Praeparatio Evangelica, by Eusebius of Caesarea

[admin]

Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)
by Eusebius of Caesarea
Translated by E.H. Gifford
1903
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/inde ... the_Gospel)

Contents:

• Introduction
• Book 1
• Book 2
• Book 3
• Book 4
• Book 5
• Book 6
• Book 7
• Book 8
• Book 9
• Book 10
• Book 11
• Book 12
• Book 13
• Book 14
• Book 15

[admin]

LONDINI ET NOVI EBORACI
[image omitted]
APUD HENRICUM FROWDE
ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗΣ
ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΕ
EUSEBII PAMPHILI
EVANGELICAE PRAEPARATIONIS
LIBRI XV
AD CODICES MANUSCRIPTOS DENUO COLLATOS RECENSUIT
ANGLICE NUNC PRIMUM REDDIDIT
NOTIS ET INDICIBUS INSTRUXIT
E. H. GIFFORD, S.T.P.
OLIM ARCHIDIACONUS LONDINENSIS
TOMUS III. PARS PRIOR
OXONII
E TYPOGRAPHEO ACADEMICO
M. CM. III
OXONII
Excudebat Horatius Hart
Typographus academicus

INTRODUCTION

1. THE AUTHOR.

The prominent position occupied by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea has given rise to so many important treatises on his life and character, that it would be quite superfluous to prefix a formal biography to the present edition of one among his many literary works. It will be sufficient to mention a few of the best sources of information accessible to the English reader.

(1) The article in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography on Eusebius of Caesarea by the late Bishop G. E. L. Cotton.

(2) Testimonies of the Ancients, in favour of and against Eusebius, collected by Valesius (Henri de Valois), and appended to the Prolegomena on The Life and Writings of Eusebius in Dr. McGiffert's English edition of the Church History (Parker, Oxford, 1890).

(3) The very interesting and learned Introduction to the Greek text of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, edited for the Clarendon Press by the late Dr. W. Bright, Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, 1872.

(4) Bishop Lightfoot's article, Eusebius of Caesarea, in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography (ii. 308-48), of which Dr. McGiffert says with perfect truth: 'Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship, and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.'

In each of these works the student will find abundant references to earlier sources of information.

There is, however, one interesting and important |vi question concerning Eusebius, for a satisfactory explanation of which I have sought in vain even in these copious and excellent biographies. What was the true relation of Eusebius to Pamphilus? In other words, What is the exact meaning of the title Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου?

The inquiry is interesting because it is in connexion with Pamphilus that we first hear of Eusebius; and it is not unnecessary, because the older traditional explanations are very various, while in our own more critical days we find the title sometimes rendered as 'Eusebius Pamphilus,' and even as 'Eusebius the beloved of all,' a strange designation for one who was so well hated by his more orthodox brethren.

It will be convenient to begin with the summary account of the traditional notices given by Fabricius in his great work Bibliographia Graeca, Tom. vi. p. 30: 'Eusebius Pamphili, not the martyr's son, nor his sister's son (consobrinus), nor his slave, but a friend so peculiarly intimate that he took his name from him.'

On the supposed relationship it is sufficient to quote Bishop Lightfoot's judicious remark: 'Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. vi. 37) makes him a nephew (ο τουτου αδελφιδους) of the martyr. Yet it is somewhat strange that he himself should never allude to this connexion, if it were so close. On the contrary, he speaks of his becoming acquainted with Pamphilus in such a manner as to suggest that there was no existing relationship which brought them together.'

In a note on the passage already quoted Fabricius defends the rendering 'friend of Pamphilus' by supposed examples of a similar usage. 'Thus C. Avianus Philoxenus acquired the name Avianus from his friend Flaccus Avianus, as Cicero writes, Epist. ad Familiares, xiii. 35: "The name Avianus he received because there was no man with whom he was more intimate than with Flaccus Avianus, who, as I think you know, was my own most intimate friend."' |vii

Of this example it is enough to say that the Latin usage is no authority for the Greek.

In the same note Fabricius adds: 'Etiam Iudas Iacobi et Petrus Damiani dictus uterque a fratre.' On Luke vi. 16 Ιουδαν Ιακωβου Meyer remarks that it is usually rendered '"Judas the brother of James," and therefore the son of Alphaeus; but without any foundation in exegesis. . . . Hence here and in Acts i. 13, we must read "Judas son of James," of which James nothing further is known': and on Acts i. 13 Meyer again remarks that 'The relationship is arbitrarily defined as "brother of (the younger) James." It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James.' This interpretation is now almost universally accepted. Thus Huther on Jude 1 writes: 'It is arbitrary to supply to Ιακωβου αδελφος instead of the usual supplement υιος,' and Reuss, Introduction to Jude: 'Cette derniere formule doit signifier necessairement "fils de Jacques," et non frere de Jacques.' Compare Viger, De Idiotismis Graecis, p. 12 'o( vel involvit substantivum ὑιος aut παῖς, filius, vel pro illo sumitur.' On which Hermann remarks Annot. ad Vig. De Idiot, p. 701 'Σωκρατης ο Σωφρονισκου significat aut hunc fuisse Sophronisci unicum, aut illum esse cui pater fuerit Sophroniscus, quo ab aliis Socratibus distinguatur. Σωκρατης Σωφρονισκου dicitur qui Sophroniscum, non alium, habet patrem.'

Even, however, if we could admit the rendering 'brother of James,' this extension of the genitive of kindred would not justify its further extension to the relation of 'friend': and the same objection applies to 'Petrus brother of Damianus,' as to whom see Fabric. Tom. viii. p. 88; Tom. xiii. p. 814.

St. Jerome, writing about sixty years after the death of Eusebius, speaks of him as the 'friend, eulogist, and companion' of Pamphilus: Apolog. adv. Rufin. i. 9 'Ipse Eusebius amator et praeco et contubernalis Pamphili tres libros scripsit elegantissimos vitam Pamphili continentes.' Again in the Preface to his translation of the work of |viii Eusebius On the names of places in Holy Scripture Jerome mentions that 'he took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus'; while in the Preface to his Commentary on Isaiah and elsewhere he calls him simply 'Eusebius Pamphili.'

If it seems strange that Jerome, who lived in the next generation to Eusebius, has failed to give a correct paraphrase of his adopted name, we must remember that Latin, not Greek, was Jerome's native language, and that in the Preface to his translation of the Chronicon of Eusebius he speaks in the strongest terms of the difficulty of rendering 'the peculiar and, so to speak, the native idiom of the language.'

On this point the Greek writers of Church History are better witnesses than Jerome. Socrates in the first words of his Ecclesiastical History (circ. 430 A. D.) calls him simply Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου, without any comment on the surname, which ought therefore to be taken in its usual and well-known sense.

Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, in his Hist. Eccles. i. 1. 9 writes Ευσεβιος ο επικλην Παμφιλου, where επικλην may imply a patronymic, and may be illustrated by Xenophon, Oeconom. vii. 3 ονομαζοντες με Ισχομαχον πατροθεν προσκαλουνται.

In a much later age Photius, Epist. 73, begins a bitter invective against the reputed heretic with the words EusebioV o tou Pamfilou eite douloV eite sunhqhV. Upon this the editor Baletta makes the usual remark that 'Eusebius was the disciple and friend of the martyr Pamphilus, from whom he took his surname': but it is evident that Photius himself either was or pretended to be ignorant of the actual meaning of the title; and his insolent insinuation, eite douloV, is of course rightly rejected, as we have seen, by Fabricius. Bishop Lightfoot in the article already referred to writes with just indignation: 'It was either a blundering literalism or an ignoble sarcasm, which led Photius (Ep. 73 Baletta) to suggest the |ix explanation that he was the slave of Pamphilus. Any man might have been proud to wear the slave's badge of such a devotion.'

We come at last to the positive testimony of one who at least knew the proper sense of the title ο Παμφιλου.

The oldest MS. of the Praeparatio Evangelica (Paris, n. 451) has a Scholion on the passage i. 3 (Vig. 7 c 3) which refers to the works of earlier Christian writers. 'Such,' says the Scholiast, 'as were holy Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Clement the author of the Miscellanies, Origen, and moreover Pamphilus himself the father of our present author Eusebius, Παμφιλος ο του παροντος Ευσεβιου πατηρ.'

Dr. Harnack in his description of this MS. in Texte u. Untersuch. i. 1. 34 remarks on this Scholion: 'It is worthy of notice that Pamphilus is described as the father of Eusebius (Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου). So obscure already was the Scholiast's historical knowledge.'

In a foot-note to this passage Dr. Harnack asks 'why Pamphilus is mentioned here at all. Did the author perhaps think of Lucian, or allow himself to be misled by the title of the Apology for Origen?' Again on p. 177 Dr. Harnack says: 'This Scholion is of later origin. . . . Add to this that the learned Arethas cannot have supposed Pamphilus to be the father of Eusebius.'

As to Dr. Harnack's first objection, there is nothing to surprise us in the Scholiast's mention of Pamphilus as one of the 'recent authors' of whom Eusebius might have been thinking. His literary work was of a different character, less popular, and less generally known than the writings of the Apologists previously mentioned, and for these reasons, as it seems, the Scholiast in adding his name to theirs introduces it by the words καὶ αυτος ετι Παμφιλος.

Dr. Harnack's passing remark that 'the Scholion is of later origin' is not accepted by his very learned co-editor Oscar v. Gebhardt, who made a most careful examination of the Codex, and assigned this particular Scholion to the |x hand of Arethas himself (Texte u. Unters. i. 3. 183, n. 70).

Thus, instead of an ignorant Scholiast of a later age, we have the learned Archbishop Arethas asserting that the title is to be understood in its proper sense, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and this we shall find to be consistent with all that we know of the relations between Pamphilus and Eusebius.

Pamphilus, we know, was many years older than Eusebius, was the director as well as the partner of his studies, and is always mentioned by him in terms not only of admiration and affection but of the most profound respect. Thus he calls him 'the great glory of the diocese of Caesarea, most admirable of the men of our time1,' of all my companions by me most fondly regretted, a man most glorious of the martyrs of our time for every virtue2,' 'the name to me thrice dear,' 'a man who through his whole life shone pre-eminent in every virtue3'; and when we add to such language the still more remarkable expressions quoted by Bishop Lightfoot 4 from Cureton's edition of the Syriac Martyrs of Palestine, that 'heavenly martyr of God,' 'my lord Pamphilus,' 'for it is not meet that I should mention the name of that holy and blessed Pamphilus without styling him "my lord5"'----with such testimony of filial reverence we can hardly doubt that when Eusebius adopted the patronymic o Pamfilou, he meant it in its full and proper significance, that henceforth he would call no man 'father' save this best and dearest friend of his early manhood. 'How else,' as Bishop Lightfoot says,' could he express the strength of his devotion to this friend, who was more than a friend, than by adopting his name. He would henceforward be known as "Eusebius of Pamphilus."' Let us only complete the title, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and so do justice to the old Scholiast, that is, to the learned archbishop himself. |xi

A further explanation of the patronymic may probably be found in the prevalent custom of adoption. We know that Pamphilus 'had gathered about him a collection of books which seems to have been unrivalled in Christian circles' (Lightfoot, ibid.), and of which Eusebius became the possessor and made a catalogue (Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 32). It is therefore most probable that Pamphilus had made Eusebius his heir, and 'the only way in which a childless individual could acquire an heir was by adopting him' (Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Expositor, Sept. 1898, p. 204). Cf. Hermann, Political Antiquities of Greece, § 120 'The appointment of an heir, even by will, could take place only by adoption.' This statement that the heir was necessarily an adopted son is confirmed, among other passages, by Plato, Laws 924 A, and by Isaeus 66. 31 ουτε αν εισεποιουν εις τουτον τον κληρον υιον Αρισταρχω, 'they would not have represented that a son had been adopted by Aristarchus into this inheritance.' If Eusebius was thus made the heir of Pamphilus, his legal and usual designation would henceforth be 'Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου.' And in any case, whether he was actually adopted, or took the patronymic as a symbol of respect and affection, the only true rendering is, I believe, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus.'

2. THE DATE.

The work itself contains no direct statement of the date at which it was written, and it is difficult to determine this very closely from the allusions to contemporary events, especially to the persecutions of the Christians and the subsequent prosperity of their religion.

The persecution commenced by Diocletian (February 24, A. D. 303), and continued by Galerius, ceased by his edict A. D. 311. Speaking of this persecution Eusebius says (Eccl. Hist. viii. 16) that having begun to decrease after the eighth year 'through the grace of God it ceased altogether in the tenth year.' After the defeat of Maxentius (A. D. 312) Constantine and Licinius gave freedom to the Christians, which was confirmed by the Edict |xii of Milan late in the same year (Eus. Eccl. Hist. x. 5).

With these historical statements we have to compare the allusions to the condition of the Christians in the two portions of the great apologetic work of the same author.

We may notice first certain passages which seem to have been written just before, or immediately after, the final cessation of the persecution.

Praep. Ev. 584 a, b 'Even up to the present time the noble witnesses (martyrs) of our Saviour throughout the whole inhabited world, while practising "not to seem but to be" just and devout, have suffered all things that Plato enumerated.' Here the words εις δευρο πεπονθασιν imply that the persecution if not still raging had very recently ceased.

Another passage which seems to have been written before the persecution had come to an end is found in the Demonstration of the Gospel, iii. 5. 78. Commenting on our Saviour's prophecy (Matt. xxiv. 9; Luke xxi. 12) that his disciples should be brought before rulers and kings for His name's sake, he adds 'and shall suffer all kinds of punishment for no fault or other good reason, but all this solely for His name's sake: and we may marvel at the prediction when we see this working up to the present time: for the confession of the name of Jesus is wont to inflame the wrath of the rulers, so that though no fault has been committed by one who confesses Christ, they punish him cruelly for His name's sake.'

Here again the present tenses εις δευρο θεωρουντας ενεργουμενον seem to imply that persecution was still raging.

A strong contrast to the language of these earlier passages is found in the Demonstration, v. 3. 11 'Who therefore on seeing the Churches of our Saviour flourishing (ανθουσας) in the midst of the cities, and in villages and country places throughout the whole inhabited world, and the peoples being ruled (κυριευομενους) by Him. . . .' |xiii

Again in the Praep. Ev. 9 d 7 Eusebius speaking of the Christian religion says: 'after these many years of persecution it shines forth far more brightly, and daily becomes more conspicuous, and grows and multiplies more and more.'

From such a description it is evident that a great change had occurred in the policy of the Roman Emperors towards the Christian religion, and we may fairly conclude that the earlier passages were written shortly before or shortly after the cessation of the persecution, and the later after some years of peace and prosperity.

Considering that the Preparation and the Demonstration are the two connected portions of one great work which must have been a long time in execution, we cannot be surprised at finding indications of different dates occurring in different parts of the two treatises. And though unable to fix a precise date either for the commencement or for the completion of the whole work, we can hardly be wrong in saying that it was begun about the year 312 A.D., but not finished till a few years afterwards.

On this latter point we have an interesting note of time in Praep. Ev. 135 c 4 'many of the most highly inspired even of their chief hierophants, and theologians, and prophets, who were celebrated for this kind of theosophy, not only in former times but also recently in our own day, under cruel tortures (διὰ βασανων αικιας) before the Roman courts declared that the whole delusion was produced by human frauds.' The passage evidently refers to the punishment of the false prophets and hierophants described by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ix. 11 'Licinius on arriving at the city of Antioch made a search for impostors, and tortured (βασανοις ηκιζετο) the prophets and priests of the newly erected statue, asking them "for what reason they practised their deception." And when under the stress of torture they were no longer able to conceal the matter, they declared that the whole mystery was a fraud contrived by the art of Theotecnus. He therefore meted out just |xiv judgement to all of them, and first put Theotecnus himself to death, and then his confederates in the imposture, after innumerable tortures (μετα πλειστας οσας αικιας).'

These executions took place immediately after the death of Maximinus in A. D. 313, and were followed by a further decree of toleration for the Christians. We cannot be wrong therefore in saying that the words 'recently in our time' (εναγχος καθ ημας) were written neither before nor much after A. D. 314.

3. THE OCCASION.

The time thus indicated in the work itself was especially opportune for such a defence of Christianity as Eusebius was undertaking. Persecution had ceased for the present, and there was no immediate need of such appeals to the justice or mercy of Pagan Emperors as had formed a chief subject of the first Christian Apologists. But the remembrance of the sufferings endured especially by the martyrs of Palestine, and witnessed if not actually shared by Eusebius himself, was still fresh; nor could there be any assurance that persecution would not be renewed under emperors less favourable to Christianity or less prudent than Constantine.

The wavering attitude of the emperor himself at this period is well described by Gibbon, c. xx 'The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the Sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the God of Light and Poetry.' . . . 'As long as Constantine exercised a limited sovereignty over the provinces of Gaul, his Christian subjects were protected by the authority, and perhaps by the laws, of a prince who wisely left to the gods the care of vindicating their honour. If we may credit the assertion of Constantine himself, he had been an indignant spectator of the savage cruelties which were inflicted by the hands of Roman soldiers on those citizens whose religion was their only crime.' |xv

If the prudent policy of the emperor was dictated by a sense of the growing power of Christianity in the State, nothing could help so much to strengthen this feeling and turn it into a permanent conviction as a full exhibition of the contrast between the effete superstitions and gross immorality of Paganism and the pure and vigorous spirit of the new religion.

The conflict was not ended, but it had assumed a new character: persecution had failed, but other weapons not less formidable remained. The old charges of atheism, apostasy, and hostility to the State though often refuted were constantly renewed. Learning and philosophy lent their aid both in attacking the supposed credulity of the Christians, and in endeavouring to infuse new life into the ancient Polytheism.

Porphyry, the most learned and able philosopher of his age and the bitterest opponent of Christianity, was but lately dead, and had left behind him a work in fifteen books Against the Christians. As far as we can judge from the fragments that remain this was the most comprehensive and powerful attack that had yet been made upon the new faith. Eusebius was keenly alive both to the ability of the author, and to the dangerous character of his criticism: and there was need as well as opportunity for a new and comprehensive defence of the truth so vehemently attacked.

4. THE METHOD.

In explaining the plan of his treatise Eusebius promises (7 a 1) that his purpose shall be worked out in a way of his own, differing from the methods of the many Christian authors who had preceded him. This promise is further explained (17 a 1) as meaning that his arguments will not depend on his own statements, but will be given in the very words of the most learned and best known advocates of the Pagan religions, that so the evidence alleged may not be suspected of being invented by himself. The cogency of |xvi this mode of argument truthfully and fairly conducted is unquestionable, but it had not in this case such entire novelty as Eusebius seems to claim for it. We shall find as we proceed that many of his arguments are the same as those of the earlier Apologists, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen; that he constantly borrows long passages from their writings, including the same quotations from Greek authors, reproduced word for word with due acknowledgement. Those earlier authors had in fact adopted the very same method which Eusebius announced as distinctive of his own work. The quotations thus borrowed are however few in comparison with the great multitude gathered by Eusebius himself from all parts of the Greek literature of a thousand years, from works both known and unknown of poets, historians, and philosophers.

The peculiar value of the Praeparatio resulting from this wealth of quotation is universally acknowledged. 'This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient Philosophy as the Chronicon is with reference to History, since in it are present specimens of the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now extant' (G. E. L. Cotton, Dict. Gk. and R. Biogr., 'Eusebius,' 116b).

'The Preparation exhibits the same wide range of acquaintance with the classical writers of Greece which the History exhibits in the domain of Christian literature. The list of writers quoted or referred to is astonishing for its length (see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii. 346). Some of these are known to us, even by name, only through Eusebius, and of several others he has preserved large portions which are not otherwise extant. . . . It was chiefly the impression produced by this mass of learning which led Scaliger to describe it as "divini commentarii," and Cave to call it "opus profecto nobilissimum" (H. L. i. p. 178)' (Lightfoot, Smith and "Wace's Dict. Chr. Biogr. ii. 331). |xvii]

5. THE STYLE.

It follows from the nature of the method thus described that the value of the treatise does not depend on the literary style of Eusebius. His part in the work is that of an editor or compiler rather than of an original author. His own contributions are small, except in a few places such as Book VI, chapter 6, on the subject of Fate and Free Will, and the earlier chapters of Book VII, in which he describes the religious ideas and mode of life of the original Hebrews. For the most part he is content to give short notices of the numerous authors whom he quotes, and such brief comments as serve either to connect the passages selected or to explain their meaning and force.

It is thus a matter of less importance that his own style is not attractive: the sentences are often of inordinate length, and the constructions awkward and confused. On the other hand the diction is simple, appropriate, and free from all affectation of eloquence or rhetorical artifice. Bishop Lightfoot's judgement is, as usual, very accurate when he speaks of the want of 'rhetorical vigour and expression,' but adds that 'the forcible and true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more especially bearing on the theme which may be briefly designated "God in history," arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and comprehensiveness it is without a rival.'

The same great critic passes a less favourable judgement on the arrangement of the contents: 'The divisions,' he says, 'are not kept distinct; the topics start up unexpectedly and out of season.' On this point I may be allowed to plead on behalf of Eusebius that if he deserves the censure, it is not from want of very careful endeavours to avoid it. His best defence is to be found in his very frequent explanations of the purpose and arrangement of his work. |xviii]

6. THE CONTENTS.

In his first sentence Eusebius shows us that the proper title of his proposed work as a whole is The Demonstration of the Gospel (Αποδειξις Ευαγγελικη), of which the first part (Προπαρασκευη της Ευαγγελικης Αποδειξεως, or more briefly Ευαγγελικη Προπαρασκευη) is intended to explain beforehand the objections which are likely to be urged against the Christians and their religion by both Greeks and Jews.

These objections refer to three main points:----

(i) The abandonment of the ancestral religion of the Greeks (5 a 2).

(ii) The acceptance of the foreign doctrines of the Barbarians, i. e. Jews (5 b).

(iii) The inconsistency of rejecting the Jewish sacrifices, rites, and general manner of life, while appropriating their sacred Scriptures and promised blessings (5 c).

The third point, however, is not included in the Preparation for the reason stated in the closing sentence (856 a 6), but is left for consideration in the Demonstration.

The fifteen books containing the discussion of the first two points are divided into five groups of three each, and this distribution is clearly indicated at the beginning of each group in Books I, IV, VII, X, XIII, while in the first chapter of Book XV we have a clear summary of the whole preceding argument, showing how the several divisions have been treated each in three books.

The first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology, Mythical, Allegorical, and Political (788 b 3-d 3). The next three, IV-VI, give an account of the chief oracles, of the worship of daemons, and of the various opinions of Greek philosophers on the doctrines of Fate and Free Will.

Books VII-IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history. |xix

In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses.

In the last three books the comparison of Plato with Moses is continued, and the mutual contradictions of other Greek philosophers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, are exposed and criticized.

A like orderly arrangement is observed in the smaller divisions of each group.

Book I. After stating the general purpose and plan of his intended work (chapters 1-5), Eusebius takes a brief survey of the earliest notions of the origin of the world, of mankind, and of the gods from the writings of Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Xenophon, Plato, and Porphyry (chapters 6-9, 17 b-30 d), showing that a simpler worship of sun, moon, and stars had preceded the endless theogonies and bloody sacrifices of the manifold forms of superstition among the heathen nations. The remainder of the book (31 a-42 d) is occupied by Philo's translation of Sanchuniathon's account of the Phoenician theology.

In Book II the religions of Egypt and of Greece are described in the words of Diodorus and of Clement of Alexandria; after which Eusebius himself states his reasons for rejecting both the gross legends of the older mythology and the physical explanations by which later philosophers endeavoured to throw a decent veil of allegorical interpretation over the shameless obscenities of their ancestral religion, and ends the book by a description of the comparatively purer religion of Rome from Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

In Book III the physical explanations of the Greeks and the allegorical theology of the Egyptians are further described in the language of Plutarch, Diodorus, and Porphyry, with brief criticisms by Eusebius himself (chapters 1-8). Then after quoting the Orphic Hymn, in which Zeus is described as the All, both body and soul |xx of the universe, with Porphyry's comments upon it, Eusebius proceeds 'to examine quietly and at leisure what after all the verses declare Zeus to be' (102 a). On this passage Gesner founded a charge of forgery against our author, whom he supposed to have introduced the verses in order to show that the Orphic poem taught the existence of the One true God, and even Cudworth strangely fell into the same error (Intellectual System, iv. 17). Fortunately Eusebius, while refuting Porphyry, has given us his own interpretation of the verses, showing at considerable length (102a-108a) that they represent the world as a great animal to which the name of Zeus is applied, his mind being nothing else than the ether. Compare Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo, xxvi. After quoting Porphyry again on the physical theologies of Greece and Egypt (108b-117d), Eusebius himself exposes their contradictions and absurdities in the five remaining chapters of the book (118 a-127 c).

In the second group of three books (IV-VI) he passes on from the mythical and physical systems of Greek theology to the political forms of religion upheld and enforced by the laws of the several states.

Books IV and V are mainly occupied with discussions on the oracles and their pretended prophecies and healings, which are attributed both by Eusebius and by the witnesses whom he quotes to the activity of evil daemons. The evidence on these subjects is for the most part taken from Porphyry's work On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, fragments of which are preserved by Eusebius, and his extant and well-known work On Abstinence from Animal Food. The last nine chapters are devoted to the subject of human sacrifices, the chief witnesses being Porphyry, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus Siculus.

In Book V the nature and operation of daemons, the incantations by which they may be controlled, and their regard for the images in which they are supposed to be |xxi present, are described in extracts from Plutarch On the Cessation of Oracles, from Porphyry's works already mentioned, and from his Epistle to Anebo. The latter half of the book is occupied by a most interesting and witty satire upon the oracles from the work of Oenomaus entitled The Detection of Impostors.

Book VI is devoted to the subject of Fate and Free Will in connexion with astrology, the evidence being supplied by Porphyry, Oenomaus, Diogenianus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Bardesanes the Syrian, and Origen.

In the sixth chapter we have a good specimen of the clear argumentative style of Eusebius himself: with much force and earnestness he defends 'the freedom of the Will against the fatalism of pagan religion,' and especially of the Stoic philosophy.' By the independence with which he maintains the cause of Liberty, Morality, and Duty it is evident that no such teaching as that of Pelagius had as yet disturbed men's minds, or called forth the decisions of the Church on the doctrines of grace' (Dictionnaire des Sciences philosophiques, ii. 340).

The next group consisting of Books VII-IX deals with the religion of the Hebrews.

Of Book VII the first half (298 d-322 d) is the work of Eusebius himself, describing the lives and religion of the Patriarchs, and the doctrines of Moses and the Prophets on Divine Providence, on God as the First Cause of the Universe, and on the Word as the Second Cause. In the latter half of the book the same subjects are illustrated from Jewish and Christian authors, Philo, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, and Methodius.

Beck VIII consists of the history of the Septuagint as described by Aristeas, of quotations concerning the Exodus and the Law from Philo, Josephus, and Eleazar the High Priest, on the Biblical anthropomorphisms from Aristobulus, and two accounts of the Essenes from Philo, followed by his views of Creation, and of Providence.

Book IX contains the testimony of heathen writers |xxii who have made mention of the Jews, a third account of the Essenes by Porphyry, quotations by Josephus from Hecataeus of Abdera, Clearchus the Peripatetic, Choerilus the poet, Abydenus, author of the Assyrian History, the Sibyl, and others on the Deluge and Tower of Babel. The remaining twenty-six chapters of the book are chiefly occupied by several important extracts from the work of Alexander Polyhistor, Concerning the Jews, which include long passages from the Iambic poems of Theo-dotus and Ezekiel on events in Jewish history, the spurious letters of Solomon to Vaphres king of Egypt, and Suron (Hiram) of Tyre; with descriptions of Jerusalem and other matters by various authors.

In the next group, Books X-XII, Eusebius gives examples from Clement, Porphyry, and Diodorus of the plagiarism of Greek authors both from each other and, as they argue, from the much older Scriptures of the Hebrews. The testimony to their antiquity is drawn from the Chronography of Africanus, and from Tatian, Clement, and Josephus.

In Book XI Eusebius proposes to show the agreement of Plato, as the representative of Greek Philosophy, with the Hebrew Scriptures. Adopting the threefold division of Ethics, Dialectic, and Physics, he notices the moral teaching of the sacred writers, their literary methods, accurate reasoning, and correct use of significant names, their knowledge of the natural world, and their contemplation of the 'true being' of things unseen (chapters 1-9). He then quotes the comments of Numenius, and his saying, What else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?, and Plutarch's treatise on the Ei0 at Delphi (10, 11).

Other points of comparison are the ineffable nature of God, His unity, the Second Cause as contemplated by Philo, Plotinus, Numenius, and Amelius, the Third Divine Power of the Ps.-Platonic Epinomis (chapters 12-30).

The nature of the Good and of the Ideas, as stated by Plato in the Republic and Timaeus, is illustrated by |xxiii quotations from Numenius, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria (21-25). The existence of evil powers, the immortality of the soul and the Divine image, as taught in the Alcibiades and Phaedo, and illustrated from Porphyry's answer to Boethus On the Soul, the creation of the world and of the heavenly bodies, the goodness of God's works, their changes and dissolution, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgement, are all brought into the comparison, and illustrated from the Timaeus, Republic, Politicus, and Phaedo, and from a fragment of Plutarch On the Soul.

In Book XII the comparison of Plato with the Hebrew Scriptures is continued on the simple instruction of children, the need of faith, the qualifications of rulers as described in the Laws, the Gorgias, and the Republic (chapters 1-9); the picture of the just man and his fate in the Republic; Paradise and the garden of Zeus, and the origin of mankind male and female, in the Symposium; the Deluge, the right foundation of law, religious training, the use of poetry, music, and wine, and the control of the passions, all illustrated from the Laws (chapters 10-28).

Other subjects brought into the comparison are the contrast of true philosophy and spurious wisdom (Theaetetus), the education of women (Republic), and passages of the Laws and Republic corresponding to the Hebrew Proverbs and laws of Moses on 'the memory of the just,' riches and poverty, and the honour due to parents, on slaves, landmarks, and thieves (chapters 29-42). Other coincidences are found in the use of certain examples and figures of speech, in the division of a nation into twelve tribes, in the situation of the chief city, and in Plato's thoughts on faults in education (Republic), on atheism, on God, and Divine providence (Laws).

In Book XIII Eusebius quotes with approval Plato's opinions on the absurdities of Greek mythology in the Timaeus, Republic, and Eutliyphron (chapters 1-5), on stedfast adherence to truth even unto death in the Crito |xxiv and the Apology of Socrates (chapters 6-11), adding the testimonies of Aristobulus and Clement to the agreement of Plato and other Greek philosophers with the Hebrew Scriptures (chapters 12, 13).

The remainder of the book treats of matters in which Plato's teaching is condemned concerning the belief of the common people (Timaeus and Republic), a multitude of inferior gods and daemons, the nature of the soul (Timaeus) criticized by the Platonist Severus, the worship of the heavenly bodies (Laws and Timaeus), the treatment of women (Laws and Republic), unnatural vice, and the laws of murder.

In Book XIV the consistent truth of Hebrew doctrines adopted by Christians is contrasted with the contradictions and conflicts of Greek philosophers, showing how Plato criticized his predecessors in the Theaetetus and Sophista, and was himself criticized by his followers in the successive Academies, who in their turn are subjected to the keen satire of Numenius (chapters 1-9). The subject is continued in quotations from Porphyry, Xeno-phon, Plato, Plutarch, and especially from Aristocles On Philosophy against the schools of Parmenides who rejected the evidence of the senses, of Aristippus, Metrodorus, and Protagoras who believed them alone, and of the Pyr-rhonists who believed nothing at all. The doctrines of Epicurus are refuted from the writings of Aristocles, Plato, and Dionysius of Alexandria (chapters 21-47).

In Book XV the moral character of Aristotle is defended against the slanders of Epicurus and others by Aristocles; but where he differed from Plato and the Hebrews in regard to virtue and happiness, the ideas of God and His providence, the creation of the world, the fifth corporeal essence, the nature of the heavenly bodies, and the immortality of the soul, his doctrines are severely criticized by Atticus the Platonist (chapters 2-9).

His description of the soul as an enteleceia is further criticized by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Atticus (10-13); |xxv the Stoic philosophy is discussed by Aristocles, Areius Didymus, Porphyry, Longinus, and Plotinus (14-22), and the remainder of the book is occupied with a long extract from Plutarch, De placitis Philosophorum, on the various physical theories of the world, followed by the judgement of Socrates on such questions from the Memorabilia of Xenophon.

After this survey of the contents of the Preparation as described chiefly by Eusebius himself, I think we are in fairness bound to acquit him of the charge of confusion in the divisions of the work and the arrangement of its topics. His occasional repetitions are for the most part confined to quotations, and especially to certain well-known and striking passages of Plato which are used more than once in different branches of the subject, and with different applications.

7. QUOTATIONS.

The literary value of the Preparation for the Gospel will be most fully appreciated by considering a separate list of the chief fragments of ancient authors for the preservation of which we are indebted to Eusebius in that work.

(a) Fragments of Poetry.

1. An interesting epigram by Callimachus on the simplicity of the primitive statues (99 b): this is contained in a fragment of Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus.

2. A fragment of Euripides, Melanippe Captiva, on the characters of bad and good women (466 d).

3. Large extracts in iambic verse from the Exodus, a tragedy by the Jewish dramatist Ezekiel (438 c 10-446 d 2), on which see Schürer, Jewish People, ii. 3. 224.

4. Fragments of an epic poem On Jerusalem by a Jew named Philo, 421 c, d, 430 c, 453 a. Cf. Schürer, ibid. 222.

5. Eight extracts from the epic poem of Theodotus On the Jews, describing Sichem, and narrating the story of the sons of Emmor (426 b-429 a). Cf. Schürer, ibid. 224. |xxvi

6. Many of the oracles quoted by Oenomaus in The Detection of Impostors (209 c-234 a).

7. All the oracles contained in the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles (123 d-124 b, 145 a-146 b, 168 b, 175 c). These oracles with their contexts are carefully edited by Wolff in his work Porph. De Philos. ex Oraculis haurienda, of which they form the chief substance.

8. Pindar, Fr. Incert. 2 (105), Paean. 10 (33), both in 687 b.

9. The remarkable epigram on the Tetragrammaton and the Name of seven vowels (520 a).

10. Part of the Orphic Hymn to Zeus, of which vv. 19-42 (except two or three) are found first in the fragment of Porphyry Peri Agalmatwn preserved by Eusebius P. E. 100 c 5-101 c 1.

