacrifice, he enjoins a punishment of three years, both because they pretended to sacrifice, and seemed to assent to it; and also because they compelled their fellow-servants to offer sacrifice, and did not obey the apostle, who ordered them to forbear threatening their servants, inasmuch as they themselves, the masters, are the servants of God, and fellow-servants with their own domestics. And then they have made haste to preserve their own lives, and have driven their fellow-servants to idolatry who might have escaped.
Zonaras. But upon the freemen, that is, the masters of the servants who were compelled to sacrifice, he enjoins a penalty of three years, both because they pretended to sacrifice, and altogether appeared to succumb; and also because they compelled their fellow-servants to offer sacrifice, and did not obey the apostle’s injunction to forbear threatening their servants; since they also, the masters, are the servants of God, and the fellow-servants of their own domestics. And they indeed made haste to preserve their own lives, and drove their fellow-servants, who might have escaped, to idolatry.
Canon VIII.
But to those who have been delivered up, and have
fallen, who also of their own accord have approached the contest,
confessing themselves to be Christians, and have been tormented and
thrown into prison, it is right with joy and exultation of heart to add
strength, and to communicate to them in all things, both in prayer, and
in partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and in hortatory
discourse; in order that contending the more constantly, they may be
counted worthy of “the prize of their high
calling.”
Balsamon. Some had had information laid against them before the tyrant, and had been delivered up, or themselves had of their own accord given themselves up, and then being overcome by their torments, had failed in their testimony. Afterwards repenting, and acknowledging what was right and good, they confessed themselves to be Christians, so that they were cast into prison, and afflicted with torments. These this holy man thinks it right to receive with joy of heart, and to confirm in the orthodox faith, and to communicate with, both in prayers and in partaking of the sacraments, and to exhort with cheering words, that they may be more constant in the contest, and counted worthy of the heavenly kingdom. And that it might not be thought that they ought not to be received, because they had lapsed, he brings forward the testimony of Scripture to the effect that “seven times,” that is, often, “the just man falleth, and riseth up again.” And, says he, if all who have failed in their confession had done this, namely, taken up their struggle again, and before the tyrant confessed themselves to be Christians, they would have shown forth a most perfect penitence. The subject, therefore, comprehended in this canon differs from that contained in the first canon, for there indeed those who by reason of their torment had lapsed, were not converted so as to confess the faith before the tyrants; but here those who by reason of their torment have lapsed, with a worthy penitence, confess the Lord before the tyrants, wherefore they are reckoned not to have fallen.
Zonaras. But, says he, if any have had information laid against them before the tyrants, and have been delivered up, or have of themselves given themselves up, and being overcome by the violence of their torments have failed in their testimony, not being able to endure the distresses and afflictions with which in the dungeon they were afflicted; and afterwards taking up the contest anew, have confessed themselves to be Christians, so that they have been again cast into prison and afflicted with torments: such men this holy martyr judges it reasonable that they should be joyfully received; and that they should be strengthened, that is, have strength, spirit, and confidence added to them, in order that they may confess the faith, and that they should be communicated with in all things, both in prayer, and in partaking of the sacraments, and that they should be exhorted with loving words, to rouse themselves to give testimony to the faith, that they may be more constant in the contest, and counted worthy of the heavenly kingdom. And that it might not be thought by any that they ought not to be received from the fact that they had lapsed, and sacrificed to the idols, he brings forth this testimony from Holy Scripture: “Seven times,” that is, often, “the just man falleth, and riseth up again.” And, says he, if all who have failed in their confession had done this, that is, after their fall, taken up the contest afresh, and confessed themselves to be Christians before the tyrants, they would have given proof of a most perfect repentance.
With those also who, as it were from sleep,
themselves leap forth upon a contest which is travailing long and
likely to be protracted, and draw upon themselves the temptations as it
were of a sea-fight, and the inundations of many waves, or rather are
for the brethren kindling the coals of the sinners, with them also we
must communicate, inasmuch as they come to this in the name of Christ,
even though they take no heed unto His words, when He teaches us
“to pray that we enter not into temptation;”
Balsamon. Those who have but just arisen from sleep, and especially if they were weighed down with a heavy and profound sleep, have no constant reason, but one perturbed and unsteady. To such as these this blessed martyr likens those who, not in due order, but rashly and inconsiderately, thrust themselves upon the contest, which is as it were in travail, and delayed and protracted, inasmuch as it has not yet burst forth openly, but meditates and delays, hesitating in truth to bring forth the combatants, who bring temptation upon themselves, or draw it towards them. Now these especially are, for the rest of the faithful, kindling the coals of the sinners, that is to say, the punishment of the tyrants. But although he reprehends those who act so, yet he enjoins the faithful nevertheless to communicate with them, because on account of Christ they have undergone the contest, even though they have ignored His teaching, for He teaches them to pray that they may not be tempted; and He did not deliver up Himself, but was delivered up; and we are not to go over to the tormentors, that we may not be the cause of bringing upon them the guilt of many murders, as those do who incite them to inflict punishment upon the godly. The canon brings forward different examples from Holy Scripture.
Zonaras. Those who have
recently arisen from sleep, especially if they were oppressed with a
heavy sleep, have no steady reason, but one inconstant and
perturbed. To men of this sort this holy martyr likens those who
rush upon the contest, that is, those who, not in due course, but
rashly and inconsiderately, intrude themselves upon it. It is, as
it were, in travail, and delayed and protracted, inasmuch as it has not
yet burst forth openly, but meditates and delays, and hesitates to
bring forth the combatants, who bring temptation upon themselves, that
is, draw it towards themselves, or rather, for the rest of the
faithful, kindle the coals of the
Canon X.
Whence it is not right either that those of the
clergy who have deserted of their own accord, and have lapsed, and
taken up the contest afresh, should remain any longer in their sacred
office, inasmuch as they have left destitute the flock of the Lord, and
brought blame upon themselves, which thing did not one of the
apostles. For when the blessed apostle Paul had undergone many
persecutions, and had shown forth the prizes of many contests, though
he knew that it was far better to “depart, and to be with
Christ,” yet he brings this forward, and says,
“Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for
you.”
Cf. St. Paul’s description of charity,
Balsamon. The father having spoken of those who of their own accord went over to the contest of martyrdom, now also speaks of those of the clergy who are in such a case, and he says, that if any clergyman hath of his own accord sought the contest, and then, not being able to bear the tortures, has fallen, but returning to himself, has recanted his error, and before the tyrants confessed himself a Christian, such a one shall no longer discharge his sacred ministry, because he hath deserted the Lord’s flock, and because, having of his own accord sought the contest, through not being able to endure the torment, he hath brought reproach upon himself. For to neglect the teaching of the people, and to prefer their own advantage, this did not the apostles. For the mighty Paul, after that he had endured many torments, though he perceived that it was far better to leave this life, yet chose rather to live and to be tormented for the salvation and instruction of the people. They are therefore altogether devoid of perception who seek the sacred ministry from which they have fallen of their own accord. For how is it that they seek for that which they have left, when they are able in this season of persecution, that is, to be useful to their brethren? If indeed they had not fallen, of that which they had done contrary to reason, their spontaneous flight for instance, or their slackness in teaching and confirming the brethren, of these things indulgence would be extended to them. But if from their own arrogance and conceit they have lapsed,—for of such a nature is it rashly to venture to expose themselves to torture, and not to be able to endure it, and thus a triumph has been gained over them,—they cannot any longer execute their sacred office. Wherefore let them the rather take heed that they perfect their confession by humility, ceasing from the vainglory of seeking for the sacred ministry; for communion with the faithful is sufficient for them, which is granted for two reasons, with diligent caution, and just judgment. For if we say that we will not hold them to be communicants, we shall both afflict them with grief, giving our sentence as it were that they should depart this life with violence; and we shall cause others also, who may have lapsed, and wish to return to what is right, to be negligent and remiss in this respect, having as a pretext, that they will not be admitted to communicate with the faithful, even though after their fall they should confess the faith, who, if they are not converted, will undergo more shame and ignominy than others, even as he who laid the foundation, and did not finish the building. For such a one do those resemble, who, for Christ’s sake indeed, have offered themselves to be tormented, and having laid as it were a good foundation, have not been able to perfect that which is good by reason of their fall. Observe, then, that not even confession for Christ’s sake restores him who has once lapsed and thus become an alien from his clerical office.
Zonaras. The father having
spoken of those who have of their own accord exposed themselves to the
contest of martyrdom, now begins to discourse about those of the clergy
who have done the same thing; and says that if any clergyman has of his
own accord given himself up, and then, not being able to endure the
violence of the torment, has fallen, and again recollecting himself has
roused himself afresh to the contest, and has confessed himself a
Christian before the tyrants, a A
digression which follows is entirely directed against Muzalon.
Moreover, let those apply their minds to what is
in this place brought forward by this great father and holy martyr, who
say that it is lawful for bishops to give up their Sees, and to retain
the dignity of the priesthood. For if to the clergy who
voluntarily offered themselves to the contest of confession, and who,
when tormented, failed in constancy and yielded, and afterwards
returned to the contest, if to them indulgence is scarcely granted,
because they deferred to execute their ministerial duties; nor, in the
opinion of this divine father, is any thing else objected to them but
that they deserted the brethren, when in adverse and turbulent times
they might have been useful in confirming them in the faith, and that
after that they had been counted worthy to bear testimony to the faith,
and carried about in their flesh the marks of Christ; how shall that
chief priest and pastor, who ought to lay down his life for the sheep,
when he has deserted the flock that was committed unto him, and
repudiated its care and administration, and as far as in him lies given
it over to the wolf, be thought worthy to retain the dignity of the
sacred ministry, and not rather be judged worthy of the severest
punishments for deserting the people entrusted to his care? Nay,
but he will demand a reward for this thing, or rather he will himself
supply it to himself: refusing that which brings labour to them,
namely, the office of teaching and of correcting vice; but embracing
that which gains for them honour and glory, making it their own,
keeping hold of it with their teeth as it were, and not letting it go
in the least. For if in the case of the clergy it be called an
action contrary to reason to desert the people, and to go away from
them to the contest in the cause of piety; how much more contrary to
reason shall it be judged for a bishop to desert his people, not in
order that he may contend in a contest, but that he may deliver himself
up to ease and indolence, and lay aside and escape entirely from his
cares for the salvation of souls? The sixteenth canon also of the
Seventh Œcumenical Council [Not
Œcumenical.]
Canon XI.
For those who first, when the persecution waxed
warm, leaped forth, standing around the judgment-seat, and beholding
the holy martyrs who were hastening to the “prize of their high
calling,”
Balsamon. The saint having said before that those who of their own accord entered upon the contest and lapsed, and did not repent nor recant their error, would be covered with more shame, as being like men who did not go on with the building beyond the foundation, that is, did not perfect that which is good, now brings forward a confirmation of this and other matters, saying, Those who taking their stand in the fervour and vehemence of the persecution, seeing the holy martyrs, and with what divine zeal they contended to receive the celestial crown, gave themselves up to martyrdom with much boldness, and especially when they saw some drawn aside, that is, led astray and deluded by the devil, and lapsing or denying godliness; wherefore being inwardly inflamed, and with hearts enkindled, as hearing that they by this means should war down and subdue the proud adversary the devil, were eager to undergo martyrdom lest the devil should boast and seem “to be wise in his own conceit,” as having by his subtlety and malice overcome those who of their own accord sought martyrdom: even though it escaped him that he was rather overcome by those combatants who bravely withstood the torments. Therefore to the faithful who pray for those who are enduring punishment, and afflicted by it, it is right to assent or to concur in this, which is also decreed; and it can by no means be hurtful to sympathize in their sorrow and affliction with the parents or other relatives in behalf of those who have given their testimony and undergone martyrdom, but have lapsed by the arts and snares of the devil. For we know that many have obtained the goodness and compassion of God by the prayers of others. Therefore we will pray for them that remission of their sins be granted them by God; and with the others who have lapsed, and have afterwards recanted their error, and confessed godliness, we will communicate, being mindful of those contests which before their fall they sustained for God’s sake, and also of their subsequent worthy repentance, and that they testify that on account of their sin they have been as it were aliens from their city; and we will not only communicate with them, but pray also for their reconciliation, together with other things that are convenient, either with the good works which ought to be done by them—fasting, for instance, almsgiving, and penance; by which things He who is our Advocate makes the Father propitious towards us. Then he makes use of a passage of Holy Scripture, and this is taken from the first catholic epistle of the holy apostle and evangelist John.
Zonaras. The meaning of the present canon is as follows:—Those, he says, who set in the fervour of the persecution, that is, in its greatest height and most vehement heat, beheld the martyrdoms of the saints, and how eagerly they hastened to receive the celestial crown, fired with a holy emulation, gave themselves up to martyrdom, leaping as it were into the contest with much boldness, in imitation of the saints who suffered, and offered themselves readily for the confirming of the faith by their testimony; and on that account especially, because they behold many who were drawn aside, that is, led astray, denying their faith. Whereupon they being inflamed, that is, tired in heart, endeavoured to subdue the adversary that was hostile to them, that he might not, as a victor, exult over the godly. Although it escaped him that he was rather conquered by them, many even unto death showing forth constancy for the faith. They hastened, therefore, says he, to do this, but overcome by the violence of their torments, by reason of the infirmity of the flesh, being some of them evil entreated in prison, and others punished by decree of the judges, and not being able to endure their punishment. It is meet, therefore, to sympathize with those who mourn for their sakes. Now they mourn, says he, some the lapse of parents, others of brethren, and others of children. To mourn, therefore, with those who bewail the lapsed, hurts no one; neither to join in prayer and grief with those who pray for themselves, together with other things that are reasonable, namely, that they who have lapsed may show forth other things that are consistent with penitence; such as are fasting and tears and other humiliations, and observe the punishment inflicted on them, and, if their means allow, bestow money upon the poor; by which means He who is the Advocate in our behalf will render the Father propitious to us. Then he brings forward a passage from Holy Scripture, which is taken from the first epistle of the holy apostle and evangelist John.
Canon XII.
Against those who have given money that they might
be entirely undisturbed by evil,
κακία.
Balsamon. After that the saint had finished his discourse concerning those who of their own accord had offered themselves to martyrdom, he said that those were not to be reprehended who by a sum of money paid down freed themselves from the affliction of persecution. For they preferred to make a sacrifice of their money rather than of their souls. Then he confirms this, and brings forward different Scripture examples from the Acts of the Apostles concerning the blessed apostle Paul and others.
Zonaras. But those,
he says, are not to be reprehended who have paid money down, and thus
escaped, and maintained their piety, nor for this thing may any one
bring an accusation against them. For they have preferred to lose
their money rather than their souls, and have shown that they wish to
serve God and not mammon; that is, riches. And he brings forward
the words of Scripture, and the example, as in the Acts of the
Apostles, of the blessed apostle Paul and others. Now, when it is
said that they have been undisturbed by all evil,
κακία.
κακία. By
κακίας.
Canon XIII.
Hence neither is it lawful to accuse those who
have left all, and have retired for the safety of their life, as if
others had been held back by them. For at Ephesus also they
seized Gaius and Aristarchus instead of Paul, and rushed to the
theatre, these being Paul’s companions in travel
[
Balsamon. But if any, says he, have left their good and gone away, lest they should be detailed and brought into peril, as being those perhaps who might not be able to persist in their confession to the end, on account of the cruelty of their tormentors, they shall not be found fault with, even though others have been detained on their account. And he brings forward as an instance on this score Gaius and Aristarchus, who were detained instead of Paul; the soldiers who kept Peter; the infants who were massacred by Herod on account of Christ; and Zacharias, the father of the revered and blessed forerunner.
Zonaras. But if any, says he, have left their possessions, and have gone away, lest being detained they should be endangered, and because, perhaps, they would not be able to persist in their confession unto the end on account of the cruelty of the tormentors, they are not to be accused, even if others are detained and punished on their account. And, again, he brings forward an example from the Acts of the Apostles, saying that at Ephesus also Gaius and Aristarchus were apprehended in the stead of Paul, and that Paul was not blamed for this; nor was Peter, when he was brought forth out of prison by an angel, and escaped the danger, and the soldiers who guarded him were on his account punished. Then he cites another example from the Gospel, namely, the infants who were put to death by Herod; on account of which, says he, our Lord was not blamed. And when Elisabeth had taken to flight with John, and had preserved him, his father Zacharias was put to death, the child being demanded of him; nor was this imputed as a crime to John.
Canon XIV.
But if any have endured much violence and the
strong pressure of necessity, receiving into their mouths iron and
chains, and for their good affection towards the faith have bravely
borne the burning of their hands that against their will had been put
to the profane sacrifice, as from their prison the thrice-blessed
martyrs have written to me respecting those in Libya, and others their
fellow-ministers; such, on the testimony of the rest of their brethren,
can be placed in the ministry amongst the confessors, as those who have
been mortified by many torments, and were no longer able either to
speak, or to give utterance, or to move, so as to resist those who
vainly offered them violence. For they did not assent to their
impiety; as I have again heard from their fellow-ministers, they will
be reckoned amongst the confessors, as also he who hath after the
example of Timothy ordered his life, obeying him who says,
“Follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience,
meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal
life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good
profession before many witnesses.”
Balsamon. Those who by the violence of the tyrant seemed to eat meat that had been offered to idols, or to drink wine from the Greek libations,—for it happened sometimes that they were thrown upon the ground, and hooks or pieces of iron put into their mouths to keep them open, and then the tyrants poured wine down their throats, or threw into them pieces of meat; or putting hot coals into their hands, together with incense, they compelled them to sacrifice,—if they were clergymen, the canon decrees that they should each in his own degree be ranked amongst the confessors; but if laymen, that they should be reckoned as martyrs, because they did not these things of their own free-will, nor did they at all assent to the action. As also amongst the confessors are to be reckoned those who from the extremity of the tortures lost their strength of body, and were not able to resist those who poured into their mouths the wine of the libations. And next in order he speaks of those who give the testimony of a good conscience, and enumerates them amongst the confessors.
Zonaras. Those who chastised the blessed martyrs, after many torments, in the case of some violently poured into their mouths the wine of the libations, or even crammed into their mouths some of the meat that had been offered to idols, and putting incense into their hands, they dragged them to the altars, and then violently seizing on their hands, they either sprinkled the incense upon the altar or placed hot coals together with the incense into their hands, that, not being able to bear the pain of the burning, they might drop the incense together with the coals upon the altar; for they were constrained by them. Men of this sort, he affirms, can remain enrolled in the sacred ministry, or rather be placed in the rank of confessors. For they did not by their own choice either taste the libations, or place the incense upon the altar, but being compelled by violence, their reason not consenting to the action; as also those who from the extremity of the suffering lost their bodily vigour, so as neither to be able to speak or move, nor to resist those who were violently pouring into their months the wine of libations, these also are to be placed amongst the confessors. And next in order he discourses of those who give the testimony of a good conscience, and places them also in the number of confessors.
Canon XV.
No one shall find fault with us for observing the
fourth day of the week, and the preparation,
The sixth day, the day before the Hebrew
Sabbath.—Tr. [The
Parasceve.]
[Stationary days. See Vol. ii. p. 33, note 6.]
Balsamon. Conformably to the sixty-fourth Apostolical canon, which decrees that we are not to fast on the Sabbath, with one exception, the great Sabbath; and to the sixty-ninth canon, which severely punishes those who do not fast in the Holy Lent, and on every fourth day of the week and day of preparation. Thus also does the present canon decree.
Zonaras. Always, says he,
are the fourth and sixth days of every week to be kept as fasts; nor
will any one find fault with us for fasting on them; and the reasons he
subjoins. But on the Lord’s day we ought not to fast, for
it is a day of joy for the resurrection of the Lord, and on it, says
he, we have received that we ought not even to bow the knee. This
word, therefore,
[Vol. v. pp. 382, 571, the notes.] [So
called. Vol. viii., this series. Elucidation II.]
Note by the American Editor.
————————————
Here may be noted the historic fact that this
terrible epoch of persecutions had driven many to the deserts, where
they dwelt as hermits.
Patriarchate, etc., vol. i. p. 107. Antony was born
circa a.d. 251, died a.d. 356.
Antiqu., book vii. cap. i.
Montalembert’s Monks of the West is but a
fascinating romance, but is well worthy of attention.
————————————
I.—Letter to the Church at
Alexandria. From
Gallandius.
Peter, to the brethren
beloved and established in the faith of God, peace in the Lord.
Since I have found out that Meletius acts in no way for the common
good,—for neither is he contented with the letter of the most
holy bishops and martyrs,—but, invading my parish, [See
p. 240, supra. But note, the parish was
greater than the diocese in ancient terminology.]
[Presbyters.]
[Deacons.]
II.—On the
Godhead.
A fragment from his book, from the Acts of the Council of
Ephesus, i. and vii. 2.—Galland.
Since certainly “grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ,”
III.—On
the Advent of Our Saviour. A
fragment from the homily. Apud Leontium Byzant., lib. i., contra
Nestor. et Eutych., tom. i. Thes. Canis., p. 550.
And He said unto Judas, “Betrayest thou the
Son of God with a kiss?”
IV.—On the Sojourning of Christ with Us.
A fragment from the homily. Ex Leontio Hierosolymitano,
contra Monophysitas, Ap. Mai. Script. Vet., tom. vii. p.
134.
Both therefore is proved, that he was God by nature, and was made man by nature.
V.—That Up to the Time of the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews Rightly Appointed the Fourteenth Day of the First Lunar Month.
I.
Apud Galland, Ex Chronico Paschal., p. 1, seqq.,
edit. Venet., 1729.
1. Since the mercy of God is everywhere great, let
us bless Him, and also because He has sent unto us the Spirit of truth
to guide us into all truth. For for this cause the month
2. And He says as follows: “All
these things will they do unto you for My name’s sake, because
they know not Him that sent Me.”
3. Whether therefore the Jews erroneously
sometimes celebrate their Passover according to the course of the moon
in the month Phamenoth, or according to the intercalary month, every
third year in the month Pharmuthi
[Vol. ii. p. 333, note 4. Clement is always worth noting, for his
influence is thus traceable very widely in the early literature.]
4. Wherefore, as thou seest, even in this thou appearest to be lying greatly, not only against men, but also against God. First, indeed, since in this matter the Jews never erred, as consorting with those who were eye-witnesses and ministers, much less from the beginning before the advent of Christ. For God does not say that they did always err in their heart as regards the precept of the law concerning the Passover, as thou hast written, but on account of all their other disobedience, and on account of their evil and unseemly deeds, when, indeed, He perceived them turning to idolatry and to fornication.
5. And after a few things. So that
also in this respect, since thou hast slumbered, rouse thyself much,
and very much, with the scourge of the Preacher, being mindful
especially of that passage where he speaks of “slipping on the
pavement, and with the tongue.”
6. And after other things. But thou oughtest rather to have pursued a safer and more auspicious course, and not to have written rashly and slanderously, that they seem from the beginning, and always, to have been in error about the Passover, which you cannot prove, whatever charge you may wish to bring against those who, at the present time, have erred with a grievous wandering, having fallen away from the commandment of the law concerning the Passover and other things. For the ancients seem to have kept it after the vernal equinox, which you can discover if you read ancient books, and those especially which were written by the learned Hebrews.
7. That therefore up to the period of the Lord’s Passion, and at the time of the last destruction of Jerusalem, which happened under Vespasian, the Roman emperor, the people of Israel, rightly observing the fourteenth day of the first lunar month, celebrated on it the Passover of the law, has been briefly demonstrated. Therefore, when the holy prophets, and all, as I have said, who righteously and justly walked in the law of the Lord, together with the entire people, celebrated a typical and shadowy Passover, the Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him, according to His human nature, Himself also, with the people, in the years before His public ministry and during His public ministry, did celebrate the legal and shadowy Passover, eating the typical lamb. For “I came not to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfil them,” the Saviour Himself said in the Gospel.
But after His public ministry He did not eat of
the lamb,
[But compare Browne, On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 717,
note 3, American edition, 1874.]
[Compare Anatolius, p. 151, supra.]
Apud Galland, Ex Chronico Paschal., p. 175, D.
Now it was the preparation, about the third hour,
as the accurate books have it, and the autograph copy itself of the
Evangelist John, which up to this day has by divine grace been
preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there
adored
[Adored, i.e., etymologically, = kissed.]
VI.—Of the Soul
and Body.
Ex Leontii et Joannis Rer. Sacr., lib. ii. Apud Mai,
Script. Vet., tom. vii. p. 85. From his demonstration that
the soul was not pre-existent to the body.
The things which pertain to the divinity and
humanity of the Second Man from heaven, in what has been written above,
according to the blessed apostle, we have explained; and now we have
thought it necessary to explain the things which pertain to the first
man, who is of earth and earthy, being about, namely, to demonstrate
this, that he was created at the same time one and the same, although
sometimes he is separately designated as the man external and
internal. For if, according to the Word of salvation, He who made
what is without, made also that which is within, He certainly, by one
operation, and at the same time, made both, on that day, indeed, on
which God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness;”
VII.—Fragment.
Ex Leontio et Joanne Rer. Sacr., lib. ii. Apud Mai,
Script. Vet., tom. vii. p. 96.
Wretch that I am! I have not remembered that God observes the mind, and hears the voice of the soul. I turned consciously to sin, saying to myself, God is merciful, and will bear with me; and when I was not instantly smitten, I ceased not, but rather despised His forbearance, and exhausted the long-suffering of God.
VIII.—On St.
Matthew.
From the Treatise of the Emperor Justinian against the
Monophysites. Apud Mai, Script. Vet., vii. 306,
307.
And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the Lord said to him who betrayed Him: “Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” which Peter the Martyr and Archbishop of Alexandria expounding, says, this and other things like, “All the signs which He showed, and the miracles that He did, testify of Him that He is God incarnate; both things therefore are together proved, that He was God by nature, and was made man by nature.”
IX.—From a
Sermon.
Or, from a treatise on theology.
In the meanwhile the evangelist says with
firmness, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us.”
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Meletian schism, p. 259.)
The date of the Meletian
schism is very much in need of elucidation. I follow Neale,
however, as follows: Athanasius places its origin a.d. 306 (according to Tillemont and Baronius) or
a.d. 301; the latter more probable, as
demonstrated by the Benedictine editors. But the dates are,
perhaps, the least of the difficulties which encumber the whole
matter. Somewhat distrustfully I have, after several efforts to
construct an original elucidation, adopted the theory of Neale, as a
diligent and conscientious inquirer whose Oriental studies qualify him
to utter almost a
We know something of Lycopolis from the blessed
Alexander; it seems to have been a sort of centre to the bishoprics of
the Thebais. It was just the sort of centre, in a region
sufficient for a separate patriarchate, to suggest to an ambitious and
unscrupulous prelate an effort at independency. Meletius, who
succeeded the good Alexander, was just the man to set up for himself; a
man not unlikely to be stimulated by the bad example of Paul of
Samosata, and by the ingenuity that triumphed over the first council
that called Paul to account. Bearing all this in mind, we may
accept Neale’s conviction that Meletius had long been a scandal
to the churches, and in the time of persecution had lapsed, and
sacrificed to idols. Peter summoned him to a council, by which he
was convicted and degraded; whereupon he not only refused to submit,
but arrogated to himself the cathedra of Alexandria, and began
to ordain other bishops, and, in short, to reorganize its
jurisdiction. He
reported to the Nicene Council that he had ordained twenty-eight
bishops and eight priests or deacons.
Patriarchate of Alexandria, vol. i. pp. 91, 146.
Ibid., p. 146.
II.
(Canonical Epistle, p. 279.)
The judgment of Dupin is so exceptionally
eulogistic touching these canons, that I quote it, as follows:
Eccl. Hist. Cent. IV., sub tit. “Peter of
Alexandria.”
“Of all the canons of antiquity concerning the discipline of the lapsed, there are none more judicious or more equitable than those we have now described. There appear in them a wisdom and prudence altogether singular in tempering the rigours of punishment by a reasonable moderation, without which justice would be weakened. He examines carefully all the circumstances which might augment or diminish the quality of the crime; and as he does not lengthen out penance by methods too severe, so neither does he deceive the sinner by a facility too remiss.”
Like the famous Canonical Epistles of St. Basil,
however, these are compilations of canons accepted by the churches of
his jurisdiction. Dupin says of those of Basil
Ibid., sub tit. “Basil.”
In the study of these volumes a table is useful, such as I find it convenient to place here, showing the Ante-Nicene succession of Cæsars.
a.d.
1. Augustus—1
2. Tiberius—14
3. Caligula—37
4. Claudius—41
5. Nero—54
6. Galba—68
7. Otho—69
8. Vitellius—69
9. Vespasian—69
10. Titus—79
11. Domitian—81
12. Nerva—96
13. Trajan—98
14. Hadrian—117
15. Antoninus Pius—138
16. Marcus Aurelius—161
17. Commodus—180
18. Pertinax—192
19. Didius Julianus (Niger)—193
20. Septimius Severus—193
21. Caracalla (Geta)—211
22. Macrinus—217
23. Heliogabalus—218
24. Alexander Severus—222
25. Maximinus—235
26. Gordian—235
27. Pupienus (Balbinus)—235
28. Gordian the Younger—238
29. Philip—244
30. Decuis—249
31. Gallus (Volusianus)—251
32. Valerian—254
33. Gallienus—260
34. Claudius II—268
35. Aurelian—270
36. Tacitus (Probus)—275
37. Florian—276
38. Carus (Carinus, Numerian)—282
39. Diocletian—284
40. Maximian (Galerius)—286
41. Constantius Chlorus—292
42. Maximin—306
43. Constantine the Great (Licinius, Etc.)—307
Suetonius includes Julius, and therefore his Twelve Cæsars end with Domitian, the last of the Flavian family. With Nerva the “five good emperors” (so called) begin, but the “good Aurelius” was a persecutor. St. John, surviving the cruelty of Domitian, lived and died under Trajan.
The “vision of Constantine” is dated, at Treves, a.d. 312.
The Labarum became the Roman standard thenceforth.
The Dominical ordinance dates from Milan, June 2, a.d. 321.
He founds the city of Constantinople a.d. 324, convokes the Council of Nicæa a.d. 325.
Alexander.
[Translated by the Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria.
————————————
[a.d. 273 The
first date is conjectural.
Elucidation I.
For liberal references, consult Hagenbach, Text-Book of the
History of Doctrine; by all means using Professor Smith’s
edition, New York, 1861.
Let us reflect, then, upon the epoch to which we
have now come. The intense sufferings, labours, and intellectual
as well as moral struggles, of the three heroic centuries, are closing,
and Alexander of Alexandria is the grand figure of the period.
Diocletian is preparing to let loose upon the sheep of Christ the
ferocious wolves of the tenth persecution. Lucian is founding the
school of Antioch,
For the matters touching the theology of the period, the student
should prepare himself by consulting Waterland, History of the
Athanasian Creed (Works, vol. iv., London), and Van
Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, New York, 1874. I wonder
that Professor Smith could, so unreservedly, commend
Hagenbach.
Translator’s Introductory Notice.
Alexander was appointed
successor to Achillas,
[Here given Achilles; but I preserve unity of usage in
this respect, the rather as Achilles is the name of a
contemporary heretic.] [i.e.,
in his great and final heresy. Of his former condemnation, see
pp. 262–263, supra.] H.
E., i. 2.
At first he sought to bring back Arius from his
heresy. But when he perceived that he openly and obstinately
taught his false doctrines, he assembled a first and then a second
synod of the bishops of Egypt, and degraded him from the order of the
priesthood, [To
which Achilles had admitted him. See p. 268, supra.
In spite of the warnings, pp. 263–265, supra.]
[a.d. 321.] Apud. Theodoritum,
Hist. Eccl., book i. chap. 4.
And
the Deposition of Arius.
————————————
I.—To Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople.
To the most reverend and like-minded brother, Alexander, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord:
1. The ambitious and
avaricious will of wicked men is always wont to lay snares against
those churches which seem greater, by various pretexts attacking the
ecclesiastical piety of such. For incited by the devil who works
in them, to the lust of that which is set before them, and throwing
away all religious scruples, they trample under foot the fear of the
judgment of God. Concerning which things, I who suffer, have
thought it necessary to show to your piety, in order that you may be
aware of such men, lest any of them presume to set foot in your
dioceses, whether by themselves or by others; for these sorcerers know
how to use hypocrisy to carry out their fraud; and to employ letters
composed and dressed out with lies, which are able to deceive a man who
is intent upon a simple and sincere faith. Arius, therefore, and
Achilles, [See
p. 290, note 1, supra.]
Colluthus, being a presbyter of Alexandria, puffed up with
arrogance and temerity, had acted as a bishop, and had ordained many
priests and deacons. But in the synod that was assembled at
Alexandria all his acts of ordination were rescinded; and those who had
been ordained by him degraded to the rank of laymen.—Tr.
[Perhaps a quotation, and hence a token of verity as to what is
narrated of Peter, p. 263, note 4, supra.]
2. And we, indeed, though we discovered
rather late, on account of their concealment, their manner of life, and
their unholy attempts, by the common suffrage of all have
It is inferred from these words that this letter of Alexander was
written after the Synod of Alexandria in which Arius and his companion
were condemned. But Alexander convened two synods of the bishops
of Egypt against Arius and his friends.—Tr.
3. We, therefore, say these wicked men, can
also be the sons of God even as He. For it is written, “I
have nourished and brought up children.”
4. But that the Son of God was not made
“from things which are not,” and that there was no
“time when He was not,”
[The two tests, or criteria, of Arianism. The Arians
affirmed (1) the formula ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων , and (2)
the ἦν ποτε ὅτε
οὐκ ἦν.
6. Now that it is an insane thing to think
that the Son was made from things which are not, and was in being in
time, the expression, “from things which are not,” itself
shows, although these stupid men understand not the insanity of their
own words. For the expression, “was not,” ought
either to be reckoned in time, or in some place of an age. But if
it be true that “all things were made by Him,” it is
established that both every age and time and all space, and that
“when” in which the “was not” is found, was
made by Him. And is it not absurd that He who fashioned the times
and the ages and the seasons, in which that “was not” is
mixed up, to say of Him, that He at some time was not? For it is
devoid of sense, and a mark of great ignorance, to affirm that He who
is the cause of everything is posterior to the origin of that
thing. For according to them, the space of time in which they say
that the Son had not yet been made by the Father, preceded the wisdom
of God that fashioned all things, and the Scripture speaks falsely
according to them, which calls Him “the First-born of every
creature.” Conformable to which, that which the
majestically-speaking Paul says of Him: “Whom He hath
appointed heir of all things. By whom also He made the
worlds. But by Him also were all things created that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were
created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all
things.”
7. Wherefore, since it appears that this
hypothesis of a creation from things which are not is most impious, it
is necessary to say that the Father is always the Father. But He
is the Father, since the Son is always with Him, on account of whom He
is called the Father. Wherefore, since the Son is always with
Him, the Father is always perfect, being destitute of nothing as
regards good; who, not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things
which are not, hath begotten His only-begotten Son. How, then, is
it not impious to say, that the wisdom of God once was not which speaks
thus concerning itself: “I was with Him forming all things;
I was His delight;”
8. And His proper and peculiar, natural and
excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God:
“Who spared not His own Son, but for us,” who were not His
natural sons, “delivered Him up.”
9. And though I could say much more,
brethren beloved, I purposely omit to do so, as deeming it to be
burdensome at great length to call these things to the remembrance of
teachers who are of the same mind with myself. For ye yourselves
are taught of God, nor are ye ignorant that this doctrine, which hath
lately raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of
Ebion and Artemas; nor is it aught else but an imitation of Paul of
Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who, by the judgment and counsel of all
the bishops, and in every place, was separated from the
Church.
[a.d. 269.] [By
the canons three bishops were necessary to ordain one to the
episcopate, nor was communion with fewer than these Catholic.] [See
p. 292, note 3, supra.]
10. But after these things, brethren beloved, what
is there wonderful in that which I am about to write, if I shall set
forth the false calumnies against me and our most pious laity?
For those who have set themselves in array against the Godhead of
Christ, do not scruple to utter their ungrateful ravings against
us. Who will not
11. And let these things be now urged
according to our power against those who, with respect to matter which
they know nothing of, have, as it were, rolled in the dust against
Christ, and have taken in hand to calumniate our piety towards
Him. For those inventors of stupid fables say, that we who turn
away with aversion from the impious and unscriptural blasphemy against
Christ, of those who speak of His coming from the things which are not
assert, that there are two unbegottens. For they ignorantly
affirm that one of two things must necessarily be said, either that He
is from things which are not, or that there are two unbegottens; nor do
those ignorant men know how great is the difference between the
unbegotten Father, and the things which were by Him created from things
which are not, as well the rational as the irrational. Between
which two, as holding the middle place, the only begotten nature of
God, the Word by which the Father formed all things out of nothing, was
begotten of the true Father Himself. As in a certain place the
Lord Himself testified, saying, “Every one that loveth Him that
begat, loveth Him also that is begotten of Him.”
12. Concerning whom we thus believe, even as
the Apostolic Church believes. In one Father unbegotten, who has
from no one the cause of His being, who is unchangeable and immutable,
who is always the same, and admits of no increase or diminution; who
gave to us the Law, the prophets, and the Gospels; who is Lord of the
patriarchs and apostles, and all the saints. And in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; not begotten of things
which are not, but of Him who is the Father; not in a corporeal manner,
by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but in a
certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner, according to the words of
the prophet cited above: “Who shall declare His
generation?”
13. These things in part have I written in
this epistle, thinking it burdensome to write out each accurately, even
as I said before, because they escape not your religious
diligence. Thus do we teach, thus do we preach. These are
the apostolic doctrines of the Church, for which also we die, esteeming
those but little who would compel us to forswear them, even if they
would force us by tortures, and not casting away our hope in
them. To these Arius and Achilles opposing themselves, and those
who with them are the enemies of the truth, have been expelled from the
Church, as being aliens from our holy doctrine, according to the
blessed Paul, who says, “If any man preach any other gospel unto
you than that ye have received, let him be accursed; even though he
feign himself an angel from heaven.”
14. These men, therefore, who have dared such things against Christ; who have partly in public derided the Christian religion; partly seek to traduce and inform against its professors before the judgment-seats; who in a time of peace, as far as in them lies, have stirred up a persecution against us; who have enervated the ineffable mystery of Christ’s generation; from these, I say, beloved and like-minded brethren, turning away in aversion, give your suffrages with us against their mad daring; even as our colleagues have done, who being moved with indignation, have both written to us letters against these men, and have subscribed our letter. Which also I have sent unto you by my son Apion the deacon, being some of them from the whole of Egypt and the Thebaid, some from Libya and Pentapolis. There are others also from Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the other neighbouring provinces. After the example of which I trust also that I shall receive letters from you. For though I have prepared many helps towards curing those who have suffered injury, this is the especial remedy that has been devised for healing the multitudes that have been deceived by them, that they may comply with the general consent of our colleagues, and thus hasten to return to repentance. Salute one another, together with the brethren who are with you. I pray that ye may be strong in the Lord, beloved, and that I may profit by your love towards Christ.
II.—Epistle
Catholic.
Taken from the Works of St. Athanasius, vol. i. part i. p. 397,
seqq., edit. Benedic. Paris, 1698.
To our beloved and most reverend fellow-ministers of the Catholic Church in every place, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord:
1. Since the body of the Catholic Church is
one,
[Elucidation II.]
[Imagining. Compare Hippolytus, vol. v. pp. 156 and 158,
supra. This expression seems to have been a sort of
formula.]
2. For he, desiring by their assistance to
renew that ancient wickedness of his mind, with respect to which he has
for a time been silent, pretends that he is writing in their behalf,
but he proves by his deed that he is exerting himself to do this on his
own account. Now the apostates from the Church are these:
Arius, Achilles,
[See p. 290, note 1, supra.]
“God was not always the Father; but there was a time when God was not the Father. The Word of God was not always, but was made ‘from things that are not;’ for He who is God fashioned the non-existing from the non-existing; wherefore there was a time when He was not. For the Son is a thing created, and a thing made: nor is He like to the Father in substance; nor is He the true and natural Word of the Father; nor is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things fashioned and made. And He is called, by a misapplication of the terms, the Word and Wisdom, since He is Himself made by the proper Word of God, and by that wisdom which is in God, in which, as God made all other things, so also did He make Him. Wherefore, He is by His very nature changeable and mutable, equally with other rational beings. The Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God. The father also is ineffable to the Son; for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can He perfectly see Him. For neither does the Son indeed know His own substance as it is. Since He for our sakes was made, that by Him as by an instrument God might create us; nor would He have existed had not God wished to make us. Some one asked of them whether the Son of God could change even as the devil changed; and they feared not to answer that He can; for since He was made and created, He is of mutable nature.”
3. Since those about Arius speak these
things and shamelessly maintain them, we, coming together with the
Bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, nearly a hundred in number, have
anathematized them, together with their followers. But those
about Eusebius have received them, earnestly endeavouring to mix up
falsehood with truth, impiety with piety. But they will not
prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is no communion betwixt
light and darkness, no concord between Christ and Belial.
4. Now concerning their blasphemous
assertion who say that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, we
need not wonder: for having once purposed in their mind to wage
war against Christ, they impugn also these words of His, “As the
Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father.”
5. By saying these things, and by unfolding
the divine Scriptures, we have often refuted them. But they,
chameleon-like, changing their sentiments, endeavour to claim for
themselves that saying: “When the wicked cometh, then
cometh contempt.”
[See the signators to this decree in the subjoined fragment.]
6. Since, therefore, our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ has thus Himself exhorted us, and by His apostle hath
signified such things to us; we, who have heard their impiety with our
own ears, have consistently anathematized such men, as I have already
said, and have declared them to be aliens from the Catholic Church and
faith, and we have made known the thing, beloved and most honoured
fellow-ministers, to your piety, that you should not receive any of
them, should they venture rashly to come unto you, and that you should
not trust Eusebius or any one else who writes concerning them.
For it becomes us as Christians to turn with aversion from all who
speak or think against Christ, as the adversaries of God and the
destroyers of souls, and “not even to wish them Godspeed, lest at
any time we become partakers of their evil deeds,”
Signators
Presbyters of Alexandria.
I, Colluthus, presbyter,
[See p. 291, note 3, supra.]
Alexander, presbyter, in like manner.
Dioscorus, presbyter, in like manner.
Dionysius, presbyter, in like manner.
Eusebius, presbyter, in like manner.
Alexander, presbyter, in like manner.
Nilaras, presbyter, in like manner.
Arpocration, presbyter, in like manner.
Agathus, presbyter.
Nemesius, presbyter.
Longus, presbyter.
Silvanus, presbyter.
Perous, presbyter.
Apis, presbyter.
Proterius, presbyter.
Paulus, presbyter.
Cyrus, presbyter, in like manner.
Deacons.
Ammonius, deacon, in like manner.
Macarius, deacon.
Pistus, deacon, in like manner.
Athanasius, deacon.
Eumenes, deacon.
Apollonius, deacon.
Olympius, deacon.
Aphthonius, deacon.
Athanasius, deacon.
[Note this name.]
Macarius, deacon, in like manner.
Paulus, deacon.
Petrus, deacon.
Ambytianus, deacon.
Gaius, deacon, in like manner.
Alexander, deacon.
Dionysius, deacon.
Agathon, deacon.
Polybius, deacon, in like manner.
Theonas, deacon.
Marcus, deacon.
Commodus, deacon.
Serapion, deacon.
Nilus, deacon.
Romanus, deacon, in like manner.
I, Apollonius, presbyter, give my suffrage to the things which are written, and also for the deposition of Arius, and of those who are guilty of impiety with him.
Ingenius, presbyter, in like manner.
Ammonius, presbyter.
Tyrannus, presbyter.
Copres, presbyter.
Ammonas, presbyter.
Orion, presbyter.
Serenus, presbyter.
Didymus, presbyter.
Heracles, presbyter.
Dioscorus, presbyter.
Sostras, presbyter.
Theon, presbyter.
Boccon, presbyter.
Agathus, presbyter.
Achilles, presbyter.
Paulus, presbyter.
Thalelæus, presbyter.
Dionysius, presbyter, in like manner.
Deacons.
Sarapion, deacon, in like manner.
Justus, deacon, in like manner.
Didymus, deacon.
Demetrius, deacon.
Maurus, deacon.
Alexander, deacon.
Marcus, deacon.
Comon, deacon.
Tryphon, deacon.
Ammonius, deacon.
Didymus, deacon.
Ptollarion, deacon.
Seras, deacon.
Gaius, deacon.
Hierax, deacon.
Marcus, deacon.
Theonas, deacon.
Sarmaton, deacon.
Carpon, deacon.
Zoilus, deacon, in like manner.
III.—Epistle.
Athanas. ibid., p. 396. On the deposition of Arius
and his followers by Alexander, archbishop of Alexandria.
Alexander, to the priests and deacons, Alexandria and Mareotis, being present to them present, brethren beloved in the Lord, sends greeting:
Although you have been forward to subscribe the letters that I sent to those about Arius, urging them to abjure their impiety, and to obey the wholesome and Catholic faith; and in this manner have shown your orthodox purpose, and your agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic Church; yet because I have also sent letters to all our fellow-ministers in every place with respect to the things which concern Arius and his companions; I have thought it necessary to call together you the clergy of the city, and to summon you also of Mareotis; especially since of your number Chares and Pistus, the priests; Sarapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenæus, the deacons, have gone over to the party of Arius, and have preferred to be deposed with them; that you may know what is now written, and that you should declare your consent in these matters, and give your suffrage for the deposition of those about Arius and Pistus. For it is right that you should know what I have written, and that you should each one, as if he had written it himself retain it in his heart.
IV.—Epistle to
Æglon, Bishop of Cynopolis, Against the Arians.
Two fragments from an epistle. St. Maxim., Theological
and Polemical Works, vol. ii. pp. 152–155. Edit. Paris,
1675.
From a letter of St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to Æglon, bishop of Cynopolis, against the Arians.
1. Natural will is the free faculty of every intelligent nature as having nothing involuntary which is in respect of its essence.
2. Natural operation is the innate motion of all substance. Natural operation is the substantial and notifying reason of every nature. Natural operation is the notifying virtue of every substance.
V.—On the Soul and Body
and the Passion of the Lord.
Many writings of the ancients, as Cardinal Mai has remarked, may
be disinterred from the Oriental manuscripts in the Vatican library,
some of which have been brought to light by that eminent scholar.
In an Arabic ms. he discovered a large portion
of the following discourse by St. Alexander, the patriarch of
Alexandria, which he afterwards met with entire in the Syrian Vatican
manuscript 368. The Greek version being lost, Mai, with the
assistance of the erudite Maronites, Matthæus Sciahuanus, and
Franciscus Mehasebus, translated the discourse into Latin, and his
version has been chiefly followed in the following translation.
Of its genuineness there is no doubt, and it is quite worthy of a place
among his other writings.
1. The Word which is ungrudgingly sent down from heaven, is fitted for the irrigation of our hearts, if we have been prepared for His power, not by speaking only, but by listening. For as the rain without the ground does not produce fruit, so neither does the Word fructify without hearing, nor hearing without the Word. Moreover, the Word then becomes fruitful when we pronounce it, and in the same way hearing, when we listen. Therefore since the Word draws forth its power, do you also ungrudgingly lend your ears, and when you come to hear, cleanse yourselves from all ill-will and unbelief. Two very bad things are ill-will and unbelief, both of which are contrary to righteousness; for ill-will is opposed to charity, and unbelief to faith; just in the same way as bitterness is opposed to sweetness, darkness to light, evil to good, death to life, falsehood to truth. Those, therefore, who abound in these vices that are repugnant to virtue, are in a manner dead; for the malignant and the unbelieving hate charity and faith, and they who do this are the enemies of God.
2. Since therefore ye know, brethren beloved, that
the malignant and the unbelieving are the enemies of righteousness,
beware of these, embrace faith and charity, by which all the holy men
who have existed from the beginning of the world to this day have
attained unto salvation. And show forth the fruit of charity, not
in words only, but also in deeds, that is, in all godly patience for
God’s sake. For, see! the Lord Himself hath shown His
charity towards us, not only in words but also in deeds, since He
3. But when man afterwards by his fall had inclined to death, it was necessary that that form should be recreated anew to salvation by the same Artificer. For the form indeed lay rotting in the ground; but that inspiration which had been as the breath of life, was detained separate from the body in a dark place, which is called Hades. There was, therefore, a division of the soul from the body; it was banished ad inferos, whilst the latter was resolved into dust; and there was a great interval of separation between them; for the body, by the dissolution of the flesh, becomes corrupt; the soul being loosened from it, its action ceases. For as when the king is thrown into chains, the city falls to ruin; or as when the general is taken captive, the army is scattered abroad; or as when the helmsman is shaken off, the vessel is submerged; so when the soul is bound in chains, its body goes to pieces; as the city without its king, so its members are dissolved; as is the case with an army when its general is lost, they are drowned in death, even as happens to a vessel when deprived of its helmsman. The soul, therefore, governed the man, as long as the body survived; even as the king governs the city, the general the army, the helmsman the ship. But it was powerless to rule it, from the time when it was immoveably tied to it, and became immersed in error; therefore it was that it declined from the straight path, and followed tempters, giving heed to fornication, idolatry, and shedding of blood; by which evil deeds it has destroyed the proper manhood. Nay, but itself also being carried at length to the lower regions, it was there detained by the wicked tempter. Else was it wont, as the king restores the ruined city, the general collects the dispersed army, the sailor repairs the broken ship, even so, I say, the soul used to minister supplies to the body before that the body was dissolved in the dust, being not as yet itself bound fast with fetters. But after that the soul became bound, not with material fetters but with sins, and thus was rendered impotent to act, then it left its body in the ground, and being cast down to the lower regions, it was made the footstool of death, and despicable to all.
4. Man went forth from paradise to a region which was the sink of unrighteousness, fornication, adultery, and cruel murder. And there he found his destruction; for all things conspired to his death, and worked the ruin of him who had hardly entered there. Meanwhile man wanted some consolation and assistance and rest. For when was it well with man? In his mother’s womb? But when he was shut up there, he differed but little from the dead. When he was nourished with milk from the breast? Not even then, indeed, did he feel any joy. Was it rather whilst he was coming to maturity? But then, especially, dangers impended over him from his youthful lusts. Was it, lastly, when he grew old? Nay, but then does he begin to groan, being pressed down by the weight of old age, and the expectation of death. For what else is old age but the expectation of death? Verily all the inhabitants of earth do die, young men and old, little children and adults, for no age or bodily stature is exempt from death. Why, then, is man tormented by this exceeding grief? Doubtless the very aspect of death begets sadness; for we behold in a dead man the face changed, the figure dead, the body shrunk up with emaciation, the mouth silent, the skin cold, the carcase prostrate on the ground, the eyes sunken, the limbs immoveable, the flesh wasted away, the veins congealed, the bones whitened, the joints dissolved, all parts of him reduced to dust, and the man no longer existing. What, then, is man? A flower, I say, that is but for a little time, which in his mother’s womb is not apparent, in youth flourishes, but which in old age withers and departs in death.
5. But now, after all this bondage to death and corruption of the manhood, God hath visited His creature, which He formed after His own image and similitude; and this He hath done that it might not for ever be the sport of death. Therefore God sent down from heaven His incorporeal Son to take flesh upon Him in the Virgin’s womb; and thus, equally as thou, was He made man; to save lost man, and collect all His scattered members. For Christ, when He joined the manhood to His person, united that which death by the separation of the body had dispersed. Christ suffered that we should live for ever.
For else why should Christ have died? Had He
committed anything worthy of death? Why did He clothe Himself in
flesh who was invested with glory? And since He was God, why did
He become man? And since He reigned in heaven, why did He come
down to earth, and become incarnate in the virgin’s womb?
What necessity, I ask, impelled God
The passage, as far as to “rise again the third day from
the dead,” is generally marked with inverted commas, and Mai
remarks that it had been already brought to light by him under the name
of the same Alexander, in the Spicileg. Roman., vol. iii. p.
699, amongst some extracts of the Fathers from the Arabic Vatican
Codex, 101, in which is contained the celebrated Monophysite work
entitled Fides Patrum. It is established therefore
that this discourse was written in Greek by Alexander, and afterwards
translated not only into the Syriac, but also into the Arabic
language. [I have made this passage into a paragraph distinct
from the rest.]
6. For when our Lord was suffering upon the
cross, the tombs were burst open, the infernal region was disclosed,
the souls leapt forth, the dead returned to life, and many of them were
seen in Jerusalem, whilst the mystery of the cross was being perfected;
what time our Lord trampled upon death, dissolved the enmity, bound the
strong man, and raised the trophy of the cross, His body being lifted
up upon it, that the body might appear on high, and death to be
depressed under the foot of flesh. Then the heavenly powers
wondered, the angels were astonished, the elements trembled, every
creature was shaken whilst they looked on this new mystery, and the
terrific spectacle which was being enacted in the universe. Yet
the entire people, as unconscious of the mystery, exulted over Christ
in derision; although the earth was rocking, the mountains, the
valleys, and the sea were shaken, and every creature of God was smitten
with confusion. The lights of heaven were afraid, the sun fled
away, the moon disappeared, the stars withdrew their shining, the day
came to end;
[Vol. iii. 58, this series. The patristic testimony is
overwhelming and sufficient. See Africanus, p. 136,
supra, and a full discussion of his statement in Routh,
R. S., ii. p. 477.]
Hades.
7. Ye see, therefore, how great was the effect of
the death of Christ, for no creature endured His fall with equal mind,
nor did the elements His Passion, neither did the earth retain His
body, nor hell His Spirit. All things were in the Passion of
Christ disturbed and convulsed. The Lord exclaimed, as once
before to Lazarus, Come forth, ye dead, from your tombs and your secret
places; for I, the Christ, give unto you resurrection. For then
the earth could not long hold the body of our Lord that in it was
buried; but it exclaimed, O my Lord, pardon mine iniquities, save me
from Thy wrath, absolve me from the curse, for I have received the
blood of the righteous, and yet I have not covered the bodies of men or
Thine own body! What is at length this wonderful mystery?
Why, O Lord, didst Thou come down to earth, unless it was for
man’s sake, who has been scattered everywhere: for in every
place has Thy fair image been disseminated? Nay! but if thou
shouldest give but one little word, at the instant all bodies would
stand before Thee. Now, since Thou hast come to earth, and hast
sought for the members of Thy fashioning, undertake for man who is
Thine own, receive that which is committed to Thee,
VI.—The Addition in the Codex, with a Various Reading.
God, therefore, wishing to visit His own form
which He had fashioned after His own image and similitude, hath in
these last times sent into the world His incorporeal and only Son, who
being in the Virgin’s womb incarnate, was born perfect man to
raise erect lost man, re-collecting His scattered members. For
why else should Christ have died? Was He capitally accused?
And since He was God, why was He made man? Why did He who was
reigning in heaven come down to earth? Who compelled God to come
down to earth, to take flesh of the holy Virgin, to be wrapped in
swaddling clothes and laid in a manger, to be nourished with milk, to
be baptized in the Jordan, to be mocked of the people, to be nailed to
the tree, to be buried in the bosom of the earth, and the third day to
rise again from the dead; in the cause of redemption to give life for
life, blood for blood, to undergo death for death? For Christ, by
dying, hath discharged the debt of death to which man was
obnoxious. Oh, the new and ineffable mystery! the Judge was
judged. He who absolves from sin was bound; He was mocked who
once framed the world; He was stretched upon the cross who stretched
out the heavens; He was fed with gall who gave the manna to be bread;
He died who gives life. He was given up to the tomb who raises
the dead. The powers were astonished, the angels wondered, the
elements trembled, the whole created universe was shaken, the earth
quaked, and its foundations rocked; the sun fled away, the elements
were subverted, the light of day receded; because they could not bear
to look upon their crucified Lord.
Here, again, we have this fact insisted on. See p. 301, note
4.
————————————
I.
(Some points, p. 289.)
That the theology of the great school of Alexandria had a character of its own, is most apparent; I should be the last to deny it. As its succession of teachers was like that of hereditary descent in a family, a family likeness is naturally to be found in this school, from the great Clement to the great Athanasius. It is a school that hands on the traditions in which Apollos had been reared; it not less reflects the Greek influences always dominant in the capital of the Macedonian hero; but it is a school in which the Gospel of Christ as the Light of the world was always made predominant: and, while a most liberal view of human knowledge was inculcated in it, yet the faith was always exalted as the mother and mistress of the true gnosis and of all science. The wise men of this world were summoned with an imperial voice, from this eldest seat and centre of Christian learning, to cast their crowns and their treasures at the feet of Jesus. With a generous patronage Clement conceded all he could to the philosophy of the Greeks, and yet sublimely rose above it to a sphere it never discovered, and looked down upon all merely human intellect and its achievements like Uriel in the sun.
It was the special though unconscious mission of
this school to prepare the way, and to shape the thought of
Christendom, for the great epoch of the (nominal) conversion of the
empire, and for the all-important synodical period, its logical
consequence. It was in this school that the technical formulas of
the Church were naturally wrought out. The process was like that
of the artist who has first to make his own tools. He does many
things, and resorts to many contrivances, never afterwards necessary
when once the tools are complete and his laboratory furnished with all
he wants for his work. To my mind, therefore, it is but a pastime
of no practical worth to contrast the idiosyncrasies of Clement with
those of Origen, and to set up distinctions between the Logos of this
doctor and that. See,
against Petavius and others, Dr. Holmes’s learned note, vol. iii.
p. 628, Elucidation I.
It is extraordinary that many truly evangelical
critics seem to see, in the subordination taught by
Origen,
Vol. iv. p. 343, this series; also Elucidation II. p. 382. On
Tertullian’s orthodoxy, see notes, vol. iii. p. 600, etc.
When we consider his refinements about the words substance,
idea, image, etc., in the dispute with Celsus, while yet these
terms were not reduced to precision, we cannot but detect his effort to
convey an orthodox notion. Observe Dr. Spencer’s short but
useful note, vol. iv. p. 603, note 3.
See vol. iv. p. 382, Elucidations I., II., and III.
(Since the body of the Catholic Church is one, etc., p. 296.)
As so shortly preceding the meeting of the Great
Council, this letter is most important as a clear testimony to the
meaning the first council attached to that article of the Creed which
affirms “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” We
must compare the Treatises of Cyprian for the West, with this
and the Letter of Firmilian
Vol. v. p. 390, this series.
The concluding section of this letter is decisive
as to the absolute autonomy of the Alexandrian
diœcese.
See the force of this spelling, p. 240, supra.
Methodius.
[Translated by the Rev. William R. Clark, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton.]
Introductory Notice
to
Methodius.
————————————
[a.d.
260–312]. Considering the strong language in which
Methodius is praised by ancient writers, as well as by the moderns, I
feel that our learned translator has too hastily dismissed his name and
works in the biographical introduction below. Epiphanius makes
great use of him in his refutations of Origen; and Dupin’s
critical and historical notice of him is prolonged and highly
discriminating, furnishing an abridgment of all his writings and of
those vulgarly attributed to him heretofore.
[In Dr. Schaff’s History (vol. ii. p. 809) is just
such a notice and outline as would be appropriate here.]
Introduction.
Methodius, who is also called Eubulius,
St. Epiph. Hæres., 64, sec. 63. [But this seems
only his nom de plume, assumed in his fiction of the
Banquet.]
St. Hieronymus, De viris illustr., c. 83.
Methodius is known chiefly as the antagonist of
Origen; although, as has been pointed out, he was himself influenced in
no small degree by the method of Origen, as may be seen by his tendency
to allegorical interpretations of Holy Scripture. The only
complete work of this writer which has come down to us is his
Banquet of the Ten Virgins, a dialogue of considerable power and
grace, in praise of the virginal life. His antagonism to Origen,
however, comes out less in this than in his works On the
Resurrection, and On Things Created. The treatise
On Free Will is, according to recent critics, of doubtful
authorship, although the internal evidence must be said to confirm the
ancient testimonies which assign it to Methodius. His writings
against Porphyry, with the exception of some slight fragments, are
lost, as are also his exegetical writings.
For the larger fragments we are indebted to Epiphanius
(Hæres., 64) and Photius (Bibliotheca,
234–237).
The following translation has been made almost entirely from the text of Migne, which is generally accurate, and the arrangement of which has been followed throughout. The edition of Jahn in some places rearranges the more fragmentary works, especially that On the Resurrection; but, although his text was occasionally found useful in amending the old readings, and in improving the punctuation, it was thought better to adhere in general to the text which is best known.
A writer who was pronounced by St.
Epiphanius
Epiph., Hær., 64, sec. 63. ἀνὴρ
λόγιος καὶ
σφόδρα περὶ
τῆς ἀληθείας
ἀγωνισάμενος.
[Petavius renders this: “vir apprime doetus acerrimusque
veritatis patronus.”]
Hieron., Com. in Dan., c. 13.
Id., De vir. ill., c. 83. Many more such testimonies
will be found collected in the various editions of his works in
Greek.
[The idea, and some of the ideas borrowed from the
Symposium of Plato, but designed to furnish a contrast as strong
as possible between the swinish sensuality of false
“philosophy” in its best estate, and the heavenly chastity
of those whom the Gospel renders “pure in heart,” and whose
life on earth is controlled by the promise, “they shall see
God.”]
Or,
Concerning Chastity.
————————————
Persons of the Dialogue:
Euboulios, In
Migne’s ed. Euboulion, but apparently with less
authority; and probably because the name is connected with that of
Gregorion. Euboulios is a man, and Gregorion a
woman.
Introduction.—Plan of the Work; Way to Paradise; Description and Personification of Virtue; The Agnos a Symbol of Chastity; Marcella, the Eldest and Foremost Among the Virgins of Christ.
Euboulios. You have arrived most seasonably, Gregorion, for I have just been looking for you, wanting to hear of the meeting of Marcella and Theopatra, and of the other virgins who were present at the banquet, and of the nature of their discourses on the subject of chastity; for it is said that they argued with such ability and power that there was nothing lacking to the full consideration of the subject. If, therefore, you have come here for any other purpose, put that off to another time, and do not delay to give us a complete and connected account of the matter of which we are inquiring.
Gregorion.
[Gregorion answers to the Diotima of Socrates in
Plato’s Banquet, and talks like a philosopher on these
delicate subjects.]
Euboulios. Be comforted, my excellent friend, for we have had no precise information respecting anything which happened; since the person who brought us the intelligence had nothing to tell us, except that there had been dialogues; but when he was asked what they were, and to what purpose, he did not know.
Gregorion. Well then, as I came here for this reason, do you want to hear all that was said from the beginning; or shall I pass by parts of it, and recall only those points which I consider worthy of mention?
Euboulios. By no means the latter; but first, Gregorion, relate to us from the very beginning where the meeting was, and about the setting forth of the viands, and about yourself, how you poured out the wine
“They in golden cups
Each other pledged, while towards broad heaven
they looked.”
Hom., Il., iv. 3, 4.
Gregorion. You are always skilful in discussions, and excessively powerful in argument—thoroughly confuting all your adversaries.
Euboulios. It is not worth while, Gregorion, to contend about these things at present; but do oblige us by simply telling us what happened from the beginning.
Gregorion. Well, I
will try. But first answer me this: You know, I presume,
Arete,
A personification of virtue, the daughter of philosophy.
[i.e., of philosophy not falsely so called.]
Euboulios. Why do you ask?
Gregorion. “We went
by invitation to a garden of hers with an eastern aspect, to enjoy the
fruits of the season, myself, and Procilla, and Tusiane.” I
am repeating the words of Theo
“A
tall tree like the willow, the branches of which were strewn by matrons
on their beds at the Thesmophoria, vitex agnuscastus. It
was associated with the notion of chastity, from the likeness of its
name to ἁγνός.”—
Liddell and Scott.
Euboulios. You seem
to me, my good friend, to be making a revelation of a second
paradise.
[Much of this work suggests a comparison with the Hermas
of vol. ii., and Minucius Felix seems not infrequently
reflected.]
Gregorion. You speak
truly and wisely. “When there,” she said, “we
had all kinds of food and a variety of festivities, so that no delight
was wanting. After this Arete, [Virtue
presides, and “to the pure all things are pure;” but the
freedoms of the converse must offend unless we bear in mind that these
are allegorical beings, not women in flesh and blood.]
“‘Young maidens, the glory of my
greatness, beautiful virgins, who tend the undefiled meadows of Christ
with unwedded hands, we have now had enough of food and feasting, for
all things are abundant and plentiful with us.
[See the oration on Simeon and Anna, cap. 10,
infra.]
“And then,” I think she said, “Marcella immediately began to speak as follows.”
Discourse I.—Marcella.
Chapter I.—The Difficulty and Excellence of Virginity; The Study of Doctrine Necessary for Virgins.
Virginity is something supernaturally great,
wonderful, and glorious; and, to speak plainly and in accordance with
the Holy Scriptures, this best and noblest manner of life alone is the
root Lit.
the udder.
[I
think evidence abounds, in the course of this allegory, that it was
designed to meet the painful discussions excited in the Church by the
fanatical conduct of Origen, vol. iv. pp. 225–226.]
For this reason, it requires strong and generous
natures, such as, vaulting over the stream of pleasure, direct the
chariot of the soul upwards from the earth, not turning aside from
their aim, until having, by swiftness of thought, lightly bounded above
the world, and taken their stand truly upon the vault of heaven, they
purely contemplate immortality itself as it springs forth Lit.
“leaps out.”
Earth could not bring forth this draught; heaven alone
knew the fountain from whence it flows; for we must think of virginity
as walking indeed upon the earth, but as also reaching up
For as the putrid humours and matter of flesh, and
all those things which corrupt it, are driven out by salt, in the same
manner all the irrational appetites of a virgin are banished from the
body by divine teaching. For it must needs be that the soul which
is not sprinkled with the words of Christ, as with salt, should stink
and breed worms, as King David, openly confessing with tears in the
mountains, cried out, “My wounds stink and are
corrupt,”
Chapter II.—Virginity a Plant from Heaven, Introduced Late; The Advancement of Mankind to Perfection, How Arranged.
For truly by a great stretch of power the plant of
virginity was sent down to men from heaven, and for this reason it was
not revealed to the first generations. For the race of mankind
was still very small in number; and it was necessary that it should
first be increased in number, and then brought to perfection.
Therefore the men of old times thought it nothing unseemly to take
their own sisters for wives, until the law coming separated them, and
by forbidding that which at first had seemed to be right, declared it
to be a sin, calling him cursed who should “uncover the
nakedness” of his sister;
[Contending with the worse than bestial sensuality of paganism, and
inured to the sorrows of martyr-ages, when Christian families could not
be reared in peace, let us not wonder at the high conceptions of these
heroic believers, based on the words of Christ Himself, and on the
promise, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.”]
Chapter III.—By the Circumcision of Abraham, Marriage with Sisters Forbidden; In the Times of the Prophets Polygamy Put a Stop To; Conjugal Purity Itself by Degrees Enforced.
If, however, any one should venture to find fault
with our argument as destitute of Scripture proof, we will bring
forward the writings of the prophets, and more fully demonstrate the
truth of the statements already made. Now Abraham, when he first
received the covenant of circumcision, seems to signify, by receiving
circumcision in a member of his own body, nothing else than this, that
one should no longer beget children with one born of the same parent;
showing that every one should abstain from intercourse with his own
sister, as his own flesh. And thus, from the time of Abraham, the
custom of marrying with sisters has ceased; and from the times of the
prophets the contracting of marriage with several wives has been done
away with; for we read, “Go not after thy lusts, but refrain
thyself from thine appetites;”
Lest, however, we should seem prolix in collecting
the testimonies of the prophets, let us again point out how chastity
succeeded to marriage with one wife, taking away by degrees the lusts
of the flesh, until it removed entirely the inclination for sexual
intercourse engendered by habit. For presently one is introduced
earnestly deprecating, from henceforth, this seduction, saying,
“O Lord, Father, and Governor of my life, leave me not to their
counsels; give me not a proud look; let not the greediness of the
belly, nor lust of the flesh, take hold of me.”
Chapter IV.—Christ Alone Taught Virginity, Openly Preaching the Kingdom of Heaven; The Likeness of God to Be Attained in the Light of the Divine Virtues.