(b) Historical Fragments.

1. In history we have first the long extract from the translation by Philo Byblius of Sanchuniathon's Phoenician History contained in a fragment of Porphyry's work Against the Christians preserved by Eusebius (31 a-42 b). If we could fully trust Porphyry's testimony to the truthfulness of Philo, and to the genuineness and antiquity of the work of Sanchuniathon, the historical value of the extract could hardly be over-estimated: and we cannot wonder that the question of its authenticity has been a most fruitful source of criticism and controversy from the time of Scaliger and Grotius to our own days. 'Few problems, in fact, in the circle of Semitic studies and of ancient history in general are of more importance than this.' So writes M. Renan. Memoire sur l'Origine et le Caractere veritable de l'Histoire phenicienne qui porte le nom de Sanchoniathon, p. 6.

2. Diodorus Siculus. In 59 c 2-61 a we have an interesting fragment of the sixth book of the Bibliotheca, confirming his account of the sources of Greek theology from the Ιερα αναγραφη, or Sacred Record of Euemerus, |xxvii and adding the wonderful narrative of Euemerus concerning his voyage to the fabulous island of Panchaea in the Indian Ocean.

3. The large fragments of Philo Judaeus first known from Eusebius will be found in 322 d 11 on the Word or Second God, in 336 b Concerning Providence, in 355 c-361 b on the Exodus and the Law from a work otherwise unknown, entitled Hypothetica, and in 379 a-400 a a very long and important passage from the Apology for the Jews.

These fragments will be found placed together at the end of the sixth volume of Richter's edition of the Greek text of Philo.

4. Among the most important of the historical fragments preserved for us by Eusebius are the long extracts from the work of Alexander Polyhistor Concerning the Jews, which occupy the larger part of Book IX, and have been very carefully edited in a special monograph by Dr. J. Freudenthal. The value of these extracts is much increased by quotations from lost works of authors otherwise unknown, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molon, a certain Philo, and Demetrius, who all wrote on the history of the Jews. On the importance of the fragments see Schürer, ibid. ii. 3. 197.

5. The extract from the Chronicon of Julius Africanus (487 d-491 b) was edited from Eusebius by Dr. Routh in Rell. Sacr. ii. 269-78, who enlarged the text from Georgius Syncellus and added copious notes (423-37).

6. From the lost work of Abydenus On Assyrian History we have most interesting notices of the Flood of Sisithrus, i. e. Noah (414 d), of the Tower of Babel (416 b), of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and of his fortification of Babylon (456 d).

(g) Philosophical Fragments.

It is in the region of Greek Philosophy that the wealth of quotation is most remarkable.

1. Among the Neo-Platonists we find Atticus, whose commentary on the Timaeus is sharply criticized by |xxviii Proclus, but of whose own writings there remain only the important fragments preserved by Eusebius; the first of which describes the threefold division of Philosophy into Ethics, Physics, and Logic, and eulogizes Plato as 'a man from nature's mysteries new-inspired,' and 'in very truth sent down from the gods, in order that Philosophy might be seen in its full proportions,' (509 b-510 a). Also in the long and important extracts contained in Book XV, chapters 4-9, 12, 13, Atticus appears as a passionate defender of Plato against Aristotle.

2. From the Epitome of Areius Didymus we have a short extract on the Platonic Ideas (545 b), and several passages on the Stoic doctrines in Book XV, chapters 15, 20.

3. Numenius the Neo-Pythagorean is known almost exclusively from the long and numerous extracts preserved by Eusebius. From the contemplation of true 'Being' with Plato (525 c-527 a) he passes on to the nature of 'the First and Second God' (537 a), and to 'the only Good' transcending all essence, which can be contemplated only apart from sense 'in a certain, immense, ineffable, and absolutely Divine solitude' (543 d). In 650 d we find him defending Plato for 'preserving both life and truth' by withdrawing from Athens; and in 727 b-739 he describes The revolt of the Academics against Plato, under the leaders of the three, or more, Academies.

4. The fragments of Aristocles the Peripatetic contain an interesting criticism of Socrates and Plato, and of the divergent Socratic Schools (510 b-511 c), a defence of the veracity of the senses against the Eleatics Xenophanes and Parmenides (756 b-757 d), a long refutation of the Sceptics Pyrrho and Timon (758 c-763 d), strong and able censures of the Sophists, Cyrenaics, and Epicureans (764 c-768 d), and lastly a defence of the moral character of Aristotle against the slanderous |xxix attacks of Epicurus, Timaeus of Tauromenium, Alexinus the Eristic, Eubulides, Demochares, Cephisodorus, and Lycon (791 a-793 c).

5. Of the three known fragments of Euemerus, the most important is contained in a fragment of the sixth book of Diodorus Siculus, itself preserved by Eusebius (Diod. Sic. iv. 179, Dindorf).

6. On the falsehood of oracles we have first a valuable fragment of Diogenianus directed against the fatalism of Chrysippus (136 d 3); then the vigorous and amusing invective of Oenomaus occupying no less than eighteen chapters of Book V (209 b-234 c); and the long series of extracts from the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, mentioned above (p. xxvi).

7. Of other works of Porphyry Eusebius has preserved many fragments of the Epistle to Anebo (92 a, 197 c, 740 d), on which see Parthey's edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis; a large part of the treatise De Statuis (97 d 2 note); several fragments of a work On the Soul, against Boethus; three long extracts from the Philological Lecture; fragments of the famous treatise Against the Christians (31 a, 179 d, 485 b).

8. A fragment attributed to Plotinus on the Entelecheia of Aristotle, which is inserted by Creuzer after Ennead. iv. 2.

9. From Plutarch's treatise on the Daedala, or primitive wooden statues at Plataeae, and the worship connected with them Eusebius has preserved two very interesting fragments (83 c, 99 b); and though the long extracts from the Stromateis (22 b-25 b) and the De placitis Philosophorum (836 a-852 c) are not the work of Plutarch, but a compilation by some unknown writer from the Epitome of Aetius, this very ancient error in the title does not detract from their value. We are equally indebted for their preservation to Eusebius, to whose accuracy and fidelity Diels (Proleg. 5-10) pays an emphatic and even enthusiastic testimony. |xxx]

8. CONCLUSION.

The work which has been my chief occupation and my delight for several years is now drawing to a close. I have to renew my thanks to friends already mentioned in the Preface to vol. i; to Dr. Sanday, whose counsel and encouragement first led me to add to the English translation a revised text; to Dr. Redpath, by whose many useful suggestions and careful correction of the proof-sheets I have been aided throughout; to Dr. John Mayor, the Professor of Latin in the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Joseph Mayor; to the Rev. W. R. Inge, one of the rare students of Plotinus; to Dr. H. H. Turner, F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Astronomy; and last not least to the Delegates, Secretary, and other Officers of the Clarendon Press, to whose unfailing kindness and invaluable help I am most deeply indebted.

Of the inadequacy of my own work I am painfully conscious. To do full justice to so large a compilation from all branches of ancient literature the editor himself should be historian, poet, philosopher, archaeologist, astronomer, ethnologist; and I certainly am none of these. For all errors and defects which remain un-corrected I can only trust to receive the indulgence for which old age not often pleads in vain.

[admin]

CORRECTIONS

PART I

153 c 3 'how far they proceed who need'] read 'how far in need.'

168 c 3 'Then fragrant incense and dark blood of grapes'] read 'Dark blood of grapes pour'd on the blazing pyre.'

302 d 1 'mariners' stars'] read 'star-fish.'

210 d 7 'He killed with his spear Carnus son of Phylander an Aetolian knight'] read 'Hippotes son of Phylander kill'd with his spear Carnus the Aetolian.'

224 d 3 'No spot on earth . . .' Omit this line.

294 c 3 'not only'] read 'I do not mean.'

404 b 11 'upon God'] read 'upon them as gods.'

448 d 5 'as soon as they cease to be wanted'] read 'as being no longer wanted.'

PART II

634 c 9 ' had become indestructible'] read when once created were indestructible.'

642 b 1 'and by those who are growing elderly and'] read 'and as they grow older.'

734 b 4 ' such as they were '] read 'whether few or many.'

734 c 2 ' house '] read ' room.'

737 b 1 ' to the leadership'] read ' Hegesinus.' Cf. note.

756 d 7 ' the existing thing'] read ' being.'

778 a 8 ' simultaneous circular revolution'] read ' synodical revolution.'

782 c 9 'show evidence'] read ' find evidence.'

823 b 9 'it is '] read ' they are.'

826 c 1 'universals'] read ' wholes.'

830 d 7 'wrist'] read ' palm.'

836 b 4 'the sun out of] read ' the Sun, or out of.'

850 a 5 ' pillar supporting the surfaces'] read ' pillar: but of the surfaces....' See note.

[Footnotes have been placed at the end]

1. 1 Eus. H. E. viii. c. 13.

2. 2 Mart. Pal. c. vii.

3. 3 ibid. xi.

4. 4 Dict. Biogr. ii. 311 a.

5. 5 ibid. 310 b.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

BOOK I

CONTENTS

• I. What the treatise on the Gospel promises p 1 a
• II. The charges usually brought against us by those who try to slander our doctrines p 4 d
• III. That we did not adopt the sentiments of the word of salvation without inquiry p 6 b
• IV. Our adoption of belief in the greatest blessings is not uncritical as to time p 9 d
• V. We did not forsake the superstitious errors of our fathers without sound reason p 14 b
• VI. Primitive theology of Phoenicians and Egyptians p 17 b
• VII. Character of the cosmogony of the Greeks p 19 a
• VIII. Philosophers' opinions concerning the system of the universe p 22 b
• IX. The ancients worshipped no other gods than the celestial luminaries, knowing nothing of the God of the universe, nor even of the erection of carved images, nor of daemons p 27 b
• The stories about the gods among other nations are of later introduction p 30 d
• X. Theology of the Phoenicians p 33 b

CHAPTER I

By the present treatise, which includes in its design the Demonstration of the Gospel, I purpose to show the nature of Christianity to those who know not what it means; and here with prayers I dedicate this work to thee, Theodotus, most excellent of Bishops, a man beloved of God and holy, in the hope of so gaining from thee the help of thy devout intercessions on my behalf, whereby thou mayest give me great assistance in my proposed argument on the teaching of the Gospel. But first of all, it is well to define clearly what this word 'Gospel' means to express. It is this then that brings 'good tidings' to all men of the advent of the highest and greatest blessings, which having been long since foretold have recently shone forth on all mankind—a Gospel which makes not provision for undiscerning wealth, nor for this petty and much-suffering life, nor for anything belonging to the body and corruption, but for the blessings which are dear and congenial to souls possessing an intelligent nature, and on which the interests of their bodies also depend, and follow them like a shadow.

Now the chief of these blessings must be religion, not that which is falsely so called and full of error, but that which makes a true claim to the title; and this consists in the looking up to Him, who in very truth is both acknowledged to be, and is, the One and Only God; and in the kindling of the life after God, wherein friendship also with Him is engendered; and this is followed by that thrice-blessed end of God's true favour, which coming from on high is dependent upon that better world, and is thereto directed, and terminates again therein.

What then can be more blessed than this excellent and all-happy friendship with God? Is not He both the dispenser and provider to all men of life and light and truth and all things good? Does He not contain in Himself the cause of the being and the life of all things? To one then who has secured friendship with Him what more can be wanting? What can he lack, who has made the Creator of all true blessings his friend? Or who can be superior to him who claims in the place of a father and a guardian the great President and absolute Monarch of the universe?

Nay, it is not possible to mention anything in which he who draws near in disposition to God the absolute Monarch, and through his intelligent piety has been deemed worthy of His all-blessed friendship, can fail to be happy alike in soul and body and all outward things.

It is then this good and saving friendship of men with God that the Word of God sent down from above, like a ray of infinite light, from the God of all goodness proclaims as good tidings to all men; and urges them to come not from this or that place but from every part out of all nations to the God of the universe, and to hasten and accept the gift with all eagerness of soul, Greeks and Barbarians together, men, women, and children, both rich and poor, wise and simple, not deeming even slaves unworthy of His call.

For indeed their Father, having constituted them all of one essence and nature, rightly admitted them all to share in His one equal bounty, bestowing the knowledge of Himself and friendship with Him upon all who were willing to hearken, and who readily welcomed His grace.

This friendship with His Father Christ's word came to preach to the whole world: for, as the divine oracles teach,

'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,' and 'He came,' they say, 'and preached peace to them that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh.'

These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD'S, and He is the ruler over the nations'; and again, 'Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved'; and another saith, 'The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.'

These promises, having been long ago laid up in divine oracles, have now shone forth upon our own age through the teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ; so that the knowledge of God among all nations, which was both proclaimed of old and looked for by those who were not ignorant of these matters, is duly preached to us by the Word, who has lately come from heaven, and shows that the actual fulfilment corresponds with the voices of the men of old.

But why should we hasten on to anticipate in our eagerness the due order of intermediate arguments, when we ought to take up the subject from the beginning, and clear away all the objections? For some have supposed that Christianity has no reason to support it, but that those who desire the name confirm their opinion by an unreasoning faith and an assent without examination; and they assert that no one is able by clear demonstration to furnish evidence of the truth of the things promised, but that they require their converts to adhere to faith only, and therefore they are called 'the Faithful,' because of their uncritical and untested faith. With good reason therefore, in setting myself down to this treatise on the Demonstration of the Gospel, I think that I ought, as a preparation for the whole subject, to give brief explanations beforehand concerning the questions which may reasonably be put to us both by Greeks and by those of the Circumcision, and by every one who searches with exact inquiry into the opinions held among us.

For in this way I think my argument will proceed in due order to the more perfect teaching of the Demonstration of the Gospel, and to the understanding of our deeper doctrines, if my preparatory treatise should help as a guide, by occupying the place of elementary instruction and introduction, and suiting itself to our recent converts from among the heathen. But to those who have passed beyond this, and are already in a state prepared for the reception of the higher truths, the subsequent part will convey the exact knowledge of the most stringent proofs of God's mysterious dispensation in regard to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Let us then begin the Preparation by bringing forward the arguments which will probably be used against us both by Greeks and by those of the Circumcision, and by every one who searches with exact inquiry into the opinions held among us.

CHAPTER II

For in the first place any one might naturally want to know who we are that have come forward to write. Are we Greeks or Barbarians? Or what can there be intermediate to these? and what do we claim to be, not in regard to the name, because this is manifest to all, but in the manner and purpose of our life? For they would see that we agree neither with the opinions of the Greeks, nor with the customs of the Barbarians.

What then may the strangeness in us be, and what the new-fangled manner of our life? And how can men fail to be in every way impious and atheistical, who have apostatized from those ancestral gods by whom every nation and every state is sustained? Or what good can they reasonably hope for, who have set themselves at enmity and at war against their preservers, and have thrust away their benefactors? For what else are they doing than fighting against the gods?

And what forgiveness shall they be thought to deserve, who have turned away from those who from the earliest time, among all Greeks and Barbarians, both in cities and in the country, are recognized as gods with all kinds of sacrifices, and initiations, and mysteries by all alike, kings law-givers and philosophers, and have chosen all that is impious and atheistical among the doctrines of men? And to what kind of punishments would they not justly be subjected, who deserting the customs of their forefathers have become zealots for the foreign mythologies of the Jews, which are of evil report among all men?

And must it not be a proof of extreme wickedness and levity lightly to put aside the customs of their own kindred, and choose with unreasoning and unquestioning faith the doctrines of the impious enemies of all nations? Nay, not even to adhere to the God who is honoured among the Jews according to their customary rites, but to cut out for themselves a new kind of track in a pathless desert, that keeps neither the ways of the Greeks nor those of the Jews?

These then are questions which any Greek might naturally put to us, having no true understanding either of his own religion or of ours. But sons of the Hebrews also would find fault with us, that being strangers and aliens we misuse their books, which do not belong to us at all, and because in an impudent and shameless way, as they would say, we thrust ourselves in, and try violently to thrust out the true family and kindred from their own ancestral rights.

For if there was a Christ divinely foretold, they were Jewish prophets who proclaimed His advent, and also announced that He would come as Redeemer and King of the Jews, and not of alien nations: or, if the Scriptures contain any more joyful tidings, it is to Jews, they say, that these also are announced, and we do not well to misunderstand them.

Moreover they say that we very absurdly welcome with the greatest eagerness the charges against their nation for the sins they committed, but on the other hand pass over in silence the promises of good things foretold to them; or rather, that we violently pervert and transfer them to ourselves, and so plainly defraud them while we are simply deceiving ourselves. But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that though we do not observe the customs of their Law as they do, but openly break the Law, we assume to ourselves the better rewards which have been promised to those who keep the Law.

CHAPTER III

These being questions which would naturally be the first put to us, let us, after invoking the God of the universe through our Saviour, His own Word, as our High Priest, proceed to clear away the first of the objections put forward, by proving at the outset that they were false accusers who declared that we can establish nothing by demonstration, but hold to an unreasoning faith.

This then we will disprove at once, and with no long argument, both from the proofs which we employ towards those who come for instruction in our doctrines, and from our replies to those who oppose us in more argumentative discussions, and by the debates, whether written or unwritten, which we are zealous in holding both privately with each inquirer, and publicly with the multitudes; and especially by the books which we have in hand, comprising the general treatment of the Demonstration of the Gospel, in which is included our present discourse proclaiming to all men the good tidings of all the grace of God and His heavenly blessing, and accrediting in a more logical way by very many manifest proofs the dispensation of God concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

It is true that most of those before us have diligently pursued many other modes of treatment, at one time by composing refutations and contradictions of the arguments opposed to us, at another time by interpreting p. the inspired and sacred Scriptures by exegetical commentaries, and homilies on particular points, or again by advocating our doctrines in a more controversial manner. The purpose, however, which we have in hand is to be worked out in a way of our own. The very first indeed to deprecate deceitful and sophistical plausibilities, and to use proofs free from ambiguity, was the holy Apostle Paul, who says in one place, 'And our speech and our preaching was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.' To which he adds: 'Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world that come to nought; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden.' And again: 'Our sufficiency,' he says, 'is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.'

Rightly then is the exhortation addressed to all of us, 'to be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason concerning the hope that is in us.'

Hence, by recent authors also, there are, as I have said, demonstrations without number, which we may carefully read, very able and clear, written in argumentative form in defence of our doctrine, and not a few commentaries carefully made upon the sacred and inspired Scriptures, showing by mathematical demonstrations the unerring truthfulness of those who from the beginning preached to us the word of godliness.

Nevertheless all words are superfluous, when the works are more manifest and plain than words,—works which the divine and heavenly power of our Saviour distinctly exhibits even now, while preaching good tidings of the divine and heavenly life to all men.

For instance, when He prophesied that His doctrine should be preached throughout the whole world inhabited by man for a testimony to all nations, and by divine foreknowledge declared that the Church, which was afterwards gathered by His own power out of all nations, though not yet seen nor established in the times when He was living as man among men, should be invincible and undismayed, and should never be conquered by death, but stands and abides unshaken, settled, and rooted upon His own power as upon a rock that cannot be shaken or broken—the fulfilment of the prophecy must in reason be more powerful than any word to stop every gaping mouth of those who are prepared to exhibit a shameless effrontery.

For who would not acknowledge the truth of the prophecy, when the facts so manifestly all but cry out and say, that it was indeed the power of God, and not human nature, which before these things came to pass foresaw that they should happen in this way, and foretold them, and in deeds fulfilled them?

Certainly the fame of His Gospel has filled the whole world on which the sun looks down; and the proclamations concerning Him ran through all nations, and are now still increasing and advancing in a manner corresponding to His own words.

The Church also which He foretold by name stands strongly rooted, and lifted up as high as the vaults of heaven by prayers of holy men beloved of God, and day by day is glorified, flashing forth unto all men the intellectual and divine light of the religion announced by Him, and is in no way vanquished or subjected by His enemies, nay, yields not even to the gates of death, because of that one speech uttered by Himself, saying: 'Upon the rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

There are also countless other sayings and prophecies of our Saviour, by collecting which in a special work, and showing that the actual events agree with His divine foreknowledge, we prove beyond all question the truth of our opinions concerning Him.

And in addition to all this, there is no small proof of the truth which we hold in the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures, in which so vast a number of years beforehand the Hebrew prophets proclaimed the promise of blessings to all mortal life, and mentioned expressly the name of the Christ, and foretold His advent among men, and announced the novel manner of His teaching, which in its course has reached unto all nations. They predicted also the future unbelief in Him, and the gainsaying of the Jewish nation, and the deeds they wrought against Him, and the dismal fate which thereupon immediately and without delay overtook them: I mean the final siege of their royal metropolis, and the entire overthrow of the kingdom, and their own dispersion among all nations, and their bondage in the land of their enemies and adversaries, things which they are seen to have suffered after our Saviour's advent in accordance with the prophecies.

In addition to this, who can fail to be astonished at hearing the same prophets preach in clear and transparent language, that the advent of Christ and the falling away of the Jews would be followed by the call of the Gentiles? Which call itself also straightway became a fact in accordance with the prophecies, through the teaching of our Saviour.

For through Him multitudes from every race of mankind turned away from the delusion of idols, and embraced the true knowledge and worship of Him who is God over all, wellnigh ratifying the oracles of men of old, and especially that one which by Jeremy the prophet said 'O Lord my God, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers inherited false idols, and there was no profit in them. Shall a man make unto himself gods, which yet are no gods?'

CHAPTER IV

All these circumstances then confirm the story of the facts of our religion, and show that it was not contrived from any human impulse, but divinely foreknown, and divinely announced beforehand by the written oracles, and yet far more divinely proffered to all men by our Saviour; afterwards also it received power from God, and was so established, that after these many years of persecution both by the invisible daemons and by the visible rulers of each age it shines forth far more brightly, and daily becomes more conspicuous, and grows and multiplies more and more. Thus it is plain that the help which comes down from the God of the universe supplies to the teaching and name of our Saviour its irresistible and invincible force, and its victorious power against its enemies.

Also the help thence gained towards a happy life for all men, not only from His express words, but also from a secret power, was surely an indication of His divine power: for it must have been of a divine and secret power, that straightway at His word, and with the doctrine which He put forth concerning the sole sovereignty of the One God who is over all, at once the human race was set free from the delusive working of daemons, at once also from the multitude of rulers among the nations.

In fact, whereas of old in each nation numberless kings and local governors held power, and in different cities some were governed by a democracy, and some by tyrants, and some by a multitude of rulers, and hence wars of all kinds naturally arose, nations clashing against nations, and constantly rising up against their neighbours, ravaging and being ravaged, and making war in their sieges one against another, so that from these causes the whole population, both of dwellers in the cities, and labourers in the fields, from mere childhood were taught warlike exercises, and always wore swords both in the highways and in villages and fields,—when God's Christ was come all this was changed. For concerning Him it had been proclaimed of old by the prophets, 'In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace,' and 'they shall beat their swords into plow-shares and their spears into pruning-hooks; and nation shall not take sword against nation, and they shall not learn war any more.'

In accordance with these predictions the actual events followed. Immediately all the multitude of rulers among the Romans began to be abolished, when Augustus became sole ruler at the time of our Saviour's appearance. And from that time to the present you cannot see, as before, cities at war with cities, nor nation fighting with nation, nor life being worn away in the old confusion.

Surely there is good cause, when one considers it, to wonder why of old, when the daemons tyrannized over all the nations, and men paid them much worship, they were goaded by the gods themselves into furious wars against each other—so that now Greeks were at war with Greeks, and now Egyptians with Egyptians, and Syrians with Syrians, and Romans with Romans, and made slaves of each other and wore each other out with sieges, as in fact the histories of the ancients on these matters show—but that at the same time with our Saviour's most religious [and peaceful] teaching the destruction of polytheistic error began to be accomplished, and the dissensions of the nations at once to find rest from former troubles? This especially I consider to be a very great proof of the divine and irresistible power of our Saviour.

And of the benefit which visibly proceeds from His doctrines you may see a clear proof, if you consider, that at no other time from the beginning until now, nor by any of the illustrious men of old, but only from His utterances, and from His teaching diffused throughout the whole world, the customs of all nations are now set aright, even those customs which before were savage and barbarous; so that Persians who have become His disciples no longer marry their mothers, nor Scythians feed on human flesh, because of Christ's word which has come even unto them, nor other races of Barbarians have incestuous union with daughters and sisters, nor do men madly lust after men and pursue unnatural pleasures, nor do those, whose practice it formerly was, now expose their dead kindred to dogs and birds, nor, strangle the aged, as they did formerly, nor do they feast according to their ancient custom on the flesh of their dearest friends when dead, nor like the ancients offer human sacrifices to the daemons as to gods, nor slaughter their dearest friends, and think it piety.

For these and numberless things akin to these were what of old made havoc of human life.

'It is recorded, for instance, in history that the Massagetae and Derbices deemed those of their kindred who died a natural death most miserable, and for this reason hastened to sacrifice and to feast upon the aged among their dearest friends. The Tibareni used to throw their old kinsmen alive down a precipice; and the Hyrcanians and Caspians threw them out to birds and dogs, the former while alive, and the latter when dead. But the Scythians used to bury them alive, and to slaughter over their funeral pyres those who were most dear to the deceased. The Bactrians also used to cast those who had grown old alive to the dogs.' 1

These however were customs of a former age, and are now no longer practised in the same manner, the salutary law of the power of the Gospel having alone abolished the savage and inhuman pest of all these evils.

Then there is the fact that men no longer regard as gods either the lifeless and dumb images, or the evil daemons operating in them, or the parts of the visible world, or the souls of mortals long since departed, or the most hurtful of irrational animals; but instead of all these, solely through the teaching of our Saviour in the Gospel, Greeks and Barbarians together, who sincerely and unfeignedly adhere to His word, have reached such a point of high philosophy, as to worship and praise and acknowledge as divine none but the Most High God, the very same who is above the universe, the absolute monarch and Lord of heaven and earth, and sun and stars, Creator also of the whole world. They have also learned to live a strict life, so as to be guided even in looking with their eyes, and to conceive no licentious thought from a lustful look, but to cut away the very roots of every base passion from the mind itself.

Must not then all these things help all men towards a virtuous and happy life?

What also of the fact that men, far from perjuring themselves, have no need even of a truthful oath because of learning from Him to 'swear not at all,' but in all things to be guileless and true, so as to be satisfied with 'yea' and 'nay,' making their purpose to be stronger than any oath? 2 And then the fact that even in simple sayings and common conversation they are not indifferent, but carefully measure their words even in these, so as to utter by their voice no lie, nor railing, nor any foul and unseemly word, because again of His admonition, wherein He said, 'for every idle word ye shall give account in the day of judgement'—to what a high degree of philosophic life do these things pertain? 3

Add to this that whole myriads in crowds together of men, women, and children, slaves and free, obscure and illustrious, Barbarians and Greeks alike, in every place and city and district in all nations under the sun, flock to the teaching of such lessons as we have lately learned, and lend their ears to words which persuade them to control not only licentious actions, but also foul thoughts of gluttony and wantonness in the mind: and that all mankind is trained in a divine and godly discipline, and learns to bear with a noble and lofty spirit the insults of those who rise up against them, and not to repay the wicked with like treatment, but to get the mastery over anger and wrath and every furious emotion, and moreover to share their possessions with the helpless and needy, and welcome every man as of the same race, and to acknowledge the stranger, commonly so reputed, as being by the law of nature a close kinsman and a brother.

How then could any one, taking all these things together, refuse to admit that our doctrine has brought to all men good tidings of very great and true blessings, and has supplied to human life that which is of immediate advantage towards happiness? For what thinkest thou of the fact that it induced the whole human race, not only Greeks, but also the most savage Barbarians and those who dwell in the utmost parts of the earth, to refrain from their irrational brutality and adopt the opinions of a wise philosophy? As, for example, the opinions concerning the immortality of the soul, and of the life laid up with God for His beloved after their departure hence, for the sake of which they studied to despise this temporary life; so that they showed those who were at any former time renowned for philosophy to be but children, and that death that was so much talked of and celebrated in the mouth of all philosophers to be a mere trifle; since, among us, females and young children, and barbarians and men apparently of little worth, by the power and help of our Saviour have shown by deeds rather than by words that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is true. Such also as is the fact, that all men universally in all nations are trained by our Saviour's teachings to sound and steadfast thoughts concerning God's providence as overseeing the whole world; and the fact that every soul learns the doctrine concerning the tribunal and judgement of God, and lives a thoughtful life, and keeps on guard against the practices of wickedness.

CHAPTER V

But to understand the sum of the first and greatest benefit of the word of salvation, you must take into consideration the superstitious delusion of the ancient idolatry, whereby the whole human race in times long past was ground down by the constraint of daemons: but from that most gloomy darkness, as it were, the word by its divine power delivered both Greeks and Barbarians alike, and translated them all into the bright intellectual daylight of the true worship of God the universal King.

But why need I spend time in endeavouring to show that we have not devoted ourselves to an unreasoning faith, but to wise and profitable doctrines which contain the way of true religion? As the present work is to be a complete treatise on this very subject, we exhort and beseech those who are fitly qualified to follow demonstrative arguments, that they give heed to sound sense, and receive the proofs of our doctrines more reasonably, and 'be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us the reason of the hope that is in us.' 4

But since all are not so qualified, and the word is kind and benevolent, and rejects no one at all, but heals every man by remedies suitable to him, and invites the unlearned and simple to the amendment of their ways, naturally in the introductory teaching of those who are beginning with the simpler elements, women and children and the common herd, we lead them on gently to the religious life, and adopt the sound faith to serve as a remedy, and instil into them right opinions of God's providence, and the immortality of the soul, and the life of virtue.

Is it not in this way that we also see men scientifically curing those who are suffering from bodily diseases, the physicians themselves having by much practice and education acquired the doctrines of the healing art, and conducting all their operations according to reason, while those who come to them to be cured give themselves up to faith and the hope of better health, though they understand not accurately any of the scientific theories, but depend only on their good hope and faith?

And when the best of the physicians has come upon the scene, he prescribes with full knowledge both what must be avoided and what must be done, just like a ruler and master; and the patient obeys him as a king and lawgiver, believing that what has been prescribed will be beneficial to him.

Thus scholars also accept the words of instruction from their teachers, because they believe that the lesson will be good for them: philosophy, moreover, a man would not touch before he is persuaded that the profession of it will be useful to him: and so one man straightway chooses the doctrines of Epicurus, and another emulates the Cynic mode of life, another follows the philosophy of Plato, another that of Aristotle, and yet another prefers the Stoic philosophy to all, each of them having embraced his opinion with a better hope and faith that it will be beneficial to him.

Thus also men pursue the ordinary professions, and some adopt the military and others the mercantile life, having: assumed again by faith that the pursuit will supply them with a living. In marriages also the first approaches and unions formed in the hope of begetting children had their beginnings from a good faith.

Again, a man sails forth on an uncertain voyage, without having cast out any other anchor of safety for himself than faith and good hope alone: and, again, another takes to husbandry, and after casting his seed into the earth sits waiting for the turn of the season, believing that what decayed upon the ground, and was hidden by floods of rains, will spring up again as it were from the dead to life: and, again, any one setting out from his own land on a long journey in a foreign country takes with him as good guides his hope and his faith.

And when you cannot but perceive that man's whole life depends on these two things—hope and faith—why do you wonder if also the things that are better for the soul are imparted by faith to some, who have not leisure to be taught the particulars in a more logical way, while others have opportunity to pursue the actual arguments, and to learn the proofs of the doctrines advocated? But now that we have made this short introduction, which will not be without advantage, let us go back to the first indictment, and give an answer to those who inquire who we are and whence we come. Well then, that being Greeks by race, and Greeks by sentiment, and gathered out of all sorts of nations, like the chosen men of a newly enlisted army, we have become deserters from the superstition of our ancestors,—this even we ourselves should never deny. But also that, though adhering to the Jewish books and collecting out of their prophecies the greater part of our doctrine, we no longer think it agreeable to live in like manner with those of the Circumcision,—this too we should at once acknowledge.

It is time, therefore, to submit our explanation of these matters. In what other way then can it appear that we have done well in forsaking the customs of our forefathers, except by first setting them forth publicly and bringing them under the view of our readers? For in this way the divine power of the demonstration of the Gospel will become manifest, if it be plainly shown to all men what are the evils that it promises to cure, and of what kind they are. And how can the reasonableness of our pursuing the study of the Jewish Scriptures appear, unless their excellence also be proved? It will be right also to state fully for what reason, though gladly accepting their Scriptures, we decline to follow their mode of life: and, in conclusion, to state what is our own account of the Gospel argument, and what Christianity should properly be called, since it is neither Hellenism nor Judaism, but a new and true kind of divine philosophy, bringing evidence of its novelty from its very name.

First of all then let us carefully survey the most ancient theologies, and especially those of our own forefathers, celebrated even till now in every city, and the solemn decisions of noble philosophers concerning the constitution of the world and concerning the gods, that we may learn whether we did right or not in departing from them.

And in the clear statement of what is to be proved I shall not set down my own words, but those of the very persons who have taken the deepest interest in the worship of those whom they call gods, that so the argument may stand clear of all suspicion of being invented by us.

CHAPTER VI

It is reported then that Phoenicians and Egyptians were the first of all mankind to declare the sun and moon and stars to be gods, and to be the sole causes of both the generation and decay of the universe, and that they afterwards introduced into common life the deifications and theogonies which are matters of general notoriety.

Before these, it is said, no one made any progress in the knowledge of the celestial phenomena, except the few men mentioned among the Hebrews, who with clearest mental eyes looked beyond all the visible world, and worshipped the Maker and Creator of the universe, marvelling much at the greatness of His wisdom and power, which they represented to themselves from His works; and being persuaded that He alone was God, they naturally spake only of Him as God, son from father successively receiving and guarding this as the true, the first, and the only religion. The rest of mankind, however, having fallen away from this only true religion, and gazing in awe upon the luminaries of heaven with eyes of flesh, as mere children in mind, proclaimed them gods, and honoured them with sacrifices and acts of worship, though as yet they built no temples, nor formed likenesses of mortal men with statues and carved images, but looked up to the clear sky and to heaven itself, and in their souls reached up unto the things there seen.