We have already spoken of the periods of the human
race, and how, beginning with the intermarriage of brothers and
sisters, it went on to continence; and we have now left for us the
subject of virginity. Let us then endeavour to speak of this as
well as we can. And first let us inquire for what reason it was
that no one of the many patriarchs and prophets and righteous men, who
taught and did many noble things, either praised or chose the state of
virginity. Because it was reserved for the Lord alone to be the
first to teach this doctrine, since He alone, coming down to us, taught
man to draw near to God; for it was fitting that He who was first and
chief of priests, of prophets, and of angels, should also be saluted as
first and chief of virgins. [This
seems to me admirable. Our times are too little willing to see
all that Scripture teaches in this matter.] A
distinction common among the Fathers.
Chapter V.—Christ,
by Preserving His Flesh Incorrupt in Virginity, Draws to the Exercise
of Virginity; The Small Number of
What then did the Lord, who is the Truth and the
Light, take in hand when He came down from heaven? He preserved
the flesh which He had taken upon Him incorrupt in virginity, so that
we also, if we would come to the likeness of God and Christ, should
endeavour to honour virginity. For the likeness of God is the
avoiding of corruption. And that the Word, when He was incarnate,
became chief Virgin, in the same way as He was chief Shepherd and chief
Prophet of the Church, the Christ-possessed John shows us, saying, in
the Book of the Revelation, “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood
on the mount Sion, and with Him an hundred forty and four thousand,
having His name and His Father’s name written in their
foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many
waters, and as the voice of a great thunder; and I heard the voice of
harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new
song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the
elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and
forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb whithersoever He
goeth;”
[Compare Cyprian, vol. v. p. 475, this series.]
This, O Arete, is my discourse to you on the subject of virginity. But, if I have omitted anything, let Theophila, who succeeds me, supply the omission.
Discourse II.—Theophila.
Chapter I.—Marriage Not Abolished by the Commendation of Virginity.
And then, she said, Theophila spoke:—Since Marcella has excellently begun this discussion without sufficiently completing it, it is necessary that I should endeavour to put a finish to it. Now, the fact that man has advanced by degrees to virginity, God urging him on from time to time, seems to me to have been admirably proved; but I cannot say the same as to the assertion that from henceforth they should no longer beget children. For I think I have perceived clearly from the Scriptures that, after He had brought in virginity, the Word did not altogether abolish the generation of children; for although the moon may be greater than the stars, the light of the other stars is not destroyed by the moonlight.
Let us begin with Genesis, that we may give its
place of antiquity and supremacy to this scripture. Now the
sentence and ordinance of God respecting the begetting of
children
ἕως ἄρτι, even until
now.
Chapter II.—Generation Something Akin to the First Formation of Eve from the Side and Nature of Adam; God the Creator of Men in Ordinary Generation.
And this perhaps is what was shadowed forth by the sleep
and trance of the first man, which
Remark the connection, ἔκστασις and εξίσταται.
Wherefore, if God still forms man, shall we not be
guilty of audacity if we think of the generation of children as
something offensive, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to make
use of in working with His undefiled hands; for He says to Jeremiah,
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;”
Chapter III.—An Ambiguous Passage of Scripture; Not Only the Faithful But Even Prelates Sometimes Illegitimate.
But Marcella, interrupting, said, “O
Theophila, there appears here a great mistake, and something contrary
to what you have said; and do you think to escape under cover of the
cloud which you have thrown around you? For there comes that
argument, which perhaps any one who addresses you as a very wise person
will bring forward: What do you say of those who are begotten
unlawfully in adultery? For you laid it down that it was
inconceivable and impossible for any one to enter into the world unless
he was introduced by the will of the divine Ruler, his frame being
prepared for him by God. And that you may not take refuge behind
a safe wall, bringing forward the Scripture which says, ‘As for
the children of the adulterers, they shall not come to their
perfection,’
And if, again, you answer sophistically, ‘O,
my friend, by those who come not to perfection I understand being
perfected in Christ-taught righteousness;’ he will say,
‘But, indeed, my worthy friend, very many who are begotten of
unrighteous seed are not only numbered among those who are gathered
into the flock of the brethren, but are often called even to preside
over them.
[Bastardy seems to have been regarded as washed out by baptism,
thousands of pagan converts having been born under this stain.]
Chapter IV.—Human Generation, and the Work of God Therein Set Forth.
Theophila, as though caught round the middle by a strong
antagonist, grew giddy, and with difficulty recovering herself,
replied, “You ask a question, my worthy friend, which needs to be
solved by an example, that you may still better understand how the
creative power of God, pervading all things, is more especially the
real cause in the generation of men, making those things to grow which
are planted in the productive earth. For that which is sown is
not to be blamed, but he who sows in a strange soil by unlawful
embraces, as though purchasing a slight pleasure by shamefully selling
his own seed. For imagine our birth into the world to be like
some such thing as a house having its entrance lying close to lofty
mountains; and that the house ex
“Well, now, consider further what comes after this: the modeller within going round to the holes and taking privately for his modelling the clay which he finds at each hole, and having in a certain number of months made his model, giving it back through the same hole; having this for his rule, that every lump of clay which is capable of being moulded shall be worked up indifferently, even if it be unlawfully thrown by any one through another’s hole, for the clay has done no wrong, and, therefore, as being blameless, should be moulded and formed; but that he who, in opposition to the ordinance and law, deposited it in another’s hole, should be punished as a criminal and transgressor. For the clay should not be blamed, but he who did this in violation of what is right; for, through incontinence, having carried it away, he secretly, by violence, deposited it in another’s hole.” “You say most truly.”
Chapter V.—The Holy Father Follows Up the Same Argument.
And now that these things are completed, it remains for you to apply this picture, my wisest of friends, to the things which have been already spoken of; comparing the house to the invisible nature of our generation, and the entrance adjacent to the mountains to the sending down of our souls from heaven, and their descent into the bodies; the holes to the female sex, and the modeller to the creative power of God, which, under the cover of generation, making use of our nature, invisibly forms us men within, working the garments for the souls. Those who carry the clay represent the male sex in the comparison; when thirsting for children, they bring and cast in seed into the natural channels of the female, as those in the comparison cast clay into the holes. For the seed, which, so to speak, partakes of a divine creative power, is not to be thought guilty of the incentives to incontinence; and art always works up the matter submitted to it; and nothing is to be considered as evil in itself, but becomes so by the act of those who used it in such a way; for when properly and purely made use of, it comes out pure, but if disgracefully and improperly, then it becomes disgraceful. For how did iron, which was discovered for the benefit of agriculture and the arts, injure those who sharpened it for murderous battles? Or how did gold, or silver, or brass, and, to take it collectively, the whole of the workable earth, injure those who, ungratefully towards their Creator, make a wrong use of them by turning parts of them into various kinds of idols? And if any one should supply wool from that which had been stolen to the weaving art, that art, regarding this one thing only, manufactures the material submitted to it, if it will receive the preparation, rejecting nothing of that which is serviceable to itself, since that which is stolen is here not to be blamed, being lifeless. And, therefore, the material itself is to be wrought and adorned, but he who is discovered to have abstracted it unjustly should be punished. So, in like manner, the violators of marriage, and those who break the strings of the harmony of life, as of a harp, raging with lust, and letting loose their desires in adultery, should themselves be tortured and punished, for they do a great wrong stealing from the gardens of others the embraces of generation; but the seed itself, as in the case of the wool, should be formed and endowed with life.
Chapter VI.—God Cares Even for Adulterous Births; Angels Given to Them as Guardians.
But what need is there to protract the argument by using
such examples? for nature could not thus, in a little time, accomplish
so great a work without divine help. For who gave to the bones
their fixed nature? and who bound the yielding members with nerves, to
be extended and relaxed at the joints? or who prepared channels for the
blood, and a soft windpipe for the breath? or what god caused the
humours to ferment, mixing them with blood and forming the soft flesh
out of the earth, but only the Supreme Artist making us to be man, the
rational and living image of Himself, and forming it like wax, in the
womb, from moist slight seed? or by whose providence was it that the
fœtus was not suffocated by damp when shut up within, in the
connexion of the vessels? or who, after it was brought forth and had
come into the light, changed it from weakness and smallness to size,
and beauty, and strength, unless God Himself, the Supreme Artist, as I
said, making by His creative power copies of Christ, and living
pic
Chapter VII.—The Rational Soul from God Himself; Chastity Not the Only Good, Although the Best and Most Honoured.
And perhaps there will be room for some to argue
plausibly among those who are wanting in discrimination and judgment,
that this fleshly garment of the soul, being planted by men, is shaped
spontaneously apart from the sentence of God. If, however, he
should teach that the immortal being of the soul also is sown along
with the mortal body, he will not be believed; for the Almighty alone
breathes into man the undying and undecaying part, as also it is He
alone who is Creator of the invisible and indestructible. For, He
says, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul.”
[This language shows that it is not cited as Holy
Scripture. It confirms St. Jerome’s testimony, Prolog.
in Libros Salomonis.]
His virgin. [St. Paul was married, and then a widower, in
the opinion of many of the ancients. See Euseb., H. E.,
iii. 30.]
The
bridegroom’s.
These words, O Arete, I bring according to my ability to this discussion in behalf of the truth.
And when Theophila had thus spoken, Theopatra said that applause arose from all the virgins approving of her discourse; and that when they became silent, after a long pause, Thaleia arose, for to her had been assigned the third place in the contest, that which came after Theophila. And she then, as I think, followed, and spoke.
Discourse III.—Thaleia.
Chapter I.—Passages of Holy
Scripture
You seem to me, O Theophila, to excel all in action and
in speech, and to be second to none in wisdom. For there is no
one who will find fault with your discourse, however contentious and
contradictory he may be. Yet, while everything else seems rightly
spoken, one thing, my friend, distresses and troubles me, considering
that that wise and most spiritual man—I mean
Chapter II.—The Digressions of the Apostle Paul; The Character of His Doctrine: Nothing in It Contradictory; Condemnation of Origen, Who Wrongly Turns Everything into Allegory.
Let it not disturb you, if, in discussing one
class of subjects, he, i.e., Paul, should pass over into
another, so as to appear to mix them up, and to import matters foreign
to the subject under consideration, departing from the question, as now
for instance. For wishing, as it seems, to strengthen most
carefully the argument on behalf of chastity, he prepares the mode of
argument beforehand, beginning with the more persuasive mode of
speech. For the character of his speech being very various, and
arranged for the purpose of progressive proof, begins gently, but flows
forward into a style which is loftier and more magnificent. And
then, again changing to what is deep, he sometimes finishes with what
is simple and easy, and sometimes with what is more difficult and
delicate; and yet introducing nothing which is foreign to the subject
by these changes, but, bringing them all together according to a
certain marvellous relationship, he works into one the question which
is set forth as his subject. It is needful, then, that I should
more accurately unfold the meaning of the apostle’s arguments,
yet rejecting nothing of what has been said before. For you seem
to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture
amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without
mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the
literal meaning,
This is the obvious English equivalent of the Greek
text.—Tr. [A singularly cautious
testimony against Origen, whom our author follows too closely in
allegorizing interpretations of Scripture. Origen, having
literalized so sadly in one case, seems to have erred ever afterward in
the other extreme. Here is a prudent caveat.]
Chapter III.—Comparison Instituted Between the First and Second Adam.
And, first, we must inquire if Adam can be likened
to the Son of God, when he was found in the transgression of the Fall,
and heard the sentence, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return.”
Chapter IV.—Some Things Here Hard and Too Slightly Treated, and Apparently Not Sufficiently Brought Out According to the Rule of Theology.
Such, then, I consider to be the objections urged
by many who, despising, as it seems, the wisdom of Paul, dislike the
comparing of the first man to Christ. For come, let us consider
how rightly Paul compared Adam to Christ, not only considering him to
be the type and image, but also that Christ Himself became the very
same thing,
Namely, the second Adam. Second
Adam.
The obscurity of this chapter is indicated in the heading placed
over it by the old Latin translator. The general meaning,
however, will be clear enough to the theological
reader.—Tr.
Chapter V.—A Passage of Jeremiah Examined.
And here I may adduce the prophet Jeremiah as a
trustworthy and lucid witness, who speaks thus: “Then I
went down to the potter’s house; and, behold, he wrought a work
on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in
the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as
seemed good to the potter to make it.”
Chapter VI.—The Whole Number of Spiritual Sheep; Man a Second Choir, After the Angels, to the Praise of God; The Parable of the Lost Sheep Explained.
Now, since He truly was and is, being in the
beginning with God, and being God, St.
Chapter VII.—The Works of Christ, Proper to God and to Man, the Works of Him Who is One.
And now we seem to have said almost enough on the
fact that man has become the organ and clothing of the Only-begotten,
and what He was who came to dwell in him. But the fact that there
is no moral inequality or discord In
Him.
Here, as in the previous chapter, and in many other passages, I
have preferred the text of Jahn to that of Migne, as
being generally the more accurate.—Tr.
Chapter VIII.—The Bones and Flesh of Wisdom; The Side Out of Which the Spiritual Eve is Formed, the Holy Spirit; The Woman the Help-Meet of Adam; Virgins Betrothed to Christ.
For it has been already established by no contemptible arguments from Scripture, that the first man may be properly referred to Christ Himself, and is no longer a type and representation and image of the Only-begotten, but has become actually Wisdom and the Word.
For man, having been composed, like water, of
wisdom and life, has become identical with the very same untainted
light which poured into him. Whence it was that the apostle
directly referred to Christ the words which had been spoken of
Adam. For thus will it be most certainly agreed that the Church
is formed out of His bones and flesh; and it was for this cause that
the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be “joined
to His wife;”
Rib.
Commonly used by the Greek Fathers for the Baptized.
[Following Holy Scripture,
Jahn’s reading, ἀναπλησθείς. Migne has ἀναπλασθεὶς, moulded.
Rib.
Chapter IX.—The Dispensation of Grace in Paul the Apostle.
Now we should consider the case of the renowned
Paul, that when he was not yet perfect in Christ, he was first born and
suckled, Ananias preaching to him, and renewing him in baptism, as the
history in the Acts relates. But when he was grown to a man, and
was built up, then being moulded to spiritual perfection, he was made
the help-meet and bride of the Word; and receiving and conceiving the
seeds of life, he who was before a child, becomes a church and a
mother, himself labouring in birth of those who, through him, believed
in the Lord, until Christ was formed and born in them also. For
he says, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again
until Christ be formed in you;”
It is evident, then, that the statement respecting Eve and Adam is to be referred to the Church and Christ. For this is truly a great mystery and a supernatural, of which I, from my weakness and dulness, am unable to speak, according to its worth and greatness. Nevertheless, let us attempt it. It remains that I speak to you on what follows, and of its signification.
Chapter X.—The Doctrine of the Same Apostle Concerning Purity.
Now Paul, when summoning all persons to
sanctification and purity, in this way referred that which had been
spoken concerning the first man and Eve in a secondary sense to Christ
and the Church, in order to silence the ignorant, now deprived of all
excuse. For men who are incontinent in consequence of the
uncontrolled impulses of sensuality in them, dare to force the
Scriptures beyond their true meaning, so as to twist into a defence of
their incontinence the saying, “Increase and
multiply;”
[Laver (Gr. λουτρὸν).
Compare
Chapter XI.—The Same Argument.
For consider, O virgins, how he,
Paul.
In
the original the two words are different. In the quotation from
St. Paul it is ἅπτεσθαι;
here it is προσψαύειν
. Nothing could be gained by using two words in the
translation.—Tr.
Chapter XII.—Paul an Example to Widows, and to Those Who Do Not Live with Their Wives.
Come, now, and let us examine more carefully the
very words which are before us, and observe that the apostle did not
grant these things unconditionally to all, but first laid down the
reason on account of which he was led to this. For, having set
forth that “it is good for a man not to touch a
woman,”
E.V. “Fasting and prayer.” As in the best
mss., τῇ νηστείᾳ
καί is wanting in the text.
“I say therefore,” he goes
on,
[See
p. 316, supra (note), and also Eusebius, there cited.
Per contra, see Lewin, vol. i. 382, 386.]
Καλόν. It is the
same word which is translated good in ver. 1, “It is good
for a man.”
i.e., participate in the same ordinances, and in their fruits.
I have now brought to an end what I have to say
respecting continence and marriage and chastity, and intercourse with
men, and in which of these there is help towards progress in
righteousness; but it still remains to speak concerning
virginity—if, indeed, anything be prescribed on this
subject. Let us then treat this subject also; for it stands
thus:
Which
I recommend.
A
clause is omitted here in the text.
Chapter XIV.—Virginity a Gift of God: the Purpose of Virginity Not Rashly to Be Adopted by Any One.
Consider besides how, in addition to the words
already quoted, he commends the state of virginity as a gift of
God. Wherefore he rejects those of the more incontinent, who,
under the influence of vain-glory, would advance to this state,
advising them to marry, lest in their time of manly strength, the flesh
stirring up the desires and passions, they should be goaded on to
defile the soul. For let us consider what he lays down:
Let any one who will, take in his hand the Epistle to the Corinthians, and, examining all its passages one by one, then consider what we have said, comparing them together, as to whether there is not a perfect harmony and agreement between them. These things, according to my power, O Arete, I offer to thee as my contribution on the subject of chastity.
Euboulios. Through many things, O Gregorion, she has scarcely come to the subject, having measured and crossed a mighty sea of words.
Gregorion. So it seems; but come, I must mention the rest of what was said in order, going through it and repeating it, while I seem to have the sound of it dwelling in my ears, before it flies away and escapes; for the remembrance of things lately heard is easily effaced from the aged.
Euboulios. Say on, then; for we have come to have the pleasure of hearing these discourses.
Gregorion. And then after, as you observed, Thaleia had descended from her smooth and unbroken course to the earth, Theopatra, she said, followed her in order, and spoke as follows.
Discourse IV.—Theopatra.
Chapter I.—The Necessity of Praising Virtue, for Those Who Have the Power.
If the art of speaking, O virgins, always went by
the same ways, and passed along the same path, there would be no way to
avoid wearying you for one who persisted in the arguments which had
already been urged. But since there are of arguments myriads of
currents and ways, God inspiring us “at sundry times and in
divers manners,”
πολυμερῶς
καὶ
πολυτρόπως.
Chapter II.—The Protection of Chastity and Virginity Divinely Given to Men, that They May Emerge from the Mire of Vices.
Now I at least seem to perceive that nothing has
been such a means of restoring men to paradise, and of the change to
incorruption, and of reconciliation to God, and such a means of
salvation to men, by guiding us to life, as chastity. And I will
now endeavour to show why I think so concerning these things, that
having heard distinctly the power of the grace already spoken of, you
may know of how great blessings it has become the giver to us.
Anciently, then, after the fall of man, when he was cast out by reason
of his transgression, the stream of corruption poured forth abundantly,
and running along in violent currents, not only fiercely swept along
whatever touched it from without, but also rushing within it,
overwhelmed the souls of men. And they, i.e.,
αἱ
ψυχαί. The
body.
Or,
Eucharistic hymn.
Chapter III.—That
Passage of David Explained;
“By the waters of Babylon,” etc. [He passes to the
next psalm.]
But not to pass away from our subject, come, let us take
in our hands and examine this psalm,
Odyss. K’. 510.
ὄργανον. The word used
for harp above, and here employed with a double meaning.
[“Body” here = "man"’s physical system.]
Chapter IV.—The Author Goes on with the Interpretation of the Same Passage.
If, then, the rivers of Babylon are the streams of
voluptuousness, as wise men say, which confuse and disturb the soul,
then the willows must be chastity, to which we may suspend and draw up
the organs of lust which overbalance and weigh down the mind, so that
they may not be borne down by the torrents of incontinence, and be
drawn like worms to impurity and corruption. For God has bestowed
upon us virginity as a most useful and a serviceable help towards
incorruption, sending it as an ally to those who are contending for and
longing after Zion, as the psalm shows, which is resplendent charity
and the commandment respecting it, for Zion is interpreted “The
commandment of the watchtower.” In
Hebrew the word means simply “a memorial.”
i.e., To those without.
Chapter V.—The Gifts of Virgins, Adorned with Which They are Presented to One Husband, Christ.
Now, those who sing the Gospel to senseless people
seem to sing the Lord’s song in a strange land, of which Christ
is not the husbandman; but those who have put on and shone in the most
pure and bright, and unmingled and pious and becoming, ornament of
virginity, and are found barren and unproductive of unsettled and
grievous passions, do not sing the song in a strange land; because they
are not borne thither by their hopes, nor do they stick fast in the
lusts of their mortal bodies, nor do they take a low view of the
meaning of the commandments, but well and nobly, with a lofty
disposition, they have regard to the promises which are above,
thirsting for heaven as a congenial abode, whence God, approving their
dispositions, promises with an oath to give them choice honours,
appointing and establishing them “above His chief joy;” for
He says thus:
O
Jerusalem.
Commentators have remarked the allusion to
Chapter VI.—Virginity to Be Cultivated and Commended in Every Place and Time.
Further, the expression in Jeremiah,
Literally, breastband.
Let these first-fruits of my discourse suffice for thee, O Arete, in proof of my education and my zeal. “And I receive the gift,” she said that Arete replied, “and bid Thallousa speak after thee; for I must have a discourse from each one of you.” And she said that Thallousa, pausing a little, as though considering somewhat with herself, thus spoke.
Discourse V.—Thallousa.
Chapter I.—The Offering of
Chastity a Great Gift.
[Compare vol. v. p. 587, this series.]
I pray you, Arete, that you will give your
assistance now too, that I may seem to speak something worthy in the
first place of yourself, and then of those who are present. For I
am persuaded, having thoroughly learnt it from the sacred writings,
that the greatest and most glorious offering and gift, to which there
is nothing comparable, which men can offer to God, is the life Lit.
game or toil, ἆθλον.
Lit. shall greatly vow a vow to offer, with sacrifices of purification,
chastity to the Lord.
Chapter II.—Abraham’s Sacrifice of a Heifer Three Years Old, of a Goat, and of a Ram Also Three Years Old: Its Meaning; Every Age to Be Consecrated to God; The Threefold Watch and Our Age.
I must endeavour, O virgins, by a true exposition,
to explain to you the mind of the Scripture according to its
meaning.
There are two readings. The above rendering may fairly embrace them
both.
And perhaps He also symbolizes the beginning, the
middle, and the end of our life and of our age, wishing as far as
possible that men should spend their boyhood, their manhood, and their
more advanced life purely, and offer them up to Him. Just as our
Lord Jesus Christ commands in the Gospels, thus directing:
“Let not your lights be extinguished, and let not your loins be
loosed. Therefore also be ye like men who wait for their lord,
when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and
knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are ye,
when he shall make you sit down, and shall come and serve you.
And if he come in the second, or in the third watch, ye are
blessed.”
Chapter III.—Far Best to Cultivate Virtue from Boyhood.
Therefore, it is becoming that we should kindle
the unquenchable light of faith in the heart, and gird our loins with
purity, and watch and ever wait for the Lord so that, if He should will
to come and take any of us away in the first period of life, or in the
second, or in the third, and should find us most ready, and working
what He appointed, He may make us to lie down in the bosom of Abraham,
of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now Jeremiah says, “It is good for
a man that he bear the yoke in his youth;”
Chapter IV.—Perfect Consecration and Devotion to God: What It is.
That which is laid down in the Book of
Numbers,
Cf.
Cf.
τὸ
πορευτικόν,
the power of going.
Divine.
Chapter V.—The Vow of Chastity, and Its Rites in the Law; Vines, Christ, and the Devil.
I will now endeavour to explain to you, O virgins,
the rest of that which is prescribed; for this is attached to your
duties, consisting of laws concerning virginity, which are useful as
teaching how we should abstain, and how advance to virginity. For
it is written thus:
St.
Chapter VI.—Sikera, a Manufactured and Spurious Wine, Yet Intoxicating; Things Which are Akin to Sins are to Be Avoided by a Virgin; The Altar of Incense (a Symbol Of) Virgins.
Moreover, it is not only forbidden to virgins in any way
to touch those things which are made from that vine, but even such
things as resemble them and are akin to them. For Sikera, which
is manufactured, is called a spurious kind of wine, whether made of
palms or of other fruit-trees. For in the same way that draughts
of wine overthrow man’s reason, so do these exceedingly; and to
speak the plain truth, the wise are accustomed to call by the name of
Sikera all that produces drunkenness and distraction of mind, besides
wine. In order, therefore, that
Moreover, it has been handed down that the
unbloody altar of God signifies the assembly of the chaste; thus
virginity appears to be something great and glorious. Therefore
it ought to be preserved undefiled and altogether pure, having no
participation in the impurities of the flesh; but it should be set up
before the presence of the testimony, gilded with wisdom, for the Holy
of holies, sending forth a sweet savour of love to the Lord; for He
says,
Chapter VII.—The Church Intermediate Between the Shadows of the Law and the Realities of Heaven.
If the law, according to the apostle, is
spiritual, containing the images “of future good
things,”
Chapter VIII.—The Double Altar, Widows and Virgins; Gold the Symbol of Virginity.
Now the Jews prophesied our state, but we foretell
the heavenly; since the Tabernacle was a symbol of the Church, and the
Church of heaven. Therefore, these things being so, and the
Tabernacle being taken for a type of the Church, as I said, it is
fitting that the altars should signify some of the things in the
Church. And we have already compared the brazen altar to the
company and circuit of widows; for they are a living altar of God, to
which they bring calves and tithes, and free-will offerings, as a
sacrifice to the Lord; but the golden altar within the
An apparent confusion between the altar of incense, to which the
author refers, and which stood in the Holy Place, and the Mercy-Seat,
which was within the vale in the Holy of holies.—Tr.
Discourse VI.—Agathe.
Chapter I.—The Excellence of the Abiding Glory of Virginity; The Soul Made in the Image of the Image of God, that is of His Son; The Devil a Suitor for the Soul.
With great confidence of being able to persuade, and to carry on this admirable discourse, O Arete, if thou go with me, will I also endeavour, according to my ability, to contribute something to the discussion of the subject before us; something commensurate to my own power, and not to be compared with that which has already been spoken. For I should be unable to put forth in philosophizing anything that could compete with those things which have already been so variously and brilliantly worked out. For I shall seem to bear away the reproach of silliness, if I make an effort to match myself with my superiors in wisdom. If, however, you will bear even with those who speak as they can, I will endeavour to speak, not lacking at least in good will. And here let me begin.
We have all come into this world, O virgins,
endowed with singular beauty, which has a relationship and affinity to
divine wisdom. For the souls of men do then most
accurately resemble Him who begat and formed them, when, reflecting the
unsullied representation of His likeness, and the features of that
countenance, to which God looking formed them to have an immortal and
indestructible shape, they remain such. For the unbegotten and
incorporeal beauty, which neither begins nor is corruptible, but is
unchangeable, and grows not old and has need of nothing, He resting in
Himself, and in the very light which is in unspeakable and
inapproachable places,
Cf.
πνευματικὰ
τῆς
πονηρίας (
Chapter
II.—The Parable of the Ten Virgins.
[Which has suggested the form of this allegorical work.]
If, then, any one will keep this beauty inviolate and unharmed, and such as He who constructed it formed and fashioned it, imitating the eternal and intelligible nature of which man is the representation and likeness, and will become like a glorious and holy image, he will be transferred thence to heaven, the city of the blessed, and will dwell there as in a sanctuary. Now our beauty is then best preserved undefiled and perfect when, protected by virginity, it is not darkened by the heat of corruption from without; but, remaining in itself, it is adorned with righteousness, being brought as a bride to the Son of God; as He also Himself suggests, exhorting that the light of chastity should be kindled in their flesh, as in lamps; since the number of the ten virgins s signifies the souls that have believed in Jesus Christ, symbolizing by the ten the only right way to heaven. Now five of them were prudent and wise; and five were foolish and unwise, for they had not the forethought to fill their vessels with oil, remaining destitute of righteousness. Now by these He signifies those who strive to come to the boundaries of virginity, and who strain every nerve to fulfil this love, acting virtuously and temperately, and who profess and boast that this is their aim; but who, making light of it, and being subdued by the changes of the world, come rather to be sketches of the shadowy image of virtue, than workers who represent the living truth itself.
Chapter III.—The Same Endeavour and Effort After Virginity, with a Different Result.
Now when it is said
In
Greek ί = ten. The
word employed signifies the index of a sun-dial.—Tr. [The lamps found in the Roman catacombs have this
mark (X), which is at once a monogram for Christ and a reference to the
ten virgins. In the Greek the accented Iota might yet be
associated with the initial of Jesus.]
Chapter IV.—What the Oil in the Lamps Means.
Now they offered, in Leviticus,
So long, then, as this people treasured up
nourishment for the light, supplying oil by their works, the light of
continence was not extinguished among them, but was ever shining and
giving light in the “lot of their inheritance.” But
when the oil failed, by their turning away from the faith to
incontinence, the light was entirely extinguished, so that the virgins
have again to kindle their lamps by light transmitted from one to
another, bringing the light of incorruption to the world from
above. Let us then supply now the oil of good works abundantly,
and of prudence, being purged from all corruption which would weigh us
down; lest, while the Bridegroom tarries, our lamps may also in like
manner be extinguished. For the delay is the interval which
precedes the appearing of Christ. Now the slumbering and sleeping
of the virgins signifies the departure from life; and the midnight is
the kingdom of Antichrist, during which the destroying angel passes
over the houses.
For it is to be observed that the word of
God says, that after the cry all the virgins arose, that is, that
the dead shall be raised after the voice which comes from heaven, as
also Paul intimates,
Bodies.
Chapter V.—The Reward of Virginity.
These, O fair virgins, are the orgies of our
mysteries; these the mystic rites of those who are initiated in
virginity; these the “undefiled rewards”
Although the Greek word is not the same as in
Go then, ye virgin band of the new ages. Go, fill your vessels with righteousness, for the hour is coming when ye must rise and meet the bridegroom. Go, lightly leaving on one side the fascinations and the pleasures of life, which confuse and bewitch the soul; and thus shall ye attain the promises, “This I swear by Him who has shown me the way of life.” This crown, woven by the prophets, I have taken from the prophetic meadows, and offer to thee, O Arete.
Agathe having thus admirably brought her discourse to an end, she said, and having been applauded for what she had uttered, Arete again commanded Procilla to speak. And she, rising and passing before the entrance, spoke thus.
Discourse VII.—Procilla.
Chapter I.—What the True and Seemly Manner of Praising; The Father Greater Than the Son, Not in Substance, But in Order; Virginity the Lily; Faithful Souls and Virgins, the One Bride of the One Christ.
It is not lawful for me to delay, O Arete, after
such discourses, seeing that I confide undoubtingly in the manifold
wisdom of God, which gives richly and widely to whomsoever it
wills. For sailors who have experience of the sea declare that
the same wind blows on all who sail; and that different persons,
managing their course differently, strive to reach different
ports. Some have a fair wind; to others it blows across their
course; and yet both easily accomplish their voyage. Now, in the
same way, the “understanding Spirit,
πνεῦμα here and for
wind above.
Literally, only begotten.
St.
[That the Canticles demand allegorical interpretation, we may admit;
nor can I object to our author’s ideas here.]
These praises does Christ proclaim to those who have
come to the boundaries of virginity, describing them all under the one
name of His spouse; for the spouse must be betrothed to the Bridegroom,
and called by His name. And, moreover, she must be undefiled and
unpolluted, as a garden sealed, in which all the odours of the
fragrance of heaven are grown, that Christ alone may come and gather
them, blooming with incorporeal seeds. For the Word loves none of
the things of the flesh, because He is not of such a nature as to be
contented with any of the things which are corruptible, as hands, or
face,
Chapter II.—The
Interpretation of that Passage of the Canticles.
Consider now, O virgins, that, in saying to the
bride, “Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse,”
He shows the clear eye of the understanding, when the inner man has
cleansed it and looks more clearly upon the truth. For it is
clear to every one that there is a twofold power of sight, the one of
the soul, and the other of the body. But the Word does not
profess a love for that of the body, but only that of the
understanding, saying, “Thou hast ravished my heart with one of
thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck;” which means, By the most
lovely sight of thy mind, thou hast urged my heart to love, radiating
forth from within the glorious beauty of chastity. Now the chains
of the neck are necklaces which are composed of various precious
stones; and the souls which take care of the body, place around the
outward neck of the flesh this visible ornament to deceive those who
behold; but those who live chastely, on the other hand, adorn
themselves within with ornaments truly composed of various precious
stones, namely, of freedom, of magnanimity, of wisdom, and of love,
caring little for those temporal decorations which, like leaves
blossoming for an hour, dry up with the changes of the body. For
there is seen in man a twofold beauty, of which the Lord accepts that
which is within and is immortal, saying, “Thou hast ravished my
heart with one chain of thy neck;” meaning to show that He had
been drawn to love by the splendour of the inner man shining forth in
its glory, even as the Psalmist also testifies, saying, “The
King’s daughter is all glorious within.”
Chapter III.—Virgins Being Martyrs First Among the Companions of Christ.
Let no one suppose that all the remaining company
of those who have believed are condemned, thinking that we who are
virgins alone shall be led on to attain the promises, not understanding
that there shall be tribes and families and orders, according to the
analogy of the faith of each. And this Paul, too, sets forth,
saying,
Chapter IV.—The Passage
Now if any one should have a doubt about these
things, inasmuch as the points are nowhere fully wrought out, and
should still wish more fully to perceive their spiritual significance,
namely, what the queens and the concubines and the virgins are, we will
say that these may have been spoken concerning those who have been
conspicuous for their righteousness from the beginning throughout the
progress of time; as of those before the flood, and those after the
flood, and so on of those after Christ. The Church, then, is the
spouse. The queens are those royal souls before the deluge, who
became well-pleasing to God, that is, those about Abel and Seth and
Enoch. The concubines
[Here allegorizing is refuted and perishes in fanciful and
over-strained analogies.]
Chapter V.—The Sixty Queens: Why Sixty, and Why Queens; The Excellence of the Saints of the First Age.
In addition to these matters, there is this also
to be considered, so that nothing may escape us of things which are
necessary, why He said that the queens were sixty, and the concubines
eighty, and the virgins so numerous as not to be counted from their
multitude, but the spouse one. And first let us speak of the
sixty. I imagine that He named under the sixty queens, those who
had pleased God from the first-made man in succession to Noah, for this
reason, since these had no need of precepts and laws for their
salvation, the creation of the world in six days being still
recent. For they remembered that in six days God formed the
creation, and those things which were made in paradise; and how man,
receiving a command not to touch
This was Eve’s testimony to the serpent, not the original
command.—Tr. [But I do not see the
force of this note. Eve in her innocency is surely a competent
witness.]
Chapter VI.—The Eighty Concubines, What; The Knowledge of the Incarnation Communicated to the Prophets.
It still remains to speak concerning the
concubines. To those who lived after the deluge the knowledge of
God was henceforth more remote, and they needed other instruction to
ward off the evil, and to be their helper, since idolatry was already
creeping in. Therefore God, that the race of man might not be
wholly destroyed, through forgetfulness of the things which were good,
commanded His own Son to reveal to the prophets His own future
appearance in the world by the flesh, in which the joy and knowledge of
the spiritual eighth day
Here, and in many other places, the prevalent millenarian belief
of the first centuries is expressed by Methodius.—Tr. [See Barnabas, vol. i. p. 147, this series; also
Irenæus (same vol.), p. 562, at note 11.]
Chapter
VII.—The Virgins,
This word, as being that employed in the E. T. of the Canticles, is
adopted throughout. It must be remembered, that, in this
connection, it stands for νεάνιδες, and not
for παρθένοι.—
Tr.
Now he calls by the name of virgins, who belong to
a countless assembly, those who, being inferior to the better ones,
have practised righteousness, and have striven against sin with
youthful and noble energy. But of these, neither the queens, nor
the concubines, nor the virgins, are compared to the Church. For
she is reckoned the perfect and chosen one beyond all these, consisting
and composed of all the apostles, the Bride who surpasses all in the
beauty of youth and virginity. Therefore, also, she is blessed
and praised by all, because she saw and heard freely what those desired
to see, even for a little time, and saw not, and to hear, but heard
not. For “blessed,” said our Lord to His
disciples,
Chapter VIII.—The Human Nature of Christ His One Dove.
Can any one now say otherwise than that the Bride
is the undefiled flesh of the Lord, for the sake of which He left the
Father and came down here, and was joined to it, and, being incarnate,
dwelt in it? Therefore He called it figuratively a dove, because
that creature is tame and domestic, and readily adapts itself to
man’s mode of life. For she alone, so to speak, was found
spotless and undefiled, and excelling all in the glory and beauty of
righteousness, so that none of those who had pleased God most perfectly
could stand near to her in a comparison of virtue. And for this
reason she was thought worthy to become a partaker of the kingdom of
the Only-begotten, being betrothed and united to Him. And in the
forty-fourth psalm, The
forty-fifth in our arrangement.
Chapter IX.—The Virgins Immediately After the Queen and Spouse.
Moreover, we must further consider what the Spirit
delivers to us in the rest of the psalm, after the enthronization of
the manhood assumed by the Word at the right hand of the Father.
“The virgins,” He says,
And Procilla having thus spoken, Thekla said, It is my turn after her to continue the contest; and I rejoice, since I too have the favouring wisdom of words, perceiving that I am, like a harp, inwardly attuned, and prepared to speak with elegance and propriety.
Arete. I most willingly hail thy readiness, O Thekla, in which I confide to give me fitting discourse, in accordance with thy powers; since thou wilt yield to none in universal philosophy and instruction, instructed by Paul in what is fitting to say of evangelical and divine doctrine.
Discourse VIII.—Thekla.
Chapter I.—Methodius’
Derivation of the Word Virginity:
παρθενία.
Well, then, let us first say, beginning from the origin
of the name, for what cause this supreme and blessed pursuit was called
παρθενία,
what it aims at, what power it has, and afterwards, what fruits it
gives forth. For almost all have been ignorant of this virtue as
being superior to ten thousand other advantages of virtue which we
cultivate for the purification and adornment of the soul. For
virginity
παρθενία.
παρθενία…παρθεΐα.
For since the children of the wise have said that
our life is a festival, and that we have come to exhibit in the theatre
the drama of truth, that is, righteousness, the devil and the demons
plotting and striving against us, it is necessary for us to look
upwards and to take our flight aloft, and to flee from the
blandishments of their tongues, and from their forms tinged with the
outward appearance of temperance, more than from the Sirens of
Homer. For many, bewitched by the pleasures of error, take their
flight downwards, and are weighed down when they come into this life,
their nerves being relaxed and unstrung, by means of which the power of
the wings of temperance is strengthened, lightening the downward
tendency of the corruption of the body. Whence, O Arete, whether
thou hast thy name, signifying virtue,
αἱρετή.
αἴρειν.
Chapter II.—The Lofty Mind and Constancy of the Sacred Virgins; The Introduction of Virgins into the Blessed Abodes Before Others.
Those who take a downward flight, and fall into
pleasures, do not desist from grief and labours until, through their
passionate desires, they fulfil the want of their intemperance, and,
being degraded and shut out from the sanctuary, they are removed from
the scene of truth, and, instead of procreating children with modesty
and temperance, they rave in the wild pleasures of unlawful
amours. But those who, on light wing, ascend into the
supramundane life, and see from afar what other men do not see, the
very pastures of immortality, bearing in abundance flowers of
inconceivable beauty, are ever turning themselves again to the
spectacles there; and, for this reason, those things are thought small
which are here considered noble—such as wealth, and glory, and
birth, and marriage; and they think no more of those things. Than
of the most ordinary things of life.
Now it is not right that the wing of virginity should, by its own nature, be weighed down upon the earth, but that it should soar upwards to heaven, to a pure atmosphere, and to the life which is akin to that of angels. Whence also they, first of all, after their call and departure hence, who have rightly and faithfully contended as virgins for Christ, bear away the prize of victory, being crowned by Him with the flowers of immortality. For, as soon as their souls have left the world, it is said that the angels meet them with much rejoicing, and conduct them to the very pastures already spoken of, to which also they were longing to come, contemplating them in imagination from afar, when, while they were yet dwelling in their bodies, they appeared to them divine.
Chapter III.—The Lot and Inheritance of Virginity.
Furthermore, when they have come hither, they see
wonderful and glorious and blessed things of beauty, and such as cannot
be spoken to men. They see there righteousness itself and
prudence, and love itself, and truth and temperance, and other flowers
and plants of wisdom, equally splendid, of which we here behold only
the shadows
The influence of Plato is traceable, here and elsewhere,
throughout the works of Methodius. It has been fully examined in
the able work of Jahn, Methodius Platonizans.—Tr. [Elucidation I.]
Chapter IV.—Exhortation to the Cultivation of Virginity; A
Passage from the Apocalypse
Now, then, O Virgins, daughters of undefiled temperance,
let us strive for a life of blessedness and the kingdom of
heaven. And do ye unite with those before you in an earnest
desire for the same glory of chastity, caring little for the
The
same word in the text which is translated wind: πνεῦμα.
The play upon the word cannot be preserved in the
translation.—Tr.
John, in the course of the Apocalypse,
says:
St.
Chapter V.—The Woman Who Brings Forth, to Whom the Dragon is Opposed, the Church; Her Adornment and Grace.
The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the
sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her
footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly,
according to the accurate interpretation, our mother,
[i.e., the Church. See p 337, note 4, infra.]
Chapter VI.—The Works of the Church, the Bringing Forth of Children in Baptism; The Moon in Baptism, the Full Moon of Christ’s Passion.
Now the statement that she stands upon the moon, as I
consider, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption
in the laver
σελήνη.
σέλας.
νεοφώτιστοι.
Chapter VII.—The Child of the Woman in the Apocalypse Not Christ, But the Faithful Who are Born in the Laver.
If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking
distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said:
“But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be
according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines
that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her
labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the
laver?” We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you
will it be possible to show that Christ Himself
It is hardly necessary to observe, that amid many interpretations
of the passage, this which Methodius condemns is probably the true one,
as it is certainly the most natural.—Tr. [It is certainly worth observing, that Methodius
has on his side a strong following among the ancients; the
interpretation the translator favours having little support save among
modern defenders of the late pontiff’s bull
Ineffabilis. Elucidation II.]
In
the LXX. “a male.”
Chapter VIII.—The Faithful in Baptism Males, Configured to Christ; The Saints Themselves Christs.
Let us then go over the ground again from the
beginning, until we come in course to the end, explaining what we have
said. Consider if the passage seems to you to be explained to
your mind. For I think that the Church is here said to give birth
to a male; since the enlightened The
baptized.
χριστῶν.
Anointed.
Chapter IX.—The Son of God, Who Ever Is, is To-Day Begotten in the Minds and Sense of the Faithful.
Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what
has been said, seems to be this
Certain phrases like this have led to the opinion that Methodius
was inclined to Arianism. There is no ground for the
supposition. In the writer’s mind, as is clear from the
previous statements, the previous generation was
eternal.—Tr.
In the baptismal font.
Chapter X.—The Dragon, the Devil; The Stars Struck from Heaven by the Tail of the Dragon, Heretics; The Numbers of the Trinity, that Is, the Persons Numbered; Errors Concerning Them.
The dragon, which is great, and red, and cunning,
and manifold, and seven-headed, and horned, and draws down the third
part of the stars, and stands ready to devour the child of the woman
who is travailing, is the devil, who lies in wait to destroy the
Christ-accepted mind of the baptized, and the image and clear features
of the Word which had been brought forth in them. But he misses
and fails of his prey, the regenerate being caught up on high to the
throne of God—that is, the mind of those who are renovated is
lifted up around the divine seat and the basis of truth against which
there is no stumbling, being taught to look upon and regard the things
which are there, so that it may not be deceived by the dragon weighing
them down. For it is not allowed to him to destroy those whose
thoughts and looks are upwards. And the stars, which the dragon
touched with the end of his tail, and drew them down to earth, are the
bodies of heresies; for we must say that the stars, which are dark,
obscure, and falling, are the assemblies of the heterodox; since they,
too, wish to be acquainted with the heavenly ones, and to have believed
in Christ, and to have the seat of their soul in heaven, and to come
near to the stars as children of light. But they are dragged
down, being shaken out by the folds of the dragon, because they did not
remain within the triangular forms of godliness, falling away from it
with respect to an orthodox service. Whence also they are called
the third part of the stars, as having gone astray with regard to one
of the three Persons of the Trinity. As when they say, like
Sabellios, that the Almighty Person of the Father Himself
suffered;
Patripassianism: nearly the same as
Sabellianism.—Tr.
Δοκήσει, hence
Docetæ.—Tr.
Chapter XI.—The Woman with the Male Child in the Wilderness the Church; The Wilderness Belongs to Virgins and Saints; The Perfection of Numbers and Mysteries; The Equality and Perfection of the Number Six; The Number Six Related to Christ; From This Number, Too, the Creation and Harmony of the World Completed.
Now she who brings forth, and has brought forth,
the masculine Word in the hearts of the faithful, and who passed,
undefiled and uninjured by the wrath of the beast, into the wilderness,
is, as we have explained, our mother the Church. And the
wilderness into which she comes, and is nourished for a thousand two
hundred and sixty days, which is truly waste and unfruitful of evils,
and barren of corruption, and difficult of access and of transit to the
multitude; but fruitful and abounding in pasture, and blooming and easy
of access to the holy, and full of wisdom, and productive of life, is
this most lovely, and beautifully wooded and well-watered abode of
Arete.
Virtue.
Methodius is not the first or the last who has sought to explore
the mystery of numbers. An interesting and profound examination
of the subject will be found in Bähr’s Symbolik; also
in Delitzsch’s Bib. Psychology.—Tr. [On the Six Days’ Work, p. 71,
translation, Edinburgh, 1875.]
i.e., in a regular arithmetical progression. i.e.,
its divisors or dividends.
“Make Himself of no reputation.”—E. T.,
Moreover, it is evident that the creation of the world was accomplished in harmony with this number, God having made heaven and earth, and the things which are in them, in six days; the word of creative power containing the number six, in accordance with which the Trinity is the maker of bodies. For length, and breadth, and depth make up a body. And the number six is composed of triangles. On these subjects, however, there is not sufficient time at present to enlarge with accuracy, for fear of letting the main subject slip, in considering that which is secondary.
Chapter XII.—Virgins are Called to the Imitation of the Church in the Wilderness Overcoming the Dragon.
The Church, then, coming hither into this
wilderness, a place unproductive of evils, is nourished, flying on the
heavenward wings of virginity, which the Word called the “wings
of great eagle,”
“Lion in front, but dragon all behind,
And in the midst a she-goat breathing forth
Profuse the violence of flaming fire.
Her slew Bellerophon in truth. And this
Slew Christ the King; for many she destroyed,
Nor could they bear the fetid foam which burst
From out the fountain of her horrid
jaws;”
Hom., Il., vi. 181.
unless Christ had first weakened and overcome
Chapter XIII.—The Seven Crowns of the Beast to Be Taken Away by Victorious Chastity; The Ten Crowns of the Dragon, the Vices Opposed to the Decalogue; The Opinion of Fate the Greatest Evil.
Therefore, taking to you a masculine and sober
mind, oppose your armour to the swelling beast, and do not at all give
way, nor be troubled because of his fury. For you will have
immense glory if you overcome him, and take away the seven crowns which
are upon him, on account of which we have to struggle and wrestle,
according to our teacher Paul. For she who having first overcome
the devil, and destroyed his seven heads, becomes possessed of the
seven crowns of virtue, having gone through the seven great struggles
of chastity. For incontinence and luxury is a head of the dragon;
and whoever bruises this is wreathed with the crown of
temperance. Cowardice and weakness is also a head; and he who
treads upon this carries off the crown of martyrdom. Unbelief and
folly, and other similar fruits of wickedness, is another head; and he
who has overcome these and destroyed them carries off the honours
connected with them, the power of the dragon being in many ways rooted
up. Moreover, the ten horns and stings which he was said to have
upon his heads are the ten opposites, O virgins, to the Decalogue, by
which he was accustomed to gore and cast down the souls of many
imagining and contriving things in opposition to the law, “Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God,”
“They perish self-destroyed,
By their own fault,”
Hom., Od., i. 7.
choosing the pleasant in preference to the expedient.
Arete. I do permit you and assist you; for your discourse will be perfectly adorned when you have added this to it.
Chapter XIV.—The Doctrine of Mathematicians Not Wholly to Be Despised, When They are Concerned About the Knowledge of the Stars; The Twelve Signs of the Zodiac Mythical Names.
Thekla. Resuming
then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to
our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had
comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with
the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For they say that
the circumference of the world is likened to the turnings of a
well-rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its
outline being spherical, it is necessary, they say, since there are the
same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the centre of the
universe, around which, as being older, the heaven is whirling.
For if a circumference is described from the central point, which seems
to be a circle,—for it is impossible for a circle to be described
without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a
point,—surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a
state of chaos and disorganization. Now certainly the wretched
ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when
they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened;”
For the whole heaven being spherical, and having
the earth for its central point, as they think,
[“As they think.” Had Methodius any leaning to
Pythagoras and his school? To “science” the world
owes its rejection of the true theory of the universe for two thousand
years, till Copernicus, a Christian priest, broke that spell.
Could the Christian Fathers know more than science taught them?
Methodius hints it.]
Then they say that the Zodiac touches all the
circles, making its movements diagonally, and that there are in it a
number of signs, which are called the twelve signs of the Zodiac,
beginning with the Ram, and going on to the Fishes, which, they say,
were so determined from mythical causes; saying that it was the Ram
that conveyed Helle, the daughter of Athamas, and her brother Phryxos
into Scythia; and that the head of the Ox is in honour of Zeus, who, in
the form of a Bull, carried over Europe into Crete; and they say the
circle called the Galaxy, or milky way, which reaches from the Fishes
to the Ram, was poured forth for Herakles from the breasts of Hera, by
the commands of Zeus. And thus, according to them, there was no
natal destiny before Europe or Phryxos, and the Dioscuroi,
Castor and Pollux.
Chapter XV.—Arguments from the Novelty of Fate and Generation; That Golden Age, Early Men; Solid Arguments Against the Mathematicians.
If it were better, O wretched ones, that man
should be subject to the star of his birth, than that he should
not, why was not his generation and birth from the very time when the
race of man began to be? And if it was, what is the need of those
which had lately been placed among the stars, of the Lion, the Crab,
the Twins, the Virgin, the Bull, the Balance, the Scorpion, the Ram,
the Archer, the Fishes, the Goat, the Watercarrier, Perseus,
Cassiopeia, Cepheus, Pegasus, Hydra, the Raven, the Cup, the Lyre, the
Dragon, and others, from which you introduce, by your instructions,
many to the knowledge of mathematics, or, rather, to a knowledge which
is anathema? We
cannot preserve the play upon words of the original. There it
is—μαθηματικὴν
and καταθεματικήν
.—Tr.
If the sun, driving through the circles and passing along the signs of the Zodiac in his annual periods, accomplishes the changes and turnings of the seasons, how did those who were born before the signs of the Zodiac were placed among the stars, and the heaven was adorned with them, continue to exist, when summer, autumn, winter, and spring, were not as yet separated from each other, by means of which the body is increased and strengthened? But they did exist, and were longer lived and stronger than those who live now, since God then disposed the seasons in the same manner. The heaven was not then diversified by such shapes.
If the sun and the moon and the other stars were
made for the division and protection of the members of the
time,
Chapter XVI.—Several Other Things Turned Against the Same Mathematicians.
If no action is performed without a previous desire, and there is no desire without a want, yet the Divine Being has no wants, and therefore has no conception of evil. And if the nature of the stars be nearer in order to that of God, being better than the virtue of the best men, then the stars also are neither productive of evil, nor in want.
And besides, every one of those who are persuaded that the sun and moon and stars are divine, will allow that they are far removed from evil, and incapable of human actions which spring from the sense of pleasure and pain; for such abominable desires are unsuitable to heavenly beings. But if they are by nature exempt from these, and in no want of anything, how should they be the causes to men of those things which they do not will themselves, and from which they are exempt?
Now those who decide that man is not possessed of
free-will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable
necessities of fate, and her unwritten commands, are guilty of impiety
towards God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human
evils. For if He harmoniously orders the whole circular motion of
the stars, with a wisdom which man can neither express nor comprehend,
directing the course of the universe; and the stars produce the
qualities of virtue and vice in human life, dragging men to these
things by the chains of necessity; then they declare God to be the
Cause and Giver of evils. But God is the cause of injury to no
one; therefore fate
γένεσις = birth,
i.e., our life is not controlled by the star of our
nativity.—Tr. [See Hippolytus, vol.
v. p. 27, this series.]
Whoever has the least intelligence will confess that God is good, righteous, wise, true, helpful, not the cause of evils, free from passion, and everything of that kind. And if the righteous be better than the unrighteous, and unrighteousness be abominable to them, God, being righteous, rejoices in righteousness, and unrighteousness is hateful to Him, being opposed and hostile to righteousness. Therefore God is not the author of unrighteousness.
If that which profits is altogether good, and temperance is profitable to one’s house and life and friends, then temperance is good. And if temperance be in its nature good, and licentiousness be opposed to temperance, and that which is opposed to good be evil, then licentiousness is evil. And if licentiousness be in its nature evil, and out of licentiousness come adulteries, thefts, quarrels, and murders, then a licentious life is in its nature evil. But the Divine Being is not by nature implicated in evils. Therefore our birth is not the cause of these things.
If the temperate are better than the incontinent, and incontinence is abominable to them, and God rejoices in temperance, being free from the knowledge of passions, then incontinence is hateful also to God. Moreover, that the action which is in accordance with temperance, being a virtue, is better than that which is in accordance with incontinence, which is a vice, we may learn from kings and rulers, and commanders, and women, and children, and citizens, and masters, and servants, and pedagogues, and teachers; for each of these is useful to himself and to the public when he is temperate; but when he is licentious he is injurious to himself and to the public. And if there be any difference between a filthy man and a noble man, a licentious and a temperate; and if the character of the noble and the temperate be the better, and that of the opposite the worse; and if those of the better character be near to God and His friends, and those of the worse be far from Him and His enemies, those who believe in fate make no distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness, between filthiness and nobility, between licentiousness and temperance, which is a contradiction. For if good be opposed to evil, and unrighteousness be evil, and this be opposed to righteousness and righteousness be good, and good be hostile to evil, and evil be unlike to good, then righteousness is different from unrighteousness. And therefore God is not the cause of evils, nor does He rejoice in evils. Nor does reason commend them, being good. If, then, any are evil, they are evil in accordance with the wants and desires of their minds, and not by necessity.
“They perish self-destroyed,
By their own fault.”
Hom., Od., i. 7.
If destiny
γένεσις = birth, h.
the star of man’s nativity, h. destiny.
If everything in the world falls out in accordance with destiny, and nothing without it, then the law must needs be produced by destiny. But the law destroys destiny, teaching that virtue should be learnt, and diligently performed; and that vice should be avoided, and that it is produced by want of discipline. Therefore there is no destiny.
If destiny makes men to injure one another, and to be injured by one another, what need is there of laws? But if laws are made that they may check the sinful, God having a care for those who are injured, it were better that the evil should not act in accordance with Fate, than that they should be set right, after having acted. But God is good and wise, and does what is best. Therefore there is no fixed destiny. Either education and habit are the cause of sins, or the passions of the soul, and those desires which arise through the body. But whichever of these be the cause, God is not the cause. If it is better to be righteous than to be unrighteous, why is not man made so at once from his birth? But if afterwards he is tempered by instruction and laws, that he may become better, he is so tempered as possessing free-will, and not by nature evil. If the evil are evil in accordance with destiny, by the decrees of Providence, they are not blameworthy and deserving of the punishment which is inflicted by the laws, since they live according to their own nature, and are not capable of being changed.
And, again, if the good, living according to their own proper nature, are praiseworthy, their natal destiny being the cause of their goodness; yet the wicked, living according to their own proper nature, are not blamable in the eye of a righteous judge. For, if we must speak plainly, he who lives according to the nature which belongs to him, in no way sins. For he did not make himself thus, but Fate; and he lives according to its motion, being urged on by unavoidable necessity. Then no one is bad. But some men are bad: and vice is blameworthy, and hostile to God, as reason has shown. But virtue is lovable and praiseworthy, God having appointed a law for the punishment of the wicked. Therefore there is no Fate.
Chapter XVII.—The Lust of the Flesh and Spirit: Vice and Virtue.
But why do I draw out my discourse to such length,
spending the time with arguments, having set forth the things which are
most necessary for persuasion, and to gain approval for that which is
expedient; and having made manifest to all, by a few words, the
inconsistency of their trick, so that it is now possible even for a
child to see and perceive their error; and that to do good or evil is
in our own power, and not decided by the stars. For there are two
motions in us, the lust of the flesh and that of the soul, differing
from each other,
Euboulios. How bravely and magnificently, O Gregorion, has Thekla debated!
Gregorion. What, then, would you have said, if you had listened to herself, speaking fluently, and with easy expression, with much grace and pleasure? So that she was admired by every one who attended, her language blossoming with words, as she set forth intelligently, and in fact picturesquely, the subjects on which she spoke, her countenance suffused with the blush of modesty; for she is altogether brilliant in body and soul.
Euboulios. Rightly do you
say this, Grego
Gregorion. Most truly do you also speak. But let us not waste time; for we shall often be able to discuss these and other subjects. But I must now first relate to you the discourses of the other virgins which followed, as I promised; and chiefly those of Tusiane and Domnina; for these still remain. When, then, Thekla ceased speaking these things, Theopatra said that Arete directed Tusiane to speak; and that she, smiling, passed before her and said.
Discourse IX.—Tusiane.
Chapter I.—Chastity the Chief Ornament of the True Tabernacle; Seven Days Appointed to the Jews for Celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles: What They Signify; The Sum of This Septenary Uncertain; Not Clear to Any One When the Consummation of the World Will Be; Even Now the Fabric of the World Completed.
O Arete, thou dearest boast to the lovers of virginity, I also implore thee to afford me thine aid, lest I should be wanting in words, the subject having been so largely and variously handled. Wherefore I ask to be excused exordium and introductions, lest, whilst I delay in embellishments suitable to them, I depart from the subject: so glorious, and honourable, and renowned a thing is virginity.
God, when He appointed to the true Israelites the
legal rite of the true feast of the tabernacles, directed, in
Leviticus, how they should keep and do honour to the feast; above all
things, saying that each one should adorn his tabernacle with
chastity. I will add the words themselves of Scripture, from
which, without any doubt, it will be shown how agreeable to God, and
acceptable to Him, is this ordinance of virginity: “In the
fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit
of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days: on
the first day shall be a Sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a
Sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of
goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and the boughs of thick trees,
and willows The
LXX. adds “And of the Agnos.” See note on this tree
at the beginning of the treatise, p. 310, note 2.]
Here the Jews, fluttering about the bare letter of
Scripture, like drones about the leaves of herbs, but not about flowers
and fruits as the bee, fully believe that these words and ordinances
were spoken concerning such a tabernacle as they erect; as if God
delighted in those trivial adornments which they, preparing, fabricate
from trees, not perceiving the wealth of good things to come; whereas
these things, being like air and phantom shadows, foretell the
resurrection and the putting up of our tabernacle that had fallen upon
the earth, which at length, in the seventh thousand of years, resuming
again immortal, we shall celebrate the great feast of true tabernacles
in the new and indissoluble creation, the fruits of the earth having
been gathered in, and men no longer begetting and begotten, but God
resting from the works of creation.
[Methodius did not adopt the errors of the Chiliasts, but he kept
up the succession of witnesses to this primitive idea.
Coleridge’s remarks on Jeremy Taylor, touching this point, may be
worth consulting. Notes on Old English Divines, vol. i. p.
218.]
For since in six days God made the heaven and the
earth, and finished the whole world, and rested on the seventh day from
all His works which He had made, and blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it,
Wherefore let it shame the Jews that they do not perceive the deep things of the Scriptures, thinking that nothing else than outward things are contained in the law and the prophets; for they, intent upon things earthly, have in greater esteem the riches of the world than the wealth which is of the soul. For since the Scriptures are in this way divided that some of them give the likeness of past events, some of them a type of the future, the miserable men, going back, deal with the figures of the future as if they were already things of the past. As in the instance of the immolation of the Lamb, the mystery of which they regard as solely in remembrance of the deliverance of their fathers from Egypt, when, although the first-born of Egypt were smitten, they themselves were preserved by marking the door-posts of their houses with blood. Nor do they understand that by it also the death of Christ is personified, by whose blood souls made safe and sealed shall be preserved from wrath in the burning of the world; whilst the first-born, the sons of Satan, shall be destroyed with an utter destruction by the avenging angels, who shall reverence the seal of the Blood impressed upon the former.
Chapter II.—Figure, Image, Truth: Law, Grace, Glory; Man Created Immortal: Death Brought in by Destructive Sin.
And let these things be said for the sake of
example, showing that the Jews have wonderfully fallen from the hope of
future good, because they consider things present to be only signs of
things already accomplished; whilst they do not perceive that the
figures represent images, and images are the representatives of
truth. For the law is indeed the figure and the shadow of an
image, that is, of the Gospel; but the image, namely, the Gospel, is
the representative of truth itself. For the men of olden time and
the law foretold to us the characteristics of the Church, and the
Church represents those of the new dispensation which is to come.
Whence we, having received Christ, saying, “I am the
truth,” St.
Chapter III.—How Each One Ought to Prepare Himself for the Future Resurrection.
In the first day of the resurrection I am examined whether I bring these things which are commanded, whether I am adorned with virtuous works, whether I am overshadowed by the boughs of chastity. For account the resurrection to be the erection of the tabernacle. Account that the things which are taken for the putting together of the tabernacle are the works of righteousness. I take, therefore, on the first day the things which are set down, that is, on the day in which I stand to be judged, whether I have adorned my tabernacle with the things commanded; if those things are found on that day which here in time we are commanded to prepare, and there to offer to God. But come, let us consider what follows.
“And ye shall take you,” He says,
“on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of
palm-trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows (and the tree of
chastity) of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your
God.”
Such fruit it is necessary that we bring when we
come to the judgment-seat of Christ, on the first day of the feast; for
if we are without it we shall not be able to feast with God, nor to
have part, according to John,
He that hath not believed in Christ, nor hath understood that He is the first principle and the tree of life, since he cannot show to God his tabernacle adorned with the most goodly of fruits, how shall he celebrate the feast? How shall he rejoice? Desirest thou to know the goodly fruit of the tree? Consider the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how pleasant they are beyond the children of men. Good fruit came by Moses, that is the Law, but not so goodly as the Gospel. For the Law is a kind of figure and shadow of things to come, but the Gospel is truth and the grace of life. Pleasant was the fruit of the prophets, but not so pleasant as the fruit of immortality which is plucked from the Gospel.
Chapter IV.—The Mind Clearer When Cleansed from Sin; The Ornaments of the Mind and the Order of Virtue; Charity Deep and Full; Chastity the Last Ornament of All; The Very Use of Matrimony to Be Restrained.
“And ye shall take you on the first day the
boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees.”
Whoso, therefore, desires to come to that Feast of
Tabernacles, to be numbered with the saints, let him first procure the
goodly fruit of faith, then palm branches, that is, attentive
meditation upon and study of the Scriptures, afterwards the
far-spreading and thickly-leaved branches of charity, which He commands
us to take after the palm branches; most fitly calling charity dense
boughs, because it is all thick and close and very fruitful, not having
anything bare or empty, but all full, both branches and trunks.
Such is charity, having no part void or unfruitful. For
“though I sell all my goods and give to the poor, and though I
yield up my body to the fire, and though I have so great faith that I
can remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing.”
After this, what else does He will that we should
take? Willow branches; by that figure indicating righteousness,
because “the just,” according to the prophet, shall spring
up “as grass in the midst of the waters, as willows by the
watercourses,”
[See Jer. Taylor, Holy Living, cap. ii. sec. 3,
Works, vol. i. p. 427, ed. Bohn, 1844. This is a token of
antiquity.]
Chapter V.—The Mystery of the Tabernacles.
Wherefore, above all other things, I say to those
who love contests, and who are strong-minded, that without delay they
should honour chastity, as a thing the most useful and glorious.
For in the new and indissoluble creation, whoever shall not be found
decorated with the boughs of chastity, shall neither obtain rest,
because he has not fulfilled the command of God according to the law,
nor shall he enter into the land of promise, because he has not
previously celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles. For they only who
have celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles come to the Holy Land, setting
out from those dwellings which are called tabernacles, until they come
to enter into the temple and city of God, advancing to a greater and
more glorious joy, as the Jewish types indicate. For like as the
Israelites, having left the borders of Egypt, first came to the
Tabernacles,
In Hebrew, Succoth.
Euboulios. I am much moved, O Gregorion, considering within myself in how great anxiety of mind Domnina must be from the character of the discourses, perplexed in heart as she is, and with good cause, fearing lest she should be at a loss for words, and should speak more feebly than the rest of the virgins, since they have spoken on the subject with such ability and variety. If, therefore, she was evidently moved, come and complete this too; for I wonder if she had anything to say, being the last speaker.
Gregorion. Theopatra told me, Euboulios, that she was greatly moved, but she was not perplexed from want of words. After, therefore, Tusiane had ceased, Arete looked at her and said, Come, my daughter, do thou also deliver a discourse, that our banquet may be quite complete. At this Domnina, blushing, and after a long delay, scarcely looking up, rose to pray, and turning round, invoked Wisdom to be her present helper. And when she had prayed, Theopatra said that suddenly courage came to her, and a certain divine confidence possessed her, and she said:—
Discourse X.—Domnina.
Chapter I.—Chastity Alone Aids and Effects the Most Praiseworthy Government of the Soul.
O Arete, I also, omitting the long preludes of exordiums, will endeavour according to my ability to enter upon the subject, lest, by delaying upon those matters which are outside the subject in hand, I should speak of them at greater length than their importance would warrant. For I account it a very great part of prudence not to make long speeches, which merely charm the ears, before coming to the main question, but to begin forthwith at the point in debate. So I will begin from thence, for it is time.
Nothing can so much profit a man, O fair virgins, with
respect to moral excellence, as chastity; for chastity alone
accomplishes and brings it about that the soul should be governed in
the noblest and best way, and should be set free, pure from the stains
and pollutions of the world. For which reason, when Christ taught
us to cultivate it, and showed its unsurpassable beauty, the kingdom of
the Evil One was destroyed, who aforetime led captive and enslaved the
whole race of men, so that none of the more ancient people pleased the
Lord, but all were overcome by errors, since the law was not of itself
sufficient to free the human race from
Chapter II.—The
Allegory of the Trees Demanding a King, in the Book of
Judges,
But lest I should appear to some to be sophistical, and to conjecture these things from mere probabilities, and to babble, I will bring forward to you, O virgins, from the Old Testament, written prophecy from the Book of Judges, to show that I speak the truth, where the future reign of chastity was already clearly foretold. For we read: “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”
Now, that these things are not said of trees
growing out of the earth, is clear. For inanimate trees cannot be
assembled in council to choose a king, inasmuch as they firmly fixed by
deep roots to the earth. But altogether are these things narrated
concerning souls which, before the incarnation of Christ, too deeply
luxuriating in transgressions, approach to God as suppliants, and ask
His mercy, and that they may be governed by His pity and compassion,
which Scripture expresses under the figure of the olive, because oil is
of great advantage to our bodies, and takes away our fatigues and
ailments, and affords light. For all lamp-light increases when
nourished by oil. So also the mercies of God entirely dissolve
death, and assist the human race, and nourish the light of the
heart.
For this use of heart, cf.
Good news.
Chapter III.—The Bramble and the Agnos the Symbol of Chastity; The Four Gospels, that Is, Teachings or Laws, Instructing to Salvation.
Now the bramble commends chastity, for the bramble
and the agnos is the same tree: by some it is called bramble, by
others agnos.
Jahn’s reading is here followed. [This is a puzzle as well
as a parable; the Seventy give ῥάμνος, which is not = ἄγνος. It spoils the force of
Jotham’s caustic satire to adopt this conception of our
author.]
And this is the cause why the fig-tree may be said
not to have obtained the kingdom over trees, which, in a spiritual
sense, mean men; and the fig-tree the command, because man desired,
even after the fall, again to be subject to the dominion of virtue, and
not to be deprived of the immortality of the paradise of
pleasure. But, having transgressed, he was rejected and cast far
away, as one who could no longer be governed by immortality, nor was
capable of receiving it. And the first message to him after the
transgression was preached by Noah,
Chapter IV.—The Law Useless for Salvation; The Last Law of Chastity Under the Figure of the Bramble.