Not here, however, did polytheistic error stay its course for men of later generations, but driving on into an abyss of evils wrought even greater impiety than the denial of God, the Phoenicians and then the Egyptians being the first authors of the delusion. For from them, it is said, Orpheus, son of Oeagrus, first brought over with him the mysteries of the Egyptians, and imparted them to the Greeks; just, in fact, as Cadmus brought to them the Phoenician mysteries together with the knowledge of letters: for the Greeks up to that time did not yet know the use of the alphabet.

First, therefore, let us inquire how those of whom we are speaking have judged concerning the first creation of the world; then consider their opinions about the first and most ancient superstition found in human life; and, thirdly, the opinions of the Phoenicians; fourthly, those of the Egyptians; after which, fifthly, making a distinction in the opinions of the Greeks, we will first examine their ancient and more mythical delusion, and then their more serious and, as they say, more natural philosophy concerning the gods: and after this we will travel over the account of their admired oracles; after which we will also take a survey of the serious doctrines of the noble philosophy of the Greeks. So, when these have been thoroughly discussed, we will pass over to the doctrines of the Hebrews—I mean of the original and true Hebrews, and of those who afterwards received the name Jews. And after all these we will add our own doctrines as it were a seal set upon the whole. The history of all these we must necessarily recall, that so by comparison of the doctrines which have been admired in each country the test of the truth may be exhibited, and it may become manifest to our readers from what opinions we have departed, and what that truth is which we have chosen. But now let us pass to the first point.

From what source then shall we verify our proofs? Not, of course, from our own Scriptures, lest we should seem to show favour to our argument: but let Greeks themselves appear as our witnesses, both those of them who boast of their philosophy, and those who have investigated the history of other nations.

Well then, in recording the ancient theology of the Egyptians from the beginning, Diodorus, the Sicilian, leads the way, a man thoroughly known to the most learned of the Greeks as having collected the whole Library of History into one treatise. From him I will set forth first what he has clearly stated in the beginning of his work concerning the origin of the whole world, while recording the opinion of the ancients in the manner following.

CHAPTER VII

[DIODORUS] The full account of the ideas entertained concerning the gods by those who first taught men to honour the deity, and of the fabulous stories concerning each of the immortals, I shall endeavour to arrange in a separate work, because this subject requires a long discussion: but all that we may deem to be suitable to our present historical inquiries we shall set forth in a brief summary, that nothing worth hearing may be missed.

But concerning the descent of the whole human race, and the transactions which have occurred in the known parts of the world, we shall give as accurate an account as may be possible about matters so ancient, and shall begin from the earliest times. 'With regard then to the first origin of mankind two explanations have been held among the most accepted physiologists and historians. For some of them, on the supposition that the universe is uncreated and imperishable, declared that the human race also has existed from eternity, their procreation of children having never had a beginning; while others, who thought the world to be created and perishable, said that, like it, mankind were first created within definite periods of time. 'For, according to the original constitution of the universe, heaven and earth, they said, had one form, their nature being mixed: but afterwards, when their corporeal particles were separated from each other, though the cosmos embraced in itself the whole visible order, the air was subjected to continual motion. The fiery part of it gathered towards the highest regions, because fire is naturally borne upwards by reason of its lightness; and from this cause the sun and all the multitude of stars were caught and carried off in the general whirl: but the muddy and turbid part of the air, in its commixture with the moist parts, settled down together because of its heaviness, and by revolving in itself and continually contracting made the sea out of the moist parts, and out of the more solid parts made the earth, muddy and quite soft.

'This was at first hardened from the fire round the sun shining upon it, and afterwards, when the surface was thrown into fermentation through the warmth, some of the liquid particles swelled up in many places, and tumours were formed about them surrounded by thin membranes, a thing which may still be seen going on in stagnant pools and marshy places, when upon the cooling of the ground the air becomes suddenly fiery, because the change does not take place in it gradually.

'The moist parts then being quickened into life by the warmth in the way mentioned, during the nights they received their nourishment direct from the mist which falls from the surrounding atmosphere, and during the days became hardened by the heat; and at last, when the pregnant cells attained their full growth, and the membranes were thoroughly heated and burst asunder, all various types of living things sprang up.

'And those of them which had received the largest share of heat went off into the upper regions, and became birds; while those which retained an earthy consistency were counted in the order of reptiles and of the other land animals; and those which had partaken most largely of the watery element ran together to the place congenial to their nature, and were called aquatic.

'But the earth being more and more solidified both by the fire about the sun and by the winds, at last was no longer able to quicken any of the larger creatures into life, but the several kinds of animals were generated from their union one with another.

'It seems that even Euripides, who was a disciple of the physicist Anaxagoras, does not dissent from what has been now said concerning the nature of the universe; for he thus writes in the Melanippe:

"So heaven and earth at first had all one form;
But when in place dissevered each from other,
They gave to all things birth, and brought to light
Trees, birds, and beasts, and all the salt sea's brood,
And race of mortal men." 5

'Such are the traditions which we have received concerning the first beginnings of the universe. And they say that the primitive generations of mankind, living in a disorderly and savage state, used to go wandering out over the pastures, and procure for food the tenderest herbage, and the fruits of trees that grew wild: and that when warred on by the wild beasts they were taught by their own interest to help one another, and from gathering together through fear they gradually recognized each other's forms.

'And though their speech was originally indistinct and confused, by degrees they articulated their words, and settling with each other signs for every object lying before them, they made their interpretation of all things intelligible among themselves.

'But when such associations came to be formed throughout all the inhabited world, they had not all a language of the same sounds, because they each arranged their words as it chanced; and from this cause there were originally all kinds of languages, and the associations first formed became the progenitors of all the nations.

'So then the first generations of men, by whom none of the conveniences of life had been discovered, passed a hard time, being destitute of clothing, and unused to houses and fire, and altogether without any idea of prepared food. For not knowing even how to harvest their food that grew wild, they did not lay by any store of the fruits for their needs: and therefore in the winters many of them perished of the cold and scarcity of food.

'But afterwards, being gradually taught by experience, they took refuge in their caves in the winter, and laid by such fruits as could be kept. And when fire became known, the usefulness of other things was gradually discovered and the arts also were invented, and all other things that could benefit their common life.

'For necessity itself became universally men's teacher in all things, naturally suggesting the knowledge of each to a being well endowed by nature, and having for all purposes the help of hands, and speech, and ready wit. So concerning the origin of mankind and the most primitive mode of life we will be content with what has been said, making brevity our aim.'

Thus much writes the aforesaid historian, without having mentioned God even so much as by name in his cosmogony, but having presented the arrangement of the universe as something accidental and spontaneous. And with him you will find most of the Greek philosophers agreeing, whose doctrines concerning the first principles of things, with their differences of opinion and of statement, based on conjectures not on a clear conception, I shall on the present occasion set forth from Plutarch's Miscellanies.8 And do thou, not casually but leisurely and with careful consideration, observe the mutual disagreement of the authors whom I quote.

CHAPTER VIII

[PLUTARCH] 'Thales, it is said, was the first of all who supposed that water was the original element of the universe, for that all things spring from it and return to it.

'After him Anaximander, who had been a companion of Thales, said that the Infinite contained the whole cause of both the generation and decay of all things, and out of it he says that the heavens, and, generally, all the worlds, which are infinite in number, have been brought into distinct form. He declared that decay and, long before that, generation originated in the revolution of all these worlds from infinite ages. The earth, he says, is in figure cylindrical, and its depth a third part of its breadth. He says too that the eternal generative force of heat and cold was separated at the generation of this world, and that from it a kind of sphere of flame grew round the atmosphere of the earth as bark round a tree; and that when this flame was rent asunder and shut off into certain orbits, the sun and moon and stars came into existence. Further, he says that man at first was generated d from animals of other kinds, because while the other animals quickly find food of themselves, man alone needs to be nursed for a long time; and for this reason, being such as he is, he could not in the beginning have been kept alive. These then are the opinions of Anaximander.

'But Anaximenes, it is said, declared the air to be the first element of the universe, and that this is in its generic nature infinite, but is differentiated by the qualities attached to it, and that all things are generated by virtue of a certain condensation and subsequent rarefaction of this air. Its motion however subsists eternally, and when the air was compressed, first, he said, the earth was produced, and was very broad, and therefore according to reason floated upon the air; and the sun, and moon, and other heavenly bodies were originally produced out of earth. He declares, for instance, that the sun is earth, but because of its swift motion it has a great supply of heat.

'Xenophanes of Colophon has proceeded by a way of his own, diverging from all who have been previously mentioned, for he leaves neither generation nor decay, but says that the All is always alike. For, says he, if it were to begin to be, it must previously not be; but Non-being cannot begin to be, nor can Non-being make anything, nor from Non-being can anything begin to be.

'He declares also that the senses are fallacious, and with them altogether disparages even reason itself. Also he declares that the earth being continuously carried down little by little in time passes away into the sea. He says also that the sun is formed from a gathering of many small sparks. With regard to the gods; also he declares that there is no ruling power among them; for it is not right that any of the gods should be under a master: and none of them needs anything at all from any; and that they hear and see universally and not partially.

'Also he declares that the earth is infinite, and not surrounded; by air on every side; and that all things are produced out of earth: the sun, however, and the other heavenly bodies he says 'are produced out of the clouds.

'But Parmenides the Eleatic, the companion of Xenophanes, both claimed to hold his opinions and at the same time tried to establish the opposite position. For he declares that in real truth the All is eternal and motionless; for he says it is

"Sole, of sole kind, unmoving, uncreated"

and that generation belongs to the things which upon a false assumption are thought to exist, and he denies the truth of the sensual perceptions. He says too that if anything subsists besides Being, this is Non-being, and Non-being does not exist in the universe. Thus he concludes that Being is uncreated. The earth, he says, has arisen from the dense air having settled down.

'Zeno the Eleatic put forth nothing properly his own, but discussed these opinions more at large.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

'Democritus of Abdera supposed that the All is infinite, because there was none who could possibly have framed it: he further says that it is unchangeable; and generally, everything being such as it is, he expressly asserts that the causes of the processes now going on have no beginning, but all things absolutely, past, present, and to come, are wholly fixed beforehand by necessity from infinite time. Of the generation of the sun and moon he says, that they moved in their separate courses, when as yet they had no natural heat at all, nor generally any brightness, but on the contrary were assimilated to the nature of the earth; for each of them had been produced earlier when the world was as yet in some peculiar rudimentary condition, and afterwards, when the orbit round the sun became enlarged, the fire was included in it.

'Epicurus son of Neocles, an Athenian, endeavours to suppress the vain conceit about gods: but also says that nothing is produced out of Non-being, because the All always was and always will be such as it is; that nothing new is brought to pass in the All because of the infinite time which has already passed; that all is body, and not only unchangeable, but also infinite; that the summum bonum is pleasure.

'Aristippus of Gyrene says that pleasure is the summum bonum, and pain the worst of evils; but all other physiology he excludes by saying that the only useful thing is to inquire

"What for your home is evil and what good." 6

'Empedocles of Agrigentum made four elements, fire, water, air, and earth, and their cause friendship and enmity. There was first the mixture of the elements, out of which, he says, the air was separated and diffused all around; and next to the air the fire leaped out, and having no other place was driven upwards by the freezing of the air. And there are two hemispheres, he says, moving in a circle round the earth, the one wholly of fire, the other of air and a little fire mixed, which he supposes to be night; and the beginning of their motion resulted from its having happened when the fire predominated in the combination. And the sun is in its nature not fire, but a reflexion of fire, like the reflexion formed from water. The moon, he says, was formed separately by itself out of the air left by the fire; for this air froze just like hail: but its light it has from the sun. The ruling power, he says, is neither in the head nor in the breast, but in the blood; whence also he thinks that in whatever part of the body this ruling power (the blood) is more largely diffused, in that part men excel.

'Metrodorus of Chios says that the All is eternal, because if it were created it would have come from Non-being; and infinite, because eternal, for it had no first principle to start from, nor any limit, nor end. But neither does the All partake of motion; for it cannot be moved without changing its place; and a change of place must of necessity be either into plenum or into vacuum. The air being condensed makes clouds, then water, which also flowing down upon the sun extinguishes it: and it is rekindled again by evaporation. And in time the sun is made solid by the dryness, and forms stars out of the clear water, and from being extinguished and rekindled makes night and day, and eclipses generally.

'Diogenes of Apollonia supposes that air is the primary element, that all things are in motion, and that the worlds are infinite. His cosmogony is as follows: when the All was in motion, and was becoming in one part rare and in another dense, where the dense part happened to meet it formed a concretion, and so the other parts on the same principle; and the lightest having taken the highest position produced the sun.'

Such is the judgement of the all-wise Greeks, those, forsooth, who were entitled physicists and philosophers, concerning the constitution of the All and the original cosmogony; in which they did not assume any creator or maker of the universe, nay, they made no mention of God at all, but referred the cause of the All solely to irrational impulse and spontaneous motion.

So great also is their mutual opposition; for in no point have they agreed one with another, but have filled the whole subject with strife and discord. Wherefore the admirable Socrates used to convict them all of folly, and to say that they were no better than madmen, that is, if you think Xenophon a satisfactory witness, when in the Memorabilia he speaks thus:

[XENOPHON] 'But no one ever yet either saw Socrates do, or heard him say, anything impious or irreligious. For even concerning the nature of all things, or other such questions, he did not discourse, as most did, speculating what is the nature of the cosmos, as the sophists call it, and by what necessary forces the heavenly bodies are each produced, but he even used to represent those who troubled their minds about such matters as talking folly.'7

And presently he adds:

'And he used to wonder, that it was not manifest to them, that it is impossible for men to discover these things; since even those who prided themselves most highly on discoursing of these subjects did not hold the same opinions one with another, but behaved to each other like mad people. For as among madmen some do not fear even things that should be feared, and others fear what is not at all fearful; ... so of those who trouble themselves about the nature of all things, some think that Being is one only, others that it is an infinite multitude; and some that all things are ever in motion, but others that nothing ever can be moved: and some that all things are created and perish, but others that nothing ever can either be created or perish.'9

So says Socrates, according to the testimony of Xenophon. And Plato also agrees with this account in his dialogue Concerning the Soul, describing him as thus speaking:

[PLATO] 'For in my youth, Cebes, said he, I myself had a wonderful longing for this kind of wisdom which they call Physical Research: it seemed to me a magnificent thing to know the causes of everything, why each comes into being, and why it perishes, or why it exists. And I was constantly turning my mind this way and that, in examining first such questions as these:—Is it when hot and cold have assumed a kind of putrefaction, as some used to say,—is it then that living things are bred and nourished? And is the blood that by which we think, or the air, or the fire? Or is it none of these, but is the brain that which supplies the sensation of sight, and hearing, and smell? And from these might come memory and opinion, and from memory and opinion, when they have reached a settled state, in the same manner knowledge arises. And then again I speculated on their decay, and the changes to which the heaven and the earth are subject, and at last it seemed to me that I was of all things in the world the least fitted by nature for such speculation. And I will tell you a good proof of it: I was so utterly blinded by the mere inquiry, that even what I clearly understood before, at least as I and others thought, I then unlearned,— even what I thought I knew before.'10

So said Socrates, that very man so celebrated by all the Greeks. When, therefore, even this great philosopher had such an opinion of the physiological doctrines of those whom I have mentioned, I think that we too have with good reason deprecated the atheism of them all, since their polytheistic error also seems not to be unconnected with the opinions already mentioned. This, however, shall be proved on the proper occasion, when I shall show that Anaxagoras is the first of the Greeks mentioned as having set mind to preside over the cause of the All.

But now pass on with me to Diodorus, and consider what he narrates concerning the primitive theology of mankind.11

CHAPTER IX

[DIODORUS] 'It is said then that the men who dwelled of old in Egypt when they looked up to the cosmos, and were struck with astonishment and admiration at the nature of the universe, supposed that the sun and moon were two eternal and primal gods, one of whom they named Osiris, and the other Isis, each name being applied from some true etymology.

'For when they are translated into the Greek form of speech, Osiris is "many eyed"; with reason, for casting his beams in every direction he beholds, as it were with many eyes, the whole earth and sea: and with this the poet's words agree:

"Thou Sun, who all things seest, and nearest all." 12

'But some of the ancient mythologists among the Greeks give to Osiris the additional name Dionysus, and, by a slight change in the name, Sirius. One of these, Eumolpus, speaks in his Bacchic poems thus:

"Dionysus named,
"Bright as a star, his face aflame with rays." 13

And Orpheus says:

"For that same cause Phanes and Dionysus him they call."14

Some say also that the fawn-skin cloak is hung about him as a representation of the spangling of the stars.

'"Isis" too, being interpreted, means "ancient," the name having been given to the Moon from her ancient and eternal origin. And they put horns upon her, both from the aspect with which she appears whenever she is crescent-shaped, and also from the cow which is consecrated to her among the Egyptians. And these deities they suppose to regulate the whole world.' 15

Such then are the statements on this subject. You find, too, in the Phoenician theology, that their first 'physical philosophers knew no other gods than the sun, the moon, and besides these the planets, the elements also, and the things connected with them'; and that to these the earliest of mankind 'consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as the sources of sustenance to themselves and to following generations, and to all that went before them, and offered to them drink-offerings and libations.' But pity and lamentation and weeping they consecrated to the produce of the earth when perishing, and to the generation of living creatures at first from the earth, and then to their production one from another, and to their end, when they departed from life. These their notions of worship were in accordance with their own weakness, and the want as yet of any enterprise of mind.'

Such are the statements of the Phoenician writings, as will be proved in due course. Moreover, one of our own time, that very man who gains celebrity by his abuse of us, in the treatise which he entitled Of Abstinence from Animal Food, makes mention of the old customs of the ancients as follows in his own words, on the testimony of Theophrastus:16

[PORPHYRY] 'It is probably an incalculable time since, as Theophrastus says, the most learned race of mankind, inhabiting that most sacred land which Nilus founded, were the first to begin to offer upon the hearth to the heavenly deities not the first-fruits of myrrh nor of cassia and frankincense mingled with saffron; for these were adopted many generations later, when man becoming a wanderer in search of his necessary livelihood with many toils and tears offered drops of these tinctures as first-fruits to the gods.

'"Of these then they made no offerings formerly, but of herbage, which they lifted up in their hands as the bloom of the productive power of nature. For the earth gave forth trees before animals, and long before trees the herbage which is produced year by year; and of this they culled leaves and roots and the whole shoots of their growth, and burned them, greeting thus the visible deities of heaven with their offering, and dedicating to them the honours of perpetual fire.

'For these they also kept in their temples an undying fire, as being most especially like them. And from the fume (θυμιασις) of the produce of the earth they formed the words θυμιατηρια (altars of incense), and θυειν (to offer), and θυσιας (offerings),—words which we misunderstand as signifying the erroneous practice of later times, when we apply the term θυσια to the so-called worship which consists of animal sacrifice.

'And so anxious were the men of old not to transgress their custom, that they cursed (αρωμαι) those who neglected the old fashion and introduced another, calling their own incense-offerings αρωματα.'

After these and other statements he adds:

'But when these beginnings of sacrifices were carried by men to a great pitch of disorder, the adoption of the most dreadful offerings, full of cruelty, was introduced; so that the curses formerly pronounced against us seemed now to have received fulfilment, when men slaughtered victims and defiled the altars with blood.' 17

So far writes Porphyry, or rather Theophrastus: and we may find a seal and confirmation of the statement in what Plato in the Cratylus, before his remarks concerning the Greeks, says word for word as follows:

[PLATO] 'It appears to me that the first inhabitants of Hellas had only the same gods as many of the barbarians have now, namely the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven: as therefore they saw them always moving on in their course and running (θεοντα), from this their natural tendency to run they called them θεουσ (gods).' 18

But I think it must be evident to every one on consideration that the first and most ancient of mankind did not apply themselves either to building temples or to setting up statues, since at that time no art of painting, or modelling, [or carving], or statuary had yet been discovered, nor, indeed, were building or architecture as yet established.

Nor was there any mention among the men of that age of those who have since been denominated gods and heroes, nor had they any Zeus, nor Kronos, Poseidon, Apollo, Hera, Athena, Dionysus, nor any other deity, either male or female, such as there were afterwards in multitudes among both barbarians and Greeks; nor was there any daemon good or bad reverenced among men, but only the visible stars of heaven because of their running (θεειν) received, as they themselves say, the title of gods (θεων), and even these were not worshipped with animal sacrifices and the honours afterwards superstitiously invented.

This statement is not ours, but the testimony comes from within, and from the Greeks themselves, and supplies its proof by the words which have been already quoted and by those which will hereafter be set forth in due order.

This is what our holy Scriptures also teach, in which it is contained, that in the beginning the worship of the visible luminaries had been assigned to all the nations, and that to the Hebrew race alone had been entrusted the full initiation into the knowledge of God the Maker and Artificer of the universe, and of true piety towards Him. So then among the oldest of mankind there was no mention of a Theogony, either Greek or barbarian, nor any erection of lifeless statues, nor all the silly talk that there is now about the naming of the gods both male and female.

In fact the titles and names which men have since invented were not as yet known among mankind: no, nor yet invocations of invisible daemons and spirits, nor absurd mythologies about gods and heroes, nor mysteries of secret initiations, nor anything at all of the excessive and frivolous superstition of later generations.

These then were men's inventions, and representations of our mortal nature, or rather new devices of base and licentious dispositions, according to our divine oracle which says, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication.19

In fact the polytheistic error of all the nations is only seen long ages afterwards, having taken its beginning from the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and passed over from them to the other nations, and even to the Greeks themselves. For this again is affirmed by the history of the earliest ages; which history itself it is now time for us to review, beginning from the Phoenician records.

Now the historian of this subject is Sanchuniathon, an author of great antiquity, and older, as they say, than the Trojan times, one whom they testify to have been approved for the accuracy and truth of his Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos, not the Hebrew, translated his whole work from the Phoenician language into the Greek, and published it. The author in our own day of the compilation against us mentions these things in the fourth book of his treatise Against the Christians, where he bears the following testimony to Sanchuniathon, word for word:

[PORPHYRY] 'Of the affairs of the Jews the truest history, because the most in accordance with their places and names, is that of Sanchuniathon of Berytus, who received the records from Hierombalus the priest of the god Ieuo; he dedicated his history to Abibalus king of Berytus, and was approved by him and by the investigators of truth in his time. Now the times of these men fall even before the date of the Trojan war, and approach nearly to the times of Moses, as is shown by the successions of the kings of Phoenicia. And Sanchuniathon, who made a complete collection of ancient history from the records in the various cities and from the registers in the temples, and wrote in the Phoenician language with a love of truth, lived in the reign of Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians, who is recorded to have lived before the Trojan war or in those very times. And the works of Sanchuniathon were translated into the Greek tongue by Philo of Byblos.' 20

So wrote the author before mentioned, bearing witness at once to the truthfulness and antiquity of the so-called theologian. But he, as he goes forward, treats as divine not the God who is over all, nor yet the gods in the heaven, but mortal men and women, not even refined in character, such as it would be right to approve for their virtue, or emulate for their love of wisdom, but involved in the dishonour of every kind of vileness and wickedness.

He testifies also that these are the very same who are still regarded as gods by all both in the cities and in country districts. But let me give you the proofs of this out of his writings.

Philo then, having divided the whole work of Sanchuniathon into nine books, in the introduction to the first book makes this preface concerning Sanchuniathon, word for word: 21

[PHILO] 'These things being so, Sanchuniathon, who was a man of much learning and great curiosity, and desirous of knowing the earliest history of all nations from the creation of the world, searched out with great care the history of Taautus, knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records: and he laid the foundation, as it were, of his history, by beginning with him, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, and the Alexandrians Thoth, translated by the Greeks into Hermes.'

After these statements he finds fault with the more recent authors as violently and untruly reducing the legends concerning the gods to allegories and physical explanations and theories; and so he goes on to say:

'But the most recent of the writers on religion rejected the real events from the beginning, and having invented allegories and myths, and formed a fictitious affinity to the cosmical phenomena, established mysteries, and overlaid them with a cloud of absurdity, so that one cannot easily discern what really occurred: but he having lighted upon the collections of secret writings of the Ammoneans which were discovered in the shrines and of course were not known to all men, applied himself diligently to the study of them all; and when he had completed the investigation, he put aside the original myth and the allegories, and so completed his proposed work; until the priests who followed in later times wished to hide this away again, and to restore the mythical character; from which time mysticism began to rise up, not having previously reached the Greeks.'

Next to this he says:

'These things I have discovered in my anxious desire to know the history of the Phoenicians, and after a thorough investigation of much matter, not that which is found among the Greeks, for that is contradictory, and compiled by some in a contentious spirit rather than with a view to truth.'

And after other statements:

'And the conviction that the facts were as he has described them came to me, on seeing the disagreement among the Greeks: concerning which I have carefully composed three books bearing the title Paradoxical History.'

And again after other statements he adds:

'But with a view to clearness hereafter, and the determination of particulars, it is necessary to state distinctly beforehand that the most ancient of the barbarians, and especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind received their traditions, regarded as the greatest gods those who had discovered the necessaries of life, or in some way done good to the nations. Esteeming these as benefactors and authors of many blessings, they worshipped them also as gods after their death, and built shrines, and consecrated pillars and staves after their names: these the Phoenicians held in great reverence, and assigned to them their greatest festivals. Especially they applied the names of their kings to the elements of the cosmos, and to some of those who were regarded as gods. But they knew no other gods than those of nature, sun, and moon, and the rest of the wandering stars, and the elements and things connected with them, so that some of their gods were mortal and some immortal.

Philo having explained these points in his preface, next begins his interpretation of Sanchuniathon by setting forth the theology of the Phoenicians as follows:'

CHAPTER X

'The first principle of the universe he supposes to have been air dark with cloud and wind, or rather a blast of cloudy air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebus; and these were boundless and for long ages had no limit. But when the wind, says he, became enamoured of its own parents, and a mixture took place, that connexion was called Desire. This was the beginning of the creation of all things: but the wind itself had no knowledge of its own creation. From its connexion Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out of them grew intelligent animals, and were called "Zophasemin," that is "observers of heaven"; and they were formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great constellations.'

Such was their cosmogony, introducing downright atheism. But let us see next how he states the generation of animals to have arisen. He says, then:

'And when the air burst into light, both the sea and the land became heated, and thence arose winds and clouds, and very great downpours and floods of the waters of heaven. So after they were separated, and removed from their proper place because of the sun's heat, and all met together again in the air dashing together one against another, thunderings and lightnings were produced, and at the rattle of the thunder the intelligent animals already described woke up, and were scared at the sound, and began to move both on land and sea, male and female.'

Such is their theory of the generation of animals. Next after this the same writer adds and says:

'These things were found written in the cosmogony of Taautus, and in his Commentaries, both from conjectures, and from evidences which his intellect discerned, and discovered, and made clear to us.'

Next to this, after mentioning the names of the winds Notos and Boreas and the rest, he continues:

'But these were the first who consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as being the support of life both to themselves, and to those who were to come after them, and to all before them, and they offered to them drink-offerings and libations.'

He adds also:

'These were their notions of worship, corresponding to their own weakness, and timidity of soul. Then he says that from the wind Colpias and his wife Baau (which he translates "Night") were born Aeon and Protogonus, mortal men, so called: and that Aeon discovered the food obtained from trees. That their offspring were called Genos and Genea, and inhabited Phoenicia: and that when droughts occurred, they stretched out their hands to heaven towards the sun; for him alone (he says) they regarded as god the lord of heaven, calling him Beelsamen, which is in the Phoenician language "lord of heaven," and in Greek "Zeus."'

And after this he charges the Greeks with error, saying:

'For it is not without cause that we have explained these things in many ways, but in view of the later misinterpretations of the names in the history, which the Greeks in ignorance took in a wrong sense, being deceived by the ambiguity of the translation.'

Afterwards he says:

'From Genos, son of Aeon and Protogonus, were begotten again mortal children, whose names are Light, and Fire, and Flame. These, says he, discovered fire from rubbing pieces of wood together, and taught the use of it. And they begat sons of surpassing size and stature, whose names were applied to the mountains which they occupied: so that from them were named mount Cassius, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and Brathy. From these, he says, were begotten Memrumus and Hypsuranius; and they got their names, he says, from their mothers, as the women in those days had free intercourse with any whom they met.'

Then he says:

'Hypsuranius inhabited Tyre, and contrived huts out of reeds and rushes and papyrus: and he quarrelled with his brother Ousous, who first invented a covering for the body from skins of wild beasts which he was strong enough to capture. And when furious rains and winds occurred, the trees in Tyre were rubbed against each other and caught fire, and burnt down the wood that was there. And Ousous took a tree, and, having stripped off the branches, was the first who ventured to embark on the sea; and be consecrated two pillars to fire and wind, and worshipped them, and poured libations of blood upon them from the wild beasts which he took in hunting.

'But when Hypsuranius and Ousous were dead, those who were left, he says, consecrated staves to them, and year by year worshipped their pillars and kept festivals in their honour. But many years afterwards from the race of llypsuranius were born Agreus and Halieus, the inventors of hunting and fishing, from whom were named huntsmen and fishermen: and from them were bom two brethren, discoverers of iron and the mode of working it; the one of whom, Chrysor, practised oratory, and incantations, and divinations: and that he was Hephaestus, and invented the hook, and bait, and line, and raft, and was the first of all men to make a voyage: wherefore they reverenced him also as a god after his death. And he was also called Zeus Meilichios. And some say that his brothers invented walls of brick. Afterwards there sprang from their race two youths, one of whom was called Technites (Artificer), and the other Geinos Autochthon (Earth-born Aboriginal). These devised the mixing of straw with the clay of bricks, and drying them in the sun, and moreover invented roofs. From them others were born, one of whom was called Agros, and the other Agrueros or Agrotes; and of the latter there is in Phoenicia a much venerated statue, and a shrine drawn by yokes of oxen; and among the people of Byblos he is named pre-eminently the greatest of the gods.

'These two devised the addition to houses of courts, and enclosures, and caves. From them came husbandmen and huntsmen. They are also called Aletae and Titans. From these were born Amynos and Magus, who established villages and sheepfolds. From them came Misor and Suduc, that is to say "Straight " and "Just": these discovered the use of salt.

'From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes.

'From Suduc came the Dioscuri, or Cabeiri, or Corybantes, or Samothraces: these, he says, first invented a ship. From them have sprung others, who discovered herbs, and the healing of venomous bites, and charms. In their time is born a certain Elioun called "the Most High," and a female named Beruth, and these dwelt in the neighbourhood of Byblos.

'And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus; so that from him they named the element above us Uranus because of the excellence of its beauty. And he has a sister born of the aforesaid parents, who was called Ge (earth), and from her, he says, because of her beauty, they called the earth by the same name. And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices.

'And Uranus, having succeeded to his father's rule, takes to himself in marriage his sister Ge, and gets by her four sons, Elus who is also Kronos, and Baetylus, and Dagon who is Siton, and Atlas. Also by other wives Uranus begat a numerous progeny; on which account Ge was angry, and from jealousy began to reproach Uranus, so that they even separated from each other.

'But Uranus, after he had left her, used to come upon her with violence, whenever he chose, and consort with her, and go away again; he used to try also to destroy his children by her; but Ge repelled him many times, having gathered to herself allies. And when Kronos had advanced to manhood, he, with the counsel and help of Hermes Trismegistus (who was his secretary), repels his father Uranus, and avenges his mother.

'To Kronos are born children, Persephone and Athena. The former died a virgin: but by the advice of Athena and Hermes Kronos[???] made a sickle and a spear of iron. Then Hermes talked magical words to the allies of Kronos, and inspired them with a desire of fighting against Uranus on behalf of Ge. And thus Kronos engaged in war, and drove Uranus from his government, and succeeded to the kingdom. Also there was taken in the battle the beloved concubine of Uranus, being great with child, whom Kronos gave in marriage to Dagon. And in his house she gave birth to the child begotten of Uranus, which she named Demarus.

In this book I shall deal mainly with only two of the Ancient Theologians: Orpheus and Hermes Trismegistus. The texts attributed to these are, I think, of major importance, both in volume and content ...

The Hermetica fall into two groups: first, the Asclepius (or De Voluntate Divina), a dialogue which has survived only in the Latin translation ascribed to Apuleius; secondly, the Pimander (or De Sapientia et Potestate Dei) and the Difinitiones Asclepii, a group of fifteen short dialogues in Greek. Both these date from the second or third century A.D. Though they purport to be Egyptian, the greatest modern authority on them, Festugiere, considers them to be mainly Greek in origin, a Hellenistic amalgam of Platonism, Stoicism, Judaism and Christianity, set in a gnostic and magical framework.

The Corpus Hermeticum is itself heterogeneous, but the various treatises in it have a family likeness, and all of them preach some form of gnostic mysticism, a magical religion dominated by the stars and offering its initiates the possibility of being transformed into powerful Magi. It is this specific, if varied, religious content that makes the Hermetica much more important historically than the texts of the other Ancient Theologians, which, consisting of more or less enigmatic fragments, could be absorbed into orthodox Christianity with comparatively little difficulty. But right from the start the Hermetica gave trouble. Ficino was led into his Orphic magic mainly by the idol-making passage in the Asclepius.

With Agrippa the relatively discreet magic of Ficino and Pico comes more into the open as an obvious rival to Christianity, and finally, with Giordano Bruno, the magic religion of the ancient Egyptians has swallowed up the younger faith -- Christ is only one of several preaching, wonder-working Magi in the Hermetic tradition, and Bruno is another. But this story has been told too fully and too well by F. A. Yates for me to repeat it here, though I have added an appendix to it in Chapter 5.

Like the Orphica, the Hermetica were not known in Western Europe until the fifteenth century, except for the Asclepius, which was quite widely known in the middle ages, both because it is in Latin and because Augustine discusses it at length in the City of God, and except for passages from the other Hermetic dialogues quoted by Lactantius. Ficino's Latin translation of the Pimander was published in 1471, and Lazarelli's translation of the Difinitiones Asclepii in 1507.

There was a general acceptance of the great antiquity of the Hermetica, though syncretists occasionally expressed doubts about the attribution of them to Hermes Trismegistus, who had early been identified with the Egyptian God-king, Thoth, mentioned by Plato. Duplessis Mornay, for example, writes in 1581:

Hermes Trismegistus, who is (if these books are really by him, and at least they are very ancient) the source of all the Sages, teaches everywhere: that God is one ...