And so those men, having been thus rejected from the divine care, and the human race having again given themselves up to error, again God sent forth, by Moses, a law to rule them and recall them to righteousness. But these, thinking fit to bid a long farewell to this law, turned to idolatry. Hence God gave them up to mutual slaughters, to exiles, and captivities, the law itself confessing, as it were, that it could not save them. Therefore, worn out with ills and afflicted, they again promised that they would obey the commandments; until God, pitying man the fourth time, sent chastity to rule over them, which Scripture consequently called the bramble. And she consuming pleasures threatens besides, that unless all undoubtingly obey her, and truly come to her, she will destroy all with fire, since there will be hereafter no other law or doctrine but judgment and fire. For this reason, man henceforth began to do righteousness, and firmly to believe in God, and to separate himself from the devil. Thus chastity was sent down, as being most useful and helpful to men. For of her alone was the devil unable to forge an imitation to lead men astray, as is the case with the other precepts.
Chapter V.—The Malignity of the Devil as an Imitator in All Things; Two Kinds of Fig-Trees and Vines.
The fig-tree, as I said, from the sweetness and excellence of its fruit, being taken as a type of the delights of paradise, the devil, having beguiled the man by its imitations, led him captive, persuading him to conceal the nakedness of his body by fig-leaves; that is, by their friction he excited him to sexual pleasure. Again, those that had been saved from the deluge, he intoxicated with a drink which was an imitation of the vine of spiritual joy; and again he mocked them, having stripped them of virtue. And what I say will hereafter be more clear.
The enemy, by his power, always imitates
[Diabolus simia Dei, an idea very common to the Fathers.
He is the malignant caricature of the Most High, exulting in the
deformity which he gives to his copies.
For we find in the Sacred Writings that there are
two kinds of fig-trees and vines, “the good figs, very good; and
the evil, very evil;”
The vine, and that not in a few places, refers to
the Lord Himself,
Chapter VI.—The Mystery of the Vision of Zechariah.
Moreover, Zechariah shows that the olive shadows
forth the law of Moses, speaking thus: “And the angel that
talked with me came again and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of
his sleep, and said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have
looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top
of it.…And two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the
bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.”
E.V.
“Anointed ones,”
σχοίνισμα
: same word as that translated
“wick.”—Tr.
This, O Arete, is the discourse on virginity which you required of me, accomplished according to my ability; which I pray, O mistress, although it is mediocre and short, that thou wilt receive with kindness from me who was chosen to speak last.
Discourse XI.—Arete.
Chapter I.—The True and Chaste Virgins Few; Chastity a Contest; Thekla Chief of Virgins.
I do accept it, Theopatra related that Arete said, and
approve of it all. For it is an excellent thing, even although
you had not spoken so clearly, to take up and go through with
earnestness those things which have been said, not to
It is altogether necessary for him who has
resolved that he will not err from the practice of chastity, to keep
all his members and senses clean and under restraint, as is customary
with the planks of ships, whose fastenings the ship-masters diligently
join together, lest by any means the way and access may lie open for
sin to pour itself into the mind. For great pursuits are liable
to great falls, and evil is more opposed to that which is really good
than to that which is not good. For many who thought that to
repress vehement lascivious desires constituted chastity, neglecting
other duties connected with it, failed also in this, and have brought
blame
[Compare our Lord’s wisdom and mercy,
And you all in my hearing having sufficiently contended in speaking, I pronounce victors and crown; but Thekla with a larger and thicker chaplet, as the chief of you, and as having shone with greater lustre than the rest.
Chapter II.—Thekla Singing Decorously a Hymn, the Rest of the Virgins Sing with Her; John the Baptist a Martyr to Chastity; The Church the Spouse of God, Pure and Virgin.
Theopatra said that Arete having said these
things, commanded them all to rise, and, standing under the Agnos, to
send up to the Lord in a becoming manner a hymn of thanksgiving; and
that Thekla should begin and should lead the rest. And when they
had stood up, she said that Thekla, standing in the midst of the
virgins on the right of Arete, decorously sang; but the rest, standing
together in a circle after the manner of a chorus, responded to
her: “I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and
holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.”
The text of Jahn is here followed.—Tr. [I have been obliged to arrange this hymn (so as
to bring out the refrain as sung by the chorus of virgins) somewhat
differently from the form in the Edinburgh edition. I invite a
comparison.]
Thekla. 1. From above, O virgins, the sound of a noise that wakes the dead has come, bidding us all to meet the Bridegroom in white robes, and with torches towards the east. Arise, before the King enters within the gates.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 2. Fleeing from the sorrowful happiness of mortals, and having despised the luxuriant delights of life and its love, I desire to be protected under Thy life-giving arms, and to behold Thy beauty for ever, O blessed One.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 3. Leaving
marriage and the beds of mortals and my golden home for Thee, O King, I
have come in undefiled robes, in order
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 4. Having escaped, O blessed One, from the innumerable enchanting wiles of the serpent, and, moreover, from the flame of fire, and from the mortal-destroying assaults of wild beasts, I await Thee from heaven.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 5. I forget
my own country, O Lord, through desire of Thy grace.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 6. Giver of life art Thou, O Christ. Hail, light that never sets, receive this praise. The company of virgins call upon Thee, Perfect Flower, Love, Joy, Prudence, Wisdom, Word.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 7. With open gates, O beauteously adorned Queen, admit us within thy chambers. O spotless, gloriously triumphant Bride, breathing beauty, we stand by Christ, robed as He is, celebrating thy happy nuptials, O youthful maiden.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 8. The
virgins standing without the chamber,
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 9. For turning from the sacred way of life, unhappy ones, they have neglected to prepare sufficiency of oil for the path of life; bearing lamps whose bright light is dead, they groan from the inward recesses of their mind.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 10. Here are cups full of sweet nectar; let us drink, O virgins, for it is celestial drink, which the Bridegroom hath placed for those duly called to the wedding.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 11. Abel,
clearly prefiguring Thy death,
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 12. Thy
valiant son Joseph,
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 13. Jephthah offered his fresh slaughtered virgin daughter a sacrifice to God, like a lamb; and she, nobly fulfilling the type of Thy body, O blessed One, bravely cried:—
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 14. Daring
Judith,
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 15. Seeing the great beauty of Susanna, the two Judges, maddened with desire, said, O dear lady, we have come desiring secret intercourse with thee; but she with tremulous cries said:—
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 16. It is far better for me to die than to betray my nuptials to you, O mad for women, and so to suffer the eternal justice of God in fiery vengeance. Save me now, O Christ, from these evils.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 17. Thy Precursor, washing multitudes of men in flowing lustral water, unjustly by a wicked man, on account of his chastity, was led to slaughter; but as he stained the dust with his life-blood, he cried to Thee, O blessed One:—
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
[The only one. See p. 355, Elucidation II., infra.]
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 19. Wishing to see Thy nuptial day, O blessed One, as many angels as Thou, O King, calledst from above, bearing the best gifts to Thee, came in unsullied robes:—
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 20. In hymns, O blessed spouse of God, we attendants of the Bride honour Thee, O undefiled virgin Church of snow-white form, dark haired, chaste, spotless, beloved.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 21. Corruption has fled, and the tearful pains of diseases; death has been taken away, all folly has perished, consuming mental grief is no more; for again the grace of the God-Christ has suddenly shone upon mortals.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 22. Paradise is no longer bereft of mortals, for by divine decree he no longer dwells there as formerly, thrust out from thence when he was free from corruption, and from fear by the various wiles of the serpents, O blessed One.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 23. Singing the new song, now the company of virgins attends thee towards the heavens, O Queen, all manifestly crowned with white lilies, and bearing in their hands bright lights.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Thekla. 24. O blessed One, who inhabited the undefiled seats of heaven without beginning, who governed all things by everlasting power, O Father, with Thy Son, we are here, receive us also within the gates of life.
Chorus. I keep myself pure for Thee, O Bridegroom, and holding a lighted torch I go to meet Thee.
Chapter III.—Which are the Better, the Continent, or Those Who Delight in Tranquillity of Life? Contests the Peril of Chastity: the Felicity of Tranquillity; Purified and Tranquil Minds Gods: They Who Shall See God; Virtue Disciplined by Temptations.
Euboulios. Deservedly, O Gregorion, has Thekla borne off the chief prize.
Gregorion. Deservedly indeed.
Euboulios. But what
about the stranger Telmisiake?
In Jahn, Telmesiake.—Tr.
[Comp. p. 356, n. 2, infra.]
Gregorion. The
report is that she was present with Methodios
[Contrast the shameful close of Plato’s
Symposium.]
Euboulios. But, Gregorion, which shall we say are the better, those who without lust govern concupiscence, or those who under the assaults of concupiscence continue pure?
Gregorion. For my part, I think those who are free from lust, for they have their mind undefiled, and are altogether uncorrupted, sinning in no respect.
Euboulios. Well, I swear by chastity, and wisely, O Gregorion. But lest in any wise I hinder you, if I gainsay your words, it is that I may the better learn, and that no one hereafter may refute me.
Gregorion. Gainsay me as you will, you have my permission. For, Euboulios, I think that I know sufficient to teach you that he who is not concupiscent is better than he who is. If I cannot, then there is no one who can convince you.
Euboulios. Bless me! I am glad that you answer me so magnanimously, and show how wealthy you are as regards wisdom.
Gregorion. A mere chatterer, so you seem to be, O Euboulios.
Euboulios. Why so?
Gregorion. Because you ask rather for the sake of amusement than of truth.
Euboulios. Speak fair, I pray you, my good friend; for I greatly admire your wisdom and renown. I say this because, with reference to the things that many wise men often dispute among themselves, you say that you not only understand them, but also vaunt that you can teach another.
Gregorion. Now tell me
truly whether it is a difficulty with you to receive the opinion, that
they who are not concupiscent excel those who
Euboulios. How so, when I tell you that I do not know? But, come, tell me, O wisest lady, in what do the non-concupiscent and chaste excel the concupiscent who live chastely?
Gregorion. Because, in the first place, they have the soul itself pure, and the Holy Spirit always dwells in it, seeing that it is not distracted and disturbed by fancies and unrestrained thoughts, so as to pollute the mind. But they are in every way inaccessible to lust, both as to their flesh and to their heart, enjoying tranquillity from passions. But they who are allured from without, through the sense of sight, with fancies, and receiving lust flowing like a stream into the heart, are often not less polluted, even when they think that they contend and fight against pleasures, being vanquished in their mind.
Euboulios. Shall we then say that they who serenely live and are not disturbed by lusts are pure?
Gregorion.
Certainly. For these
Euboulios. Stay now; for I think that from hence we shall the better go on to the discovery of what things are truly the best; and, tell me, do you call anyone a good pilot?
Gregorion. I certainly do.
Euboulios. Whether is it he that saves his vessel in great and perplexing storms, or is it he who does so in a breathless calm?
Gregorion. He that does so in a great and perplexing storm.
Euboulios. Shall we not then say that the soul, which is deluged with the surging waves of the passions, and yet does not, on that account, weary or grow faint, but direct her vessel—that is, the flesh—nobly into the port of chastity, is better and more estimable than he that navigates in calm weather?
Gregorion. We will say so.
Euboulios. For to be prepared against the entrance of the gales of the Evil Spirit, and not to be cast away or overcome, but to refer all to Christ, and strongly to contend against pleasures, brings greater praise than he wins who lives a virgin life calmly and with ease.
Gregorion. It appears so.
Euboulios. And what saith the Lord? Does He not seem to show that he who retains continence, though concupiscent, excels him who, having no concupiscence, leads a virgin life?
Gregorion. Where does He say so?
Euboulios. Where, comparing a wise man to a house well founded, He declares him immoveable because he cannot be overthrown by rains, and floods, and winds; likening, as it would seem, these storms to lusts, but the immoveable and unshaken firmness of the soul in chastity to the rock.
Gregorion. You appear to speak what is true.
Euboulios. And what say you of the physician? Do you not call him the best who has been proved in great diseases, and has healed many patients?
Gregorion. I do.
Euboulios. But the one who has never at any time practised, nor ever had the sick in his hands, is he not still in all respects the inferior?
Gregorion. Yes.
Euboulios. Then we
may certainly say that a soul which is contained by a concupiscent
body, and which appeases with the medicaments of temperance the
disorders arising from the heat of lusts, carries off the palm for
healing, over one to whose lot it has fallen to govern aright a body
which is free from lust.
[Recur to what is said of Origen and his epoch on p. 224, vol. iv. of
this series.]
Gregorion. It must be allowed.
Euboulios. And how is it in wrestling? Whether is the better wrestler he who has many and strong antagonists, and continually is contending without being worsted, or he who has no opponents?
Gregorion. Manifestly he who wrestles.
Euboulios. And, in wrestling, is not the athlete who contends the more experienced?
Gregorion. It must be granted.
Euboulios. Therefore
it is clear that he whose soul contends against the impulses of lust,
and is not borne down by it, but draws back and sets himself in array
against it, appears stronger than he who does not lust.
[Recur to what is said of Origen and his epoch on p. 224, vol. iv. of
this series.]
Gregorion. True.
Euboulios. What then? Does it not appear to you, Gregorion, that there is more courage in being valiant against the assaults of base desires?
Gregorion. Yes, indeed.
Euboulios. Is not this courage the strength of virtue?
Gregorion. Plainly so.
Euboulios. Therefore, if endurance be the strength of virtue, is not the soul, which is troubled by lusts, and yet perseveres against them, stronger than that which is not so troubled?
Euboulios. And if stronger, then better?
Gregorion. Truly.
Euboulios. Therefore
the soul which is concupiscent, and exercises self-control, as appears
from what has been said, is better than that which is not concupiscent,
and exercises self-control.
[Here is our author’s conclusive condemnation of Origen, whose
great mistake, I have supposed, gave occasion to this extraordinary
work. Possibly the epoch of Anthony had revived such discussions
when this was written.]
Gregorion. You speak truly, and I shall desire still more fully to discourse with you concerning these things. If, therefore, it pleases you, tomorrow I will come again to hear respecting them. Now, however, as you see, it is time to betake ourselves to the care of the outward man.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(We here behold only shadows, etc., p. 335.)
Schleiermacher,
Introduction to the Dialogues, etc., Dobson’s translation,
Cambridge, 1836.
II.
(Christ Himself is the one who is born, p. 337.)
Wordsworth, and many others of the learned,
sustain our author’s comment on this passage.
See his work On the Apocalypse, Lecture IX. p. 198, ed.
Philadelphia, 1852.
Speaker’s Com., ad loc.
Vol. v. p. 217, this series.
Works, vol. i. p. 447, ed. Paris, 1845.
Now, note the progress of corruption, one fable
engendering another. The text of
Dec. 8, 1854.
See The Eirenicon of Dr. Pusey, ed. New York, 1866.
[This debate between Orthodoxus and a Valentinian reminds
us of the Octavius of Minucius Felix, vol. iv.]
————————————
Orthodoxus. The old
man of Ithaca, according to the legend of the Greeks, when he wished to
hear the song of the Sirens, on account of the charm of their
voluptuous voice, sailed to Sicily in bonds, and stopped up the ears of
his companions; not that he grudged them the hearing, or desired to
load himself with bonds, but because the consequence of those
singers’ music to those who heard it was death. For such,
in the opinion of the Greeks, are the charms of the Sirens. Now I
am not within hearing of any such song as this; nor have I any desire
to hear the Sirens who chant men’s dirges, and whose silence is
more profitable to men than their voice; but I pray to enjoy the
pleasure of a divine voice, which, though it be often beard, I long to
hear again; not that I am overcome with the charm of a voluptuous
voice, but I am being taught divine mysteries, and expect as the
result, not death but eternal salvation. For the singers are not
the deadly Sirens of the Greeks, but a divine choir of prophets, with
whom there is no need to stop the ears of one’s companions, nor
to load one’s-self with bonds, in fear of the penalty of
hearing. For, in the one case, the hearer, with the entrance of
the voice, ceases to live; in the other, the more he hears, the better
life will he enjoy, being led onwards by a divine Spirit. Let
every one come, then, and hear the divine song without any fear.
There are not with us the Sirens from the shore of Sicily, nor the
bonds of Ulysses, nor the wax poured melting into men’s ears; but
a loosening of all bonds, and liberty to listen to every one that
approaches. For it is worthy of us to hear such a song as this;
and to hear such singers as these, seems to me to be a thing to be
prayed for. But if one wishes to hear the choir of the apostles
as well, he will find the same harmony of song. For the others
sang beforehand the divine plan in a mystical manner; but these sing an
interpretation of what has been mystically announced by the
former. Oh, concordant harmony, composed by the Divine
Spirit! Oh, the comeliness of those who sing of the mysteries
of God! Oh, that I also may join in these songs in my
prayer. Let us then also sing the like song, and raise the hymn
to the Holy Father, glorifying in the Spirit Jesus, who is in His
bosom.
Shun not, man, a spiritual hymn, nor be
ill-disposed to listen to it. Death belongs not to it; a story of
salvation is our song. Already I seem to taste better enjoyments,
as I discourse on such subjects as these; and especially when there is
before me such a flowering meadow, that is to say, our assembly of
those who unite in singing and hearing the divine mysteries.
Wherefore I dare to ask you to listen to me with ears free from all
envy, without imitating the jealousy of Cain,
Valentinian. As I
was walking yesterday evening, my friend, along the shore of the sea,
and was gazing on it somewhat intently, I saw an extraordinary instance
of divine power, and a work of art produced by wise science, if at
least such a thing may be called a work of art. For as that verse
of Homer
Iliad, ix. 4, H. (Cowper’s Tr.).
“As when two adverse winds blowing from Thrace,
Boreas and Zephyrus, the fishy deep
Vex sudden, all around, the sable flood
High curled, flings forth the salt weed on the shore;”—
So it seemed to me to have happened yesterday. For I saw waves
very like mountain-tops, and, so to speak, reaching up to heaven
itself. Whence I expected nothing else but that the whole land
would be deluged, and I began to form in my mind a place of escape, and
a Noah’s ark. But it was not as I thought; for, just as the
sea rose
On these occurrences I began to gaze in silence, and wished to measure in my mind the heaven and its sphere. I began to inquire whence it rises and where it sets; also what sort of motion it had—whether a progressive one, that is to say, one from place to place, or a revolving one; and, besides, how its movement is continued. And, of a truth, it seemed worth while to inquire also about the sun,—what is the manner of his being set in the heaven; also what is the orbit he traverses; also whither it is that, after a short time, he retires; and why it is that even he does not go out of his proper course: but he, too, as one may say, is observing a commandment of a higher power, and appears with us just when he is allowed to do so, and departs as if he were called away.
So, as I was investigating these things, I saw that the sunshine was departing, and the daylight failing, and that immediately darkness came on; and the sun was succeeded by the moon, who, at her first rising, was not of full size, but after advancing in her course presented a larger appearance. And I did not cease inquiring about her also, but examined the cause of her waning and waxing, and why it is that she, too, observes the revolution of days; and it seemed to me from all this that there is a divine government and power controlling the whole, which we may justly call God.
And thereupon I began to praise the Creator, as I saw the earth fast fixed, and living creatures in such variety, and the blossoms of plants with their many hues. But my mind did not rest upon these things alone; but thereupon I began to inquire whence they have their origin—whether from some source eternally co-existent with God, or from Himself alone, none co-existing with Him; for that He has made nothing out of that which has no existence appeared to me the right view to take, unless my reason were altogether untrustworthy. For it is the nature of things which come into being to derive their origin from what is already existing. And it seemed to me that it might be said with equal truth, that nothing is eternally co-existent with God distinct from Himself, but that whatever exists has its origin from Him, and I was persuaded of this also by the undeniable disposition of the elements, and by the orderly arrangement of nature about them.
So, with some such thoughts of the fair order of things, I returned home. But on the day following, that is today, as I came I saw two beings of the same race—I mean men—striking and abusing one another; and another, again, wishing to strip his neighbour. And now some began to venture upon a more terrible deed; for one stripped a corpse, and exposed again to the light of day a body that had been once hidden in the earth, and treated a form like his own with such insult as to leave the corpse to be food for dogs; while another bared his sword, and attacked a man like himself. And he wanted to procure safety by flight; but the other ceased not from pursuing, nor would control his anger. And why should I say more? It is enough that he attacked him, and at once smote him with his sword. So the wounded man became a suppliant to his fellow, and spread out his hands in supplication, and was willing to give up his clothing, and only made a claim for life. But the other did not subdue his anger, nor pity his fellowman, nor would he see his own image in the being before him; but, like a wild beast, made preparations with his sword for feeding upon him. And now he was even putting his mouth to the body so like his own, such was the extent of his rage. And there was to be seen one man suffering injurious treatment, and another forthwith stripping him, and not even covering with earth the body which he denuded of clothing. But, in addition to these, there was another who, robbing others of their marriage rights, wanted to insult his neighbour’s wife, and urged her to turn to unlawful embraces, not wishing her husband to be father to a child of his own.
After that I began to believe the tragedies, and thought that the dinner of Thyestes had really taken place; and believed in the unlawful lust of Oinomaos, nor doubted of the strife in which brother drew the sword on brother.
So, after beholding such things as these, I began to
inquire whence they arise, and what is their origin, and who is the
author of such devices against men, whence came their discovery, and
who is the teacher of them. Now to dare to say that God was the
author of these things was impossible; for surely it could not even be
said that they have from Him their substance, or their existence.
For how were it possible to entertain these thoughts of God? For
He is good, and the Creator of what is excellent, and to Him belongs
nothing bad. Nay, it is His nature to take no pleasure in such
things; but He forbids their production, and rejects those
Wherefore it seemed to me unreasonable to attribute these things to God, or to speak of them as having sprung from Him; though it must certainly be granted that it is possible for something to come into existence out of what has no existence, in case He made what is evil. For He who brought them into existence out of non-existence would not reduce them to the loss of it. And again, it must be said that there was once a time when God took pleasure in evil things, which now is not the case. Wherefore it seems to me impossible to say this of God. For it is unsuitable to His nature to attach this to Him. Wherefore it seemed to me that there is co-existent with Him somewhat which has the name of matter, from which He formed existing things, distinguishing between them with wise art, and arranging them in a fair order, from which also evil things seem to have come into being. For as this matter was without quality or form, and, besides this, was borne about without order, and was untouched by divine art, God bore no grudge against it, nor left it to be continually thus borne about, but began to work upon it, and wished to separate its best parts from its worst, and thus made all that it was fitting for God to make out of it; but so much of it as was like lees, so to speak, this being unfitted for being made into anything, He left as it was, since it was of no use to Him; and from this it seems to me that what is evil has now streamed down among men. This seemed to me the right view to take of these things. But, my friend, if you think that anything I have said is wrong, mention it, for I exceedingly desire to hear about these things.
Orthodoxus. I
appreciate your readiness, my friend, and applaud your zeal about the
subject; and as for the opinion which you have expressed respecting
existing things, to the effect that God made them out of some
underlying substance, I do not altogether find fault with it.
For, truly, the origin of evil is a subject that has called out
opinions from many men.
[See the essay of Archbishop King On the Origin of Evil,
ed. Cambridge, 1739. Law’s annotations in this edition are
valuable. See also Dr. Bledsoe, Theodicy, and Elucidation
VIII. p. 522, vol. ii, this series. Of Leibnitz (refuting Bayle),
no need to speak here. Comp. Addison, Spectator, Nos. 237
and 519; also Parnell’s Hermit; also
The reader will here naturally think of the great and
long-continued Manichæan controversy.—Tr.
But others declined to inquire about such a question at all, on the ground that such an inquiry is endless. As for me, however, my connection with you in friendship does not allow me to decline the subject of inquiry, especially when you announce your own purpose, that you are not swayed by prejudice,—although you had your opinion about the condition of things derived from your conjectures,—but say that you are confirmed in a desire of knowing the truth.
Wherefore I will willingly turn to the discussion
of the question. But I wish this companion of mine here to listen
to our conversation.
[See Routh, R. S., tom. ii. p. 98, and note p. 115, and
all Routh’s notes on Maximus, the original of Methodius, of whom
see Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. 27.]
Valentinian. I am ready to do as you say; and therefore be quite ready to ask those questions from which you think I may be able to gain an accurate knowledge of this important subject. For the object which I have set before myself is not the base one of gaining a victory, but that of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the truth. Wherefore apply yourself to the rest of the discussion.
Orthodoxus. Well, then, I
do not suppose you are ignorant that it is impossible for two uncreated
things to exist together, although you seem to have expressed nearly as
much as this in an earlier part of the conversation. Assuredly we
must of necessity say one of two things: either that God is
separate from matter, or, on the other hand, that He is inseparable
from it. If, then, one would say that they are united, he will
say that that which is uncreated is one only, for each of the things
spoken of will be a part of the other; and as they are parts of each
other, there will not be two uncreated things, but one composed of
different elements. For
If, then, any one were to say that there is a
third account which might fitly be given of uncreated things, namely,
that neither is God separate from matter, nor, again, are they united
as part of a whole; but that God is locally situate in matter, and
matter in God, he must be told as the consequence,
Jahn’s reading is here followed.
For if matter were once without order, and He, determining to change it for the better, put it into order, there was a time when God was in that which had no order. And I might fairly ask this question also, whether God filled matter completely, or existed in some part of it. For if one resolve to say that God was in some part of matter, how far smaller than matter does he make Him; that is, if a part of it contained God altogether. But if he were to say that He is in all of it, and is extended through the whole of matter, he must tell us how He wrought upon it. For we must say that there was a sort of contraction of God, which being effected, He wrought upon that from which He was withdrawn, or else that He wrought in union with matter, without having a place of withdrawal. But if any one say that matter is in God, there is equal need of inquiry, namely, whether it is by His being separated from Himself, and as creatures exist in the air, by His being divided and parted for the reception of the beings that are in Him; or whether it is locally situated, that is to say, as water in land; for if we were to say, as in the air, we must say that God is divisible; but if, as water in earth,—since matter was without order and arrangement, and besides, contained what was evil,—we must say, that in God were to be found the disorderly and the evil. Now this seems to me an unbecoming conclusion, nay, more a dangerous one. For you wish for the existence of matter, that you may avoid saying that God is the author of evil; and, determining to avoid this, you say that He is the receptacle of evil.
If, then, under the supposition that matter is
separate from created substances, you had said that it is uncreated, I
should have said much about it, to prove that it is impossible for it
to be uncreated; but since you say that the question of the
origin of evil is the cause of this supposition, it therefore seems to
me right to proceed to inquire into this. For when it is clearly
stated how evil exists, and that it is not possible to say that God is
the cause of evil, because of matter being subject to Him, it seems to
me to destroy such a supposition, to remark, that if God created the
qualities which did not exist, He equally created the
substances.
The text is here in an uncertain state. Cf. Migne
and Jahn.
Do you say then, that there co-exists with God matter without qualities out of which He formed the beginning of this world?
Valentinian. So I think.
Orthodoxus. If, then, matter had no qualities, and the world were produced by God, and qualities exist in the world, then God is the maker of qualities?
Valentinian. It is so.
Orthodoxus. Now, as I heard you say some time ago that it is impossible for anything to come into being out of that which has no existence, answer my question: Do you think that the qualities of the world were not produced out of any existing qualities?
Valentinian. I do.
Orthodoxus. And that they are something distinct from substances?
Valentinian. Yes.
Orthodoxus. If, then,
qualities were neither made by God out of any ready at hand, nor derive
their existence from substances, because they are not substances, we
must say that they were produced by God out of what had no
But let our discussion of this matter stand
thus. For truly we see among ourselves men making things out of
what does not exist, although they seem for the most part to be making
them with something. As, for instance, we may have an example in
the case of architects; for they truly do not make cities out of
cities, nor in like manner temples out of temples.
Imperfect. The rest from the Bibliotheca of Photius.
• • • • • •
But if, because substances underlie these things, you think that the builders make them out of what does exist, you are mistaken in your calculation. For it is not the substance which makes the city or the temples, but art applied to substance. And this art is not produced out of some art which lies in the substances themselves, but from that which is not in them.
But you seem likely to meet me with this argument: that the artificer makes the art which is connected with the substance out of the art which he has. Now I think it is a good reply to this to say, that in man it is not produced from any art lying beneath; for it is not to be granted that substance by itself is art. For art is in the class of accidents, and is one of the things that have an existence only when they are employed about some substance. For man will exist even without the art of building, but it will have no existence unless man be previously in being. Whence we must say that it is in the nature of things for arts to be produced in men out of what has no existence. If, then, we have shown that this is so in the case of men, why was it improper to say that God is able to make not only qualities, but also substances, out of that which has no existence? For as it appears possible for something to be produced out of what exists not, it is evident that this is the case with substances. To return to the question of evil. Do you think evil comes under the head of substances, or of qualities of substances?
Valentinian. Of qualities.
Orthodoxus. But matter was found to be without quality or form?
Valentinian. It was.
Orthodoxus. Well, then, the connection of these names with substance is owing to its accidents. For murder is not a substance, nor is any other evil; but the substance receives a cognate name from putting it into practice. For a man is not (spoken of as) murder, but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer, without being himself murder; and, to speak concisely, no other evil is a substance; but by practising any evil, it can be called evil. Similarly consider, if you imagine anything else to be the cause of evil to men, that it too is evil by reason of its acting by them, and suggesting the committal of evil. For a man is evil in consequence of his actions. For he is said to be evil, because he is the doer of evil. Now what a man does, is not the man himself, but his activity, and it is from his actions that he receives the title of evil. For if we were to say that he is that which he does, and he commits murders, adulteries, and such-like, he will be all these. Now if he is these, then when they are produced he has an existence, but when they are not, he too ceases to be. Now these things are produced by men. Men then will be the authors of them, and the causes of their existing or not existing. But if each man is evil in consequence of what he practises, and what he practises has an origin, he also made a beginning in evil, and evil too had a beginning. Now if this is the case, no one is without a beginning in evil, nor are evil things without an origin.
Valentinian. Well, my friend, you seem to me to have argued sufficiently against the other side. For you appeared to draw right conclusions from the premises which we granted to the discussion. For truly if matter is without qualities, then God is the maker of qualities; and if evils are qualities, God will be the author of evils. But it seems to me false to say that matter is without qualities; for it cannot be said respecting any substance that it is without qualities. But indeed, in the very act of saying that it is without qualities, you declare that it has a quality, by describing the character of matter, which is a kind of quality. Therefore, if you please, begin the discussion from the beginning; for it seems to me that matter never began to have qualities. For such being the case, I assert, my friend, that evil arises from its emanation.
Orthodoxus. If matter were possessed of qualities from eternity, of what will God be the creator? For if we say substances, we speak of them as pre-existing; if, again, we say qualities, these too are declared to have an existence. Since, then, both substances and qualities exist, it seems to me superfluous to call God a creator. But answer me a question. In what way do you say that God was a creator? Was it by changing the existence of those substances into non-existence, or by changing the qualities while He preserved the substances?
Valentinian. I think that
there was no change of the substances, but only of the qualities; and
in respect to these we call God a creator. And just as if one
might chance to say that a house was made of stones, it cannot be said
of them that they do not still continue stones in substance, because
they are called a house;
Orthodoxus. Do you think, too, that evil is among the qualities of substances?
Valentinian. I do.
Orthodoxus. And were these qualities in matter from the first, or had they a beginning?
Valentinian. I say that these qualities were eternally co-existent with matter.
Orthodoxus. But do you not say that God has made a change in the qualities?
Valentinian. I do say this.
Orthodoxus. For the better?
Valentinian. I think so.
Orthodoxus. If, then, evil is among the qualities of matter, and its qualities were changed by God for the better, the inquiry must be made whence evil arose. For either all of them, being evil, underwent a change for the better, or some of them being evil, and some not, the evil ones were not changed for the better; but the rest, as far as they were found superior, were changed by God for the sake of order.
Valentinian. That is the opinion I held from the beginning.
Orthodoxus. How, then, do you say it was that He left the qualities of evil as they were? Was it that He was able to do away with them, or that, though He wished to do so, He was unable? For if you say that He was able, but disinclined to do so, He must be the author of these things; because, while He had power to bring evil to an end, He allowed it to remain as it was, especially when He had begun to work upon matter. For if He had had nothing at all to do with matter, He would not have been the author of what He allowed to remain. But since He works upon a part of it, and leaves a part of it to itself, while He has power to change it for the better, I think He is the author of evil, since He left part of matter in its vileness. He wrought then for the ruin of a part; and, in this respect, it seems to me that this part was chiefly injured by His arranging it in matter, so that it became partaker of evil. For before matter was put in order, it was without the perception of evil; but now each of its parts has the capacity of perceiving evil. Now, take an example in the case of man. Previously to becoming a living creature, he was insensible to evil; but from the time when he is fashioned by God into the form of man, he gains the perception of approaching evil. So this act of God, which you say was done for the benefit of matter, is found to have happened to it rather for the worse. But if you say that God was not able to stop evil, does the impossibility result from His being naturally weak, or from His being overcome by fear, and in subjection to some more powerful being? See which of these you would like to attribute to the almighty and good God. But, again, answer me about matter. Is matter simple or compound? For if matter be simple and uniform, and the universe compound, and composed of different substances, it is impossible to say that it is made of matter, because compound things cannot be composed of one pure and simple ingredient. For composition indicates the mixture of several simple things. But if, on the other hand, you say that matter is compound, it has been entirely composed of simple elements, and they were once each separately simple, and by their composition matter was produced; for compound things derive their composition from simple things. So there was once a time when matter did not exist—that is to say, before the combination of the simple elements. But if there was once a time when matter did not exist, and there was never a time when what is uncreated did not exist, then matter is not uncreated. And from this it follows that there are many things which are uncreated. For if God were uncreated, and the simple elements of which matter was composed were uncreated, the number of the uncreated would be more than two. But to omit inquiring what are the simple elements, matter or form—for this would be followed by many absurdities—let me ask, do you think that nothing that exists is contrary to itself?
Valentinian. I do.
Orthodoxus. Yet water is contrary to fire, and darkness to light, and heat to cold, and moisture to dryness.
Valentinian. I think it is.
Orthodoxus. If, then, nothing that exists is contrary to itself, and these are contrary to one another, they will not be one and the same matter—no, nor formed from one and the same matter. But, again, I wish to ask, do you think that the parts of a thing are not destructive of one another?
Valentinian. I do.
Orthodoxus. And that fire and water, and the rest likewise, are parts of matter?
Valentinian. I hold them to be so.
Orthodoxus. Why, then, do you not think that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and so on with the rest?
Valentinian. I do.
Orthodoxus. Then, if parts
of a thing are not destructive of one another, and these are found to
be so, they will not be parts of the same thing. But if they are
not parts of the same thing, they will not be parts of one and the same
matter. And, indeed, they will not be matter either, because
nothing that exists is de
Now we must come to the examination of evils, and must necessarily inquire into the evils among men. As to these, are they forms of the principle of evil, or parts of it? If forms, evil will not have a separate existence distinct from them, because the species are to be sought for in the forms, and underlie them. But if this is the case, evil has an origin. For its forms are shown to have an origin—such as murder, and adultery, and the like. But if you will have them to be parts of some principle of evil, and they have an origin, it also must have an origin. For those things whose parts have an origin, are of necessity originated likewise. For the whole consists of parts. And the whole will not exist if the parts do not, though there may be some parts, even if the whole be not there.
Now there is nothing existing of which one part is originated, and another part not. But if I were even to grant this, then there was a time when evil was not complete, namely, before matter was wrought by God. And it attains completeness when man is produced by God; for man is the maker of the parts of evil. And from this it follows that the cause of evil being complete, is God the Creator, which it is impious to say. But if you say that evil is neither of the things supposed, but is the doing of something evil, you declare that it has an origin. For the doing of a thing makes the beginning of its existence. And besides this, you have nothing further to pronounce evil. For what other action have you to point out as such, except what happens among men? Now, it has been already shown that he who acts is not evil according to his being, but in accordance with his evil doing.
Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God.
For this was the meaning of the gift of Free Will. And man after his creation receives a commandment from God; and from this at once rises evil, for he does not obey the divine command; and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience, which had a beginning.
• • • • • •
For man
The whole of this work, as preserved, is in a very fragmentary
state. We have followed Migne in general, as his edition is most
widely known, and but little is gained by adopting Jahn’s, which
is somewhat more complete.—Tr. Of
the bestowal of free-will.
For this was the object to be obtained by
free-will. And man after his creation receives a commandment from
God, and from this at once rises evil; for he does not obey the divine
com
• • • • • •
For my part, I said that the beginning of evil was envy, and that it arose from man’s being distinguished by God with higher honour. Now evil is disobedience to the commandment of God.
[Compare Athenagoras, vol. ii. p. 149, and other Fathers
passim.]
————————————
Part I.
I. God did not make
evil,
[See p. 363, supra.]
II. Now the question has already been
raised,
Cf. Anastasius, in Doctrina Patrum de Verbi Incarnatione,
c. 25.—Jahn.
By Epiphanius, Hær., lxiv. n. 22.—Migne.
[See
vol. iv. p. 38, this series.]
III. But it is evidently absurd to think that the body will not co-exist with the soul in the eternal state, because it is a bond and fetters; in order that, according to their view, we who are to live in the kingdom of light may not be for ever condemned to be bondmen of corruption. For as the question has been sufficiently solved, and the statement refitted in which they defined the flesh to be the soul’s chain, the argument also is destroyed, that the flesh will not rise again, lest, if we resume it, we be prisoners in the kingdom of light.
IV. In order, then, that man might not be an undying or ever-living evil, as would have been the case if sin were dominant within him, as it had sprung up in an immortal body, and was provided with immortal sustenance, God for this cause pronounced him mortal, and clothed him with mortality. For this is what was meant by the coats of skins, in order that, by the dissolution of the body, sin might be altogether destroyed from the very roots, that there might not be left even the smallest particle of root from which new shoots of sin might again burst forth.
V. For as a fig-tree, which has grown in the
splendid buildings
[i.e., “in the courts of the Lord’s
house;” among the buildings.]
VI. But come now, since there is need of
many examples in matters of this kind, let us examine them particularly
from this point of view, without desisting till our argument ends in
clearer explanation and proof. It appears, then, as if an eminent
craftsman were to cast over again a noble image, wrought by himself of
gold or other material, and beautifully proportioned in all its
members, upon his suddenly perceiving that it had been mutilated by
some infamous man, who, too envious to endure the image being
beautiful, spoiled it, and thus enjoyed the empty pleasure of indulged
jealousy. For take notice, most wise Aglaophon, that, if the
artificer wish that that upon which he has bestowed so much pains and
care and labour, shall be quite free from injury, he will be impelled
to melt it down, and restore it to its former condition. But if
he should not cast it afresh, nor reconstruct it, but allow it to
remain as it is, repairing and restoring it, it must be that the image,
being passed through the fire and forged, cannot any longer be
preserved unchanged, but will be altered and wasted. Wherefore,
if he should wish it to be perfectly beautiful and faultless, it must
be broken up and recast, in order that all the disfigurements and
mutilations inflicted upon it by treachery and envy, may be got rid of
by the breaking up and recasting of it, while the image is restored
again uninjured and unalloyed to the same form as before, and made as
like itself as possible. For it is impossible for an image under
the hands of the original artist to be lost, even if it be melted down
again, for it may be restored; but it is possible for blemishes and
injuries to be put off, for they melt away and cannot be restored;
because in every work of art the best craftsman looks not for blemish
or failure, but for symmetry and correctness in his work. Now
God’s plan seems to me to have been the same as that which
prevails among ourselves. For seeing man, His fairest work,
corrupted by envious treachery, He could not endure, with His love for
man, to leave him in such a condition, lest he should be for ever
faulty, and bear the blame to eternity; but dissolved him again into
his original materials, in order that, by remodelling, all the
blemishes in him might waste away and disappear. For the melting
down of the statue in the former case corresponds to the death and
dissolution of the body in the latter, and the remoulding of the
material in the former, to the resurrection after death in the latter;
as also saith the prophet Jeremiah, for he addresses the Jews in
these words, “And I went down to the potter’s house; and,
behold, he wrought a work upon the stones. And the vessel which
he made in his hands was broken; and again he made another vessel, as
it pleased him to make it. And the word of the Lord came to me,
saying, Cannot I do to you as this potter, O house of Israel?
Behold, as the clay of the potter are ye in my hands.”
VII. For I call your attention to this, that, as I said, after man’s transgression the Great Hand was not content to leave as a trophy of victory its own work, debased by the Evil One, who wickedly injured it from motives of envy; but moistened and reduced it to clay, as a potter breaks up a vessel, that by the remodelling of it all the blemishes and bruises in it may disappear, and it may be made afresh faultless and pleasing.
VIII. But it is not satisfactory to say that
the universe will be utterly destroyed, and sea and air and sky will be
no longer. For the whole world will be deluged with fire from
heaven, and burnt for the purpose of purification and renewal; it will
not, however, come to complete ruin and corruption. For if it
were better for the world not to be than to be, why did God, in making
the world, take the worse course? But God did not work in vain,
or do that which was worst. God therefore ordered the creation
with a view to its existence and continuance, as also the Book of
Wisdom confirms, saying, “For God created all things that
they might have their being; and the generations of the world were
healthful, and there is no poison of destruction in
them.”
[Greek, creation, κτίσις. The English
version faulty and confusing.]
[Greek, creation, κτίσις. The English
version faulty and confusing.]
[Greek, creation, κτίσις. The English
version faulty and confusing.]
The
reading and punctuation of Jahn are here adopted.
IX. But if our opponents say, How then is
it, if the universe be not destroyed, that the Lord says that
“heaven and earth shall pass away;”
Or, “dispensation.”
X. But in addition to what has been said,
there is this point worth consideration, since it misleads very much,
if we may be outspoken about matters of such importance,
Aglaophon. For you said that the Lord declared plainly
When tempted by the Sadducees.
XI. Neither did God, as if He had made man
badly, or committed a mistake in the formation of him, determine
afterwards to make an angel, repenting of His work, as the worst of
craftsmen do; nor did He fashion man, after He had wished originally to
make an angel, and failed; for this would be a sign of weakness,
etc. Why even then did He make man and not angels, if He wished
men to be angels and not men? Was it because He was unable?
It is blasphemy to suppose so. Or was He so busy in making the
worse as to loiter about the better? This too is absurd.
For He does not fail in making what is good, nor defers it, nor is
incapable of it; but He has the power to act how and when He pleases,
inasmuch as He is Himself power. Wherefore it was because He
intended man to be man, that He originally made him so. But if He
so intended—since He intends what is good—man is
good. Now man is said to be composed of soul and body; he cannot
then exist without a body, but with a body, unless there be produced
another man besides man. For all the orders of immortal beings
must be preserved by God, and among these is man.
“For,” says the Book of Wisdom, “God created
man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own
eternity.”
XII. Wherefore observe that these are the
very things which the Lord wished to teach to the Sadducees, who did
not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. For this was the
opinion of the Sadducees. Whence it was that, having contrived
the parable about the woman and the seven brethren, that they might
cast doubt upon the resurrection of the flesh, “There came to
Him,”
[A play on the Greek ἀνάστασις, but
good exegesis.]
XIII. Since flesh was made to border on
incorruption and corruption, being itself neither the one nor the
other, and was overcome by corruption for the sake of pleasure, though
it was the work and property of incorruption; therefore it became
corruptible, and was laid in the dust of the earth. When, then,
it was overcome by corruption, and delivered over to death through
disobedience, God did not leave it to corruption to be triumphed over
as an inheritance; but,
XIV. If, then, out of such a drop, small,
and previously without any existence, in its actual state of moistness,
contractedness, and insignificance, in fact out of nothing, man is
brought into being, how much rather shall man spring again into being
out of a previously existing man? For it is not so difficult to
make anything anew after it has once existed and fallen into decay, as
to produce out of nothing that which has never existed. Now, in
case we choose to exhibit the seminal fluid discharged from a man, and
place by it a corpse, each by itself, which of them, as they both lie
exposed to view, will the spectators think most likely to become a
man—that drop, which is nothing at all, or that which has already
shape, and size, and substance? For if the very thing which is
nothing at all, merely because God pleases, becomes a man, how much
rather shall that which has existence and is brought to perfection
become again a man, if God pleases? For what was the purpose of
the theologian Moses, in introducing, under a mystical sense, the Feast
of Tabernacles in the Book of Leviticus? Was it that we may keep
a feast to God, as the Jews with their low view of the Scriptures
interpret it? as if God took pleasure in such tabernacles, decked out
with fruits and boughs and leaves, which immediately wither and lose
their verdure. We cannot say so. Tell me, then, what was
the object of the Feast of Tabernacles? It was introduced to
point to this real tabernacle of ours, which, after it was fallen down
to corruption through the transgression of the law, and broken up by
sin, God promised to put together again, and to raise up in
incorruptibility, in order that we may truly celebrate in His honour
the great and renowned Feast of Tabernacles at the resurrection; when
our tabernacles are put together in the perfect order of immortality
and harmony, and raised up from the dust in incorruption; when the dry
bones,
[See part ii. cap. viii., p. 375, infra.What he
testifies may be accepted, at least, as his genuine
conviction.]
XV. The apostle certainly, after assigning
the planting and watering to art and earth and water, conceded the
growth to God alone, where he says, “Neither is he that planteth
anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the
increase.”
XVI. God, who created all things, and provides and cares for all things, took dust from the ground, and made our outer man.
Part II.
The Second Discourse on the
Resurrection.
From St. John Damascene, Orat. 2, De Imagin., tom. i. p.
389, ed. Paris, 1712.
For instance, then, the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials—gold or silver—are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world, even though it be of chalk or bronze. And one who speaks against either of them, is not acquitted as if he had only spoken against clay, nor condemned for having despised gold, but for having been disrespectful towards the King and Lord Himself. The images of God’s angels, which are fashioned of gold, the principalities and powers, we make to His honour and glory.
Part III.
I. From the Discourse on the
Resurrection.
From Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234.
I. Read the Book on the Resurrection by St.
Methodius, Bishop and Martyr, of which that which follows is a
selection, that the body is not the fetter of the soul, as Origen
thought, nor are souls called by the prophet Jeremiah
“fettered” on account of their being within bodies.
For he lays down the principle that the body does not hinder the
energies of the soul, but that rather the body is carried about with
it, and cooperates in whatever the soul commits to it. But how
are we to understand the opinion of Gregory
Gregory, surnamed Theologus, commonly known as Gregory Nazianzen.
II. That Origen said that the body was given to the soul as a fetter after the fall, and that previously it lived without a body; but that this body which we wear is the cause of our sins; wherefore also he called it a fetter, as it can hinder the soul from good works.
III. That if the body was given to the soul after
the fall as a fetter, it must have been given as a fetter upon the evil
or the good. Now it is impossible that it should be upon the
good; for no physician or artificer gives to that which has gone wrong
a remedy to cause further error, much less would God do so. It
remains, then, that it was a fetter upon evil. But surely we see
that, at the beginning, Cain, clad in this body, committed murder; and
it is evident into
IV. That man, with respect to his nature, is most truly said to be neither soul without body, nor, on the other hand, body without soul; but a being composed out of the union of soul and body into one form of the beautiful. But Origen said that the soul alone is man, as did Plato.
V. That there is a difference between man and other living creatures; and to them are given varieties of natural form and shape, as many as the tangible and visible forces of nature produced at the command of God; while to him was given the form and image of God, with every part accurately finished, after the very original likeness of the Father and the only-begotten Son. Now we must consider how the saint states this.
VI. He says that Phidias the statuary, after he had made the Pisæan image of ivory, ordered oil to be poured out before it, that, as far as he could secure it, it might be preserved imperishable.
VII. He says, as was said also by
Athenagoras,
[Athenagoras, Plea, cap. xxiv. vol. ii. p. 142, this
series.]
[Athenagoras, Plea, cap. xxiv. vol. ii. p. 142, this
series.]
VIII. He says that by the coats of skins is signified death. For he says of Adam, that when the Almighty God saw that by treachery he, an immortal being, had become evil, just as his deceiver the devil was, He prepared the coats of skins on this account; that when he was thus, as it were, clothed in mortality, all that was evil in him might die in the dissolution of the body.
IX. He holds that St. Paul had two
revelations. For the apostle, he says, does not suppose paradise
to be in the third heaven, in the opinion of those who knew how to
observe the niceties of language, when he says, “I know such a
man caught up to the third heaven; and I know such a man, whether in
the body or out of the body, God knoweth, that was caught up into
paradise.”
[Gregory’s opponent, not St. Paul’s.]
X. He says that it is in our power to do, or
to avoid doing, evil; since otherwise we should not be punished for
doing evil, nor be rewarded for doing well; but the presence or absence
of evil thoughts does not depend upon ourselves. Wherefore even
the sainted Paul says, “For what I would, that do I not, but what
I would not, that I do;”
[Gregory says.]
But what is the meaning of this statement? It is to be noted that it has been made by others of our Fathers as well. What is the meaning, seeing that those who meet death find in it at the time neither increase nor decrease of sins?
II. A Synopsis of
Some Apostolic Words from the Same Discourse. From
Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234.
I. Read a compendious interpretation of some
apostolic words from the same discourse. Let us see, then, what
it is that we have endeavoured to say respecting the apostle. For
this saying of his, “I was alive without the law
once,”
II. But if any one should venture to oppose this
statement, and reply, that the apostle teaches
III. For the apostle here sets forth
clearly, as I think, three laws: One in accordance with the good
which is implanted in us, which clearly he calls the law of the
mind. One the law which arises from the assault of evil, and
which often draws on the soul to lustful fancies, which, he
says,” wars against the law of the mind.”
IV. He
Methodius.
V. Now the followers of Origen bring forward
this passage, “For we know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle were dissolved,”
The Word means literally, “by an abuse, or
misapplication;” but the author’s meaning is very nearly
that expressed in the text.—Tr.
σκηνάς.
ἐπενδύσασθαι.
VI. Now Justin of Neapolis,
Commonly known as St. Justin Martyr.—Tr. [See his treatise On the Resurrection,
vol. i. p. 295; also On Life, p. 198, this series.]
VII. Now the passage, “The dead in Christ
shall rise first: then we which are alive,” St. Methodius
thus explains: Those are our bodies; for the souls are we
ourselves, who, rising, resume that which is dead from the earth; so
that being caught up with them to meet the Lord, we may gloriously
celebrate the splendid festival of
VIII. I saw, he says, on Olympus
Cf. p. 368, supra. [Pyragnos = fire-proof
agnos.]
IX. Consider, he says, whether too the
blessed John, when he says, “And the sea gave up the dead which
were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in
them,”
Hades.
X. For, he says, whatever is composed and consists of pure air and pure fire, and is of like substance with the angelic beings, cannot have the nature of earth and water; since it would then be earthy. And of such nature, and consisting of such things, Origen has shown that the body of man shall be which shall rise, which he also said would be spiritual.
XI. And he asks what will be the appearance
of the risen body, when this human form, as according to him useless,
shall wholly disappear; since it is the most lovely of all things which
are combined in living creatures, as being the form which the Deity
Himself employs, as the most wise Paul explains: “For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God;”
[Justin Martyr, vol. i. p. 295, this series.]
XII. The transformation, he says, is the
restoration into an impassible and glorious state. For now the
body is a body of desire and of humiliation,
Then he says, refuting Origen, Origen therefore thinks that the same flesh will not be restored to the soul, but that the form of each, according to the appearance by which the flesh is now distinguished, shall arise stamped upon another spiritual body; so that every one will again appear the same form; and that this is the resurrection which is promised. For, he says, the material body being fluid, and in no wise remaining in itself, but wearing out and being replaced around the appearance by which its shape is distinguished, and by which the figure is contained, it is necessary that the resurrection should be only that of the form.
XIII. Then, after a little, he says:
If then, O Origen, you maintain that the resurrection of the body
changed into a spiritual body is to be expected only in appearance, and
put forth the vision of Moses and Elias as a most convincing proof of
it; saying that they appeared after their departure from life,
preserving no different appearance from that which they had from the
beginning; in the same way will be the resurrection of all men.
But Moses and Elias arose and appeared with this form of which you
speak, before Christ suffered and rose. How then could Christ be
celebrated by prophets and apostles as “the first begotten of the
dead?”
XIV. But if any one, finding this inadmissible, answers, But how then, if no one rose before Christ went down into Hades, are several recorded as having risen before Him? Among whom is the son of the widow of Sarepta, and the son of the Shunammite, and Lazarus. We must say: These rose to die again; but we are speaking of those who shall never die after their rising. And if any one should speak doubtfully concerning the soul of Elias, as that the Scriptures say that he was taken up in the flesh, and we say that he appeared to the apostles divested of the flesh, we must say, that to allow that he appeared to the apostles in the flesh is more in favour of our argument. For it is shown by this case that the body is susceptible of immortality, as was also proved by the translation of Enoch. For if he could not receive immortality, he could not remain in a state of insensibility so long a time. If, then, he appeared with the body, that was truly after he was dead, but certainly not as having arisen from the dead. And this, we may say, if we agree with Origen when he says that the same form is given to the soul after death; when it is separated from the body, which is of all things the most impossible, from the fact that the form of the flesh was destroyed before by its changes, as also the form of the melted statue before its entire dissolution. Because the quality cannot be separated from the material, so as to exist by itself; for the shape which disappears around the brass is separated from the melted statue, and has not longer a substantial existence.
XV. Since the form is said to be separated in death from the flesh, come, let us consider in how many ways that which is separated is said to be separated. Now a thing is said to be separated from another either in act and subsistence, or in thought; or else in act, but not in subsistence. As if, for instance, one should separate from each other wheat and barley which had been mingled together; in as far as they are separated in motion, they are said to be separated in act; in as far as they stand apart when separated, they are said to be separated in subsistence. They are separated in thought when we separate matter from its qualities, and qualities from matter; in act, but not in subsistence, when a thing separated from another no longer exists, not having a substantive existence. And it may be observed that it is so also in mechanics, when one looks upon a statue or a brazen horse melted. For, when he considers these things, he will see their natural form changing; and they alter into another figure from which the original form disappears. For if any one should melt down the works formed into the semblance of a man or a horse, he will find the appearance of the form disappearing, but the material itself remaining. It is, therefore, untenable to say, that the form shall arise in nowise corrupted, but that the body in which the form was stamped shall be destroyed.
XVI. But he says that it will be so; for it will be changed in a spiritual body. Therefore, it is necessary to confess that the very same form as at first does not arise, from its being changed and corrupted with the flesh. For although it be changed into a spiritual body, that will not be properly the original substance, but a certain resemblance of it, fashioned in an ethereal body. If, however, it is not the same form, nor yet the body which arises, then it is another in the place of the first. For that which is like, being different from that which it resembles, cannot be that very first thing in accordance with which it was made.
XVII. Moreover, he says that that is the appearance or form which shows forth the identity of the members in the distinctive character of the form.
XVIII. And, when Origen allegorises that
which is said by the prophet Ezekiel concerning the resurrection of the
dead, and perverts it to the return of the Israelites from their
captivity in Babylon, the saint in refuting him, after many other
remarks, says this also: For neither did they The
Israelites.
XIX. He says that Origen holds these
opinions which he refutes. And there may be a doubt concerning
Lazarus and the rich man. The simpler persons think that these
things were spoken as though both were receiving their due for the
things which they had done in life in their bodies; but the more
accurate think that, since no one is left in life after the
resurrection, these things do not happen at the resurrection. For
the rich man says: “I have five brethren;…lest they
also come into this place of torment,”
The
reading of Jahn, “καθ᾽
ἑαυτήν,” is here
adopted.—Tr.
Jahn’s reading.
XX. The saint says at the end: The
words, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
that He might be Lord both of the dead and living,”
XXI. Since the body of man is more honourable than other living creatures, because it is said to have been formed by the hands of God, and because it has attained to be the vehicle of the reasonable soul; how is it that it is so short-lived, shorter even than some of the irrational creatures? Is it not clear that its long-lived existence will be after the resurrection?
————————————
On the History of Jonah.
From the Book on the
Resurrection. [A
fragment given by Combefis, in Latin, in the Bioliotheca
Concionatoria, t. ii. p. 263, etc. Published in Greek
from the Vatican ms. (1611), by Simon de
Magistris, in Acta Martyrum ad ostia Tiberina sub Claudio
Gothico. (Rome, 1792, folio. Append. p. 462.)]
I. The history of
Jonah
[
II. As, then, Jonah spent three days and as
many nights in the whale’s belly, and was delivered up sound
again, so shall we all, who have passed through the three stages of our
present life on earth—I mean the beginning, the middle, and the
end, of which all this present time consists—rise again.
For there are altogether three intervals of time, the past, the future,
and the present. And for this reason the Lord spent so many days
in the earth symbolically, thereby teaching clearly that when the
forementioned intervals of time have been fulfilled, then shall come
our resurrection, which is the beginning of the future age, and the end
of this. For in that age Or,
dispensation.
From Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 235.
I. This selection is made, by way of
compendium or synopsis, from the work of the holy martyr and bishop
Methodius, concerning things created. The passage, “Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine,”
II. Origen says that what he calls the Centaur is
the universe which is co-eternal with the only wise and independent
God. For he says, since there is no workman without some work, or
maker without something made, so neither is there an Almighty without
an object of His power. For the workman must be so called from
his work, and the maker from what he makes, and the Almighty Ruler from
that which He rules over. And so it must be, that these things
were made by God from the beginning, and that there was no time in
which they did not exist. For if there was a time when the things
that are made did not exist, then, as there were no things which had
been made, so there was no maker; which you see to be an impious
conclusion. And it will result that the unchangeable and
unaltered God has altered and changed. For if He made the
universe later, it is clear that He passed from not making to
making. But this is absurd in connection with what has been
said. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the universe is
not unbeginning and co-eternal with God. To whom the saint
replies, in the person of another, asking, “Do you not consider
God the beginning and fountain of wisdom and glory, and in short of all
virtue in substance and not by acquisition?”
“Certainly,” he says. “And what besides?
Is He not by Himself perfect and independent?” “True;
for it is impossible that he who is independent should have his
independence from another. For we must say, that all which is
full by another is also imperfect. For it is the thing which has
its completeness of itself, and in itself alone, which can alone be
considered perfect.” “You say most truly. For
would you pronounce that which is neither by itself complete, nor its
own completeness, to be independent?” “By no
means. For that which is perfect through anything else must needs
be in itself imperfect.” “Well, then shall God be
considered perfect by Himself, and not by some other?”
“Most rightly.” “Then God is something
different from the world, and the world from God?”
“Quite so.” “We must not then say that God is
perfect, and Creator, and Almighty, through the world?”
“No; for He must surely by Himself, and not by the world, and
that changeable, be found perfect by Himself.” “Quite
so.” “But you will say that the rich man is called
rich on account of his riches? And that the wise man is called
wise not as being wisdom itself, but as being a possessor of
substantial wisdom?” “Yes.” “Well,
then, since God is something different from the world, shall He be
called on account of the world rich, and beneficent, and
Creator?” “By no means.
III. Now consider it thus: “If, you say, the world was created later, not existing before, then we must change the passionless and unchangeable God; for it must needs be, that he who did nothing before, but afterwards, passes from not doing to doing, changes and is altered.” Then I said, “Did God rest from making the world, or not?” “He rested.” “Because otherwise it would not have been completed.” “True.” “If, then, the act of making, after not making, makes an alteration in God, does not His ceasing to make after making the same?” “Of necessity.” “But should you say that He is altered as not doing to-day, from what He was, when He was doing?” “By no means. There is no necessity for His being changed, when He makes the world from what He was when He was not making it; and neither is there any necessity for saying that the universe must have co-existed with Him, on account of our not being forced to say that He has changed, nor that the universe is co-eternal with Him.”
IV. But speak to me thus: “Should you call that a thing created which had no beginning of its creation?” “Not at all.” “But if there is no beginning of its creation, it is of necessity uncreated. But if it was created, you will grant that it was created by some cause. For it is altogether impossible that it should have a beginning without a cause.” “It is impossible.” “Shall we say, then, that the world and the things which are in it, having come into existence and formerly not existing, are from any other cause than God?” “It is plain that they are from God.” “Yes; for it is impossible that that which is limited by an existence which has a beginning should be co-existent with the infinite.” “It is impossible.” “But again, O Centaur, let us consider it from the beginning. Do you say that the things which exist were created by Divine knowledge or not?” “Oh, begone, they will say; not at all.” “Well, but was it from the elements, or from matter, or the firmaments, or however you choose to name them, for it makes no difference; these things existing beforehand uncreated and borne along in a state of chaos; did God separate them and reduce them all to order, as a good painter who forms one picture out of many colours?” “No, nor yet this.” For they will quite avoid making a concession against themselves, lest agreeing that there was a beginning of the separation and transformation of matter, they should be forced in consistency to say, that in all things God began the ordering and adorning of matter which hitherto had been without form.
V. But come now, since by the favour of God we
have arrived at this point in our discourse; let us suppose a beautiful
statue standing upon its base; and that those who behold it, admiring
its harmonious beauty, differ among themselves, some trying to make out
that it had been made, others that it had not. I should ask
them: For what reason do you say that it was not made? on account
of the artist, because he must be considered as never resting from his
work? or on account of the statue itself? If it is on account of
the artist, how could it, as not being made, be fashioned by the
artist? But if, when it is moulded of brass, it has all that is
needed in order that it may receive whatever impression the artist
chooses, how can that be said not to be made which submits to and
receives his labour? If, again, the statue is declared to be by
itself perfect and not made, and to have no need of art, then we must
allow, in accordance with that pernicious heresy, that it is
self-made. If perhaps they are unwilling to admit this argument,
and reply more inconsistently, that they do not say that the figure was
not made, but that it was always made, so that there was no beginning
of its being made, so that artist might be said to have this subject of
his art without any beginning. Well then, my friends, we will say
to them, if no time, nor any age before can be found in the past, when
the statue was not perfect, will you tell us what the artist
contributed to it, or wrought upon it? For if this statue has
need of nothing, and has no beginning of existence, for this reason,
according to you, a maker never made it, nor will any maker be
found. And so the argument seems to come again to the same
conclusion, and we must allow that it is self-made. For if an
artificer is said to have moved a statue ever so slightly, he will
submit to a beginning, when he began to move and adorn that which was
before unadorned and unmoved. But the world neither was nor will
be for ever the same. Now we must compare the artificer to God,
and the statue to the world. But how then, O foolish men, can you
imagine the creation to be co-eternal with its Artificer,
VI. He says that the Church
᾽Εκκλησία.
ἐκκεκληκέναι.
VII. The saint says: We said there are two kinds of formative power in what we have now acknowledged; the one which works by itself what it chooses, not out of things which already exist, by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it wills. This is the power of the Father. The other which adorns and embellishes, by imitation of the former, the things which already exist. This is the power of the Son, the almighty and powerful hand of the Father, by which, after creating matter not out of things which were already in existence, He adorns it.
VIII. The saint says that the Book of Job is
by Moses. He says, concerning the words, “In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth,”
IX. He says that Origen, after having fabled
many things concerning the eternity of the universe, adds this
also: Nor yet from Adam, as some say, did man, previously not
existing, first take his existence and come into the world. Nor
again did the world begin to be made six days before the creation of
Adam. But if any one should prefer to differ in these points, let
him first say, whether a period of time be not easily reckoned from the
creation of the world, according to the Book of Moses, to those who so
receive it, the voice of prophecy here proclaiming: “Thou
art God from everlasting, and world without end.…For a thousand
years in Thy sight are but as yesterday: seeing that is past as a
watch in the night.”
I.
From the Parallels of St. John Damascene, Opera,
tom. ii. p. 778, ed. Lequien.
This, in truth, must be called most excellent and praiseworthy, which God Himself considers excellent, even if it be despised and scoffed at by all. For things are not what men think them to be.
II.
Ibid., p. 784, B.
Then repentance effaces every sin, when there is no delay after the fall of the soul, and the disease is not suffered to go on through a long interval. For then evil will not have power to leave its mark in us, when it is drawn up at the moment of its being set down like a plant newly planted.
III.
Ibid., p. 785, E.
In truth, our evil comes out of our want of resemblance to God, and our ignorance of Him; and, on the other hand, our great good consists in our resemblance to Him. And, therefore, our conversion and faith in the Being who is incorruptible and divine, seems to be truly our proper good, and ignorance and disregard of Him our evil; if, at least, those things which are produced in us and of us, being the evil effects of sin, are to be considered ours.
From His Discourse Concerning Martyrs.
From Theodoretus, Dial., 1, ᾽Ατρεπτ.
Opp., ed. Sirmond, tom. iv. p. 37.
For martyrdom is so admirable and desirable, that
the Lord, the Son of God Himself, honouring it, testified, “He
thought it not robbery to be equal with God,”
General Note.
————————————
The Banquet appears
to me a genuine work, although, like other writings of this Father, it
may have been corrupted. Tokens of such corruptions are not
wanting, and there can be little doubt that Methodius the monkish
artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into
the works of his earlier namesake.
Murdock’s Mosheim, Eccles. Hist., ii. 51.
In a fragment, for example, found on a preceding
page, P.
369, note 4, supra.
The Jonah Fragment, p. 378, supra.
The sense, that is, of the golden image of God in angels, and
“in clay or brass, as ourselves.” See p.
378, supra. See
pp. 131, 132, edition of the London Society for the Promotion of
Christian Knowledge.
On the Day that They Met in the
Temple.
The oration likewise treats of the Holy Theotocos.
[Published by Pantinus, 1598, and obviously corrupt. Dupin states
that it is “not mentioned by the ancients, nor even by
Photius.” The style resembles that of Methodius in many
places.]
————————————
I. Although I have
before, as briefly as possible, in my dialogue on chastity,
sufficiently laid the foundations, as it were, for a discourse on
virginity, yet to-day the season has brought forward the entire subject
of the glory of virginity, and its incorruptible crown, for the
delightful consideration of the Church’s foster-children.
For to-day the council chamber of the divine oracles is opened wide,
and the signs prefiguring this glorious day, with its effects and
issues, are by the sacred preachers read over to the assembled
Church. Today the accomplishment of that ancient and true counsel
is, in fact and deed, gloriously manifested to the world. Today,
without any covering,
τὴν
ἀκίνητον
ἧτταν
ἐγκαυχησάμενοι.
It seems better to retain this. Pantinus would substitute
ἀνίκητον for
ἀκίνητον, and render
less happily “invicto hoc certamine victos.” [See
p. 309, note 1, supra, and the reflection upon even the
Banquet of Philosophers, the Symposium of
Plato.]
μυστήριον
is, in the Greek Fathers, equivalent to the Latin
Sacramentum.—Tr.
ἱεράτευμα.
Perhaps less definitely priesthood. Acc. Arist. it is ἡ περὶ τοὺς
θεοὺς
ἐπιμέλεια.
The cult and ordinances of religion to be observed especially by the
priests, whose business it is to celebrate the excellence of
God.—Tr.
κατὰ
τὴν
εὐδοκίαν.
Allusion is made to
“One and the same essence.” This is the famous
ὁμοουσιοςof
the Nicene Council.—Tr.
ἱεροφάντης,
teacher of the divine oracles. This, which is the technical term
for the presiding priest at Eleusis, and the Greek translation of the
Latin “Pontifex Maximus,” is by our author applied to
St. Paul.—Tr.
III. Do thou, therefore, O lover of this
festival, when thou hast considered well the glorious mysteries of
Bethlehem, which were brought to pass for thy sake, gladly join thyself
to the heavenly host, which is celebrating magnificently thy
salvation.
ὑποτίτθιον
τυγχάνοντα.
It is an aggravation, so to speak, that He not only willed to become an
infant, and to take upon Him, of necessity, the infirmities of infancy,
but even at that tender age to be banished from His country, and to
make a forcible change of residence, μέτοικος
γενέσθαν.
μέτοικοι are
those who, at the command of their princes, are transferred, by way of
punishment, to another State. Their lands are confiscated.
They are sometimes called ἀνάσπαστοι.
Like to the condition of these was that of Jesus, who fled into Egypt
soon after His birth. For the condition of the μέτοικοι
at Athens, see Art. Smith’s Dict.
Antiq.—Tr.
IV. Therefore the prophet brought the virgin
from Nazareth, in order that she might give birth at Bethlehem to her
salvation-bestowing child, and brought her back again to Nazareth, in
order to make manifest to the world the hope of life. Hence it
was that the ark of God removed from the inn at Bethlehem, for there He
paid to the law that debt of the forty days, due not to justice but to
grace, and rested upon the mountains of Sion, and receiving into His
pure bosom as upon a lofty throne, and one transcending the nature of
man, the Monarch of all,
Cf. [Here
seems to me a deep and true insight regarding the scriptural topics and
events touched upon.]
The quotation from the prophet Habakkuk is from the LXX.
version.—Tr.
V. Tremendous, verily, is the mystery
connected with thee, O virgin mother, thou spiritual throne, glorified
and made worthy of God.
[Note “made worthy;” so “found
grace” and “my Saviour,” in St. Luke.
Hence not immaculate by nature.]
τὸν
τῆιπλασιασμὸν
τὴς
ἁγιότητος,
Pantinus translates triplicem sanctitatis rationem, but
this is hardly theological. Allusion is made to the song of the
seraphim,
τὸν τὰ
πάντα ἐν
ἀκαταληψίᾳ
ὑπεριδρυμένον. Cf.
[This apostrophe is not prayer nor worship. (See
sec. xiv., infra.) It may be made by any
orator. See Burgon’s pertinent references to Legh Richmond
and Bishop Horne, Lett. from Rome, pp. 237, 238.]
ὁ τῶν
τελουμένων
τελειωτής,
initiator, consummator. διὰ τοῦ
Πνεύματος
ἁγίου is to be referred to
συνεκάλεσεν,
rather than to τῶν
πραττομένων
.—Tr.
VI. Hence the aged Simeon, putting off the
weakness of the flesh, and putting on the strength of hope, in the face
of the law hastened to receive the Minister of the law, the
Teacher
τὸν
αὐθέντην
διδάσκαλον.
The allusion is to
VII. While the old man was thus exultant, and
rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been
spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy mother of God now
manifestly fulfilled. For taking, as from a pure and undefiled
altar, that coal living and ineffable, with man’s flesh invested,
in the embrace of her sacred hands, as it were with the tongs, she held
Him out to that just one, addressing and exhorting him, as it seems to
me, in words to this effect: Receive, O reverend senior, thou of
priests
VIII. Upon all this that righteous man,
waxing bold and yielding to the exhortation of the mother of God, who
is the handmaid of God in regard to the things which pertain to men,
received into his aged arms Him who in infancy was yet the Ancient of
days, and blessed God, and said, “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy
servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: for mine eyes
have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of
all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy
people Israel.”
IX. Let then, says he, what I have thus far
said in brief, suffice for the present as my offering of thanks to
God. But what shall I say to thee, O mother-virgin and
virgin-mother? For the praise even of her who is not man’s
work exceeds the power of man. Wherefore the dimness of my
poverty I will make bright with the splendour of the gifts of the
spirits that around thee shine, and offering to thee of thine own, from
the immortal meadows I will pluck a garland for thy sacred and divinely
crowned head. With thine ancestral hymns will I greet thee, O
daughter of David, and mother of the Lord and God of David. For
it were both base and inauspicious to adorn thee, who in thine own
glory excellest with that which belongeth unto another. Receive,
therefore, O lady most benignant, gifts precious, and such as are
fitted to thee alone, O thou who art exalted above all generations, and
who, amongst all created things, both visible and invisible, shinest
forth as the most honourable. Blessed is the root of Jesse, and
thrice blessed is the house of David, in which thou hast sprung
up.
X. But why do I digress, and lengthen out my
discourse, giving it the rein with these varied illustrations, and that
when the truth of thy matter stands like a column before the eye, in
which it were better and more profitable to luxuriate and delight
in? Wherefore, bidding adieu to the spiritual narrations and
wondrous deeds of the saints throughout all ages, I pass on to thee who
art always to be had in remembrance, and who holdest the helm, as it
were, of this festival. [The
feast of the Purification. Here follows an impassioned
apostrophe, which apart from its Oriental extravagance is full of
poetical beauty. Its language, however, like that of other parts
of this Oration, suggests at least interpolation, subsequent to the
Nestorian controversy. Previously, there would have been no call
for such vehemence of protestation.]
Blessed art thou, all-blessed, and to be desired
of all. Blessed of the Lord is thy name, full of divine grace,
and grateful exceedingly to God, mother of God, thou that givest light
to the faithful. Thou art the circumscription, so to speak, of
Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root
For He who said, “Honour thy father and thy
mother,”
[Apostrophes like the above; panegyrical, not odes of worship.]
[This must have been interpolated after the Council of Ephesus,
a.d. 431. The whole Oration is probably
after that date.]
XI. But for the time that remains, my most
attentive hearers, let us take up the old man, the receiver of God, and
our pious teacher, who hath put in here, as it were, in safety from
that virginal sea, and let us refresh him, both satisfied as to his
divine longing, and conveying to us this most blessed theology; and let
us ourselves follow out the rest of our discourse, directing our course
unerringly with reference to our prescribed end, and that under the
guidance of God the Almighty, so shall we not be found altogether
unfruitful and unprofitable as to what is required of us. When,
then, to these sacred rites, prophecy and the priesthood had been
jointly called, and that pair of just ones elected of God—Simeon,
I mean, and Anna, bearing in themselves most evidently the images of
both peoples—had taken their station by the side of that glorious
and virginal throne,—for by the old man was represented the
people of Israel, and the law now waxing old; whilst the widow
represents the Church of the Gentiles, which had been up to this point
a widow,—the old man, indeed, as personating the law, seeks
dismissal; but the widow, as personating the Church, brought her joyous
confession of faith
XII. And in addition to this, when besides the
spectacle, and even beyond the spectacle, they heard an old man, very
righteous, very worthy of credit, worthy also of emulation, inspired by
the Holy Spirit, a teacher of the law, honoured with the priesthood,
illustrious in the gift of prophecy, by the hope which he had conceived
of Christ, extending the limits of life, and putting off the debt of
death—when they saw him, I say, leaping for joy, speaking words
of good omen, quite transformed with gladness of heart, entirely rapt
in a divine and holy ecstasy; who from a man had been changed into an
angel by a godly change, and, for the immensity of his joy,
chant
XIII. But here, as in port, putting in the
vessel that bears the ensign of the cross, let us reef the sails of our
oration, in order that it may be with itself commensurate. Only
first, in as few words as possible, let us salute the city of the Great
King
[Here
is an apostrophe to the Church, a hymn to “the Elect
Lady.” See, illustrating note 17, p. 390,
supra.]
τρικυμίας, stormy waves. Latin, decumani
fluctus. Methodius perhaps alludes to Diocletian’s
persecution, in which he perished as a martyr.—Tr.
XIV. Hail to thee for ever, thou virgin
mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again
return. [He
again apostrophizes the Blessed Theotocos, but in language
hardly appropriate to the period preceding Cyril of Alexandria.]
[Not so, for he ends with a noble strain of worship to the
Son of God. This expression suggests interpolation.]
[Dupin
hardly credits this oration to Methodius. See elucidation, p.
398.]
————————————
I. Blessed be God;
let us proceed, brethren, from wonders to the miracles of the Lord, and
as it were, from strength to strength.
[Evidently a homily for Palm Sunday, the first day of the Paschal
week.]
II. To-day, holy David rejoices with great
joy, being by babes despoiled of his lyre, with whom also, in spirit,
leading the dance, and rejoicing together, as of old, before the ark of
God,
III. But while these things were doing, and
the disciples were rejoicing and praising God with a loud voice for all
the mighty works that they had seen, saying, Blessed be the King that
cometh in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the
highest;
V. Once, indeed, the aged Simeon met the
Saviour
VI. But let us, beloved, return in our
discourse to that point whence we digressed, exclaiming, Blessed is He
that cometh in the name of the Lord: that good and kind Shepherd,
voluntarily to lay down His life for His sheep. That just as
hunters take by a sheep the wolves that devour sheep, even so the Chief
Shepherd,
VII. Let us look also at what follows.
What says the most divine evangelist? When the Lord had entered
into the temple, the blind and the lame came to Him; and He healed
them. And when the chief priests and Pharisees saw the wonderful
things that He did, and the children crying, and saying, Hosanna to the
Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord,
Elucidations.
————————————
The candid Dupin
Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. i. p. 161. He
was a Dominican, and learned in Greek. Died 1679.
————————————
I.
Apud. Gretserum, De Sancta Cruce, p. 401, tom. ii. Nov.
edit. Ratisb., 1754. [Concerning which I quote from Dupin
as follows: “The Père Combefis has collected some
other fragments, attributed to Methodius, cited by St. John
Damascene and by Nicetas as drawn out of his books against
Porphyry. But, besides that, we cannot depend upon the authority
of these two authors, who are not very exact; these fragments have
nothing considerable and we think it not worth while to say anything
more concerning them.”]
Methodius, Bishop, to those who say: What doth it profit us that the Son of God was crucified upon earth, and made man? And wherefore did He endure to suffer in the manner of the cross, and not by some other punishment? And what was the advantage of the cross?
Christ, the Son of God, by the command of the
Father, became conversant with the visible creature, in order that, by
overturning the dominion of the tyrants, the demons, that is, He might
deliver our souls from their dreadful bondage, by reason of which our
whole nature, intoxicated by the draughts of iniquity, had become full
of tumult and disorder, and could by no means return to the remembrance
of good and useful things. Wherefore, also, it was the more
easily carried away to idols, inasmuch as evil had overwhelmed it
entirely, and had spread over all generations, on account of the change
which had come over our fleshy tabernacles in consequence of
disobedience; until Christ, the Lord, by the flesh in which He lived
and appeared, weakened the force of Pleasure’s onslaughts, by
means of which the infernal powers that were in arms against us reduced
our minds to slavery, and freed mankind from all their evils. For
with this end the Lord Jesus both wore our flesh, and became man, and
by the divine dispensation was nailed to the cross; in order that by
the flesh in which the demons had proudly and falsely feigned
themselves gods, having carried our souls captive unto death by
deceitful wiles, even by this they might be overturned, and discovered
to be no gods. For he prevented their arrogance from raising
itself higher, by becoming man; in order that by the body in which the
race possessed of reason had become estranged from the worship of the
true God, and had suffered injury, even by the same receiving into
itself in an ineffable manner the Word of Wisdom, the enemy might be
discovered to be the destroyers and not the benefactors of our
souls. For it had not been wonderful if Christ, by the terror of
His divinity, and the greatness of His invincible power, had reduced to
weakness the adverse nature of the demons. But since this was to
cause them greater grief and torment, for they would have preferred to
be overcome by one stronger than themselves, therefore it was that by a
man He procured the safety of the race; in order that men, after that
very Life and Truth had entered into them in bodily form, might be able
to return to the form and light of the Word, overcoming the power of
the enticements of sin; and that the demons, being conquered by one
weaker than they, and thus brought into contempt, might desist from
their over-bold confidence, their hellish wrath being repressed.
It was for this mainly that the cross was brought in, being erected as
a trophy against iniquity, and a deterrent from it, that henceforth man
might be no longer subject to wrath, after that he had made up for the
defeat which, by his disobedience, he had received, and had lawfully
conquered the infernal powers, and by the gift of God had been set free
from every debt. Since, therefore, the first-born Word of God
thus fortified the manhood in which He tabernacled with the armour of
righteousness, He overcame, as has been said, the powers that enslaved
us by the figure of the cross, and showed forth man, who had been
oppressed by corruption, as by a tyrant power, to be free, with
unfettered hands. For the cross, if you wish to define it, is the
confirmation of the victory, the way by which God to man descended, the
trophy against material spirits, the repulsion of death, the foundation
of the ascent to the true day; and the ladder for those who are
hastening to enjoy the light that is there, the engine by which those
who are fitted for the edifice of the Church are raised up from below,
like a stone four square, to be compacted on to the divine Word.
Hence it is that our kings, perceiving that the figure of the cross is
used for the dissipating of every evil, have made vexillas, as
they are called in the Latin language. Hence the sea, yielding to
this figure, makes itself navigable to men. For every creature,
so to speak, has, for the sake of liberty, been marked with this sign;
for the birds which fly aloft, form the figure of the cross by the
expansion of their wings; and man himself, also, with his hands
outstretched, represents the
II.
Apud. Gretserum, De Sancta Cruce, tom. ii. p. 403.
The Same Methodius to Those Who are Ashamed of the Cross of Christ.
Some think that God also, whom they measure with the measure of their own feelings, judges the same thing that wicked and foolish men judge to be subjects of praise and blame, and that He uses the opinions of men as His rule and measure, not taking into account the fact that, by reason of the ignorance that is in them, every creature falls short of the beauty of God. For He draws all things to life by His Word, from their universal substance and nature. For whether He would have good, He Himself is the Very Good, and remains in Himself; or, whether the beautiful is pleasing to Him, since He Himself is the Only Beautiful, He beholds Himself, holding in no estimation the things which move the admiration of men. That, verily, is to be accounted as in reality the most beautiful and praiseworthy, which God Himself esteems to be beautiful, even though it be contemned and despised by all else—not that which men fancy to be beautiful. Whence it is, that although by this figure He hath willed to deliver the soul from corrupt affections, to the signal putting to shame of the demons, we ought to receive it, and not to speak evil of it, as being that which was given us to deliver us, and set us free from the chains which for our disobedience we incurred. For the Word suffered, being in the flesh affixed to the cross, that He might bring man, who had been deceived by error, to His supreme and godlike majesty, restoring him to that divine life from which he had become alienated. By this figure, in truth, the passions are blunted; the passion of the passions having taken place by the Passion, and the death of death by the death of Christ, He not having been subdued by death, nor overcome by the pains of the Passion. For neither did the Passion cast Him down from His equanimity, nor did death hurt Him, but He was in the passible remaining impassible, and in the mortal remaining immortal, comprehending all that the air, and this middle state, and the heaven above contained, and attempering the mortal to the immortal divinity. Death was vanquished entirely; the flesh being crucified to draw forth its immortality.
III.
Apud. Allatium, Diatr. de Methodiorum scriptis, p. 349.
The Same Methodius: How Christ the Son of God, in a Brief and Definite Time, Being Enclosed by the Body, and Existing Impassible, Became Obnoxious to the Passion.
For since this virtue was in Him, now it is of the essence of power to be contracted in a small space, and to be diminished, and again to be expanded in a large space, and to be increased. But if it is possible for Him to be with the larger extended, and to be made equal, and yet not with the smaller to be contracted and diminished, then power is not in Him. For if you say that this is possible to power, and that impossible, you deny it to be power; as being infirm and incapable with regard to the things which it cannot do. Nor again, further, will it ever contain any excellence of divinity with respect to those things which suffer change. For both man and the other animals, with respect to those things which they can effect, energise; but with respect to those things which they cannot perform, are weak, and fade away. Wherefore for this cause the Son of God was in the manhood enclosed, because this was not impossible to Him. For with power He suffered, remaining impassible; and He died, bestowing the gift of immortality upon mortals. Since the body, when struck or cut by a body, is just so far struck or cut as the striker strikes it, or he that cuts it cut it. For according to the rebound of the thing struck, the blow reflects upon the striker, since it is necessary that the two must suffer equally, both the agent and the sufferer. If, in truth, that which is cut, from its small size, does not correspond to that which cuts it, it will not be able to cut it at all. For if the subject body does not resist the blow of the sword, but rather yields to it, the operation will be void of effect, even as one sees in the thin and subtle bodies of fire and air; for in such cases the impetus of the more solid bodies is relaxed, and remains without effect. But if fire, or air, or stone, or iron, or anything which men use against themselves for the purposes of mutual destruction—if it is not possible to pierce or divide these, because of the subtle nature which they possess, why should not rather Wisdom remain invulnerable and impassible, in nothing injured by anything, even though it were conjoined to the body which was pierced and transfixed with nails, inasmuch as it is purer and more excellent than any other nature, if you except only that of God who begat Him?
————————————
I.
Ex Nicetæ Catena on Job, cap. xix. p. 429, edit.
Londin., 1637. All the shorter fragments collected in the
editions of Migne and Jahn are here appended.
But, perhaps, since the
friends of Job imagined that they understood the reason why he suffered
such things, that just man, using a long speech to them, confesses that
the wisdom of the divine judgment is incomprehensible, not only to him,
but also to every man, and declares that this earthly region is not the
fitting place for understanding the knowledge of the divine
counsels. One might say, that perfect and absolute piety—a
thing plainly divine, and of God alone given to man, is in this place
called wisdom. But the sense of the words is as follows:
God, he says, hath given great things unto men, sowing, as it were, in
their nature the power of discovery, together with wisdom, and the
faculty of art. And men having received this, dig metals out of
the earth, and cultivate it; but that wisdom which is conjoined with
piety, it is not possible in any place to discover. Man cannot
obtain it from his own resources, nor can he give it unto others.
Hence it was that the wise men of the Greeks, who in their own strength
sought to search out piety, and the worship of the Deity, did not
attain their end. For it is a thing, as we have said, which
exceeds human strength, the gift and the grace of God; and therefore
from the beginning, partly by visions, partly by the intervention of
angels, partly by the discourses of the divinely-inspired prophets, God
instructed man in the principles of true religion. Nay, moreover,
that contemplative wisdom by which we are impelled to the arts, and to
other pursuits, and with which we are all in common, just and unjust,
alike endued, is the gift of God: if we have been made rational
creatures, we have received this. Wherefore, also, in a former
place it was said, as of a thing that is of God bestowed, “Is it
not the Lord who teacheth understanding and knowledge?”
II.
Ex Nicetæ Catena on Job, cap. xxvi. p.
538.
Observe that the Lord was not wont from the beginning to speak with man; but after that the soul was prepared, and exercised in many ways, and had ascended into the height by contemplation, so far as it is possible for human nature to ascend, then is it His wont to speak, and to reveal His Word unto those who have attained unto this elevation. But since the whirlwind is the producer of the tempests, and Job, in the tempest of his afflictions, had not made shipwreck of his faith, but his constancy shone forth the rather; therefore it was that He who gave him an answer answered him by the whirlwind, to signify the tempest of calamity which had befallen him; but, because He changed the stormy condition of his affairs into one of serene tranquillity, He spoke to him not only by the whirlwind, but in clouds also.
III.
Ex Nicetæ Catena on Job, p. 547.
Many have descended into the deep, not so as to
walk on it, but so as to be by its bonds restrained. Jesus alone
walked on the deep, where there are no traces of walkers, as a free
man. For He chose death, to which He was not subject, that He
might deliver those who were the bondslaves of death; saying to the
prisoners, “Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, show
yourselves.”
IV.
Ex Nicetæ Catena on Job, cap. xxviii. p.
570.
Seest thou how, at the end of the contest, with a
loud proclamation he declares the praises of the combatant, and
discovers that which was in his afflictions hidden, in the words:
“Thinkest thou that I had else answered thee, but that thou
shouldest appear just?”
Thou contendest with Me, and settest thyself against Me, and opposest those who combat for Me. But where wert thou when I made the world? What wert thou then? Hadst thou yet, says He, fallen from thy mother? for there was darkness, in the beginning of the world’s creation, He says, upon the face of the deep. Now this darkness was no created darkness, but one which of set purpose had place, by reason of the absence of light.
V.
Ex Nicetæ Catena on Job, cap. xix. p. 418, ex
Olympiodoro.
But Methodius: The Holy Spirit, who of God
is given to all men, and of whom Solomon said, “For Thine
incorruptible Spirit is in all things,”
VI.
Ex Parallelis. Damascen., Opp., tom. ii. p. 331,
D.
I account it a greater good to be reproved than to reprove, inasmuch as it is more excellent to free oneself from evil than to free another.
VII.
Ibid., p. 488, B.
Human nature cannot clearly perceive pure justice in the soul, since, as to many of its thoughts, it is but dim-sighted.
VIII. The Same Methodius.
Wickedness never could recognise virtue or its own self.
IX. The Same Methodius.
Justice, as it seems, is four square, on all sides equal and like.
The just judgment of God is accommodated to our affections; and such as our estate is, proportionate and similar shall the retribution be which is allotted us.
————————————
Two Fragments, Uncertain.
————————————
I.
The beginning of every good action has its foundation in our wills, but the conclusion is of God.
II.
Perhaps these three persons of our ancestors,
being in an image the consubstantial representatives of humanity, are,
as also Methodius thinks, types of the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity,
[Such is the fact, no doubt, as to the ancestors of the Jewish race;
the fatherly character of Abraham, the filial character of Isaac, and
the missionary offices of Jacob—whose wisdom and organizing
faculties are so conspicuous—interpreting, in some degree,
“the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.” This seems to
be hinted, indeed, in the formula, “I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Isaac’s
submission to be sacrificed upon Mount Moriah, and Jacob’s
begetting and sending forth the twelve patriarchs, singularly identify
them as types of the Atoning Son and the regenerating Spirit, whose
gifts and mission were imparted to the twelve Apostles.]
[Abel.]
[Note the single procession. The formula of the Hebrews, however,
above noted, supplies a type of the Filioque and the ab
utroque in the true sense of those terms.]
[Recur to chap. v. of The Banquet, p. 333,
supra.]
General Note.
————————————
(Vexillas,—as they are called, p. 399.)
It is very curious to note
how certain ideas are inherited from the earliest Fathers, and travel
down, as here, to find a new expression in a distant age. Here
our author reflects Justin Martyr, See
vol. i. p. 181, this series. See
p. 285, supra, under the Emperors.
[Translated by Archdeacon Hamilton Bryce, LL.D., and Hugh Campbell, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Arnobius.
————————————
[a.d. 297–303.] Arnobius appears before us, not as did the earlier apologists, but as a token that the great struggle was nearing its triumphant close. He is a witness that Minucius Felix and Tertullian had not preceded him in vain. He is a representative character, and stands forth boldly to avow convictions which were, doubtless, now struggling into light from the hearts of every reflecting pagan in the empire. In all probability it was the alarm occasioned by tokens that could not be suppressed—of a spreading and deepening sense of the nothingness of Polytheism—that stimulated the Œcumenical rage of Diocletian, and his frantic efforts to crush the Church, or, rather, to overwhelm it in a deluge of flame and blood.
In our author rises before us another contributor to Latin Christianity, which was still North-African in its literature, all but exclusively. He had learned of Tertullian and Cyprian what he was to impart to his brilliant pupil Lactantius. Thus the way was prepared for Augustine, by whom and in whom Latin Christianity was made distinctly Occidental, and prepared for the influence it has exerted, to this day, under the mighty prestiges of his single name.
And yet Arnobius, like Boethius afterwards, is
much discredited, and has even been grudged the name of a
Christian. Coleridge is one of the many who have disparaged
Arnobius, but he always talked like an inspired madman, and often
contradicted himself. Enough to say, that, emerging from gross
heathenism in mature life, and forced to learn as he could what is now
taught to Christian children, our author is a witness to the diffusion
of truth in his day. He shows also such a faculty of
assimilation, that, as a practical Christian, Coleridge himself does
not shine in comparison; and if, as is probable, he closed his life in
martyrdom, we may well be ashamed to deny him our gratitude and the
tribute of our praise. Our author is an interesting painter of
many features of paganism in conflict with the Church, which we gain
from no one else. Economizing Clement of Alexandria, he advances
to an assured position and form of assault. He persistently
impeaches Jove himself in a daring confidence that men will feel his
terrible charges to be true, and that the victory over heathenism is
more than half gained already.
Lardner’s Testimony of Ancient Heathenism, Works,
vol. vii. p. 17.
Credib., iii. 463.
Translator’s Introductory Notice.
1. Arnobius has been most unjustly neglected in modern times; but some excuse for this may be found in the fact that even less attention seems to have been paid to him in the ages immediately succeeding his own. We find no mention of him in any author except Jerome; and even Jerome has left only a few lines about him, which convey very little information.
In his list of ecclesiastical writers he
says,
Cat. Script. Eccl., lxxix. f. 121, Bened. ed. tom. iv. Ep.
lxxxiii. f. 656.
i.e., a.d. 326.
Cat. Script. Eccl., lxxx. f. 121, ep. lxxxiii.
Cat. Script. Eccl., lxxx. Anno
2333.
It is with some difficulty that we can believe
that Arnobius was led to embrace Christianity by dreams, as he speaks
of these with little respect, As
“vain.” [But see p. 405, supra.]
2. If we learn but little from external
sources as to the life of Arnobius, we are not more fortunate when we
turn to his own writings. One or two facts, however, are made
clear; and these are of some importance. “But
lately,” he says, “O blindness, I worshipped images just
brought from the furnaces, gods made on anvils and forged with
hammers: now, led by so great a teacher into the ways of truth, I
know what all these things are.” Book
i. sec. 39, p. 423, infra.
Again, in different passages he marks pretty
accurately the time or times at which he wrote. Thus, in the
first book i.
13, p. 417. ii.
71, p. 461. iv.
36.
Noticed in iii. 7, infra.
Nor must it be supposed that the whole work may be
referred to the era which ensued after the abdication of Diocletian, in
305. From this time an apology for Christianity with such a
design would have been an anachronism, for it was no longer necessary
to disarm the fears of the heathen by showing that the gods could not
be enraged at the Christians. It has further to be noticed, that
although it is perfectly clear that Arnobius spent much time on his
apology, it has never been thoroughly revised, and does not seem to
have been ever finished. Cf.
note on book vii. sec. 36, infra. [It is not at all
improbable that some sketch of his convictions, written to assure the
bishop of his conversion, was the foundation of what afterwards grew
into a work.]
We surely have in all this sufficient reason to assign the composition of these books adversus Gentes to the end of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries. Beyond this we cannot go, for we have no data from which to derive further inferences.
3. We have seen that the facts transmitted to us
are very few and scanty indeed; but, few as they are, they suggest an
interesting picture. Arnobius comes before us in Sicca; we are
made spectators of two scenes of his life there, and the rest—the
beginning and the end—are
In the midst of traditions of such bestial foulness Arnobius found himself,—whether as a native, or as one who had been led to settle there. He has told us himself how true an idolater he was, how thoroughly he complied with the ceremonial demands of superstition; but the frequency and the vehemence of language with which his abhorrence of the sensuality of heathenism is expressed, tell us as plainly that practices so horrible had much to do in preparing his mind to receive another faith.
In strong contrast to the filthy indulgences with which paganism gratified its adherents, must have appeared the strict purity of life which was enjoined by Christianity and aimed at by its followers; and perhaps it was in such a place as Sicca that considerations of this nature would have most influence. There, too, the story of Cyprian’s martyrdom must have been well known,—may indeed have been told in the nursery of the young Arnobius,—and many traditions must have been handed down about the persistency with which those of the new religion had held fast their faith, in spite of exile, torture, and death. However distorted such tales might be, there would always remain in them the evidence of so exalted nobility of spirit, that every disclosure of the meanness and baseness of the old superstition must have induced an uneasy feeling as to whether that could be impiety which ennobled men,—that piety which degraded them lower than the brutes.
For some time all went well with Arnobius.
He was not too pure for the world, and his learning and eloquence won
him fame and success in his profession. But in some way, we know
not how, a higher learning was communicated to him, and the admired
rhetorician became first a suspected, then a persecuted
Christian. He has left us in no doubt as to the reason of the
change. Upon his darkness, he says, there shone out a heavenly
light,
[Conf. Constantine’s “vision.”]
4. The vast range of learning shown in this
apology has been admitted on all sides. Even Jerome says that it
should at times be read on account of the learning displayed in
it.
Ep. lxii. ad Tranquill. Ep.
xlix. ad Paulinum.
If we remember that no man can wholly escape the
influences of his age, and that Arnobius was so warm an admirer of
Varro and Lucretius that he imitated their style and adopted their
Jerome’s last stricture is scarcely
applicable. Arnobius wrote adversus Gentes; he addressed
himself to meet the taunts and accusations of the heathen, and in so
doing he retorts upon them the charges which they preferred against the
Christians. His work must therefore be criticised from this
standpoint, not as a systematic exposition or vindication of
Christianity. Christianity is indeed defended, but it is by
attacking heathenism. We must consider, also, that evidently the
work was not revised as a whole, and that the last book would have been
considerably altered had Arnobius lived or found opportunity to correct
it.
Cf. book vii. cap. 36, note, and Ib. cap. 51, note, with
the Appendix.
After making all deductions, it may be said fairly that in Arnobius the African Church found no unfitting champion. Living amidst impurity and corruption, and seeing on every side the effects of a superstitious and sensual faith, he stands forward to proclaim that man has a nobler ideal set before him than the worship of the foul imaginations of his depraved fancy, to call his fellows to a purer life, and to point out that the Leader who claims that men should follow Him is both worthy and able to guide. This he does with enthusiasm, vigour, and effect; and in doing this he accomplishes his end.
5. Various opinions have been entertained as to the position which Arnobius occupied with regard to the Bible. We cannot here enter into a discussion of these, and shall merely present a brief statement of facts.
It is evident that with regard to the Jews and the
Old Testament Arnobius was in a state of perfect ignorance; for he
confounds the Sadducees with the Pharisees, Book
iii. cap. 12, note. Cf.
book vii., on sacrifices generally. [Proves nothing.]
He was evidently well acquainted with the life of
Christ and the history of the Church, and alludes at times to
well-known Christian sayings; but how far in so doing he quotes the
Gospels and Epistles, is not easily determined. Thus it has been
supposed, and with some probability, that in referring to the miracles
of Christ he must allude to the Gospels as recording them. But it
must be observed that he ascribes to Christ a miracle of which the New
Testament makes no mention,—of being understood by men of
different nations, as though He spoke in several languages at the same
moment.
Book i. cap. 46, note. Book
i. cap. 53, note. Book
i. cap. 6. Book
ii. cap. 65, note.
Book i. cap. 46; cf. i.
55, 56, 58, 59. iv.
36. ii.
6, note. Cf.
This is, however, less remarkable when we take into
account his mode of dealing with Clemens Alexandrinus and Cicero.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth books are based on these two
[Compare the Exhortation of Clement, vol. ii. p.
171, passim; and Tertullian, vol. iii. and
passim.]
Book iii. cap. 7, and book iv. cap. 13, note.
On the other hand, he quotes frequently and refers distinctly to many authors, and is especially careful to show that he has good authority for his statements, as will be seen by observing the number of books to which he refers on the mysteries and temples. If we bear this in mind, the principle which guided him seems to have been, that when he has occasion to quote an author once or twice, he does so by name, but that he takes it for granted that every one knows what are the great sources of information, and that it is therefore unnecessary to specify in each case what is the particular authority.
There are many interesting questions connected with his subject, but these we must for the present leave untouched.
6. No other works by Arnobius have been preserved, and only two mss. are known to exist. Of these, the one in Brussels is merely a transcript of that preserved in the public library at Paris, on which all editions have been based. This is a ms. of the ninth or tenth century, and contains the Octavius of Minucius Felix immediately after the seventh book adversus Gentes, in consequence of which that treatise was at first printed as the eighth book of Arnobius. Although it has been collated several times, we are still in doubt as to its true readings,—Hildebrand, who last examined it, having done so with too little care.
The first
Arnobii Disputationum adversus Gentes, libri octo, nunc primum
in lucem editi Romæ, apud Franc. Priscianum Florentinum, 1542.
Basileæ, 1546.
Antverpiæ, 1582.
Romæ, 1583. This is the second Roman edition, and
restores the Octavius to Minucius Felix.
Hanoviæ, 1603; dedicated to Joseph Scaliger.
Antverpiæ, 1604.
Paris, 1605. This edition, which is of great value, and shows
great learning and ability, was completed in two months, as Heraldus
himself tells us.
Lugduni Batavorum 1651, containing the notes of Canterus, Elmenhorst,
Stewechius, and Heraldus.
Salmasius purposed writing commentaries for this edition, but died
without doing more than beginning them.
Wirceburgi, 1783, 8vo, preceded by a rambling introductory epistle.
Lipsiæ, 1816–17, 8vo.
Halis Saxonum, 1844, 8vo.
Lipsiæ, 1846, 8vo.
No edition of Arnobius has been published in England; and the one Englishman who has taken any pains with this author seems to be John Jones, who, under the pseudonym of Leander de St. Martino, prepared summaries, which were added to a reprint of Stewechius at Douay, 1634. As this edition has not come into our hands, we are unable to speak of it more particularly.
7. It will be observed that adversus
Gentes is the title of this work in all editions except those of
Hildebrand and Oehler, in which it is adversus Nationes.
The difference is very slight, but it may be well to mention that
neither can be said with certainty to be correct. The first is
the form used by Jerome in two passages of his writings;
Cf. § 1, notes 2 and 3.
8. This translation of Arnobius was begun in the hope that it would be possible to adhere throughout to the text of Orelli, and that very little attention to the various readings would be found necessary. This was, however, found to be impossible, not merely because Hildebrand’s collation of the Paris ms. showed how frequently liberties had been taken with the text, but on account of the corrupt state of the text itself.
It has therefore been thought advisable to lay before the reader a close translation founded on the ms., so far as known. A conjectural reading has in no case been adopted without notice.
Throughout the Work use has been made of four editions,—Oehler’s, Orelli’s, Hildebrand’s, and that of Leyden; other editions being consulted only for special reasons.
It is to be regretted that our knowledge of the
single ms. of Arnobius is still incomplete; but
it is hoped that this will soon be remedied, by the publication of a
revised text, based upon a fresh collation of the ms., with a complete apparatus and a carefully
digested body of notes.
[This section (8) appears as a “Preface” to the Edinburgh
edition.]
The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen.
(Adversus Gentes.)
————————————
Book I.
————————————
1. Since I have
found some who deem themselves very wise in their opinions, acting as
if they were inspired,
The words insanire, bacchari, refer to the appearance of the
ancient seers when under the influence of the deity. So Virgil
says, Insanam vatem aspicies (Æn., iii. 443),
and, Bacchatur vates(Æn., vi.
78). The meaning is, that they make their asseverations with all
the confidence of a seer when filled, as he pretended, with the
influence of the god. Et
velut quiddam promptum ex oraculo dicere, i.e., to declare a matter
with boldness and majesty, as if most certain and undoubted.
Popularia verba, i.e., rumours arising from the ignorance of the
common people. The
Christians were regarded as “public enemies,” and were so
called.
2. Let us therefore examine
carefully the real significance of that opinion, and what is the nature
of the allegation; and laying aside all desire for wrangling,
Or, “all party zeal.”
So Meursius,—the ms. reading
is inusitatum, “extraordinary.”
So Gelenius; ms.,
coartatur, “pressed together.”
3. Since this is so, and
since no strange influence has suddenly manifested itself to break the
continuous course of events by interrupting their succession, what is
the ground of the allegation, that a plague was brought upon the earth
after the Christian religion came into the world, and after it revealed
the mysteries of hidden truth? But pestilences, say my opponents,
and droughts, wars, famines, locusts, mice, and hailstones, and other
hurtful things, by which the property of men is assailed, the gods
bring upon us, incensed as they are by your wrong-doings and by your
transgressions. If it were not a mark of stupidity to linger on
matters which are already clear, and which require no defence, I should
certainly show, by unfolding the history of past ages, that those ills
which you speak of were not unknown, were not sudden in their
visitation; and that the plagues did not burst upon us, and the affairs
of men begin to be attacked by a variety of dangers, from the time that
our sect Or,
“race,” gens, i.e., the Christian people.
The verb mereri, used in this passage, has in Roman writers the
idea of merit or excellence of some kind in a person, in virtue of
which he is deemed worthy of some favour or advantage; but in
ecclesiastical Latin it means, as here, to gain something by the mere
favour of God, without any merit of one’s own.
See Livy, i. 31, etc.; and Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii.
38.
The ms. reads, flumina
cognoverimus ingentia lim-in-is ingentia siccatis,
“that mighty rivers shrunk up, leaving the mud,” etc.
So Tertullian, Apologet., 40, says,—“We have
read that the islands Hiera, Anaphe, Delos, Rhodes, and Cos were
destroyed, together with many human beings.”
4. When was the human race
destroyed by a flood? was it not before us? When was the world
set on fire,
Arnobius, no doubt, speaks of the story of Phæthon, as told
by Ovid; on which, cf. Plato, Tim., st. p. 22.
Nourry thinks that reference is here made to the contests of
gladiators and athletes with lions and other beasts in the
circus. But it is more likely that the author is thinking of
African tribes who were harassed by lions. Thus Ælian (de
Nat Anim., xvii. 24) tells of a Libyan people, the Nomæi, who
were entirely destroyed by lions. The
city of Amyclæ in Italy is referred to, which was destroyed by
serpents.
5. Did we bring it about,
that ten thousand years ago a vast number of men burst forth from the
island which is called the Atlantis of Neptune, In
the Timæus of Plato, c. vi. st. p. 24, an old priest
of Saïs, in Egypt, is represented as telling Solon that in times
long gone by the Athenians were a very peaceful and very brave people,
and that 9,000 years before that time they had overcome a mighty host
which came rushing from the Atlantic Sea, and which threatened to
subjugate all Europe and Asia. The sea was then navigable, and in
front of the pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) lay an island
larger than Africa and Asia together: from it travellers could
pass to other islands, and from these again to the opposite
continent. In this island great kings arose, who made themselves
masters of the whole island, as well as of other islands, and parts of
the continent. Having already possessions in Libya and Europe,
which they wished to increase, they gathered an immense host; but it
was repelled by the Athenians. Great earthquakes and storms
ensued, in which the island of Atlantis was submerged, and the sea ever
after rendered impassable by shoals of mud produced by the sunken
island. For other forms of this legend, and explanations of it,
see Smith’s Dictionary of Geography, under
Atlantis; [also Ancient America, p. 175, Harpers,
1872. This volume, little known, seems to me “stranger than
fiction,” and far more interesting].
6. Although you allege that
those wars which you speak of were excited through hatred of our
religion, it would not be difficult to prove, that after the name of
Christ was heard in the world, not only were they not increased, but
they were even in great measure diminished by the restraining of
furious passions. For since we, a numerous band of men as we are,
have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be
requited with evil, Cf.
7. But if, say my opponents,
no damage is done to human affairs by you, whence arise those evils by
which wretched mortals are now oppressed and overwhelmed? You ask
of me a decided statement,
The ms. here inserts a mark of
interrogation.
So the ms. si facto et,
corrected, however, by a later copyist, si facio ut, “if I
cause that,” etc.
8. And yet, that I may not
seem to have no opinion on subjects of this kind, that I may not appear
when asked to have nothing to offer, I may say, What if the primal
matter which has been diffused through the four elements of the
universe, contains the causes of all miseries inherent in its own
constitution? What if the movements of the heavenly bodies
produce these evils in certain signs, regions, seasons, and tracts, and
impose upon things placed under them the necessity of various
dangers? What if, at stated intervals, changes take place in the
universe, and, as in the tides of the sea, prosperity at one time
flows, at another time ebbs, evils alternating with it? What if
those impurities of matter which we tread under our feet have this
condition imposed upon them, that they give forth the most noxious
exhalations, by means of which this our atmosphere is corrupted, and
brings pestilence on our bodies, and weakens the human race? What
if—and this seems nearest the truth—whatever appears to us
adverse, is in reality not an evil to the world itself? And what
if, measuring by our own advantages all things which take place, we
blame the results of nature through ill-formed judgments? Plato,
that sublime head and pillar of philosophers, has declared in his
writings, that those cruel floods and those conflagrations of the world
are a purification of the earth; nor did that wise man dread to call
the overthrow of the human race, its destruction, ruin, and death, a
renewal of things, and to affirm that a youthfulness, as it were, was
secured by this renewed strength.
Plato, Tim., st. p. 22.
9. It rains not from heaven, my opponent says, and we are in distress from some extraordinary deficiency of grain crops. What then, do you demand that the elements should be the slaves of your wants? and that you may be able to live more softly and more delicately, ought the compliant seasons to minister to your convenience? What if, in this way, one who is intent on voyaging complains, that now for a long time there are no winds, and that the blasts of heaven have for ever lulled? Is it therefore to be said that that peacefulness of the universe is pernicious, because it interferes with the wishes of traders? What if one, accustomed to bask himself in the sun, and thus to acquire dryness of body, similarly complains that by the clouds the pleasure of serene weather is taken away? Should the clouds, therefore, be said to hang over with an injurious veil, because idle lust is not permitted to scorch itself in the burning heat, and to devise excuses for drinking? All these events which are brought to pass, and which happen under this mass of the universe, are not to be regarded as sent for our petty advantages, but as consistent with the plans and arrangements of Nature herself.
10. And if anything happens which does not foster ourselves or our affairs with joyous success, it is not to be set down forthwith as an evil, and as a pernicious thing. The world rains or does not rain: for itself it rains or does not rain; and, though you perhaps are ignorant of it, it either diminishes excessive moisture by a burning drought, or by the outpouring of rain moderates the dryness extending over a very long period. It raises pestilences, diseases, famines, and other baneful forms of plagues: how can you tell whether it does not thus remove that which is in excess, and whether, through loss to themselves, it does not fix a limit to things prone to luxuriance?
11. Would you venture to say
that, in this universe, this thing or the other thing is an evil, whose
origin and cause you are unable to explain and to analyze?
“To analyze”—dissolvere—is in the
ms. marked as spurious.
In the ms. we find “to chill and
numb”—congelare, constringere; but the last
word, too, is marked as spurious.
ms. sustinere (marked as a gloss),
“to sustain;” perferre, “to endure.”
12. It is rather presumptuous, when you are not your own master, even when you are the property of another, to dictate terms to those more powerful; to wish that that should happen which you desire, not that which you have found fixed in things by their original constitution. Wherefore, if you wish that your complaints should have a basis, you must first inform us whence you are, or who you are; whether the world was created and fashioned for you, or whether you came into it as sojourners from other regions. And since it is not in your power to say or to explain for what purpose you live beneath this vault of heaven, cease to believe that anything belongs to you; since those things which take place are not brought about in favour of a part, but have regard to the interest of the whole.
See
Introduction.
[Our author thus identifies himself with Christians, and was,
doubtless, baptized when he wrote these words.]
Sine ullis feriis, a proverbial expression, “without any
holidays;” i.e. without any intermixture of good.
14. And yet do we not see
that, in these years and seasons that have intervened, victories
innumerable have been gained from the conquered enemy,—that the
boundaries of the empire have been extended, and that nations whose
names we had not previously heard, have been brought under our
power,—that very often there have been the most plentiful yields
of grain, seasons of cheapness, and such abundance of commodities, that
all commerce was paralyzed, being prostrated by the standard of
prices? For in what manner could affairs be carried on, and how
could the human race have existed For
qui durare Ursinus would read quiret durare; but
this seems to have no ms. authority, though
giving better sense and an easier construction.
15. Sometimes, however,
there were seasons of scarcity; yet they were relieved by times of
plenty. Again, certain wars were carried on contrary to our
wishes.
That is, unsuccessfully.
16. Yet one cannot discover
by any rational process of reasoning, what is the meaning of these
statements. If the gods willed that the Alemanni
Alemanni, i.e., the Germans; hence the French Allemagne. The ms.
has Alamanni.
[“Innumerable Christians:” let this be noted.]
The Gætuli and Tinguitani were African
tribes. For Tinguitanos, another reading is tunc
Aquitanos; but Tinguitanos is much to be preferred on
every ground.
17. And yet, O ye great
worshippers and priests of the deities, why, as you assert that those
most holy gods are enraged at Christian communities, do you not
likewise perceive, do you not see what base feelings, what unseemly
frenzies, you attribute to your deities? For, to be angry, what
else is it than to be insane, to rave, to be urged to the lust of
vengeance, and to revel in the troubles of another’s grief,
through the madness of a savage disposition? Your great gods,
then, know, are subject to and feel that which wild beasts, which
monstrous brutes experience, which the deadly plant natrix contains in
its poisoned roots. That nature which is superior to others, and
which is based on the firm foundation of unwavering virtue,
experiences, as you allege, the instability which is in man, the faults
which are in the animals of earth. And what therefore follows of
necessity,
18. But if this that you say is true,—if it has been tested and thoroughly ascertained both that the gods boil with rage, and that an impulse of this kind agitates the divinities with excitement, on the one hand they are not immortal, and on the other they are not to be reckoned as at all partaking of divinity. For wherever, as the philosophers hold, there is any agitation, there of necessity passion must exist. Where passion is situated, it is reasonable that mental excitement follow. Where there is mental excitement, there grief and sorrow exist. Where grief and sorrow exist, there is already room for weakening and decay; and if these two harass them, extinction is at hand, viz., death, which ends all things, and takes away life from every sentient being.
19. Moreover, in this way you represent them as not only unstable and excitable, but, what all agree is far removed from the character of deity, as unfair in their dealings, as wrong-doers, and, in fine, as possessing positively no amount of even moderate fairness. For what is a greater wrong than to be angry with some, and to injure others, to complain of human beings, and to ravage the harmless corn crops, to hate the Christian name, and to ruin the worshippers of Christ with every kind of loss?
20.
The ms. reads at,
“but.”
Defendere is added in the ms., but
marked as a gloss.
Consumere is in like manner marked as a gloss.
So Orelli, for the ms.
judicationis, “judgment.”
21. To you let them give good health, to us bad, ay, the very worst. Let them water your farms with seasonable showers; from our little fields let them drive away all those rains which are gentle. Let them see to it that your sheep are multiplied by a numerous progeny; on our flocks let them bring luckless barrenness. From your olive-trees and vineyards let them bring the full harvest; but let them see to it that from not one shoot of ours one drop be expressed. Finally, and as their worst, let them give orders that in your mouth the products of the earth retain their natural qualities; but, on the contrary that in ours the honey become bitter, the flowing oil grow rancid, and that the wine when sipped, be in the very lips suddenly changed into disappointing vinegar.
22. And since facts themselves testify that this result never occurs, and since it is plain that to us no less share of the bounties of life accrues, and to you no greater, what inordinate desire is there to assert that the gods are unfavourable, nay, inimical to the Christians, who, in the greatest adversity, just as in prosperity, differ from you in no respect? If you allow the truth to be told you, and that, too, without reserve, these allegations are but words,—words, I say; nay, matters believed on calumnious reports not proved by any certain evidence.
23. But the true
The carelessness of some copyist makes the ms. read ve-st-ri, “your,”
corrected as above by Ursinus.
So Ursinus, followed by Heraldus, LB., and Orelli, for the
ms. errores, which Stewechius
would change into
errones—“vagrants”—referring to the
spirits wandering over the earth: most other edd., following
Gelenius, read, “called demigods, that these
indeed”—dæmonas appellat, et hos, etc.
24. These are your ideas,
these are your sentiments, impiously conceived, and more impiously
believed. Nay, rather, to speak out more truly, the augurs, the
dream interpreters, the soothsayers, the prophets, and the priestlings,
ever vain, have devised these fables; for they, fearing that their own
arts be brought to nought, and that they may extort but scanty
contributions from the devotees, now few and infrequent, whenever they
have found you to be willing
So the ms., which is corrected in the
first ed. “us to be willing”—nos
velle: Stewechius reads, “us to be making good
progress, are envious, enraged, and cry aloud,” etc.—nos
belle provenire compererunt, invident, indignantur,
declamitantque, etc.; to both of which it is sufficient
objection that they do not improve the passage by their departure from
the ms.
25. And lest any one should
suppose that we, through distrust in our reply, invest the gods with
the gifts of serenity, that we assign to them minds free from
resentment, and far removed from all excitement, let us allow, since it
is pleasing to you, that they put forth their passion upon us, that
they thirst for our blood, and that now for a long time they are eager
to remove us from the generations of men. But if it is not
troublesome to you, if it is not offensive, if it is a matter of common
duty to discuss the points of this argument not on grounds of
partiality, but on those of truth, we demand to hear from you what is
the explanation of this, what the cause, why, on the one hand, the gods
exercise cruelty on us alone, and why, on the other, men burn against
us with exasperation. You follow, our opponents say, profane
religious systems, and you practise rites unheard of throughout the
entire world. What do you, O men, endowed with reason, dare to
assert? What do you dare to prate of? What do you try to
bring forward in the recklessness of unguarded speech? To adore
God as the highest existence, as the Lord of all things that be, as
occupying the highest place among all exalted ones, to pray to Him with
respectful submission in our distresses, to cling to Him with all our
senses, so to speak, to love Him, to look up to Him with
faith,—is this an execrable and unhallowed religion, A
beautiful appeal, and one sufficient to show that our author was no
longer among catechumens.]
26. Is this, I pray, that
daring and heinous iniquity on account of which the mighty powers of
heaven whet against us the stings of passionate indignation, on account
of which you yourselves, whenever the savage desire has seized you,
spoil us of our goods, drive us from the homes of our fathers, inflict
upon us capital punishment, torture, mangle, burn us, and at the last
expose us to wild beasts, and give us to be torn by monsters?
Whosoever condemns that in us, or considers that it should be laid
against us as a charge, is he deserving either to be called by the name
of man, though he seem so to himself? or is he to be believed a god,
although he declare himself to be so by the mouth of a
thousand
So LB. and Orelli; but the ms. reads,
“himself to be like a god by his prophets,”
etc.—se esse similem profiteatur in vatibus.
So corrected by Pithœus for the ms. profanus.
Is Apollo, whether called Delian or Clarian, Didymean, Philesian, or Pythian, to be reckoned divine, who either knows not the Supreme Ruler, or who is not aware that He is entreated by us in daily prayers? And although he knew not the secrets of our hearts, and though he did not discover what we hold in our inmost thoughts, yet he might either know by his ear, or might perceive by the very tone of voice which we use in prayer, that we invoke God Supreme, and that we beg from Him what we require.
27. This is not the place to
examine all our traducers, who they are, or whence they are, what is
their power, what their knowledge, why they tremble at the mention of
Christ, why they regard his disciples as enemies and as hateful
persons; but with regard to ourselves to state expressly to
those who will exercise common reason, in terms applicable to all of us
alike,—We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the
Supreme King and Head, under our Master, Christ. If you examine
carefully, you will find that nothing else is implied in that
religion. This is the sum of all that we do; this is the proposed
end and limit of sacred duties. Before Him we all prostrate
ourselves, according to our custom; Him we adore in joint prayers; from
Him we beg things just and honourable, and worthy of His ear. Not
that He needs our supplications, or loves to see the homage of so many
thousands laid at His feet. This is our benefit, and has a regard
to our advantage. For since we are prone to err, and to yield to
various lusts and appetites through the fault of our innate weakness,
He allows Himself at all times to be comprehended in our thoughts, that
whilst we entreat Him and strive to merit His bounties, we may receive
a desire for purity, and may free ourselves from every stain by the
removal of all our shortcomings.
[Evidences of our author’s Christian status abound
in this fine passage.]
28. What say ye, O
interpreters of sacred and of divine law?
So Gelenius, followed by Orelli and others, for the ms., reading divini interpretes viri (instead
of juris)—“O men, interpreters of the sacred and
divine,” which is retained by the 1st ed., Hildebrand, and
Oehler.
Aii Locutii. Shortly before the Gallic invasion,
b.c. 390, a voice was heard at the dead of
night announcing the approach of the Gauls, but the warning was
unheeded. After the departure of the Gauls, the Romans dedicated
an altar and sacred enclosure to Aius Locutius, or
Loquens, i.e., “The Announcing Speaker,” at a spot on
the Via Nova, where the voice was heard. The ms. reads aiaceos boetios, which Gelenius
emended Aios Locutios.
So emended by Ursinus for the ms.
libentinos, which is retained in the 1st ed., and by Gelenius,
Canterus, and others. Cf. iv. 9, where Libentina is spoken of as
presiding over lusts.
As a soul was assigned to each individual at his birth, so a genius was
attributed to a state. The genius of the Roman people was often
represented on ancient coins.
Thus the Athenians paid honours to Leæna, the Romans to Acca
Laurentia and Flora.
The superstitions of the Egyptians are here specially referred to.
That is, by whose pleasure and at whose command they are preserved from
annihilation.
So Orelli, adopting a conjecture of Meursius, for the
ms. nobis.
That is, not self-existent, but sprung from something previously in
being.
29. And would that it were
allowed me to deliver this argument with the whole world formed, as it
were, into one assembly, and to be placed in the hearing of all the
human race! Are we therefore charged before you with an impious
religion? and because we approach the Head and Pillar
Columen is here regarded by some as equal to culmen; but
the term “pillar” makes a good sense likewise.
This is according to the doctrine of Pythagoras, Plato, Origen,
and others, who taught that the souls of men first existed in heavenly
beings, and that on account of sins of long standing they were
transferred to earthly bodies to suffer punishment. Cf. Clem.
Alex. Strom. iii. p. 433.
30. Does it not occur to you
to reflect and to examine in whose domain you live? on whose property
you are? whose is that earth which you till? The
Peripatetics called God the locus rerum, τόπος
πάντων, the “locality and
the area of all things;” that is, the being in whom all else was
contained.
31. O greatest, O Supreme
Creator of things invisible! O Thou who art Thyself unseen, and
who art incomprehensible! Thou art worthy, Thou art verily
worthy—if only mortal tongue may speak of Thee—that all
breathing and intelligent nature should never cease to feel and to
return thanks; that it should throughout the whole of life fall on
bended knee, and offer supplication with never-ceasing prayers.
For Thou art the first cause; in Thee created things exist, and Thou
art the space in which rest the foundations of all things, whatever
they be. Thou art illimitable, unbegotten, immortal, enduring for
aye, God Thyself alone, whom no bodily shape may represent, no outline
delineate; of virtues inexpressible, of greatness indefinable;
unrestricted as to locality, movement, and condition, concerning whom
nothing can be clearly expressed by the significance of man’s
words. That Thou mayest be understood, we must be silent; and
that erring conjecture may track Thee through the shady cloud, no word
must be uttered. Grant pardon, O King Supreme, to those who
persecute Thy servants; and in virtue of Thy benign nature, forgive
those who fly from the worship of Thy name and the observance of Thy
religion. It is not to be wondered at if Thou art unknown; it is
a cause of greater astonishment if Thou art clearly
comprehended.
[This prayer of Arnobius is surely worthy of admiration.]
But perchance some one dares—for this
remains for frantic madness to do—to be uncertain, and to express
doubt whether that God exists or not; whether He is believed in on the
proved truth of reliable evidence, or on the imaginings of empty
rumour. For of those who have given themselves to philosophizing,
we have heard that some
Diagoras of Melos and Theodorus of Cyrene, called the
Atheists. The former flourished about b.c. 430, the latter about b.c.
310. See Cic., Nat. Deor., i. 2. [Note the
universal faith, cap. 34, infra.]
Protagoras of Abdera, b. b.c. 480, d.
411.
Democritus of Abdera, b. b.c. 460, and
Epicurus, b. b.c. 342, d. 270.
Obstinatione, literally “stubbornness;” Walker
conjectures opinatione, “imaginings,” which Orelli
approves.
32. Our discussion deals with those who, acknowledging that there is a divine race of beings, doubt about those of greater rank and power, whilst they admit that there are deities inferior and more humble. What then? Do we strive and toil to obtain such results by arguments? Far hence be such madness; and, as the phrase is, let the folly, say I, be averted from us. For it is as dangerous to attempt to prove by arguments that God is the highest being, as it is to wish to discover by reasoning of this kind that He exists. It is a matter of indifference whether you deny that He exists, or affirm it and admit it; since equally culpable are both the assertion of such a thing, and the denial of an unbelieving opponent.
33. Is there any human being who has not entered on the first day of his life with an idea of that Great Head? In whom has it not been implanted by nature, on whom has it not been impressed, aye, stamped almost in his mother’s womb even, in whom is there not a native instinct, that He is King and Lord, the ruler of all things that be? In fine, if the dumb animals even could stammer forth their thoughts, if they were able to use our languages; nay, if trees, if the clods of the earth, if stones animated by vital perceptions were able to produce vocal sounds, and to utter articulate speech, would they not in that case, with nature as their guide and teacher, in the faith of uncorrupted innocence, both feel that there is a God, and proclaim that He alone is Lord of all?
34. But in vain, says one,
do you assail us with a groundless and calumnious charge, as if we deny
that there is a deity of a higher kind, since Jupiter is by us both
called and esteemed the best and the greatest; and since we have
dedicated to him the most sacred abodes, and have raised huge
Capitols. You are endeavouring to connect together things which
are dissimilar, and to force them into one class, thereby
introducing confusion. For by the unanimous judgment of all, and
by the common consent of the human race, the omnipotent God is regarded
as having never been born, as having never been brought forth to new
light, and as not having
35. But suppose they be one,
as you wish, and not different in any power of deity and in majesty, do
you therefore persecute us with undeserved hatred? Why do you
shudder at the mention of our name as of the worst omen, if we too
worship the deity whom you worship? or why do you contend that the gods
are friendly to you, but inimical, aye, most hostile to us, though our
relations to them are the same? For if one religion is common to
us and to you, the anger of the gods is stayed;
So the ms.; for which Meursius would
read, nobis vobisque, communis esset (for
cessat)—“is to us and to you, the anger of the
gods would be shared in common.”
36. But, says my opponent,
the deities are not inimical to you, because you worship the omnipotent
God; but because you both allege that one born as men are, and put to
death on the cross, which is a disgraceful punishment even for
worthless men, was God, and because you believe that He still lives,
and because you worship Him in daily supplications. If it is
agreeable to you, my friends, state clearly what deities those are who
believe that the worship of Christ by us has a tendency to injure
them? Is it Janus, the founder of the Janiculum, and Saturn, the
author of the Saturnian state? Is it Fauna Fatua,
So Ursinus, followed by most edd., for the reading of the
ms. Fenta Fatua, cf. v.
18. A later writer has corrected the ms. Fanda, which, Rigaltius says, an old
gloss renders “mother.” So
restored by Salmasius for Dioscuri, and understood by him
as meaning Dea Syria, i.e., Venus, because it is said that a large egg
having been found by the fish in the Euphrates, was pushed up by them
to the dry land, when a dove came down, and sat upon it until the
goddess came forth. Such was the form of the legend according to
Nigidius; but Eratosthenes spoke of both Venus and Cupid as being
produced in this manner. The Syrian deities were therefore Venus,
Cupid, and perhaps Adonis. It should be remembered, however, that
the Syrians paid reverence to pigeons and fish as gods (Xen.,
Anab., i. 4, 9), and that these may therefore be
meant.
37. We worship one who was born a
man. What then? do you worship no one who was born a man?
Do you not worship one and another, aye, deities innumerable?
Nay, have you not taken from the number of mortals all those whom you
now have in your temples; and have you not set them in heaven, and
among the constellations? For if, perchance, it has escaped you
that they once partook of human destiny, and of the state common to all
men, search the most ancient literature, and range through the writings
of those who, living nearest to the days of antiquity, set forth all
things with undisguised truth and without flattery: you will
learn in detail from what fathers, from what mothers they were each
sprung, in what district they were born, of what tribe; what they made,
what they did, what they endured, how they employed themselves, what
fortunes they experienced of
38. But in the meantime let
us grant, in submission to your ideas, that Christ was one of
us—similar in mind, soul, body, weakness, and condition; is He
not worthy to be called and to be esteemed God by us, in consideration
of His bounties, so numerous as they are? For if you have placed
in the assembly
So all edd., except those of Hildebrand and Oehler, for the
ms.
censum—“list.” That
is, that God is a Spirit. [Note our author’s spirit of
faith in Christ.]
Orelli would refer these words to God; he thinks that with those
immediately following they may be understood of God’s spiritual
nature,—an idea which he therefore supposes Arnobius to assert
had never been grasped by the heathen.
So Gelenius, followed by Orelli and others, for the corrupt
reading of the ms., idem ne quis;
but possibly both this and the preceding clause have crept into the
text from the margin, as in construction they differ from the rest of
the sentence, both that which precedes, and that which follows. The
phrase animalibus causis is regarded by commentators as equal to
animatis causis, and refers to the doctrine of the Stoics, that
in the sun, moon, stars, etc., there was an intelligent nature, or a
certain impulse of mind, which directed their movements. Lit.
“shall see”—visuri, the reading of the
ms.; changed in the first ed. and others
to victuri—“shall live.”
Some have suggested a different construction of these
words—memoriam nullam nostri sensus et recordationis
habituri, thus—“have no memory of ourselves and senses
of recollection;” but that adopted above is simpler, and does not
force the words as this seems to do.
The ms. and 1st and 2d Roman edd.
read, qui constringit—“who
restrains.”
39. But lately, O blindness,
I worshipped images produced from the furnace, gods made on anvils and
by hammers, the bones of elephants, paintings, wreaths on aged
trees; It
was a common practice with the Romans to hang the spoils of an enemy on
a tree, which was thus consecrated to some deity. Hence such
trees were sacred, and remained unhurt even to old age. Some have
supposed that the epithet “old” is applied from the fact
that the heathen used to offer to their gods objects no longer of use
to themselves; thus it was only old trees, past bearing fruit, which
were generally selected to hang the spoila upon. [This
interesting personal confession deserves especial note.]
Vel personæ vel capiti.
40. But He died nailed to
the cross. What is that to the argument? For neither does
the kind and disgrace of the death change His words or deeds, nor will
the weight of His teaching appear less; because He freed Himself from
the shackles of the body, not by a natural separation, but departed by
reason of violence offered to Him. Pythagoras of Samos was burned
to death in a temple, under an unjust suspicion of aiming at sovereign
power. Did his doctrines lose their peculiar influence, because
he breathed forth his life not willingly, but in consequence of a
savage assault? In like manner Socrates, condemned by the
decision of his fellow-citizens, suffered capital punishment:
have his discussions on morals, on virtues, and on duties been rendered
vain, because he was unjustly hurried from life? Others without
number, conspicuous by their renown, their merit, and their public
character, have experienced the most cruel forums of death, as
Aquilius, Trebonius, and Regulus: were they on that account
adjudged base after death, because they perished not by the common law
of the fates, but after being mangled and tortured in the most cruel
kind of death? No innocent person foully slain is ever disgraced
thereby; nor is he stained by the mark of any baseness, who suffers
severe punishment, not from his own deserts, but by reason of the
savage nature of his persecutor.
So all the later edd.; but in the ms.,
1st and 2d Roman edd., and in those of Gelenius and Canterus, this
clause reads, cruciatoris perpetitur
sævitatem—“but suffers the cruelty of his
persecutor.”
41. And yet, O ye who laugh
because we worship one who died an ignominious death, do not ye too, by
consecrating shrines to him, honour father Liber, who was torn limb
from limb by the Titans? Have you not, after his punishment and
his death by lightning, named Æsculapius, the discoverer of
medicines, as the guardian and protector of health, of strength, and of
safety? Do you not invoke the great Hercules himself by
offerings, by victims, and by kindled frankincense, whom you yourselves
allege to have been burned alive after his punishment,
The words post pœnas in the text are regarded as spurious
by Orelli, who supposes them to have crept in from the preceding
sentence: but they may be defended as sufficiently expressing the
agonies which Hercules suffered through the fatal shirt of Nessus. The
words deum propitium are indeed found in the ms., but according to Rigaltius are not in the same
handwriting as the rest of the work.
Cybele whose worship was conjoined with that of Atys.
So Orelli, but the ms.
Attis.
This refers to the practice of placing the images of the gods on
pillows at feasts. In the temples there were pulvinaria,
or couches, specially for the purpose.
42. You worship, says my
opponent, one who was born a mere human being. Even if
that were true, as has been already said in former passages, yet, in
consideration of the many liberal gifts which He has bestowed on us, He
ought to be called and be addressed as God. But since He
is God in reality and without any shadow of doubt, do you think that we
will deny that He is worshipped by us with all the fervour we are
capable of, and assumed as the guardian of our body? Is that
Christ of yours a god, then? some raving, wrathful, and excited man
will say. A god, we will reply, and the god of the inner
powers;
The phrase potentiarum interiorum is not easily
understood. Orelli is of opinion that it means those powers which
in the Bible are called the “powers of heaven,” the
“army of heaven,” i.e., the angels. The Jews and the
early Fathers of the Church divided the heaven into circles or zones,
each inhabited by its peculiar powers or intelligent natures, differing
in dignity and in might. The central place was assigned to God
Himself, and to Christ, who sat on His right hand, and who is called by
the Fathers of the Church the “Angel of the Church,” and
the “Angel of the New Covenant.” Next in order came
“Thrones,” “Archangels,” “Cherubim and
Seraphim,” and most remote from God’s throne the
“Chorus of Angels,” the tutelar genii of men. The
system of zones and powers seems to have been derived from the
Chaldeans, who made a similar division of the heavens. According
to this idea, Arnobius speaks of Christ as nearest to the Father, and
God of the “inner powers,” who enjoyed God’s
immediate presence. Reference is perhaps made to some recondite
doctrine of the Gnostics. It may mean, however, the more subtile
powers of nature, as affecting both the souls of men and the physical
universe.
So Orelli with most edd., following Ursinus, for the ms. suo ge-ne-ri-s sub limine,
which might, however, be retained, as if the sense were that these
ordinances were coeval with man’s origin, and translated,
“tribes saw at the beginning of their race.”
Magus, almost equivalent to sorcerer.
Arnobius uses nomina, “names,” with special
significance, because the Magi in their incantations used barbarous and
fearful names of angels and of powers, by whose influence they thought
strange and unusual things were brought to pass.
All these different effects the magicians of old attempted to
produce: to break family ties by bringing plagues into houses, or
by poisons; open doors and unbind chains by charms (Orig., contra
Cels., ii.); affect horses in the race—of which Hieronymus in
his Life of Hilarion gives an example; and use philters and love
potions to kindle excessive and unlawful desires.
44. And yet it is agreed on
that Christ performed all those miracles which He wrought without any
aid from external things, without the observance of any ceremonial,
without any definite mode of procedure, but solely by the
inherent might of His authority; and as was the proper duty of
the true God, as was consistent with His nature, as was worthy
of Him, in the generosity of His bounteous power He bestowed nothing
hurtful or injurious, but only that which is helpful,
beneficial, and full of blessings good
So Orelli and most edd., following a marginal reading of Ursinus,
auxiliaribus plenum bonis (for the ms. nobis).
45. What do you say again,
oh you In
the height of his indignation and contempt, the writer stops short and
does not apply to his opponents any new epithet.
This is contrasted with the mutterings and strange words used by the
magicians.
So the ms. according to Oehler, and
seemingly Heraldus; but according to Orelli, the ms. reads immoderati (instead
of—os) cohibebant fluores, which Meursius received
as equivalent to “the excessive flow stayed itself.”
Penetrabilis, “searching,” i.e., finding its way to
all parts of the body.
So Orelli, LB., Elmenhorst, and Stewechius, adopting a marginal reading
of Ursinus, which prefixes im—to the ms.
mobilitates—“looseness”—retained by the
other edd.
46. Was He one of us, I say,
who by one act of intervention at once healed a hundred or more
afflicted with various infirmities and diseases; at whose word only the
raging and maddened seas were still, the whirlwinds and tempests were
lulled; who walked over the deepest pools with unwet foot; who trod the
ridges of the deep, the very waves being astonished, and nature coming
under bondage; who with five loaves satisfied five thousand of His
followers: and who, lest it might appear to the unbelieving and
hard of heart to be an illusion, filled twelve capacious baskets with
the fragments that remained? Was He one of us, who ordered the
breath that had departed to return to the body, persons buried to come
forth from the tomb, and after three days to be loosed from the
swathings of the undertaker? Was He one of us, who saw clearly in
the hearts of the silent what each was pondering,
Cf. No
such miracle is recorded of Christ, and Oehler suggests with some
probability that Arnobius may have here fallen into confusion as to
what is recorded of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.
The Latin is, per puræ speciem simplicitatis, which is not
easily understood, and is less easily expressed.
47. These facts set forth in
sanctuary we have put forward, not on the supposition that the
greatness of the agent was to be seen in these virtues alone.
[I have already directed attention to Dominic Diodati’s essay,
De Christo Græce loquente. ed. London, 1843.]
So almost all edd.; but the ms. and 1st
and 2d Roman edd. read scire—“to know,”
etc.
48. But, says some one, you
in vain claim so much for Christ, when we now know, and have in past
times known, of other gods both giving remedies to many who were sick,
and healing the diseases and the infirmities of many men. I do
not inquire, I do not demand, what god did so, or at what time; whom he
relieved, or what shattered frame he restored to sound health:
this only I long to hear, whether, without the addition of any
substance—that is, of any medical application—he ordered
diseases to fly away from men at a touch; whether he commanded and
compelled the cause of ill health to be eradicated, and the bodies of
the weak to return to their natural strength. For it is known
that Christ, either by applying His hand to the parts affected, or by
the command of His voice only, opened the ears of the deaf, drove away
blindness from the eyes, gave speech to the dumb, loosened the rigidity
of the joints, gave the power of walking to the shrivelled,—was
wont to heal by a word and by an order, leprosies, agues, dropsies, and
all other kinds of ailments, which some fell power
See book ii. chap. 36, infra.
The gods in whose temples the sick lay ordered remedies through the
priests.
So all edd. except LB., which reads with the ms. superponere—“that (one) place
the juices,” etc.