But this serene assumption lasted only until 1614, when Isaac Casaubon, with convincingly thorough scholarship, redated the Hermetica well within the Christian era.

-- The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteen Century, by Daniel Pickering Walker

' After this Kronos builds a wall round his own dwelling, and founds the first city, Byblos in Phoenicia.

'Soon after this he became suspicious of his own brother Atlas, and, with the advice of Hermes, threw him into a deep pit and buried him. At about this time the descendants of the Dioscuri put together rafts and ships, and made voyages; and, being cast ashore near Mount Cassius, consecrated a temple there. And the allies of Elus, who is Kronos, were surnamed Eloim, as these same, who were surnamed after Kronos, would have been called Kronii.

'And Kronos, having a son Sadidus, dispatched him with his own sword, because he regarded him with suspicion, and deprived him of life, thus becoming the murderer of his son. In like manner he cut off the head of a daughter of his own; so that all the gods were dismayed at the disposition of Kronos.

'But as time went on Uranus, being in banishment, secretly sends his maiden daughter Astarte with two others her sisters, Ehea and Dione, to slay Kronos by craft. But Kronos caught them, and though they were his sisters, made them his wedded wives. And when Uranus knew it, he sent Eimarmene and Hora with other allies on an expedition against Kronos. and these Kronos won over to his side and kept with him.

'Further, he says, the god Uranus devised the Baetylia, having contrived to put life into stones. And to Kronos there were born of Astarte seven daughters, Titanides or Artemides: and again to the same there were born of Rhea seven sons, of whom the youngest was deified at his birth; and of Dione females, and of Astarte again two males, Desire and Love. And Dagon, after he discovered corn and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios.

'And one of the Titanides united to Suduc, who is named the Just, gives birth to Asclepius.

'In Peraea also there were born to Kronos three sons, Kronos of the same name with his father, and Zeus Belus, and Apollo. In their time are born Pontus, and Typhon, and Nereus father of Pontus and son of Belus.

'And from Pontus is born Sidon (who from the exceeding sweetness of her voice was the first to invent musical song) and Poseidon. And to Demarus is born Melcathrus, who is also called Hercules.

'Then again Uranus makes war against Pontus, and after revolting attaches himself to Demarus, and Demarus attacks Pontus, but Pontus puts him to flight; and Demarus vowed an offering if he should escape.

'And in the thirty-second year of his power and kingdom Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers. There Uranus was deified: and as he breathed his last, the blood from his wounds dropped into the fountains and into the waters of the rivers, and the spot is pointed out to this day.'

This, then, is the story of Kronos, and such are the glories of the mode of life, so vaunted among the Greeks, of men in the days of Kronos, whom they also affirm to have been the first and 'golden race of articulate speaking men,' 22 that blessed happiness of the olden time!

Again, the historian adds to this, after other matters:

'But Astarte, the greatest goddess, and Zeus Demarus, and Adodus king of gods, reigned over the country with the consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head of a bull upon her own head as a mark of royalty; and in travelling round the world she found a star that had fallen from the sky, which she took up and consecrated in the holy island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite.

'Kronos also, in going round the world, gives the kingdom of Attica to his own daughter Athena. But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same. And not long after another of his sons by Rhea, named Muth, having died, he deifies him, and the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto. And after this Kronos gives the city Byblos to the goddess Baaltis, who is also called Dione, and Berytus to Poseidon and to the Cabeiri and Agrotae and Halieis, who also consecrated the remains of Pontus at Berytus.

'But before this the god Tauthus imitated the features of the gods who were his companions, Kronos, and Dagon, and the rest, and gave form to the sacred characters of the letters. He also devised for Kronos as insignia of royalty four eyes in front and behind . . . but two of them quietly closed, and upon his shoulders four wings, two as spread for flying, and two as folded.

'And the symbol meant that Kronos could see when asleep, and sleep while waking: and similarly in the case of the wings, that he flew while at rest, and was at rest when flying. But to each of the other gods he gave two wings upon the shoulders, as meaning that they accompanied Kronos in his flight. And to Kronos himself again he gave two wings upon his head, one representing the all-ruling mind, and one sensation.

'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place. And these things, he says, were recorded first by Suduc's seven sons the Cabeiri, and their eighth brother Asclepius, as the god Tauthus commanded them.

'All these stories Thabion, who was the very first hierophant of all the Phoenicians from the beginning, allegorized and mixed up with the physical and cosmical phenomena, and delivered to the prophets who celebrated the orgies and inaugurated the mysteries: and they, purposing to increase their vain pretensions from every source, handed them on to their successors and to their foreign visitors: one of these was Eisirius the inventor of the three letters, brother of Chna the first who had his name changed to Phoenix.'

Then again afterwards he adds:

'But the Greeks, surpassing all in genius, appropriated most of the earliest stories, and then variously decked them out with ornaments of tragic phrase, and adorned them in every way, with the purpose of charming by the pleasant fables. Hence Hesiod and the celebrated Cyclic poets framed theogonies of their own, and battles of the giants, and battles of Titans, and castrations; and with these fables, as they travelled about, they conquered and drove out the truth.

'But our ears having grown up in familiarity with their fictions, and being for long ages pre-occupied, guard as a trust the mythology which they received, just as I said at the beginning; and this mythology, being aided by time, has made its hold difficult for us to escape from, so that the truth is thought to be nonsense, and the spurious narrative truth.'

Let these suffice as quotations from the writings of Sanchuniathon, translated by Philo of Byblos, and approved as true by the testimony of Porphyry the philosopher.

The same author, in his History of the Jews, further writes thus concerning Kronos:

'Tauthus, whom the Egyptians call Thoyth, excelled in wisdom among the Phoenicians, and was the first to rescue the worship of the gods from the ignorance of the vulgar, and arrange it in the order of intelligent experience. Many generations after him a god Sourmoubelos and Thuro, whose name was changed to Eusarthis, brought to light the theology of Tauthus which had been hidden and overshadowed, by allegories.'

And soon after he says:

'It was a custom of the ancients in great crises of danger for the rulers of a city or nation, in order to avert the common ruin, to give up the most beloved of their children for sacrifice as a ransom to the avenging daemons; and those who were thus given up were sacrificed with mystic rites. Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus, who was king of the country and subsequently, after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn, had by a nymph of the country named Anobret an only begotten son, whom they on this account called ledud, the only begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians; and when very great dangers from war had beset the country, he arrayed his son in royal apparel, and prepared an altar, and sacrificed him.'

Again see what the same author, in his translation from Sanchuniathon about the Phoenician alphabet, says concerning the reptiles and venomous beasts, which contribute no good service to mankind, but work death and destruction to any in whom they inject their incurable and fatal poison. This also he describes, saying word for word as follows:

'The nature then of the dragon and of serpents Tauthus himself regarded as divine, and so again after him did the Phoenicians and Egyptians: for this animal was declared by him to be of all reptiles most full of breath, and fiery. In consequence of which it also exerts an unsurpassable swiftness by means of its breath, without feet and hands or any other of the external members by which the other animals make their movements. It also exhibits forms of various shapes, and in its progress makes spiral leaps as swift as it chooses. It is also most long-lived, and its nature is to put off its old skin, and so not only to grow young again, but also to assume a larger growth; and after it has fulfilled its appointed measure of age, it is self-consumed, in like manner as Tauthus himself has set down in his sacred books: for which reason this animal has also been adopted in temples and in mystic rites.

'We have spoken more fully about it in the memoirs entitled Ethothiae, in which we prove that it is immortal, and is self-consumed, as is stated before: for this animal does not die by a natural death, but only if struck by a violent blow. The Phoenicians call it "Good Daemon": in like manner the Egyptians also surname it Cneph; and they add to it the head of a hawk because of the hawk's activity.

'Epeïs also (who is called among them a chief hierophant and sacred scribe, and whose work was translated [into Greek] by Areius of Heracleopolis), speaks in an allegory word for word as follows:

'The first and most divine being is a serpent with the form of a hawk, extremely graceful, which whenever he opened his eyes filled all with light in his original birthplace, but if he shut his eyes, darkness came on.'

'Epeïs here intimates that he is also of a fiery substance, by saying "he shone through," for to shine through is peculiar to light. From the Phoenicians Pherecydes also took the first ideas of his theology concerning the god called by him Ophion and concerning the Ophionidae, of whom we shall speak again.

'Moreover the Egyptians, describing the world from the same idea, engrave the circumference of a circle, of the colour of the sky and of fire, and a hawk-shaped serpent stretched across the middle of it, and the whole shape is like our Theta (θ), representing the circle as the world, and signifying by the serpent which connects it in the middle the good daemon.

'Zoroaster also the Magian, in the Sacred Collection of Persian Records, says in express words: "And god has the head of a hawk. He is the first, incorruptible, eternal, uncreated, without parts, most unlike (all else), the controller of all good, who cannot be bribed, the best of all the good, the wisest of all wise; and he is also a father of good laws and justice, self-taught, natural, and perfect, and wise, and the sole author of the sacred power of nature.

'The same also is said of him by Ostanes in the book entitled Octateuch.'

From Tauthus, as is said above, all received their impulse towards physiological systems: and having built temples they consecrated in the shrines the primary elements represented by serpents, and in their honour celebrated festivals, and sacrifices, and mystic rites, regarding them as the greatest gods, and rulers of the universe. So much concerning serpents.

Such then is the character of the theology of the Phoenicians, from which the word of salvation in the gospel teaches us to flee with averted eyes, and earnestly to seek the remedy for this madness of the ancients. It must be manifest that these are not fables and poets' fictions containing some theory concealed in hidden meanings, but true testimonies, as they would themselves say, of wise and ancient theologians, containing things of earlier date than all poets and historians, and deriving the credibility of their statements from the names and history of the gods still prevailing in the cities and villages of Phoenicia, and from the mysteries celebrated among each people: so that it is no longer necessary to search out violent physical explanations of these things, since the evidence which the facts bring with them of themselves is quite clear. Such then is the theology of the Phoenicians: but it is now time to pass on and examine carefully the case of the Egyptians.

[Selected footnotes moved to end and numbered]

1. Porphyry, Abstinence from animal food, iv. 21

2. Matt. v. 34, 37

3. Matt. xii. 36

4. 1 Pet. iii. 15

5. Euripides, Melanippe the Wise, Fragm. 487

6. Homer, Od. iv. 392

7. Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, 1.i.11

8. 22 b 1. This fragment of Plutarch's Stromateis or Miscellanies is known from Eusebius only.

9. Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, 1.1.13

10. Plato, Phaedo 96 A

11. Diodorus Siculus, I, 11.

12. Homer, Ill. iii. 277

13.27 d 5 The only known Fragment of Eumolpus

14. d 7 Orphica, Fragment, vii. 3 (Hermann), clxviii (Abel)

15. Quoted from Philo Byblius

16. Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, ii. 5

17. ibid. 33

18. Plato, Cratylus, 397

19. Deut., iv. 19; Wisdom of Solomon, xiv. 12

20. Porphyry, Against the Christians, a fragment preserved by Eusebius only

21. 31 d 8 - 42 b 2. Philo Byblius, Fragments quoted by Porphyry and preserved by Eusebius.

22. Hesiod, Works and Days, 109

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

BOOK II

CONTENTS

• I. Epitome of Egyptian theology, and how it was transmitted to the Greeks; and that we have had good reason for abandoning it all p. 45 a
• That the theology current among the Greeks is of later introduction p. 52 b
• II. Epitome of the mythological tales among the Greeks concerning their gods and heroes p. 52 d
• III. Of the secret initiations and cryptic mysteries of their polytheistic delusion p. 61 c
• IV. By what considerations we were led to withdraw from the opinions of the Greeks concerning the gods p. 67 d
• V. Summary of the preceding arguments p. 69 b
• VI. That what they call the temples of their gods are the tombs of dead men p. 71 a
• The opinion of the ancients concerning the gods p. 73 b
• Of the physical and forsooth more venerable theology of the Greeks p. 74 a
• VII. What Plato thought of the theology of the ancients p. 75 d
• VIII. Of the theology of the Romans p. 78 a

PREFACE

The theology of the Phoenicians is of the character described above, and the word of salvation teaches us in the gospel to escape from it without looking back, and earnestly to seek the remedy for this madness of the ancients.

Now it must be manifest that these are not fables and poetic fictions containing some theory concealed in covert meanings, but true testimonies, as they would say themselves, of ancient and wise theologians, comprising records of earlier date than all poets and historians, and deriving the credibility of their statements from the names and history of the gods prevailing to the present day in the cities and villages of Phoenicia, and from the mysteries celebrated among the inhabitants of each. This must be manifest, I say, from the confession both of the other historians and especially of their reputed theologians; for they hereby testified that the ancients who first composed the account of the gods did not refer at all to figurative descriptions of physical phenomena, nor make allegories of the myths concerning the gods, but preserved the histories in their literal form. For this was shown by the words already quoted of the authors whom I have mentioned; so that there is no longer need to search up forced physical explanations, since the proof which the facts bring with them of themselves is quite clear.

Such, then, is the theology of the Phoenicians. But it is time to pass on and review that of the Egyptians also. in order to observe carefully and understand exactly whether our revolt from them is not well judged and reasonable, and whether it has not been successful upon the sole evidence of the gospel first of all among the Egyptians themselves, and then among those also who are of like mind with them.

Now the whole Egyptian history has been translated at large into the language of the Greeks, and especially the part concerning their theology, by Manetho the Egyptian, both in the Sacred Book written by him, and in other of his works. Moreover, Diodorus, whom we mentioned before, collected his narratives from many sources, and described the customs of the several nations with the utmost possible accuracy: and being an eminent man, who had won no small reputation for learning among all lovers of literature, and had made a collection of all ancient history, and connected the earliest with the subsequent events, he adopted the theology of the Egyptians as the commencement of his whole treatise.

I think it better, therefore, to draw the representation of the subject before us from that treatise, as his writings are likely to be better known to the Greeks. This, then, is what he narrates word for word: 1

If the mention of someone named Manetho in the Hibeh Papyri, dated to 241/240 BC, is in fact the celebrated author of the Aegyptiaca, then Manetho may well have been working during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 BC) as well, but at a very advanced age. Although the historicity of Manetho of Sebennytus was taken for granted by Josephus and later authors, the question as to whether he existed remains problematic. The Manetho of the Hibeh Papyri has no title and this letter deals with affairs in Upper Egypt not Lower Egypt, where our Manetho is thought to have functioned as a chief priest. The name Manetho is rare, but there is no reason a priori to presume that the Manetho of the Hibeh Papyri is the priest and historian from Sebennytus who is thought to have authored the Aegyptiaca for Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Manetho is described as a native Egyptian and Egyptian would have been his mother tongue. Although the topics he supposedly wrote about dealt with Egyptian matters, he is said to have written exclusively in the Greek language for a Greek-speaking audience. Other literary works attributed to him include Against Herodotus, The Sacred Book, On Antiquity and Religion, On Festivals, On the Preparation of Kyphi, and the Digest of Physics. The treatise Book of Sothis has also been attributed to Manetho. It is important to note that not one of these works are attested during the Ptolemaic period when Manetho of Sebennytus is said to have lived. In fact, they are not mentioned in any source prior to the first century AD. This would be a gap of three centuries between the time the Aegyptiaca was supposedly composed and its first attestation. The gap is even larger for the other works attributed to Manetho such as The Sacred Book that is mentioned for the very first time by Eusebius in the fourth century AD.

-- Manetho [Manethon], by Wikipedia

CHAPTER I

[DIODORUS] 'The Egyptians say that in the original creation of the universe mankind came into existence first in Egypt by reason of its temperate climate and the nature of the Nile. For as that river caused great fertility and supplied food self grown, it gave an easy sustenance to the living creatures that were born.

2 'The gods, they say, had been originally mortal men, but gained their immortality on account of wisdom and public benefits to mankind, some of them having also become kings: and some have the same names, when interpreted, with the heavenly deities, while others have received a name of their own, as Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus, who is by some called Ammon; and besides these Hera and Hephaestus, and Hestia, and lastly Hermes.

'Helios, they say, was the first king of the Egyptians, having the same name with the celestial luminary: some, however, of the priests say that Hephaestus was the first who became king, because he was the discoverer of fire.

'Kronos reigned next, and having married his sister Rhea begat, according to some authors, Osiris and Isis, but according to most, Zeus and Hera, who for their valour received the kingdom of the whole world. Of these were born five gods, Osiris, and Isis, and Typhon, and Apollo, and Aphrodite. Osiris is Dionysus, and Isis is Demeter; and Osiris, having married her and succeeded to the kingdom, did many things for the general benefit, and founded in the Thebaid a city of a hundred gates, which some called Diospolis, and others Thebes. . . . 3 He also erected a temple to his parents Zeus and Hera, and golden shrines of the other gods, to each of whom he assigned honours, and appointed the priests to attend to them. Osiris also was the discoverer of the vine, and was the first to make use of bare land, and to teach the rest of mankind agriculture. Above all he honoured Hermes, who was endowed with an excellent genius for contriving what might benefit the common life.

4 'For he was the inventor of letters, and arranged sacrifices for the gods, and invented a lyre, and taught the Greeks the explanation (ερμηνειαν) of these matters, from which circumstance he was called Hermes. He also discovered the olive-tree.

5 'Osiris, after travelling over the whole world, set up Busiris in Phoenicia, and Antaeus in Aethiopia and Libya; and himself led an expedition with his brother Apollo, who, they say, was the discoverer of the laurel. 6 In the expedition with Osiris there went his two sons, Anubis and Macedon; and he took with him also Pan, who is especially honoured by the Egyptians, and from whom Panopolis is named.

'And when he was near Taphosiris the tribe of Satyrs was, brought to him: and, being fond of music, he carried about with him a band of musicians, amongst whom were nine maidens skilful in singing and well educated in other respects, who among the Greeks are called Muses, and whose leader is Apollo. And since every nation welcomed Osiris as a god because of the benefits bestowed by him, he left memorials of himself behind him everywhere.

7 'In India he founded not a few cities; and also visited the other nations, those about Phrygia, and crossed the Hellespont into Europe. 8 His son Macedon he left as king of Macedonia; and Triptolemus he put in charge of agriculture in Attica.

'Afterwards he passed from among men to the gods, and from Isis and Hermes received temples and all the honours which are, held among the gods to be most distinguished. These two also taught men his initiatory rites, and introduced many customs, concerning him in the way of mysteries.

9 'He was killed by Typhon his brother, a wicked and impious, person, who, having divided the body of the murdered man into, twenty-six parts, gave a portion to each of his accomplices in the, assault, wishing all to share in the pollution.

'But Isis, being the sister and wife of Osiris, avenged the murder, with the aid of her son Horus; and, having slain Typhon and his accomplices near what is now called the village of Antaeus, she became queen of Egypt.

'And having found all except one part of the body of Osiris, they say that round each part she moulded out of spices and wax the figure of a man corresponding in size to Osiris, and gave them to the priests throughout all Egypt to be worshipped: she also consecrated one of the animals found among them, of whatever kind they wished.

10 'The sacred bulls, both Apis so called, and Mnevis, were consecrated to Osiris, and all the Egyptians in common were taught to worship them as gods, because these animals had helped the labours of the discoverers of wheat, both in sowing and in the common course of husbandry. 11 Isis swore to accept the company of no man any more; and when she herself had passed from among men, she received immortal honours, and was buried at Memphis.

'So the parts of Osiris which had been found again are said to have been honoured with burial in the manner described; but they say that the member which had been cast into the river by Typhon was deemed worthy by Isis of divine honours no less than the rest.

'For she set up an image of it in the temples, and instituted worship, and made the initiations and sacrifices paid to this deity especially honourable. And as the Greeks received their orgiastic rites and Dionysiac festivals from Egypt, they also worship this member in their mysteries, and in the initiatory rites and sacrifices of this god, and call it Phallus.

12 'But those who say that the god was born in Boeotian Thebes of Semele and Zeus talk, they say, at random. For when Orpheus had landed in Egypt and received initiation, he took part also in the Dionysiac mysteries, and, being friendly to the Cadmeans and honoured by them, he changed the place of the god's birth to please them; and the multitude, partly through ignorance and partly from their desire that the god should be called a Greek, gladly welcomed the initiations and mysteries.

'And for the transference of the birth and initiatory rites of the god Orpheus found occasion as follows. Cadmus, a native of the Egyptian Thebes, among other children begat Semele; and she having been violated by somebody or other became pregnant, and after seven months gave birth to a child, just such as the Egyptians consider Osiris to have been.

'And when the child died, Cadmus covered it with gold, and appointed the proper sacrifices for it, and also assigned the fatherhood to Zeus, thus magnifying Osiris, and taking away the reproach of the mother's seduction.

'Wherefore among the Greeks also a story was given out that Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, gave birth to Osiris by Zeus.

'Afterwards when the mythologists came forward, the story filled the theatre, and became to succeeding generations a strong and unalterable belief. And the most illustrious heroes and gods of the Egyptians are, it is said, universally claimed by the Greeks as their own.

13 'Hercules, for example, was by birth an Egyptian, and moved by his valour travelled over much of the known world: but the Greeks claimed him as their own, though in truth he was different from the son of Alcmena who arose at some later time among the Greeks.

'Perseus also, it is said, was born in Egypt, and the birth of Isis was transferred by the Greeks to Argos, while in their mythology they said that she was lo, who was transformed into a cow: but some think the same deity to be Isis, some Demeter, some Thesmophoros, but others Selene, and others Hera.14

'Osiris, too, some think to be Apis, and some Dionysus, some Pluto, some Ammon, some Zeus, and others Pan.

'Isis, they say, was the discoverer of many remedies, and of medical science: she also discovered the medicine of immortality, by which, when her son Horus had been treacherously attacked by the Titans, and was found dead under the water, she not only raised him up again and gave him life, but also made him partake of immortality.

15 'Horus they say was the last of the gods who reigned over Egypt, and his name by interpretation is Apollo: he was taught medicine and soothsaying by his mother Isis, and benefited mankind by his oracles and cures.

'Most authors agree that in the time of Isis certain giants of great size, arrayed in monstrous fashion, stirred up war against the gods Zeus and Osiris. Also that the Egyptians made it lawful to marry sisters, because Isis had been married to Osiris her brother.'

Such are their stories about these deities: but concerning the animals held sacred in Egypt, there is an account prevailing among them of the following kind:

16 'Some say that the original race of gods, being few and overpowered by the multitude and impiety of the earth-born men, made themselves like certain irrational animals, and so escaped: and afterwards, by way of rendering thanks for their safety, they consecrated the natures of the very animals whose likeness they had taken.

'But others say that in their encounters with their enemies their leaders prepared images of the animals which they now honour, and wore these upon the head, and had this as a mark of their authority: and when they were victorious over their foes, they ascribed the cause to the animals whose images they wore, and deified them.

17 'Others allege a third cause, saying that the animals have been so honoured because of their usefulness. For the cow bears calves, and ploughs, and sheep bear lambs and supply clothing and food by their milk and cheese, and the dog helps men in hunting, and keeps guard; and for these reasons the god whom they call Anubis has, they say, a dog's head, meaning that he was a bodyguard of Osiris and Isis.

'But some say that when Isis was searching for Osiris the dogs led the way before her, and drove off the wild beasts, and the men who encountered them.

'The cat too, they say, is useful against asps and the other venomous reptiles: the ichneumon breaks the crocodiles' eggs, and even destroys the crocodiles, by rolling itself in the mud, and leaping into their mouths when open, and, by eating away their entrails, leaves them quite dead.

'Of the birds the ibis, they say, is useful against snakes and locusts and caterpillars and the hawk against scorpions and horned serpents, and the smaller venomous beasts, and because of its helping in divinations: the eagle also, because it is a kingly bird.

18 'The he-goat, they say, has been deified, like Priapus among the Greeks, because of its generative organ, for this animal has the strongest propensity to lust; and that member of the body which is the cause of generation is rightly honoured, as being the source of animal nature. And speaking generally, not only the Egyptians, but also not a few other nations have consecrated that member in their initiatory rites, as the cause of the reproduction of living beings.

'The priests who succeed to the hereditary priesthoods in Egypt are initiated in the mysteries of this deity: the Pans also and the Satyrs, they say, are honoured among men for the same reason; and therefore most persons dedicate images of them in the temples very similar to a he-goat; for this animal is traditionally said to be extremely lustful.

'The sacred bulls Apis and Mnevis are held in like honour as the gods, both on account of their help in agriculture, and because men ascribe the discovery of the fruits of the earth to them.

'Wolves are worshipped because of the likeness of their nature to dogs, and because in old times when Isis, with her son Horus, was going to fight against Typhon, Osiris, they say, came from Hades to the aid of his wife and child in the likeness of a wolf.

'But others say that the Ethiopians, having invaded Egypt, were driven away by a multitude of wolves; and on this account the city is called Lycopolis. 19 The crocodile is said to be worshipped because the robbers from Arabia and Libya are afraid to swim across the Nile on account of the crocodiles.

'They say too that one of their kings, being pursued by his own hounds, took refuge in the marsh, and then was taken up by a crocodile and, strange to say, carried over to the other side.

'Other causes also are alleged by some for the worship of the irrational animals. For when in old time the multitude revolted from the kings, and agreed that they would no longer have kings to rule over them, some one formed the idea of supplying them with different animals as objects of worship, so that while they severally worshipped that which was honoured among themselves, and despised that which was held sacred among others, the Egyptians might never be able all to agree together. 20 When any of the animals mentioned dies, they wrap it in fine linen, and beat their breasts in lamentation, and bury it in the sacred sepulchres. And whosoever destroys any of these animals wilfully, incurs death, except if he kill a cat or the ibis; for if any one kills these, whether wilfully or not, he incurs death in any case.

21 'Moreover, if a dog is found dead in a house, they all shave their whole body and make a mourning; and if wine, or corn, or any other of the necessaries of life happen to be stored in the house, they could not bear to use it any more.

'Apis they maintain at Memphis, and Mnevis in Heliopolis, and the he-goat at Mendes, and the crocodile in the lake Moeris, and the other beasts in sacred enclosures, offering them wheat-flour, or groats boiled in milk, and various kinds of cakes mixed with honey, and the flesh of a goose, either boiled or roasted.

'But to the carnivorous animals they throw many kinds of birds, and in company with each male animal they keep the most beautiful females, whom they call concubines.

22 'When Apis dies and has been magnificently buried, they seek another like him; and when he is found, the people are released from their mourning, and he is brought first to Nilopolis. And at that time only the calf is seen by women, who stand before him and expose themselves; but at all other times they are forbidden to come in sight of this deity. For after the death of Osiris they say that his soul passed into Apis.'

Such is the unseemly theology, or rather atheism, of the Egyptians, which it is degrading even to oppose, and from which we naturally revolted with abhorrence, when we found redemption and deliverance from so great evils in no other way than solely by the saving doctrine of the gospel, which announced the recovery of sight to the blind in understanding. Their graver theories and systems of natural science, we shall examine a little later, after we have discussed the mythology of the Greeks.

The Egyptian and Phoenician mythologies having become thus mixed and combined, the superstitious belief of the ancient error has naturally gained the mastery in most nations. But, as I said, we have yet to speak of the notions of the Greeks.

Now the character assumed by the solemnities of Egyptian theology is that which we have already set forth, and that the Greek doctrines are mere fragments and misunderstandings of the same we have frequently stated already upon the judgement of the writers quoted: this will, however, be made further manifest from the Greek theology itself, since, in their own records concerning the gods, they bring nothing forward from native sources, but fall into the fables of foreign nations: for they are shown to make use of similar statues and the very same mysteries, as we may learn from the history of these matters, which the author before mentioned, who brought the Libraries together into one body, narrates in the third and fourth books of the treatise before quoted, having commenced his history from the times of Cadmus. Now, that Cadmus came after Moses is proved by the exact successions of the chronological writings, as we shall show in due season. So that Moses is proved to be earlier even than the gods of Greece, seeing that he is before Cadmus, while the gods are shown to have come later than the age of Cadmus. Hear, however, the historian's own words: 23

CHAPTER II

[DIODORUS] 'Cadmus, the son of Agenor, is said to have been sent from Phoenicia by the king to search for Europa, who had been carried off by Zeus: when he failed to find her, he came into Boeotia and founded the Thebes of that country; and having married Harmonia the daughter of Aphrodite, begat of her Semele and her sisters.

'And Zeus, after union with Semele, was entreated to make his intercourse with her like that with Hera. But when he came to her in godlike fashion with thunderings and lightnings, Semele was unable to bear it, and being pregnant, miscarried with the child, and herself perished from the fire. But Zeus took the child and delivered him to Hermes, and sent him away to the cave in Nysa, lying between Phoenicia and the Nile: and being thus reared by the Nymphs, Dionysus became the discoverer of wine, and taught men the culture of the vine.

'He discovered also the drink prepared from barley, which is called zyilius. He used to lead about with him an army not only of men, but also of women, and punished the impious and unjust.

24 'He went on an expedition also into India for three years: and from that circumstance the Greeks established triennial sacrifices to Dionysus, and think that the god makes his appearances among men at that time: and all men worship him for his gift of wine, just as they worship Demeter for the discovery of corn as food.

25 'But there is said to be also another Dionysus, much earlier in time than this one, whom some call Sabazius, a son of Zeus and Persephone, whose birth, and sacrifices, and ceremonies they represent at night, and in secret, because of the shame attendant upon their intercourse. He was the first who attempted to yoke oxen, and from this they represent him with horns. But Dionysus, the son of Semele, who is of later date, was delicate in body, and eminently beautiful, and very prone to amorous pleasures; in his expeditions he led about a multitude of women armed with spears made into thyrsi.

'They say also that he is accompanied in his travels by the Muses, who are virgins and extremely well trained, and charm the soul of the god by singing and dancing. Silenus too, as his tutor, contributes much to his progress in virtue. As a remedy against the headaches resulting from too much wine, his head is bound up with a band.

'And they call him Dimetor, because the two Dionysi were of one father, but two mothers. They also set a reed in his hand, because the men of old drank unmixed wine and became maddened, and beat each other with their staves, so that some were even killed, and from this cause they introduced the custom of using reeds instead of clubs.

26 'He is called Bacchius from the Bacchae, and Lenaeus from the treading of the grapes in wine-presses, and Bromius from the roar of thunder which took place at his birth.

'They also say that he leads about Satyrs with him, who afford him pleasure and delight in their dances and their goat-songs; and that he established dramatic spectacles and a system of musical recitations. Such are the statements concerning Dionysus.

27 'Priapus is said to be the son of Dionysus and Aphrodite, because men filled with wine are naturally excited to amorous pleasures. But some say that the ancients gave to the human organ of generation the mythological name Priapus.

'Others affirm that, because the genital member is the cause of the generation of mankind, therefore it had for ever received immortal honour: as indeed the Egyptians also said that Isis, in her search for the members of Osiris, when she could not find the male organ, appointed it to be worshipped as a god, and set it up in the temple.

'Nay, even among the Greeks, not only in the Dionysiac rites, but also in all others, this god receives a certain honour, being brought in with laughter and jesting in their sacrifices: as is also Hermaphroditus, who got his name as being begotten of Hermes and Aphrodite.

'This god, they say, appears at certain times among men, and is born with the bodily form of man and woman combined: but some say that such things are prodigies, and, being produced but rarely, are significant sometimes of evil and sometimes of good.

28 'The Muses are daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, but some say of Uranus and Gé. Most mythologists also make them virgins, and say that they got their name from initiating men, that is teaching them the liberal arts.

Now with respect to Heracles the Greeks tell such, stories as follow:

29 'Of Zeus and Danae the daughter of Acrisius was born Perseus, and of Perseus and Andromeda Electryon, and of him Alcmena, by his union with whom Zeus begat Heracles, making the night which he passed with her thrice as long as usual: and this was the only intercourse sought by Zeus, not on account of amorous desire, as in the case with the other women, but chiefly for the sake of begetting a son.

'But Hera being jealous delayed Alcmena's labour, and brought Eurystheus into the world before the proper time, because Zeus had proclaimed that the child which should be born that day was to reign over the Persidae.

'And when Alcmena was delivered, she exposed the child, as it is said, through fear of Hera: but Athena admired the child, and persuaded Hera to give it the breast: and when the boy dragged at her breast with a violence beyond his age, Hera in great pain threw the child down, and Athena took it up and persuaded the mother to nurse it.

30 'After this Hera sent two serpents to destroy the child, but the boy, undismayed, strangled the serpents by squeezing their necks in either hand. When Heracles was grown to be a man, Eurystheus, who had the kingdom of Argolis, ordered him to perform twelve labours.

31 'And when he had fallen into much trouble, Hera sent a frenzy upon him, and through vexation of soul he became mad. As the disease increased, being out of his mind, he attempted to kill his companion and nephew lolaus, and when he escaped, slew his own sons begotten of Megara, daughter of King Creon, by shooting them down with arrows as if they were enemies.

32 'After this he quieted down, and served Eurystheus in the twelve labours. He also slew the Centaurs, and among them Cheiron, who was renowned for his skill in healing.

33 'It is said that there was a peculiar coincidence in the birth of this god Heracles. For the first mortal woman visited by Zeus was Niobe, daughter of Phoroneus, and the last was Alcmena, mother of Heracles, whom they trace as descended from Niobe in the sixteenth generation. And with her Zeus ended his intercourse with mortal women.

34 However, after finishing his labours, Heracles gave his own wife Megara to live with his nephew Iolaus, because of the calamity about his children; and for himself asked Iole, the daughter of Eurytus, in marriage, and, on her father's refusal, he fell sick, and received an oracle that he would be delivered from his sickness, if he first became sold into slavery.

'So he sails to Phrygia and is bought by one of his friends, and becomes a slave of Omphale, queen of those who were at that time called Maeonians, but now Lydians: and during the time of his slavery he has a son Cleolaus born to him of a slave. And, having married Omphale, he gets sons by her also.

35 'But as he was on his way back to Arcadia, and stayed as guest with King Leos, he secretly seduced his daughter, and left her with child, and came back.

36 'After this again he married Deianeira the daughter of Oeneus, Meleager being now dead. 37 And having taken captive the daughter of Phyleus, by intercourse with her he begat Tlepolemus. While he was supping with Oeneus, the servant made a mistake about something, and Heracles struck him with his fist and killed him.