That is, the physician.
49. And since you compare Christ
and the other deities as to the blessings of health bestowed, how many
thousands of infirm persons
So the edd. reading tri-v-erunt, for the ms. tri-bu-erunt—“given
up,” which is retained in the first ed.
Pietatis, “of mercy,” in which sense the word
is often used in late writers. Thus it was from his clemency that
Antoninus, the Roman emperor, received the title of
Pius. So
most edd., following a marginal reading of Ursinus, which prefixes
in—to the ms.
firmitate.
50. Moreover, by His own
power He not only performed those miraculous deeds which have been
detailed by us in summary, and not as the importance of the matter
demanded; but, what was more sublime, He has permitted many others to
attempt them, and to perform them by the use of His name. For
when He foresaw that you were to be the detractors of His deeds and of
His divine work, in order that no lurking suspicion might remain of His
having lavished these gifts and bounties by magic arts, from the
immense multitude of people, which with admiring wonder strove to gain
His favour, He chose fishermen, artisans, rustics, and unskilled
persons of a similar kind, that they being sent through various nations
should perform all those miracles without any deceit and without any
material aids. By a word He assuaged the racking pains of the
aching members; and by a word they checked the writhings of maddening
sufferings. By one command He drove demons from the body, and
restored their senses to the lifeless; they, too, by no different
command, restored to health and to soundness of mind those labouring
under the inflictions of these demons.
“They, too,…those labouring under the inflictions of
these:” so LB., with the warm approval of Orelli (who,
however, with previous edd., retains the ms.
reading in his text) and others, reading sub eorum
t-ortantes (for ms.
p—) et illi se casibus; Heraldus having suggested
rotantes. This simple and elegant emendation makes it
unnecessary to notice the harsh and forced readings of earlier edd.
51. What say ye, O minds
incredulous, stubborn, hardened? Did that great Jupiter
Capitolinus of yours give to any human being power of this kind?
Did he endow with this right any priest of a curia, the Pontifex
Maximus, nay, even the Dialis, in whose name he is revealed as
the god of life? So
understood by Orelli, who reads quo Dius est, adopting the
explanation of Dialis given by Festus. The ms., however, according to Crusius, reads,
Dialem, quod ejus est, flaminem isto jure donavit; in which
case, from the position of the quod, the meaning might be,
“which term is his,” or possibly, “because he
(i.e., the priest) is his,” only that in the latter case a
pronoun would be expected: the commentators generally refer it to
the succeeding jure, with this “right” which
is his. Canterus reads, quod majus est, i.e., than the
Pontifex Maximus. [Compare vol. iv. p. 74, note 7.]
So the ms. reading
æqualitas, which is retained by Hild.
and Oehler; all other editions drop æ—“that the
quality of deed and doer might be one.”
52. Come, then, let some
Magian Zoroaster
This passage has furnished occasion for much discussion as to
text and interpretation. In the text Orelli’s punctuation
has been followed, who regards Arnobius as mentioning four
Zoroasters—the Assyrian or Chaldean, the Bactrian (cf. c. 5 of
this book), the Armenian, and finally the Pamphylian, or Pamphilos,
who, according to Clem. Alex. (Strom. [vol. ii. p. 469]), is
referred to in Plato’s Republic, book x., under the name
Er; Meursius and Salmasius, however, regarding the whole as one
sentence, consider that only three persons are so referred to, the
first being either Libyan or Bactrian, and the others as with
Orelli. To seek to determine which view is most plausible even,
would be a fruitless task, as will be evident on considering what is
said in the index under Zoroaster. [Jowett’s Plato, ii.
121.] So
Orelli, reading veniat qu-is su-per igneam zonam. LB.
reads for the second and third words, quæ-so
per—“let there come, I pray you, through,”
etc., from the ms. quæ
super; while Heraldus would change the last three words into
Azonaces, the name of the supposed teacher of Zoroaster. By the
“fiery zone” Salmasius would understand Libya; but the
legends should be borne in mind which spoke of Zoroaster as having
shown himself to a wondering multitude from a hill blazing with fire,
that he might teach them new ceremonies of worship, or as being
otherwise distinguished in connection with fire. [Plato,
Rep., p. 446, Jowett’s trans.]
So Stewechius, Orelli, and others, for the ms. Zostriani—“grandson of
Zostrianus,” retained in the 1st ed. and LB.
53. Cease in your ignorance
to receive such great deeds with abusive language, which will in no
wise injure him who did them, but which will bring danger to
yourselves—danger, I say, by no means small, but one dealing with
matters of great,
So the edd., reading in rebus eximiis for the ms. exi-gu-is, which would, of course,
give an opposite and wholly unsuitable meaning.
So generally, Heraldus having restored delitu-it in Christo
from the ms., which had omitted
-it, for the reading of Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus,
delicti—“no deceit, no sin was,”
etc. So
emended by Salmasius, followed by most later edd. In the earlier
edd. the reading is et merito exutus a corpore (Salm. reading
at instead of a, and inserting a period after
mer.)—“and when rightly freed from the body,”
etc. It
may be instructive to notice how the simpler narrative of the Gospels
is amplified. Matthew (
54. But you do not believe
these things; yet those who witnessed their occurrence, and who saw
them done before their eyes—the very best vouchers and the most
trustworthy authorities—both believed them themselves, and
transmitted them to us who follow them, to be believed with no scanty
measure of confidence. Who are these? you perhaps ask.
Tribes, peoples, nations, and that incredulous human race; but Or,
“which if…itself, would never,” etc. [Note the
confidence of this appeal to general assent.]
55. But if this record of
events is false, as you say, how comes it that in so short a time the
whole world has been filled with such a religion? or how could nations
dwelling widely apart, and separated by climate and by the convexities
of heaven,
That is, by the climate and the inclination of the earth’s
surface. So
the 1st ed., Ursinus, Elmenhorst, Orelli, and Hildebrand, reading
munerandis, which is found in the ms. in a later handwriting, for the original reading of the
ms. munera dis.
56. But our writers, we
shall be told, have put forth these statements with false
effrontery; they have extolled
According to Rigaltius the ms.
reads ista promiserunt in immensum—“have put
forth (i.e., exaggerated) these things to an immense degree falsely,
small matters and trivial affairs have magnified,” etc.; while by
a later hand has been superscribed over in immensum, in ink of a
different colour, extulere—“have
extolled.”
So the ms., 1st ed., and Hildebrand,
while all others read atqu-i—“but.” So
LB., reading quo for the ms. quod. So
most edd., reading intercip-erefor the ms. intercipi—“it is that the
progress be obstructed,” etc.
57. You do not believe our writings, and we do not believe yours. We devise falsehoods concerning Christ, you say; and you put forth baseless and false statements concerning your gods: for no god has descended from heaven, or in his own person and life has sketched out your system, or in a similar way thrown discredit on our system and our ceremonies. These were written by men; those, too, were written by men—set forth in human speech; and whatever you seek to say concerning our writers, remember that about yours, too, you will find these things said with equal force. What is contained in your writings you wish to be treated as true; those things, also, which are attested in our books, you must of necessity confess to be true. You accuse our system of falsehood; we, too, accuse yours of falsehood. But ours is more ancient, say you, therefore most credible and trustworthy; as if, indeed, antiquity were not the most fertile source of errors, and did not herself put forth those things which in discreditable fables have attached the utmost infamy to the gods. For could not falsehoods have been both spoken and believed ten thousand years ago, or is it not most probable that that which is near to our own time should be more credible than that which is separated by a long term of years? For these of ours are brought forward on the faith of witnesses, those of yours on the ground of opinions; and it is much more natural that there should be less invention in matters of recent occurrence, than in those far removed in the darkness of antiquity.
58. But they were written by
unlearned and ignorant men, and should not therefore be readily
believed. See that this be not rather a stronger reason for
believing that they have not been adulterated by any false statements,
but were put forth by men of simple mind, who knew not how to trick out
their tales with meretricious ornaments. But the language is mean
and vulgar. For truth never seeks deceitful polish, nor in that
which is well ascertained and certain does it allow itself to be led
away into excessive prolixity. Syllogisms, enthymemes,
definitions, and all those ornaments by which
59. Your narratives, my
opponent says, are overrun with barbarisms and solecisms, and
disfigured by monstrous blunders. A censure, truly, which shows a
childish and petty spirit; for if we allow that it is reasonable, let
us cease to use certain kinds of fruit because they grow with prickles
on them, and other growths useless for food, which on the one hand
cannot support us, and yet do not on the other hinder us from enjoying
that which specially excels, and which nature has designed to be most
wholesome for us. For how, I pray you, does it interfere with or
retard the comprehension of a statement, whether anything be
pronounced smoothly
So Orelli and Hildebrand, reading glabre from a conjecture
of Grotius, for the ms.
grave.
i.e., that the one should be masculine, the other feminine.
i.e., does not one of you make the plural of uter masc., another
neut.? [Note the opponent’s witness to the text of the
Gospels.]
60. But, say my opponents, if
Christ was God, why did He appear in human shape, and why was He cut
off by death after the manner of men? Could that power which is
invisible, and which has no bodily substance, have come upon earth and
adapted itself to the world and mixed in human society, otherwise than
by taking to itself some covering of a more solid substance, which
might bear the gaze of the eyes, and on which the look of the least
observant might fix itself? For what mortal is there who could
have seen Him, who could have distinguished Him, if He had decreed to
come upon the earth such as He is in His own primitive nature, and such
as He has chosen to be in His own proper character and divinity?
He took upon Him, therefore, the form of man; and under the guise of
our race He imprisoned His power, so that He could be seen and
carefully
61. What, then, says my opponent, could not the Supreme Ruler have brought about those things which He had ordained to be done in the world, without feigning Himself a man? If it were necessary to do as you say, He perhaps would have done so; because it was not necessary, He acted otherwise. The reasons why He chose to do it in this way, and did not choose to do it in that, are unknown, being involved in so great obscurity, and comprehensible by scarcely any; but these you might perhaps have understood if you were not already prepared not to understand, and were not shaping your course to brave unbelief, before that was explained to you which you sought to know and to hear.
62. But, you will
say, He was cut off by death as men are. Not Christ
Himself; for it is impossible either that death should befall what is
divine, or that that should waste away and disappear in death which is
one in its substance, and not compounded, nor formed by bringing
together any parts. Who, then, you ask, was seen hanging
on the cross? Who dead? The human form,
So the ms., followed by Hildebrand and
Oehler, reads and punctuates quis mortuus? homo, for
which all edd. read mortuus est? “Who died?”
Here, as in the whole discussion in the second book on the origin and
nature of the soul, the opinions expressed are Gnostic, Cerinthus
saying more precisely that Christ having descended from heaven in the
form of a dove, dwelt in the body of Jesus during His life, but removed
from it before the crucifixion.
So the ms. by changing a single letter,
with LB. and others, similitudine proxim-a
(ms. o) constitutum;
while the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, Orelli, and others,
read -dini proxime—“settled very closely to
analogy.” In
the original latronibus; here, as in the next chapter, used
loosely to denote lawless men.
So emended by Mercerus for the ms.
vatis.
So read in the ms.—not
-tius, as in LB. and Orelli.
Lit., “the ways of things”—vias rerum.
The ms. reads unintelligibly
assumpti-o which was, however, retained in both Roman edd.,
although Ursinus suggested the dropping of the o, which
has been done by all later edd.
The ms. reads, quam nec ipsam
perpeti succubuisset vis—“would his might,” i.e.,
“would He with His great power have stooped.” Orelli
simply omits vis as Canterus, and seemingly the other later edd.
do.
The ms. and 1st ed. read
sati-s, which has clearly arisen from f being confounded
with the old form of s.
63. What are these hidden
and unseen mysteries, you will say, which neither men can know, nor
those even who are called gods of the world can in any wise reach by
fancy and conjecture; which none can discover,
The construction is a little involved, quæ nulli nec homines
scire nec ipsi qui appellantur dii mundi queunt—“which
none, neither men can know, nor those…of the world can reach,
except those whom,” etc.
In the Latin, vel potestate inversa, which according to
Oehler is the ms. reading, while Orelli speaks
of it as an emendation of LB. (where it is certainty found, but without
any indication of its source), and with most edd. reads
universa—“by His universal power.”
So the ms. according to Hildebrand,
reading præcipi=bat. Most edd., however,
following Gelenius, read faciebat—“made them
lame.”
Lit., “to bind fast the motions of the members,” adopting
the reading of most edd., motus alligare membrorum
(ms. c-al-igare).
The ms. reads nervorum
duritia-m, for which Ursinus, with most edd., reads as above,
merely dropping m; Hildebrand and Oehler insert in, and
read, from a conjecture of Ursinus adopted by Elmenhorst,
c-ol-ligare—“to bind into stiffness.”
Ursinus suggested di-, “most terrible,” for
the ms. durissimis.
So the ms. reading, multa mala
de illarum contra insinuator (mala is perhaps in the abl.,
agreeing with a lost word), which has been regarded by Heraldus and
Stewechius, followed by Orelli, as mutilated, and is so read in the
first ed., and by Ursinus and LB. The passage is in all cases
left obscure and doubtful, and we may therefore be excused discussing
its meaning here.
Lit., “to the ends of fitting duties.”
In the original, seminaria abscidit,—the former word used
of nurseries for plants, while the latter may be either as above (from
abscindo), or may mean “cut off ” (from
abscido); but in both cases the general meaning is the same, and
the metaphor is in either slightly confused.
Lit., “familiar to be accosted,”—the supine, as in
the preceding clause.
So the edd., reading corporalibus affectos malis, but the
ms. inserts after malis the word
morbis (“with evil bodily diseases”); but according
to Hildebrand this word is marked as spurious.
64. What, then, constrains
you, what excites you to revile, to rail at, to hate implacably Him
whom no man
So the edd., reading nemo h-om-i-n-um, except Hildebrand
and Oehler, who retain the ms.
om-n-i-um—“no one of all.”
So Heraldus and LB., followed by later edd., reading exiliis
for the ms. ex-uis, for
which Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus read et
suis—“and by their slaughters.”
Here, as frequently in Arnobius, the comparative is used instead of the
superlative.
“To posterity evil reports of their own time”—sui
temporis posteris notas—so emended by Ursinus, followed
by Orelli and Hildebrand, for the ms.
in temporis posteri-s, retained by LB., and with the omission of
s in the 1st ed.; but this requires our looking on the passage
as defective.
The reference is clearly to the well-known passage in
Plato’s Republic. [See the sickening details, book
v. p. 282, Jowett’s trans.] So Gelenius, LB., and Orelli,
reading con-v-ell-e-refor the ms. con-p-ell-a-re, “to accost”
or “abuse,” which is out of place here. Canterus
suggested com-p-il-are, “to plunder,” which also
occurs in the sense “to cudgel.”
Supply, “do you pursue Him so fiercely?”
These words are followed in the edition of Gelenius by ch.
2–5 of the second book, seemingly without any mark to denote
transposition; while Ursinus inserted the same
chapters—beginning, however, with the last sentence of the first
chapter (read as mentioned in the note on it)—but prefixed an
asterisk, to mark a departure from the order of the ms. The later editors have not adopted either
change.
65. Oh ungrateful and
impious age, prepared So
Ursinus suggested in the margin, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading
in privatam perniciem p-a-r-atum for the ms. p-r-iv-atum, which is clearly derived
from the preceding privatam, but is, though unintelligible also,
retained in the two Roman edd. The conclusion of the sentence is,
literally, “obstinacy of spirit.” In
the original, spe salutis proposita atque amore
incolumitatis.
Lit., “is”—est. So
all the edd., reading fastidi-os-um supercilium, which
Crusius says the ms. reads with
os omitted, i.e., “pride, scorn.” So
the edd., reading fatuita-tem, for the ms. fatuita-n-tem, which may, however, point
to a verb not found elsewhere.
i.e., to friends and foes alike. The ms. reads æqualiter benignus hostibus
dicere, which is retained by Orelli, supporting an ellipsis of
fuerit, i.e., “He was kind to say,”
which might be received; but it is more natural to suppose that
-t has dropped off, and read diceret as above, with the
two Roman editions and LB. Gelenius, followed by Ursinus, emended
omnibus docuerit—“with uniform kindness taught to
all.” It may be well to give here an instance of the very
insufficient grounds on which supposed references to Scripture are
sometimes based. Orelli considers that Arnobius here refers
(videtur respexisse, he says) to
i.e., from His resurrection, which showed that death’s power was
broken by Him.
Book II.
There has been much confusion in dealing with the first seven
chapters of this book, owing to the leaves of the ms. having been arranged in wrong order, as was pointed out
at an early period by some one who noted on the margin that there was
some transposition. To this circumstance, however, Oehler
alone seems to have called attention; but the corruption was so
manifest, that the various editors gave themselves full liberty to
re-arrange and dispose the text more correctly. The first leaf of
the ms. concludes with the words sine
ullius personæ discriminibus inrogavit, “without any
distinction of person,” and is followed by one which begins with
the words (A, end of c. 5) et non omnium virtutum, “and
(not) by an eager longing,” and ends tanta experiatur
examina, “undergoes such countless ills” (middle of c.
7). The third and fourth leaves begin with the words (B. end of
c. 1) utrum in cunctos…amoverit? qui si dignos, “Now
if He was not worthy” (see notes), and run on to end of c. 5,
quadam dulcedine, “by some charm;” while the fifth
(C, middle of c. 7) begins atque ne (or utrumne)
illum, “whether the earth,” and there is no further
difficulty. This order is retained in the first ed., and also by
Hildebrand, who supposes three lacunæ at A, B, and C, to account
for the abruptness and want of connection; but it is at once seen that,
on changing the order of the leaves, so that they shall run B A C, the
argument and sense are perfectly restored. This arrangement seems
to have been first adopted in LB., and is followed by the later
editors, with the exception of Hildebrand.
————————————
1. Here, if any means could be found, I
should wish to converse thus with all those who hate the name of
Christ, turning aside for a little from the defence primarily set
up:—If you think it no dishonour to answer when asked a question,
explain to us and say what is the cause, what the reason, that you
pursue Christ with so bitter hostility? or what offences you remember
which He did, that at the mention of His name you are roused to bursts
of mad and savage fury?
Lit., “boil up with the ardours of furious spirits.” Lit.,
“by the heats of.” So
Meursius, reading a- for the ms. o-ptaret, which is retained by LB.,
Orelli, and others. The ms. reading is
explained, along with the next words vota immortalitatis,
by Orelli as meaning “sought by His prayers,” with
reference to The
words which follow, ut non in cunctos, etc., have been
thus transposed by Heraldus, followed by later editors; but formerly
they preceded the rest of the sentence, and, according to Oehler, the
ms. gives utrum, thus:
“(You ask) whether He has both extended to all…ignorance?
who, if He was not,” etc. Cf. book i. (this page) note 3,
supra.
So the ms., reading periculum
i-g-n-ora-tionis, for which Meursius suggests
i-n-teri-tionis—“danger of destruction.”
2. But indeed, some one
will say, He deserved our hatred because He has driven
religion
Pl. This
seems the true rationale of the sentence, viewed in relation to the
context. Immediately before, Arnobius suggests that the hatred of
Christ by the heathen is unjustifiable, because they had suffered
nothing at His hands; now an opponent is supposed to rejoin, “But
He has deserved our hatred by assailing our religion.” The
introductory particles at enim fully bear this out, from their
being regularly used to introduce a rejoinder. Still, by Orelli
and other editors the sentence is regarded as interrogative, and in
that case would be, “Has He indeed merited our hatred by driving
out,” etc., which, however, not merely breaks away from what
precedes, but also makes the next sentence somewhat lame. The
older editors, too, read it without any mark of interrogation. i.e.,
according to Orelli, to the wants of men; but possibly it may here have
the subjunctive meaning of “more full of service,” i.e., to
God.
So the ms., reading perpetuarum
pater, fundator conditor rerum, but all the editions
pa-ri-ter, “alike,” which has helped to lead
Orelli astray. He suggests et fons est perpetu-us pariter,
etc., “perpetual fountain,…of all things alike the founder
and framer.” It has been also proposed by Oehler (to get
rid of the difficulty felt here) to transfer per metathesin, the
idea of “enduring,” to God; but the reference is surely
quite clear, viewed as a distinction between the results of God’s
working and that of all other beings.
So the ms. and almost all edd,
reading da verum judicium, for which Heraldus suggested
da naturæ, or verum animæ judicium, “give
the judgment of nature,” or “the true judgment of the
soul,” as if appeal were made to the inner sense; but in his
later observations he proposed da puerum judicem, “give a
boy as judge,” which is adopted by Orelli. Meursius, merely
transposing d-a, reads much more naturally
ad—“at a true judgment.”
The ms. reading is illum testem
d-e-um constituimus improbarum, retained in the edd. with the
change of -arum into -orum. Perhaps for deum
should be read r-e-r-um, “make him witness of wicked
things.” With this passage compare iii. 31–33.
3. But He did not permit men
to make supplication to the lesser gods. Do you, then, know who
are, or where are the lesser gods? Has mistrust of them, or the
way in which they were mentioned, ever touched you, so that you are
justly indignant that their worship has been done away with and
deprived of all honour? It
seems necessary for the sake of the argument to read this
interrogatively, but in all the edd. the sentence ends without any mark
of interrogation.
Typhus—τῦφος.
Lit., “He chose…to stand.”
4. But all these things will
be more clearly and distinctly noticed when we have proceeded
further. For we shall show that Christ did not teach the nations
impiety, but delivered ignorant and wretched men from those who most
wickedly wronged them.
Lit. “the ignorance of wretched men from the worst
robbers,” i.e., the false prophets and teachers, who made a prey
of the ignorant and credulous.
Lit., “Are the things clear with you which,”
etc.
So the ms., followed by both Roman edd.,
Hildebrand and Oehler, reading passa, which Cujacius
(referring it to patior, as the editors seem to have done
generally) would explain as meaning “past,” while in all
other editions cassa, “vain,” is read.
Lit., “the touching of no anticipation.”
Lit., “purer reasoning.”
Lit., “that is.” This clause Meursius rejects as a
gloss.
i.e., If you believe Christ’s promises, your belief makes you
lose nothing should it prove groundless; but if you disbelieve them,
then the consequences to you will be terrible if they are sure.
This would seem too clear to need remark, were it not for the confusion
of Orelli in particular as to the meaning of the passage.
5. What say you, O ignorant
ones, for whom we might well weep and be sad? Lit.,
“most worthy even of weeping and pity.”
Redarguat. This sense is not recognised by Riddle and
White, and would therefore seem to be, if not unique, at least
extremely rare. The derivative redargutio, however, is in
late Latin used for “demonstration,” and this is evidently
the meaning here.
Fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi. Heraldus, joining
the two last words, naturally regards them as a gloss from the margin;
but read as above, joining the first and last, there is nothing out of
place.
Lit., “tranquillity being assumed, passed to placid
feelings.”
Res, “the thing.”
Lit., “on chance encounters.”
Rationes cognitas. There is some difficulty as to the
meaning of these words, but it seems best to refer them to the
argumenta credendi (beginning of chapter, “do not even
these proofs”), and render as above. Hildebrand, however,
reads tortiones, “they accept the tortures which they know
will befall them.”
The ms. reads et non
omnium, “and by a love not of all the
virtues,” changed in most edd. as above into atque
omnium, while Oehler proposes et novo omnium,
“and by fresh love of all,” etc. It will be
remembered that the transposition of leaves in the ms. (note on ii. 1) occurs here, and this seems to account
for the arbitrary reading of Gelenius, which has no ms. authority whatever, but was added by himself when
transposing these chapters to the first book (cf. p. 432, n.
14), atque nectare ebrii cuncta
contemnant—“As if intoxicated with a certain sweetness
and nectar, they despise all things.” The same circumstance
has made the restoration of the passage by Canterus a connecting of
fragments of widely separated sentences and arguments.
Lit., “all the things of the world.” Here the
argument breaks off, and passes into a new phase, but Orelli includes
the next sentence also in the fifth chapter.
6. But perhaps those seem to
you weak-minded and silly, who even now are uniting all over the world,
and joining together to assent with that readiness of belief at
which you mock.
Lit., “to the assent of that credulity.”
So the ms., reading conditi vi
mera, for which Orelli would read with Oudendorp,
conditæ—“by the pure force of
recondite wisdom.” The ms.,
however, is supported by the similar phrase in the beginning of chap.
8, where tincti is used.
So the ms., reading aliud,
for which Stewechius, adopting a suggestion of Canterus, conjectures,
altius et profundius—“something deeper and
more profound.” Others propose readings further removed
from the text; while Obbarius, retaining the ms. reading, explains it as “not
common.”
Lit., “because you are,” etc.
Lit., “either yourselves to utter,” etc.
Incomptus, for which Heraldus would read
inconditus, as in opposition to
“harmonious.” This is, however, unnecessary, as the
clause is evidently opposed to the whole of the preceding
one. No
trace of either of these works has come down to us, and therefore,
though there has been abundance of conjecture, we can reach no
satisfactory conclusion about them. It seems most natural to
suppose the former to be probably part of the lost satires of Lucilius,
which had dealt with obscene matters, and the author of the latter to
be the Atellane poet of Bononia. As to this there has been some
discussion; but, in our utter ignorance of the work itself, it is as
well to allow that we must remain ignorant of its author also.
The scope of both works is suggested clearly enough by their
titles—the statue of Marsyas in the forum overlooking nightly
licentious orgies; and their mention seems intended to suggest a covert
argument against the heathen, in the implied indecency of the knowledge
on which they prided themselves. For Fornicem Lucilianum
(ms. Lucialinum) Meursius
reads Cæcilianum.
Lit., “Has that thing published never struck,”
etc. There is clearly a reference to
7. In the first place, you
yourselves, too,
So Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Orelli, reading primum et
ipsi, by rejecting one word of the ms. (et quæ). Canterus plausibly
combines both words into
itaque—“therefore.” LB. reads
ecquid—“do you at all,” etc., with which
Orelli so far agrees, that he makes the whole sentence
interrogative.
So restored by Stewechius; in the first ed. perspiciam (instead
of am-us) “if I perceive the truth,” etc.
So the ms. very intelligibly and
forcibly, res…invida, but the common reading is
invid-i-a—“whom something…with
envy.” The train of thought which is merely started here is
pursued at some length a little later.
The ms. gives fedro, but
all editions, except the first, Hildebrand, and Oehler, read
Phædone, referring, however, to a passage in the
first Alcibiades (st. p. 129), which is manifestly absurd, as in it,
while Alcibiades “cannot tell what man is,” Socrates at
once proceeds to lead him to the required knowledge by the usual
dialectic. Nourry thinks that there is a general reference to
Phædr., st. p. 230,—a passage in which Socrates says
that he disregards mythological questions that he may study
himself. [P. 447, note 2, infra.]
Lit., “changed with the rottenness of some
moisture.” The reference is probably to the statement by
Socrates (Phædo, st. p. 96) of the questions with regard to
the origin of life, its progress and development, which interested him
as a young man.
So the ms., LB., and Oehler, but the
other edd. make the verb plural, and thus break the
connection.
Lit., “established in the common senses.”
Arnobius overstates the fact here. In the passage referred
to (Th., st. p. 158), Socrates is represented as developing the
Protagorean theory from its author’s standpoint, not as stating
his own opinions.
Lit., “by the stretching out of rays and of light.”
This, the doctrine of the Stoics, is naturally contrasted in the next
clause with that of Epicurus.
Lit., “oil refuses to suffer immersion into itself,” i.e.,
of other fluids. So
LB., followed by Orelli, reading impenetrabil-em, for the
ms. impenetrabil-is, which is
corrected in both Roman edd. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Elmenhorst
-e, to agree with the subject oleum—“being
impenetrable is ever,” etc.
Lit., “a god.” So
the edd., generally reading fatua for the ms. futura, which is clearly corrupt.
Hildebrand turns the three adjectives into corresponding verbs, and
Heinsius emends deliret (ms. -ra) et fatue et
insane—“dotes both sillily and crazily.”
Arnobius here follows Lucr., iii. 445 sqq. Lit.,
“something of truth.”
8. And since you have been
wont to laugh at our faith, and with droll jests to pull to pieces
our readiness of belief too, say, O wits, soaked and filled with
wisdom’s pure drought, is there in life any kind of business
demanding diligence and activity, which the doers
The ms. has a-t-tor-o-s,
corrected by a later writer a-c-tor-e-s, which is received in
LB. and by Meursius and Orelli.
Lit., “unite marriage partnerships.”
Lit., “be safe and come.” Or,
“in successive battles”—præliorum
successionibus.
9. What, have you seen with
your eyes, and handled Lit.,
“with ocular inspection, and held touched.”
“Fire” is wanting in the ms.
Arnobius here allows himself to be misled by Cicero
(Tusc., i. 10), who explains ἐντελέχεια as
a kind of perpetual motion, evidently confusing it with ἐνδελέχεια
(cf. Donaldson, New Crat., § 339 sqq.), and
represents Aristotle as making it a fifth primary cause. The word
has no such meaning, and Aristotle invariably enumerates only four
primary causes: the material from which, the form in which, the
power by which, and the end for which anything exists (Physics,
ii. 3; Metaph., iv. 2, etc.).
Lit., “with indivisible bodies.”
Pl.
So the ms., LB., and Hildebrand,
reading Archesilæ, while the others read
Archesilao, forgetting that Arcesilas is the regular Latin form,
although Archesilaus is found.
10. Finally, do not even the
leaders and founders of the schools
Sententiarum is read in the first ed. by Gelenius,
Canterus, and Ursinus, and seems from Crusius to be the ms. reading. The other edd., however, have received
from the margin of Ursinus the reading of the text,
sectarum. In
the first ed., and that of Ursinus, the reading is, nonne apud
ea, “in those things which they say, do they not say,”
etc., which Gelenius emended as in the text, nonne ipsa ea.
Cf. Diog. Lært. ix. 9, where Heraclitus is said to have
taught that fire—the first principle—condensing becomes
water, water earth, and conversely; and on Thales, Arist., Met.,
A, 3, where, however, as in other places, Thales is merely said to have
referred the generation and maintenance of all things to moisture,
although by others he is represented as teaching the doctrine ascribed
to him above. Cf. Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 10, and
Heraclides, Alleg. Hom., c. 22, where water evaporating is said
to become air, and settling, to become mud.
There is some difficulty as to the reading: the
ms., first ed., and Ursinus give
numero s-c-ire, explained by Canterus as meaning “that
numbers have understanding,” i.e., so as to be the cause of
all. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, reads -os
scit—“does Pyth. know numbers,” which is absurdly
out of place. Heraldus approved of a reading in the margin of
Ursinus (merely inserting o after c), “that numbers
unite,” which seems very plausible. The text follows an
emendation of Gronovius adopted by Orelli, -o ex-ire.
So the ms., reading ut; but
Orelli, and all edd. before him, aut—“or do
they.”
i.e., that truth knowable by man exists.
So the ms. reading nostra
in-credulitate, for which Ursinus, followed by Stewechius, reads
nostra cum. Heraldus conjectured vestra, i.e.,
“in your readiness of belief,” you are just as much exposed
to such ridicule.
11. But, supposing
that these things do not at all hinder or prevent your being bound
to believe and hearken to them in great measure;
Heraldus has well suggested that plurimum is a gloss arising out
of its being met with in the next clause.
So the ms. and edd., reading
Platoni; but Ursinus suggested Plotino, which Heraldus
thinks most probably correct. There is, indeed, an evident
suitableness in introducing here the later rather than the earlier
philosopher, which has great weight in dealing with the next name, and
should therefore, perhaps, have some in this case also.
The ms. and both Roman edd. give
Crotonio, rejected by the others because no Crotonius is known
(it has been referred, however, to Pythagoras, on the ground of his
having taught in Croton). In the margin of Ursinus Cronius
was suggested, received by LB. and Orelli, who is mentioned by
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., vi. 19, 3) with Numenius and others as an
eminent Pythagorean, and by Porphyry (de Ant. Nymph., xxi.), as
a friend of Numenius, and one of those who treated the Homeric poems as
allegories. Gelenius substitutes Plotinus, followed by most
edd.
[Thus everywhere he writes as a Christian.]
Stemus, the admirable correction of Gelenius for the
ms. tem-p-us.
Orelli, following Stewechius, would omit ita.
Hildebrand thinks compescere here a gloss, but it must be
remembered that redundancy is a characteristic of Arnobius. The
superlative is here, as elsewhere, used by Arnobius instead of the
comparative.
i.e., so as to show the relations existing between them.
Perhaps “axioms and postulates.”
According to Crusius, non is not found in the ms.
White and Riddle translate candidule, “sincerely,”
but give no other instance of its use, and here the reference is
plainly to the previous statement of the literary excellence of the
philosophers. Heraldus suggests callidule,
“cunningly,” of which Orelli approves; but by referring the
adv. to this well-known meaning of its primitive, all necessity for
emendation is obviated.
12. You bring forward
arguments against us, and speculative quibblings,
Lit., “subtleties of suspicions.” This passage is
certainly doubtful. The reading translated, et suspicionum
argutias profertis, is that of LB., Orelli, and the later
edd. generally; while the ms. reads
-atis—“Bring forward arguments to us, and”
(for which Heraldus conjectures very plausibly, nec, “and
not”) “subtleties,” etc., which, by changing a single
letter, reads in the earlier edd. pro-fer-etis—“Will
you,” or, “You will bring forward,” etc.
Meursius conjectures in- (for ms. ju-) dicare—“pointed
out,” of which Orelli approves.
So the ms. and both Roman edd., supported
by Heraldus, reading solidæ facilitatis, changed by
the edd. into stolidæ—“stupid.”
So all the edd. except Oehler; but as the first verb is plural in
the ms., while the second is singular, it is at
least as probable that the second was plural originally also, and that
therefore the relative should be made to refer both to
“virtues” and “power.”
Orelli notes that by India is here meant Ethiopia. If so, it may
be well to remember that Lucan (x. 29 sq.) makes the Seres neighbours
of the Ethiopians, and dwellers at the sources of the Nile.
Instead of sint, Stewechius would read
essent—“were.”
Instead of the ms. reading,
Numæ regis artibus et antiquis superstitionibus,
Stewechius, followed by Heraldus, would read
ritibus—“with the rites of Numa,” etc.
So the ms., reading res
patrias, for which Heraldus, ritus
patrios—“rites.”
So the ms., although the first five edd.,
by changing r into s, read
cur-s-um—“course.” This story is
of frequent occurrence in the later Fathers, but is never referred to
by the earlier, or by any except Christian writers, and is derived
solely from the Apostolic Constitutions. In the Greek version of
the Apost. Const. the sixth book opens with a dissertation on schisms
and heresies in which the story of Simon and others is told; but that
this was interpolated by some compiler seems clear from the arguments
brought forward by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, more
particularly vol. ii. pt. 2, § 2, and the second
appendix).
Brunda or Brenda, i.e., Brundisium.
13. Meantime, however, O you
who wonder and are astonished at the doctrines of the learned, and of
philosophy, do you not then think it most unjust to scoff, to jeer at
us as though we say foolish and senseless things, when you too are
found to say either these or just such things which you laugh at when
said and uttered by us? Nor do I address those who, scattered
through various bypaths of the schools, have formed this and that
insignificant party through diversity of opinion. You, you
I address, who zealously follow Mercury,
Hermes Trismegistus. See index.
So the ms., Elmenh., LB., Hildebrand, and
Oehler, reading quod, for which the other edd. read
qui—“who.”
This seems to be the reading intended by the ms., which according to Hild. gives dom,
i.e., probably dominum, which Oehler adopts, but all other edd.
read deum—“god.”
Arnobius rather exaggerates the force of the passage referred to (st.
p. 173), which occurs in the beautiful digression on
philosophers. Plato there says that only the philosopher’s
body is here on earth, while his mind, holding politics and the
ordinary business and amusements of life unworthy of attention, is
occupied with what is above and beneath the earth, just as Thales, when
he fell into a ditch, was looking at the stars, and not at his
steps.
In cardinem vergere qui orientis est solis seems to be the
reading of all edd.; but according to Crusius the ms. reads vertere—“to
turn.” Hildebrand, on the contrary, affirms that instead of
t, the ms. gives
c.
i.e., originally earlier. So
most edd., reading desituros, for which Stewechius suggests
desulturos—“leap down;” LB.
exituros—“go out.”
Reference is here made to one of the most extraordinary of the
Platonic myths (Pol., 269–274), in which the world is
represented as not merely material, but as being further possessed of
intelligence. It is ever in motion, but not always in the same
way. For at one time its motion is directed by a divine governor
(τοῦ
παντὸς ὁ μὲν
κυβερνήτης); but this does not continue, for he withdraws from his task, and
thereupon the world loses, or rather gives up its previous bias, and
begins to revolve in the opposite direction, causing among other
results a reverse development of the phenomena which occurred before,
such as Arnobius describes. Arnobius, however, gives too much
weight to the myth, as in the introduction it is more than hinted that
it may be addressed to the young Socrates, as boys like such stories,
and he is not much more than a boy. With it should be contrasted
the “great year” of the Stoics, in which the universe
fulfilled its course, and then began afresh to pass through the same
experience as before (Nemesius, de Nat. Hom., c. 38).
LB. makes these words interrogative, but the above arrangement is
clearly vindicated by the tenor of the argument: You laugh at our
care for our souls’ salvation; and truly you do not see to their
safety by such precautions as a virtuous life, but do you not seek that
which you think salvation by mystic rites?
Lit., “fastened with beam” (i.e., large and strong)
“nails.” Cf. on
the intercessory prayers of the Magi, c. 62, infra.
14. Do you dare to laugh at
us when we speak of hell,
Pl. Cf. Milman’s note on Gibbon, vol. 2, c. xi. p. 7. Lit.,
“certain fires.”
Plato, in the passage referred to (Phædo, st. p. 113,
§ 61), speaks of the Styx not as a river, but as the lake into
which the Cocytus falls. The fourth river which he mentions in
addition to the Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and Cocytus, which he calls
Stygian, is the Ocean stream.
So the ms., according to Hild.,
reading parvæ; but acc. to Rigaltius and Crusius, it
gives pravæ—“of no mean.” So LB.,
Hild., and Oehler, reading doloris afficiat sensu, by merely
dropping m from the ms.
sensu-m; while all the other edd. read doloribus
sensuum—“affects with the pains of the
senses.” i.e.,
not compounded of soul and body. Or,
“not unsuitably,” absone.
Lit., “in the failure (or ‘disappointment’)
of,” etc. i.e.,
neither immortal nor necessarily mortal.
So Gelenius emended the unintelligible ms. reading se-mina by merely adding
s, followed by all edd., although Ursinus in the margin suggests
se mîam, i.e.,
mi-sericordiam—“pity;” and Heraldus
conjectures munia—“gifts.” So
almost all edd., from a conjecture of Gelenius, supplying
ut, which is wanting in the ms.,
first ed., and Oehler. It is
worth while to contrast Augustine’s words: “The death
which men fear is the separation of the soul from the body. The
true death, which men do not fear, is the separation of the soul from
God” (Aug. in
In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both
verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above.
In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both
verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above. Lit.,
“and unknown.” Here Arnobius shows himself ignorant
of Jewish teaching, as in iii. 12.
15. Wherefore there is no
reason that that
So the ms. and LB., followed by Oehler;
in the edd. id is omitted.
The ms. reading is a no-b-is
quibusdam, for which LB. reads nobis a qu.—“to
us,” and Hild. a notis—“by certain
known;” but all others, as above, from a conjecture of Gelenius,
a no-v-is, although Orelli shows his critical sagacity by
preferring an emendation in the margin of Ursinus, a
bonis—“by certain good men,” in which he sees a
happy irony!
Lit., “not touchable by any contact of body,” neque ulla
corporis attrectatione contiguas.
Arnobius considers the reductio ad absurdum so very plain that
he does not trouble himself to state his argument more directly.
16. But, they say,
while we are moving swiftly down towards our mortal bodies, There
has been much confusion as to the meaning of Arnobius throughout this
discussion, which would have been obviated if it had been remembered
that his main purpose in it is to show how unsatisfactory and unstable
are the theories of the philosophers, and that he is not therefore to
be identified with the views brought forward, but rather with the
objections raised to them. Cf.
c. 28, p. 440, note 2.
So the ms., followed by Orelli and others
reading institutum superciliumque—“habit and
arrogance,” for the first word of which LB. reads istum
typhum—“that pride of yours;” Meursius, isti
typhum—“Lay aside pride, O ye.” So
the edd., reading in totidem sexus for the ms. sexu—“into so many kinds in
sex.”
Lit., “in so great occupations of life.”
Cf. Plato, Phædo, st. p. 81.
So, by a later writer in the margin of the ms., who gives artificiosa-s novitates,
adopted by Stewechius and Oehler, the s being omitted in
the text of the ms. itself, as in the edd.,
which drop the final s in the next word
also—“would raise and with unknown art strike out lofty
buildings.”
18. They have not learned,
I will be told, to make clothing, seats, ships, and ploughs,
nor, in fine, the other furniture which family life requires.
These are not the gifts of science, but the suggestions of most
pressing necessity; nor did the arts descend with men’s
souls from the inmost heavens, but here on earth have they all been
painfully sought out and brought to light,
Lit., “born.”
Throughout this discussion, Arnobius generally uses the plural,
animæ—“souls.” So
Elmenhorst, Oberthür, and Orelli, reading par-a-v-it sibi
et for the ms. parv-as
et, “from continual failure has wrought out indeed slight
smattering of the arts,” etc., which is retained in both Roman
edd., LB., and Hild.; while Gelenius and Canterus merely substitute
sibi for et, “wrought out for itself slight,”
etc.
19. But if men either knew
themselves thoroughly, or had the slightest knowledge of God, Lit.,
“or received understanding of God by the breath of any
suspicion.”
The ms. gives c-etera-que,
“and the rest,” which is retained in both Roman edd., and
by Gelenius and Canterus, though rather out of place, as the
enumeration goes on.
Lit., “equal to the highness (summitati) of the
prince.” So
LB. and Orelli, reading qui-a; the rest,
qui—“who.” So
Gelenius, reading divinitusfor the ms. divinas, i.e., “with a divine
nature and origin,” which is retained in the first ed. and
Orelli.
The ms., both Roman edd., Hild., and
Oehler, read ut, “so that there are.” Cf.
on this Platonic doctrine, ch. 24, p. 443, infra.
20. And, that we may show
you more clearly and distinctly what is the worth of man, whom you
believe to be very like the higher power, conceive this idea; and
because it can be done if we come into direct contact with it, let us
conceive it just as if we came into contact. Let us then imagine
a place dug out in the earth, fit for dwelling in, formed into a
chamber, enclosed by a roof and walls, not cold in winter, not too warm
in summer, but so regulated and equable that we suffer neither
cold
Lit., “a feeling of cold.”
Lit., “sound of voice at all.”
Lit., “of heaven terribly crashing.” So the
later edd., adopting the emendation of Scaliger,
nothum—“spurious,” which here seems to
approach in meaning to its use by Lucretius (v. 574 sq.), of the
moon’s light as borrowed from the sun. The ms. and first four edd. read notum,
“known.”
According to Huet (quoted by Oehler), “between that spurious and
the true light;” but perhaps the idea is that of darkness
interposed at intervals to resemble the recurrence of night.
21. Now, as we have prepared
a place for our idea, let us next receive some one born to dwell there,
where there is nothing but an empty void,
Lit., “born, and that, too (et wanting in almost all
edd.), into the hospice of that place which has nothing, and is inane
and empty.” So
most edd. reading porrigeturfor the ms. corrigetur—“be
corrected,” i.e., need to be corrected, which is retained in the
first ed.
22. To what, then, you
ask, do these things tend? We have brought them
forward in order that—as it has been believed that the souls
of men are divine, and therefore immortal, and that they come to
their human bodies with all knowledge—we may make trial from this
child, whom we have supposed to be brought up in this way,
whether this is credible, or has been rashly believed and taken for
granted, in consequence of deceitful anticipation. Let us
suppose, then, that he grows up, reared in a secluded, lonely spot,
spending as many years as you choose, twenty or thirty,—nay, let
him be brought into the assemblies of men when he has lived through
forty years; and if it is true that he is a part of the divine essence,
and So
Gelenius, followed by Canterus, Elmenh., and Oberthür, reading
portione-m et, while the words tam lætam,
“that he is so joyous a part” are inserted before et
by Stewechius and the rest, except both Roman edd. which retain
the ms. portione jam
læta. Lit.,
“sent to.”
So the ms., reading milvus,
for which all edd. (except Oberthuer) since Stewechius read
mulus, “a mule.”
23. If you give a grape to
him when hungry, a must-cake, an onion, a thistle,
Carduus, no doubt the esculent thistle, a kind of artichoke.
So, according to an emendation in LB., esui, adopted by
Orelli and others, instead of the ms.
reading et sui.
There has been much discussion as to whether the solifuga or
solipuga here spoken of is an ant or spider.
The ms. reads discriminare,
discernere, with the latter word, however, marked as spurious. A kind
of rug.
Mitra.
Strophium, passing round the breast, by some regarded as a kind
of corset.
Mastruca, a garment made of the skins of the muflone, a
Sardinian wild sheep.
Tribula, for rubbing out the corn.
Aurum is omitted in all edd., except those of LB., Hild., and
Oehler.
Liber, a roll of parchment or papyrus, as opposed to the
preceding codex, a book of pages.
The ms. reads vobis
unintelligibly, corrected by Meursius bovis.
So Orelli and modern edd.; but Crusius gives as the ms. reading conspici-etur (not -et),
as given by Ursinus, and commonly received—“Will he
not…be seen?”
The ms. and first five edd. read
et—“and,” changed in LB. to sed.
24. Why, O Plato, do you in
the Meno In
this dialogue (st. p. 81) Socrates brings forward the doctrine of
reminiscence as giving a reasonable ground for the pursuit of
knowledge, and then proceeds to give a practical illustration of it by
leading an uneducated slave to solve a mathematical problem by means of
question and answer.
Lit., “his knowledge of things.”
So the ms. and edd., reading
i-gnarum rerum, except LB., which by merely omitting the
i gives the more natural meaning, “acquainted with the
things,” etc.
Lit., “established in the limits of humanity.”
i.e., a square numerically or algebraically. The
ms., both Roman edd., and Canterus read
di-bus aut dynam-us, the former word being defended by Meursius
as equivalent to binio, “a doubling,”—a sense,
however, in which it does not occur. In the other edd., cubus
aut dynamis has been received from the margin of Ursinus.
Æneid, vi. 472.
This clause is with reason rejected by Meursius as a gloss.
25. What say you, O men, who
assign to yourselves too much of an excellence not your own? Is
this the learned soul which you describe, immortal, perfect, divine,
holding the fourth place under God the Lord of the universe, and under
the kindred spirits,
Founded on Plato’s words (Phædrus, st. p.
247), τῷ
δ᾽ (i.e., Zeus) ἕπεται
στρατιὰ θεῶν
τε καὶ
δαιμόνων, the doctrine
became prevalent that under the supreme God were lesser gods made by
Him, beneath whom again were dæmons, while men stood next.
To this Orelli supposes that Arnobius here refers.
The vessels in which according to Plato (Timæus, st.
p. 41), the Supreme Being mixed the vital essence of all being.
Cf. c. 52. Lit.,
“and endowed.” The
text and meaning are both rather doubtful, and the edd. vary
exceedingly. The reading of Orelli, demoretur iners, valeat in
ære quamvis, has been translated as most akin to the
ms., with which, according to Oehler, it
agrees, although Orelli himself gives the ms.
reading as ær-io.
Lit., “acknowledge turnings in the course.”
26. But when I hear the soul
spoken of as something extraordinary, as akin and very nigh to God,
and as coming hither knowing all about past times, I would have
it teach, not learn; and not go back to the rudiments, as the saying
is, after being advanced in knowledge, but hold fast the truths it has
learned when it enters its earthly body.
Lit., “but retaining its own things, bind itself in earthly
bodies.”
Lit., “of.”
So the ms. and edd., reading
sua-de-ri, for which Oehler reads very neatly sua de
vi—“can anything of its own power destroy,”
etc.
Lit., “not suffer forgetfulness.”
Lit., “however the most solid unions of bodies may have bound
them round.”
So the edd. reading privat immortalitate has omni, for
which, according to Hildebrand, the ms.
reads -tatem has omnis—“all these of
immortality.”
27. So then, if souls lose
all their knowledge on being fettered with the body, they must
experience something of such a nature that it makes them become blindly
forgetful.
Lit., “put on the blindness of oblivion.” Cf.
Lucretius, iii. 969, where life is thus spoken of.
28. And yet, that we may not
be as ignorant when we leave you as before, let us hear from
you
The ms. reads ne videamu-s,
changed in both Roman edd. into -amur—“that we may
not be seen by you (as ignorant), how say you,” etc.
Gelenius proposed the reading of the text, audiamus, which has
been received by Canterus and Orelli. It is clear from the next
words—quemadmodum dicitis—that in this case the verb
must be treated as a kind of interjection, “How say you, let us
hear.” LB. reads, to much the same purpose, scire
avemus, “we desire to know.”
Lit., “before man.”
Lit., “placed outside.”
Quod enim.
Rebus ingressis. So
read by Orelli, artes suas antiquas, omitting
atque, which he says, follows in the ms. It is read after suas,
however, in the first ed., and those of Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand;
and according to Oehler, it is so given in the ms., “its own and ancient.” Oberthür
would supply res—“its own arts and ancient
things.”
So the ms., reading
constitut-a, followed by all edd. except those of Ursinus,
Hildebrand, and Oehler, who read -æ, “how do they
remember when established in the bodies,” which is certainly more
in accordance with the context.
Lit., “of immortality.”
Cf. ch. 16, p. 440. Lit.,
“of a lost memory.” Lit.,
“of (a memory) preserved.”
29. Now, since it is so,
cease, I pray you, cease to rate trifling and unimportant things at
immense values. Cease to place man in the upper ranks, since he
is of the lowest; and in the highest orders, seeing that his person
only is taken account of,
Capite cum censeatur.
Lit., “poor in hearth, and of a poor hut.”
So the ms., reading malis,
for which Ursinus suggested alis, “on the wings of
which.” i.e.,
to death.
The ms. reads securus,
intrepidus—“heedless, fearless;” the former word,
however, being marked as a gloss. It is rejected in all edd.,
except LB.
Lit., “by the freedom of impunity.”
Lit., “the one (immortality)…in respect of the equality of
condition of the other”—nec in alterius (immortalitatis)
altera (immortalitatas) possit æqualitate conditionis vexari;
the reference being clearly to the immediately preceding clause, with
which it is so closely connected logically and grammatically.
Orelli, however, would supply anima, ἀπὸ
τοῦ κοινοῦ, as he
puts it, of which nothing need be said. Meursius, with customary
boldness, emends nec vi alterius altera, “nor by the power
of one can the other,” etc.
30. But will he not be
terrified by So
the ellipse is usually supplied, but it seems simpler and is more
natural thus: “But punishments (have been) spoken of”
(memoratæ), etc.
So ms. and Oehler, for which the edd.
read ec quis, “will any one.” Lit.,
“the consequences of things.” Lit.,
“the moving of wheels whirling.”
Moreover, that conviction not only leads on to
wickedness, from the very freedom to sin which it suggests, but
even takes away the ground of philosophy itself, and asserts that it is
vain to undertake its study, because of the difficulty of the work,
which leads to no result. For if it is true that souls know no
end, and are ever
Lit., “in the unbroken course of
ages”—perpetuitate ævorum. Lit.,
“and to scatter the unbridled eagerness of boundless lust
through,” etc.
But again, if souls draw near to the gates of
death,
Lucretius (iii. 417 sqq.) teaches at great length that the soul and
mind are mortal, on the ground that they consist of atoms smaller than
those of vapour, so that, like it, on the breaking of their case, they
will be scattered abroad; next, on the ground of the analogy between
them and the body in regard to disease, suffering, etc.; of their
ignorance of the past, and want of developed qualities; and finally, on
the ground of the adaptation of the soul to the body, as of a fish to
the sea, so that life under other conditions would be impossible.
The ms. and first four edd. read
has, “that these souls,” etc.; in the other edd.,
hac is received as above from the margin of Ursinus.
Cf. Plato, Phædo (st. p. 64 sq.), where death is
spoken of as only a carrying further of that separation of the soul
from the pleasures and imperfections of the body which the philosopher
strives to effect in this life.
Lit., “in common.”
Pl. This
refers to the second argument of Lucretius noticed above.
31. A certain neutral
character, then, and undecided and doubtful nature of the soul, has
made room for philosophy, and found out a reason for its being sought
after: while, that is, that fellow i.e.,
the abandoned and dissolute immortal spoken of in last chapter.
Lit., “with.”
Lit., “degenerate into mortal nature.”
Arnobius seems in this chapter to refer to the doctrine of the
Stoics, that the soul must be material, because, unless body and soul
were of one substance, there could be no common feeling or mutual
affection (so Cleanthes in Nemes. de Nat. Hom., ii. p. 33); and
to that held by some of them, that only the souls of the wise remained
after death, and these only till the conflagration (Stob., Ecl.
Phys., p. 372) which awaits the world, and ends the Stoic great
year or cycle. Others, however, held that the souls of the wise
became dæmons and demigods (Diog., Lært., vii. 157 and
151). Lit.,
“they”—eas.
32. Since these things are
so, and we have been taught by the greatest teacher that souls are set
not far from the gaping
Lit., “from the gapings and,” etc.
There may be here some echo of the words (
i.e., souls. This
passage presents no difficulty in itself, its sense being obviously
that, as by God’s grace life is given to those who serve Him, we
must strive to fit ourselves to receive His blessing. The last
words, however, have seemed to some fraught with mystery, and have been
explained by Heraldus at some length as a veiled or confused reference
to the Lord’s Supper, as following upon baptism and baptismal
regeneration, which, he supposes, are referred to in the preceding
words, “laying aside,” etc. [It is not, however, the
language of a mere catechumen.] These
“thin plates,” laminæ, Orelli has suggested,
were amulets worn as a charm against serpents.
ms. Phyllis. So
the edd., reading instit-oribusfor the ms. instit-ut-oribus,
“makers.”
Lit., “that colds and violent suns may not,” etc.
Lit., “of.”
33. Seeing that the fear of
death, that is, the ruin of our souls, menaces
Lit., “is set before.”
So the ms., first ed., Gelenius,
Canterus, Hildebrand, reading ex commodi sensu, for which
all the other edd., following Ursinus and Meursius, read ex
communi—“from common sense,” i.e., wisely.
Perhaps, as Orelli evidently understands it, “prefer Him to our
own souls”—animis præponimus.
So Oehler, reading ea for the ms. ut, omitted in all edd.
Lit., “by your own and internal exertion.”
Lit., “of things.”
Lit., “wings will be at hand.”
The ms. reads di-cimus,
“say;” corrected du, as above.
The first four edd. read res, “things above,” for
which Stewechius reads, as above, sedes.
Sponte.
34. Since this is the case,
what, pray, is so unfair as that we should be looked on by you as silly
in that readiness of belief at which you scoff, while we see
that you both have like beliefs, and entertain the same hopes? If
we are thought deserving of ridicule because we hold out to ourselves
such a hope, the same ridicule awaits you too, who claim for yourselves
the hope of immortality. If you hold and follow a rational
course, grant to us also a share in it. If Plato in the
Phædrus,
Here, as in c. 7, p. 436, n. 3, the edd. read
Phædone, with the exception of the first ed., LB.,
Hildebrand, and Oehler, who follow the ms. as
above.
Lit., “to the end of promising.”
Meursius suggests numini, “deity,” on which it may
be well to remark once for all, that nomen and numen are
in innumerable places interchanged in one or other of the edd.
The change, however, is usually of so little moment, that no further
notice will be taken of it.
So the ms., according to Rigaltius and
Hildebrand, reading vitæ æternitate,
while Crusius asserts that the ms. gives
vita et—“with life and eternity.”
35. But, say my
opponents, if souls are mortal and
The ms. reading is, mortalis
est qualitatis. The first five edd. merely drop
est—“of mortal, of neutral,” etc.; LB. and the
others read, es et, as above. Lit.,
“heard from.”
So the ms., according to Crusius, the
edd. reading cred-id-imus—“have
believed.”
Lit., “if we believe that.”
So the ms., reading ad modum
obsecutionis paratum—“prepared to the mode of
compliance;” for which the edd. read adm.
executioni—“quite prepared for performing,”
except Hildebrand, who gives adm. obsecutioni—“for
obedience.”
So the ms., according to Crusius, but all
edd. read sequ-a-tur (for i)—“Is there
anything which He has willed which it does not follow,” etc. So
all edd., reading mutabiles, except the two Roman edd. and
Oehler, who gives, as the reading of the ms., nu.—“tottering.”
Lit., “in the doubtful condition of their lot.”
Lit., “which may have been of a name.”
LB., followed by the later edd., inserted si, “if they
are,” which is certainly more consistent with the rest of the
sentence.
36. But the gods are said to
be immortal. Not by nature, then, but by the good-will and favour
of God their Father. In the same way, then, in which the
boon
The ms. reading is utterly corrupt and
meaningless—immortalitatis largiter est donum dei certa
prolatis. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, Oberthür, and
Orelli, emended largi-tio…certe, as above. The two
Roman edd. read, -tatem
largitus…certam—“bestowed, assured immortality as
God’s gift on,” etc. i.e.,
who must therefore have received it if they have it at all. Lit.,
“out, reduced to nothing with annihilation, not to be returned
from.”
Lit., “they are held in a lasting bond,” i.e., of
being.
Plato makes the supreme God, creator of the inferior deities,
assure these lesser gods that their created nature being in itself
subject to dissolution, His will is a surer ground on which to rely for
immortality, than the substance or mode of their own being
(Timæus, st. p. 41; translated by Cicero, de Univ.,
xi., and criticised de Nat. Deor., i. 8 and iii. 12).
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
neque ullo ab-olitio-nis unintelligibly, for which Gelenius
proposed nexusque abolitione—“and by the destruction
of the bond;” but the much more suitable reading in the margin of
Ursinus, translated above, ullo ab alio nis-i, has been adopted
by later edd.
Lit., “be gifted with a saving order.” So the
ms., reading salutari iussione,
followed by both Rom. edd.; LB. and Orelli read
vinctione—“bond;” Gelenius, Canterus, Elmenh.,
and Oberthür, m-issione—“dismissal.”
Lit., “that to the gods themselves the natures are
intermediate.”
Lit., “supreme”—principali.
Cf. i. 48. On this passage Orelli quotes Irenæus, i. 21,
where are enumerated several gnostic theories of the creation of the
world and men by angels, who are themselves created by the “one
unknown Father.” Arnobius is thought, both by Orelli and
others, to share in these opinions, and in this discussion to hint at
them, but obscurely, lest his cosmology should be confounded by the
Gentiles with their own polytheistic system. It seems much more
natural to suppose that we have here the indefinite statement of
opinions not thoroughly digested.
37. But if souls were, as is
said, the Lord’s children, and begotten by
Lit., “a generation of.”
Canterus, Elmenhorst, Oberthür, and Orelli omit ut, which
is retained as above by the rest.
Lit., “obscene.”
Elmenhorst endeavours to show that Arnobius coincides in this
argument with the Epicureans, by quoting Lucr. v. 165 sqq. and Lact.
vii. 5, where the Epicurean argument is brought forward, What profit
has God in man, that He should have created him? In doing this,
it seems not to have been observed that the question asked by Arnobius
is a very different one: What place has man in the world,
that God should be supposed to have sent him to fill it?
i.e., so far from this being the case.
38. For, to begin with what
is important, what advantage is it to the world that the mightiest
kings are here? What, that there are tyrants, lords, and
other innumerable and very illustrious powers? What, that there
are generals of the greatest experience in war, skilled in taking
cities; soldiers steady and utterly invincible in battles of cavalry,
or in fighting hand to hand on foot? What, that there are
orators, grammarians, poets, writers, logicians, musicians,
ballet-dancers, mimics, actors, singers, trumpeters, flute and reed
players? What, that there are runners, boxers, charioteers,
vaulters,
i.e., from one horse to another—desultores.
Rationibus et constitutionibus.
Lit., “it should be believed.”
Lit., “unless there were joined.”
So the ms., reading
contentio, which Orelli would understand as meaning
“contents,” which may be correct. LB. reads
conditio—“condition,” ineptly; and Ursinus in
the margin, completio—“the filling up.”
So
the later edd., from the margin of Ursinus, reading quod temeritatis
est maximæ for the ms.
quem—“whom it shows the greatest rashness to speak
of.”
Lit., “goddesses.” So
Gelenius (acc. to Orelli), reading as in the margin of Ursinus,
terrenæ circumscriptionis, for the unintelligible
reading of the ms.,
temerariæ, retained in both Roman edd., Canterus, and (acc.
to Oehler) Gelenius. LB. reads metariæ—“a
limiting by boundaries.”
Lit., “motions.”
Cf. Lucr., v. 229 sq. The same idea comes up again in iv. 21.
Lit., “in.”
According to Hildebrand, the ms.
reads dissimular-ent circumscribere, so that, by merely
dropping nt, he reads, “to dissemble and cheat;” but
according to Crusius, iri is found in the ms. between these two words, so that by prefixing
m Sabæus in the first ed. read m-ent-iri as above,
followed by all other edd.
Lit., “to roll…in the mind.”
Rigaltius and Hildebrand regard decipere as a gloss.
So the ms., reading
formari, followed by Hildebrand and Oehler; but all the other
edd. give the active form, -are.
Lit., “from.” The
condition, i.e., of freedom.
LB., seemingly received by Orelli, though not inserted into his text,
reads poscerent eos for the ms. -entur, which Hildebrand modifies -ent
ea as above.
Lit., “certain.”
Lit., “by error.”
40. Was it for this He sent
souls hither, that while the other creatures are fed by what
springs up spontaneously, and is produced without being sown, and do
not seek for themselves the protection or covering of houses or
garments, they should be under the sad necessity
Lit., “the sad necessity should be laid upon them, that,”
etc.
Lit., “for the want of daily things,” diurnorun
egestati, for which Stewechius would read diurna
egestate—“from daily necessity.”
Lit., “of.”
Lit., “poured forth all their blood.”
Lit., “of their labour.”
Lit., “at last by force of.”
So the ms. and edd., reading
vilitatem, for which Meursius proposed very needlessly
utilitatem—“and at an advantage.”
So, adhering very closely to the ms.,
which gives e-t sanguine supputandis augere-t insomnia
milibus, the t of e-t being omitted and n
inserted by all. The first five edd. read, -tandi se angerent
insania: millibus—“harass themselves with the
madness of reckoning; by miles should extend,” etc.,—the
only change in Heraldus and Orelli being a return to
insomnia—“harass with sleeplessness,” etc.
41. Was it for this He sent
souls, that they which shortly before had been gentle and ignorant
of what it is to be moved by fierce passions, should build for
themselves markets and amphitheatres, places of blood and open
wickedness, in the one of which they should see men devoured and torn
in pieces by wild beasts, and themselves slay others for no
demerit but to please and gratify the spectators, So
restored by Cujacius, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading in
grat-i-am (ms. wants i)
voluptatemque, while the first five edd. merely drop
-que—“to the grateful pleasure,” etc.
Lit., “most cruel.”
Lit., “among,” in oris, the ms. reading, and that of the first four edd., for which the
others have received from the margin of Ursinus
moribus—“(indulging) in so fierce and savage
customs.”
Lit., “tables.”
Lit., “they should live.”
Lit., “lessen.”
In the ms. this clause follows the words
“loss of their purity,” where it is very much in the
way. Orelli has followed Heraldus in disposing of it as above,
while LB. inserts it after “tips of their ears.” The
rest adhere to the arrangement of the ms.,
Ursinus suggesting instead of his—“with
these,” catenis—“with chains;” Heraldus,
linis—“with strings (of pearls);” Stewechius,
tæniis—“with fillets.” So
LB. and Orelli reading, con-fic-iendis corporibus for the
ms. con-sp-iendis, for which the
others read -spic-, “to win attention.” A
conjecture by Oudendorp, brought forward by Orelli, is worthy of
notice—con-spu-endis, “to cover,” i.e., so as
to hide defects.
42. Was it for this He sent
souls, that some should infest the highways and roads, Lit.,
“passages of ways.” Lit.,
“substitute.” So
the later edd., reading botulos; the ms. and early edd. give
boletos—“mushrooms.” For
his, Heinsius proposes hiris—“with the
intestines.”
Lit., “in a frozen condition.” As to the
meaning of this there is difference of opinion: some supposing
that it means, as above, preserved by means of ice, or at least frozen;
while others interpret figuratively, “as hard as
ice.” [Our Scottish translators have used their local word,
“iced haggises:” I have put puddings
instead, which gives us, at least, an idea of something edible.
To an American, what is iced conveys the idea of a drink. The
budinarius, heretofore noted, probably made these iced
saucisses.] Lit.,
“things”—res.
Scabilla were a kind of rattles or castanets moved by the
feet.
Was it for this He sent souls, that in men they
should become impure, in women harlots, players on the
triangle
Sambuca, not corresponding to the modern triangle, but a
stringed instrument of that shape. Its notes were shrill and
disagreeable, and those who played on it of indifferent character.
So the ms. and first four edd.,
reading virilitatem sui populo publicarent.
Meursius emended utilitatem—“made common the
use,” etc.; and Orelli, from the margin of Ursinus,
vilitatem—“their vileness.”
The ms. reads in fornicibus
obvi-t-ae, which, dropping t, is the reading translated, and
was received by Elmenhorst, LB., and Hildebrand, from the margin of
Ursinus. The other edd. insert nc before
t—“bound.” The
translation does not attempt to bring out the force of the words ad
oris stuprum paratæ, which are read by Orelli after Ursinus
and Gelenius. The text is so corrupt, and the subject so obscene,
that a bare reference to the practice may be sufficient.
43. What say you, O
offspring and descendants of the Supreme Deity? Did these souls,
then, wise, and sprung from the first causes, become acquainted with
such forms of baseness, crime, and bad feeling? and were they ordered
to dwell here,
The ms. reads, habitare atque
habitare juss-e-r-unt. All edd. omit the first two words, the
first ed. without further change; but the active verb is clearly out of
place, and therefore all other edd. read jussæ sunt, as
above. Oehler, however, from habitare omitted by the
others, would emend aditare, “to approach,”—a
conjecture with very little to recommend it.
These are all substantives in the original.
44. But, you say, they came
of their own accord, not sent
So the ms., reading non
missione—“not by the sending;” but, unaccountably
enough, all edd. except Hildebrand and Oehler read,
jussione—“not by the command.”
So the ms..
Lit., “royal sublimity.”
Lit., “causes.”
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
abscondere—“to hide,” for which the other edd.
read, as above, abscedere, from the margin of Ursinus.
45. But let this monstrous
and impious fancy be put
Lit., “go.” By
Hildebrand and Oehler, procreator is with reason regarded as a
gloss.
The ms., both Roman edd., and Hildebrand
read jussisset; but this would throw the sentence into
confusion, and the other edd. therefore drop t.
LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler read quorum indu-c-tæ
carceribus—“led into the prisons of which,” all
other edd. omitting c as above. According to Oehler,
the ms. has the former reading.
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
in-f-ernarum paterentut aliæ laniatus muscularum, which has
no meaning, and is little improved by Galenius changing ut into
ur, as no one knows what “infernal flies” are.
LB. and Orelli, adopting a reading in the margin of Ursinus, change
intern. into ferarum, and join musc. with the
words which follow as above. Another reading, also suggested by
Ursinus, seems preferable, however,
internorum…musculorum—“suffer rendings (i.e.,
spasms) of the inner muscles.”
Lit., “bound.”
Lit., “dilaceration of.”
46. But, to say the same
things again and again,
Lit., “again and more frequently.”
Lit., “the salvation of.”
Lit., “height of.”
Lit., “things perfect, and preserving the measure of their
completeness;” i.e., continuing so.
So the ms., LB., Oberthür and
Oehler, reading claudum et quod minus esset a
recto. All other edd. read eminus—“at a
distance from the right.”
Lit., “less than.”
Lit., “material.”
Lit., “some power latent and cruelty.”
47. But, you say, if God is
not the parent and father of souls, by what sire have they been
begotten, and how have they been produced? If you wish to hear
unvarnished statements not spun out with vain ostentation of words, we,
too,
So the ms. and all edd.; but Orelli would
change item into iterum, not seeing that the
reference is to the indicated preference of his opponents for the
simple truth.
Nescire Hildebrand, with good reason, considers a gloss.
Nihilfor the ms.
mihi which makes nonsense of the sentence.
This somewhat wide-spread opinion found an amusing counterpart in
the doctrines of Rorarius (mentioned by Bayle, Dict. Phil.), who
affirmed that the lower animals are gifted with reason and speech, as
we are.
Lit., “superior.”
Lit., “tending to no reasons.”
48. Here, too, in like
manner, when we deny that souls are the offspring of God Supreme, it
does not necessarily follow that we are bound to declare from what
parent they have sprung, and by what causes they have been
produced. For who prevents us from being either ignorant of the
source from which they issued and came, or aware that they are not
God’s descendants? By what method, you say, in what
way? Because it is most true and certain
Omni vero verissimum est certoque certissimum—the
superlative for the comparative.
Lit., “finished with the perfection of.”
Lit., “by perversity”—s-c-ævitate,
the reading of the ms., LB., Orelli, Hild., and
Oehler, all others omitting c—“by the
rage;” except Stewechius, who reads
servitute—“slavery.”
Or, perhaps, “the goodness of the Supreme
planted”—generositas eos adsereret principalis.
49. But, you will say, there
are good men also in the world,—wise, upright, of faultless and
purest morals. We raise no question as to whether there ever were
any such, in whom this very integrity which is spoken of was in nothing
imperfect. Even if they are very honourable men, and have
been worthy of praise, have reached the utmost height of perfection,
and their life has never wavered and sunk into sin, yet we would have
you tell us how many there are, or have been, that we may judge from
their number whether a comparison
Lit., “opposition;” i.e., “the setting of one party
against the other.”
Lit., “weighed with balancing of equality.”
Lit., “bounded by the comprehensions of names;” i.e.,
possibly, “the good are certainly few enough to be numbered,
perhaps even to be named.” So
LB., reading ex cruciatibusfor the ms. scruc.
Lit., “of.”
Lit., “admiration is sought for by the putting
together”—congregatione.
50. You say that there are
good men in the human race; and perhaps, if we compare them with the
very wicked, we may be led
Lit., “a comparison of the worst may effect that we,”
etc.
So all edd. except Hildebrand, who gives as the reading of the
ms., qui-d—“what! do
they assert.”
Lit., “by the force of,” vi,—an
emendation of Heraldus for the ms.
in. So
most edd., reading pertinacifor the ms. -ium—“by the opposition of
persistent virtues,” which is retained in both Roman edd.,
Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand, and Oehler. So
Stewechius and later edd., reading ut…auferant,
except Hildebrand, who gives as the ms.
reading, et…-unt—“shun…and
remove,” etc. The first four edd. read
ne…afferant—“that they may not bring upon
themselves,” etc.
So the ms. and first four edd., Orelli
(who, however, seems to have meant to give the other reading), and
Oehler, reading corri-p-i, for which the others read
-igi—“corrected,” except Hildebrand, who
without due reason gives
-rumpi—“corrupted.”
In the ms. imperfectum is
marked as a gloss, but is retained in all edd., while
improbabilem is omitted, except in LB., when im is
omitted, and probabilem joined to the next
clause—“however he may strive to be acceptable,” in
order to provide an object for “strive;” and with a similar
purpose Orelli thrusts in contrarium, although it is quite clear
that the verb refers to the preceding clause, “struggles to
amend.”
51. But you laugh at our
reply, because, while we deny that souls are of royal descent, we do
not, on the other hand, say in turn from what causes and beginnings
they have sprung. But what kind of crime is it either to be
ignorant of anything, or to confess quite openly that you do not know
that of which you are ignorant? or whether does he rather seem to you
most deserving of ridicule who assumes to himself no knowledge of some
dark subject; or he who thinks that he
The ms. reads se esse,
without meaning, from which LB., followed by Hildebrand, and Oehler
derived se ex se—“himself of himself.”
The rest simply omit esse as above.
Lit., “hold.”
Lit., “hold.”
Lit., “set in the.”
52. And yet, lest you should
suppose that none but yourselves can make use of conjectures and
surmises, we too are able to bring them forward as well,
Lit., “utter the same (conjectures),” easdem,
the reading of LB. and Hildebrand, who says that it is so in the
ms.; while Crusius asserts that the
ms. has idem, which, with
Orelli’s punctuation, gives—“we have the same power;
since it is common (i.e., a general right) to bring forth what you
ask,” i.e., to put similar questions.
i.e., may be retorted upon you.
Here, as elsewhere, instead of muli, the ms. reads
milvi—“kites.”
Cf. Plato, Timæus, st. p. 41, already referred
to.
Or, perhaps, “cray-fish,” locusta.
The ms. reads
quidem—“indeed,” retained by the first four
edd., but changed into quia—“because,” by
Elmenhorst, LB., and Orelli, while Oehler suggests very happily si
quidem—“if indeed,” i.e., because.
Lit., “from.”
Rationes.
Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p. 416, supra.].
Orelli, retaining this as a distinct sentence, would yet enclose it in
brackets, for what purpose does not appear; more especially as the next
sentence follows directly from this in logical sequence.
Lit., “the constitutions of things.”
Lit., “did not choose the souls of the human race to be mixtures
of the same purity,” noluit, received from the
margin of Ursinus by all except the first four edd., which retain the
ms. voluit—“did
choose,” which is absurd. Arnobius here refers again to the
passage in the Timæus, p. 41 sq., but to a different part,
with a different purpose. He now refers to the conclusion of the
speech of the Supreme God, the first part of which is noticed in ch. 36
(cf. p. 447, n. 20). There the Creator assures the gods He has
made of immortality through His grace; now His further invitation that
they in turn should form men is alluded to. That they might
accomplish this task, the dregs still left in the cup, in which had
been mixed the elements of the world’s soul, are diluted and
given to form the souls of men, to which they attach mortal
bodies.
53. Since this, then, is the
case, we do nothing out of place or foolish in believing that the souls
of men are of a neutral character, inasmuch as they have been produced
by secondary beings,
Lit., “things not principal.” Orelli here
quotes from Tertullian, de Anim., xxiii., a brief summary of
Gnostic doctrines on these points, which he considers Arnobius to have
followed throughout this discussion.
Siwas first inserted in LB., not being found in the
ms., though demanded by the context.
Lit., “have begun to leave.”
54. Can, then, anything be
made, some one will say, without God’s will? We
The ms. and first three edd., read
vobis—“you,” corrected nobis, as above,
by Ursinus.
So the ms.; but most edd., following the
Brussels transcript, read
dominum—“Lord.”
Utis omitted in the ms., first
four edd., and Hild.
So LB., reading p-uncta for the ms. c-uncta.
So the ms., Hild., and Oehler,
reading imman-ior; LB., from the margin of Ursinus,
major—“greater;” the rest,
inanior—“more foolish.”
The difficulty felt by Arnobius as to the origin of evil
perplexed others also; and, as Elmenhorst has observed, some of the
Fathers attempted to get rid of it by a distinction between the evil of
guilt and of punishment,—God being author of the latter, the
devil of the former (Tertullian, adv. Marcionem, ii. 14).
It would have been simpler and truer to have distinguished deeds, which
can be done only if God will, from wickedness, which is in the sinful
purpose of man’s heart.
55. But when, overcome, we
agree that there are these things,
i.e., ills.
Lit., “with all the ages, in steady continuance.”
The ms., followed by Oehler alone,
reads ducetis—“and you will think;”
while all the other edd. read, as above, ducentes.
Here, too, there has been much unnecessary labour. These
words—per voluntatem—as they immediately follow
sine deo dicere nihil fieri—“to say that without God
nothing is made”—were connected with the preceding
clause. To get rid of the nonsense thus created, LB. emended
dei…voluntate—“without God’s
will;” while Heraldus regards them as an explanation of sine
deo, and therefore interprets the sentence much as LB. Orelli
gets rid of the difficulty by calling them a gloss, and bracketing
them. They are, however, perfectly in place, as will be seen
above.
Pl.
It would not be easy to understand why Orelli omitted these words, if
we did not know that they had been accidentally omitted by
Oberthür also.
Lit., “that apart from these it is pernicious.”
56. As for all the other
things which are usually dwelt upon in inquiries and
discussions—from what parents they have sprung, or by whom they
are produced—we neither strive to know, It must be observed that this
sentence is very closely connected with the last words of the preceding
chapter, or the meaning may be obscured. The connection may be
shown thus: This one thing—that God is author of no
evil—we are assured of; but as for all other questions, we
neither know, nor care to know, about them.
This seems the most natural arrangement; but the edd. punctuate
thus: “have been connected and associated with us for that
which we desire.” The last part of the sentence is
decidedly obscure; but the meaning may perhaps be, that the
circumstances of man’s life which absorb so much attention and
cause such strife, have no bearing, after all, upon his salvation.
So the ms., reading labefactare
dissolvere; the latter word, however, being marked as spurious.
Lit., “pure.”
Lit., “hidden and enwrapt in darkness of nature,” abdita
et caligine involuta naturæ,—the reading of all
edd. except Hild. and Oehler, who follow the ms. abditæ cal.—“enwrapt in
darkness of hidden nature.”
This has been supposed to refer to Heraclitus, as quoted by Clem.
Alex., Stromata, v. p. 469 B., where his words are,
“Neither God nor man made the world; but there was always, and
is, and will be, an undying flame laying hold of its limits, and
destroying them;” on which cf. p. 437. n. 8,
supra. Here, of course, fire does not mean that perceived
by the senses, but a subtle, all-penetrating energy.
Cf. ch. 52, p. 453.
Lit., “by ordinary necessity.” The Stoics (Diog.
Lært., vii. 134) said that the world was made by God working on
uncreated matter, and that it was perishable (§ 141), because made
through that of which perception could take cognizance. Cf. ch.
31, n. 9, p. 446.
Orelli thinks that there is here a confusion of the parts of the world
with its elements, because he can nowhere find that any philosopher has
fixed the number of the elements either above or below four. The
Stoics, however (Diog. Lært., vii. 134), said “that the
elements (ἀρχάς of the world are
two—the active and passive;” while, of course, the cosmic
theories of the early philosophers affirm that the world sprang from
one, and it seems clear enough that Arnobius here uses the word
“element” in this sense.
Lit., “its material.”
A conjecture of Meursius adopted by Oehler, merely dropping u
from aut—“or,” which is read in the
ms. and edd.
Lit., “refute falsities placed.”
Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deor., i. 1, 12, 19, 23,
etc.
57. While, then, this is the
case, and it cannot but be that only one of all these opinions is true,
they all nevertheless make use of arguments in striving with each
other,—and not one of them is without something plausible to say,
whether in affirming his own views, or objecting to the opinions of
others. In exactly the same way is the condition of souls
discussed. For this one thinks that they both are immortal, and
survive the end of our earthly life; that one believes that they do not
survive, but perish with the bodies themselves: the opinion of
another, however, is that they suffer nothing immediately, but that,
after the form of man has been laid aside, they are allowed to
live a little longer,
Lit., “something is given to them to life.” So the
Stoics taught, although Chrysippus (cf. n. 9, ch. 31, p. 446) held that
only the souls of the wise remained at all after death.
The ms., first four edd., and Oehler
read et rerum contrarietatibus dissonare—“and
that they disagree from the oppositions of things.” Hild.
reads dissonora, a word not met with elsewhere, while the other
edd. merely drop the last two letters, -re, as above; a reading
suggested in the margin of Ursinus.
Lit., “a most vain thing,” etc.
So the ms., LB., Elmenh., Hild., and
Oehler, reading conjectamus, the other edd. reading
commetamur or -imur—“measure,” except
Gelenius and Canterus, who read commentamur—“muse
upon.”
58. What, then, are we alone
ignorant? do we alone not know who is the creator, who the former of
souls, what cause fashioned man, whence ills have broken forth, or why
the Supreme Ruler allows them both to exist and be perpetrated, and
does not drive them from the world? have you, indeed, ascertained and
learned any of these things with certainty? If you chose to lay
aside audacious
Lit., “audacity of.”
Lit., “world which holds us.”
The first five edd. insert the mark of interrogation after
“hollow:” “Whether does a solid axis,”
etc.
So the edd. except. Hild., who retains the ms. reading in scientissime—“most
unskilfully” (the others omitting in-), and Oehler, who
changes e into i—“and being most witless
show,” etc.
Lit., “touch.” So
the later edd., reading from the margin of Ursinus figi? cur
alia, for the ms.
figuralia, except LB., which reads
figurari—“be formed.”
59. If that which it has
pleased us to know is within reach, and if such knowledge is open to
all, declare to us,
So the ms.; but all edd. except Hild. and
Oehler omit nobis.
So the ms., reading folgora
dilatarit, followed by LB.
Salsa, corrected from the ms. sola.
Alites et volucres; i.e., according to Orelli, the birds from
whose flight auguries were drawn, as opposed to the others. So
Heraldus, whose punctuation also is here followed, omitting id est
sapor—“that is, taste,” which Meursius and LB.,
followed by Orelli, amend, ut est—“as taste
is” in each thing.
Vel is here inserted in all edd., most of which read, as above,
oloris, which is found in the ms.,
in later writing, for the original,
coloris—“colour,” retained by Ursinus, LB.,
and Oehler.
60. Seeing, then, that the
origin, the cause, the reason of so many and so important things,
escapes you yourselves also, and that you can neither say nor explain
what has been made, nor why and wherefore it should not have been
otherwise, do you assail and attack our timidity, who confess
that we do not know that which cannot be known, and who do not care to
seek out and inquire into those things which it is quite clear cannot
be understood, although human conjecture should extend and spread
itself through a thousand hearts? And therefore Christ the
divine,—although you are unwilling to allow it,—Christ the
divine, I repeat, for this must be said often, that the ears of
unbelievers may burst and be rent asunder, speaking in the form of man
by command of the Supreme God, because He knew that men are
naturally
Lit., “that the nature of man is.”
So the ms., according to Crusius,
reading nec pro suis; while, according to Hild., the
reading is prorsus—“and are utterly without
hesitation,” adopted in the edd. with the substitution of
et for nec—“and that they altogether
hesitate,” which, besides departing from the ms. runs counter to the sense.
Lit., “transfer to Him the undecided conversions of the
breast.”
Lit., “He can be formed by no imagination.”
Lit., “which the obscurity of sacred divinity contains;”
which Orelli interprets, “the most exalted being holds concealed
from mortals.”
Lit., “and being fixed on.”
61. What business of yours
is it, He
i.e., Christ.
As Heraclitus is reported to have said.
The ms., first five edd., and Oehler
read supernatum, for which the other edd. read, as above,
semper natum, from the margin of Ursinus. The soul is
referred to.
So the later edd., following Elmenhorst, who emended dico
for the ms. dici, omitted
by the first four edd.
62. And be not deceived or
deluded with vain hopes by that which is said by some ignorant and most
presumptuous pretenders,
So most edd., reading sciolis, from the emendation of
Gelenius; but the ms., first five edd., Hild.,
and Oehler read scholis—“by some schools, and
(these) arrogating very much to themselves.”
Cf. ch. 13, p. 439; Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 364, where
Glaucon speaks of certain fortune-telling vagrant seers, who persuade
the rich that they have power with the gods, by means of charms and
sacrifices, to cleanse from guilt; and also Origen, contra
Cels., i. 69, where the Magi are spoken of as being on familiar
terms with evil powers, and thus able to accomplish whatever is within
these spirits’ power.
Mentioned by Servius (on Æn., viii. 399) as composed
by Tages, cap. 69 [p. 460, supra], and seemingly
containing directions as to expiatory sacrifices.
Pl.
Lit., “a spirit of perpetuity.”
i.e., than the Supreme God.
Lit., “are.”
Lit., “all human things.”
i.e., reason.
The ms. reads fuisse me
risui, which has no meaning; corrected, fuisse irrisui in
most edd., and derisui by Meursius, Hild., and Oehler,—the
sense being in either case as above.
Lit., “when it begins to approach to the feeling,” cum
ad sensum; so read by Gelenius for the unintelligible
ms. cum absens cum.
63. But if, my opponents
say, Christ was sent by God for this end, that He might deliver unhappy
souls from ruin and destruction, of what crime were former ages guilty
which were cut off in their mortal state before He came? Can you,
then, know what has become of these souls So the edd., reading quid sit
cum eis animis actum for the ms. cum ejus nimis.
Lit., “of ancient and very old men.”
So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler,
reading vinctionis; the other edd.
junctionis—“union.”
Lit., “unknown questions.”
Pl.
Lit., “has run over.”
64. But, my opponents
ask, if Christ came as the Saviour of men, as
So the ms. and Oehler, reading
ut, which is omitted in all other edd.; in this case, the words
in italics are unnecessary. So
Orelli, reading cur (quur in most edd.) for the
ms. quos. Instead of
non—“not,” which follows, the
ms., according to Oehler, reads
nos, and he therefore changes quos into
quæso—“I ask, does He free all of us
altogether?”
There is clearly no reference here to a particular passage of
Scripture, but to the general tone of Christ’s teaching:
“Him that cometh unto me, I will in nowise cast out.”
Orelli, however with his usual infelicity, wishes to see a direct
reference, either to Christ’s words to the woman of Samaria
(
Lit., “the right of drinking.”
Lit., “the kindness of.”
Lit., “what waits He for, inviting,” quid invitans
expectat; the reading of the ms.,
both Roman edd. and Oehler. Gelenius, followed by Canterus and
Elmenhorst, changed the last word into
peccat—“in what does He sin,” adopted by the
other edd., with the addition of in te—“against
you.”
Lit., “exposes under decision of your own right.”
Cf. Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 379: “of a few
things God would be the cause, but of many He would not;” and x.
st. p. 617 fin. So
LB., Orelli, Oehler, adopting the emendation of Ursinus, tu te
muneris commoditate privaveris, for the unintelligible
reading of the ms., tuti m. c.
probaveris.
i.e., immortal, deos, so corrected by Gelenius for the
ms. deus—“if either
God made us.”
65. Nay, my opponent
says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him
change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises.
This, then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme
God, but a childish So
most edd., reading inanis for the ms. animi; retained, though not very
intelligible, in LB., while Hild. reads
anilis—“foolish.”
So the ms. now reads verti;
but this word, according to Pithœus, is in a later handwriting,
and some letters have been erased. So
the edd., reading tibi desit? opem desideras tibi, except
Hild. and Oehler, who retain the ms.
reading, t. d. o. desideranti—“as
though He failed you desiring Him to bring
help.”
So Ursinus, reading in ania cognomines for the
ms. in alia, which Orelli would
interpret, “call the reverse of the truth.”
Lit., “For the parts of bringing…has enjoined and given
over,” partes…injunctum habet et traditum, where it
will be important to notice that Arnobius, writing rapidly, had carried
with him only the general idea, and forgotten the mode in which this
was expressed.
Pontificium.
Here, too, according to Pithœus, there are signs of erasure.
i.e., admit.
This passage at once suggests
66. So, then, even if you
are pure, and have been cleansed from every stain of vice, have won
over and charmed
Lit., “bent.”
Cf. i. 13 and 58.
Lit., “crops being invented.”
So the later edd., reading constiteritfrom the margin of
Ursinus; but in the ms. and first four edd. the
reading is constituerit—“has
established,” for which there is no subject.
67. Therefore, when you urge
against us that we turn away from the religion
So the later edd., reading aversionem ex (LB., and preceding
edd. a) religione for the ms. et religionem—“against us the
hatred and religion of past ages.”
Lit,, “with the condemnation of.”
This shows that the division of the people into classes was obsolete in
the time of Arnobius.
Turnebus has explained this as merely another way of saying the
comitia centuriata, curiata and tributa.
So the edd. reading cum paratis bella (Oehler reads
reparantes) for the ms.
reparatis.
i.e., per clarigationem, the solemn declaration of war, if
restitution was not made within thirty-three days.
This seems the most natural way to deal with the clause et ex
acuminibus auspicatis, looking on the last word as an adjective,
not a verb, as most edd. seem to hold it. There is great
diversity of opinion as to what this omen was.
The ms. reads in penetralibus
et coliginis. LB., followed by Orelli, merely omits
et, as above while the first five edd. read in pen.
Vestæ ignis—“do you maintain the hearths of
Vesta’s fire.” Many other readings and many
explanations of the passage are also proposed.
68. On the Alban hill, it
was not allowed in ancient times to sacrifice any but snow-white
bulls: have you not changed that custom and religious observance,
and has it not been enacted by decree of the senate, that
reddish ones may be offered? While during the reigns of Romulus
and Pompilius the inner parts, having been quite thoroughly cooked and
softened, were burnt up in sacrificing to the gods, did you not
begin, under king Tullius,
i.e. Servius Tullius. The first four edd. read
Tullo, i.e., Tullus Hostilius.
Cf. v. c. 1.
69. But our name is new,
we are told, and the religion which we follow arose but a few
days ago. Granting for the present that what you urge against us
is not untrue, what is there, I would ask, among the affairs of
men that is either done by bodily exertion and manual labour, or
attained by the mind’s learning and knowledge, which did not
begin at some time, and pass into general use and practice since
then? Medicine,
The ms. reads edi in
filosophia; the first four edd., Philos.; Elmenh. and
Orelli, Etenim phil.—“For were phil.;”
LB., Ede an phil.—“say whether phil.,” which
is, however faulty in construction, as the indicative follows.
Rigaltius, followed by Oehler, emended as above, Medicina
phil. Lit., “reached the coasts
of.”
Lit., “of the intestines”—extorum.
In both Roman edd., Theutatem, i.e., Theutas. Cf.
Plato, Phædrus, st. p. 274.
70. But why do I speak
of these trivial things? The immortal gods themselves, whose
temples you now enter with reverence, whose deity you
suppliantly adore, did they not at certain times, as is handed down by
your writings and traditions, begin to be, to be known and to be
invoked by names and titles which were given to them? For if it
is true that Jupiter with his brothers was born of Saturn and his wife,
before Ops was married and bore children Jupiter had not existed both
the Supreme and the Stygian,
i.e., Pluto.
Pl. Lit., “Castors,” i.e.,
Castor and Pollux.
i.e., sine ullius seminis jactu.
Lit., “forms of bodily circumscription.”
71. But our rites
are
Lit., “what we do is.” Lit., “thing.” Lit., “how many steps are
there of race.”
i.e., Jupiter and Picus.
The ms. reads
genitor…Latinus cujus, some letters having been
erased. The reading followed above—genitor is
cujus—was suggested to Canterus by his friend Gifanius, and
is found in the margin of Ursinus and Orelli.
Cf. above, “four hundred years ago,” etc., and i. ch.
13. It is of importance to note that Arnobius is inconsistent in
these statements. [In the Edinburgh edition we have here
“fifteen hundred years;” etc., but it was changed, in the
Errata, to ten hundred and fifty.]
Lit., “be nursed with the breasts and dropt milk.”
72. But your religion
precedes ours by many years, and is therefore, you say, truer,
because it has been supported by the authority of antiquity. And
of what avail is it that it should precede ours as many years as
you please, since it began at a certain time? or what
Lit., “of what space.”
i.e., re.
So the ms., according to Crusius and
Livineius, reading ac; all edd. except Oehler read
aut—“head (i.e., source) or fountain.”
73. But are we alone in this
position?
The ms. reads unintelligibly
vertitur solæ; for which LB., followed by the later edd.
reads, as above, vertimur soli.
Dr. Schmitz (Smith’s Dict., 3. v. Isis) speaks of
these consuls as heading the revolt against the decree of the senate,
that the statues of Isis and Serapis should be removed from the
Capitol. The words of Tertullian (quoting Varro as his authority)
are very distinct: “The consul Gabinius…gave more
weight to the decision of the senate than the popular impulse, and
forbade their altars (i.e., those of Serapis, Isis, Arpocrates, and
Anubis) to be set up” (ad Nationes, i. 10, cf.
Apol., 6).
Cf. vii. 49.
Lit., “contained.”
74. And why, my opponent
says, did God, the Ruler and Lord of the universe, determine
that a Saviour, Christ, should be sent to you from the heights of
heaven a few hours ago, as it is said? We ask you too, on the
other hand, what cause, what reason is there that the seasons sometimes
do not recur at their own months, but that winter, summer, and autumn
come too late? why, after the crops have been dried up and the
corn Pl. Lit.,
“antiquity.” Lit.,
“things.”
So Gelenius emended the ms.,
reading potens—“being able,” which he
changed into potest, as above, followed by later edd. Lit.,
“by such kinds of.”
The ms. and first edd. read et
potestatibus potestatum—“and by powers of
powers;” the other edd. merely omit potestatibus, as
above, except Oehler, who, retaining it, changes potestatum into
protestata—“being witnessed to by,” etc.; but
there is no instance adduced in which the participle of this verb is
used passively.
75. You may object and
rejoin, Why was the Saviour sent forth so late? In unbounded,
eternal ages, we reply, nothing whatever should be spoken of as
late. For where there is no end and no beginning, nothing is too
soon, These
words having been omitted by Oberthür, are omitted by Orelli also,
as in previous instances.
The ms. and first ed. read
etiam moderata continuatio; corrected, et immod. con. by
Gelenius. So
the edd., reading infantes stentoreos, except Oehler, who
retains the ms. reading
centenarios, which he explains as “having a hundred”
heads or hands, as the case might be, e.g., Typhon, Briareus, etc. Lit.,
“measure.” Lit.,
“things.” Lit.,
“can be changed with no novelty.”
76. Inasmuch then, you say,
as you serve the Almighty God, and trust that He cares for your safety
and salvation, why does He suffer you to be exposed to such storms of
persecution, and to undergo all kinds of punishments and
tortures? Let us, too, ask in reply, why, seeing that you worship
so great and so innumerable gods, and build temples to them, fashion
images of gold, sacrifice herds of animals, and all heap
up
Lit., “provide,” conficiatis, which, however, some
would understand “consume.”
Lit., “slaveries, their free births being taken away.”
Lit., “and.”
So the ms. first five edd., Hild. and
Oehler, reading adscribere infortunio voluptatem, which
is omitted in the other edd. as a gloss which may have crept in from
the margin.
Lit., “our dark.”
77. Therefore that
bitterness of persecution of which you speak is our deliverance and not
persecution, and our ill-treatment will not bring evil upon us, but
will lead us to the light of liberty. As if some senseless and
stupid fellow were to think that he never punished a man who had been
put into prison
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
in carcerem natum inegressum; LB. and later edd. have received
from the margin of Ursinus the reading translated above, datum,
omitting the last word altogether, which Oehler, however, would retain
as equivalent to “not to be passed from.”
78. Wherefore, O men,
refrain from obstructing what you hope for by vain questions; nor
should you, if anything is otherwise than you think, trust your own
opinions rather than that which should be reverenced.
Lit., “than an august thing.”
Orelli refers to Arrh., i. 12; but the doctrine there insisted on is
the necessity of submission to what is unavoidable. Oehler, in
addition, refers to Epict., xxxii. 3, where, however, it is merely
attempted to show that when anything is withheld from us, it is just as
goods are unless paid for, and that we have therefore no reason to
complain. Neither passage can be referred to here, and it seems
as though Arnobius has made a very loose reference which cannot be
specially identified.
————————————
1. All these charges, then, which might
truly be better termed abuse, have been long answered with sufficient
fulness and accuracy by men of distinction in this respect, and worthy
to have learned the truth; and not one point of any inquiry has been
passed over, without being determined in a thousand ways, and on the
strongest grounds. We need not, therefore, linger further on this
part of the case. For neither is the Christian religion unable to
stand though it found no advocates, nor will it be therefore proved
true if it found many to agree with it, and gained weight through its
adherents.
The ms., followed by Oehler, reads
neque enim res stare…non potest, Christiana religio
aut—“for neither can a thing not stand,…nor will
the Christian religion,” etc., while L.B. merely changes
aut into et—“for neither can a thing, i.e.,
the Christian religion,…nor will it,” etc. All other
edd. read as above, omitting et.
According to Crusius and others, the ms.
reads finem; but, according to Hild., fidem, as
above.
2. Let us now return to the
order from which we were a little ago compelled to diverge, that our
defence may not, through its being too long broken off, be said to have
given our detractors cause to triumph in the establishing of their
charge. For they propose these questions: If you are in
earnest about religion, why do you not serve and worship the other gods
with us, or share your sacred rites with your fellows, and put the
ceremonies of the different religions on an equality? We
may say for the present: In essaying to approach the divine, the
Supreme Deity
Deus primus, according to Nourry, in relation to Christ; but
manifestly from the scope of the chapter, God as the fountain and
source of all things.
Lit., “propitiate with venerations.”
So the ms., reading
ducitur; for which Oberthür, followed by Orelli, reads
dicitur—“is said.”
3. And as in the kingdoms of
earth we are in no wise constrained expressly to do reverence to those
who form the royal family as well as to the sovereigns, but whatever
honour belongs to them is found to be tacitly
Lit., “whatever belongs to them feels itself to be comprehended
with a tacit rendering also of honour in,” etc., tacita et se
sentit honorificentia, read by later edd. for the
ms. ut se sentit—“but
as whatever,” retained by Hild. and Oehler; while the first four
edd. read vi—“feels itself with a silent force
comprehended in the honour in,” etc. So
LB. and Orelli, reading alia etiamnum capita for the
ms. alienum capita, read in the
first five edd., alia non capita—“are others not
chiefs;” Hild., followed by Oehler, proposes alia deûm
capita—“other gods.”
4. But we do not purpose delaying further on this part of the subject, lest we seem desirous to stir up most violent strife, and engage in agitating contests.
Let there be, as you affirm, that crowd of
deities, let there be numberless families of gods; we assent, agree,
and do not examine too closely, nor in any part of the
subject do we assail the doubtful and uncertain positions you
hold. This, however, we demand, and ask you to tell us, whence
you have discovered, or how you have learned, whether there are these
gods,
According to Orelli’s punctuation, “whether there are these
gods in heaven whom,” etc.
So LB. and later edd., from a conj. of Meursius, reading diebus
lustricis for the ms.
ludibriis; read by some, and understood by others, as
ludicris, i.e., festal days.
The ms. followed by Hild. and Oehler,
reads neque…in ulla
cognatione—“in no relationship,” for which the
other edd. give cognitione, as above.
5. But let it be
assumed that there are these gods, as you wish and believe, and are
persuaded; let them be called also by those names by which the common
people suppose that those meaner gods So
all edd., reading populares, except Hild. and Oehler, who
receive the conj. of Rigaltius,
populatim—“among all nations;” the
ms. reading popularem.
Censeri, i.e., “written in the list of gods.”
Otherwise, “how many make up the list of this name.”
So Orelli, receiving the emendation of Barth, incogniti
nomine, for the ms. in
cognitione, -one being an abbreviation for
nomine. Examples of such deities are the Novensiles,
Consentes, etc., cc. 38–41.
Lit., “who, except a few gods, do not engage in the services of
the rest.”
Orelli would explain pro parte consimili as equivalent to pro
uno vero Deo—“for the one true God.”
6. And yet let no one think
that we are perversely determined not to submit to
Lit., “take the oaths of allegiance” or military oaths,
using a very common metaphor applied to Christians in the preceding
book, c. 5.
Lit., “suppliant hands.” It has been thought that the
word supplices is a gloss, and that the idea originally was that
of a band of soldiers holding out their hands as they swore to be true
to their country and leaders; but there is no want of simplicity and
congruity in the sentence as it stands, to warrant us in rejecting the
word.
i.e., than the inventors of such fables had shown.
Lit., “from us infants;” i.e., as compared with such a man
as Cicero.
Secundas actiones. The reference is evidently to a second
speaker, who makes good his predecessor’s defects.
7. But why should I say that
men seek from him subtleties of expression and splendour of diction,
when I know that there are many who avoid and flee from his books on
this subject, and will not hear his opinions read,
Lit., “are unwilling to admit into their ear the reading of
opinions,” etc.
Both Christians and heathen, it is probable, were concerned in
the mutilation of de Nat. Deorum. So
Gelenius, reading dicta for the ms. dictitare. The last verb is
comprobate, read reprobate—“condemn,”
by all edd. except Hild. and Oehler.
8. And yet, that no
thoughtless person may raise a false accusation against us, as though
we believed God whom we worship to be male,—for this reason, that
is, that when we speak of Him we use a masculine word,—let him
understand that it is not sex which is expressed, but His name, and its
meaning according to custom, and the way in which we are in the habit
of using words.
Lit., “with familiarity of speech.” A
formula used when they sought to propitiate the author of some event
which could not be traced to a particular deity; referring also to the
cases in which there were different opinions as to the sex of a
deity.
Lit., “even of mean understanding.”
Lit., “by the renewing of perpetual succession.”
9. What, then, shall we
say? That gods beget and are begotten?
Lit., “that gods are born.”
Lit, “recurring,” “arising again.” Lit.,
“make trial of themselves by these laws of sex.” Lit.,
“all things,” etc.
Lit., “if the impurity of sexual union is wanting to the
gods.” So
the first five edd.
Lit., “the other arrangement of members.” Lit.,
“it is fitting to believe.”
10. What say you, ye holy
and pure guardians of religion? Have the gods, then, sexes; and
are they disfigured by those parts, the very mention of whose names by
modest lips is disgraceful? What, then, now remains, but to
believe that they, as unclean beasts, are transported with violent
passions, rush with maddened desires into mutual embraces, and at last,
with shattered and ruined bodies, are enfeebled by their
sensuality? And since some things are peculiar to the female sex,
we must believe that the goddesses, too, submit to these conditions at
the proper time, conceive and become pregnant with loathing, miscarry,
carry the full time, and sometimes are prematurely delivered. O
divinity, pure, holy, free from and unstained by any dishonourable
blot! The mind longs
The ms., followed by Hild., reads
habet et animum—“has it a mind to, and does
it,” etc.; for which Gelenius, followed by later edd., reads, as
above, avet animus.
Cererem ab Iaccho, either as above, or “loved by
Iacchus.” Cf. Lucret. iv. 1160: At tumida et
mammosa Ceres est ipsa ab Iaccho.
Sensu obscæno. The
first five edd. read hortari—“exhorted,” for
which LB, followed by later edd., received tortari; as
above,—a conjecture of Canterus.
11. And you dare to charge us with
offending the gods, although, on examination, it is found that the
ground of offence is most clearly in yourselves, and that it is not
occasioned by the So
Orelli, reading nec in contumelia quam opinamini stare for
the ms. et, which is retained by
all other edd.; Oehler, however, inserts alia before
quam—“and that it is found in an insult other than
you think.” So
later edd., omitting quam, which is read in the
ms., both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler,
“to think much more…than you believe.”
12. Thus far of sex.
Now let us come to the appearance and shapes by which you believe that
the gods above have been represented, with which, indeed, you fashion,
and set them up in their most splendid abodes, your temples. And
let no one here bring up against us Jewish fables and those of the sect
of the Sadducees, It
is evident that Arnobius here confuses the sceptical Sadducees with
their opponents the Pharisees, and the Talmudists.
The ms. reads tribuant et
nos unintelligibly, for which LB. and Hild. read et
os—“as though they attribute form and face;” the
other edd, as above, tribuamus et nos.
Lit., “the joinings of the members.”
13. But it is not enough
that you limit the gods by forms:—you even confine them to the
human figure, and with even less decency enclose them in earthly
bodies. What shall we say then? that the gods have a head
modelled with perfect symmetry,
Lit., “with smooth roundness.” [Cf. Xenoph.,
Mem., i. cap. 4.]
Lit., “the raised gutter of the nose, easily passed by,”
etc.
The veins were supposed to be for the most part filled with
blood, mixed with a little air; while in the arteries air was supposed
to be in excess. Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deor. ii. 55:
“Through the veins blood is poured forth to the whole body, and
air through the arteries.”
14. Are, then, the divine
bodies free from these deformities? and since they do not eat the food
of men, are we to believe that, like children, they are toothless, and,
having no internal parts, as if they were inflated bladders, are
without strength, owing to the hollowness of their swollen
bodies? Further, if this is the case, you must see whether the
gods are all alike, or are marked by a difference in the contour of
their forms. For if each and all have one and the same likeness
of shape, there is nothing ridiculous in believing that they err, and
are deceived in recognising each other.
Lit., “in the apprehension of mutual knowledge.”
15. Does any man at all possessed of judgment, believe that hairs and down grow on the bodies of the gods? that among them age is distinguished? and that they go about clad in dresses and garments of various shapes, and shield themselves from heat and cold? But if any one believes that, he must receive this also as true, that some gods are fullers, some barbers; the former to cleanse the sacred garments, the latter to thin their locks when matted with a thick growth of hair. Is not this really degrading, most impious, and insulting, to attribute to the gods the features of a frail and perishing animal? to furnish them with those members which no modest person would dare to recount, and describe, or represent in his own imagination, without shuddering at the excessive indecency? Is this the contempt you entertain,—this the proud wisdom with which you spurn us as ignorant, and think that all knowledge of religion is yours? You mock the mysteries of the Egyptians, because they ingrafted the forms of dumb animals upon their divine causes, and because they worship these very images with much incense, and whatever else is used in such rites: you yourselves adore images of men, as though they were powerful gods, and are not ashamed to give to these the countenance of an earthly creature, to blame others for their mistaken folly, and to be detected in a similarly vicious error.
16. But you will, perhaps,
say that the gods have indeed other forms, and that you have given the
appearance of men to them merely by way of honour, and for
form’s sake
The ms. and first four edd. read
dotis causa—“for the sake of a dowry:”
corrected as above, dicis causa in the later edd.
This argument seems to have been suggested by the saying of
Xenophanes, that the ox or lion, if possessed of man’s power,
would have represented, after the fashion of their own bodies, the gods
they would worship. [“The fair humanities of old
religion.”—Coleridge
(Schiller).]
Ennius (Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 35): Simia
quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis.
17. But, they say, if you are not satisfied with our opinion, do you point out, tell us yourselves, what is the Deity’s form. If you wish to hear the truth, either the Deity has no form; or if He is embodied in one, we indeed know not what it is. Moreover, we think it no disgrace to be ignorant of that which we never saw; nor are we therefore prevented from disproving the opinions of others, because on this we have no opinion of our own to bring forward. For as, if the earth be said to be of glass, silver, iron, or gathered together and made from brittle clay, we cannot hesitate to maintain that this is untrue, although we do not know of what it is made; so, when the form of God is discussed, we show that it is not what you maintain, even if we are still less able to explain what it is.
18. What, then, some one will say,
does the Deity not hear? does He not speak? does He not see what is put
before Him? has He not sight? He may in His own, but not in our
way. But in so great a matter we cannot know the truth at all, or
reach it by speculations; for these are, it is clear, in our case,
baseless, deceitful, and like vain dreams. For if we said that He
sees in the same way as ourselves, it follows that it should be
understood that He has
19. If you are willing to hear our conclusions, then learn that we are so far from attributing bodily shape to the Deity, that we fear to ascribe to so great a being even mental graces, and the very excellences by which a few have been allowed with difficulty to distinguish themselves. For who will say that God is brave, firm, good, wise? who will say that He has integrity, is temperate, even that He has knowledge, understanding, forethought? that He directs towards fixed moral ends the actions on which He determines? These things are good in man; and being opposed to vices, have deserved the great reputation which they have gained. But who is so foolish, so senseless, as to say that God is great by merely human excellences? or that He is above all in the greatness of His name, because He is not disgraced by vice? Whatever you say, whatever in unspoken thought you imagine concerning God, passes and is corrupted into a human sense, and does not carry its own meaning, because it is spoken in the words which we use, and which are suited only to human affairs. There is but one thing man can be assured of regarding God’s nature, to know and perceive that nothing can be revealed in human language concerning God.
20. This, then, this matter
of forms and sexes, is the first affront which you, noble advocates in
sooth, and pious writers, offer to your deities. But what is the
next, that you represent to us
So the ms., followed by Oehler,
reading nobis, for which all other edd. give
vobis—“to you.”
Meursius would read naccas—“fullers,” for
nautas; but the latter term may, properly enough, be applied to
the gods who watch over seamen.
Or, “for the others are not gods,” i.e., cannot be gods, as
they do not possess the power of divination. Cf. Lact., i.
11: Sin autem divinus non sit, ne deus quidem sit.
21. And, I ask, what reason
is there, what unavoidable necessity, what occasion for the gods
knowing and being acquainted with these handicrafts as though they were
worthless mechanics? For, are songs sung and music played in
heaven, that the nine sisters may gracefully combine and harmonize
pauses and rhythms of tones? Are there on the mountains
The ms., followed by LB. and Hild.,
reads sidereis motibus—“in the motions of the
stars;” i.e., can these be in the stars, owing to their
motion? Oehler conjectures molibus—“in the
masses of the stars;” the other edd. read montibus, as
above.
The ms., both Roman edd., and Oehler
read habetur Diana—“is Diana esteemed;”
the other edd., ut habeatur, as above.
i.e., Æsculapius.
i.e., Minerva. [Elucidation II. Conf. n. 4, p. 467,
supra.]
“With nice skill…for them,” curiose iis;
for which the ms. and first five edd.
read curiosius—“rather skilfully.”
The ms. reads unintelligibly et
imponere, for which Meursius emended componat, as above.
Mercury, grandson of Atlas by Maia.
22. You err, my opponent
says, and are deceived; for the gods are not themselves artificers,
but suggest these arts to ingenious men, and teach mortals what they
should know, that their mode of life may be more civilized. But
he who gives any instruction to the ignorant and unwilling, and strives
to make him intelligently expert
Lit., “by the long duration of time.”
Lit., “skilled in notions”—perceptionibus; for
which præceptionibus, i.e., “the precepts of the
different arts,” has been suggested in the margin of Ursinus.
Lit., “and have skill (sollertias) in which individuals
excel.”
23. But you will, perhaps,
say that the gods are not artificers, but that they preside over these
arts, and have their oversight; nay, that under their care all
things have been placed, which we manage and conduct, and that their
providence sees to the happy and fortunate issue of these. Now
this would certainly appear to be said justly, and with some
probability, if all we engage in, all we do, or all we attempt in human
affairs, sped as we wished and purposed. But since every day the
reverse is the case, and the results of actions do not correspond to
the purpose of the will, it is trifling to say that we have, set as
guardians over us, gods invented by our superstitious fancy, not
grasped with assured certainty. Portunus
According to Oehler, Portunus (Portumnus or
Palæmon—“the god who protects harbours”) does
not occur in the ms., which, he says,
reads per maria præstant—“through the
seas they afford;” emended as above by Ursinus, præstat
Portunus. Oehler himself proposes
permarini—“the sea gods afford.”
Pales, i e., the feeding one; Inuus, otherwise Faunus and Pan.
Otherwise, “from the absence of rain.”
So the margin of Ursinus, reading meretrix; but in the first
four edd., LB., and Oberthür,
genetrix—“mother,” is retained from the
ms.
So LB., reading cura-t, the ms.
omitting the last letter.
24. No one, says my
opponent, makes supplication to the tutelar deities, and they therefore
withhold their usual favours and help. Cannot the gods, then, do
good, except they receive incense and consecrated offerings? Lit.,
“salted fruits,” the grits mixed with salt, strewed on the
victim.
Supplied by Ursinus. So
the edd. reading quid, except Hild. and Oehler, who retain
the ms.
qui—“who.”
25. Unxia, my opponent
says, presides over the anointing of door-posts; Cinxia over
the loosening of the zone; the most venerable Victa
The ms. reads Vita.
[i.e., these names are derived from their offices to men. Have
they no names apart from these services?]
26. We shall not here mention Laverna, goddess of thieves, the Bellonæ, Discordiæ, Furiæ; and we pass by in utter silence the unpropitious deities whom you have set up. We shall bring forward Mars himself, and the fair mother of the Desires; to one of whom you commit wars, to the other love and passionate desire. My opponent says that Mars has power over wars; whether to quell those which are raging, or to revive them when interrupted, and kindle them in time of peace? For if he claims the madness of war, why do wars rage every day? but if he is their author, we shall then say that the god, to satisfy his own inclination, involves the whole world in strife; sows the seeds of discord and variance between far-distant peoples; gathers so many thousand men from different quarters, and speedily heaps up the field with dead bodies; makes the streams flow with blood, sweeps away the most firmly-founded empires, lays cities in the dust, robs the free of their liberty, and makes them slaves; rejoices in civil strife, in the bloody death of brothers who die in conflict, and, in fine, in the dire, murderous contest of children with their fathers.
27. Now we may apply this
very argument to Venus in exactly the same way. For if, as you
maintain and believe, she fills men’s minds with lustful
thoughts, it must be held in consequence that any disgrace and misdeed
arising from such madness should be ascribed to the instigation of
Venus. Is it, then, under compulsion of the goddess that even the
noble too often betray their own reputation into the hands of worthless
harlots; that the firm bonds of marriage are broken; that near
relations burn with incestuous lust; that mothers have their passions
madly kindled towards their children; that fathers turn to themselves
their daughters’ desires; that old men, bringing shame upon their
grey hairs, sigh with the ardour of youth for the gratification of
filthy desires; that wise and brave
i.e., those who subdue their own spirits. “Constancy”
is the εὐπάθεια of the
Stoics.
Referring to Dido. As
despairing lovers are said to have sought relief in death, by leaping
from the Leucadian rock into the sea.
28. Can any man, who has
accepted the first principles even of reason, be found to mar or
dishonour the unchanging nature of Deity with morals so vile? to credit
the gods with natures such as human kindness has often charmed away and
moderated in the beasts of the field? How,
Lit., “where, I ask, is the (assertion) that,” etc.
Lit., “hold.” In
the ms. these words, aut si, are
wanting.
29. We might, however, even
yet be able to receive from you these thoughts, most full of wicked
falsehoods, if it were not that you yourselves, in bringing forward
many things about the gods so inconsistent and mutually destructive,
compel us to withhold our minds from assenting. For when you
strive individually to excel each other in reputation for more
recondite knowledge, you both overthrow the very gods in whom you
believe, and replace them by others who have clearly no existence; and
different men give different opinions on the same subjects,
Stewechius and Orelli would omit rebus, and interpret
“about the same gods.” Instead of
de—“about,” the ms. has deos.
The ms. reads fonti,
corrected by Meursius Fontis, as above. Lit.,
“circuit.” Lit.,
“finished.” i.e.,
the god. i.e.,
time. Lit.,
“the measuring of a certain space included in,” etc. Cf.
vi. 12.
30. But what shall we say of
Jove himself, whom the wise have repeatedly asserted to be the sun,
driving a winged chariot, followed by a crowd of deities;
Cf. Plato, Phædr., st. p. 246. Lit.,
“the reversed order of the Greek name being repeated,” i.
e., instead of ἥ-ρα, ἀ-ήρ.
The ms. gives Fluvionia. Lit.,
“with the frequency (or fame) of vain,” etc.
Lit., “very.”
31. Aristotle, a man of most
powerful intellect, and distinguished for learning, as Granius tells,
shows by plausible arguments that Minerva is the moon, and proves it by
the authority of learned men. Others have said that this very
goddess is the depth of ether, and utmost height; some have
maintained that she is memory, whence her name even, Minerva, has
arisen, as if she were some goddess of memory. But if this is
credited, it follows that there is no daughter of Mens, no daughter of
Victory, no discoverer of the Olive, born from the head of Jupiter, no
goddess skilled in the knowledge of the arts, and in different
branches of learning. Neptune, they say, has received his name
and title because he covers the earth with water. If, then, by
the use of this name is meant the outspread water, there is no god
Neptune at all; and thus is put away, and removed from us, the
full brother of Pluto and Jupiter, armed with the iron trident, lord of
the fish, great and small, king of the depths of the sea, and shaker of
the trembling earth.
So Meursius emended the ms.
sali—“sea.”
32. Mercury, also, has been
named as though he were a kind of go-between; and because conversation
passes between two speakers, and is exchanged by them, that which is
expressed by this name has been produced. Lit.,
“the quality of this name has been adjusted.” So
Orelli, reading monte vertice; the last word, according to
Oehler, not being found in the ms.
i.e., Cybele. Cf. Lucr., ii. 991 sqq.
Lit., “seeds.”
Fasti—“list,” “register.”
33. We here leave Vulcan
unnoticed, to avoid prolixity; whom you all declare to be fire, with
one consenting voice. We pass by Venus, named because
lust assails all, and Proserpina, named because plants steal
gradually forth into the light,—where, again, you do away with
three deities; if indeed the first is the name of an element, and does
not signify a living power; the second, of a desire common to all
living creatures; while the third refers to seeds rising above ground,
and the upward movements Lit.,
“motions.”
34. Some of your learned
men
Cf. Servius ad Virg., Georg., i. 5: “The
Stoics say that Luna, Diana, Ceres, Juno, and Proserpina are one;
following whom, Virgil invoked Liber and Ceres for Sol and
Luna”
Triviali—“common,” “vulgar,” seems
to be here used for triplici.
Actæon.
35. Men worthy to be
remembered in the study of philosophy, who have been raised by your
praises to its highest place, declare, with commendable earnestness, as
their conclusion, that the whole mass of the world, by whose folds we
all are encompassed, covered, and upheld, is one animal
Plato, Timæus, st. p. 30. Lit.,
“of which things, however, if the opinion,” etc.
i.e., deifying parts of the universe, and giving them, as deities, the
same names as before.
Lit., “the difference of their disjunction being
preserved”—multi disjunctionis differentia
conservata, suggested in the margin of Ursinus for the
ms. multitudinis junctionis d.
c., retained in the first five edd.
Lit., “of their own name.”
36. If we sought to subvert
the belief in your gods in so many ways, by so many arguments, no one
would doubt that, mad with rage and fury, you would demand for us the
stake, the beasts, and swords, with the other kinds of torture by which
you usually appease your thirst in its intense craving for our
blood. But while you yourselves put away almost the whole race of
deities with a pretence of cleverness and wisdom, you do not hesitate
to assert that, because of us, men suffer ill at the hands of the
gods;
Lit., “for the sake of our name, men’s affairs are made
harassing.” Lit.,
“with flames of,” etc.
The ms., according to Crusius,
reads nos—“us.”
37. We are told by Mnaseas
that the Muses are the daughters of Tellus and Cœlus; others
declare that they are Jove’s by his wife Memory, or Mens;
some relate that they were virgins, others that they were
matrons. For now we wish to touch briefly on the points where you
are shown, from the difference of your opinions, to make different
statements about the same thing. Ephorus, then, says that they
are three
Three was the most ancient number; and the names preserved by
Pausanias, are Μελέτη,
᾽Αοιδή,
Μνήμη.
Cicero (de Nat. Deor., iii. 21, a passage where there is
some doubt as to the reading) enumerates as the four Muses, Thelxiope,
Aœde, Arche, Melete.
The ms. reads
Murtylus. Seven are said to have been mentioned by
Epicharmis,—Neilous, Tritone, Asopous, Heptapolis, Acheloïs,
Tipoplous, and Rhodia.
The nine are Clio, Euterpe, Thalia, Melpomene, Terpsichore,
Erato, Polymnia, Ourania, and Calliope (Theog.,
77–79).
If we are not mistaken, such want of agreement marks
those who are wholly ignorant of the truth, and does not spring from
the real
Lit., “into the end of the same opinion.”
38. How, then, can you give
to religion its whole power, when you fall into error about the gods
themselves? or summon us to their solemn worship, while you give us no
definite information how to conceive of the deities themselves?
For, to take no notice of the other
Lit., “in the middle,” “intermediate.”
i.e., Ephorus.
i.e., Hesiod. Lit.,
“the undertaking of religion itself is brought into the
danger,” etc. An
Umbrian village.
Lit., “that the number is nine.” [i.e., a triad of
triads; the base a triad, regarded, even by heathen, as of mystical
power.] A
grammarian who lived in the time of Augustus, not to be confounded with
Cicero’s correspondent.
Novitatum.
The Etruscans held (Pliny, H. N., ii. 52) that nine gods
could thunder, the bolts being of different kinds: the Romans so
far maintained this distinction as to regard thunder during the day as
sent by Jupiter, at night by Summanus. So
LB., reading relig- for the ms. reg-iones.
39. There are some, besides,
who assert that those who from being men became gods, are denoted by
this name,—as Hercules, Romulus, Æsculapius, Liber,
Æneas. These are all, as is clear, different opinions; and
it cannot be, in the nature of things, that those who differ in opinion
can be regarded as teachers of one truth. For if Piso’s
opinion is true, Ælius and Granius say what is false; if what they
say is certain, Varro, with all his skill,
Lit., “the very skilful.”
Lit., “if the number nine bring on the name of,” etc.
Lit., “gives another’s might and power to gods
presiding.” Lit.,
“the title of this name.” Lit.,
“after they have finished the mortality of life,” i.e.,
either as above, or “having endured its
perishableness.” Lit.,
“lying under.” So
most edd., following Gelenius, who reads esse nomenfor the
ms. si omnes istud. Lit.,
“who have deserved to,” etc.
40. Nigidius taught that the
dii Penates were Neptune and Apollo, who once, on fixed terms,
girt Ilium
The ms. reads immortalium,
corrected in the edd. urbem Ilium.
Supposed to be either the genius attending Jupiter; the family
god as sent by him; or the chief among the genii, sometimes mentioned
simply as Genius.
Lit., “whom the commonalty receives.”
Consentes (those who are together, or agree together, i.e.,
councillors) and Complices (confederate, or agreeing) are said
by some to be the twelve gods who composed the great council of heaven;
and, in accordance with this, the words una oriantur et occidant
una might be translated “rise and sit down together,”
i.e., at the council table. But then, the names and number of
these are known; while Arnobius says, immediately after, that the names
of the dii Consentes are not known and has already quoted Varro, to the
effect that neither names nor number are known. Schelling
(über die Gotth. v.
Samothr , quoted by Orelli) adopts
the reading (see following note), “of whom very little mention is
made,” i.e., in prayers or rites, because they are merely
Jove’s councillors, and exercise no power over men, and
identifies them with the Samothracian Cabiri—Κάβειροι
and Consentes being merely Greek and Latin renderings of the name.
So the ms. and all edd. reading
miserationis parcissimæ, except Gelenius, who reads
nationis barbarissimæ—“of a most barbarous
nation;” while Ursinus suggested memorationis
parc.—“of whom very little mention is
made,”—the reading approved by Schelling. Lit.,
“shaken to its foundations.”
41. We can, if it is thought
proper, speak briefly of the Lares also, whom the mass think to be the
gods of streets and ways, because the Greeks name streets
lauræ. In different parts of his writings, Nigidius
speaks of them now as the guardians of houses and dwellings; now
as the Curetes, who are said to have once concealed, by the clashing of
cymbals,
Æribus. Cf. Lucretius, ii. 633–636.
The ms. reads manas,
corrected as above by all edd. except Hild., who reads
Manias.
The ms. reads effunctorum;
LB. et funct., from the correction of Stewechius; Gelenius, with
most of the other edd., def.
42. It is a vast and endless
task to examine each kind separately, and make it evident even from
your religious books that you neither hold nor believe that there is
any god concerning whom you have not
The ms. and first ed. omit
non. Lit.,
“because of aversion.”
Lit., “the form of their race.”
i.e., ignorabitur et nescietur.
The ms. reads
consolationem—“for each consolation,” i.e., to
comfort in every distress.
The ms. omits et.
43. For if this
deity The
dii inferi. The
dii superi.
Saturn and Hercules were so worshipped.
Apollo.
The ms., first five edd., and Oehler
read terreor—“terrified;” the others
tor., as above, from the conjecture of Gifanius. Cf.
ch. 40, note 21. It may further be observed that the Etruscans
held that the superior and inferior gods and men were linked together
by a kind of intermediate beings, through whom the gods took cognizance
of human affairs, without themselves descending to earth. These
were divided into four classes, assigned to Tina (Jupiter), Neptune,
the gods of the nether world, and men respectively. So
LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading nomine ne; all others
ut, the ms. having no
conjunction.
44. Wherefore, if you are
assured that in the lofty palaces of heaven there dwells, there is,
that multitude of deities whom you specify, you should make your stand
on one proposition,
Lit., “it is fitting that you stand in the limits of,”
etc.
i.e., Summus Manium, Pluto.
Book IV.
————————————
1. We would ask you, and you above all, O
Romans, lords and princes of the world, whether you think that Piety,
Concord, Safety, Honour, Virtue, Happiness, and other such names, to
which we see you rear
Lit., “see altars built.”
Lit., “in the regions of heaven.”
The ms. reads tam
(corrected by the first four edd. tamen) in
regionibus—“in the divine seats;” corrected,
religionibus, as above, by Ursinus.
Lit., “to the deluding of your deities.”
2. For we—but,
perhaps, you would rob and deprive us of common-sense—feel
and perceive that none of these has divine power, or possesses a form
of its own;
Lit., “is contained in a form of its own kind.”
i.e., manliness.
Lit., “which it is easy to perceive to be said by us with the
greatest truth from,” etc.,—so most edd. reading
nobis; but the ms., according to
Crusius, gives vobis—“you,” as in
Orelli and Oberthür.
Lit., “less auspicious.”
The ms., first four edd., and Elmenhorst,
read, quæ—“which;” the rest, as
above, que.
Lit., “what is opposed to them named,”
nominatum; a correction by Oehler for the ms. nominatur—“is
named.”
3. With regard, indeed, to
your bringing forward to us other bands of unknown
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
signatorum—“sealed;” the others, except Hild.,
ignotorum, as above. Lit.,
“drew the meaning of her name.” Lit.,
“excelled the might of all.”
ms., “that these, too,” i.e., as
well as Luperca. No
such discussion occurs in the preceding part of the work, but the
subject is brought forward in the end of chap. 8, p. 478,
infra.
4. Pellonia is a goddess
mighty to drive back enemies. Whose enemies, say, if it is
convenient? Opposing armies meet, and fighting together, hand to
hand, decide the battle; and to one this side, to another that, is
hostile. Whom, then, will Pellonia turn to flight, since on both
sides there will be fighting? or in favour of whom will she incline,
seeing that she should afford to both sides the might and services of
her name? But if she indeed
In the first sentence the ms.
reads utrique, and in the second utique, which is
reversed in most edd., as above. Lit.,
“ever at hand with gracious assistances.”
Lit., “are not of.”
i.e., the field of Cannæ.
[
5. The sinister deities
preside over the regions on the left hand only, and are opposed to
those
Lit., “the parts.” Lit.,
“it cannot be brought into any light of general understanding by
you.” Lit.,
“convexity.” Lit.,
“be of.”
Lit., “to the state of the world.” Lit.,
“who have been so formed, that some things are said by us,”
nobis, the reading of Oberthür and Orelli for the
ms. in nos—“with
regard to us,” which is retained by the first four edd., Elm.,
Hild. and Oehler. i.e.,
transit in vocabulum sinistri; in being omitted in
the ms. and both Roman edd. Lit.,
“the turning round of the body being changed.” So
Oehler, reading positione, sed tempore sed, for the
ms. positionis et temporis
et.
6. Lateranus, No
mention is made of this deity by any other author. Lit.,
“that he may do what.”
Lit., “good condition,”
habitudinem. Lit.,
“a disreputable act.”
7. Does Venus Militaris,
also, preside over the evil-doing
So the ms. reading
flagitiis, followed by all edd. except LB. and Orelli, who read
plagiis—“kidnapping.” Of
this goddess, also, no other author makes mention but the germ may be
perhaps found in Lucretius (ii. 1116–7), where nature is termed
perfica, i.e., “perfecting,” or making all things
complete. [The learned translator forgets Tertullian, who
introduces us to this name in the work Arnobius imitates
throughout. See vol. iii. p. 140.]
i.e., in cubiculis præsto est virginalem scrobem effodientibus
maritis. The
first five edd. read Mutunus. Cf. ch. 11. [I think
it a mistake to make Mutubus = Priapus. Their horrible
deformities are diverse, as I have noted in European collections
of antiquities. The specialty of Mutunus is noted by our
author, and is unspeakably abominable. All this illustrates,
therefore, the Christian scruples about marriage-feasts, of which see
vol. v. note 1, p. 435.]
Lit., the “fancies” or “imaginations” of false
gods. Meursius proposed to transpose the whole of this sentence
to the end of the chapter, which would give a more strictly logical
arrangement; but it must be remembered that Arnobius allows himself
much liberty in this respect. Of
these three deities no other mention is made.
The ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler
read qui—“who brings;” the other edd.,
as above, quia.
So the ms. (cf. ch. 11), first five edd.,
Oberth., Hild., and Oehler; the other edd. read Nodutim
Ter.
So the ms., both Roman edd., and Oehler;
the other edd. reading Vibilia, except Hild.,
Viabilia.
The ms. reads
nam—“for,” followed by all edd. except Orelli,
who reads jam as above, and Oehler, who reads
etiam—“also.”
8. Say, I pray
you,—that Peta, Puta, Patella may graciously favour you,—if
there were no
Orelli omits non, following Oberthür.
Both in this and the preceding chapter the ms. reads Melonia.
Lit., “obtained by lot the wardships.”
Lit., “signs.”
9. What then? you say; do
you declare that these gods exist nowhere in the world, and have been
created by unreal fancies? Not we alone, but truth itself, and
reason, say so, and that common-sense in which all men share. For
who there who believes that there are gods of gain, and that they
preside over the getting of it, seeing that it springs very often from
the basest employments, and is always at the expense of others?
Who believes that Libentina, who that Burnus,
So the ms., both Roman edd., Hild., and
Oehler; the others reading Liburnum, except Elm., who
reads -am, while Meursius conjectured
Liberum—“Bacchus.”
Lit., “shameful impurity seeks after;” expetit
read by Gelenius, Canterus, and Oberthür, for the
unintelligible ms. reading
expeditur, retained in both Roman edd.; the others reading
experitur—“tries.”
The ms. reads Lemons; Hild.
and Oehler, Limones; the others, Limos, as above.
The ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler
read Murcidam; the others, Murciam, as above.
i.e., equestrian rank.
10. But if you urge that
bones, different kinds of honey, thresholds, and all the other
things which we have either run over rapidly, or, to avoid prolixity,
passed by altogether, have
The ms. reading is quid si
haberet in sedibus suos, retained by the first five edd., with the
change of -ret into -rent—“what if in their
seats the bones had their own peculiar guardians;” Ursinus in the
margin, followed by Hild. and Oehler, reads in se divos
suos—“if for themselves the bones had gods as their own
peculiar,” etc.; the other edd. reading, as above, si habere
insistitis suos.
11. What say you, O fathers
of new religions, and powers?
i.e., deities. So LB. and Orelli, reading quid
potestatum?—“what, O fathers of
powers.” The ms. gives
qui—“what say you, O fathers of new religions, who
cry out, and complain that gods of powers are indecently dishonoured by
us, and neglected with impious contempt,” etc. Heraldus
emends thus: “…fathers of great religions and
powers? Do you, then, cry out,” etc.
“Fathers,” i.e., those who discovered, and introduced,
unknown deities and forms of worship.
The ms. reads pertus
quæ- (marked as spurious) dam; and, according to Hild.,
naeniam is written over the latter word.
So the ms. Cf. ch. 7 [note 10, p.
478, supra].
The ms. is here very corrupt and
imperfect,—supplices hoc est uno procumbimus atque est
utuno (Orelli omits ut-), emended by Gelenius, with most
edd., supp. Mut-uno proc. atque Tutuno, as above; Elm. and LB.
merely insert humi—“on the ground,” after
supp. [See p. 478, note 6, supra.]
Meursius is of opinion that some words have slipped out of the text
here, and that some arguments had been introduced about augury and
divination.
Contendis, not found in the ms.
12. But let them
i.e., the predictions.
Lit., “will you make the same belief.” Lit.,
“adapt themselves to the significations of the things
which.”
Lit., “brothers of.”
i.e., demons.
Perhaps “abilities”—materiis.
The ms. reads
cum—“with similar reason we may believe,”
instead of cur, as above.
13. Or, if you refuse to
believe this on account of its novelty,
Lit., “novelty of the thing.”
Lit., “of places and divisions,” i.e., places separated
from each other.
Lit., “affords to you the appearance of.”
Even now we are ashamed to come to the point at
which not only boys, young and pert, but grave men also, cannot
restrain their laughter, and men who have been hardened into a
strict and stern humour.
Lit., “a severity of stern manner”—moris
for the ms. mares.
Orelli here introduces the sentence, “For it cannot
be,” etc., with which this book is concluded in the ms. Cf. ch. 37, n. 4, infra. There
can be no doubt that Arnobius here refers to Clemens Alexandrinus
(Λόγος
Προτρεπτικὸς
πρὸς
῾Ελλῆνας), and
Cicero (de Nat. Deor.), from whom he borrows most freely in the
following chapters, quoting them at times very closely. We shall
not indicate particular references without some special reason, as it
must be understood these references would be required with every
statement. [Compare Clement, vol. ii. pp. 305–13, and
Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 34.] Lit.,
“given to us an abridging,” i.e., an opportunity of
abridging.
14. Your theologians, then,
and authors on unknown antiquity, say that in the universe there are
three Joves, one of whom has Æther for his father; another,
Cœlus; the third, Saturn, born and buried
Lit., “committed to sepulture and born in,” etc.
Arnobius repeats this statement in ch. 22, or the name would have been
regarded as corrupt, no other author making mention of such a goddess;
while Cicero speaks of one Sun as born of Hyperion. It would
appear, therefore, to be very probable that Arnobius, in writing from
memory or otherwise, has been here in some confusion as to what Cicero
did say, and thus wrote the name as we have it. It has also been
proposed to read “born of Regina” (or, with Gelenius,
Rhea), “and his father Hyperion,” because Cybele is termed
βασίλεια;
for which reading there seems no good reason.—Immediately below,
Ialysus is made the son, instead of, as in Cicero, the grandson of the
fourth; and again, Circe is said to be mother, while Cicero speaks of
her as the daughter of the fifth Sun. These variations, viewed
along with the general adherence to Cicero’s statements (de N.
D., iii. 21 sqq.), seem to give good grounds for adopting the
explanation given above.
i.e., in Proserpinam genitalibus adhinnivisse
subrectis. Lit.,
“of Jupiter, but the third.”
i.e., incestorum appetitorem.
15. And lest it should seem
tedious and prolix to wish to consider each person singly, the same
theologians say that there are four Vulcans and three Dianas, as many
Æsculapii and five Dionysi, six Hercules and four Venuses, three
sets of Castors and the same number of Muses, three winged Cupids, and
four named Apollo; So
Cicero (iii. 23); but Clemens [vol. ii. p. 179] speaks of five, and
notes that a sixth had been mentioned.
16. For suppose that it had
occurred to us,
Lit., “by the violence of your terror.” The
preceding words are read in the ms.
ideo motos—“so moved by authority,” and were
emended idonea, as in the text, by Gelenius.
Lit., “to what parts shall we transfer the duties of pious
service.”
The ms. reads cum numen;
Rigaltius, followed by Oehler emending, as above, meum; the
first four edd., with Oberthür, tum—“then
the deity is mine;” while the rest read cum
numine—“with the deity.” So
LB., Orelli, and Oehler, reading tu tinnisfor the
ms. tutunis.
Capitoliis. In the Capitol were three shrines,—to
Jove, Juno, and Minerva; and Roman colonies followed the
mother-state’s example. Hence the present general
application of the term, which is found elsewhere in ecclesiastical
Latin.
Lit., “Nor are the forms of married persons given to these by all
artists;” nec read in all edd. for the ms. et—“and of married,”
etc., which is opposed to the context.
Lit., “not of your own right.”
Concretione roris—a strange phrase. Cf. Her., iv.
180: “They say that Minerva is the daughter of Poseidon and
the Tritonian lake.”
St. p. 21. The ms. reads
quorum Nili lingua latonis; the two Roman edd. merely insert
p., Plat.; Gelenius and Canterus adding
dicor—“in whose language I am called the
Nile’s,” Nili being changed into Neith by
Elmenhorst and later edd.
Lit., “take account of herself.”
So Ursinus suggested in the margin for the ms. si verum. The
third Minerva now addresses the fourth.
Lit., “approaching the duties of religion.”
According to the ms.
sic—“for so (i.e., as you do) yielding,”
etc.
17. We may say the very same
things of the Mercuries, the Suns,—indeed of all the others whose
numbers you increase and multiply. But it is sufficient to know
from one case that the same principle applies to the rest; and, lest
our prolixity should chance to weary our audience, we shall cease to
deal with individuals, lest, while we accuse you of excess, we also
should ourselves be exposed to the charge of excessive loquacity.