'When on his journey he came to the river Evenus, he found the Centaur Nessus ferrying people across the river for hire. He ferried Deianeira over first, and, being enamoured of her for her beauty, tried to do violence to her; but when she cried out to her husband, Heracles shot the Centaur; and Nessus in the midst of his embrace, being at the point of death through the sharpness of the wound, told Deianeira that he would give her a philtre, so that Heracles might never wish to wed any other woman.

'He bade her therefore take of the blood which was dropping from the point of the arrow, and, after mixing it with oil, anoint therewith the tunic of Heracles: and this Deianeira did, and kept the philtre by her.

38 'Again, Heracles took captive the daughter of Phylas, and by his union with her begat a son Antiochus: and yet again he took captive Astyaneira, the daughter of King Armenius, and by her begat a son Ctesippus.

39 'And Thespius the Athenian, son of Erechtheus, having begotten fifty daughters by different wives, and being ambitious that they should get children by Heracles, entertained him at a splendid feast, and sent his daughters to him one by one: and he deflowered them all in one night, and became the father of the so-called Thespiadae.

40 'He took Iole also captive, and, having to perform a sacrifice, he sent to his wife Deianeira and asked for the cloak and tunic which he was accustomed to wear for sacrifices: and she anointed the tunic with the philtre which the Centaur had given her, and sent it.

'And Heracles had no sooner put on the tunic than he fell into the greatest misery. For the arrow had been poisoned with the blood of the hydra, and so the tunic began to prey upon the flesh of his body because of its burning heat, so that in his extremity of pain he slew the messenger who had brought it, and, in accordance with an oracle, cast himself into the fire, and so ended his life. Such is the story of Heracles.

41 'Now with regard to Asclepius they say that he was the son of Apollo and Coronis, and studied zealously the science of healing, and rose to such a height of fame, that many of the sick who were given over in despair were, beyond all expectation, cured by him; so that Zeus was enraged, and smote him with a thunderbolt and killed him; and Apollo, being enraged because of the death of his son, slew the Cyclopes who had forged the thunderbolt for Zeus: but Zeus was enraged at their death, and commanded Apollo to serve as a slave with Adrnetus, and took this revenge upon him for his crimes.'

This, then, is what Diodorus has set forth in the fourth book of his Bibliothecae. And as to the rest of their theology, the same author again asserts that the Greeks borrowed it from the other nations, for in the third book of the same history he writes as follows:----

42 'Now the people of Atlas say that their first king was Uranus, and of him were born by many wives five and forty sons, of whom eighteen were by a wife Titaea; and she, having been a virtuous woman and the author of many good deeds, was deified after her death, and had her name changed to Ge.

'Uranus also had daughters, Basileia, and Rhea who was also called Pandora. And because Basileia brought up her brothers with maternal affection, she was called Meter.

'And afterwards, when Uranus was dead, she lived with her brother Ilyperion, and bore two sons, whom she named Helios and Selene.

'But the brethren of Rhea were afraid of them, and slew Ilyperion, and drowned Helios in the river Eridanus. Selene, on learning this, threw herself down from a roof, and Meter became mad and wandered about the country, with her hair loose, driven frantic by drums and cymbals, until she too disappeared altogether.

'And the multitude, astonished at the catastrophe, transferred Helios and Selene to the stars of heaven, and regarded their mother as a goddess, and set up altars, and worshipped her with performances by drums and cymbals.

43 'The Phrygians say that Maeon was king of Phrygia and begat a daughter named Cybele, who first invented a pipe, and was called the Mountain Mother. And Marsyas the Phrygian, who was friendly with her, was the first to join flutes together, and he lived in chastity to the end of his life.

'But Cybele became pregnant by intercourse with Attis, and when this was known, her father killed Attis and the nurses: and Cybele became mad and rushed out into the country, and there continued howling and beating a drum.

'She was accompanied by Marsyas, who entered into a musical contest with Apollo, and was defeated, and flayed alive by Apollo.

'And Apollo became enamoured of Cybele and accompanied her in her wanderings as far as the Hyperboreans, and ordered the body of Attis to be buried, and Cybele to be honoured as a goddess.

'Wherefore the Phrygians keep this custom even to the present day, lamenting the death of the youth, and erecting altars, and honouring Attis and Cybele with sacrifices.

'And afterwards, at Pessinus in Phrygia, they built a costly temple, and instituted most magnificent worship and sacrificial rites.

44 'After the death of Hyperion the sons of Uranus divided the kingdom among themselves, the most illustrious of them being Atlas and Kronos. And of these Atlas took the regions along the coasts of the ocean, and became an excellent astronomer: and d he had seven daughters who were called the Atlantides, and these, by union with the comeliest gods, became the founders of the most numerous race, and gave birth to such as for their worth became gods and heroes; thus the eldest of them, Maia, by union with Zeus became mother of Hermes.

45 'But Kronos, surpassing all in arrogance and impiety, married his sister Rhea, and of her begat Zeus. There had been also another Zeus, the brother of Uranus and king of Crete, far inferior in fame to him of later birth.

'This latter then became, king of the whole world; but the other became king of Crete, and begat ten sons who were called Curetes: and his sepulchre, they say, is still shown in Crete.

'Now Kronos reigned in Sicily and Libya and Italy: but his son Zeus desired a life the opposite to his father's. And some say that he succeeded to the kingdom by his father's voluntary retirement, others that he was chosen by the multitude because of their hatred to his father.

'So when Kronos with the Titans made war against him, Zeus was victorious in battle, and marched over the whole inhabited world. He excelled in bodily strength and all virtues, and showed b the greatest zeal in punishment of the impious and benefits to the good; in return for which, after his departure from among men, he was called Zeus, because he was thought to liave been the author of the noble life (ζην) for mankind.

'These then are the principal heads of the theology held among the Atlanteans.'

These the Greeks also are said to borrow. So Diodorus writes in the third volume of his histories: and in the sixth, the same author confirms the same theology from the writings of Euemerus the Messenian, speaking word for word as follows: 46

'With regard then to gods the men of old have handed down to their posterity two sets of notions. For some, say they, are eternal and imperishable, as the Sun and Moon and the other heavenly bodies, and besides these the winds, and the rest who partake of the like nature with them; for each of these has an eternal origin and eternal continuance. Other deities they say were of the earth; but, because of the benefits which they conferred on mankind, they have received immortal honour and glory, as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others like them.

'Concerning the terrestrial gods many various tales have been handed down in the historical and mythological writers. Among the historians Euemerus, the author of the Sacred Record, has written a special history; and of the mythologists Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and such others as these, have invented very marvellous myths concerning the gods: and we shall endeavour to run over what both classes have recorded concisely and with a view to due proportion.

'Euemerus, then, was a friend of King Cassander and, having boon constrained for his sake to perform some important services for the king, and some long journeys, says that he was carried away southwards into the ocean; for, having started on his voyage from Arabia Felix, he sailed many days across the ocean, and landed on some oceanic islands, one of which is that called Panchaea, in which he saw the Panchaean inhabitants, who were eminent in piety, and honoured the gods with most magnificent sacrifices and notable offerings of silver and gold.

'The island also was sacred to the gods ; and there were many other things to be admired both for their antiquity, and for the ingenuity of their manufacture, the particulars concerning which we have recorded in the books preceding this.

'Also therein on a certain exceedingly high hill is a temple of Zeus Triphylius, erected by himself at the time when he reigned over the whole inhabited world, being still among men. In this temple there is a golden pillar, on which is inscribed in the Panchaean language a summary of the acts of Uranus, Kronos, and Zeus.

'After this he says that Uranus was the first king, a gentle and benevolent man, and learned in the motion of the stars, who also was the first to honour the celestial deities with sacrifices, on which account he was called Uranus.

'By his wife Ilestia he had sons Pan and Kronos, and daughters Rhea and Demeter: and after Uranus, Kronos became king and, having married Rhea, begat Zeus and Hera and Poseidon.' And Zeus, having succeeded to the kingdom of Kronos, married Hera and Demeter and Themis, of whom he begat children, of the first the Curetes, of the second Persephone, and of the third Athena.

'And when he had come to Babylon he was entertained as a guest by Belus: and afterwards on arriving at the island Panchaea, which lay by the ocean, he built an altar to his own grandfather Uranus: and thence he came through Syria to the sovereign of that time Casius, of whom mount Casius is named; and came into Cilicia and conquered in war Cilix the ruler of the country; and visited very many other nations and was honoured among all, and was proclaimed a god.'

After narrating these and similar tales concerning the gods as if they were mortal men, he further says : 47

'With regard to Euemerus who composed the Sacred Record, we will be satisfied with what has been said ; but the legends of the Greeks concerning the gods we will try to run over briefly, following Hesiod and Homer and Orpheus.'

Then he appends in order the mythologies of the poets. Let it suffice us, however, to have made these extracts from the theology of the Greeks, to which it is reasonable to append an account of the initiatory rites in the inner shrines of the same deities, and of their secret mysteries, and to observe whether they bear any becoming mark of a theology that is truly divine, or arise from regions below out of long daemoniacal delusion, and are deserving of ridicule, or rather of shame, and yet more of pity for those who are still blinded. These matters are unveiled in plain terms by the admirable Clement, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, a man who had gone through experience of all, but had quickly emerged from the delusion as one who had been rescued from evil by the word of salvation and through the teaching of the Gospel. Listen, then, to a brief statement of these matters also.48

CHAPTER III

[CLEMENT] 'Explore not then too curiously the secret shrines of impiety, nor the mouths of caverns full of prodigies, or the Thesprotian cauldron, or the Cirrhaean tripod, or the brazen urn of Dodona: leave also to antiquated fables the old stump held sacred amid desert sands, and the oracle there, now decayed with the oak itself. The fountain certainly of Castalia is silently forgotten, and another fountain of Colophon; the other oracular streams also are in like manner dead. And so, though emptied late of their vain glory, they have nevertheless been clearly proved to have run dry together with their own fabulous stories.

'Describe to us also the useless oracles of the other kinds of divination, or of frenzy rather, the Clarian, Pythian, Didymean Apollo, Amphiaraus, and Amphiiochus. Join also with them, if you will, observers of prodigies, and augurs, and the unholy interpreters of dreams: and bring and set together beside the Pythian god those that divine by wheat-flour, and by barley, and the ventriloquists still held in honour among the multitude. Yea more, let the shrines of the Egyptians and the necromancies of the Tyrrhenians be consigned to darkness. These are in very truth mad sophistry-schools of unbelieving men, and gambling houses of pure fraud. Partners in this jugglery are the goats that have been trained for divination, and crows taught by men to utter oracles to men.

'And what if I were to give you a catalogue of the mysteries? I shall not dance them out, as they say Alcibiades did, but according to the word of truth I will thoroughly lay bare the jugglery that is concealed in them, and those so-called gods of yours, to whom the mystic rites belong, I shall wheel in as it were upon the stage of life before the spectators of truth.

'The Bacchanals celebrate in their orgies the frenzy of Dionysus, keeping their monthly holiday with a feast on raw flesh, and, in performing the distribution of the flesh of the slaughtered victims, are crowned with their wreaths of serpents, and shout upon Eva, that Eva, through whom the deception crept in [and death followed in its train]: a consecrated serpent, too, is the symbol of the Bacchic orgies.

'Therefore, according to the exact pronunciation of the Hebrews, the name Heva, with an aspirate, is at once interpreted as the female serpent. Deo too and Kore have already become a mystic drama, and Eleusis celebrates by torchlight the wandering, and the rape, and their mourning.

'I think, too, that we ought to trace the etymology of "orgies" and "mysteries," the one from the anger (οργης) of Deo aroused against Zeus, and the other from the pollution (μυσους) which had occurred with regard to Dionysus. Or even if you derive it from a certain Myus of Attica, who perished in hunting, as Apollodorus says, I do not grudge that your mysteries have been glorified by the honour of a name which is engraved upon a tomb.

'In another way also you may think of your mysteries as mytheria (hunting-stories) by the correspondence of letters. For fables such as these do most especially make prey of the most barbarous of the Thracians, the most senseless of the Phrygians, the most superstitious of the Greeks.

'Ill betide him then who first taught men this imposture, whether he were Dardanus, who instituted the mysteries of the Mother of the gods, or one Eetion, who established the orgies and initiations of the Samothracians, or that famous Phrygian Midas, who learned the cunning imposture from Odrysus and then spread it among his subjects.

'For never will I be cajoled by that Cyprian islander Cinyras, who dared to transfer the lewd orgies of Aphrodite from night to day, in his desire to deify a harlot of his own country.

During the Crusades, those members of Eastern European aristocracy descended from the remnants of the Khazars, in addition to the the ruling families of Armenia, reconnected to ignite an important network, by intermarrying with the descendants of the Merovingians. The Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown has recently popularized the legend of that the Merovingians, the most important of the Illuminati bloodlines, was derived originally from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The likelihood of this possibility is nil, as the core doctrines of this lineage are based on the Luciferian teachings of Gnosticism. Rather, the myth of the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was preserved to disguise a more occult secret about the origin of this bloodline.

More importantly, the descendants of the Merovingians eventually intermarried with the family of Charlemagne, founder of the Holy Roman Empire, and supposedly, that of an Exilarch, or claimant to the Davidic throne, named Rabbi Makhir. It is from this lineage that all the leading lines of European aristocracy descend, a bloodline featured as the central secret of Grail lore.

The Merovingians, again, came originally from Scythia, where they were known as the Sicambrians, taking their name from Cambra, a tribal queen of about 380 BC. Then, in the early fifth century AD, the invasion of the Huns provoked large-scale migrations of almost all European tribes. It was at this time that the Sicambrians, a tribe of the Germanic people collectively known as the Franks, crossed the Rhine and moved into Gaul, establishing themselves in what is now Belgium and northern France.

The Merovingians are believed in occult circles to have originally been Jewish, and descended from the Tribe of Benjamin, who had entered Greece known as Cadmus and Danaaus. Certain important details of the history of the Merovingians are related in the Fredegar’ Chronicle, a facsimile of which is in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris. Fredegar, who died in 660 AD, was a Burgundian scribe, and his Chronicle covered the period from the earliest days of the Hebrew patriarchs to the era of the Merovingian kings. Fredegar’s Prologue tells how the Sicambrian line of “Franks”, from whom France acquired its name, were themselves first so called after their chief Francio, a descendant of Noah, who died in 11 BC. Prior to their Scythian days, Francio’s race originated in ancient Troy after which the French city of Troyes was named. The city of Paris, established by the sixth century Merovingians, likewise bears the name of Paris, the son of King Priam of Troy, whose liaison with Helen of Sparta sparked the Trojan War.

The claim, asserted in The Da Vinci Code, is that Mary Magdalene had brought to southern France a child she bore to Jesus, and that her lineage was survived among the Merovingians....

-- Terrorism and the Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History, by David Livingston

'But others say that Melampus son of Amythaon brought over from Egypt to Hellas the festivals of Deo, her grief so famed in song. These for my part I should call evil authors of impious fables, and parents of deadly superstition, as having in the mysteries implanted a seed of wickedness and corruption in man's life.

'And now, for it is time, I will prove that your orgies themselves are full of imposture and quackery: and if you have been initiated, you will laugh all the more at these your venerated fables. And I shall proclaim the hidden secrets openly, and not let modesty hinder me from speaking of things which you are not ashamed to worship.

'First then, the daughter of the foam, the Cyprus-born, the beloved of Cinyras, Aphrodite I mean,

"Enamour'd of the source from which she sprang," 49

'those mutilated members of Uranus, those lustful members, which after their excision did violence to the waves, how wanton the members, of which your Aphrodite becomes the worthy fruit! In the mystic celebration of this pleasure of the sea a lump of salt and a phallus are delivered as a symbol of generation to those who are being initiated in the adulterous art: and they pay a piece of money to her, as lovers to a harlot.

'The mysteries of Deo, and the amorous embraces of Zeus with Demeter his mother, and the wrath of----I know not what to call her now----his mother or wife, Demeter, on account of which wrath, they say, she was called Brimo; the supplications of Zeus, and the drink of gall, the plucking out of the victim's heart, and unspeakable deeds,----these things the Phrygians celebrate in honour of Attis, and Cybele, and the Corybantes.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

'They have also made up a story that Zeus, having torn off parts of a ram, brought and threw them into the lap of Deo, paying a fraudulent penalty for his violence, as though they had been parts of himself.

'The watchwords of this initiation, if set before you merely for amusement, will, I know, stir your laughter, although you may not be willing to laugh because of the exposures. "I ate out of the drum, and drank out of the cymbal, I danced the κερνοπηορια, I slipped into the bridal-chamber." Are not these watchwords an outrage? Are not the mysteries a farce?

'But what if I should add the rest of the story? Demeter has a child, and her daughter grows up, and again this Zeus who begat her seduces his own daughter Pherephatta, after her mother Deo, forgetting his former crime, and he approaches her in the form of a serpent, it being thus proved who he was.

'Accordingly, in the Sabazian mysteries the sign for those who are initiated is "The god gliding over the breast"; and this is a serpent drawn over the breast of those who are initiated, a proof of the incontinence of Zeus. Pherephatta also gives birth to a son in the form of a bull.

'At all events, a certain sham, poet says:

"Bull begets serpent, serpent begets bull.
Upon the mount the herdsman's secret goad." 50

calling, I suppose, the reed which the Bacchanals brandish a herdsman's goad.

'Would you have me narrate to you also Pherephatta's gathering of flowers, and her basket, and her seizure by Aidoneus, and the chasm opening in the earth, and the swine of Eubuleus that were swallowed up with the two goddesses, on account of which in the Thesmophoria they throw down swine, when they visit the caves.

'This fable the women in every city celebrate with festivals in various ways, the Thesmophoria, Scirophoria, Arretophoria, dramatizing the rape of Pherephatta in many ways.

'As to the mysteries of Dionysus, they are perfectly inhuman: for when he was yet a child, with the Curetes circling round him in a war-dance, and the Titans had treacherously crept in, they beguiled him with childish toys, did these Titans, and tore him in pieces while yet an infant, as the poet of this mystery, Orpheus the Thracian, says:

"Cone, humming top, and dolls that bend their limbs,
Fair golden apples from the guardian Nymphs.
Of sweetest song, daughters of Hesperus." 51

'Nor will it be useless to set forth for condemnation the useless symbols of this mystery: dice, ball, hoop, apples, humming-top, mirror, and lock of wool.

'So then Athena, having stolen away the heart of Dionysus, was called Pallas from the pulsation of the heart: and the Titans, who had torn him in pieces, put a cauldron on a trivet, and threw in the limbs of Dionysus, and, having first boiled them down,

"Then pierc'd with spits and held them o'er the fire." 52

'But afterwards Zeus suddenly appears----I suppose, if he was a god, he perceived the savour of the roasting flesh, for your gods acknowledge that savour to be their perquisite,----and with a thunderbolt he smites the Titans, and delivers the limbs of Dionysus to his son Apollo to bury: and he did not disobey Zeus, but bore the dead body, mangled as it was, to Parnassus and there deposited it.

'If you wish to be initiated in the orgies of the Corybantes also, two of them slew the third brother, and wrapped up the head of the corpse in a purple cloth, and put a wreath upon it, and carried him on a brazen shield, and buried him under the side of Mount Olympus.

'These are their mysteries, murders in short, and burials! And their priests, whom those concerned call "Lords of the Mysteries," invent more wonders to add to the tragedy, forbidding to set a whole root of parsley on the table, because they think forsooth that parsley has sprung from the blood which streamed forth from the Corybant; just as the women who celebrate the Thesmophoria guard against eating the seeds of the pomegranate, for the drops which fell on the ground from the blood of Dionysus they suppose to have grown into pomegranates.

'As they call the Corybantes Cabeiri, they also proclaim the festival as the Cabeiria. For these very two fratricides, having carried off the chest in which the member of Dionysus was deposited, brought it by sea to Tyrrhenia, as purveyors of a noble cargo! And here they lived in exile, and imparted to the Tyrrhenians their highly venerable doctrine of religion, the chest and its contents, for them to worship; for which cause some not unreasonably will have it that Dionysus is called Attis, as having been mutilated.

'And what wonder if Tyrrhenians, who were barbarians, are initiated in such foul passions, when there is found among the Athenians, and in the rest of Hellas----I blush even to say it----the shameful legend of Deo.

'For Deo, wandering in search of her daughter Kore in the neighbourhood of Eleusis----this place is in Attica----grows weary, and sits down in sorrow upon a well. This is forbidden to those who are admitted to the mysteries even to the present day, lest the initiated should seem to be imitating the goddess in her mourning.

'Now at that time Eleusis was inhabited by the Earth-born: their names were Baubo, and Dysaules, and Triptolemus, also Eumolpus and Eubuleus. Triptolemus was a herdsman, Eumolpus a shepherd, and Eubuleus a swineherd. And from these last grew the flourishing family of the Eumolpidae, and that of the Heralds, the Hierophants I suppose, at Athens.

'And then Baubo----for I shall not shrink from telling it----having received Deo hospitably, offers her a draught. And when she refused to take it, and would not drink----for she was full of sorrow----Baubo became much annoyed as being forsooth disdained, and exposed herself to the goddess: and Deo, pleased at the sight, at last reluctantly accepted the draught, because she was delighted at what she saw.

'These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians! These are the things which Orpheus records! But I will set before you the very words of Orpheus, that you may have the master of mysteries himself as witness of their shamelessness:

"She spake, and quick her flowing robes withdrawn
Showed all the secret beauty of her form.
The child lacchus, laughing, stretched his hand
To touch her tender breasts, and Baubo smil'd;
Then, too, the goddess smil'd with cheerful thought,
And took the shining bowl which held the draught." 53

'There is also the watchword of the Eleusinian mysteries: I fasted, I drank the draught, I took from the chest, finished the work and put it back into the basket, and from the basket into the chest.54 Noble indeed the sights, and becoming to a goddess!

'Worthy rather are these mysteries of night, and of torch-light, and of the great-hearted, or rather weak-minded, people of the Erechtheidae, and of the other Greeks also, "men for whom there remain after death things that they little look for,"

'To whom then does Heracleitus the Ephesian address this foreboding? "To night-walkers, sorcerers, bacchanals male and female, to the initiated."55 These he threatens with what follows death; to these he predicts the fire. For they receive an unholy initiation in what men regard as mysteries.56

'Custom therefore, and vain opinion, and the mysteries of the serpent are a kind of fraud devoutly observed by men who, with spurious piety, promote their abominable initiations and profane orgiastic rites.

'What also are those mystic chests? For I must lay bare their holy things, and tell out their forbidden secrets. Are they not sesame-cakes, and pyramids, and balls, and flat cakes full of knobs, and lumps of salt? A serpent also, mystic symbol of Dionysus Bassarus?

'And besides these are there not pomegranates, and shoots of fig-trees, and reeds, and ivies, and round cakes also, and poppies?

'These are their holy things! And there are in addition the secret symbols of Themis, wild marjoram, a lamp, a sword, a woman's comb, which is an euphemistic and mystical name.

'O barefaced shamelessness! In times of old for modest men pleasure was veiled in night, and night in silence: but now the night that is sacred to wantonness is the talk of those who are to be initiated, and the fire exposes their lewd passions by the light of torches.

'Quench thou the fire, O Hierophant! Blush for thy lights, O bearer of the torch! That flame exposes thine lacchus. Suffer the night to conceal the mysteries: let darkness pay respect to your dignified orgies. The fire is no hypocrite: its duty is to expose and to punish.

'These are the atheists' mysteries. And atheists I rightly call them, since they have not known Him who is truly God, but worship a child torn in pieces by Titans, and a poor wailing woman; and things for very shame unmentionable they shamelessly worship, and so are involved in a twofold atheism: the first, in that they are ignorant of God, not acknowledging Him who is God indeed; and the other and second delusion this, that they regard those which are not as though they were, and call them gods who have no true being, or rather no being at all, but have only received the name.'

So far this author.

CHAPTER IV

With good reason then do we avow that we have been freed from all this, and rescued from the long and antiquated delusion as from some terrible and most grievous disease. First, we have been delivered by the grace and beneficence of Almighty God, and secondly by the ineffable power of our Saviour's teaching in the Gospel, and thirdly by sound reasoning, because we judged that it is an unholy and impious thing to honour with the adorable name of God mortals who have long been lying among the dead, and have not even left a memory of themselves as virtuous men, but have handed down examples of extreme incontinence and wantonness, of cruelty also and insanity, for those who come after them to follow.

For must it not be the extreme of folly for lovers of temperance to yield the first place to the base and licentious, and for the wise and sensible to render august worship to those who have lost their senses, and those who practise justice and benevolence to those who, through excess of cruelty and inhumanity, are involved in the pollutions of infanticide and parricide?

And does it not surpass every excess of impiety to degrade the adorable and all-holy name of God to parts of the human body, male and female, which we may not speak of, and to the irrational nature of brute beasts; and to honour as divine such foul and inhuman deeds as, even in the case of human malefactors would, if proved, fall under the inexorable penalties of the laws? But why need we spend time in proclaiming to every man, barbarian and Greek alike, his deliverance from the evils described, and in bringing to light the reasonableness of our revolt from gods falsely so called, when already the greater number even of the most superstitious, having woke up as it were from a deep slumber, and cleared the eye of the soul of its ancient film, became conscious of the deep folly of the error of their fathers, and took their stand upon reasoning, and withdrew from the old path, and chose the other way?

Some of these made a bold assault, and with broad derision poured contempt upon the whole mythology of their own forefathers; while others, who shrank from the dogma of atheism, neither stood upon their old ways, nor withdrew from them altogether, but, with the purpose of glossing over and explaining their own dogma, gave to the true histories of the gods who had been celebrated among them the title of fables invented by poets, and said that physical theories were concealed in them. And however much they fail to bring any proof whatever of the truth of these theories, it will nevertheless be necessary for us to set forth for examination their solemn doctrines, that thus we may prove the reasonableness of that retreat from them which was provided for us solely by the teaching of our Saviour in the Gospel. Come then, let us take up their argument from the beginning and examine it.

CHAPTER V.

Now by the Greek theology I mean the popular and more mythical theology, which also prevailed much earlier among the Phoenicians and Egyptians and the other nations of whom mention was made in our preceding books; and the character of this has been proved to be something of the kind which has been already made manifest by the words quoted from the Greek historians themselves. And this character we have with good reason set before our readers in the beginning of this our Preparation for the Gospel for their judgement and decision, that both we and those who as yet have no experience of this subject, may learn for ourselves what we were long ago, and from what sort of forefathers we have sprung, by how great evils we were previously fettered, and in how great a stupor of impiety and ignorance of God our souls were buried, and then were favoured with an uprising and deliverance from all these evils at once by the sole teaching of the Gospel, provided for us in no other way than by the manifestation of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God.

For not in a mere part of the earth, nor in a corner of the land of one nation, but throughout the whole inhabited world, where the power of the most superstitious delusion especially prevailed, He, like a sun of intelligent and rational souls, spread abroad the beams of His own light: He translated us all, of every race of mankind, barbarians and Greeks alike, as it were from a terrible darkness and most gloomy and obscure night of superstitious error into the bright and shining day of the true worship of God the King of all.

Certainly the statements that have been already quoted have plainly taught us, that those who in cities and villages have been excited about this delusion of many gods were all universally serving and worshipping images of the dead, and statues of men who have long since passed away. For the men of old, because of the extreme savageness of their life at that time made no account of God the Creator of all, nor paid any heed to the divine judgement which takes vengeance on wrong doing, but cast themselves headlong into every kind of profanity.

For at that time there were no laws yet established for the guidance of life, no civilized government set in order among men, but they led a loose and wandering life like that of the beasts: and some of them, like irrational animals, cared for nothing beyond the filling of their belly, and among these the first kind of atheism found a home; but others, being in some small degree stirred by natural instincts, conceived that God, and God's power, was some good and salutary thing, and because they wished to find Him, they raised their souls aloft to heaven, and there stopping short in thought, and being astonished at the various beauties of the luminaries which gave and received light in heaven, declared that these were gods.

But a third and different class cast themselves down upon earth, and seeing those who had been thought to excel their contemporaries in wisdom, or had become masters of the multitude by strength of body and power of government, such as giants or tyrants, or even sorcerers and quacks, who after some falling off from holier ways had devised their evil arts of sorcery, or others who had been the authors of some common benefit to human life,----to these, both while yet living and after death, they gave the title of gods. And from this cause the houses of their gods are mentioned as being tombs of the dead, as Clement relates in his Exhortation to the Greeks, bringing forward Greeks themselves as witnesses of his statement. Listen then again, if it please you, to what he writes in the following style:57

CHAPTER VI

[CLEMENT] 'Naturally therefore superstition, having somewhere found a beginning, has become a fountain of senseless wickedness; and afterwards, as it was not checked, but gained increase and rushed on in full flood, it has created a multitude of daemons, sacrificing hecatombs, celebrating public festivals, setting up statues, and building temples, which indeed----for I will not keep silence even on this, but will convict them----were called euphemistically temples, but were in reality tombs, that is to say, tombs which had got the name of temples. But now, I pray you, forget at length your superstition, and be ashamed to worship tombs.

'In the temple of Athena at Larissa in the Acropolis is the tomb of Acrisius, and at Athens in the Acropolis the tomb of Cecrops, as Antiochus says in the ninth book of his Histories. And what of Erichthonius? Is he not buried in the temple of Athena Folias? And Ismarus the son of Eumolpus and Daeira, is he not buried in the precincts of the Eleusinium, which lies under the Acropolis? And the daughters of Celeus, are they not buried at Eleusis?

'Why should I tell you of the women who came from the Hyperboreans? There are two called Hyperoche and Laodice, who are buried in the precinct of Artemis at Delos, which is in the temple of the Delian Apollo.

'Leander says that Cleomachus is buried at Miletus in the Didyrnaeum. Here, if we follow Zeno of Myndus, it would not be right to pass over the monument of Leucophryne, who is buried in the temple of Artemis in Magnesia, nor yet the altar of Apollo in Telmessus, which also, the story says, is the monument of Telmesseus the soothsayer.

'Ptolemy too, the son of Agesarchus, in his first book concerning Philopator says that Cinyras and the descendants of Cinyras are buried in Paphos in the temple of Aphrodite.

'Were I, however, to go over all the tombs which are worshipped by you, "all time would not suffice for me to tell"; [Homer, Od. xx. 351] while you, if no shame for these audacities steals over you, may wander round with your faith in the dead, utterly dead yourselves:

"Ah! wretched men, what evil doom is this?" 58

A little further on he says: 59

'Another new god the Roman Emperor has deified with great solemnity in Egypt, and almost in Greece; his favourite Antinous, who was extremely beautiful, was deified by him, as Ganymede was by Zeus.

'For lust, when free from fear, is not easily restrained: and men now celebrate the sacred nights of Antinous, the shame of which was known to the lover who shared his vigils.'

He also adds:

'And now the favourite's tomb is the temple and city of Antinous: for just as temples are held in reverence, so, I suppose, are tombs, pyramids, mausoleums, and labyrinths----other temples these of the dead, as those before mentioned were tombs of the gods.'

And again, a little further on: 60

'Come then, let us also briefly make the round of your games, and put an end to these great sepulchral festivals, the Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian, and besides these the Olympian. At Pytho the Pythian dragon is worshipped, and the festival of the serpent is proclaimed as the Pythia. At the Isthmus the sea cast up a miserable carcass, and the Isthmian games are a lamentation for Melicertes: at Nemea another child Archemorus is buried, and the boy's funeral games are called Nemea. Pisa is the tomb in your midst, O Panhellenes, of a Phrygian charioteer, and the Zeus of Phidias claims as his own the Olympian games, which are the funeral libations of Pelops.'

So speaks our author.

Now take thou up our argument again from the beginning, and observe the downfall of superstitious error. By nature and by our self-taught ideas, or rather ideas taught by God, there is a something noble and salutary that indicates the name and being of God: for all men had taken this for granted in their common reasonings, since the Creator of all things had implanted this conviction by innate ideas in every rational and intelligent soul.

They had not, however, chosen the course which accords with reason. For only some one or two perchance, or at most a very few others, whose memory is recorded in the oracles of the Hebrews, could not adapt their idea of God to any of the things that are seen, but with unperverted reasonings led up their thoughts from visible things to the Creator of the whole world and the great Maker of the universe; and with purified eyes of the understanding perceived that He alone is God, the Saviour of all, and sole giver of good gifts. But the rest wandered about in all kinds of mental blindness, and were carried into an abyss of ungodliness, so that like wild beasts they limited the beautiful, and useful, and good to the pleasure of the eyes and the flesh.

And in this way, as I have said before, the discoverers of the things supposed to be good and useful to the body, or certain governors, or tyrants, or even sorcerers and poisoners, though of mortal nature and subjected to the misfortunes of humanity, were called saviours and gods as givers of good things, and men transferred, the august conception which was implanted in them by nature to those whom they supposed to be benefactors.

And accordingly so great a mental paralysis possessed them, that they took no account of the iniquities of those whom they regarded as gods, nor blushed at the shameful tales reported of them, but in all these things admired the men because of the benefits provided by them, or because of the governments and tyrannies which were then first established.

For example, as I said before, since at that time no laws were yet administered, nor punishment suspended over evil deeds, they recorded as rightful and brave deeds, adulteries and sodomy, and incestuous and unlawful marriages, and bloodshed and parricides, and murders of children and brethren, and moreover, wars and seditions actually carried on by their own champions, whom they both accounted and called gods, and bequeathed the remembrance of them as worshipful and brave to later generations.

Such was the ancient theology which was transformed by certain moderns of yesterday's growth, who boasted of having a more reasonable philosophy, and introduced what they called the more physical view of the history of the gods, by devising more respectable and ingenious explanations for the legends: yet they neither escaped altogether the fault of their forefathers' impiety, nor, on the other hand, could endure the self-manifested wickedness of their so-called gods.

So, in their eagerness to palliate the fault of their fathers, they changed the legends into physical narratives and theories, and boasted, as the more mystical view, that the things which give nourishment and increase to the nature of the body are those which the legends set forth.

Going on from this point, these men also gave the title of gods to the elements of the world, not just merely to sun and moon and stars, but also to earth and water, and air and fire, and their combinations and resultants, and moreover to the seasonable fruits of the earth, and all other produce of food both dry and liquid: and these very things, regarded as causes of the life of the body, they called Demeter, and Kore, and Dionysus, and other like names, and, by making gods of them, introduced a forced and untrue embellishment of their legends.