What do you say, you who, by the fear of bodily tortures, urge
us to worship the gods, and constrain us to undertake the service of
your deities? We can be easily won, if only something befitting
the conception of so great a race be shown to us. Show us
Mercury, but only one; give us
18. But some one on the
opposite side says, How do we know whether the theologians have written
what is certain and well known, or set forth a wanton fiction, So
all the edd., though Orelli approves of fictione (edd.
-em), which is, he says, the ms.
reading, “set forth with wanton fiction.”
The ms. and earlier edd., with Hild. and
Oehler, read ex hominum de scriptis; LB. and Orelli
inserting his after de, as above.
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
esse, which is clearly corrupt; for which LB. gives
scripsisse (misprinted scripse), as above.
i.e., “speak of them at all.”
Lit., “an idea of no writing.”
Lit., “been informed by books suggesting to you,” etc.
19. But perhaps these things
will turn out to be false, and what you say to be true. By what
proof, by what evidence, will it be shown? For since both
parties are men, both those who have said the one thing and those who
have said the other, and on both sides the discussion was of doubtful
matters, it is arrogant to say that that is true which seems so to you,
but that that which offends your feelings manifests wantonness and
falsehood. By the laws of the human race, and the associations of
mortality itself, when you read and hear, That god was born of this
father and of that mother, do you not feel in your mind
Lit., “does it not touch the feeling of your mind.”
Ursinus would supply eos—“that they are
so.”
Atque ex seminis, actu, or jactu, as the edd. except
Hild. read it.
The ms. reads dignitati-s
aut; corrected, as above, d. sane, in the first five edd.,
Oberthür, and Orelli. [
Quæsit fœditas ista coeundi.
Lit., “as far as to themselves, their first generation being
completed.”
20. But you, on the
contrary, forgetting how great
Lit., “forgetting the so great majesty and sublimity.”
Both plural.
Both plural.
The ms., first four edd., and
Oberthür read conducunt—“unite;”
for which the rest read condic-unt, as above.
i.e., usu, farre, coemptione.
The word here translated mistresses, speratas, is used of
maidens loved, but not yet asked in marriage. Lit.,
“dangers of destructions.”
Instead of “occasioned,” sevisse, which the
later editions give, the ms. and first four
edd. read sævisse—“that danger and
destruction raged against,” etc.
Copulatis corporibus.
i.e., not his mother’s, but the dug of the goat Amalthea.
Lit., “rattles heard.”
Lit., “the eminence of the powers.”
Lit., “inundation.”
22. And, not content to have
ascribed these carnal unions to the venerable Saturn,
Lit., “Saturnian gravity.”
Cf. ch. 14, note 8, supra. It
is worth while to compare this passage with ch. 16. Here Arnobius
makes Latona the mother of Apollo and Diana in accordance with the
common legend; but there he represents the first Minerva as claiming
them as her children.
In the ms. there is here an evident
blunder on the part of the copyist, who has inserted the preceding line
(“the archer Apollo, and of the woods”) after “the
same.” Omitting these words, the ms. reading is literally, “the name in Greek is to
the Dioscori.” Before “the name” some
word is pretty generally supposed to have been lost, some conjecturing
“to whom;” others (among them Orelli, following Salmasius)
“Castores.” But it is evidently not really necessary
to supplement the text. Lit.,
“scatter.”
Orelli reads with the ms., LB., and
Hild., babecali, which he interprets belli, i.e.,
“handsome.”
23. Men, though prone to
lust, and inclined, through weakness of character, to yield to
the allurements of sensual pleasures, still punish adultery by the
laws, and visit with the penalty of death those whom they find to have
possessed themselves of others rights by forcing the
marriage-bed. The greatest of kings, however, you tell us,
did not know how vile, how infamous the person of the seducer and
adulterer was; and he who, as is said, examines our merits and
demerits, did not, owing to the reasonings of his abandoned heart, see
what was the fitting course for him to resolve on. But
this misconduct might perhaps be endured, if you were to conjoin him
with persons at least his equals, and if he were made by you the
paramour of the immortal goddesses. But what beauty, what grace
was there, I ask you, in human bodies, which could move, which could
turn to it
ms. and first five edd. read
inde—“thence;” the others in se, as
above. [Elucidation III.]
Orelli, without receiving into the text, approves of the reading of
Stewechius, promptam, “evident,” for the
ms. propriam. Lit.,
“the benefits diminished by which it is lived.”
The ms. reads ex Jovis; the
first five edd. Jove—“from Jove,” which is
altogether out of place; the others, as above, ex ovis.
Cf. i. 36.
The ms. reads et ablui diebus
tantis…elevari; LB., Hild. and Oehler, statis or
statutis…et levari—“and was loosed and
released on fixed days;” Elm., Oberthür, and Orelli receive
the conjecture of Ursinus, et suis diebus tantum…rel., as
above.
Cf. iii. [cap. 41, p. 475, and cap. 30, p. 472].
i.e., hiding-place. Virg., Æn., viii.
322: Quoniam latuisset tutus in oris.
Pyth., iii. 102 sq.
ms. Meglac.
The ms. and most edd. give
filias, making the Muses daughters of Macarus; but Orelli,
Hild., and Oehler adopt, as above, the reading of Canterus,
filiæ, in accordance with Clem. Alex.
25. Did we say
So the ms. reading numquid
dictatum, which would refer this sentence to the end of the last
chapter. Gelenius, with Canth., Oberth., and Orelli, reads
quis ditatam, and joins with the following sentence thus:
“Who related that Venus, a courtezan enriched by C., was
deified…? who that the palladium,” etc. Cf. v.
19.
The ms. reads quis mensibus in
Arcadia tribus et decem vinctum—“Who that he was
bound thirteen months in Arcadia? was it not the son,” etc.
To which there are these two objections—that Homer never says so;
and that Clemens Alexandrinus [vol. ii. p, 179, this series], from whom
Arnobius here seems to draw, speaks of Homer as saying only that Mars
was so bound, without referring to Arcadia. The ms. reading may have arisen from carelessness on the part
of Arnobius in quoting (cf. ch. 14, n. 2), or may be a corruption of
the copyists. The reading translated is an emendation by Jortin,
adopted by Orelli.
Sardibus,—a conjecture of Ursinus, adopted by LB.,
Hild., and Oehler for the ms.
sordibus; for which the others read
sordidi—“for the sake of base lust.”
Lit., “the masculine one.” As
this seems rather extravagant when said of one of the immortals,
læsam, “hurt,” has been proposed by
Meursius.
Castor and Pollux.
Lit., “contained.”
The ms. reads Hieronymus
Pl.—“is Hier., is Pl.,” while Clem. Alex.
mentions only “Hieronymus the philosopher.”
26. But what shall I say of the
desires with which it is written in your books, and contained in your
writers, that the holy immortals lusted after women? For is it by
us that the king of
These names are all in the plural in the original. So
LB. and Orelli, reading Alopas, from Clem. Alex., for the
ms. Alcyonas.
These names are all in the plural in the original.
Lit., “you add.” In
the original, somewhat at large—unam potuit prolem extundere,
concinnare, compingere.
27. But among you, is it
only the males who lust; and has the female sex preserved its
purity?
All edd. read this without mark of interrogation.
The ms. reads
Phætontem: for which, both here and in Clem., Potter
proposed Phaonem, because no such amour is mentioned
elsewhere.
28. For where there are
weddings, marriages, births, nurses, arts,
i.e., either the arts which belong to each god (cf. the words in ii.
18: “these (arts) are not the gifts of science, but the
discoveries of necessity”), or, referring to the words
immediately preceding, obstetric arts.
29. And here, indeed, we can
show that all those whom you represent to us as and call gods, were
but men, by quoting either Euhemerus of Acragas,
Lit., “Euhemerus being opened.” So
Elm. and Orelli, reading Nicanore for the ms. Nicagora, retained by all other edd.
Lit., “with the care of scrupulous diligence.”
Meursius would join virginis to Minerva, thinking it an allusion
to her title Παρθένος.
These terms are employed of hetæræ.
Lit., “the title itself of their names was.”
30. But in the discussion
which we at present maintain, we do not undertake this trouble or
service, to show and declare who all these were. But this
is what we proposed to ourselves, that as you call us impious and
irreligious, and, on the other hand, maintain that you are pious
and serve the gods, we should prove and make manifest that by no men
are they treated with less respect than by you. But if it is
proved by the very insults that it is so, it must, as a consequence, be
understood that it is you who rouse the gods to fierce and terrible
rage, because you either listen to or believe, or yourselves invent
about them, stories so degrading. For it is not he who is
anxiously thinking of religious rites,
Qui sollicite relegit. Relegit is here used by
Arnobius to denote the root of religio, and has therefore
some such meaning as that given above. Cf. Cicero, de Nat.
Deorum, ii. 28.
31. We wish, then, to
question you, and invite you to answer a short question, Whether you
think it a greater offence to sacrifice to them no victims, because you
think that so great a being neither wishes nor desires these; or, with
foul beliefs, to hold opinions about them so degrading, that they might
rouse any one’s spirit to a mad desire for revenge? If the
relative importance of the matters be weighed, you will find no judge
so prejudiced as not to believe it a greater crime to defame by
manifest insults any one’s reputation, than to treat it with
silent neglect. For this, perhaps, may be held and believed from
deference to reason; but the other course manifests an impious
spirit, and a blindness despaired of in fiction. If in your
ceremonies and rites neglected sacrifices and expiatory offerings may
be demanded, guilt is said to have been contracted; if by a momentary
forgetfulness
Lit., “an error of inadvertence.”
Lit., “with the sacrificial bowl.”
So the ms., both Roman edd., Elm., Hild.,
and Oehler, reading rursus; the others in
cursu—“in the course.”
Patrimus, i.e., one whose father is alive, is probably used
loosely for patrimus et matrimus, to denote one both of whose
parents were alive, who was therefore eligible for certain religious
services.
So the ms. reading terram
tenere, for which Hild. would read tensam, denoting the car
on which were borne the images of the gods, the thongs or reins of
which were held by the patrimus et matrimus; Lipsius,
siserram, the sacrificial victim. The reading of the text
has been explained as meaning to touch the ground with one’s
hands; but the general meaning is clear enough,—that it was
unlucky if the boy made a slip, either with hands or feet.
32. But all these things,
they say, are the fictions of poets, and games arranged for
pleasure. It is not credible, indeed, that men by no means
thoughtless, who sought to trace out the character of the remotest
antiquity, either did not
Oberthür and Orelli omit non.
Lit., “notions.”
Lit., “placed in their ears.”
Lit., “and it has not been established by
you,”—a very abrupt transition in the structure of the
sentence.
Lit., “which was very near to disgrace.” So
the margin of Ursinus, followed by later edd., prefixing d
before the ms. -eorum.
Lit., “has less bite, being weakened by the testimony of silent
reviewing,” recognitionis.
33. Your gods, it is
recorded, dine on celestial couches, and in golden chambers, drink, and
are at last soothed by the music of the lyre, and singing. You
fit them with ears not easily wearied;
Lit., “most enduring.”
Coetu. The ms. and most edd.
read coalitu,—a word not occurring elsewhere; which
Gesner would explain, “put away that it may not be established
among men,” the sense being the same in either case.
34. But why do I complain
that you have disregarded the insults Lit.,
“complain of the neglected insults of the other gods.”
Lit., “as a lover by.” Cf. Homer, Il.,
14, 312.
i.e., of himself.
Lit., “except that which was full of religion.”
i.e., according to which such offenses should be punished.
35. But is it only poets
whom you have thought proper
Lit., “have willed.”
Lit., “full-grown race,” exoleti, a word frequently
used, as here, sensu obscæno.
i.e., the actors, etc.
i.e., the crowd of adulterers, as Orelli suggests.
Lit., “draw enticements of pleasures from.” Or,
“Venus, the mother…and loving parent,” etc.
Lit., “of meretricious vileness.”
i.e., Cybele, to whom Mount Dindymus in Mysia was sacred, whose rites,
however, were celebrated at Pessinus also, a very ancient city of
Galatia.
ms. Sofocles, corrected in LB.
Sophocles. Cf. Trach. 1022 sqq.
Lit., “towards (in) the last of the wasting
consumed by the softening of his bowels flowing
apart.”
36. But this crime is not
enough: the persons of the most sacred gods are mixed up with
farces also, and scurrilous plays. And that the idle onlookers
may be excited to laughter and jollity, the deities are hit at in
jocular quips, the spectators shout and rise up, the whole pit resounds
with the clapping of hands and applause. And to the debauched
scoffers
Lit., “debauched and scoffers.” So
Orelli, reading et quando; ms. and
other edd. et si—“and if ever.”
Arnobius is generally thought to refer here to the persecution
under Diocletian mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., viii.
2.
The service in which these prayers were offered was presided over
by the bishop, to whom the dead body was brought: hymns were then
sung of thanksgiving to God, the giver of victory, by whose help and
grace the departed brother had been victorious. The priest next
gave thanks to God, and some chapters of the Scriptures were read;
afterwards the catechumens were dismissed; the names of those at rest
were then read in a clear voice, to remind the survivors of the success
with which others had combated the temptations of the world. The
priest again prayed for the departed, at the close beseeching God to
grant him pardon, and admission among the undying. Thereafter the
body was kissed, anointed, and buried.—Dionysius, Eccl. Hier., last chapter quoted by
Heraldus. Cf. Const. Apost., viii. 41. With the
Church’s advance in power there was an accession of pomp to these
rites. [Elucidation IV.]
Cf. the younger Pliny, Epist., x. 97: “They
affirmed that they bound themselves by oath not for any wicked purpose,
but to pledge themselves not to commit theft, robbery, or adultery, nor
break faith, or prove false to a trust.”
Lit., “whom our society joins
together,” quos solidet germanitas.
[Lardner justly argues that this passage proves our author’s
familiarity with rites to which catechumens were not admitted.
Credibil., vol. iii. p. 458.]
37. But this is the state of
the case, that as you are exceedingly strong in war and in military
power, you think you excel in knowledge of the truth also, and are
pious before the gods,
i.e., in their sight or estimation.
Lit., “conceive these torches.”
Lit., “have roared with tremblings of the earth.”
The ms. reads conru-isse auras
temporum, all except the first four edd. inserting p as
above. Meursius would also change temp. into
ventorum—“the breezes of the winds.”
So the ms., reading
comptu—tie, according to Hild., followed by LB. and
Orelli.
Lit., “mixture.”
The words following the asterisk (*) are marked in LB. as spurious or
corrupt, or at least as here out of place. Orelli transposes them
to ch. 13, as was noticed there, although he regards them as an
interpolation. The clause is certainly a very strange one, and
has a kind of affected abstractness, which makes it seem out of place;
but it must be remembered that similarly confused and perplexing
sentences are by no means rare in Arnobius. If the clause is to
be retained, as good sense can be made from it here as anywhere
else. The general meaning would be: The gods, if angry, are
angry with the pagans; but if they are not subject to passion, it would
be idle to speak of them as angry with the Christians, seeing that they
cannot possibly at once be incapable of feeling anger, and yet at the
same time be angry with them. [See cap. 13, note 4, p. 480,
supra.]
Book V.
————————————
1. Admitting that all these things which do
the immortal gods dishonour, have been put forth by poets merely in
sport, what of those found in grave, serious, and careful
histories, and handed down by you in hidden mysteries? have they been
invented by the licentious fancy of the poets? Now if they
seemed
So most edd., inserting er; in ms.
and Oehler, vid-entur.
The famous king Numa, not knowing how to avert
evil portended by thunder, and being eager to learn, by advice of
Egeria concealed beside a fountain twelve chaste youths provided with
chains; so that when Faunus and Martius
So named either because he was said to have made use of the bird of
Mars, i.e., a woodpecker (picus), in augury, or because
according to the legend he was changed into one by Circe.
i.e., the Aventine. The story is told by Plutarch in his
Life of Numa, c. 15, and by Ovid, Fasti, iii. 291
sqq.
The ms. reads sollemniter
hæc, corrected, as above, solenne iter huc by all edd.
except Hild.
So the ms. and most edd., reading
pocula non parvi numeri, for which Elmh. and Orelli have
received from the margin of Ursinus, poc non parva
mero—“cups of great size, with pure wine.”
i.e., mulsum.
i.e., Faunus and Picus.
Capite.
Cæpitio.
Jupiter is supposed to say humano, meaning capite, to be
understood, i.e., “with a man’s head,” while the king
supplies capillo—“with a man’s
hair.” Anima(ms. lia).
Mæna. There is here a lacuna in the text; but there
can be no difficulty in filling it up as above, with Heraldus from
Plutarch, or with Gelenius from Ovid,
piscis—“with the life of a
fish.”
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
Numa, corrected by Gelenius, as above, non.
2. What the mind should take
up first, what last, or what it should pass by silently, it is not easy
to say, nor is it made clear by any amount of reflection; for all have
been so devised and fitted to be laughed at, that you should strive
that they may be believed to be false—even if they are
true—rather than pass current as true, and suggest as it were
something extraordinary, and bring contempt upon deity itself.
What, then, do you say, O you—? Are we to believe
The ms. and edd. read
cred-i-musne—“do we believe,” for which
Meursius suggests -e- as above.
Lit., “or whether.” Below the ms. reads corruptly ad ipsum—“to
him.”
The ms. reads scire, but
“knows” would hardly suit the context. Instead of
adopting any conjecture, however, it is sufficient to observe, with
Oehler, that scire is elsewhere used as a contraction for
sciscere.
The ms. omits ut. So
Cujacius, inserting vi, omitted by the ms.
3. But let us admit that, as
is said, Jupiter has himself appointed against himself ways and means
by which his own declared purposes might fittingly be opposed:
are we also to believe that a deity of so great majesty was dragged
down to earth, and, standing on a petty hillock with a mannikin,
entered into a wrangling dispute? And what, I ask, was the charm
which forced Jupiter to leave the all-important
Lit., “so great.”
Lit., “the fumigation of verbenæ,” i.e., of
boughs of the laurel, olive, or myrtle.
The ms. omits ut.
Lit., “the uncertain things of that
ambiguity.”
4. But you will perhaps say that
the king was a diviner. Could he be more so than Jupiter
Lit.,
“unless a mortal
anticipated”—præsumeret, the ms. reading. So
Oehler, supplying quem.
Lit., “liveliness of heart is procured.”
Lit., “why.”
5. In Timotheus, who was no
mean mythologist, and also in others equally well informed, the birth
of the Great Mother of the gods, and the origin of her rites, are thus
detailed, being derived—as he himself writes and
suggests—from learned books of antiquities, and from his
acquaintance with the most secret mysteries:—Within the
confines of Phrygia, he says, there is a rock of unheard-of wildness in
every respect, the name of which is Agdus, so named by the natives of
that district. Stones taken from it, as Themis by her
oracle
So Ovid also (Metam., i. 321), and others, speak of Themis
as the first to give oracular responses,
So the ms. and edd., reading
quam incestis, except Orelli, who adopts the conjecture of
Barthius, nequam—“lustful Jupiter with lewd
desires.”
So the ms. and edd., except Hildebrand
and Oehler, who throughout spell Agdestis, following the
Greek writers, and the derivation of the word from Agdus. So
Ursinus suggested, followed by later edd., ex utroque
(ms. utra.) sexu;
for which Meursius would read ex utroque sexus—“and
a sex of both,” i.e., that he was a hermaphrodite, which is
related by other writers.
6. Now, when it had been
often considered in the councils of the gods, by what means it might be
possible either to weaken or to curb his audacity, Liber, the rest
hanging back, takes upon himself this task. With the strongest
wine he drugs a spring much resorted to by Acdestis
Lit., “him.”
Lit., “of thirsting.”
Lit., “in time of need.”
So the reading of the ms. and
edd., unum laqueum, may be rendered; for which Canterus
conjectured imum—“the lowest part of the
noose.” So
the edd., reading eo quo (ms. quod) fuerat privat sexu; for
which Hild. and Oehler read fu-tu-erat—“of the sex
with which he had been a fornicator.”
Lit., “these (i.e., the parts and the blood) are,” etc.
The ms. here reads Nata,
but in c. 13 the spelling is Nana, as in other writers.
Lit., “as if.”
The ms. reads t-abulis,
corrected as above p- by Jos. Scaliger, followed by Hild. and
Oehler. The other edd. read
bacculis—“berries.”
So all the edd., except Hild. and Oehler, who retain the
ms. reading
sanguinarius—“bloodthirsty.”
So Salmasius, Orelli, and Hild., reading repertum nescio quis sumit
Phorbas, lacte; but no mention of any Phorbas is made elsewhere in
connection with this story, and Oehler has therefore proposed forma
ac lacte—“some one takes the child found,
nourishes it with sweet pottage of millet (forma) and
milk,” etc.
[See vol. ii. p. 175.]
Lit., “his silence.”
7. Then Midas, king of
Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an
intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage, and caused
the gates of the town to be closed, that no one of evil omen
might disturb their marriage joys. But the mother of the gods,
knowing the fate of the youth, and that he would live among men in
safety only so long as he was free from the ties of marriage,
that no disaster might occur, enters the closed city, raising its walls
with her head, which began to be crowned with towers in
consequence. Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the
boy’s being torn from himself, and brought to seek a wife, fills
all the guests with frenzied madness:
Lit., “fury and madness.”
The ms., first five edd., and
Oberthür, read exterriti adorandorum Phryges; for
which Ursinus suggested ad ora deorum—“at the faces
of gods,” adopted by Oehler; the other edd. reading ad
horam—“at the hour, i e., thereupon.”
It seems probable that part of this chapter has been lost, as we have
no explanation of this epithet; and, moreover (as Oehler has well
remarked) in c. 13 this Gallus is spoken of as though it had been
previously mentioned that he too had mutilated himself, of which we
have not the slightest hint.
i.e., genitalia.
Lit., “so great motions of furious hazards.”
So most edd., reading veste prius tectis atque involutis
for the ms. reading, retained by Hild.
and Oehler, tecta atque involuta—“his vest
being first drawn over and wrapt about them;” the former verb
being found with this meaning in no other passage, and the second very
rarely.
Lit., “from.”
i.e., the pine.
Nourry supposes that this may refer to M. Valerius Messala, a fragment
from whom on auspices has been preserved by Gellius (xiii. 15); while
Hild. thinks that Antias is meant, who is mentioned in c. 1.
So Orelli punctuates and explains; but it is doubtful whether,
even if this reading be retained, it should not be translated,
“bedewed these (violets).” The ms. reads, suffodit et as (probably
has)—“digs under these,” emended as above in
LB., suffudit et has.
Lit., “burial.”
So it has been attempted to render the ms., reading pausatæ circum arboris
robur, which has perplexed the different edd. Heraldus
proposed pausate—“at intervals round the trunk of
the tree;” LB. reads -ata—“round…tree
having rested.” Reading as above, the reference might be
either to the rest from motion after being set up in the cave, or to
the absence of wind there.
Lit., “could be done through (i.e. as far as concerns)
fate.”
So Oehler, reading sacerdotum antistitiis for the
ms. antistibus, changed in both
Roman edd. and Hild. to -stitibus—“with priests (or
overseers) of priests.” Salmasius proposed
intestibus—“with castrated priests.”
8. If some one, despising
the deities, and furious with a savagely sacrilegious spirit, had set
himself to blaspheme your gods, would he dare to say against them
anything more severe than this tale relates, which you have reduced to
form, as though it were some wonderful narrative, and have
honoured without ceasing,
i.e., in the ever-recurring festival of Cybele.
Lit., “length.”
So the edd., reading orari in alicujus substantiæ qualitate
for the ms. erari restored
by Oehler, num-erari—“numbered in the quality of
some substance,” from the reading of an old copy adopted by
Livineius. Lit., “through the
resistance of nature.”
b.c. 43.
9. But why do we speak of
your having bemired the Great Mother of the gods with the filth of
earth, when you have not been able for but a little time even to keep
from speaking evil of Jupiter himself? While the mother of the
gods was then sleeping on the highest peak of Agdus, her son, you say,
tried stealthily to surprise her chastity while she slept. After
robbing of their chastity virgins and matrons without number, did
Jupiter hope to gratify his detestable passion upon his mother? and
could he not be turned from his fierce desire by the horror which
nature itself has excited not only in men, but in some other
animals also, and by common
Lit., “the feeling commonly implanted.”
Lit., “was regard of piety
wanting”—defuit, an emendation of Salmasius
(according to Orelli) for the ms.
depuit.
Lit., “the depth and patience of his sleeping mother.”
Lit., “from the theft of taking by
surprise”—obreptionis, for which the
ms., first four edd., Oberth., Hild., and
Oehler read object.—“of what he
proposed.”
10. But you will perhaps say
the human race shuns and execrates such unions;
So Heraldus, reading conventionis hujusmodi cœtum for
the ms. cœptum.
Sustulisse alvos graves.
Most edd. read as an interrogation.
Perhaps, “that she might not be subject to ill-will for having
borne so.”
11. There was doubt in the
councils of the gods how that unyielding and fierce violence was to be
subdued; and when there was no other way, they had recourse to one
means, that he should be soaked with much wine, and bereft of his
members, by their being cut off. As if, indeed, those who have
suffered the loss of these parts become less arrogant, and as if
we do not daily see those who have cut them away from themselves become
more wanton, and, neglecting all the restraints of chastity and
modesty, throw themselves headlong into filthy vileness, making known
abroad their shameful deeds. I should like, however, to
see—were it granted me to be born at those times—father
Liber, who overcame the fierceness of Acdestis, having glided down from
the peaks of heaven after the very venerable meetings of the gods,
cropping the tails of horses,
i.e., to form nooses with. The reading translated is an
emendation of Jos. Scaliger, adopted by Orelli, peniculamenta
decurtantem cantheriorum, for the ms. peniculantem decurtam tam cantherios,
emended by each ed. as he has thought fit.
Lit., “the cares of art.”
12. Would any one say this
about the gods who had even a very low opinion of them? or, if they
were taken up with such affairs, considerations, cares, would any man
of wisdom either believe that they are gods, or reckon them among men
even? Was that Acdestis, pray, the lopping off of whose lewd
members was to give a sense of security to the immortals, was he
one of the creatures of earth, or one of the gods, and possessed
of
Lit., “endowed with the honour of.”
The ms. here inserts
de—“from the body from a divine (being).” So
the edd. (except Oehler), reading tum cum for the
ms. tum quæ quod.
Balaustiis, the flowers of the wild pomegranate.
Dares supplied by Salmasius.
[The Abderitans were proverbially such. “Hinc
Abdera, non tacente me.”—Cicero, Ep. ad Attic., iv. 16.]
13. Through her bosom, we
are told,
Lit., “he says.”
Lit., “must rut”—suriant, as deer.
The ms., first four edd., and Elm. read
surgant—“rise,” corrected as above in the
margin of Ursinus.
Lit., “acorns”—glandibus.
The ms. reads des-, emended
as above ded-ignatus by Stewechius, followed by Heraldus and
Orelli.
i.e., he-goats are made to yield milk.
Lit., “praiseworthy.”
Lit., “with.”
So the ms., both Roman edd., LB., Hild.
and Oehler, reading rursus, for which the others receive
the emendation of Gelenius, regis—“the king’s
carelessness.”
Lit., “the law and fate.”
i.e., Attis.
The ms. reads satietati-s
objecisset offensi, corrected as above by Hild., (omitting
s), followed by Oehler. The conjectures of previous edd.
are very harsh and forced.
14. What say you, O races
and nations, given up to such beliefs? When these things are
brought forward, are you not ashamed and confounded to say things so
indecent? We wish to hear or learn from you something befitting
the gods; but you, on the contrary, bring forward to us the cutting off
of breasts, the lopping off of men’s members, ragings, blood,
frenzies, the self-destruction of maidens, and flowers and trees
begotten from the blood of the dead. Say, again, did the mother
of the gods, then, with careful diligence herself gather in her grief
the scattered genitals with the shed blood?
Lit., “flows.”
Lit., “herself with sacred, herself with divine.”
[γραώδεις
μύθους,
Lit., “spoke with.”
i.e., the part cut off and buried separately.
15. We might long ago have
urged you to ponder this, were it not foolish to ask proofs of such
things, as well as to say
So the ms., according to Crusius, the
edd. inserting s, di-s-cere—“to
learn.”
Lit., “on firmness of faith.”
Lit., “sent to public testifying.”
16. And yet how can you
assert the falsehood of this story, when the very rites which you
celebrate throughout the year testify that you believe these
things to be true, and consider them perfectly trustworthy?
For what is the meaning of
The festival of Cybele began on the 22d of March, when a pine tree was
introduced into the mysteries, and continued until the 27th, which was
marked by a general purification (lavatio), as Salmasius
observed from a calendar of Constantine the Great. [An
equinoctial feast, which the Church deposed by the Paschal
observances. March 22 is the prima sedes Paschæ.]
Lit., “for solace of so great a wound.”
So Stewechius, followed by Orelli and Oehler, reading quibus Ia
for the ms. jam, which
would refer the action to Cybele, whereas Arnobius expressly says (c.
7) that it was the newly wedded wife who covered the breast of Attis
with wools. Jam is, however, received from the
ms. by the other edd., except Hild., who
asserts that the ms. reads Iam,
and Elmenh., who reads Ion. i.e., priests of Cybele, their
names being derived from the Phrygian river Gallus, whose waters were
supposed to bring on frenzy ending in self-mutilation.
Lit., “with wailing.”
17. Or if the things which
we say are not so, declare, say yourselves—those effeminate and
delicate men whom we see among you in the sacred rites of this
deity—what business, what care, what concern have
they there; and why do they like mourners wound their arms and
Lit., “with.”
18. The greatness of the
subject, and our duty to those on their defence also,
Lit., “and the duty of defence itself.”
i.e., secret rites, to which only the initiated were admitted. Lit., “which you
deliver”—traditis; so Elmenh., LB., and later
edd., for the unintelligible ms.
tradidisse, retained in both Roman edd.
Lit., “deformity affixed to all.”
ms. fetam f. Cf. i. 36, n. 2, p.
422, supra.
So Heraldus, from Plutarch, Rom., 21, where Butas is said
to have written on this subject (αἰτίαι) in elegiacs,
for the ms. Putas. Lit., “in like manner and
with dissimulation.” i.e., heart, lungs, and liver,
probably of a sacrifice.
i.e., “divination, augury,” etc.
Vis Lucilii, i.e., semen. [He retails Pliny
xxxvi. 27.]
19. We shall pass by the
wild Bacchanalia also, which are named in Greek Omophagia, in which
with seeming frenzy and the loss of your senses you twine snakes about
you; and, to show yourselves full of the divinity and majesty of the
god, tear in pieces with gory mouths the flesh of loudly-bleating
goats. Those hidden mysteries of Cyprian Venus we pass by also,
whose founder is said to have been King Cinyras,
Cf. iv. 24.
20. It was our purpose to
leave unnoticed those mysteries also into which Phrygia is initiated,
and all that
So the ms. and edd., reading
gens illa, for which Memmius proposed
Ilia—“and all the Trojan race.”
Lit., “riding upon”—inequitare.
Lit., “most open.”
Subsessoris.
Lit., “growling”—fremitum.
The ms. reads primo,
emended as above by the brother of Canterus, followed by later edd.
21. Jupiter is troubled
enough, being overwhelmed with fear, and cannot find means to soothe
the rage of his violated mother. He pours forth prayers,
and makes supplication; her ears are closed by grief. The whole
order of the gods is sent to seek his pardon; no one has weight
enough to win a hearing. At last, the son seeking how to make
satisfaction, devises this means: Arietem nobilem bene
grandibus cum testiculis deligit, exsecat hos ipse et lanato exuit ex
folliculi tegmine. Approaching his mother sadly and with
downcast looks, and as if by his own decision he had condemned himself,
he casts and throws these
i.e., testiculi.
Virilitate pignoris visa. So
Ursinus suggested, followed by Stewechius and later edd., concepti
fœtus revocatur ad curam; the ms. reads concepit—“is softened
and conceived,” etc.
Jupiter may be here called Verveceus, either as an epithet
of Jupiter Ammon—“like a wether,” or (and this seems
most probable from the context), “dealing with wethers,”
referring to the mode in which he had extricated himself from his
former difficulty, or “stupid.” The ms. reads virviriceus.
Lit., “encountered”—aggressus.
Lit., “sufficiently.”
i.e., Ceres. Lit.,
“will any one want.”
i.e., handed down by antiquity. [Vol. ii. p. 176, this
series.]
These seem to have been celebrated in honour of Dionysius as well
as Zeus, though, in so far as they are described by Arnobius, they
refer to the intrigue of the latter only. Macrobius, however
(Saturn., i. 18), mentions that in Thrace, Liber and Sol were
identified and worshipped as Sebadius: and this suggests that we
have to take but one more step to explain the use of the title to
Jupiter also.
22. I do not think it necessary
here also with many words to go through each part, and show how many
base and unseemly things there are
Lit., “of.”
Lit., “that he might be a crop
of”—seges, a correction in the margin of
Ursinus for the ms.
sedes—“a seat.” So
all edd., reading scenarum (ms. scr-, but r marked as spurious),
except LB, followed by Orelli, who gives
sentinarum—“of the dregs.” Oehler
supplies e, which the sense seems to require. [Note
our author’s persistent scorn of Jove Opt.
Max.]
Lit., “neigh with appetites of an enraged beast.”
23. I should wish,
therefore, to see Jupiter, the father of the gods, who ever controls
the world and men,
This clearly refers to the Æneid, x. 18.
Lit., “on the rear part.”
Suffragines. So
the margin of Ursinus, Elmenh. L.B., Oberth., Orelli, and Oehler,
reading molli fimo for the ms. molissimo.
Lit., “censorial.”
Lit., “rage with thunders.”
So Gelenius, followed by Stewechius and Orelli, reading smilia
for the corrupt and unintelligible ms. nullas.
Infulæ, besides being worn by the priest, adorned the
victim, and were borne by the suppliant. Perhaps a combination of
the two last ideas is meant to be suggested here.
i.e., seemingly so.
Lit., “under this axis of the world.”
So the ms., followed by Hild. and Oehler;
the other edd. reading gens for mens.
Lit., “felt himself to be.”
Lit., “would the thing not be worthy that angry and
roused.”
i.e., reduce to chaos, in which one thing would not be distinguished
from another, but all be mixed up confusedly.
24. But, my opponent
says, these are not the rites of our state. Who, pray, says
this, or who repeats it? Is he Roman, Gaul, Spaniard,
African, German, or Sicilian? And what does it avail your cause
if these stories are not yours, while those who compose them are on
your side? Or of what importance is it whether you approve of
them or not, since what you yourselves say
Lit., “what are your proper things.”
Every one since Salmasius (ad solinum, p. 750) has supposed
Arnobius to have here fallen into a gross error, by confounding the
Eleusinian mysteries with the Thesmophoria; an error the less
accountable, because they are carefully distinguished by Clemens
Alexandrinus, whom Arnobius evidently had before him, as usual.
There seems to be no sufficient reason, however, for charging Arnobius
with such a blunder, although in the end of ch. 26 he refers to the
story just related as showing the base character of the Eleusinia
(Eleusiniorum vestrorum notas); as he here speaks of
mysteria(i.e., Eleusinia, cf. Nepos, Alc., 3,
16) et illa divina quæ Thesmophoria nominantur a
Græcis. It should be remembered also that there was much
in common between these mysteries: the story of Ceres’
wanderings was the subject of both; in both there was a season of
fasting to recall her sadness; both had indecent allusions to the way
in which that sadness was dispelled; and both celebrated with some
freedom the recovery of cheerfulness by the goddess, the great
distinguishing feature of the Thesmophoria being that only women could
take part in its rites. Now, as it is to the points in which the
two sets of mysteries were at one that allusion is made in the passage
which follows, it was only natural that Arnobius should not be very
careful to distinguish the one from the other, seeing that he was
concerned not with their differences, but with their coincidence.
It seems difficult, therefore, to maintain that Arnobius has here
convicted himself of so utter ignorance and so gross carelessness as
his critics have imagined. [Vol. ii. p. 176.]
Lit., “caverns.”
Lit., “in the whole.”
The ms. is utterly
corrupt—flammis onere pressas etneis, corrected as
above by Gelenius from c. 35., f.
comprehensas.—Æl.
25. In her wanderings on
that quest, she reaches the confines of Eleusis as well as other
countries
Lit., “also.”
Lit., “(they were) earth-born who inhabited.”
The ms. wants this name; but it has
evidently been omitted by accident, as it occurs in the next
line.
Lit., “of woolly flock.”
Cecropios et qui.
i.e. staff-bearers.
Cinnus, the chief ingredients, according to Hesychius
(quoted by Oehler), being wine, honey, water, and spelt or
barley. [P. 503, inf.]
Lit., “offices of humanity.”
Lit., “common health.” Arnobius is here utterly
forgetful of Ceres’ divinity, and subjects her to the invariable
requirements of nature, from which the divine might be supposed to be
exempt. So
the conjecture of Livineius, adopted by Oehler, gene-t-ri-cum
for the ms. genericum. So
Stewechius, followed by Oehler, reading redit itafor the
ms. redita; the other edd. merely
drop a.
Omnia illa pudoris loca.
Pubi.
26. If any one perchance
thinks that we are speaking wicked calumnies, let him take the hooks of
the Thracian soothsayer,
Orpheus, under whose name there was current in the time of Arnobius an
immense mass of literature freely used, and it is probable sometimes
supplemented, by Christian writers. Cf. c. 19.
Lit, “put forth with Greek mouth.”
“With these words she at the same time drew up her garments from the lowest hem,
And exposed to view formatas inguinibus res,
Which Baubo grasping
Lit., “tossing.”
Their appearance was infantile, strikes, touches gently.
Then the goddess, fixing her orbs of august light,
Being softened, lays aside for a little the sadness of her mind;
Thereafter she takes the cup in her hand, and laughing,
Drinks off the whole draught of cyceon with
gladness.”
It may be well to observe that Arnobius differs from the Greek
versions of these lines found in Clem. Alex. (vol. ii. p. 177) and
Eusebius (Præpar. Evang. ii. 3), omitting all mention of
Iacchus, who is made very prominent by them; and that he does not
adhere strictly to metrical rules, probably, as Heraldus pointed out,
because, like the poets of that age, he paid little heed to questions
of quantity. Whether Arnobius has merely paraphrased the original
as found in Clement and Eusebius, or had a different version of them
before him, is a question which can only be discussed by means of a
careful comparison between the Greek and Latin forms of the verses with
the context in both cases.
So LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading Erechthidæ
O(inserted by Hild.) for the ms. erithideo.
i.e., Athenians.
The ms., 1st ed., Hild., and Oehler
read ita—“It is thus not,” etc.; the
others as above, ista.
Delatione calumniosa. [Conf. vol. ii. p. 175, col. 2.]
Cyceon. [P. 499, supra, and 503, infra.]
The ms. reads exci-ta,
corrected as above, ex cista, in the margins of Ursinus. [It
is a pity that all this must be retailed anew after Clement, vol. ii.
pp. 175, 177, notes.]
27. Are then your deities
carried off by force, and do they seize by violence, as their holy and
hidden mysteries relate? do they enter into marriages sought stealthily
and by fraud?
Lit., “by stealthy frauds.”
Lit. “is the honour of virginity snatched from them?”
Sine veniâ ac sine honoribus præfatis.
So Stewechius, LB., and Orelli, reading spec-t-u in t-ali
for the ms. in specu
ali.
Lit., “light.” [Note Clement, vol. ii. p. 175, col.
2, line 12.]
So the ms., Hild. and Oehler
reading noscentis.
28. I confess that I have
long been hesitating, looking on every side, shuffling, doubling
Tellene perplexities;
This allusion is somewhat obscure. Heraldus regards tricas
Tellenas as akin in sense to t. Atellanas, i.e.,
“comic trifles;” in which case the sense would be, that
Arnobius had been heaping up any trifles which would keep him back from
the disagreeable subject. Ausonius Popma (quoted by Orelli)
explains the phrase with reference to the capture of Tellenæ by
Ancus Martius as meaning “something hard to get
through.”
The ms. reads
alimoniæ, corrected from Clem. Alex. by Salmasius,
Alimontia, i.e., celebrated at Halimus in Attica.
Lit., “in pure senses.” [Ironically said.]
Cicero (de Nat. Deor., iii. 23) speaks of five Dionysi,
the father of the fifth being Nisus. Arnobius had this passage
before him in writing the fourth book (cf. c. 15, and n. 2), so that he
may here mean to speak of Liber similarly.
Lit., “that he will be.”
So the ms., acc. to Hild., reading
expe-titionis; acc. to Crusius, the ms. gives -ditionis—“(having
accomplished) his expedition.”
Lit., “is surveying with all careful examination.”
ms. cuius. [Retailed from Clement,
vol. ii. p. 180. As to the arguments the Fathers were compelled
to use with heathen, see note 5, same volume, p. 206.]
29. Now, to prevent any one
from thinking that we have devised what is so impious, we do not call
upon him to believe Heraclitus as a witness, nor to receive from his
account what he felt about such mysteries. Let him
i.e., the sceptic.
Cumwanting in the ms..
Lit. “by right of friendship.”
Lit., “of.”
Lit., “of holy divinity.” Orelli thinks, and
with reason, that Arnobius refers to the words which Terence puts into
the mouth of Chærea (Eun., iii. 5, vv. 36–43), who
encourages himself to give way to lust by asking, “Shall I, a
man, not do this?” when Jove had done as much. [Elucidation
III.]
30. I confess that, in
reflecting on such monstrous stories in my own mind, I have long been
accustomed to wonder that you dare to speak of those as
atheists,
Lit., “to speak of any one as atheist…of those who,”
etc.
So the ms. and edd., reading in
eo, for which we should perhaps read in
eos—“heap upon them.”
Subsicivis laudibus.
Lit., “to the reward (meritum) of divinity.”
31. But you who assert that
you are the defenders and propagators of their immortality, have you
passed by, have you left untouched, any one of them, without assailing
him
Lit., “unwounded.”
So the edd., reading tardati for the ms. tradatis, except Hild., who reads
tardatis.
i.e., the gods.
Exoletos. Cf. iv. c. 35, note 13, p. 487,
supra.
32. But you err, says my
opponent, and are mistaken, and show, even in criticising
these things, that you are rather ignorant, unlearned, and
boorish. For all those stories which seem to you disgraceful, and
tending to the discredit of the gods, contain in them holy mysteries,
theories wonderful and profound, and not such as any one can easily
become acquainted with by force of understanding. For that is not
meant and said which has been written and placed on the surface of the
story; but all these things are understood in allegorical senses, and
by means of secret explanations privately supplied.
Subditivis secretis.
Both Roman edd. and ms. read
dicet—“shall say;” all others as
above—dicit.
i.e., Jupiter.
Lit., “in the signification of his daughter.”
So the margin of Ursinus—ut reris for the
ms. ut ce-reris.
33. These are all quirks, as
is evident, and quibbles with which they are wont to bolster up weak
cases before a jury; nay, rather, to speak more truly, they are
pretences, such as are used in
Lit., “colours of.” The ms. and both Roman edd. read indecorum est,
which leaves the sentence incomplete. LB., followed by later
edd., proposed de-cursum est, as above (Oehler, inde
d.—“from these recourse has been had”), the other
conjectures tending to the same meaning.
“We need only;” lit., “it is enough for us
to.”
Lit., “heard.”
Lit., “in the obscure mind of senses.”
“Or at the time,” aut tum, the correction of
LB, for the ms. sutum.
Lit., “fear of any reason and of religion.”
34. But, agreeing with you
that in all these stories stags are spoken of instead of Iphigenias,
yet, how are you sure, when you either explain or unfold these
allegories, that you give the same explanations or have the same ideas
which were entertained by the writers themselves in the silence of
their thoughts, but expressed by words not adapted
Lit., “proper.”
Lit., “from shut-up things.”
Rei.
Lit., “placed.”
Lit., “his suspicion and conjectural (perhaps
“probable”) inference.”
Lit., “to be deduced with variety of expositions through
numberless ways.”
35. Finally, if you think it
right, returning to our inquiry, we ask this of you, whether you think
that all stories about the gods,
The ms., first four edd., and Hild.
read de his—“about these,” corrected in
the others dîs or diis, as above. Lit.,
“each.”
Pl.
Lit., “call.”
i.e., Proserpine. The readiness with which Arnobius breaks
the form of the sentence should be noted. At first the gods
represent physical phenomena, but immediately after natural events are
put for the gods. In the ms. two copyists
have been at work, the earlier giving Libero, which is
rather out of place, and is accordingly corrected by the later,
Libera followed by LB., Oberthür, Orelli, Hild., and
Oehler.
The ms. reads primo.
Cf. c. 20.
Proles.
[κυκεὼν, a draught
resembling caudle. See p. 499, note 10.]
Lit., “by change of things.”
The ms. omits ad, supplied
by Ursinus. So all
edd., except Hild. and Oehler, reading obscur-atisfor the
ms. -itatibus.
36. But you will perhaps say
that these allegories are not found in the whole body of the
story, but that some parts are written so as to be understood by all,
while others have a double meaning, and are veiled in ambiguity.
That is refined subtlety, and can be seen through by the dullest.
For because it is very difficult for you to transpose, reverse, and
divert to other meanings all that has been said, you choose out
some things which suit your purpose, and by means of these you strive
to maintain that false and spurious versions were thrown about the
truth which is under them. Lit.,
“were placed above the interior truth.”
Lit., “with simple senses.”
i.e., involved in obscurity.
i.e., free from ambiguity. Lit.,
“of shut-off obscurities.” The
reference is to the words in the middle of the chapter, “how do
you know which part is simple?” etc.; Arnobius now saying that he
does not see how this can be known.
37. Let us examine, then, what is
said in this way. In the grove of Henna, my opponent says, the
maiden Proserpine was once gathering flowers: this is as yet
uncorrupted, and has been told in a straightforward manner, for all
know without any doubt what a grove and flowers are, what Proserpine
is, and a maiden. Summanus sprung forth from the earth, borne
along in a four-horse chariot: this, too, is just as simple, for
a team of four horses, a chariot, and Summanus need no
interpreter. Suddenly he carried off Proserpine, and bore her
with himself under the earth: the burying of the seed, my
opponent says, is meant by the rape of Proserpine. What has
happened, pray, that the story should be suddenly turned to something
else? that Proserpine should be called the seed? that she who was for
Proles.
Lit., “for penalty and.”
Lit., “in their customs and conditions.”
38. Either, then, they must
all have been written and put forward allegorically, and the whole
should be pointed out to us; or nothing has been so written, since what
is supposed to be allegorical does not seem as if it were part
of the narrative. i.e.,
if historical, the whole must be so, as bits of allegory would not fit
in.
Cicero, pro Rosc. Am., c. 32.
39. Whence, then, do we
prove that all these narratives are records of events? From the
solemn rites and mysteries of initiation, it is clear, whether those
which are celebrated at fixed times and on set days, or those which are
taught secretly by the heathen without allowing the observance of their
usages to be interrupted. For it is not to be believed that these
have no origin, are practised without reason or meaning, and have no
causes connected with their first beginnings. That pine which is
regularly born into the sanctuary of the Great Mother,
The ms. and edd. read matris
deæ—“of the mother goddess;” for which
Meursius proposed deûm—“mother of the
gods,” the usual form of the title. Cf. cc. 7 and 16.
[See Elucidation V.; also note the reference to St. Augustine.]
The name is wanting in the ms. Cf.
c. 28. No
Attic family of this name is mentioned anywhere; but in Cos the
Nebridæ were famous as descendants of Æsculapius through
Nebros. In Attica, on the other hand, the initiated were robed in
fawn-skins (νεβρίδες), and
were on this account spoken of as νεβρίζοντες.
Salmasius has therefore suggested (ad Solinum, p. 864, E) that
Arnobius, or the author on whom he relied, transferred the family to
Attica on account of the similarity of sound.
Lit., “who have attached to themselves.”
Arnobius would seem to have been partial to this phrase, which occurs
in the middle of c. 38.
40. And yet, even if we
grant you that this is the case, that is, even if the narratives give
utterance to one thing in words, but mean
Lit., “say.”
Lit., “with what shame and insult of the gods this is said to be
done.”
Lit., “with.”
Lit., “din of.”
41. It was once usual, in
speaking allegorically, to conceal under perfectly decent ideas, and
clothe
Passivè.
Lit., “strong in chastity.”
The ms., first three edd., Elm., and
Oehler read commorantur—“lingers,”
i.e., “continues to be spoken of;” the other edd. receive
commemorantur, as above, from the errata in the 1st
ed.
The ms., first four edd., and Oehler
read gravitas—seriousness; corrected pr. as
above, in all edd. after Stewechius.
So, perhaps, the unintelligible ms. dignorum should be emended digna
rerum. So
all edd. since Stewechius, adding s to the ms. voluisse.
i.e., the mere fact that the stories were published, showed a wish to
teach; but their being allegories, showed a reluctance to allow them to
be understood.
The edd. read this sentence interrogatively.
i.e., “if you said exactly what you mean.” The
reference is not to the immediately preceding words, but to the
question on which the chapter is based—“what prevented you
from expressing,” etc. Lit.,
“perverse.”
42. But you will perhaps
say, for this only is left which you may think
Passivè.
Lit., “is it clear to you.”
43. But what the meaning of
this is, is already clear to all. For because you are ashamed of
such writers and histories, and do not see that these things can be got
rid of which have once been committed to writing in filthy language,
you strive to make base things honourable, and by every kind of
subtlety you pervert and corrupt the real senses
Lit., “natures.”
Lit., “things.”
Let it be granted that the irrigation of
the earth was meant by the union of Jupiter and Ceres, the burying of
the seed So
most edd., reading occultatiofor the ms. occupatio. So
all edd., reading com-, except Hild. and Oehler, who
retain the ms. reading,
im-pressio—“the assault of,” i.e.,
“on.”
Lit., “waves”—fluctibus, the reading of
the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler; the other edd.
reading fustibus—“stakes.”
So Meursius, changing the ms.
o- into u-rigo.
The first four edd. retain the ms.,
reading partis—“brought forth;” the
others adopt a suggestion of Canterus, raptis, as above. Lit.,
“vastness.”
Addere garo gerrem, a proverb ridiculing a worthless addition,
which nullifies something in itself precious, garum being a
highly esteemed sauce (or perhaps soup), which would be thrown away
upon gerres, a worthless kind of salt fish. Arnobius
merely means, however, that while such stories are wrong, what follows
is unspeakably worse.
Lit., “with undubitable knowledge.”
Lit., “it ought to have been so believed, and to be held fixed in
thought just,” etc.
45. Judge fairly, and you
are deserving of censure in this,
Lit., “are in this part of censure.” Lit.,
“for.”
Lit., “the warp,” stamine.
i.e., if things are spoken of under their proper names.
The ms. reads ac
unintelligibly.
Book VI.
————————————
1. Having shown briefly how impious and
infamous are the opinions which you have formed about
your gods, we have now to
Lit., “it remains that we.” Lit.,
“series which is,” etc.
Singular. [But costly churches were built about this time.]
Non altaria, non aras, i.e., neither to the superior nor
inferior deities. Cf. Virgil, Ecl., v. 66.
[It is not with any aversion to incense that I note its absence, so
frequently attested, from primitive rites of the Church.] The
earlier edd. prefix d to the ms. eos—“that the gods,”
etc.
Lit., “endowed with the eminence of this name.”
2. For—that you may
learn what are our sentiments and opinions about that race—we
think that they—if only they are true gods, that the same things
may be said again till you are wearied hearing them
Lit., “and to satiety.”
The ms. wants se, which was
supplied by Stewechius.
i.e., not act impartially and benevolently, which may possibly be the
meaning of contrariis agere, or, as Oehler suggests,
“to assail men with contrary, i.e., injurious
things.” All edd. read egere, except Oehler,
who can see no meaning in it; but if translated, “to wish for
contrary things,” it suits the next clause very well.
Lit., “whom passion touches, suffer.”
So the ms., Stewechius, Hild., and
Oehler, while the first four edd. and Oberthür merely add
m to dolore, and join with the preceding
pati—“suffer pain, are weakened.”
3. But, we are told,
we rear no temples to them, and do not worship their images; we do not
slay victims in sacrifice, we do not offer incense
[See note 5, book. vi. p. 506.]
The ms. and most edd. read
di-vina nobiscum—“the divine things along with
us;” Heraldus rejects div. as a gloss, while Meursius,
followed by Orelli, corrects dii una, and Oehler divi
una, as above.
Lit., “are contained in vital substance.”
Arnobius here expressly denies that the Christians had any
temples. There has been some controversy on the subject (Mosheim,
book i. cent. 1, ch. 4, sec. 5, Soames’ ed.), surely as needless
as controversy could be; for as the Christians must at all times have
had stated places of meeting (although in time of persecution these
might be changed frequently), it is clear that, in speaking thus, the
meaning must be only, that their buildings had no architectural
pretensions, and their service no splendour of ritual.
[Diocletian’s mild beginning suffered Christians to build costly
temples in many places. These he subsequently destroyed with
great severity.]
Lit., “drawn out.” So
the edd., reading constructafor the corrupt ms.
conscripta—“written.”
i.e., to suppose that temples are necessary to the gods, is to make
them subject to human weakness.
Lit. “with fortifications of roofs.”
i.e., if you have regard merely to the weakness of men, a temple may be
something wonderful.
Lit., “some.”
Lit., “formed by contrivance of a poor heart.”
Institutor, wanting in all edd., except Hild. and Oehler.
Arnobius here agrees with Clemens Alexandrinus, but Jos. Scaliger has
pointed out that the name should be Cecrops. It is possible that
Arnobius may have been misled by what was merely a slip of
Clement’s pen. [See the passage here referred to, vol. ii.
p. 184, this series.]
The preceding words, from “this of Hercules,” are
omitted by the first four edd. and Elmenh., and were first restored
from the ms. by Stewechius.
Lit., “first and.”
So the edd., reading habere districtos for the
ms. destructos.
Lit., “that the things be thought to be.”
4. But, says my
opponent, it is not for this reason that we assign temples to the
gods as though we wished to ward off from them drenching storms
of rain, winds, showers, or the rays of the sun; but in order that we
may be able to see them in person and close at hand, to come near and
address them, and impart to them, when in a measure present, the
expressions of our reverent feelings. For if they are invoked
under the open heaven, and the canopy of ether, they hear nothing, I
suppose; and unless prayers are addressed to them near at hand,
they will stand deaf and immoveable as if nothing were said. And
yet we think that every god whatever—if only he has the power of
this name—should hear what every one said from every part of the
world, just as if he were present; nay, more, should foresee, without
waiting to be told
Lit., “knowledge being anticipated.”
These words, et tacitis, omitted by Oberthür, are similarly
omitted by Orelli without remark. So
the edd., inserting quo- into the ms. reading ita-que—“it is
therefore fitting,” which is absurd, as making the connection
between the members of the sentence one not of analogy, but of logical
sequence.
Cf. the speech of Thetis, Iliad, i.
423–425.
5. Now, if this be not the
case, all hope of help is taken away, and it will be doubtful whether
you are heard So
the margin of Ursinus, Elm., LB., and Orelli, with Meursius, reading
audiamini for the ms.
audiamur—“we are heard,” which does not
harmonize with the next clause.
Lit., “for the purpose of coming to know the thing.”
Lit., “if there are any others.”
So the ms., reading
c-ogitare, corrected r-—“to beg,”
in the margin of Ursinus and Elm. For the preceding words the
ms. reads, poscantque de
numine. The edd. omit que as above, except Oehler, who
reads quæ—“what hope will there be, what, pray,
to all,” etc.
So the ms., reading si uspiam
poterit aliquando non esse, which may be understood in two senses,
either not limited by space, or not in space, i.e., not existing; but
the reading and meaning must be regarded as alike doubtful.
6. What can you say
as to this, that it is attested by the writings of authors, that many
of these temples which have been raised with golden domes and lofty
roofs cover bones and ashes, and are sepulchres of the dead? Is
it not plain and manifest, either that you worship dead men for
immortal gods, or that an inexpiable affront is cast upon the deities,
whose shrines and temples have been built over the tombs of the
dead? Antiochus,
A Syracusan historian. The rest of the chapter is almost
literally translated from Clement, who is followed by Eusebius also
(Præp. Evang., ii. 6). [See vol. ii. p. 184, this
series.]
i.e., the Acropolis. In
Thessaly, whither (acc. to Pausanias) he had fled in vain, to avoid the
fulfillment of the oracle that he should be killed by his
daughter’s son.
i.e., Athena Polias, or guardian of cities. Immediately
below, the ms. reads Immarnachus,
corrected in LB. and Orelli Immarus from Clem., who speaks of
“Immarus, son of Eumolpus and Dæira.”
So the unintelligible reading of the ms., humation-ibus officia, was emended by
Heraldus, followed by LB. and Orelli, is habuisse.
i.e., the temple near Didyma, sacred to Apollo, who was worshipped then
under the name Didymus.
i.e., “lover of his father,” the name given ironically to
the fourth Ptolemy, because he murdered his father.
Lit., “is.”
So the ms., both Rom. edd., Hild., and
Oehler, reading quamvis pœnam; Gelenius, Canterus,
Elm., and Oberthür omit vis, and the other edd. v,
i.e., “as to what punishment the Egyptian,” etc. This
must refer to the cases in which the sacred bull, having outlived the
term of twenty-five years, was secretly killed by the priests, while
the people were taught that it had thrown itself into the water.
i.e., “burial-places.” By this Oehler has attempted
to show is meant the Hebdomades vel de Imaginibus of Varro, a
series of biographical sketches illustrated with portraits, executed in
some way which cannot be clearly ascertained.
ms. Barronis.
7. But why do I
speak of these trifles? What man is there who is ignorant
that in the Capitol of the imperial people is the sepulchre of
Tolus
So the ms., first four edd., and
Oberthür, reading Toli, corrected Oli
in the others, from Servius (ad. Æn., viii.
345). Arnobius himself gives the form Aulus, i.e.,
Olus, immediately below, so that it is probably
correct.
Lit., “the seats of.”
Ursinus suggested Valerius Antias, mentioned in the first
chapter of the fifth book, a conjecture adopted by Hild.
The ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler
read Aulus, and, acc. to Oehler, all other edd.
Tolus. Orelli, however, reads Olus, as above.
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
germani servuli vita without meaning, corrected as above by
Gelenius, Canterus, Elm., and Oberthür, ut a g. servulo,
and ut a g. servulis—“by the slaves,” in the
others, except Oehler who reads as above, g. servulo ut.
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
unintelligibly patientiæ, corrected
paternæ in Hild. and Oehler, patriæ in the
rest.
Lit., “the perpetuity of the omen sealed might stand.”
Lit., “through the times given to itself.”
The ms. reads
s-oli,—changed into Toli by the first four edd.,
Elm., and Oberthür. The others omit s.
8. We have
therefore—as I suppose—shown sufficiently, that to the
immortal gods temples have been either reared in vain, or built in
consequence of insulting opinions held to their dishonour and to
the belittling
[“Belittle.” This word here is noteworthy.
President Jefferson is said to have coined it, and I have never before
seen it in a transatlantic book.]
i.e., “which you pretend to worship.” So
the edd., reading formar-e, except Hild. and Oehler, who
retain the ms. reading
i—“that images be formed.”
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
corruptly insolidi, corrected ita or sic
coli, as above, in all except the last two edd.
9. We worship the gods, you
say, by means of images. [It
is manifest that nothing of the kind was said by Christians. See
p. 506, note 3, supra.]
i.e., you do not seek access to the gods directly, and seek to do them
honour by giving that honour to the idols instead.
i.e., the transmission of the sacrifice to the gods is made dependent
on idols.
This corresponds exactly to the English, “to shoot at the pigeon
and hit the crow.”
10. And whence, finally, do
you know whether all these images which you form and put in the place
of
Lit., “with vicarious substitution for.” [A
very pertinent question as to the images worshipped in Rome to this
day. There is one Madonna of African hue and
features. See also Murray’s Handbook, Italy, p.
72.]
The ms. reads effi-gitur,
corrected as above, effin., in all edd. except Hild., who reads
efficitur—“is made,” and Stewechius,
effigiatur—“is formed.”
Lit., “boy’s age.”
Flavus, so invariably associated with blue eyes, that though
these are the feature brought into contrast, they are only suggested in
this way, and not directly mentioned—a mode of speech very
characteristic of Arnobius.
i.e., a fact which can be seen to be true by appealing to analogy.
So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler,
reading donastis, the others
donatis—“you give.”
As the appearance of the moon is the same in some of its phases
as in others, it is clear that Arnobius cannot mean that it has thirty
distinct forms. We must therefore suppose that he is either
speaking very loosely of change upon change day after day, or that he
is referring to some of the lunar theories of the ancients, such as
that a new moon is created each day, and that its form is thus ever new
(Lucr., v. 729–748).
Lit., “is changed through a thousand states with daily
instability.”
Lit., “are.”
Lit., “intestine and domestic.”
The ms. reads leon-e-s
torvissimam faciem, emended, as above, leonis t. f., in LB.,
Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, and l. torvissima
facie—“lions of very stern face,” in the
others. Nourry supposes that the reference is to the use of
lions, or lion-headed figures, as architectural ornaments on temples
(cf. the two lions rampant surmounting the gate of Mycenæ), but
partially coincides in the view of Elm., that mixed figures are meant,
such as are described by Tertullian and Minucius Felix (ch. 28:
“You deify gods made up of a goat and a lion, and with the faces
of lions and of dogs”). The epithet frugifer,
however, which was applied to the Egyptian Osiris, the Persian Mithras,
and Bacchus, who were also represented as lions, makes it probable that
the reference is to symbolic statues of the sun.
Lit., “such a god to whose form and appearance the likeness of
this image has been directed.”
Lit., “that.”
The ms. and both Roman edd. read
unintelligibly sanquineo decotoro, for which s. de
colore, as above, has been suggested by Canterus, with the approval
of Heraldus.
The ms. here inserts
puetuitate, for which no satisfactory emendation has been
proposed. The early edd. read pituitate, a word for which there
is no authority, while LB. gives potus
aviditate—“drunk with avidity”—both being
equally hopeless.
ms. sic, corrected by Gelenius
si. So
Meursius, ac dicere, for ms. -cidere.
11. You laugh because in
ancient times the Persians worshipped rivers, as is told in the
writings which hand down these things to memory; the Arabians an
unshapen stone;
It is worthy of notice that although in this passage, as often
elsewhere, Arnobius adheres pretty closely to the argument proposed by
Clemens Alexandrinus, he even in such passages sometimes differs from
it, and not at random. Thus Clement speaks merely of a
“stone,” and Arnobius of an “unshaped
stone.” The former expression harmonizes with the words of
Maximus Tyrius (Serm., xxxviii. p. 225, Steph.), “The
Arabians worship I know not whom, but the image which I saw was a
square stone;” while Suidas (Küster’s ed., s.v.
θεὺς
῎Αρης) agrees with Arnobius in calling
it a “stone, black, square, unfashioned” (ἀτύπωτος). This
is the more noteworthy, as at times Arnobius would almost seem to be
following Clement blindly. [See Clement, cap. iv. vol. ii. p.
184, this series.]
So Arnobius renders Clement’s Cithæronian Hera.
So corrected in the notes of Canterus from Clem. for the
ms. reading Carios, retained by
the first four edd. and Elmenh. In Icaria there was a temple of
Diana called Ταυροπόλιον.
The ms. and first four edd. read
p-uteum—“a well,” corrected plut., as
above, by Gifanius, and in the notes of Canterus.
The ms. reads ethedius,
corrected in the notes of Canterus.
So all edd., except both Roman edd., which retain the
ms. reading in the singular,
suffraginem.
i. e., iii. 13. p. 467.
Lit., “it was allowed.” So
Meursius suggested amentes for the ms. reading animantis for which Heraldus
proposed argumentis—“by arguments.”
12. From such causes as
these this also has followed, with your connivance, that the wanton
fancy of artists has found full scope in representing the bodies
of the gods, and giving forms to them, at which even the sternest might
laugh. And so Hammon is even now formed and represented with a
ram’s horns; Saturn with his crooked sickle, like some guardian
of the fields, and pruner of too luxuriant branches; the son of
Maia with a broad-brimmed travelling cap, as if he were preparing to
take the road, and avoiding the sun’s rays and the dust; Liber
with tender limbs, and with a woman’s perfectly free and easily
flowing lines of body;
Lit., “and most dissolved with the laxity of feminine
liquidity.”
Divendere.
Lit., “with a workman’s preparing.”
Lit., “is there any figure to find.”
Habitus.
Ex foribus. Cf. Tertull., de Idol., ch.
15: “In Greek writers we also read that Apollo
Θυραῖος and the
dæmones Antelii watch over doors.” So
the edd, reading petas-un-culumfor the ms. -io-.
13. But why do I laugh at
the sickles and tridents which have been given to the gods? why at the
horns, hammers, and caps, when I know that certain images have
Lit., “are.”
Lit., “with strife of skills.”
ms. Phyrna, but below Phryna,
which is read in both instances by Hild. and Oehler. So
Meursius, followed by Orelli, reading istic for the
ms. iste.
i.e., either the conceptions in their minds, or realized in their
works. Orelli, followed by the German translator Besnard,
adopting the former view, translates “the ideas of the artists
(die Ideale der Künstler) were full of fire
and life.”
[See note 15, p. 511.]
[True, alas! to this day; notorious courtesans furnishing the models
for the pictures and statues worshipped as saints, angels, etc.] So
Gelenius and Canterus, reading et for ms. est.
Lit., “with exertion of immense strength.”
ms. Pantarches. This was a very common
mode of expressing love among the ancients, the name of the loved one
being carved on the bark of trees (as if the Loves or the mountain
nymphs had done it), on walls, doors, or, as in this case, on statues,
with the addition “beautiful” (Suidas, s.v. Καλοί and ῾Ραμνουσία
Νέμεσις, with
Küster’s notes). [Vol. ii. p. 187, note 1, this
series.]
Lit., “bones.”
Lit., “conditions,” habitus.
Lit., “similitude.”
Lit., “first among.”
Lit., “human things.”
14. We would here, as if all
nations on the earth were present, make one speech, and pour into the
ears of them all, words which should be heard in common:
[
i.e., the faculty of discernment, which is properly man’s.
Lit., “are in the limits of.”
The ms. reads
his—“these”, emended, as above, vobis
in the margin of Ursinus, Elm., and LB.
Lit., “and humble.”
i.e., a respectable woman.
i.e., the elephant’s tusk. So
Salmasius, followed by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, reading
furfuraculis, and LB., reading perforaculis for the
ms. furfure aculeis.
So the margin of Ursinus, Meursius (according to Orelli), Hild., and
Oehler, reading part-u-m for the ms. -e-—“is a part of your
labour,” etc.
Lit., “of thy work and fingers.”
So the ms., both Roman edd., Elm., and
Orelli, reading numinis favore, for which LB. reads
favorem—“the favour of the propitious deity to
succour.” [Isaiah’s argument reproduced.]
15. Lo, if some one were to
place before you copper in the lump, and not formed
Lit., “thrown together.”
Rigaltius suggested
confracta—“shattered,” for ms. -flata.
So the edd. reading cog- for the ms. cogit-amini.
Lit., “be moved with agitation of breathing.” Lit., “outside,” i.e.,
before being in bodily forms.
So Ursinus and LB., reading retin-e-ntfor the ms. -ea-, which can hardly be correct.
There may possibly be an ellipsis of si before this clause, so
that the sentence would run: “If they had any natural
properties, (if) they retain all these, what stupidity,” etc.
Lit., “deprived of moveableness of feeling.”
16. And so unmindful and
forgetful of what the substance and origin of the images are, you, men,
rational beings
Lit., “a rational animal.”
Lit., “with deceit of vain credulity.” The edd. read
this as an interrogation: “Do you, therefore, sink down,
adore, and bring yourselves into disgrace?”
So Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, adopting a conjecture of Grævius,
di-, for the ms.
de-ducere—“to lead down.”
Lit., “resolved into members.”
Lit., “by the charm of.”
The ms. reads flev-ilium,
for which Hild. suggests flex-, as above, previous edd. reading
flat-—“of cast plates;” which cannot, however,
be correct, as Arnobius has just said that the images were in part made
of ivory.
Lit., “delays salutary for lastingnesses.” The sense
is, that the lead prevents the joints from giving way, and so gives
permanence to the statue.
Occipitiis.
Plantarum vestigia. Lit.,
“from the art of obscurity.”
i.e., if the nature of the images is really concealed by the skill
displayed in their construction.