But it was in a later age that these men, as if ashamed of the theologies of their forefathers, added respectable explanations, which each invented of himself, to the legends concerning their gods; for no one dared to disturb the customs of their ancestors, but paid great honour to antiquity, and to the familiar training which had grown with them from their boyhood.

Their elders, however, besides their deifications of men, gave equal rank to their consecrations of brute animals, because of the benefit derived from them also for the causes previously assigned; and they devoted equal religious worship to the brutes, and with libations, sacrifices, mystic rites, and hymns, and songs, exalted the honours paid to them, in the same manner as to the men who had been deified. And so they marched on to such a pitch of evil, that, through excess of unbridled lust, they consecrated with divine honours those parts of the body that lead to impurity, and the unrestrained passions of mankind, while their so-called theologians declared that in these things there is no need at all to use solemn phrases. We must, then, hold it to have been proved on the highest testimony, that the oldest generations knew nothing more at all than the history, but adhered to the legends only. Since, however, we have once begun to glance at the august and recondite doctrines of the noble philosophers, let us go on and examine these also more fully, that we may not seem to be ignorant of their wonderful physical theories.

But before we make our exposition of these doctrines, we must first indicate the mutual contradiction even here of these admirable philosophers themselves. For some of them make random statements, and set forth their opinions according to what comes into the mind of each individually: for they do not agree one with another even in their physical theories. While others more candidly sweep away the whole system, and banish from their own republic not only the indecent stories about the gods, but also the interpretations given of them; though sometimes they speak softly of the legends through fear of the punishment threatened by the laws.

Listen then to the Greeks themselves speaking by the mouth of the one noblest of them all, now banishing and now again adopting the legends. Thus their admirable Plato, when he lays bare his own preference, with great boldness forbids altogether the thinking or saying such things concerning the gods, as had been said by them of old, whether they contained anything latent indicated in allegorical meanings, or were spoken without any allegorical meaning at all. But at other times he speaks softly of the laws, and says that we ought to believe the legends about the gods, though there is nothing indicated by them in allegorical meanings.

But when at last he has dissociated his own theology from the ancient legends, and has stated his physical theories about the heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and moreover about the whole cosmos, and the parts of it severally, he again specially and separately goes through the ancient genealogical accounts of the gods just as follows word for word in the Timaeus.

CHAPTER VII.

[PLATO] 'To tell of the other divinities and to learn their origin is beyond our power; but we must give credence to those who have spoken in former times, who being, as they said, the offspring of gods had, I suppose, a clear knowledge of their own ancestors. It is impossible therefore to disbelieve children of the gods, even though they speak without certain or probable proofs; but as they assert that they are reporting family histories, we must, in obedience to the law, believe them.

'On their authority then let the origin of these gods be admitted and stated by us as follows. The children of Earth and Heaven were Oceanus and Tethys; and their children Phorcys, and Kronos, and Rhea, and the rest of them: and from Kronos and Rhea sprang Zeus and Hera, and all whom we know as their reputed brethren, and still others who were their offspring.' 61

These things, says Plato, 'we must in obedience to the law believe,' even though, he admits, they are stated 'without certain or probable proofs.' And we must observe how he indicates that the names and genealogies of the so-called gods have no hidden meaning to be explained by physical theories.

But again, in another place the same author, laying open his own deliberate opinion, has used these words:62

'In the first place, said I, the author of that greatest lie about the greatest gods told a bad lie, how Uranus did the deeds which Hesiod says he did, and how Kronos took revenge upon him.

'Again, even if the doings of Kronos and his treatment by his son were true, I should not have thought that they ought to be thus lightly told before young and thoughtless persons, but that they should be buried in silence, as the best thing; or if there were any necessity to tell them, then as few as possible should hear them in secret, after sacrificing no mere pig, but some great and scarce victim, so that very few might have a chance of hearing them.

'Why yes, said he, these stories certainly are mischievous.

'Aye, and they must not be told in our city, Adeimantus; nor must a young hearer be told that he would be doing nothing remarkable in committing the worst injuries nor in inflicting every kind of punishment upon his father for injuring him, but would be doing just what the first and greatest of the gods did.

'Nor do I myself think that such stories are fit to be told.

'Nor yet, said I, about gods going to war with gods and plotting and fighting (untrue as such things are) ought anything at all to be said, if at least the future guardians of our city are to regard it as very disgraceful to be lightly quarrelling one with another. Much less must we invent fables about wars of the giants, and work them in embroidery, with numberless other quarrels of all kinds of gods and heroes against their own kith and kin. But if there were any chance of our persuading them, that no citizen was ever at enmity with a fellow citizen, and that such a thing was unholy, rather should tales of this kind be told to children from the first by old men and old women and by those of mature age, and the poets should be compelled to make their tales like these.

'The chaining, too, of Hera by her son, and the hurling of Hephaestus out of heaven by his father, when he was going to defend his mother from a beating, and all the battles of the gods that Homer has invented, must not be admitted into the city, whether they are composed with or without allegorical meanings.'

By these words, then, the philosopher clearly teaches that both the legends of the ancients concerning the gods, and the physical explanations of these legends supposed to be expressed in allegories are to be rejected; so that it can no longer be denied that there is good reason for our Saviour's teaching in the Gospel, which bids us to abandon these legends, seeing that they have been rejected even by their own friends.

Hence it comes that I admire the ancient Romans for the manner in which, when they perceived that all the physiological theories of the Greeks concerning the gods were absurd and unprofitable, or rather were forced and inconsistent, they excluded them, legends and all, from their own theology. This too you may learn from the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus: for he, in his second book, when relating the history of Romulus, the first founder of the city of Rome, while recounting his other good deeds, writes on this point especially in the following manner: 63

CHAPTER VIII

[DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS] 'But he knew that good laws and zeal in honourable pursuits render a state religious and temperate, and observant of justice, and brave in war: and for these things he took much forethought, beginning with the laws concerning acts of worship paid to gods and daemons.

'Temples therefore, and precincts, and altars, and the erection of statues, and their forms and emblems and powers, and gifts whereby they had conferred benefit on our race, and festivals of all such kinds as ought to be kept in honour of each god or daemon, and sacrifices wherewith they delight to be honoured by men, and sacred truces also and national festivals, and seasons of rest from labour, and all such matters he established in a manner similar to the best of the customs among the Greeks. But the traditional fables concerning them, in which there are any slanders or accusations against them, he considered to be wicked and unprofitable and unseemly, and unworthy not to say of gods but even of good men, and he excluded them all, and trained men both to speak and think all that was excellent concerning the gods, imputing to them no practice unworthy of their blessed nature.

'For among the Romans there is neither any story of Uranus being mutilated by his own children, nor of Kronos devouring his own offspring through fear of their attack, nor of Zeus overthrowing the dynasty of Kronos, and shutting up his own father in the prison of Tartarus; nor yet of wars, and wounds, and bonds, and servitudes of gods among men.

'Nor is any black-robed or mournful festival held among them, with women's wailings and lamentations over gods that vanished from sight, such as are celebrated among the Greeks in reference to the rape of Persephone, and the sufferings of Dionysus, and all other things of a like kind.

'Nor would any one see among them, even though their customs are now corrupted, any wild enthusiasms, nor Corybantic frenzies, nor Bacchanalian revels and secret initiations, no all-night vigils of men and women together in the temples of the gods, nor any other of the monstrosities akin to these, but all things concerning the gods practised and spoken of with reverence, such as is seen neither among Greeks nor barbarians.

'And what I have admired most of all, though countless races have come to settle in the city, who were strictly bound to worship their ancestral gods with the rites of their own country, the city has never by public consent sought to imitate any of the foreign customs, a propensity which has occurred to many states ere now: but even if any sacred rites have been introduced in accordance with oracles, the city adapted them to its own institutions, and cast out all mythical quackery, as for example the rites of the Idaean goddess.

'For in her honour the Consuls celebrate sacrifices and games every year according to the laws of the Romans: and her priests are a Phrygian man and Phrygian woman, and these go about the city beggmg for the goddess, as their custom is, with images fastened round their breasts, and rattling cymbals and accompanied by their followers playing on flutes the music of the Mother.

'But of the home-born Romans none proceeds through the city either so begging, or accompanied by flutes and dressed in an embroidered robe, nor celebrates the goddess with Phrygian orgies by any law or decree of the Senate.

'So cautious is the attitude of the state towards foreign customs concerning the gods, shunning as ill-omened all vain display in which there is anything unbecoming.

'But let no one suppose me to be ignorant that some of the Grecian legends are useful to mankind; some exhibiting the works of nature allegorically, and others composed for the sake of consoling human misfortunes, and others removing troubles and terrors of the soul and overthrowing unsound opinions, and others invented for the sake of some other utility.

'But although I know these things as well as anybody, I am nevertheless cautiously disposed towards them, and I prefer to accept the theology of the Romans, considering that the benefits derived from the Hellenic legends are small, and not capable of benefiting many, but only those who have searched out the purposes for which they are made. And those who have taken part in this branch of philosophy are rare; while the great mass unversed in philosophy loves to take the tales concerning the gods in the worse senses, and is affected in one of two ways; either it despises the gods as tossed about in great misery, or else it abstains from none of the most disgraceful and lawless doings, seeing that they are attributed to the gods.

'On these subjects, however, let inquiry be left to those who study merely the theoretical part of philosophy: but of the polity established by Romulus I thought these points worth recording.'

Such, we see were the opinions entertained by the best philosophers, and by the ancient and most eminent men of the Roman empire concerning the theology of the Greeks----opinions which give no admission to physical theories in their legends concerning the gods, nor to their gorgeous and sophistical impostures.

Since, however, we have once entered upon their refutation, let us go on and consider their interpretations and theories, to see what, after all, they carry with them that is venerable and worthy of the gods; and let us not say anything as of ourselves, but make use, on all points, of their own words, so that we may again learn their views from themselves.

[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]

1. 45 a 1 Diodorus Siculus, I. c. 10

2. b 4 c. 13

3. d 5 Diod. I. c. 15

4. 46 a 4 Diod. I. 16

5. b 1 Diod. I. 17

6. b 4 Diod. I 18

7. c 7 Diod. I, 19

8. c 8 Diod. I. 20

9. d 8 Diod. I. 21

10. 47 b 1 Diod. I. 21

11. b 5 Diod. I. 22

12. d 3 Diod. I. 23

13. 48 b 6 Diod. I. 24

14. c 3 Diod. I. 25

15. d 7 Diod. I. 27

16. 49 a 6 Diod. I. 86

17. b 9 Diod. I. 87

18. d 11 Diod. I. 88

19. 50 c 5 Diod. I. 89

20. 50 d 10 Diod. I. 83

21. 51 a 4 Diod. I. 84

22. c 1 Diod. I. 85

23. 52 d 1 Diod. IV. 2

24. 53 b 3 Diod. IV. 3

25. b 9 Diod. IV. 4

26. d 12 Diod. IV. 5

27. 54 a 7 Diod. IV. 6

28. d 1 Diod. IV. 7

29. 54 d 7 Diod. IV. 9

30. 55 b 3 Diod. IV. 10

31. b 8 Diod. IV. 11

32. c 6 Diod. IV. 12

33. c 8 Diod. IV. 14

34. d 3 Diod. IV. 31

35. a 5 Diod. IV. 36

36. 56 a 1 Diod. IV. 33

37. a 4 Diod. IV. 34

38. 56 c 5 Diod. IV. 37

39. c 9 Diod. IV. 29

40. d 6 Diod. IV. 37, 38

41. 57 a 4 Diod. IV. 71

42. c 1 Diod. III. 57

43. 58 a 1 Diod. III. 58

44. 58 c 6 Diod. III. 60

45. d 6 Diod. III. 61

46. 59 c 3-60 d 10 Diod. vi, Fragment i, preserved by Eusebius only

47. 60 d 12 Diod. vi, Fragment i continued

48. 61 c 4 Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, c. ii. p. 10 P.

49. Hesiod, Theogonia, 200

50. Cf. Arnobius, Against the Heathen, v. 21

51. Orphic Fragm. 196 (Hermann xvii)

52. Homer, Iliad, ii. 426

53. 68 c 6 Orphic Fragm. 215 ; see Lobeck, Aglaophamus, vol. ii. p. 819

54. d 11 Bywater, Heracl. Rell. cxxii; cf. Clem. Al. Strom, iv. p. 630 P.

55. d 14 Heracl. Rell, cxxiv

56. d 16 ibid, cxxv

57. 71 a 1 Clem. Alex. Exhortation, c. iii. p. 39 P.

58. 72 a 5 Homer, Od. xx. 351

59. a 7 Clem. Al. Exhortation, c. iv. p. 43 P.

60. b 13 ibid. c. ii. p. 29 P.

61. Plato, Timaeus, p. 40

62. 76 c 2 Plato, Republic, ii. 377 E

63. 78 a 1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Archaeology, ii. 18

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

BOOK III

CONTENTS

• Preface p 82 b
• I. The physical theology of the Greeks p 83 c
• II. The same subject p 86 d
• III. The allegorical theology of the Egyptians p 88 a
• IV. Further consideration of the physical system of the Egyptians, and that they transferred the whole reference of their allegorical theory solely to the visible celestial bodies, and to water and fire and the other elements of the cosmos p 92 b
• V. That this system also was wholly condemnable p 95 a
• VI. That we had good reason for withdrawing from their more physical theory of the gods, and preferring the only true theology p 96 b
• VII. The systems of causation which the more recent philosophers interwove with the legends concerning the gods p 97 d
• VIII. The erection of carved images in old times p 99 b
• IX. Further consideration of the allegorical theology of the Greeks and Egyptians p 100a
• X. Confutation and overthrow of their forced explanation p 103d
• XI. Strong confutation of the Greek doctrines on this point p 108 b
• XII. Of the image at Elephantine p 116 b
• XIII. Of the ox that is sacrificed to the sun in Heliopolis p 117 c
• XIV. That their gods, by ratifying the legendary narratives concerning gods by their own oracles, are convicted of contradicting the philosophers p 123 a
• XV. That they also by their oracles confirm the theories of the philosophers by allegories opposed to the legends about themselves p 125 b
• XVI. That it is a natural impossibility for the parts of the cosmos or the divine powers to be dragged down by magical incantations and so to give oracular predictions to the inquirers p 126 b
• XVII. That all such effects are due to daemonic action p 127 a

PREFACE

SUCH were the opinions entertained by the best philosophers and by the ancient and most eminent men of the Roman Empire in regard to the theology of the Greeks----opinions which give no admission to physical theories in the legends concerning the gods, nor to their gorgeous and sophistical impostures. Since, however, we have once entered upon their refutation, let us go on and consider their interpretations and theories, to see what, after all, they bring with them that is venerable and worthy of the gods; and let us say nothing of ourselves, but on all points make use of their own words, so that we may again learn their venerable secrets from themselves.

Now much labour has been spent upon these subjects by numberless other professors of philosophy, who have made different subtle explanations of the same, and strongly insist that the opinion which occurred to each was the exact truth. But for my part I am content to bring forward my proofs from the most illustrious authors who are well known to all philosophers, and have carried off no small reputation for philosophy among the Greeks.

Of whom take first and read the words of Plutarch of Chaeroneia on the questions before us, wherein with solemn phrase he perverts the fables into what he asserts to be mysterious theologies. And in unveiling these he says that Dionysus is drunkenness, and no longer the mortal man who has been exhibited by the history in the preceding book; and that Hera means the joint wedded life of husband and wife. Then, as if he had forgotten his rendering, he forthwith tacks on a different story, and no longer uses the name Hera as before, but calls the earth by her name, and gives the name Leto to oblivion and night. And again he says that Hera is the same as Leto. Then in addition to this he introduces Zeus as representing allegorically the power of the air.

But why need I thus anticipate, when we may hear the man himself, in the essay which he wrote On the Daedala at Plataea, expounding as follows what was hidden from the multitude in the secret physiological doctrines concerning the gods.1

CHAPTER I

[PLUTARCH] 'THE physiology of the ancients both among Greeks and Barbarians was a physical doctrine concealed in legends, for the most part a secret and mysterious theology conveyed in enigmas and allegories, containing statements that were clearer to the multitude than the silent omissions, and its silent omissions more liable to suspicion than the open statements. This is evident in the Orphic poems, and in the Egyptian and Phrygian stories: 'out the mind of the ancients is most clearly exhibited in the orgiastic rites connected with the initiations, and in what is symbolically acted in the religious services.

'For instance, not to digress far from our present subjects, they do not suppose nor admit any intercourse between Hera and Dionysus; and they guard against combining their worship; and their priestesses at Athens, they say, do not speak to each other when they meet, nor is ivy ever brought into the precincts of Hera, not because of their fabulous and nonsensical jealousies, but because the goddess presides over marriage and bridal processions, and drunkenness is unbecoming to bridegrooms, and most unbefitting to a marriage feast, as Plato says:2 for the drinking of strong wine causes disorder both in body and soul, whereby what is sown and conceived being shapeless and misplaced does not take root well. Again, those who sacrifice to Hera do not consecrate the gall, but bury it beside the altar, meaning that the wedded life of wife and husband ought to be free from anger and wrath, and undisturbed by rage and bitterness.

'This symbolical style is more common in the tales and legends. As for instance, they relate that Hera, being brought up in Euboea. was stolen away while yet a virgin by Zeus, and was carried across and hidden in this region, where Cithaeron afforded them a shady recess, nature's own bridal-chamber. And when Macris----she was Hera's nurse----came to seek her, and wished to make a search, Cithaeron would not let her pry about, or approach the spot, on pretence that Zeus was there resting and passing the time in company with Leto. And as Macris went away, Hera thus escaped discovery on that occasion, and afterwards calling to mind her debt of gratitude to Leto she adopted her as partner in a common altar and common temple, so that sacrifices are first offered to Leto Μυχία, that is, 'of the inner shrine'; but some call her Νυχία, 'goddess of night.' In each of the names, however, there is the signification of secrecy and escape. Some say that Hera had secret intercourse there with Zeus, and, being undiscovered, was thus herself denominated Leto of the night: but when her marriage became openly known, and their intercourse first here in the neighbourhood of Citliaeron and of Plataea had been revealed, she was called Hera Τελεία and Γαμήλιος, goddess of the perfect life, and of marriage.

'Those who understand the fable in a more physical and becoming sense connect Hera with Leto in the following way. Hera, as has been said, is the Earth, and Leto is night, being a sort of oblivion on the part of those who turn to sleep. And night is nothing else but the shadow of the Earth. For when the Sun has reached the West and been hidden by the shadow, this spreads itself out and darkens the air: and this is the cause of the failure of the full moon in an eclipse, when the shadow of the earth touches the moon in her orbit and obscures her light. Moreover, that Leto is none other than Hera, you may learn from what follows. Artemis we of course call the daughter of Latona, but we also name the same goddess Eileithyia: Hera therefore and Leto are two names of one goddess.

'Again of Leto is born Apollo, and of Hera Ares, and they both have the same power: and Ares is so called as helping (ἀρήγων) in the mischances of violence and battle, and Apollo as delivering and releasing (ἀπαλλάττων καὶ ἀπολύων) a man from his bodily diseases. For which reason also of the most fiery and blazing luminaries one, the sun, is named Apollo, and the other of a fiery red is surnamed Ares. And it is not unsuitable that the same goddess (Hera) is called the goddess of marriage, and considered to be the mother of Eileithyia and of the sun. For the end of marriage is birth; and birth is the passing out of darkness into the sun and light. And it is a fine saying of the poet:

'But soon her child, by Eileithyia's aid,
Was brought to light, and saw the sun's bright rays.' 3

Rightly did the poet crowd the composition by the preposition, thereby indicating the hardness of the labour, and made the end of the birth consist in seeing the sun. The same goddess therefore made also the marriage union, in order that she might prepare the way for birth.

'But perhaps we ought also to mention the more silly legend. For it is said that when Hera was at variance with Zeus, and was no longer willing to consort with him, but hid herself, he was wandering about in perplexity and fell in with Alalcomenes the earth-born, and was taught by him that, to deceive Hera, he must pretend to wed another wife. So Alalcomenes helped him, and they secretly cut down a tall and beautiful oak, and shaped it and dressed it in bridal array, and called it Daedale: then the hymeneal was duly chanted, and the nymphs of Triton brought lustral water, and Boeotia supplied flutes and festal processions. But when these performances went on, Hera could bear it no longer, but came down from Cithaeron, followed by the women of Plataea, and from anger and jealousy came running up to Zeus, and when the counterfeit became manifest, she was reconciled to him and with joy and laughter herself led the bridal procession, and gave additional honour to the statue, and called the festival Daedala, and nevertheless from jealousy burnt the thing, lifeless though it was.

'Such then is the legend: and the explanation of it is as follows. The variance and quarrel of Hera and Zeus is nothing else than the distemper and confusion of the elements, when they no longer bear a due proportion to each other in the cosmos, but disproportion and roughness arise, and they have a desperate fight and dissolve their connexion, and work the ruin of the universe.

If then Zeus, that is, the force of heat and fire, gives occasion to the variance, a drought overtakes the earth: but if it is on the part of Hera, that is, the element of rain and wind, that any outbreak or excess takes place, there comes a great flood, and deluges and overflows everything. And as something of this kind occurred about those times, and Boeotia especially had been deeply flooded, as soon as ever the plain emerged and the flood abated, the order which followed from the tranquillity of the atmosphere was called the agreement and reconciliation of the deities. The first of the plants that sprang up out of the earth was the oak; and men welcomed this, because it gave a permanent supply of food and safety. For not only for the pious, as Hesiod says, but for all who survive the destruction,

'The top bears acorns, and the middle bees.' 4

CHAPTER II

THIS is what Plutarch says; and we learn from the statements which he sets before us, that even the wonderful and secret physiology of the Greek theology conveyed nothing divine, nor anything great and worthy of deity, and deserving of attention.

For you have heard Hera called at one time Gamelios, and a symbol of the joint life of husband and wife, and at another time the earth called Hera, and at another the element of water; and Dionysus translated into drunkenness, and Latona into night, and the sun into Apollo, and Zeus himself into the force of heat and fire.

So then the original indecency of the legends, and the physiological explanation, which is thought to be more respectable, led not up to any heavenly, intellectual, and divine powers, nor yet to rational and incorporeal essences, but the explanation itself led down again to drunkenness, and marriage feasts, and human passions, and reduced the parts of the cosmos to fire, and earth, and sun, and the other elements of matter, without introducing any other deity.

And Plato too knew this. In the Cratylus, at least, he expressly acknowledges that the first inhabitants of Greece knew nothing more than the visible parts of the cosmos, and supposed the luminaries in the heaven and the other phenomena to be the only gods.

So he speaks as follows word for word:

'It appears to me that the first inhabitants of Greece acknowledged no other gods than those whom many of the barbarians acknowledge now, namely, sun, and moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven.' 5

But such being the doctrines of the Greeks, let us look also at those which are far more ancient than these, I mean the Egyptian. They say that Isis and Osiris are the sun and the moon, and that they called the breath that pervades all things Zeus, and fire Hephaestus, and the earth Demeter; also the water was called among the Egyptians Oceanus, and their own river Nilus, and to him they ascribed the generations of the gods: the air, it is said, they call Athena.

And these five gods, I mean Air, and Water, and Fire, and Earth, and Breath, travel over the whole world, transforming themselves at various times into various shapes and semblances of men and animals of all kinds; and there have been among the Egyptians themselves mortal men called by the same names with these, Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus too and Hera, and Hephaestus and Hestia. On these subjects also Manetho writes at large, and Diodorus concisely in his book before mentioned, giving the narrative just as follows word for word: 6

CHAPTER III

[DIODORUS] 'THESE Gods,' he says (the Sun and the Moon, which are according to the Egyptians Osiris and Isis), 'govern the whole cosmos, supplying nourishment and growth to all things in three distinct seasons, which by an invisible motion complete their circuit, spring, summer, and winter; and these being each of a very opposite nature to the others complete the year in excellent harmony. These deities, they say, contribute most to the quickening of all things with life, Osiris making the chief contribution of fire and wind, and Isis of water and earth, and both alike of air; and by these all things are generated and nourished. And for this reason, they say, the whole body of universal nature is made up completely out of the sun and moon, and as to the live parts of these before mentioned, breath, fire, earth, water, and finally air----just as in a man we count up head, and hands, and feet, and the other members----in the same manner the body of the cosmos is all composed of the parts before mentioned.

'Each of these, they say, was regarded as a god, and a special name given to each according to his proper character, by those of the inhabitants of Egypt who first made use of articulate speech. So they called the wind Zeus, the word being so interpreted, and as he was the author of the soul in living beings they supposed him to be, as it were, a father of all.7

'And with this, they say, the most illustrious poet of the Greeks agrees, when he speaks of this god, as

'Father of men and gods.' 8

'Fire by interpretation they called Hephaestus, considering him to be a great god, and to contribute much to the production and perfect growth of all things. The earth they supposed to be a sort of vessel containing all natural productions, and called it Mother: and the Greeks in like manner call it Demeter, the word having been a little changed through lapse of time.

'For of old she was called Γῆ μήτηρ (Earth Mother), as Orpheus bears witness, saying----

'Earth Mother of all, Demeter, giver of wealth.' 9

'The water, it is said, was called by the ancients Oceané, which being interpreted is 'Mother of food,' but among some of the Greeks it was supposed to be the Ocean, concerning which the poet says,

'Oceanus sire, and Tethys mother of gods.' 10

'For the Egyptians consider their river Nile to be the Ocean, and that the gods had their origin near it, because in Egypt alone of the whole world there are many cities founded by the elder gods, such as those of Zeus, Helios, Hermes, Apollo, Pan, Eileithyia, and many others.

'The air, it is said, they called Athena, the word being so interpreted, and they regarded her as the daughter of Zeus, and supposed her to be a virgin, because the air is naturally incorruptible, and occupies the highest place of the whole cosmos: on which account the fable went that she sprang from the head of Zeus. She was called also Tritogeneia from changing her nature thrice in the year, in spring, summer, and winter. She is also called Glaucopis, not as some of the Greeks supposed because she had light-blue eyes, for this is silly, but because the air has a bluish appearance.

'They say that the five gods before mentioned travel over the whole world, and appear to men in the forms of sacred animals, sometimes also transforming themselves into the likenesses of men or other things: and that this is not fabulous, but possible, since these are in truth the progenitors of all things. The poet too, they say, having landed in Egypt, and had tales of this kind imparted to him by the priests, in a certain passage of his poem stated the above-mentioned circumstance as actually occurring:

'They, curious oft of mortal actions, deign
In forms like these to round the earth and main,
Just and unjust recording in their mind,
And with sure eyes inspecting all mankind.' 11

'Thus much then the Egyptians say concerning the gods who are in heaven, and have had an eternal generation.

'But others, they say, were born of these on earth, who having been originally mortal have obtained immortality on account of their wisdom and general beneficence to mankind, and some of them have been kings in Egypt. Of these some have the same names, when interpreted, as the gods of heaven, but others have received a name of their own; as Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus also, whom some call Ammon; and in addition to these Hera, Hephaestus, and Hestia, and Hermes last: and Helios was the first king of the Egyptians, having the same name as the luminary in the heaven.' 12

Such, then are the statements of the historian whom I have mentioned.

Moreover Plutarch, in his book On the story of Isis, writes as follows, word for word: 13

[PLUTARCH] 'Let us begin again, and consider first the simplest of those who are thought to speak in the more philosophical way. Now, just as the Greeks make Kronos an allegorical name for time (Chronos), and Hera for the air, and the birth of Hephaestus for the transformation of air into fire, so these say that in like manner among the Egyptians Osiris is the Nile, wedded to Isis the earth, and Typhon is the sea, into which the Nile falls and disappears.'

After these and similar statements, he refers the legends concerning the said deities back again to daemons, and then again gives first one allegorical rendering and afterwards another.

Now we might reasonably ask, to which set of gods, will they say, do the forms belong which are engraven on their statues. Are they those of daemons? Or those of fire, and air, and earth, and water? Or likenesses of men and women, and shapes of brute animals and wild beasts?

For it has been admitted even by themselves that certain mortal men have had the same names with the Sun and the universal elements, and that these men have been called gods. Of which then would it be reasonable to say that the sculptures on the lifeless statues are forms and images? Of the universal elements? Or, as their appearance plainly shows, of mortals now lying among the dead?

Why, even if they would not say so themselves, surely true reason shouts and cries aloud, all but in actual speech, and testifies that they of whom we speak have been mortal men.And Plutarch with superabundant pains describes the particular character of their bodily shapes, in his work On Isis and the Gods of Egypt. Speaking as follows:14

'The Egyptians narrate that in body Hermes was short-armed, and Typhon red in complexion, and Horus fair, and Osiris dark-skinned, as having been by nature men.'

Thus speaks Plutarch. So then their whole manufacture of gods consists of dead men; and their physical explanations are fictitious. For what need was there to model figures of men and women, when without them they could worship the sun and moon and the other elements of the cosmos?

To which of these two classes did they assign names of this kind, and with whom did they begin? I mean, for example, Hephaestus and Athena, and Zeus, and Poseidon, and Hera.

Were these in the first place names of the universal elements, which they have since ascribed to mortals, making them of the same name as the heavenly bodies? Or on the contrary, have they transferred the names in use among men to the natural substances?

But why should they address the natural elements of the universe by names of mortal men? And the mysteries belonging to each god, and the hymns, and songs, and the secrets of the initiatory rites,----do these introduce the symbols of the universal elements, or of the mortal men of old who had the same names with the gods?

Then as to wanderings, and drunken fits, and amours, and seduction of women, and plots against men, and countless things, which are in truth shameful and unseemly practices of mortal men, how could any one refer these to the universal elements, acts which bear upon their very face mortality and human passion?

So that from all these proofs this wonderful and noble physiology is convicted of having no connexion with truth, and containing nothing really divine, but possessing only a forced and counterfeit solemnity of external utterance. Hear, however, what Porphyry records concerning these same gods in his Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian.15

CHAPTER IV

[PORPHYRY] 'FOR as to Chaeremon and the rest, they do not believe in anything else prior to the visible worlds, since they account as a ruling power the gods of the Egyptians, and no others except the so-called planets, and those stars which fill up the zodiac, and as many as rise near them: also the divisions into the "decani," and the horoscopes, and the so-called "mighty Rulers," the names of which are contained in the almanacks, and their powers to heal diseases, and their risings and settings, and indications of future events.

'For he saw that those who assert the Sun to be the Creator twist the story of Osiris and Isis, and all the priestly legends, either into allusions to the stars and their appearances and disappearances and their solar distances at rising, or to the waxings and wanings of the moon, or to the course of the sun, or to the hemisphere of night, or of day, or to their river; and generally that they interpreted all things of physical phenomena, and nothing of incorporeal and living beings. And most of them made even our own free will depend upon the motion of the stars, binding all things down by indissoluble bonds, I know not how, to a necessity which they call fate, and making all things depend closely on these gods, whom, as the sole deliverers from the bonds of fate, they worship with temples, and statues, and the like.'

Let then this quotation from the before-mentioned Epistle suffice, clearly declaring, as it does, that even the secret theology of the Egyptians made no other gods than the stars in the heaven, both those which are called fixed, and the so-called planets, and introduced no incorporeal mind as creator of the universe, nor any creative reason, nor yet a god or gods, nor any intelligent and invisible powers, but only the visible Sun. "Wherefore also they referred the cause of the universe to the heavenly bodies alone, making all depend on fate, and the movement and course of the stars, as in fact this opinion has prevailed among them until now.

If therefore all is interpreted by the Egyptians of the visible elements of the world alone, and nothing of incorporeal and living beings, and if the elements and all visible bodies are by their own account inanimate and irrational, and in their nature fleeting and perishable,----see into what difficulties their theology has fallen again, in deifying inanimate substance and dead and irrational bodies, especially since they referred nothing to incorporeal and intelligent beings, nor to a mind and reason creating the universe.

But since it was acknowledged in the passages before quoted that their theological doctrines had been brought over to the Greeks from the Egyptians, it is time that the Greeks also should take their place with them, and give the same physiological explanations as the Egyptians, and be convicted of deifying nothing more than inanimate matter. For such were the august deities of the Egyptians according to the description of the writer before mentioned, who again, in the work which he entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food, gives such details as the following concerning the same people:16

'Starting from this discipline and intimacy with the deity, they judged that the divine pervaded not man only, nor did soul tabernacle upon earth in man alone, but all animals were pervaded by almost the same kind of soul. Wherefore they admitted every animal into their manufacture of gods, and mixed up beasts and men just alike, and also the bodies of birds and men.

'For with them there is a figure represented like a man up to the neck, but having the face of a bird or a lion or some other animal: and, on the other hand again, the head of a man and members of some other animals, set partly below, and partly above. And hereby they indicate that according to the mind of the gods these animals also are associated one with another, and that it is not without a divine purpose that the wild beasts are bred up with us and tamed.

'Hence also the lion is worshipped as a god, and a division of Egypt which they call a Nome has from the lion the name Leonto-polites, and another, from the cow, Busirites, and another, from the dog, Cynopolites. For the power which is over all they worshipped through the associated animals which each of the gods had given them.

'Water and fire, the most beautiful of the elements, they reverence as being chief causes of our preservation, and exhibit them also in their temples; as, I believe, even now at the opening of the sanctuary of Serapis the worship is performed by means of fire and water, the precentor pouring out the water and exhibiting the fire, whenever he stands upon the threshold and wakes the god in the native language of the Egyptians.

'They reverence, therefore, these elements that bear a part in the sacrifices, and above these they reverence most highly the things which are more fully associated with the sacrifices: and such are all living beings, for in the village Anabis they even worship a man, and sacrifice is there offered to him, and the victims are consumed by fire upon the altars: and yet presently he would eat the proper things prepared for him as a man. As, therefore, we ought to abstain from eating man's flesh, so we should abstain from the flesh of other animals.

'But further out of their abundant wisdom and their familiarity with the divine, they perceived that certain animals were more dear than men to certain of their gods, a hawk, for instance, to the Sun, as having its whole nature made up of blood and breath, and feeling pity even for man, and shrieking over an exposed corpse, and scraping up earth over it.'

A little further on he says:

'An ignorant person might detest a beetle, being without judgement in things divine: but the Egyptians reverenced it, as a living image of the sun. For every beetle is male, and deposits his spawn in a marsh, and having made it into a ball carries it back with his hind feet, as the sun does the heaven, and waits a lunar period of days.