Lit., “breathing.” [
Lit., “are relaxed from decay of rottenness.”
i.e., fall from their pedestals. For the ms. reading situs (retained in LB., as
above), the margin of Ursinus, followed by the other edd. except the
first four and Oberthür, read situ-—“lose their
appearance from mould.” So
LB. and Oehler, reading famis in spemfor the ms. pannis, omitted in other edd. All
prefix p, as above, to the next word, annos.
Deonerati proluvies podicis. [So Clement, vol. ii. p. 186,
at note 1, this series.]
Lit., “incited by the truth of nature.” The
ms. and both Roman edd. read d-,
all others instincta, as above.
17. But you err, says my
opponent, and are mistaken, for we do not consider either copper,
or gold and silver, or those other materials of which statues are made,
to be in themselves gods and sacred deities; but in them we worship and
venerate those whom their
Lit., “the sacred dedication.”
Lit., “concealed in the restraint of.”
The ms. reads inrogati (the
next letter being erased, having probably been s redundant)
si inviti, corrected in the margin of Ursinus and Oehler, as
above, -tis in.
Lit., “with the assent of voluntary compliance.”
“Do you say,” or some such expression, must be understood,
as Arnobius is asking his opponent to choose on which horn of the
dilemma he wishes to be impaled.
Lit., “bindings.”
So Gelenius, Canterus, Elm., Oberth., and Orelli, reading
nobilitent. No satisfactory emendation has been
proposed, and contradictory accounts are given as to the reading of the
ms. Immediately after this sentence, LB.,
followed by Orelli, inserts a clause from the next chapter. Cf.
the following note.
18. What then? Do the
gods remain always in such substances, and do they not go away to any
place, even though summoned by the most momentous affairs? or do they
have free passage, when they please to go any whither, and to leave
their own seats and images? If they are under the necessity of
remaining, what can be more wretched than they, what more unfortunate
than if hooks and leaden bonds hold them fast in this wise on their
pedestals? but if we allow that they prefer these images
to heaven and the starry seats, they have lost their divine
power. It
will be seen that these words fit into the indirect argument of
Arnobius very well, although transposed in LB. to the end of last
chapter, and considered a gloss by Orelli and Hildebrand.
“See the consequences,” Arnobius says, “of supposing
that the gods do not quit these images: not merely are they in a
wretched case, but they must further lose their power as
divinities.” Meursius, with, more reason, transposes the
clause to the end of the next sentence, which would be justifiable if
necessary.
Perhaps “into,” as Arnobius sometimes uses the abl.
after in instead of the acc.
Lit., “compressed to the similitude of.”
Lit., “to adapt their similitude to.”
19. The gods dwell in
images—each wholly in one, or divided into parts, and into
members? For neither is it possible that there can be at one time
one god in several images, nor, again, divided into parts by his being
cut up.
Lit., “a cutting taking place.”
i.e., of their character as independent and not compounded. This
is precisely such an expression as that which closes the fourth book,
and its occurrence is therefore an additional ground for regarding the
earlier passage as genuine.
20. And yet, O you—if
it is plain and clear to you that the gods live, and that the
inhabitants of heaven dwell in the inner parts of the images, why do
you guard, protect, and keep them shut up under the strongest keys, and
under fastenings of immense size, under iron bars, bolts,
Claustris repagulis pessulis.
Cf. p. 481, n. 5. Geese as well as dogs guarded the Capitol,
having been once, as the well-known legend tells, its only guards
against the Gauls.
The ms., first four edd., and Elm.
read nomine—“under the name of,”
corrected momine by Meursius and the rest.
21. They say that Antiochus
of Cyzicum took from its shrine a statue of Jupiter made of gold
ten
So the ms., reading decem;
but as Clement says πεντεκαίδεκα
πηχῶν, we must either suppose that
Arnobius mistook the Greek, or transcribed it carelessly, or, with the
margin of Ursinus, read
quindecim—“fifteen.”
Stewechius and Heraldus regard these words as spurious, and as
having originated in a gloss on the margin, scz.
junior—“to wit, the younger.” Heraldus,
however, changed his opinion, because Clement too, says,
“Dionysius the younger.” The words mean more than
this, however, referring probably to the fact that Cicero (de Nat.
Deor., iii. 33, 34, 35) tells these and other stories of the elder
Dionysius. To this Arnobius calls attention as an error, by
adding to Clement’s phrase “but.”
Only rustics, old-fashioned people, and philosophers wore the beard
untrimmed; the last class wearing it as a kind of distinctive mark,
just as Juvenal (iii. 15) speaks of a thick woolen cloak as marking a
philosopher. [Compare vol. i. p. 160; also ii. p. 321, n. 9.]
Impuberi.
Lit., “one.”
22. But you will perhaps say
that the gods do not trouble themselves about these losses, and do not
think that there is sufficient cause for them to come forth and inflict
punishment upon the offenders for their impious sacrilege.
Lit., “punishment of violated religion.”
Clemens says merely “the Cyprian Pygmalion.”
Lit., “of ancient sanctity and religion.”
Lit., “imagination of empty lust.”
Cf. ch. 13.
So Gelenius, reading rebus for the ms. and first ed. re a (ms. ab) se.
Lit., “in the limits of.”
Lit., “agonizing restraint.”
Lit., “to.”
23. But perhaps, as you say,
the goddesses took the greatest pleasure in these lewd and lustful
insults, and did not think that an action requiring vengeance to be
taken, which soothed their minds, and which they knew was suggested to
human desires by themselves. But if the goddesses, the Venuses,
being endowed with rather calm dispositions, considered that favour
should be shown to the misfortunes of the blinded youths; when
the greedy flames so often consumed the Capitol, and had destroyed the
Capitoline Jupiter himself with his wife and his daughter,
Cf. p. 315, n. 2, supra. So Clemens narrates; but
Thucydides (iv. 133) says that “straightway Chrysis flees by
night for refuge to Phlious, fearing the Argives;” while
Pausanius (ii. 59) says that she fled to Tegea, taking refuge there at
the altar of Minerva Alea.
From Varro’s being mentioned, Oehler thinks that Arnobius must
refer to various marauding expeditions against the temples of Apollo on
the coasts and islands of the Ægean, made at the time of the
piratical war. Clemens, however, speaks distinctly of the
destruction of the temple at Delphi, and it is therefore probable that
this is referred to, if not solely, at least along with those which
Varro mentions. Clement, vol. ii. p. 187.
Lit., “his visitors,” hospitis.
Varro Menippeus, an emendation of Carrio, adopted in LB.
and Orelli for the ms. se
thenipeus.
Lit., “suspicion being averted.”
It has been generally supposed that reference is thus made to some kind
of thieves, which is probable enough, as Arnobius (end of next chapter)
classes all these plunderers as “tyrants, kings, robbers, and
nocturnal thieves;” but it is impossible to say precisely what is
meant. Heraldus would read
Saraceni—“Saracens.”
Lit., “with obscurity of means.” The phrase may refer
either to the defence or to the assault of temples by means of magic
arts.
Lit., “interior motion.”
24. Here also the advocates
of images are wont to say this also, that the ancients knew well that
images have no divine nature, and that there is no sense in them, but
that they formed them profitably and wisely, for the sake of the
unmanageable and ignorant mob, which is the majority in nations and in
states, in order that a kind of appearance, as it were, of deities
being presented to them, from fear they might shake off their rude
natures, and, supposing that they were acting in the presence of the
gods, put
Lit., “lop away,” deputarent, the reading of
the ms., Hild., and Oehler; the rest
reading deponerent—“lay
aside.” [The same plausible defences are used to this day
by professed Christians. See Jesuits at Rome, by Hobart
Seymour, p. 38, ed. New York, 1849.]
Lit., “pass to human offices.”
Lit., “crimes and wickednesses.”
Lit., “go,” vadere.
Lit., “with their golden and to-be-feared splendours
themselves.”
25. For what
grandeur—if you look at the truth without any prejudice
Lit., “and without any favour,” gratificatione.
Lit., “what great thing have these images in
them.”
So the ms., first four edd., Elm., Hild.,
and Oehler, reading mores et maleficia, corrected in the
others a maleficio—“morals withheld from
wickedness.”
Cf. ch. 12, p. 511.
The reference is probably to some statue or picture of Juno
represented as girt with the girdle of Venus. (Il., xiv.
214).
Lit., “inferior.”
26. O dreadful forms of
terror and
Formidinum.
Terrores.
Or, perhaps, “relate that images so frigid and so
awkward.”
The ms., and both Roman edd. read
monstruosissima-s torvi-tate-s annis; corrected by Gelenius and
later edd. monstruosissimâ torvitate animos, and by
Salmasius, Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, as above, m. t.
sannis.
The ms., first four edd., Elm., and
Oberthür read manus, which, with animos read
in most (cf. preceding note), would run, “that they were even
kept back, as to (i.e., in) minds and hands, from wicked actions by the
preternatural savageness of masks.” The other edd. read
with Salmasius, as above, maniis.
Lit., “cut away.”
Lit., “opinion of.”
————————————
1. Since it has been sufficiently shown, as
far as there has been opportunity, how vain it is to form images, the
course of our argument requires that we should next speak as briefly as
possible, and without any periphrasis, about sacrifices, about the
slaughter and immolation of victims, about pure wine, about incense,
and about all the other things which are provided on such
occasions.
Lit., “in that part of years.”
Lit., “attribute least.”
Lit., “divine spurning.”
[When good old Dutch Boyens came to the pontificate as Hadrian VI., he
was accounted a “barbarian” because he so little
appreciated the art-treasures in the Vatican, on which Leo X. had
lavished so much money and so much devotion. His pious spirit
seemed oppressed to see so many heathen images in the Vatican:
sunt idola ethnicorum was all he could say of them,—a most
creditable anecdote of such a man in such times. See p. 504, n.
6, supra.]
What, then,
[In the Edin. edition this is the opening sentence, but the editor
remarks]: “By some accident the introduction to the seventh
book has been tacked on as a last chapter to the sixth, where it is
just as out of place as here it is in keeping.” [I have
restored it to its place accordingly.]
Lit., “those, moreover.”
Lit., “nor is any blame contracted.”
2. Who are the true gods?
you say. To answer you in common and simple language, we do not
know;
On this Heraldus [most ignorantly] remarks, that it shows conclusively
how slight was the acquaintance with Christianity possessed by
Arnobius, when he could not say who were the true gods. [The
Edin. editor clears up the cases as follows:] This, however, is
to forget that Arnobius is not declaring his own opinions here, but
meeting his adversaries on their own ground. He knows who the
true God is—the source and fountain of all being, and framer of
the universe (ii. 2), and if there are any lesser powers called gods,
what their relation to Him must be (iii. 2, 3); but he does not know
any such gods himself, and is continually reminding the heathen that
they know these gods just as little. (Cf. the very next
sentence.)
Lit., “as many as possible.”
Lit., “in the series of.”
Lit., “are.”
i.e., M. Terentius Varro, mentioned in the last chapter.
Lit., “in that in which he is a god.”
Lit., “uniformity of quality being preserved.”
3. So, then, if these things
are so, we desire to learn this, first, from you—what is the
cause, what the reason, that you offer them sacrifices; and
then, what gain comes to the gods themselves from this, and remains to
their advantage. For whatever is done should have a cause, and
should not be disjoined from reason, so as to be lost The ms. and edd. read ut in operibus feratur
cassis—“so as to be borne among,” emended by
Hild. and Oehler teratur—“worn away
among.”
Lit., “in vain errors of inanity.”
The ms. and edd. have here
forte—“perchance.’”
Lit., “gift of food.”
[It must have taken much time to overcome this distaste for the use of
incense in Christian minds. Let us wait for the testimony of
Lactantius.] Or perhaps, simply, “the
sacrifice is a living one,” animalis est
hostia. Macrobius, however (Sat., iii. 5),
quotes Trebatius as saying that there were two kinds of sacrifices, in
one of which the entrails were examined that they might disclose the
divine will, while in the other the life only was consecrated to the
deity. This is more precisely stated by Servius (Æn.,
iii. 231), who says that the hostia animalis was only
slain, that in other cases the blood was poured on the altars, that in
others part of the victim, and in others the whole animal, was
burned. It is probable, therefore that Arnobius uses the words
here in their technical meaning, as the next clause shows that none of
the flesh was offered, while the blood was allowed to fall to the
ground. [I am convinced that classical antiquities must be more
largely studied in the Fathers of the first five centuries.]
i.e., the juices which formerly flowed through the living body.
4. If perchance it is not
this,
The heathen opponent is supposed to give up his first reason, that the
sacrifices provided food for the gods, and to advance this new
suggestion, that they were intended for their gratification merely.
Lit., “for the sake of.” Lit., “with the fleeting
tickling of.” Lit., “with the levities of
gladnesses.”
i.e., pleasure.
Naturalis initii consortia.
So the ms. and first ed., according to
Oehler, reading cred-e-t, the others
-i-—“does.”
Lit., “these.”
Arnobius says that the sacrifices give no pleasure to any being, or at
least, if that is not strictly true, that they give none to the
gods. [See Elucidation VI., infra.]
5. We have next to examine
the argument which we hear continually coming from the lips of the
common people, and find embedded in popular conviction, that
sacrifices are offered to the gods of heaven for this purpose, that
they may lay aside their anger and passions, and may be restored to a
calm and placid tranquillity, the indignation of their fiery spirits
being assuaged. And if we remember the definition which we should
always bear steadily in mind, that all agitating feelings are unknown
to the gods, the consequence is, a belief
So the ms., LB., Oberthür, Orelli,
Hild., and Oehler, reading consec-, for which the rest
read consen-taneum est credere—“it is fitting to
believe.”
Lit., “motion of anything.”
Cf. i. 18.
6. But let us allow, as you
wish, that the gods are accustomed to such disturbance, and that
sacrifices are offered and sacred solemnities performed to calm it,
when, then, is it fitting that these offices should be made use of, or
at what time should they be given?—before they are angry and
roused, or when they have been moved and displeased even?
Lit., “set in indignations.”
Lit., “if this satisfaction of sacrifices is offered
to.”
So the ms. and most edd., reading
laeta, for which Ursinus suggested
lauta—“splendid,” and Heraldus
elata—“exalted.”
7. But neither do I demand
that this should be said, or that I should be told what causes the gods
have for their anger against men, that having taken offence they must
be soothed. I do ask, however, Did they ever ordain any
laws for mortals? and was it ever settled by them what it was fitting
for them to do, or what it was not? what they should pursue, what
avoid; or even by what means they wished themselves to be worshipped,
so that they might pursue with the vengeance of their wrath what was
done otherwise than they had commanded, and might be disposed, if
treated contemptuously, to avenge themselves on the presumptuous and
transgressors? As I think, nothing was ever either settled or
ordained by them, since neither have they been seen, nor has it been
possible for it to be discerned very clearly whether there are
any.
It is perhaps possible so to translate the ms. neque si sunt ulli apertissima potuit
cognitione dignosci, retained by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, in
which case si sunt ulli must be taken as the subject of the
clause. The other edd., from regard to the construction, read
visi—“nor, if they have been seen, has it been
possible.”
Lit., “kept with inviolable observance.”
8. But this, as I said, I do
not mention, but allow it to pass away in silence. This one thing
I ask, above all, What reason is there if I kill a pig, that a god
changes his state of mind, and lays aside his angry feelings and
frenzy; that if I consume a pullet, a calf under his eyes and on his
altars, he forgets the wrong which I did to him, and abandons
completely all sense of displeasure? What passes from this
act
Lit., “work.”
Lit., “remedy.” So
Panes seems to be generally understood, i.e., images of Pan used
as playthings by boys, and very much the same thing as the
puppets—pupuli—already mentioned. So
Panes seems to be generally understood, i.e., images of Pan used
as playthings by boys, and very much the same thing as the
puppets—pupuli—already mentioned.
Lit., “to have liberal pardons and free concessions.”
9. So, if some ox, or any
animal you please, which is slain to mitigate and appease the fury of
the deities, were to take a man’s voice and speak these
Lit., “in these.”
Lit., “following.”
Lit., “to varieties of manifold.”
Lit., “leap into.”
It has been established that sacrifices are
offered in vain for this purpose then, viz., that the angry deities may
be soothed; since reason has taught us that the gods are not angry at
any time, and that they do not wish one thing to be destroyed, to be
slain for another, or offences against themselves to be annulled by the
blood of an innocent creature.
[This very striking passage should lead us to compare the widely
different purpose of Judaic sacrifices. See Elucidation VI.,
infra.]
10. But perhaps some one
will say, We give to the gods sacrifices and other gifts, that, being
made willing in a measure to grant our prayers, they may give us
prosperity and avert from us evil, cause us to live always happily,
drive away grief truly, and any evils which threaten us from
accidental circumstances. This point demands great care; nor is
it usual either to hear or to believe what is so easily said. For
the whole company of the learned will straightway swoop upon us,
who, asserting and proving that whatever happens, happens according to
the decrees of fate, snatch out of our
Lit., “from the hands to us,” nobis, the
reading of the ms., both Roman edd., Gelenius,
LB., and Oehler; for which the rest give
vobis—“out of your hands.”
i.e., the learned men referred to above.
11. Lastly, if the gods
drive away sorrow and grief, if they bestow joy and pleasure,
how
Lit., “whence.”
Lit., “so innumerable.”
Lit., “ruins.”
So Canterus suggests conf-iuntfor the ms. confic-—“bring
about,”
12. Or the gods of heaven
should be said to be ungrateful if, while they have power to prevent
it, they suffer an unhappy race to be involved in so many hardships and
disasters. But perhaps they may say something of importance in
answer to this, and not such as should be received by deceitful,
fickle, and scornful ears. This point, however, because it would
require too tedious and prolix discussion,
Lit., “it is a thing of long and much speech.”
Lit., “the fortunes of perils.”
The ms. reading is hoc est
unus, corrected honestus—“honourable”
(which makes the comparison pointless, because there is no reason why a
rich man, if good, should not be succored as well as a poor), in all
edd., except Oehler, who reads seclestus, which departs
too far from the ms. Perhaps we should
read, as above, inhonestus.
So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler, and
the other edd., adding et auxilium—“and
help.”
Lit., “whom not his mind, but the necessity of his property, made
restricted.”
Lit., “inclines thither whence.”
i.e., the decision.
Lit., “both nations.”
Lit., “the favours of good work,” boni operis favor-es
et, the reading of Hild. and Oehler (other edd.
-em—“the favour of its service”) for
ms. fabore sed.
13. We have shown
sufficiently, as I suppose, that victims, and the things which go along
with them, are offered in vain to the immortal gods, because they are
neither nourished by them, nor feel any pleasure, nor lay aside their
anger and resentment, so as either to give good fortune, or to drive
away and avert the opposite. We have now to examine that point
also which has been usually asserted by some, and applied to forms of
ceremony. For they say that these sacred rites were instituted to
do honour to the gods of heaven, and that these things which they do,
they do to show them honour, and to magnify the powers of the
deities by them. What if they were to say, in like manner, that
they keep awake and sleep, walk about, stand still, write something,
and read, to give honour to the gods, and make them more glorious in
majesty? For what substance is there added to them from the blood
of cattle, and from the other things which are prepared in sacrificing?
what power is given and added to them? For all honour, which
is
Lit., “of most powerful name.” Lit., “imitating a
slave’s servility”—ancillatum, the
emendation of Hemsterhuis, adopted by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler for the
unintelligible ms.
ancillarum.
Lit., “things.”
14. But all this conceding
and ascribing of honour about which we are speaking are met with among
men alone, whom their natural weakness and love of standing above their
fellows
Lit., “in higher places.”
Lit., “what eminences is it found to be added,”
addier. So Hild. and Oehler for the reading of
ms., first four edd., and Oberthür
addere—“to add,” emended in rest from margin
of Ursinus accedere, much as above.
So the ms., reading
conjectionibus, which is retained in no edd., although its
primary meaning is exactly what the sense here requires. The last clause was omitted
in first four edd. and Elmh., and was inserted from the ms. by Meursius.
15. What then! some one will
say, do you think that no honour should be given to the gods at
all? If you propose to us gods such as they should be if they do
exist, and such as
Lit., “whom.”
Lit., “say in the proclamation of.”
Lit., “more powerful commands,” i.e., by Christ’s
injunctions. It seems hardly possible that any one should suppose
that there is here any reference to Christ’s command to His
disciples not to exercise lordship over each other, yet Orelli thinks
that there is perhaps a reference to Lit., “established
in.” Lit., “weighed by their own
force,” vi.
i.e., altariaque hæc pulchra.
16. What say you, O
you—! is that foul smell, then, which is given forth and emitted
by burning hides, by bones, by bristles, by the fleeces of lambs, and
the feathers of fowls,—is that a favour and an honour to
the deity? and are the deities honoured by this, to whose temples, when
you arrange to go, you come
Lit., “you show yourselves,” præstatis.
Lit., “most.” So Tibullus (Eleg., ii. 1,
13): “Pure things please the gods. Come (i.e., to the
sacrifice) with clean garments, and with clean hands take water from
the fountain,”—perfect cleanliness being scrupulously
insisted on.
This Heraldus explains as “of worse omen,” and Oehler as
“more unclean.”
Ingenuæ, i.e., such as any respectable person has.
To this the commentators have replied, that mules, asses, and dogs were
sacrificed to certain deities. We must either admit that Arnobius
has here fallen into error, or suppose that he refers merely to the
animals which were usually slain, or find a reason for his neglecting
it in the circumstances of each sacrifice.
17. Lo, if dogs—for a
case must be imagined, in order that things may be seen more
clearly—if dogs, I say, and asses, and along with them
water-wagtails, if the twittering swallows, and pigs also, having
acquired some of the feelings of men, were to think and suppose that
you were gods, and to propose to offer sacrifices in your honour, not
of other things and substances, but of those with which they are
wont to be nourished and supported, according to their natural
inclination,—we ask you to say whether you would consider this an
honour, or rather a most outrageous affront, when the swallows slew and
consecrated flies to you, the water-wagtails ants; when the asses put
hay upon your altars, and poured out libations of chaff; when the dogs
placed bones, and burned human excrements
[The wit of Arnobius must be acknowledged in this scorching
satire. Compare the divine ordinances,
Lit., “by slaughters of,” cædibus.
Lit., “under,” i.e., under the sacrifices on your
altars. So all edd., reading
cerne-, except both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler, who
retain the ms.
cerni-tis—“you see.”
In translating thus, it has been attempted to adhere as closely
as possible to the ms. reading (according to
Crusius) qua si—corrected, as above,
quæ in LB.; but it is by no means certain that further
changes should not be made.
Lit., “prepare luncheons and dinners thence,” i.e., from
the putrefying carcasses.
18. And as we are now
speaking of the animals sacrificed, what cause, what reason is there,
that while the immortal gods—for, so far as we are concerned,
they may all be gods who are believed to be so—are of one
mind, or should be of one nature, kind, and character, all are not
appeased with all the victims, but certain deities with certain
animals, according to the sacrificial laws? For what cause
is there, to repeat the same question, that that deity should be
honoured with bulls, another with kids or sheep, this one with sucking
pigs, the other with unshorn lambs, this one with virgin heifers, that
one with horned goats, this with barren cows, but that with
teeming
The ms. and first four edd. read
ingentibus scrofis—“with huge breeding swine,”
changed by rest, as above, incient-, from the margin of
Ursinus.
Or “gloomy,” tetris, the reading of
ms. and all edd. since LB., for which earlier
edd. give atris—“black.”
Lit., “the tenderness of.”
[The law of clean and unclean reflects the instincts of man, as
here appealed to; but compare and patiently study these
texts:
19. But you err, says my
opponent, and fall into mistakes; for in sacrificing female victims
to the female deities, males to the male deities, there is a
hidden and very
Lit., “more.”
So the ms., Elm., LB., Orelli, Hild., and
Oehler, reading vicerit, for which the others read
jusserit—“has bidden.”
But if the laws of the sacrifices enjoin that like
sexes should be sacrificed to like, that is, female victims to
the female gods, male victims, on the contrary, to the male
gods, what relation is there in the colours, so that it is right and
fitting that to these white, to those dark, even the blackest victims
are slain? Because, says my opponent, to the gods above,
and those who have power to give favourable omens,
Lit., “prevailing with favourableness of omens,”
ominum, for which the ms. and
first four edd. read h-—“of men.”
That Arnobius had good reason to appeal to this scepticism as a fact,
is evident from the lines of Juvenal (ii. 149–152):
“Not even children believe that there are any Manes and
subterranean realms.”
20. But let us agree, as you
wish, that there are both infernal regions and Manes, and that
some gods or other dwell in these by no means favourable to men, and
presiding over misfortunes; and what cause, what reason is there, that
black victims, even
Lit., “and.” Immediately after, the
ms. is corrected in later writing
color-es (for -is)—“and the darkest
colours.”
Similiter. This is certainly a suspicious reading, but
Arnobius indulges occasionally in similar vague expressions.
Lit., “is white.”
Or, very probably, “the membranes with (i.e., enclosing) the
brains,” omenta cum cerebris.
21. But this, too, it is
fitting that we should here learn from you: If a goat be slain to
Jupiter, which is usually sacrificed to father Liber and
Mercury,
Goats were sacrificed to Bacchus, but not, so far as is known, to
Mercury. Cf. c. 16, p. 524, n. 3.
Lit. “by the paction of some transaction is it,” etc.
So all except both Roman edd., which retain the ms. reading desi-d-eret (corrected -n-
by Gelenius)—“wish.”
22. If, then, these things
are vain, and are not supported by any reason, the very
offering
So the ms., Hild., and Oehler,
reading d-atio, approved of by Stewechius also. The
others read r-—“reasoning on behalf.”
Inci-ens, so corrected in the margin of Ursinus for
ms.
ing-—“huge.” Cf. ch. 18, p. 524, n.
10. The ms. reads excitata conatus (according to
Hild.); corrected, as above, by the insertion of ad.
Quam, i.e., the earth.
Singularly enough, for fecunditate Oberthür reads
virginitate—“inextinguishable virginity,”
which is by no means universally desired in the earth. Orelli, as
usual, copies without remark the mistake of his predecessor.
23. For as to that which we
hear said by you, that some of the gods are good, that others, on the
contrary, are bad, and rather inclined to indulge in wanton
mischief,
Lit., “more prompt to lust of hurting.”
Lit., “nature of hurting.”
Then, supposing that we should agree with
you that the gods promote good fortune and calamity, not even in this
case is there any reason why you should allure some of them to grant
you prosperity, and, on the other hand, coax others with sacrifices and
rewards not to do you harm. First, because the good gods cannot
act badly, even if they have been worshipped with no honour,—for
whatever is mild and placid by nature, is separated widely from the
practice and devising of mischief; while the bad knows not to restrain
his ferocity, although he should be enticed to do so with a
thousand flocks and a thousand altars. For neither can bitterness
change itself into sweetness, dryness into moisture, the heat of
The ms. reads ad ea quæ facti sunt,
understood seemingly as above by the edd., by supplying ad
before quæ. Oehler, however, proposes
quia—“because they were made for
them.” The reading must be regarded as
doubtful.
i.e., if sacrifices avail to counteract the malevolent dispositions of
the gods.
Lit., “these.” This clause, omitted by Oberthür,
is also omitted without remark by Orelli.
24. Be it so; let it be
conceded that these most unfortunate cattle are not sacrificed
in the temples of the gods without some religious obligation, and that
what has been done in accordance with usage and custom possesses some
rational ground: but if it seems a great and grand thing to slay
bulls to the gods, and to burn in sacrifice the flesh of animals
whole and entire, what is the meaning of these relics connected with
the arts of the Magi which the pontifical mysteries have
restored to a place among the secret laws of the sacred rites, and have
mixed up with religious affairs? What, I say, is the meaning of
these things, apexaones, hirciæ, silicernia, longavi, which
are names and kinds of sausages,
So the edd., reading farciminumfor the ms. facinorum, corrected by Hild.
fartorum—“of stuffings.”
Throughout this passage hardly one of the names of these sacrificial
dainties is generally agreed upon; as many are met with nowhere else,
the ms. has been adhered to
strictly. i.e., probably the
hirciæ: of the others, silicernia seem to have
been put on the table at funerals. i.e., tæda.
So Salmasius and Meursius corrected the ms. catillaminu-a-m by omitting a.
i.e., tail-piece.
Salsamina, by which is perhaps meant the grits and salt
cast on the victim; but if so, Arnobius is at variance with Servius
(Virgil, Ecl., viii. 81), who expressly states that these were
of spelt mixed only with salt; while there is no trace elsewhere of a
different usage. The first four edd. retain
the unintelligible ms.
diræ. i.e., the entrails.
The ms., first four edd., and Elm. read
illa. So the ms., LB., Oberthür, Orelli, Hild., and Oehler; but
ærumnæ is found in no other passage with
this meaning.
Lit., “first heads in gullets.” By this, and the word which
follows, we know from the etymology that “offerings” to the
gods must be meant, but we know nothing more.
25. For if whatever is done
by men, and especially in religion, should have its causes,—and
nothing should be done without a reason in all that men do and
perform,—tell us and say what is the cause, what the reason, that
these things also are given to the gods and burned upon their sacred
altars? For here we delay, constrained most urgently to
wait for this cause, we pause, we stand fast, desiring to learn
what a god has to do with pottage, with cakes, with different kinds
of stuffing prepared in manifold ways, and with different
ingredients? Are the i.e., cut off for sacrifice. Caro strebula. Plasea.
The ms. reads unintelligibly
nomen quæ, corrected by Gelenius omentum, as
above.
Lit., “admonish the ease of the palate;” a correction of
Salmasius, by omitting a from the ms. palati-a admoneant.
Næniæ.
26. We have now to say a few
words about incense and wine, for these, too, are connected and mixed
up with your ceremonies,
Lit., “these kinds of ceremonies, too, were coupled and
mixed,” etc.
On this Oehler remarks, that the books of Moses show that it was
certainly used in the East in the most ancient times. But
Arnobius has expressly restricted his statement to the use of incense
“in these parts.”
Pium far.
[See p. 519, note 1, supra.]
27. Finally, that we may
always abide by the rule and definition by which it has been shown and
determined that whatever is done by man must have its causes, we will
hold it fast here also, so as to demand of you what is the cause, what
the reason, that incense is put on the altars before the very images of
the deities, and that, from its being burned, they are supposed to
become friendly and gentle. What do they acquire from this being
done, or what reaches their minds, so that we should be right in
judging that these things are well expended, and are not consumed
uselessly and in vain? For as you should show why you give
incense to the gods, so, too, it follows that you should manifest that
the gods have some reason for not rejecting it with disdain, nay more,
for desiring it so fondly. We honour the gods with this, some one
will perhaps say. But we are not inquiring what your feeling is,
but the gods’; nor do we ask what is done by you, but how much
they value what is done to purchase their favour. But yet, O
piety, what or how great is this honour which is caused by the odour of
a fire, and produced from the gum of a tree? For, lest you should
happen not to know what this incense is, or what is its origin, it is a
gum flowing from the bark of trees, just as from the
almond-tree, the cherry-tree, solidifying as it exudes in drops.
Does this, then, honour and magnify the celestial dignities? or, if
their displeasure has been at any time excited, is it melted away
before the smoke of incense, and lulled to sleep, their anger being
moderated? Why, then, do you not burn indiscriminately the juice
of any tree whatever, without making any
28. Will any one say that
incense is given to the celestials, for this reason, that it has a
sweet smell, and imparts a pleasant sensation to the nose, while the
rest are disagreeable, and have been set aside because of their
offensiveness? Do the gods, then, have nostrils with which to
breathe? do they inhale and respire currents of air so that the
qualities of different smells can penetrate them? But if we allow
that this is the case, we make them subject to the conditions of
humanity, and shut them out from the limits of deity; for whatever
breathes and draws in draughts of air, to be sent back in the same way,
must be mortal, because it is sustained by feeding on the
atmosphere. But whatever is sustained by feeding on the
atmosphere, if you take away the means by which communication is kept
up,
Lit., “the returns by which the vital alternation is restored and
withdrawn.” So the ms., Hild., and Oehler, reading suffec-tionibus
alienis, for which the rest read suffi-—“the
fumigations of others.”
Lit., “feel and receive one contact.” Lit.,
“as each has been made for the touching of a thing coming from
without.” So
Gelenius and later edd., reading afficiturfor the
unintelligible reading of ms. and Roman
edd., efficit—“effects.” So
all edd., without remark, reading cog-it-atione, although
“meditation” has nothing to do with the sense of smell, and
has not been previously mentioned. We should probably read
cog-n-atione—“relation,” i.e., to such
objects.
29. Wine is used along with
incense; and of this, in like manner, we ask an explanation why it is
poured upon it when burning. For if a reason is not So
LB. and Oehler, reading ni-si. (ms. si), and other edd. inserting non,
the negative being absolutely necessary to the sense, and supplied in
the next clause.
Lit., “nor will it have its cause.”
Although this is clearly the meaning, Stewechius explained
solidos by referring to the ancient belief that such offerings
should be wholly consumed, and no fragment left.
Briæ, drinking-cups, but of their peculiar shape or purpose
we know nothing.
Lit., “badly.”
Lit., “being strangled, may be.”
30. But, says my
opponent, you are insulting us without reason, for we do not pour
forth wine to the gods of heaven for these reasons, as if we supposed
that they either thirsted, or drank, or were made glad by tasting its
sweetness. It is given to them to do them honour; that their
eminence may become more exalted, more illustrious, we pour libations
on their altars, and with the half-extinguished embers we raise
sweet smells, So
LB., Orelli, and Oehler, reading with Salmasius m-u-scos
(ms. -i-). Gelenius
proposed cnissas, which would refer to the steam of the
sacrifices. Lit.,
“interior.” So
most edd., reading nimirum quia plus valet, for which the
ms., followed by both Roman edd., Hild., and
Oehler, read primum. q. v., which Hild. would
explain “because it prevails above all rather than;”
but this is at least very doubtful.
31. It is worth while to
bring forward the words themselves also, which, when wine is offered,
it is customary to use and make supplication with: “Let
the deity be worshipped with this wine which we
bring.”
Vino inferio.
Lit., “bound by religion.”
This is admirably illustrated in an inscription quoted by
Heraldus: “Jupiter most excellent, supreme, when this day I
give and dedicate to thee this altar, I give and dedicate it with these
conditions and limits which I say openly to-day.”
Circumscriptione verborum.
32. But let there be, as you
wish, honour in wine and in incense, let the auger and displeasure of
the deities be appeased by the immolation and slaughter of
victims: are the gods moved by garlands also, wreaths and
flowers, by the jingling of brass also, and the shaking of cymbals, by
timbrels also, and also by symphonious pipes?
Symphoniæ. Evidently musical instruments; but while
Isidore speaks of them as a kind of drum, other writers call them
trumpets and pipes.
At daybreak on opening, and at night on closing the temple, the
priests of Isis sang hymns in praise of the goddess (cf. Jos. Scaliger,
Castigationes ad Cat., etc., p. 132); and to these Arnobius
refers sarcastically, as though they had been calls to awake, and
lullabies to sing her asleep.
At daybreak on opening, and at night on closing the temple, the
priests of Isis sang hymns in praise of the goddess (cf. Jos. Scaliger,
Castigationes ad Cat., etc., p. 132); and to these Arnobius
refers sarcastically, as though they had been calls to awake, and
lullabies to sing her asleep.
i.e., March 27th, marked Lavatio in a calendar prepared during
the reign of Constantius.
Lit., “and some rubbing of cinders added,” aliqua
frictione cineris; an emendation of Ursinus for the possibly
correct ms. antiqua f.
c.—“the ancient rubbing,” i.e., that practiced in
early times.
Lit., “anniversary.” So
the later edd., adopting the emendation of ad suas
usionesfor the corrupt ms.
ad (or ab) suasionibus.
i.e., feast at which the image of Ceres was placed on a couch, probably
the Cerealia, celebrated in April. This passage
flatly contradicts Prof. Ramsay’s assertion (Ant., p. 345)
that lectisternium is not applied to a banquet
offered to a goddess; while it corroborates his statement that such
feasts were ordinary events, not extraordinary solemnities, as Mr.
Yates says (Smith’s Ant., s.v.). See p. 519, n.
2.
Lit., “the impression of the cushions is lifted up and
raised,” i.e., smoothed.
Thus the 25th of January is marked as the birthday of the Graces, the
1st of February as that of Hercules, the 1st of March as that of Mars,
in the calendar already mentioned.
33. But the games which you
celebrate, called Floralia and Megalensia,
The former dedicated to Flora (cf. iii. 25), the latter to Cybele.
Singular.
So the margin of Ursinus, Elm., LB., Orelli, Hild., and Oehler;
the ms. reading not being known.
Lit., “in dancing motions.” So
Meursius, Orelli, and Oehler, reading existimat-ve, all
the others retaining the ms.
-ur-—“Is Flora thought to be treated,”
etc.
Lit., “adapts.”
Here also there is doubt as to what the reading of the
ms. is. The 1st ed. reads sine
culpa—“without blame,” which is hardly in keeping
with the context, emended causa, as above, by Gelenius.
So Orelli explains certare hos spiritu as referring to a contest
in which each strove to speak or sing with one breath longer than the
rest.
34. Whence, therefore, have
these vicious opinions flowed, or from what causes have they
sprung? From this it is clear, in great measure, that men
are unable to know what God is, what is His essence, nature,
substance, quality; whether He has a form, or is limited by no bodily
outline, does anything or not, is ever watchful, or is at times sunk in
slumbers, runs, sits, walks, or is free from such motions and
inactivity. Being, as I have said, unable to know all these
things, or to discern them by any power of reason, they fell into these
fanciful beliefs, so that they fashioned gods after themselves, and
gave to these such a nature as they have themselves, in actions,
circumstances, and desires. But if they were to perceive that
they are worthless creatures,
Lit., “an animal of no value.”
Lit., “the modesty of their humility.”
Lit., “they contain their nature in a corporeal form.”
Lit., “of.”
Cf. p. 531, n. 8.
35. Come now: as the
discussion has been prolonged and led to these points, let us, bringing
forward what each has to say,
Lit., “by opposition of the parts of each.”
Considerable difficulty has been felt as to the abrupt way in which the
book ends as it is arranged in the ms.
Orelli has therefore adopted the suggestion of an anonymous critic, and
transposed cc. 35, 36, 37 to the end. This does not, however,
meet the difficulty; for the same objection still holds good, that
there is a want of connection and harmony in these concluding chapters,
and that, even when thus arranged, they do not form a fitting
conclusion to the whole work.
Lit., “of.”
Lit., “that effigies have been far removed from
them.” This may be understood, either as meaning that the
gods had not visible form at all, or, as above, that their likenesses
made by men showed no resemblance.
36. 50
in Orelli.
It is important to notice the evidence in this one sentence of haste
and want of revision. In the first line we find a genitive
(discordiarum—“dissensions”), but not the noun
on which it depends; and in the apodosis a verb (disjunctas
esse—“have been removed,” i.e., “are
remote”) has no subject, although its gender imperatively
requires that has res, or some such words, be
supplied. One omission might have been easily ascribed to a slip
on the part of the copyist; but two omissions such as these occurring
so closely, must, it would seem, be assigned to the impetuous disregard
of minutiæ with which Arnobius blocked out a conclusion
which was never carefully revised. (Cf. Appendix, note 1, and p.
539, n. 8.) The importance of such indications is manifest in
forming an opinion on the controversy as to this part of the
work.
Lit., “are of…those meeting the functions of
mortality,” obeunti-um, corrected by Gelenius
(according to Orelli) for the ms.
-bus, retained, though unintelligible, by Canterus, Oberth., and
Hild.
[See p. 519, note 1, and p. 528, cap. 26, supra.]
Lit., “of.” [Cap. 29, p. 529, supra.]
Lit., “some time.”
37. Since these things are
so, and since there is so great difference between
Lit., “of.” [Cap. 29, p. 529, supra.]
Lit., “of.” [Cap. 29, p. 529, supra.] Lit.,
“divine things.”
So the ms., both Roman edd., Hild., and
Oehler, reading promptæ; corrected
præsumptæ—“taken for granted,” in
the rest.
i.e., offerings to parents, as the name implies, and other relatives
who were dead.
38. 35
in Orelli.
Lit., “in the writings of which we read.”
Pl.
Lit., “by satisfaction of.”
39. 36
in Orelli. [See note 1, Appendix, p. 539, infra.]
Lit., “added evil heavier than evil.” So
later edd., reading vaderet from the margin of Ursinus,
while the first three retain the ms.
reading suaderet—“persuade.”
i.e., the slave writhing under the scourge.
Lit., “of so great power.”
i.e., Jupiter.
40.
37 in Orelli.
Lit., “which either a…made,” etc.
Lit., “very near to danger of carrying off liberty.”
Cf. ii. 73.
41.
38 in Orelli.
So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler,
reading volu-p-tates, i.e., the games and feasts spoken
of previously; the other edd. read
-n-—“wishes.”
Oehler explains frustra by otiose—“who was
leisurely delighted,” but there is no reason why it should not
have its usual meaning, as above. [See note 1, Appendix, p.
539.]
i.e., from heaven. Instead of e-vocari, however, Heraldus
has proposed a-—“be diverted.”
Lit., “unfolding.”
Lit., “was in the cause of the vicious dancer.”
42.
39 in Orelli.
So all edd., rejecting s from ms. contemptu-s.
Lit., “draughts of air.”
So, by omitting two letters, all edd. except 1st and Ursinus,
which retain ms.
adult-er-ae—“adulterous.”
Lit., “light.”
43.
40 in Orelli. The ms., 1st edd.,
and Ursinus want si.
Lit., “and restored.” [Conf. Pont. Max.
here named, with vol. iv. p. 74.]
The ms. and Ursinus read
reddere-t—“if he was to restore;” corrected,
as above, by omission of t.
i.e., if he is a god. Cf. iii. 20; [specially, note 3, p.
469].
Lit., “the necks of.”
Lit., “the terror of coercion should begin from the father with
whom.”
Lit., “even,” et.
Lit., “to his grief.”
The ms. reads rett-ulit,
emended ret-—“gave back,” i.e., got rid of, by
1st ed. and Ursinus; and rep-, as above, by Gelenius and
others.
44.
41 in Orelli. [See Appendix, note 1, p. 539.] In the ms. and both Roman edd. the section translated on p. 539 is
inserted here. Ursinus, however (pp. 210–211), followed by
Heraldus (312–313), enclosed it in brackets, and marked it with
asterisks. In all other edd. it is either given as an appendix,
or wholly rejected.
Lit., “sublimity.”
45. 42
in Orelli. So
the edd., reading et for ms. ut (according to Crusius).
Lit., “restoration be supplied to his strength.”
So Gelenius, merely adding t to the ms. posse. The passage is, however,
very doubtful.
Lit., “how weakly and feeble it is said.”
These words, non debuit oculorum negare conspectui, should,
Orelli thinks, be omitted; and certainly their connection with the rest
of the sentence is not very apparent.
Lit., “he was, and such as he had learned that he was, contained
in the power of his divinity.”
Lit., “to ambiguous contradictions.”
46.
43 in Orelli.
Lit., “if your services of certain persons are certain,”
i.e., if these facts on which your worship is built are well
ascertained. What
species of snake this was, is not known; the Latin is therefore
retained, as the sentence insists on the distinction.
Anguem.
Serpentem.
Lit., “bearing himself on feet, nor unfolding below his own
goings.” Lit.,
“to a.” So
Hild. and Oehler, reading labefac-t-amusfor the
ms. -i-. This
sentence alone is sufficient to prove that these chapters were never
carefully revised by their author, as otherwise so glaring repetitions
would certainly have been avoided.
Here the ms. and both Roman edd. insert
the last clause, “what…forests.”
47. 44
in Orelli.
48. 45 in
Orelli. Lit.,
“wanting.”
The ms., 1st ed., Hild., and Oehler
read gener-ent, corrected in the rest, as above,
-arent.
Lit., “all wicked and distinguished by no diversity.”
Lit., “the human race has been mixed in,” etc. So
all edd., reading vi morbi, except Hild., who retains the
ms. vi urbi, in which case
the italics should denote “of the disease,” instead of
“to the city.” The construction, however, seems to
make it impossible to adhere to the ms.. Lit.,
“to have erred much from.”
49. 46
In Orelli.
Lit., “from the possession of Italy.” So
all edd. to Orelli, adding -em to the ms. quid. [See, concerning Pessinus, p.
492, supra.]
Lit., “a face too little expressed with imitation.”
50. 47 in
Orelli.
Lit., “did a stone drive,” etc.
Lit. “moved by.”
So the ms. and edd.; but, on account of
the unnecessary repetition, Ursinus proposed to delete
atri. Unger (Anal. Propert., p. 87) has
suggested very happily arti—“of confined,
i.e., small body.’”
Vim, suggested by Orelli, and adopted by Hild. and Oehler.
Lit., “subjected to.” So
Hild. and Oehler, reading moli for the unintelligible
ms. more.
Lit., “so great assaults of war.”
So Oehler, adding -o to the ms. est. The word immediately
preceding is in the ms.
pavorem—“panic,” which is of course utterly
out of place, and is therefore corrected, as above, f- in all
edd., except 1st, Ursinus, and Hild.
So—ab Italia—Oehler has admirably emended the
ms. habitabilia.
Lit., “if he is.”
51. 48
in Orelli.
All edd., except Hild. and Oehler, begin a new sentence here, and
change the construction, seemingly following the mistake of the 1st
ed.
“To do…to show;” so the edd., dropping -nt
from the ms.
facere-nt…præbere-nt.
“To do…to show;” so the edd., dropping -nt
from the ms.
facere-nt…præbere-nt.
Lit, “showed.” Ursinus and Heraldus supposed
that some paragraphs are now wanting which were originally found
here. It should be noticed that in the ms. the usual subscription is found denoting the end of a
book. “The seventh book of Arnovius (sic) ends, the
eighth (i.e., Octavius of Minucius Felix) begins,” so that
the present arrangement is not due to the binder, nor clearly to the
copyist who wrote these words. Nothing can be more certain than
that we do not have these chapters as Arnobius intended to leave them;
but there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he actually left
them otherwise than they have come down to us. Remembering this,
we may well suppose that we have only the first draught of them.
If so, the difficulties vanish, for nothing would be more natural than
that, when Arnobius was drawing near the close of his work, the ideas
of the conclusion in which the discussion was to be fairly summed up
should force themselves upon his attention, and that he should
therefore turn aside at once to give them expression roughly, without
seeking completeness and elaboration, and should then hastily resume
his argument, of course with the intention of afterwards revising and
re-arranging the whole. We may infer that the re-arrangement was
never effected, as there are sufficient proofs that the revision was
never accomplished, whatever may have been the reason.
Appendix.
This section, which is found in the ms.
after the first sentence of ch. 44, was retained in the text of both
Roman editions, marked off, however, by asterisks in that of Ursinus,
but was rejected by Gelenius and later editors as the useless addition
of some copyist. Oehler alone has seen that it is not “a
collection of words gathered carelessly and thoughtlessly”
(Hildebrand), and maintained that we have in it the corrections of
Arnobius himself. If the three paragraphs are read carefully, it
will be observed that the first is a transposition and reconstruction
of the first two sentences of ch. 39; the second a revision of the
interrogations in ch. 41, but with the sentence which there precedes
placed after them here, whilst the third is made up of the same
sentences in a revised and enlarged form. Now this must be
regarded as conclusive evidence against the hypothesis that these
sentences were originally scribbled carelessly on the margin, and
afterwards accidentally incorporated in the text. Cf. p. 532, n.
10.
————————————
We do not deny that all these things which have been brought forward by you in opposition are contained in the writings of the annalists. For we have ourselves also, according to the measure and capacity of our powers, read these same things, and know that they have been alleged; but the whole discussion hinges upon this: whether these are gods who you assert are furious when displeased, and are soothed by games and sacrifices, or are something far different, and should be separated from the notion even of this, and from its power.
For who, in the first place, thinks or believes
that those are gods who are lost in joyful pleasure at theatrical
shows
Lit., “motions.”
Lit. “to the heights (apices) of gravity and
weight,” i.e., of that constancy of mind which is not moved by
trifles.
Lit., “of hurting and raging.” i.e.,
evil dispositions.
Lit., “motions.”
So the ms., according to Crusius,
inserting transiri, which is omitted by Hild.,
either because it is not in the ms., or because
he neglected to notice that Orelli’s text was deficient. If
omitted, we should translate, “that some pass, leaning forward,
and rush with their heads towards the ground.”
Lit., “of something.”
Lit., “far and far.” [For
puer matrimus (one whose mother is yet living), see p. 486, note
11, supra. And for the argument, here recast, turn to cap.
41, p. 534.]
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Note 9, p. 459.)
This is a most extraordinary note. The author uses “so to say” (="as it were”) merely to qualify the figure, which a pagan might think extravagant. “This is, as it were, the door of life:” the expression qualifies the rhetoric, not the Scripture, as such. On the contrary, I should adduce this very passage as an instance of our author’s familiarity alike with the spirit and the letter of two most important texts of the Gospel, which he expounds and enforces with an earnest intelligence, and with a spirit truly evangelical.
II.
(Covered with garments, note 7, p. 469.)
A heathen might have retorted, had he known the
Scriptures, by asking about the “white robes” of angels,
and the raiment of the risen Redeemer; e.g.,
Words of Jesus, vol. viii. p. 63, trans., ed. Edinburgh,
1858.
New-Testament Commentary, Kendrick’s trans., vol. iii. p.
120, ed. 1858.
(The eyes of Jupiter, p. 483.)
Arnobius with remorseless vigour smites Jove
himself,—the Optimus Maximus of polytheism,—and, as I have
said, with the assurance of one who feels that the Church’s
triumph over “lords many and gods many” is not far
distant. The scholar will recall the language of
Terence,
Eunuch., iii. 5.
“What! he who shakes high heaven with his thunder
Act thus, and I, a mannikin, not do the same?
Yes, do I, and right merrily, forsooth!”
On which the great African Father
August., De Civitate, book ii. cap. 7.
“Talk they of morals? O Thou bleeding Lamb!
The grand morality is love of Thee.”
The world may sneer at faith, but only they who believe can love; and who ever loved Christ without copying into his life the Sermon on the Mount, and, in some blest degree, the holy example of his Master?
IV.
(For those freed from the bondage of the flesh, p. 488 and note 11.)
The early Christians prayed for the departed, that
they might have their consummation in body and spirit at the last
day. Thus, these prayers for the faithful dead supply the
strongest argument against the purgatorial system, which supposes the
dead in Christ (1) not to be in repose at first, but (2) capable
of being delivered out of “purgatory” into heaven, sooner
or later, by masses, etc. Thus, their situation in the
intermediate state is not that of Scripture (
He divides it into five heads, as
follows:
Quoted in Tracts for the Times (p. 30), vol. iii., ed. New
York, 1840.
“(1) Of the persons for whom, after death, prayers were offered;
“(2) Of the primary intention of these prayers;
“(3) Of the place and condition of souls departed;
“(4) Of the opinion of Aerius, the heretic, touching these prayers; and
“(5) Of the profit, to the persons prayed for, of these prayers.”
And his conclusion is, after a rich collation of testimonies, that “the commemoration and prayers for the dead used by the ancient Church had not any relation with purgatory, and therefore, whatsoever they were, Popish prayers we are sure they were not.”
(The pine…sanctuary of the Great Mother, p. 504.)
I recall with interest the
pine-cone of Dante’s comparison (Inferno, canto xxxi. 59)
as I saw it in the gardens of the Vatican. Valuable notes may be
found in Longfellow’s translation, vol. i. p. 328. It is
eleven feet high, and once adorned the summit of Hadrian’s
mausoleum, so they say; but that was open, and had no apex on which it
could be placed. It is made of bronze, and, I think, belonged to
the mysteries satirized by our author. It is less pardonable to
find the vilest relics of mythology on the very doors of St.
Peter’s, where I have seen them with astonishment. They
were put there, according to M. Valery,
He was royal librarian at Versailles under Charles X. See
his Travels in Italy (Clifton’s trans.), p. 501, ed.
Paris, 1842.
VI.
(Sacrifices, p. 519.)
It must be felt that Arnobius here lays himself open to a severe retort. The God of Christians is the author of sacrifice, and accepts the unspeakable sufferings of the innocent Lamb for the sins of the whole world.
The answer, indeed, suggests itself, that the sacrifices of the heathen had no apparent relation whatever to faith in this Atoning Lamb; none in the mysterious will of God that this faith should be nurtured before the Advent by an institution in which He had no pleasure, but which was profoundly harmonious with human thought and the self-consciousness of human guilt.
Arnobius would have written better had he been a
better-instructed Christian. He demolishes pagan rites, but he
should have called up the Gentile mind to the truths covered under its
corruptions and superstitions. On this subject the reader will do
well to consult the work of a modern Arnobius, the eccentric Soame
Jenyns, who called out such a controversy in the last century about the
truths and errors of his View of the Internal Evidence of the
Christian Religion, It
appeared in Paris 1764. A more literal translation (by the
Abbé de Feller) was published, Liege, 1779.
Published in 1794.
Works, vol. vi. p. 140, ed. Paris, 1850.
So long as we know nothing of the origin of evil,
we are not competent judges of what is or is not a suitable
remedy. Nobody can assure us that the sufferings of one may not
be in some way necessary to the good of the many. A tax
may thus be laid upon innocence in behalf of the guilty, and a
voluntary sacrifice may be accepted from the Innocent (the Holy
One) for the payment of the debts of others. In spite of
something illogical which seems to cling to this idea, the fact of
its universal adoption in all ages among men must be accounted
for,—the fact De
Maistre quotes, “Potest unus ita pro alio pœnam compensare
vel debitum solvere ut ille satisfacere merito dici
possit.” Bellarmin, Opp., tom. iii. col. 1493, ed.
Ingolstadt, 1601. See
Jenyns, p. 67 (ed. eighth), Philadelphia, 1780.
De Maistre responds as follows: This dogma
is universal, and as old as creation; viz., the reversibility of the
sufferings of innocence for the benefit of the guilty.
As to the fall of man, “earth felt the wound;”
Milton, Paradise Lost, ix. 785.
Plato, Repub., Opp., tom. vi. pp. 225–226, ed.
Bipont.
In a word, then, Arnobius should have said this,
as the Church was always saying it in the perpetual commemoration of
Calvary, in her Holy Eucharist, and in her annual Paschal
celebration. It was all summed up by the prophet a thousand years
before “the Lamb of God” was slain. By the prophet,
the Lamb Himself expounds it all:
De Maistre cites the example of Decius from Livy, vol. i. p. 477,
Piaculum deorum iræ, etc.; and I commend the inquiring
reader to his very curious and entertaining Éclaircissement sur
les Sacrifices, pp. 321–425, ubi supra, appended to
the same work. Let me also add a reference to the other Decius,
vol. i. p. 607. See lib. viii. cap. 9, and lib. x. cap. 28.
My edition is the valuable (Parisian) Frousheim & Crevier,
a.d. 1735.
“Sacrifice and meat-offering Thou wouldest not, but mine ears hast Thou opened: burnt-offerings and sacrifice for sin hast Thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the Book it is written of Me, that I should fulfil Thy will, O my God. I am content to do it; yea, Thy law is within my heart.”
The expiatory sacrifice, the voluntary Victim, the profound design of God the Father, are all here. But the infinite value of the sacrifice was unfolded when the Son of man was identified by the poor Gentile centurion: “Truly this was the Son of God.”
Genesis
1:1 1:2 1:4 1:11-12 1:14 1:18 1:26 1:26 1:28 1:28 1:31 2:1 2:7 2:9 2:9 2:17 2:17 2:18 2:18 2:23 2:23-24 2:23-24 2:23-24 2:24 3:3 3:5 3:7 3:15 3:17 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:21 3:22 4:5 4:10 5:29 6:2 6:2 9:22 15:5 15:9 17:11 18 18:23 18:25 19:17 22:1 27:29 27:41 32:26 37:4 38:26 39:12 48:15 49:10 49:10-12
Exodus
1:16 2 3:2 3:2 3:14 3:23 6:23 6:25 7:11 8 9:32 11:7 12 12:2 12:2 12:15 12:18-19 12:19 12:30 12:35 14 14 15:2 15:2 15:23 16 17 17:6 19:16 20:3 20:12 21:24 22:20 23:4 24:18 25:8 25:22 25:40 29:13-14 30:1-9 31:19 32 34 34:33 34:35 35:17
Leviticus
2:13 10:10 11 11:29 18:19 20:17 23:5-7 23:6 23:39-42 23:40 23:40 24:2-3 24:3
Numbers
1 2 3 4 4 5 6:1-2 6:1-4 6:2 10 12:24 15:32 15:32 17:8 33:5
Deuteronomy
4:24 6:5 18:15 18:15-19 18:18 19:14 22:1-3 22:26-27 28:66 29:29 30:15 32:22 32:32-33 32:33 32:39
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
6:7 6:10 6:14 6:14 6:14 14:33 16:3 23:17
1 Kings
2 Kings
2 Chronicles
Job
1:21 2:10 4:18 10:8 10:10-12 14:1 20:20 21:22 22:2 38:11 38:14 40:3
Psalms
1:3 2 2:7 2:24 4:1 4:2 4:2 4:2 4:2 4:15 4:23 4:30 4:31 5:9 5:11 5:15 5:15 6:6 8:2 8:2 8:5 10:3 10:3 11:7 15:4-8 16:10 17 18:8 18:9 18:22 18:26 19:1 19:6 19:12 19:12-13 19:73 22:15 24:1 31:1 31:1 31:5 32:8 32:16 33:5 33:6 34:19 35:10 36:6 36:6 36:9 36:9 36:9 37 37 37 37:1-2 37:5-6 38:5 39:4 39:12-16 39:16 41:3 42:4 44:10 45:1 45:1 45:2 45:2 45:2 45:2 45:7 45:10 45:10-11 45:14 45:15-16 46:4 46:4-5 46:8 47:1 48 48:2 48:9 48:11-12 50 50:3 62:8 67:5 68:4 68:34 72:6 72:18-19 80:1 80:1 84:8 85:9 87:3 87:3 90:2 90:4 90:10 90:10 95:1 95:10-11 96:9 96:11-13 97:11 98:2 136
Proverbs
1:5-6 3:18 5:18 6 8:9 8:22 8:30 8:30 8:30 9:5 10:7 13:8 18:3 20:9 22:1 22:2 22:2 24:16
Ecclesiastes
1:1 1:3 1:4 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:18 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:24 2:25 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:6 3:7 3:10 3:11 3:11 7:2
Song of Solomon
2:2 2:16-17 4:9-12 4:9-12 4:13 4:16 6:8-9 6:8-9 6:8-9 8:6
Isaiah
1 1:2 1:2 1:26 5:7 6 6:1-9 6:3 6:3 6:3-4 6:4 6:6 6:9 6:10 7:11 7:14 8:1 8:3-4 9 9:2 9:6 9:6 11:2 11:5 12:6 14:14 14:15 22:22 25:1 26:18 28:16 29:11 29:22 29:24 37:22-23 38:21 40:1 40:18-20 42:7 42:7 42:8 42:9 42:14 42:18-20 43:10 44:4 44:4 44:9-20 45:7 45:8 45:18 46:5-8 49:8 49:9 51:6 52:2 52:5 52:6 53:4 53:5 53:8 53:8 53:8 54:1 56:3 57:20-21 60:1 60:1 60:1-4 61:1-2 63:9 63:9 66:3-4 66:7 66:7-8 66:21 66:22 66:24
Jeremiah
1:5 2:32 3:3 3:23 5:8 8:4 8:13 12:1 12:1 13:23 15:19 18:3-4 18:3-6 21:8 23:24 24:3 31 48:10
Lamentations
Ezekiel
1:22 1:26 1:27 3:22 13:3 17:3 22:26 27:15 33:11 37:4 44:2
Daniel
3:21 3:56 4:35 8:1 8:13-14 8:13-14 9:23 9:24 12:2
Joel
Amos
Jonah
Micah
Habakkuk
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
1:1 1:1-17 1:16 1:18 1:20-21 1:25 2:11-13 2:13 2:13-16 2:16 2:16 3:3 3:7-8 3:8 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 4 4:1 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:10 4:10 4:10 5:3 5:3 5:3-16 5:8 5:8 5:10 5:12 5:13 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:29 5:32 5:35 5:39 6:6 6:9 6:13 6:22-23 6:24 6:34 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:12 7:15 7:15-20 7:16 7:18 7:18 7:24 8:10 8:26 9:12 9:16 9:17 9:20 10:10 10:17 10:18 10:23 10:28 10:28 10:34 10:34 10:37 10:40 11:11 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 12:8 12:27 12:29 12:31 12:32 12:40 12:47 13:13 13:16-17 13:25 13:34 13:35 14 14:25 14:26 15:11 15:24 15:27 16:13 16:16 16:16 16:17 16:21 16:21 16:22 16:23 16:26 16:27 17:2 17:5 17:7 18:21 19:4-5 19:11 19:11 19:12 19:12 19:21 21:5 21:9 21:10 21:14-16 21:15 21:19 21:19 22:23 22:23 22:29 22:30 22:30 22:42 23:6 23:25 23:27 23:35 23:35 23:38 24:4-5 24:22 24:23-26 24:24 24:35 24:45 24:47 25 25:6 25:11 25:29 25:41 25:44 25:46 26:17 26:38 26:38 26:41 26:41 26:55 26:64 27:2 27:51 28:1 28:1-6 28:9 28:19
Mark
1:3 1:11 1:22 2:10 2:11 2:19 3:23 3:27 4:33 8 8:15 9:40 10:42-43 11:9 11:25 12:38 12:41 14:12 14:36 14:62 16:1-2 25:25
Luke
1:17 1:17 1:17 1:26-27 1:26-27 1:28 1:28 1:29 1:34 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:36 1:41 1:41 1:42-43 1:46 1:51 1:54 1:76-77 1:79 1:79 1:80 2:4-7 2:7 2:10 2:14 2:14 2:22 2:29 2:29-32 2:32 2:38 3:4 3:16 3:23-24 4:18-19 4:34 6:1 6:25 6:29 8:29 8:43 9:10 9:35 9:59-60 10:18 10:18 10:19 10:22 10:24 10:34 11:2 11:24 11:39 11:41 11:42 12:32 12:35-38 12:49 12:49 12:49 13:27 14:33 14:33 15:6 15:8 15:23 16:9 16:16 16:16 16:19 16:28 17:21 19:27 19:37-38 19:38 20:46 21:2 21:8 21:34 22:7 22:42 22:42 22:42 22:42-48 22:43 22:44 22:45 22:46 22:46 22:47 22:48 22:48 23:34 23:45 23:56 24:1-2
John
1 1 1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:9 1:9 1:11 1:12 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:23 1:27 1:29 2:7 2:20-21 2:25 3 3:13 3:19 4:9 4:13-15 4:24 4:24 4:24 5:1 5:5 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:39 5:39 5:39 5:45-47 5:46 6:11 6:27 6:35-37 6:38 6:55 6:56 8 8 8:12 8:40 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:44 8:46 8:46 8:51 8:58 9 9 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:15 10:17 10:18 10:27 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:33 10:35 11:25 11:33 11:44 12 12:13 12:27 13 13:21 13:27 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:8-9 14:9 14:9 14:10 14:12 14:15-16 14:16 14:18 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 15:1 15:1 15:5 15:21 15:23 16 16:8 16:8 16:12-13 16:14 16:20 16:20 16:22 16:22 16:28 16:28 16:33 16:33 16:33 17:2 17:3 17:6 17:24 18:11 18:28 19:13-14 19:23 19:31 19:37 20:1 20:1
Acts
1:7 2:6 2:31 5:10 5:29 7:59 9:15 9:40 10:15 12:4 12:18-19 13:2-3 13:5 13:13 13:15 14:22 14:23 14:27 15:39-40 17:9-10 18:24 18:26 18:28 19:26-30 20:28 20:32 20:38 28:26
Romans
1:21 2:11 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:28 2:29 3:20 4:1 4:2 4:11 5:12 5:12-14 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 6:4 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:9-10 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:14 7:15 7:15 7:15-18 7:19 7:19 7:22-24 7:23 7:23 7:25 8:2 8:3 8:3 8:3-39 8:4 8:9 8:11 8:11 8:14-15 8:19 8:19-21 8:21-22 8:32 9:1 9:1 9:5 10:8-10 11:7 11:33 12:3 12:16 13:4 13:6 14:9 14:14 14:23 15:13 15:15-16 15:15-19 15:18 15:20 15:30 16:20
1 Corinthians
1:21 2:4-5 2:9 2:9-11 2:14 3:6 3:7 3:7 3:10 3:16-17 3:17 3:19 3:19 3:19 4:13 4:15 5:3 5:7 5:7 5:42 6:2 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:19 7:1 7:1 7:2 7:2-6 7:5 7:5 7:7 7:8-9 7:18-19 7:25-28 7:28 7:28 7:29 7:29 7:31 7:32-34 7:34 7:34 7:35 7:35 7:36 7:37 7:38 7:40 8:6 8:6 9:9 9:25 10:4 11:1 11:7 11:19 12:3-13 12:18 13:2-3 13:4 13:8-10 13:9 13:9-10 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:12 14 14:31 15:3-9 15:6 15:9-10 15:11 15:12 15:12-20 15:21 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:32 15:41 15:41-42 15:42 15:45 15:46-50 15:47 15:49 15:49 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:53 15:53 15:54 15:54 15:54-55 15:55 15:56 15:56
2 Corinthians
1:21-22 1:24 3:6 3:6 3:6-11 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:13 3:14-17 3:15-18 3:18 4:4 4:4 4:6 5:1 5:2-3 5:4 5:4-5 5:7 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:21 6:4 6:6-7 6:14 6:14-15 6:16 7:4 7:10 8:9 8:9 9:14-15 10:5 10:5 10:13-16 10:16 11:2 11:2 11:3-5 11:12 11:14 11:19 11:23 11:27 11:32-33 12:2-3 12:8-9 13:3 13:3 13:3 13:13
Galatians
1:6-8 1:8 1:8-9 1:8-9 1:17 2:8-9 2:9 2:18 2:18 3:1 3:13 3:13 3:13 4:3 4:4 4:4-5 4:19 4:19 5:17 5:22-23 6:17
Ephesians
1:5 1:21 2:2 2:8-9 2:14 3:8 3:8 3:8-9 3:10 3:14-17 5:4-5 5:5-13 5:14 5:23 5:25-26 5:26-27 5:28-32 5:28-32 5:31 5:32 6:8 6:9 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:16 6:17
Philippians
1:23-24 2:5 2:6-8 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:13 3:11 3:13 3:14 3:14 3:19 3:21 4:7
Colossians
1:15 1:16-17 1:21-22 1:23 1:24 2:4 2:6-9 2:8 3:11 4:6
1 Thessalonians
4:16 4:16-17 4:17 5:1-2 5:16-18 5:21 5:23
1 Timothy
1:9 1:17 1:17 1:20 2:4 3:1 4:1 4:1 4:1-4 4:7 4:8 5:2 5:22 6:3-4 6:5 6:7 6:11-12 6:16 6:16 6:16
2 Timothy
2:17 2:23 3:4 3:6 3:8-9 3:8-9 4:7-8 4:8 4:21
Titus
Hebrews
1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 2:3-4 2:16 3:5-6 3:7-11 4:14 4:15 6:1-8 6:4 6:8 7:14 8:13 9:4 9:4 10:1 10:30 10:32 11:10 11:10 11:23 11:32 12:15 13:8
James
1:4 1:13 1:13 1:18 1:27 3:2 4:12
1 Peter
2:6 2:9 2:10 2:17 4:11 5:4 5:5
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:1-2 1:2-3 1:8 1:8 2:1 4:18 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19
2 John
Revelation
1:1-2 1:5 1:9 1:13 2:7 3:7 3:8 7:4 7:9 12:1-6 12:1-6 12:3 13:5 14:1-4 14:4 14:4-5 14:13 20:6 20:13 22:7-8 22:7-8
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
1:13 1:14 2:23 3:16 4:1-2 4:2 4:2 4:3 4:6 7:9 7:22 7:25 11:20 12:1 15:3 15:10-11 16:24
Baruch
2 Maccabees
Sirach
1:2 1:2 1:10 3:22 6:36 6:36 15:8 16:26-27 16:29-30 18:30 19:2 20:18 22:7 23:1 23:4 23:6 25 38:29 42:7 48:1
i iii v vi 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 143 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 175 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 255 257 258 259 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 287 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543