'In like manner they make some philosophic explanation concerning the ram, and another concerning the crocodile, and the vulture and the ibis, and generally as to each of the animals; so that out of their wisdom and their superior knowledge of things divine, they attained even to the worship of animals.'

CHAPTER V

SUCH are the statements set forth concerning the noble physiology of the wise Egyptians by the above-mentioned author, who has made their secrets clear to us, namely that they worship water and fire, and that the essential nature of rational and irrational animals, not in body only but also in soul, is judged among them to be one and the same, so that he thinks they have called the beasts gods with good reason.

Yet must it not be most unreasonable to admit the irrational and bestial nature to deification, on the ground, as they say, of participation in the same kind of soul with men? For they ought, if so, to have regarded them also as men, and given them a share of human glory and honour.

This, however, they did not; but the beasts which were created by nature itself irrational, and have received this appellation, and not even been thought worthy of the title of men, they chose to accept, on no mere equality with men; but taking the highest title of God the universal King and Creator of all things, they have degraded it to the nature of beasts, and bestowed the title of gods upon things which have not been deemed worthy by God Himself even of the title of man.

In addition to this, you have heard the mystic theosophy, which led the wonderful sages of Egypt to worship wolves and dogs and lions: you have learnt also the miracle of the beetle, and the virtue of the hawk. Laugh not then in future at their gods, but pity the thrice wretched human race for their great folly and blindness.

Moreover, consider all things carefully, and see what blessings God's Christ came to bestow on us, since through His teaching in the Gospel he has redeemed even the souls of Egyptians from such a disease of lasting and long continued blindness, so that now most of the people of Egypt have been freed from this insanity.

CHAPTER VI

SUCH then were the notions received among the Egyptians, which are recorded as more ancient than all the doctrines of the Greeks. Therefore, you have in addition to the mythical theology that of a more physical character common to Greeks and Egyptians, who devised of old the superstition of polytheism; and you have learnt that among them nothing at all was known of the truly divine, incorporeal, and intelligent natures.

However, let it be granted and allowed to these stargazers that they speak truth and are right in their physical explanation of the allegories; and let their sun become now Apollo, and now again Horus, and the same sun again Osiris, and numberless other things, as many as they would wish; and the moon in like manner either Isis or Artemis, or as many names as any one would choose to enumerate.

For grant that these are not names indicative of mortal men, but of the real celestial luminaries: we should then have to worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the other parts of the cosmos as gods.

In this way, therefore, the noble philosophy of the Greeks appears as it were 'ex machina,' [“god from the machine] on the one hand highly exalting the promise of the word, but on the other lowering the thought of the wise down to the sensible and visible workmanship of God, and deifying, through the celestial luminaries, nothing else than fire, and the nature of heat, and the parts of the cosmos, to which we may add the liquid and the solid elements and the composition of bodies.

Must not then the gospel of Jesus our Saviour, the Christ of God, be great and admirable, as teaching all mankind to worship with befitting thoughts the God and Lord of sun and moon, and Maker of the whole cosmos, who is Himself high above and beyond the universe, and to celebrate in hymns not the elements of bodies, but Him who is the sustainer of life itself, and dispenser of all good things? For that gospel teaches us not to stand in awe of the visible parts of the cosmos and all that can be apprehended by fleshly sense, as they must be of perishable nature; but to marvel only at the mind which in all these exists unseen, and which creates both the whole and each several part; and to regard as God one sole Divine Power pervading and ordering all things, being in its nature incorporeal and intelligent, or rather impossible to describe and to conceive, which shows itself through all things whereby it works, and incorporeally pervades and traverses them all without intermixture, and throughout all things, not only in heaven but also upon earth, both the universal elements and the several parts, exhibits the perpetual mighty working of the Godhead, and presides over all in a manner which our sight and sense cannot perceive, and governs the whole cosmos by laws of ineffable wisdom.

After we have given so many proofs in confutation of their inconsistent theology, both the more mythical so-called, and that which is forsooth of a higher and more physical kind which the ancient Greeks and Egyptians were shown to magnify, it is time to survey also the refinements of the younger generations who make a profession of philosophy in our own time: for these have endeavoured to combine the doctrines concerning a creative mind of the universe, and those concerning incorporeal ideas and intelligent and rational powers,----doctrines invented long ages afterwards by Plato, and thought out with accurate reasonings,----with the theology of the ancients, exaggerating with yet greater conceit their promise concerning the legends. Listen then to their physiology also, and observe with what boastfulness it has been published by Porphyry. 17

CHAPTER VII

[PORPHYRY]

'"I speak to those who lawfully may hear:
Depart all ye profane, and close the doors."

'THE thoughts of a wise theology, wherein men indicated God and God's powers by images akin to sense, and sketched invisible things in visible forms, I will show to those who have learned to read from the statues as from books the things there written concerning the gods. Nor is it any wonder that the utterly unlearned regard the statues as wood and stone, just as also those who do not understand the written letters look upon the monuments as mere stones, and on the tablets as bits of wood, and on books as woven papyrus.'

After such proud boasting by way of prelude, hear how he goes on next to write, word for word:

'As the deity is of the nature of light, and dwells in an atmosphere of ethereal fire, and is invisible to sense that is busy about mortal life, He through translucent matter, as crystal or Parian marble or even ivory, led men on to the conception of his light, and through material gold to the discernment of the fire, and to his undefiled purity, because gold cannot be defiled.

'On the other hand, black marble was used by many to show his invisibility; and they moulded their gods in human form because the deity is rational, and made these beautiful, because in those is pure and perfect beauty; and in varieties of shape and age, of sitting and standing, and drapery; and some of them male, and some female, virgins, and youths, or married, to represent their diversity.

'Hence they assigned everything white to the gods of heaven, and the sphere and all things spherical to the cosmos and to the sun and moon in particular, but sometimes also to fortune and to hope: and the circle and things circular to eternity, and to the motion of the heaven, and to the zones and cycles therein; and the segments of circles to the phases of the moon; pyramids and obelisks to the element of fire, and therefore to the gods of Olympus; so again the cone to the sun, and cylinder to the earth, and figures representing parts of the human body to sowing and generation.'

These are the statements of this wonderful philosopher: and what could be more unseemly than talking, as they do, in solemn phrase about shameful things? Or what more violently unreasonable than to assert that lifeless materials, gold, and marble, and such like, bear representations of the light of the gods, and manifestations of their heavenly and ethereal nature? That these are modern sophistries, and never entered, even in a drearn, into the imagination of the ancients, you may learn, on being informed that statues made of gold, and other material esteemed more precious, were even rejected among the men of former times. Plutarch, at all events, speaks somewhere thus, word for word: 18

CHAPTER VIII

[PLUTARCH] 'THE making of wooden statues seems to be a primitive and ancient custom, inasmuch as the first image sent to Delos by Erysichthon for Apollo at the time of the religious embassies was of wood; also the image of Athena Polias was of wood, which was set up by the aborigines, and which the Athenians carefully preserve to the present day. The Samians also had a wooden figure of Hera, as Callimachus says:

"No polish'd work of Smilis thou, but plank
Untouch'd by chisel, as by ancient rule
They made their gods: so Danaus of plain wood
Athena's seated form in Lindus set." 19

'And it is said that Peiras, who first founded the temple of Hera in Argolis, and appointed his own daughter Callithyia priestess, cut down a tall pear-tree from the wood about Tiryns, and formed a statue of Hera. For stone being rough and hard to work, and lifeless, they were not willing to have it carved into a likeness of a deity: and gold and silver they thought to be sickly colours and stains breaking out like bruises from a barren and corrupt soil which had been stricken by fire: but sometimes in sport they made use of ivory also, as a variation in luxury.'

So says Plutarch; and long before him Plato knew well that there is nothing venerable nor suited to the divine nature in gold and ivory, and things manufactured out of lifeless material: for hear what sort of directions he gives in the Laws: 20

'The land, therefore, and the household hearth are for all men temples of all the gods; wherefore let no man consecrate temples a second time to the gods. In other cities gold and silver, whether in private houses or in temples, are an invidious possession; and ivory taken from a dead body is not a pure offering; iron also and bronze are implements of war.'

Now I think these passages contain a clear refutation of the physical explanation which was put forward: but let us go on and examine the remainder of it. Hear then how he talks: 21

CHAPTER IX

[PORPHYRY] 'Now look at the wisdom of the Greeks, and examine it as follows. The authors of the Orphic hymns supposed Zeus to be the mind of the world, and that he created all things therein, containing the world in himself. Therefore in their theological systems they have handed down their opinions concerning him thus: 22

"Zeus was the first, Zeus last, the lightning's lord,
Zeus head, Zeus centre, all things are from Zeus.
Zeus born a male, Zeus virgin undefiled;
Zeus the firm base of earth and starry heaven;
Zeus sovereign, Zeus alone first cause of all:
One power divine, great ruler of the world,
One kingly form, encircling all things here,
Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day;
Wisdom, first parent, and delightful Love:
For in Zeus' mighty body these all lie.
His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven
Reveals, and round him float in shining waves
The golden tresses of the twinkling stars.
On either side bulls' horns of gold are seen,
Sunrise and sunset, footpaths of the gods.
His eyes the Sun, the Moon's responsive light;
His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth,
Hears and considers all; nor any speech,
Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes
The ear of Zeus, great Kronos' mightier son:
Such his immortal head, and such his thought.
His radiant body, boundless, undisturbed
In strength of mighty limbs was formed thus:
The god's broad-spreading shoulders, breast, and back
Air's wide expanse displays; on either side
Grow wings, wherewith throughout all space he flies.
Earth the all-mother, with her lofty hills,
His sacred belly forms; the swelling flood
Of hoarse resounding Ocean girds his waist.
His feet the deeply rooted ground upholds,
And dismal Tartarus, and earth's utmost bounds.
All things he hides, then from his heart again
In godlike action brings to gladsome light."

'Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, and god of gods; but Zeus, that is, inasmuch as he is the mind from which he brings forth all things, and by his thoughts creates them. When the theologians had explained the nature of god in this manner, to make an image such as their description indicated was neither possible, nor, if any one thought of it, could he show the look of life, and intelligence, and forethought by the figure of a sphere.

'But they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because mind was that according to which he wrought, and by generative laws brought all things to completion; and he is seated, as indicating the steadfastness of his power: and his upper parts are bare, because he is manifested in the intellectual and the heavenly parts of the world; but his feet are clothed, because he is invisible in the things that lie hidden below. And he holds his sceptre in his left hand, because most close to that side of the body dwells the heart, the most commanding and intelligent organ: for the creative mind is the sovereign of the world. And in his right hand he holds forth either an eagle, because he is master of the gods who traverse the air, as the eagle is master of the birds that fly aloft----or a victory, because he is himself victorious over all things.'

These things Porphyry tells you: and after they have been delivered in the manner already stated, it will be well to examine quietly and at leisure what after all the verses declare Zeus to be. I for my part think they make him to be none else than the visible world consisting of many various parts, both of those in heaven and in the ether, and of the stars which appear therein,----these being set first as in the head of a great body,----and also of the parts that lie in the air, and earth, and sea, and the like.

Certainly the earth and mountains and hills are parts of the world, and the sea is rolled round in the midst of them like a girdle, and fire also and water, and night and day must be parts of the same nature of the world. These things I suppose to indicate directly the visible world, unless I am somewhat mistaken, and to show us the universe made up of various parts. He says at all events:

'For in Zeus' mighty body these all lie.'

And what 'these all' are, he clearly states:

'Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day.
His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven
Reveals, and round him float in shining waves
The golden tresses of the twinkling stars.'

In the verses that follow these, he adds the statement that the mind of Zeus is the ether and nothing else, in agreement with the Stoics, who assert that the element of fire and heat is the ruling principle of the world, and that god is a body, and the Creator himself nothing else than the force of fire. For in this same sense I think it is said in the verses:

'His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth,
Hears and considers all.'

Wherein without any concealment he supposed the world to be a great animal, and calling it Zeus, he represented the ether as his mind, and the remaining parts of the world as his body.

Such is found to be the Zeus depicted by the verses.

And the interpreter of the poem begins by saying, in accordance with the same, 'Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, god of gods;' thus clearly explaining that the Zeus of his theology is shown by the poem to be no other than the visible and sensible world.

Now the doctrine was that of the Egyptians, from whom Orpheus took his theology, and thought that the world was the god composed of many gods who were parts of himself (for they were shown in what goes before to have also deified the parts of the world); and the statements which have been quoted from the verses declared nothing more than this.

But Porphyry after his first interpretation adds another of his own, asserting that the God who is the Maker of the world is this creative mind which has been deified by the poet.

But how could the poet, whether he were the Thracian Orpheus or any one else, deify just this mind, of which he never knew any thing at all, if indeed his theological doctrines came to him from the Egyptians or from the primitive Greeks? For these were proved to have understood nothing ideal or comprised in invisible and incorporeal essence, if Plato's assurance may suffice us, when in the Cratylus he admits 'that the first race of men in Greece believed only in these same gods which many of the barbarians believe in now, sun, and moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven.' 23

We had also just now Chaeremon as a witness that the Egyptians believed in nothing previous to the visible world, 'nor in any other gods except the planets' and other stars, and interpreted all things in reference to the visible parts of the world, 'and nothing to incorporeal and living beings.'

CHAPTER X

THESE then being the principles from which the poet started, whence, or how, or from whom did he receive the conception in his verses of the God who is above and beyond the world, and is the Maker of sun, and moon and stars, and of the heaven itself and the whole world?

And whence did he get his knowledge of things incorporeal?

Nay, of these things he knows nothing; for neither does the creative mind of the universe consist of many parts, nor can, the heaven be its head, nor fire and water and earth its body, nor yet sun and moon its eyes. And how can 'the wide expanse of air, and earth, and lofty hills' be the shoulders, and breast, and back, and belly, of the Divine Creator of the universe? Or how can the ether ever be thought of as the mind of the Maker of the universe, or of the creative mind?

There is no need, then, to argue further that these are sophistic devices of the interpreter of the poem. For my part, indeed, I say that the man who asserts that the parts of the world are parts of God is guilty of the utmost impiety, and still more he who declared that God is the same as the world, and besides these the man who thinks that the creator of the universe is the mind of the world.

For piety declares that He is the Maker and Preserver of the world, being distinct from that which He has made: but to say that He is the mind of the world, just like the soul of some animal, made altogether one therewith, and clothed with the universe, must pass the bounds of reverence.

Yet certainly our sacred oracles teach us that He is present with the whole, and governs the world by His providence, and they speak of God in a worthy and becoming manner when they say: 'Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.'24 And again: 'He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath.'25 And again: 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;'26 not, however, as in a part of the world, nor as in its soul and mind.

But if there is occasion to use a simile, the sacred word somewhere exclaims in a manner more worthy of God and akin to truth: 'The heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet.'

For if it was necessary to personify God at all in human language, mark the difference in the theology. For He who called the heaven His throne set apart God the universal Monarch above the throne and far higher than the universe, and yet did not sever the earth from His providence; for He teaches that the providential powers of His Godhead condescend even to things here below, and therefore He says: 'The earth is the footstool of My feet.'

But neither the footstool, nor yet the throne, is the body of Him that is seated there, nor could ever be called parts of Him. And he who said that the heaven and the things therein are the head of god, and the ether his mind, and the other parts of the world his limbs and body, is convicted of knowing neither creator nor god.

For he could not create himself, nor, since the ether was his mind, could he still himself be called mind. What sort of god too would he be. whose members were the earth and the mountains on the earth, mere senseless heaps of corporeal atoms? How too can it be reasonable to proclaim as god the kinsman and brother of fire, and air, and water, products of senseless and perishing matter?

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

If, again, the mind of Zeus was nothing else except the aforesaid ether, and if ether is the highest and most fiery kind of air, and has received this name, as they say, from ἄθεσθαι, which means 'to be on fire,' and if both the air and the ether are material substances, see to what your mind of Zeus has come down.

And who in his right senses would still address as god him who had a mind devoid of mind and of reason, since such is the nature of every material body? Wherefore we in our thoughts of God must receive the entire contrary to the doctrines which have been mentioned; that He is not the heaven, nor ether, nor sun, nor moon, nor the whole choir of the stars, nor the whole world itself together: but these are works of His hands, still small and petty in comparison with His incorporeal and intelligent powers: because all body is perishable and irrational, and such is the nature of things visible. But the things beyond in the invisible world being rational and immortal, and co-eternal with the blessed life of God the King of all, must be far better than all the things that are seen.

Rightly therefore do the sacred oracles teach us concerning the visible parts of the world as follows: 'I will behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained.'27 And again: 'Thou Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands.'28 And again: 'Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created all these.'29

Let this, then, suffice for answer to the first interpretation of the poem; and let us go on to examine what follows. Since it was not possible, he says, 'to make such an image as their description indicated, therefore they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because it was according to mind that he wrought, and by generative laws brought all things to completion.'30

But how, if it was not possible to make an image such as the description indicated, and if, as we have seen, it indicated the parts of the sensible and visible world, heaven and the things in heaven, the air also, and earth, and all that is therein----if then, I say, it was not possible to compose an image of the visible parts of the world, how, inasmuch as god was mind, could any one make an image of him?

And what likeness can a human body have to the mind of God? For my part I think there is nothing in it answering even to the mind of man, since the one is incorporeal, uncompounded, and without parts, while the other, being the work of common mechanics, is the imitation of the nature of a mortal body, and represents a deaf and dumb image of living flesh in lifeless and dead matter.

Rather does the rational and immortal soul and the impassible mind in man's nature seem to me to be rightly spoken of as preserving an image and likeness of God, inasmuch as it is immaterial and incorporeal, and intelligent and rational in its essence, and is capable of virtue and wisdom.31

If then any one were able to fabricate an image and form of the soul in a statue, such a man might also make some representation of the higher natures; but if the mind of man is without form and cannot be seen or figured, neither discernible by sight, nor in its essence comprehensible by speech and hearing, who would be so mad as to declare that the statue made in the likeness of man bears the form and image of the Most High, God?

Rather is God's nature imagined apart from all perishable matter, being contemplated by purified souls in lucid thought and in silence: whereas, in the representation of the visible Zeus, the figure must be an image of a man of mortal nature, yet not an imitation of the whole man, but of one and that the worse part of him, because it conveys not a trace of life and soul.

How then can the God who is over all, and the mind which is the creator of the universe, be that same Zeus who is seen in the bronze or in the dead ivory? And how could the mind that was the creator of the universe be forsooth that very Zeus, the father of Hercules by Alcmena, and of the other men fabled to be sons of Zeus, who, having ended their mortal life in the way common to all men, have left indelible monuments of their proper nature to those who came after them?

Accordingly, the first theologians among the Phoenicians, as we showed in the first Book, related that Zeus the son of Kronos, mortal son of mortal father, was a Phoenician by race: while the Egyptians, claiming the man as their own, confessed again that he was mortal, and agreed in this point at least with the Phoenicians.

But further the Cretans, showing the grave of Zeus in their midst, would be third witnesses of the same fact. The Atlantians also, and all who have been previously mentioned as claiming Zeus for their own according to their native history, all alike declared him mortal, and recorded his deeds as those of a mortal man, but not deeds of a respectable or philosophic kind, being full of all indecency and wantonness.

To those who have professed to give a more respectable turn to the legends Zeus was at one time a hot and fiery force, and at another the wind: but now, somehow or other they have made him appear as the creative mind of the universe.

We must inquire, therefore, whom would they name as his father, and his father's father? For according to all the theologians Zeus is acknowledged to be the son of Kronos, and the verses of Orpheus before quoted made mention of 'the mighty son of Kronos': and Kronos was son of Uranus. Let us, therefore, grant to them that Zeus is the god over all, and the mind which created all. Who then was his father? Kronos. And who his grandfather? Uranus.

But if Zeus as creator of all was before all, then those who were made by him ought to be counted as second and after him. For if either Kronos be time, as being by nature the offspring of heaven, that is of Uranus, or if time came into existence together with heaven, or if Uranus himself was the father of Kronos, and time subsequent to this latter, at all events the god who was the cause of the universe and creator of heaven and of time, was before them. And if so, Zeus could not be the third from Uranus.

How then, among all Egyptians, and Phoenicians, and Greeks, and philosophers, is the mind that created the universe reckoned third in descent from Uranus? So the fiction of our philosopher is plainly detected, and will be still more fully detected from what he goes on to say, as follows.32

CHAPTER XI

[PORPHYRY] 'THEY have made Hera the wife of Zeus, because they called the ethereal and aerial power Hera. For the ether is a very subtle air.'

The poem quoted above declared that the ether is the mind of Zeus: but now our author's statement defines what the ether is, by saying that it is a very subtle air: but the air is body, and the ether a much more primitive kind of body.

The mind, then, of Zeus is proved to be body, although the very subtlest kind of body. But how can body and mind be conceived the same, since in their natures they are diametrically opposed?

Then somehow he has forgotten the express statement of the poems----

'His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth,
Hears and considers all; nor any speech,
Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes
The ear of Zeus, great Kronos' mightier son'---- 33

for hereby the ether is plainly declared to be the mind of Zeus.

But Porphyry says, on the contrary, that Hera is the ethereal and aerial power. Then he adds a distinction and says:34

[PORPHYRY] 'And the power of the whole air is Hera, called by a name derived from the air: but the symbol of the sublunar air which is affected by light and darkness is Leto; for she is oblivion caused by the insensibility in sleep, and because souls begotten below the moon are accompanied by forgetfulness of the Divine; and on this account she is also the mother of Apollo and Artemis, who are the sources of light for the night.'

Now here he says that the sublunar air is the mother of sun and moon, because the air is Leto. But how could the air become the mother of the sources of illumination, being itself acted on rather than acting? For sun and moon, produce different changes in the air at different times.

But again, he next proceeds to say:

'The ruling principle of the power of earth is called Hestia, of whom a statue representing her as a virgin is usually set up on the hearth; but inasmuch as the power is productive, they symbolize her by the form of a woman with prominent breasts. The name Rhea they gave to the power of rocky and mountainous land, and Demeter to that of level and productive land. Demeter in other respects is the same as Rhea, but differs in the fact that she gives birth to Koré by Zeus, that is, she produces the shoot (κόρος) from the seeds of plants. And on this account her statue is crowned with ears of corn, and poppies are set round her as a symbol of productiveness.'

Now here again mark in what manner he has degraded Rhea, who is said to be the mother of the gods and of Zeus himself, down to the level of rocks and earth, and makes utter confusion by saying that she is the same with Demeter, except that she differs 'in the fact that Demeter (he says) gives birth to Koré by Zeus, just as the level ground produces the shoot (κόρος) from the seeds of plants. 'Behold, here again you have Zeus transformed into the seeds of plants!

To this he next adds a further statement:

'But since there was in the seeds cast into the earth a certain power, which the sun in passing round to the lower hemisphere drags down at the time of the winter solstice, Koré is the seminal power, and Pluto the sun passing under the earth, and traversing the unseen world at the time of the winter solstice; and he is said to carry off Koré, who, while hidden beneath the earth, is lamented by her mother Demeter.

'The power which produces hard-shelled fruits, and the fruits of plants in general, is named Dionysus. But observe the images of these also. For Koré bears symbols of the production of the plants which grow above the earth in the crops: and Dionysus has horns in common with Koré, and is of female form, indicating the union of male and female forces in the generation of the hard-shelled fruits.

'But Pluto, the ravisher of Koré, has a helmet as a symbol of the unseen pole, and his shortened sceptre as an emblem of his kingdom of the nether world; and his dog (κύων) indicates the generation (κύησιν) of the fruits in its threefold division----the sowing of the seed, its reception by the earth, its growing up. For he is called a dog (κύων), not because souls are his food (κῆρας βοράν, Cerberus), but because of the earth's fertility (κυεῖν), for which Pluto provides when he carries off Koré.

'Attis, too, and Adonis are related to the analogy of fruits. Attis is the symbol of the blossoms which appear early in the spring, and fall off before the complete fertilization; whence they further attributed castration to him, from the fruits not having attained to seminal perfection: but Adonis was the symbol of the cutting of the perfect fruits.

'Silenus was the symbol of the wind's motion, which contributes no few benefits to the world. And the flowery and brilliant wreath upon his head is symbolic of the revolution of the heaven, and the hair with which his lower limbs are surrounded is an indication of the density of the air near the earth.

'Since there was also a power partaking of the prophetic faculty, the power is called Themis, because of its telling what is appointed (τεθειμένα) and fixed for each person.

'In all these ways, then, the power of the earth finds an interpretation and is worshipped: as a virgin and Hestia, she holds the centre; as a mother she nourishes; as Rhea she makes rocks and dwells on mountains; as Demeter, she produces herbage; and as Themis, she utters oracles: while the seminal law which descends into her bosom is figured as Priapus, the influence of which on dry crops is called Koré, and on soft fruits and shell-fruits is called Dionysus. For Koré was carried off by Pluto, that is, the sun going down beneath the earth at seed-time; but Dionysus begins to sprout according to the conditions of the power which, while young, is hidden beneath the earth, yet produces fine fruits, and is an ally of the power in the blossom symbolized by Attis, and of the cutting of the ripened corn symbolized by Adonis.

'Also the power of the wind which pervades all things is formed into a figure of Silenus, and the perversion to frenzy into a figure of a Bacchante, as also the impulse which excites to lust is represented by the Satyrs. These, then, are the symbols by which the power of the earth is revealed.'

So far, then, we have these statements (of Porphyry), which I have been compelled to set before you briefly, in order that we may not be ignorant of the fine doctrines of the philosophers. Thus, therefore, according to the accounts rendered by them, Koré is the power of the seed-crops, and Dionysus of the tree-fruits, and of the spring-flowers Attis is the symbol, and Adonis of the ripe fruits.

Why then ought we to deify these things which have been made by the God of the universe for sustenance of the bodies of the animals upon the earth? Or why is the worship of the power of the earth becoming to us, who have received from God, the sovereign ruler of the world, a soul whose nature is heavenly, rational, and immortal, capable of contemplation by the purged eyes of thought?

On hearing that Silenus is the motion of the wind, and the force which penetrates through all things, and that at one time he represents by his head the revolution of the heavens, and at another the density of the air by the shaggy hair of his beard, how can one patiently endure to see him thought worthy of no august worship, who ought to have been deified before all, while Adonis and Dionysus, the corn-crops forsooth and tree-fruits, are turned into gods?

And who could patiently bear to hear Satyrs and Bacchantes spoken of with reverence, which are the foul and licentious passions of mankind, inasmuch as the former, the Satyrs, represented the impulses which excite to carnal pleasure, and the Bacchantes the inducements which concur to frenzy in those who take part herein?

But what need to refute each part separately, when we ought merely to run over them so that none of their secrets may escape us, and to cut short the physical explanation of what follows, which the author before named has set forth, proceeding in the following manner:35

'The whole power productive of water they called Oceanus, and named its symbolic figure Tethys. But of the whole, the drinking-water produced is called Achelous; and the sea-water Poseidon; while again that which makes the sea, inasmuch as it is productive, is Amphitrite. Of the sweet waters the particular powers are called Nymphs, and those of the sea-waters Nereids.

'Again, the power of fire they called Hephaestus, and have made his image in the form of a man, but put on it a blue cap as a symbol of the revolution of the heavens, because the archetypal and purest form of lire is there. But the fire brought down from heaven to earth is less intense, and wants the strengthening and support which is found in matter: wherefore he is lame, as needing matter to support him.

'Also they supposed a power of this kind to belong to the sun and called it Apollo, from the pulsation (πάλσις) of his beams. There are also nine Muses singing to his lyre, which are the sublunar sphere, and seven spheres of the planets, and one of the fixed stars. And they crowned him with laurel, partly because the plant is full of fire, and therefore hated by daemons; and partly because it crackles in burning, to represent the god's prophetic art.

'But inasmuch as the sun wards off the evils of the earth, they called him Heracles (Ἑρακλῆς), from his clashing against the air (κλᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα) in passing from east to west. And they invented fables of his performing twelve labours, as the symbol of the division of the signs of the zodiac in heaven; and they arrayed him with a club and a lion's skin, the one as an indication of his uneven motion, and the other representative of his strength in "Leo" the sign of the zodiac.

'Of the sun's healing power Asclepius is the symbol, and to him they have given the staff as a sign of the support and rest of the sick, and the serpent is wound round it, as significant of his preservation of body and soul: for the animal is most full of spirit, and shuffles off the weakness of the body. It seems also to have a great faculty for healing: for it found the remedy for giving clear sight, and is said in a legend to know a certain plant which restores life.

'But the fiery power of his revolving and circling motion, whereby he ripens the crops, is called Dionysus, not in the same sense as the power which produces the juicy fruits, but either from the sun's rotation (δινεῖν), or from his completing (διανύειν) his orbit in the heaven. And whereas he revolves round the cosmical seasons (Spas), and is the maker of "times and tides," the sun is on this account called Horus.

'Of his power over agriculture, whereon depend the gifts of wealth (Plutus), the symbol is Pluto. He has, however, equally the power of destroying, on which account they make Sarapis share the temple of Pluto: and the purple tunic they make the symbol of the light that has sunk beneath the earth, and the sceptre broken at the top that of his power below, and the posture of the hand the symbol of his departure into the unseen world.

'Cerberus is represented with three heads, because the positions of the sun above the earth are three----rising, midday, and setting.

'The moon, conceived according to her brightness, they called Artemis, as it were ἀερότεμις, "cutting the air." And Artemis, though herself a virgin, presides over childbirth, because the power of the new moon is helpful to parturition.

'What Apollo is to the sun, that Athena is to the moon: for the moon is a symbol of wisdom, and so a kind of Athena.

'But, again, the moon is Hecate, the symbol of her varying phases and of her power dependent on the phases. Wherefore her power appears in three forms, having as symbol of the new moon the figure in the white robe and golden sandals, and torches lighted: the basket, which she bears when she has mounted high, is the symbol of the cultivation of the crops, which she makes to grow up according to the increase of her light: and again the symbol of the full moon is the goddess of the brazen sandals.

'Or even from the branch of olive one might infer her fiery nature, and from the poppy her productiveness, and the multitude of the souls who find an abode in her as in a city, for the poppy is an emblem of a city. She bears a bow, like Artemis, because of the sharpness of the pangs of labour.

'And, again, the Fates are referred, to her powers, Clotho to the generative, and Lachesis to the nutritive, and Atropos to the inexorable will of the deity.

'Also, the power productive of corn-crops, which is Demeter, they associate with her, as producing power in her. The moon is also a supporter of Koré. They set Dionysus also beside her, both on account of their growth of horns, and because of the region of clouds lying beneath the lower world.

'The power of Kronos they perceived to be sluggish and slow and cold, and therefore attributed to him the power of time (χρόνου): and they figure him standing, and grey-headed, to indicate that time is growing old.

'The Curetes, attending on Chronos, are symbols of the seasons, because time (Chronos) journeys on through seasons.

'Of the Hours, some are the Olympian, belonging to the sun, which also open the gates in the air: and others are earthly, belonging to Demeter, and hold a basket, one symbolic of the flowers of spring, and the other of the wheat-ears of summer.

'The power of Ares they perceived to be fiery, and represented it as causing war and bloodshed, and capable both of harm and benefit.

'The star of Aphrodite they observed as tending to fecundity, being the cause of desire and offspring, and represented it as a woman because of generation, and as beautiful, because it is also the evening star----

"Hesper, the fairest star that shines in heaven." 36

'And Eros they set by her because of desire. She veils her breasts and other parts, because their power is the source of generation and nourishment. She conies from the sea, a watery element, and warm, and in constant movement, and foaming because of its commotion, whereby they intimate the seminal power.

'Hermes is the representative of reason and speech, which both accomplish and interpret all things. The phallic Hermes represents vigour, but also indicates the generative law that pervades all things.

'Further, reason is composite: in the sun it is called Hermes; in the moon Hecate; and that which is in the All Hermopan, for the generative and creative reason extends over all things. Hermanubis also is composite, and as it were half Greek, being found among the Egyptians also. Since speech is also connected with the power of love, Eros represents this power: wherefore Eros is represented as the son of Hermes, but as an infant, because of his sudden impulses of desire.

'They made Pan the symbol of the universe, and gave him his horns as symbols of sun and moon, and the fawn skin as emblem of the stars in heaven, or of the variety of the universe.'

Such are his interpretations of the Greek mythology: that of the Egyptians again he says has symbols such as follow: 37

'The Demiurge, whom the Egyptians call Cneph, is of human form, but with a skin of dark blue, holding a girdle and a sceptre, and crowned with a royal wing on his head, because reason is hard to discover, and wrapt up in secret, and not conspicuous, and because it is life-giving, and because it is a king, and because it has an intelligent motion: wherefore the characteristic wing is put upon his head.

'This god, they say, puts forth from his mouth an egg, from which is born a god who is called by themselves Phtha, but by the Greeks Hephaestus; and the egg they interpret as the world. To this god the sheep is consecrated, because the ancients used to drink milk.

'The representation of the world itself they figured thus: the statue is like a man having feet joined together, and clothed from head to foot with a robe of many colours, and has on the head a golden sphere, the first to represent its immobility, the second the many-coloured nature of the stars, and the third because the world is spherical.

'The sun they indicate sometimes by a man embarked on a ship, the ship set on a crocodile. And the ship indicates the sun's motion in a liquid element: the crocodile potable water in which the sun travels. The figure of the sun thus signified that his revolution takes place through air that is liquid and sweet.

'The power of the earth, both the celestial and terrestrial earth, they called Isis, because of the equality (ἰσότητα), which is the source of justice: but they call the moon the celestial earth, and the vegetative earth, on which we live, they call the terrestrial.

'Demeter has the same meaning among the Greeks as Isis among the Egyptians: and, again, Koré and Dionysus among the Greeks the same as Isis and Osiris among the Egyptians. Isis is that which nourishes and raises up the fruits of the earth; and Osiris among the Egyptians is that which supplies the fructifying power, which they propitiate with lamentations as it disappears into the earth in the sowing, and as it is consumed by us for food.

'Osiris is also taken for the river-power of the Nile: when, however, they signify the terrestrial earth, Osiris is taken as the fructifying power; but when the celestial, Osiris is the Nile, which they suppose to come down from heaven: this also they bewail, in order to propitiate the power when failing and becoming exhausted. And the Isis who, in the legends, is wedded to Osiris is the land of Egypt, and therefore she is made equal to him, and conceives, and produces the fruits; and on this account Osiris has been described by tradition as the husband of Isis, and her brother, and her son.'

CHAPTER XII

[PORPHYRY] 'AT the city Elephantine there is an image worshipped, which in other respects is fashioned in the likeness of a man and sitting; it is of a blue colour, and has a man's head, and a diadem bearing the horns of a goat, above which is a quoit-shaped circle. He sits with a vessel of clay beside him, on which he is moulding the figure of a man. And from having the face of a ram and the horns of a goat he indicates the conjunction of sun and moon in the sign of the Ram, while the colour of blue indicates that the moon in that conjunction brings rain.

'The second appearance of the moon is held sacred in the city of Apollo: and its symbol is a man with a hawk-like face, subduing with a hunting-spear Typhon in the likeness of a hippopotamus. The image is white in colour, the whiteness representing the illumination of the moon, and the hawk-like face the fact that it derives light and breath from the sun. For the hawk they consecrate to the sun, and make it their symbol of light and breath, because of its swift motion, and its soaring up on high, where the light is. And the hippopotamus represents the Western sky, because of its swallowing up into itself the stars which traverse it.

'In this city Horus is worshipped as a god. But the city of Eileithyia worships the third appearance of the moon: and her statue is fashioned into a flying vulture, whose plumage consists of precious stones. And its likeness to a vulture signifies that the moon is what produces the winds: for they think that the vulture conceives from the wind, and declares that they are all hen birds.

'In the mysteries at Eleusis the hierophant is dressed up to represent the demiurge, and the torch-bearer the sun, the priest at the altar the moon, and the sacred herald Hermes.

'Moreover a man is admitted by the Egyptians among their objects of worship. For there is a village in Egypt called Anabis, in which a man is worshipped, and sacrifice offered to him, and the victims burned upon his altars: and after a little while he would eat the things that had been prepared for him as for a man.

'They did not, however, believe the animals to be gods, but regarded them as likenesses and symbols of gods; and this is shown by the fact that in many places oxen dedicated to the gods are sacrificed at their monthly festivals and in their religious services. For they consecrated oxen to the sun and moon.

CHAPTER XIII

[PORPHYRY] 'THE ox called Mnevis which is dedicated to the sun in Heliopolis, is the largest of oxen, very black, chiefly because much sunshine blackens men's bodies. And its tail and all its body are covered with hair that bristles backwards unlike other cattle, just as the sun makes its course in the opposite direction to the heaven. Its testicles are very large, since desire is produced by heat, and the sun is said to fertilize nature.

'To the moon they dedicated a bull which they call Apis, which also is more black than others, and bears symbols of sun and moon, because the light of the moon is from the sun. The blackness of his body is an emblem of the sun, and so is the beetle-like mark under his tongue; and the symbol of the moon is the semicircle, and the gibbous figure.'

Let it suffice that I have made these short extracts from the writing of the before-named author, so that we may not be ignorant of any secrets of the theology which is at once both Grecian and Egyptian, and from which we confess ourselves to be apostates and deserters, having rejected these doctrines with sound judgement and reasoning.

For I am not going to be frightened by the arrogant voice which said,

'I speak to those who lawfully may hear:
Depart, all ye profane, and close the doors." 38

Not we at all events are profane, but those who declared that such foul and unseemly legends about beetles and brute beasts were the thoughts of a wise theology---- they who, according to the admirable Apostle, 'professing themselves to be wise, became fools,' 39 seeing that they 'changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.'

But since they used to refer all the secret and more mysterious doctrine on these subjects in a metaphorical sense to incorporeal powers, so as to appear no longer to apply their deification to the visible parts of the world, but to certain invisible and incorporeal powers, let us examine whether we ought not even so to admire. the divine power as one, and not to regard it as many.

For it does not follow, because many shapes and parts and limbs have been created in one body, that we ought to believe them to have as many souls, nor to suppose that there are as many makers and creators of the body; but that as one soul moves the whole body, so one creative power framed the whole living being.

Thus then in the case of the whole world also, since it is one, and consists of one kind of corporeal matter, but is divided into many parts, and reveals one natural sympathy of the universe, and a composition and mixture of its elements, with changes and transformations of one into another, while it exhibits the entire whole as one order and one harmony, we ought not to suppose many creative powers, but to deify only one, namely that which is in very truth 'the power of God, and the wisdom of God.'40

But our wise philosopher does not observe that he is transforming the Egyptian mythologies back into immaterial powers; for you have heard in what has gone before, how he confessed that Chaeremon and several others 'believed in nothing else as prior to the visible worlds, and placed the Egyptians first,' because they interpreted all things of physical laws and nothing of incorporeal and living beings.'

If therefore, according to their own confession, it was characteristic of the Egyptians to refer nothing 'to incorporeal and living beings,' but to transfer all their mythological stories concerning the gods to the physical parts of the world, why then do they begin anew with their subtleties, and ascribe to the Egyptians doctrines which in no way belong to them, by asserting that they make their theology refer back to incorporeal powers? Such is the general charge to be brought.

And in regard also to the particulars, I think that no long refutation is needed to disprove their forced rendering.

For to pass over the nonsense of the Egyptians and all their prating foolery, and to come on to the physical theories of the wise Greeks, what man of sound mind would not at once condemn those who attempt to give such perverse interpretations?

For grant that Zeus no longer means the fiery and ethereal substance, as however was supposed by the ancients according to Plutarch, but that he is the supreme 'mind' itself, 'the creator of the universe,' who giveth to all things life----how then shall his father be Kronos, whom they assert to be time, and his mother Rhea, whom our interpreter declared to be the power of rocks and mountains? For I cannot understand how, after calling Hera the air and the ether, he says that she is at the same time sister and wife of the mind that made the world and gave life to all things.

But again let Leto be called a kind of oblivion (ληθώ) because of the insensibility, as they say, in sleep, and because oblivion accompanies the souls that are born into this sublunary world. How then could oblivion become the mother of sun and moon, Apollo and Artemis the children of Leto having been transformed into sun and moon?

And why are we to worship Rhea or Demeter as a goddess, if the one was said to be symbolic of rocky and mountainous land, and the other of the plain? As they allegorize Koré into satiety (κόρος), for what reason do they think they ought to honour her with that venerable title?

And why do they think we ought to worship as gods the seminal power, and the production of tree-fruits, or of the blossoms that appear in spring, and perish before they have perfected their fruit, or the symbols of the cutting of the ripe crops, surnaming them Dionysus and Attis and Adonis, instead of honouring above all these the human race for whose use and sustenance these things were provided by the Divine Creator of the universe?

But passing from these points, you will by the like method confute all the rest of their grand physical theory, and with good reason rebuke the shamelessness of those, say, who declared that the sun was Apollo himself, and again Heracles, and at another time Dionysus, and again in like manner Asclepius.

For how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once? And how could he be changed again into Heracles, since Heracles has been acknowledged by them to be the son of a mortal woman Alcmena? And how could the sun go mad and slay his own sons, seeing that this also has been ascribed to Heracles?

But in the performance of his twelve labours Heracles is said to be the symbol of the distribution in the heaven of the zodiacal circle in which they say the sun revolves. Who then is now to be the Eurystheus, that enjoins the performance of the labours on the sun, as he did upon Heracles? And how can the fifty daughters of Thestius be referred to the sun, and the multitude of other female captives with whom the story says that Heracles consorted, and of whom were born to him mortal sons who continued the succession of their generations for a very long time? And who could the Centaur be, with whose blood Deianeira smeared the tunic, and so would have involved the sun, as in fact she did Heracles, in the misery that has been described?

But now suppose they make the sun no longer Heracles, but Dionysus: and any one may with good reason say, 'What have these things to do with Dionysus?' For who was his mother, whether called Semele or Persephone? And how could Dionysus be both the sun and the power that sprouts forth in the moist fruits and nuts? And what can the multitude of women who went with him on his expedition mean? And who is the Ariadne of the sun, as there was, we know, the Ariadne of Dionysus. And why, when Dionysus is transformed into the sun, should he be the provider rather of wine, and not of corn and vegetables and all the fruits of the earth? And again, if they make the sun Asclepius, how is he stricken with the thunderbolt of Zeus on account of his sordid love of gain, according to Pindar the lyric poet of Boeotia, who speaks as follows:

'Him too by splendid bribe the gold
Seen glittering on his palm seduc'd.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Then swiftly from Kronion's hand
The flashing lightning, fraught with death,
With fiery bolt transfixing both,
Quench'd in each form the living breath.'

Who again were the Asclepiadae, children of the sun, who after being themselves preserved to a long life, founded a race of mortals like all other men?

However, while they try to escape, as it were by some sudden transformation, from the unseemly and fabulous narratives concerning the gods, their system will run back again to sun, and moon, and the other parts of the world.

If at least they made Hephaestus fire and the force of heat, Poseidon the watery element, Hera the air, and the mountainous and rocky earth Rhea, the plain and fruitful earth Demeter, Koré the seminal power, and Dionysus the power which produces hard fruits, the sun Apollo, together with those who have been enumerated above, and the moon at one time Artemis, at another Athena, and again Hecate, and Eileithyia----are they not again convicted of deifying 'the creature rather than the Creator.' and the handiwork of the world but not the worker, with great risk and danger, and with mischief that must fall on their own head?

But if they shall assert that they deify not the visible bodies of sun and moon and stars, nor yet the sensible parts of the world, but the powers, invisible in them, of the very God who is over all----for they say that God being One fills all things with various powers, and pervades all, and rules over all, but as existing in all and pervading all in an incorporeal and invisible manner. and that they rightly worship Him through the things which we have mentioned----why in the world therefore do they not reject the foul and unseemly fables concerning the gods as being unlawful and impious, and put out of sight the very books concerning them, as containing blasphemous and licentious teaching, and celebrate the One and Only and Invisible God openly and purely and without any foul envelopment?

For this was what those who had known the truth ought to do, and not to degrade and debase the venerable name of God into foul and lustful fables of things unspeakable; nor yet to shut themselves up in cells and dark recesses and buildings made by man, as if they would find God inside; nor to think that they are worshipping the Divine powers in statues made of lifeless matter, nor to suppose that by vapours of gore and filth steaming from the earth, and by the blood of slain animals they are doing things pleasing to God.

Surely it became these men of wisdom and of lofty speech, as being set free from all these bonds of error, to impart of their physical speculations ungrudgingly to all men, and to proclaim as it were in naked truth to all, that they should adore not the things that are seen, but only the unseen Creator of things visible, and worship His invisible and incorporeal powers in ways invisible and incorporeal, not by kindling fire nor yet by offerings of ranis and bulls, nay, nor yet by imagining that they honour the Deity by garlands and statues and the building of temples, but by worshipping Him with purified thoughts and right and true doctrines, in dispassionate calmness of soul, and in growing as far as possible like unto Him.

But no one ever yet, barbarian or Greek, began to show all men this truth except only our Saviour; who, having proclaimed to all nations an escape from their ancient error, procured abundantly for them all a way of return and of devotion to the one true and only God of the universe. Yet the men perversely wise who boasted of the highest philosophy of life, whereby as the inspired Apostle says,41 though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. They professed indeed to be wise, but became fools, . . . and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.42

CHAPTER XIV

So after their long and manifold philosophical speculation, and after their solemn systems of meteorology and physiology, they fell down from their high place, as it were from the loftiest mountain-top, and were dragged down with the common herd, and swept away with the polytheistic delusion of the ancients, pretending that they glorified the like deities with the multitude by offering sacrifice and falling down before images, and increasing, and still further strengthening, the vulgar opinion of the legendary stories concerning the gods.

Must it not then be evident to all men that they are only talking solemn nonsense in their physical theories, and, as far as words go, putting a fair face on foul things by their perversion of the truth, but in actual deeds establishing the fabulous delusion, and the vulgar superstition? And so far there is no wonder, since they even record that their gods themselves assent to the fabulous stories concerning them.

Hear at least how Apollo himself teaches men a hymn, which he put forth concerning himself, acknowledging that he was born of Leto in the island of Delos, and Asclepius again in Tricca, as also Hermes acknowledging that he was the child of Maia: for these things also are written by Porphyry in a book which he entitled Of the Philosophy derived from Oracles, wherein he made mention of the oracles which run as follows:43

'Thou, joy of mortals, forth didst spring
From thy pure mother's sacred pangs.'

To this he subjoins----

'But when the pangs of holy birth
Through all her frame fair Leto seized,
And in her womb twin children stirr'd,
Still stood the earth, the air stood still,
The isle grew fix'd, the wave was hush'd;
Forth into life Lycoreus sprang,
God of the bow, the prophet-king
On the divining tripod thron'd.'

Asclepius again thus speaks of himself:

'From sacred Tricca, lo! I come, the god
Of mortal mother erst to Phoebus born,
Of wisdom and the healing art a king,
Asclepius nam'd. But say, what would'st thou ask?'

And Hermes says:

'Lo! whom thou callest, Zeus' and Maia's son,
Hermes, descending from the starry throne,
Hither I come.'

They also subjoin a description of the appearance of their own form, as Pan in the oracles gives the following description concerning himself:44

'To Pan, a god of kindred race,
A mortal born my vows I pay;
Whose horned brows and cloven feet
And goat-like legs his lust betray.'

These are the things which the author before named has set forth among the secrets Of the Philosophy drawn from the Oracles, Pan therefore was no longer the symbol of the universe, but must be some such daemon as is described, who also gave forth the oracle: for of course it was not the universe, and the whole world, that gave the oracle which we have before us. The men therefore who fashioned the likeness of this daemon, and not that of the universe, imitated the figure before described.

How also could Hermes be thought of as the reason which both makes and interprets all things, when he confesses that he had for his mother Maia the daughter of Atlas, thus sanctioning the fable that is told concerning him, and not any physical explanation?

So again, how could Asclepius be changed into the sun, when he lays claim to Tricca as his native place, and confesses that he was born of a mortal mother? Or how, if he were himself the sun, could be represented again as a child of the sun? Since in their physical theory they made his father Phoebus to be no other than the sun.

And is it not the most ridiculous thing of all, to say that he was born of the sun and a mortal woman? For how is it reasonable that his father, the sun, whom they declare to be Apollo, should himself also have been born in the island Delos of a mortal mother again, namely Leto.

Here observe, I pray you, how many gods born of women were deified by the Greeks, to be brought forward if ever they attempt to mock at our Saviour's birth: observe also that the remarks quoted are not the words of poets, but of the gods themselves.

CHAPTER XV

WHEN poets therefore, as they say, invent legends concerning the gods, while philosophers give physical explanations, we ought, I suppose, rightly to despise the former, and admire the latter as philosophers, and to accept the persuasive arguments of this better class rather than the triflings of the poets. But when on the other hand gods and philosophers enter into competition, and the former, as likely to know best, state exactly the facts concerning themselves in their oracles, while the latter twist their guesses about things which they do not know into discordant and undemonstrable subtleties, which does reason persuade us to believe? Or rather is this not even worth asking?

If therefore the gods are to speak true in certifying the human passions attributed to them, they who set these aside must be false; but if the physical explanations of the philosophers are true, the testimonies of the gods must be false.

But even Apollo himself, it may be said, somewhere in an oracle, when asked about himself who he was, replied:

'Osiris, Horus, Sun, Apollo, Zeus-born king,
Ruler of times and seasons, winds and showers.
Guiding the reins of dawn and starry night,
King of the shining orbs, eternal Fire.'

So then the same witnesses agree both with the poets' legends and with the philosophers' guesses, allying themselves with both sides in the battle. For if they ascribe to themselves mortal mothers, and acknowledge their native places upon earth, how can they be such as the physicists describe them?

Grant that Apollo is the sun----for their argument will again be caught running backwards and forwards and round to the same place----how then could Delos, the island which is now still seen at sea, be the native place of the sun, and Leto his mother? For this is what his own oracles just now certified as being true. And how could the sun become the father of Asclepius, a mortal man by nature, having begotten him of a mortal woman? But let us put this subject aside.

Factual information such as dates of birth and death, the real name of the Siddha, the village where he was born, the caste in which he was born and the place where he lived cannot be obtained ...

Since there is a close similarity between some stanzas of Sivavākkiyam and those of Tirumalisai Alwar’s Tirucchandaviruttam it is believed that Sivavākkiyar and Tirumalisai Alwar may be one and the same person.

Thirumazhisai Alvar (Born: Bhargavar 4203 BCE - 297 AD) is a Tamil saint revered in the Srivaishnavism school of south India, in Tondai Nadu (now part of Kanchipuram and Tiruvallur districts). He was born in 4203 BCE. The legend of this saint devotees of Srivaishnavism believe that he was the incarnation of Vishnu's disc, Sudarshana.

Sudarshana Chakra is a spinning, discus weapon with 108 serrated edges, used by the Hindu god Vishnu or Krishna. The Sudarshana Chakra is generally portrayed on the right rear hand of the four hands of Vishnu, who also holds a shankha (conch shell), a Gada (mace) and a padma (lotus).

-- Sudarshana Chakra, by Wikipedia

He is believed to have been born at Jagannatha Perumal temple, Tirumazhisai by divine grace.

A childless tribal couple called Tiruvaalan and Pankaya Chelvi engaged in cutting canes found the child and took it home. The couple also had a son named Kanikannan who was a disciple of Thirumazhisai Alvar.

Thirumazhisai Alvar proclaimed that he didn't belonged to Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya & Shudra in one of his couplets as he was considered (Avarna) beyond caste bound person. He was the only azhwar saint who lived for 4500 Years....

The name of the Azhwar comes from his birthplace, Thirumazhisai, a suburb in modern day Chennai.

According to Puranas, it was the onset of Kali Yuga (the dark age). Lord Vishnu was worried about the next incarnation his weapon to take because, Kali Yuga has started and he didn't know how his relations will spend their life on Earth since they had to spend a normal Human life. It was the onset of Kali Yuga, and Vishnu was worried about this and when enquired he told the terrible attitudes of people during the Kali Yuga and how can his dear ones can spend their life on Earth in such a dark age, when Sudarshana intervened and volunteered to be born on Earth when Vishnu objected again exclaiming the attributes of Kali Yuga. Sudarshana still obliged leaving Vishnu tearful. He had a weird birth story. This was when Bhargava maharishi was in a long tapa (penance) to please Vishnu, as usual to spoil his penance Indra sent an apsara for which he succeeded. After enjoying worldly pleasures the apsara left to heaven leaving back the baby born to them. Due to his attachment to continue the penance, he cannot take care of the child and left it on the ground. Many days passed and the baby was crying a lot and nobody turned around to look after him. He was covered with blood and worms and mosquitoes are continuously biting him. Worried, Vishnu and Lakshmi descended to Earth and touched the baby and disappeared. The baby was transformed into a handsome young boy. The boy being Sudharshana Chakra himself was devoid of any illness though was hungry for many many days. All were wondering how could this be possible when a childless couple adopted him. Even then he did not accept single grain of rice from the couple. One day, an old man and woman paid visit to this boy. The boy was happy to see them when they asked to go for a short walk along the temple premises. The boy obliged and the old man and woman seemed worried and when enquired, they answered that the sadness cannot be prevented in that age. Still he enquired to which the old couple answered they are yearning for parental affection, to which this boy seemed too casual and wrote two pasurams in praise of Vishnu and miraculously the old couple was transformed into young and good looking couple. They thanked the boy a lot and this boy was too happy because in the Kali Yuga period people are also being thankful to which he wrote another pasuram in praise of Lord Vishnu. The boy asked the couple to read the pasuram, and the couple was blessed with a baby boy whom they named as Kanikannan. Kanikannan grew up to be a disciple of the boy. One time, after the demise of the couple, knowing about the glory of the boy and his disciple Kanikannan, the jealous chola king who was a strong shaivaite ordered him to sacrifice Vaishnavism and practice Shaivism to which they declined, and accordingly they were subjected to death. Somehow both escaped the place to Srirangam. Another news reached their ears that they (the boy and Kanikannan) must be killed or must be exiled, if found anywhere. Worried, they visited all Vishnu temples in Tamilnadu, and when they paid the tributes to Ranganatha Perumal in Srirangam, one amazing and miracle happened. The statue of Ranganatha woke up and stopped these two, and they declined stating it is a duty for the citizens to obey the order of their ruler. Next, they both visited Kumbakonam Sarangapani temple, and the statue again rose, and this time both obliged and merged with the lord. To be a proof of future generations that the idol actually rose up, Vishnu's head in Sarangapani temple is raised a bit. The boy was called Thirumalisai Alvar thereafter....

He also has an eye on his right leg.

-- Thirumalisai Alvar, by Wikipedia

The life of Sivavakkiyar is given in a Tamil work called Pulavar Purānam by Murugadāsa Swamigal. Another work called Pulavar carittira Deepakam summarizes the traditional accounts about the life of Sivavakkiyar. We may sum up by saying that the biographical history of Sivavakkiyar is often based entirely on word of mouth accounts and therefore is not always readily available. If available it is not authentic, for it is mixed only with local mythology and sentimental accounts. About the time when he lived, we may safely say that he lived during the 15th century A.D.[???!!!]...

Sivavakkiyar does not specifically mention his guru parampara or lineage in his work. The only hint available is in verse 301 where he says “with the sacred feet of Mūlan who said the three, ten and the three as three I would say the five letters”. If the Mūlan mentioned here refers to Tirumular, the composer of Tirumandiram, he may be indicating to us that he belongs to the mūlavarga, the lineage that claims Tirumular as its preceptor. Then again, the Mūlan may very well refer to the Ultimate Reality, the root cause, the mūlam, of everything.

According to cittar tradition, Tirumūlar, the early Śaiva mystic and author of the Tirumantiram, is said to have been the disciple of an alchemist named Nantikēcuran.

Tirumūlar is also closely connected to Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai, where he took physical form by entering the body of a cowherd and composed the Tirumantiram. It is, however, not clear that an ascription to this early Tirumūlar is intended in Ziegenbalg’s account of the work. Zvelebil gives the briefest details of an undated Tirumūlatēvar, ascribing to him three works: the Tirumantiramālai, Tirumūlatēvar pāṭalkaḷ and Vālaippañcākkara viḷakkam. Tirumantiramālai is in fact the full title of Tirumūlar’s Tirumantiram and hence the distinction between the work which Zvelebil ascribes to Tirumūla Tēvar and Tirumūlar’s own work is not clear. We have not been able to identify copies of the Tirumūlatēvar pāṭalkaḷ and Vālaippañcākkara viḷakkam, but the title of the latter suggests a work on the five-syllable nama-civāya mantra. There are a number of works of this kind, with different titles, closely associated with the Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai maṭam. Whether Tirumūlar or Tirumūla Tēvar is intended, an association with Tiruvāvaṭutuṟai certainly cannot be ruled out.

-- Bibliotheca Malabarica: Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg's Tamil Library, by Will Sweetman with R. Ilakkuvan

Alchemical Nantikecuran, by Librarian

Nandi (Sanskrit: नन्दि) also known as Nandikeshwara or Nandideva is the bull vahana of the Hindu god Shiva. He is also the guardian deity of Kailash, the abode of Shiva...

According to Saivite siddhantic tradition, he is considered as the chief guru of ... Tirumular ...

The name Nandi was widely used instead for an anthropomorphic door-keeper of Kailasha, rather than his mount, in the oldest Saivite texts in Sanskrit, Tamil, and other Indian languages...

-- Nandi (Hinduism) [Nandikeshwara] [Nandideva] [Nantikēcuraṉ/Nantitevar, Isvara's "gatekeeper"], by Wikipedia

-- Sivavakkiyam -- Songs of a Spiritual Rebel, by Dr. Geetha Anand and Dr. T.N. Ganapathy

CHAPTER XVI

THE falsehood of the oracle is to be refuted in another way. For surely the sun did not come down to them from heaven, and then, after fully inspiring the recipient, utter the Phoebean oracle; since it is neither possible nor right that so great a luminary should be subjected to man's compulsion: nay, not even if they should speak of the divine and intelligent power in the sun, because a human soul could never be capable of receiving even this.

In the case of the moon also there would be the same argument. For if they mean to assert that she is Hecate, how then can it be right that she should be dragged down by constraint of men, and prophesy through the recipient, and be taken to help in base and amatory services, herself being ruler of the evil daemons----how right, I say, that Hecate should do these things? This the writer himself acknowledges, as we shall fully prove in due time.

How again could Pluto and Sarapis be changed by physical theory into the sun, when the same author declares that Sarapis is the same with Pluto, and is the ruler of the evil daemons? Moreover, in recording oracles of Sarapis how could he say they were those of the sun?

But in fact from all these considerations it only remains to confess that the physical explanations which have been described have no truth, but are sophisms and subtleties of sophistic men.

CHAPTER XVII

THE ministrants indeed of the oracles we must in plain truth declare to be evil daemons, playing both parts to deceive mankind, and at one time agreeing with the more fabulous suppositions concerning themselves, to deceive the common people, and at another time confirming the statements of the philosophers' jugglery in order to instigate them also and puff them up: so that in every way it is proved that they speak no truth at all.

After having said so much it is now time for us to pass on, and advance to the third kind of Greek theology, which they say is political and legal. For this has been thought most suitable to astonish the multitude, both because of the celebrated oracles, and the healings and cures of bodily sufferings, and the punishments inflicted upon some. And while they assert that they have had experience of these things, they have thoroughly persuaded themselves that they are doing rightly in their own devotion to the gods, and that we are guilty of the greatest impiety in not honouring the powers that are so manifest and so beneficent with the services that are due to them. To meet then these objections also, let us make another new beginning of our argument.

[Footnotes have been numbered and placed at the end]

1. 83 c 1 Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus, a fragment preserved by Eusebius

2. 83 d 9 Plato, Laws, vi. 775 B

3. 85 b 7 Hom. Il. xvi. 187

4. 86 d 10 Hesiod, Opp. 233

5. 87 c 5 Plato, Cratylus, 397 C

6. 88 b 1 Diodorus Siculus, i. 11

7. 88 d 6 ibid. 12

8. 88 d 14 Hom. Il. 544

9. 89 b 1 Orph. Fr. 165

10. 89 b 5 Hom. Il. xiv. 201

11. 90 a 4 Hom. Od. xvii. 485 (Pope)

12. 90 b 1 Diod. Sic. i. 13

13. 90 c 8 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 363 D 98

14. 91 b 1 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 359 E

15. 92 a 4 Porphyry, Epistle to Anebo, a fragment preserved by Eusebius: see Iamblichus, De Mysteriis, Parthey

16. 93 c 13 Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, iv. 9

17. 97 d 4 Porphyry, Concerning Images, Orphic Fragm. vi. I; cf. p. 664 d

18. 99 b 1 Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus, a fragment preserved by Eusebius only

19. 99 b 8 Callimachus, Fragment 105, preserved by Eusebius only

20. 99 d 5 Plato, Laws, xii. 955 E

21. 100 a 1 Porphyry, Concerning Images, Stobaeus, Ed. i. 2, 23

22. 100 b 3 Orphic Fragm. 123 (Abel), vi (Hermann), Aristotle, De Mundo, c. vii.

23. 103 c 2 Plato, Cratylus, 397 C, quoted on p. 87 c 6

24. 104 c 8 Jer. xxiii. 24 104 d 5 Isa. Ixvi. 1 (Sept.)

25. 104 c 9 Deut. iv. 39

26. 104 c 10 Acts xvii. 28

27. 105 d 6 Ps. viii. 4 (Sept.)

28. 105 d 8 Ps. ci. 26 (Sept.)

29. 105 d 10 Isa. xl. 26

30. 106 a 1 cf. 101 c 5

31. 106 c 1 Gen. i. 26

32. 108 b 1 Porphyry, Concerning Images

33. 108 c 5 Orphic Fragm. 123,19; see p. 100 d 6

34. d 3 Porphyry, l. c.

35. 111 d 10 Porphyry, Concerning Images

36. 114 c 1 Hom. Il. xxii. 318

37. 115 a 7 Porphyry, Concerning Images

38. 118 a 9 Orphic Fragm. vi. 1

39. 118 b 1 Rom. i. 22

40. 118 d 8 1 Cor. i. 24

41. 122 d 7 Rom. i. 21, 22

42. 122 d 9 verse 25

43. 123 d 1 Porphyry, De Philos. ex Oraculis, fragments preserved by Eusebius

44. 124 b 2 This fragment is quoted again p. 201 c 136

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

BOOK IV

CONTENTS

• I. Preface concerning the oracles in various cities, and the most celebrated responses by the extraordinary manifestations of daemons, and our reason for disregarding them p. 129 d
• II. That it is easy for any who will to prove the promise of the oracles to be the deceit and knavery of human impostors p. 133 a
• III. Extract from Diogenianus, that their soothsaying is inconsistent and full of falsehood, and their prediction useless and mischievous p. 136 d
• IV. That from these great evils we were delivered by the evangelic teaching of our Saviour p. 140 a
• V. The division of Greek theology p. 141 a
• VI. That we confirm the testimonies used in our arguments not by our own assertions, but by our quotations from the Greeks p. 142 d
• Concerning the secrets of the oracles, from quotations of the Greeks p. 143 a
• VII. Extract from Porphyry on the oracles. His oath of the truth of his statements. p. 143 c
• VIII. That his intended statements must not be published to all p. 144 b
• IX. How the worship of the gods by sacrifice is prescribed by Apollo p. 145 a
• X. That they who delight in animal sacrifices cannot be gods p. 147 d
• XI. That none of the fruits of the earth may be offered to the supreme God either as incense or sacrifice p. 149 b
• XII. Not even to the divine powers is it right to offer any of the fruits of the earth either as incense or sacrifice p. 149 d
• XIII. Further concerning the impropriety of offering the fruits of the earth to the supreme God p. 150 b
• XIV. To offer animals to the gods is unlawful and injurious and unjust and unholy, and subject to execration p. 151 a
• XV. That their offerings are made to daemons and not to gods p. 153 c
• XVI. Porphyry on human sacrifice in old time p. 155 b
• XVII. That after the teaching of the Gospel the old custom of human sacrifice was abolished p. 163 d
• The heathen theology was all concerned with evil daemons p. 164 b
• XVIII. It is wrong to sacrifice to evil daemons p. 166 b
• XIX. How we ought to be devoted to the supreme God p. 166 d
• XX. How Apollo enjoins sacrifice to the evil daemon p. 168 b
• XXI. None other than our Lord and Saviour ever delivered the whole human race from the deceit of daemons p. 169 c
• XXII. The manner of daemoniacal activity p. 171 a
• XXIII. Of the evil daemons and the character of their rulers p. 174 b

CHAPTER I

In this fourth book of the Preparation for the Gospel, due order bids me to refute the third form of polytheistic error, from which we were delivered by the power and beneficence of our Redeemer and Saviour.

For since they divide their whole system of theology under three general heads, the mythical treated by the poets in tragedy, and the physical which has been invented by the philosophers, and that which is enforced by the laws and observed in each city and country; and since two of these parts have been already explained by us in the preceding books, namely the historical, which they call mythical, and that which has transcended the mythical, and which they call physical, or speculative, or by any other name they please; in this present book it will be the right time to examine the third part, and this is what is established in the several cities and countries, and which they call political, or state-religion, which also is especially enforced by the laws, as both ancient and ancestral, and as in itself indicating the excellence of the power of those whom they deify.

There are for instance oracles renowned among them, and responses, and cures, and healings of all kinds of sufferings, and judgements inflicted upon the impious; whereof they profess to have had experience, and have thoroughly persuaded themselves that they act rightly in honouring the deities, and that we are guilty of the greatest impiety in making no account of powers so manifest and so beneficent, but directly breaking the laws, which require every one to reverence ancestral customs, and not disturb what should be inviolable, but to walk orderly in following the religion of his forefathers, and not to be meddlesome through love of innovation. Thus they say that even death has been deservedly fixed by the laws as the punishment for those who transgress.

As to the first form then of their theology, being historical and mythical, let any of the poets arrange it as he will, and so let any of the philosophers deal with the second form, reported to us through the allegorical interpretation of the legends in a more physical sense: but since the third form, as being both ancient and politic, has been legally ordained by their rulers to be honoured and observed, this, say they, let neither poet nor philosopher disturb; but let every one, both in rural districts and in cities, continue to walk by the customs which have prevailed from old time, and obey the laws of his forefathers.

In answer then to this, it is time to render the reason alleged on our side, and to submit a defence of our Saviour's evangelic system, as protesting against what has been described, and laying down laws opposed to the laws of all the nations.

Well then! it is manifest even to themselves that their lifeless images are no gods; and that their mythical theology offers no explanation that is respectable and becoming to deity, has been shown in the first book, as likewise in the second and third it has been shown that neither does their more physical and philosophical interpretation of the legends contain an unforced explanation.

Come then, let us examine the third point----how we are to regard the powers that lurk in the carved images, whether as civilized and good and truly divine in character, or the very opposite of all these.

Others, peradventure, in entering upon the discussion of these questions, might have laid it down that the whole system is a delusion, and mere conjuror's tricks and frauds, stating their opinion generally and concisely, that we ought not to attribute even to an evil daemon, much less to a god, the stories commonly told of them. For the poems and the compositions of the oracles, he would say, are fictions of men not without natural ability but extremely well furnished for deception, and are composed in an equivocal and ambiguous sense, and adapted, not without ingenuity, to either of the cases expected from the event: and the marvels which deceive the multitude by certain prodigies are dependent on natural causes.

For there are many kinds of roots, and herbs, and plants, and fruits, and stones, and other powers, both solid and liquid of every kind of matter in the natural world; some of them fit to drive off and expel certain diseases; others of a nature to attract and superinduce them; some again with power to secrete and disperse, or to harden and to bind, and others to relax and liquidate and attenuate; some again to save and others to kill, or to give a thorough turn, and change the present condition, altering it now this way and now that; and some to work this effect for a longer and some for a shorter time; and again, some to be efficacious on many and others only on a few; and some to lead and others to follow; and some to combine in different ways, and to grow and decay together. Yet further, that some are conducive to health, not unconnected with medical science, and others morbific and deleterious; and lastly that some things occur by physical necessities, and wax and wane together with the moon, and that there are countless antipathies of animals and roots and plants, and many kinds of narcotic and soporific vapours, and of others that produce delusion: that the places also, and regions in which the effects are accomplished give no little help; also that they have tools and instruments provided from afar in a way well fitted to their art, and that they associate with themselves in their jugglery many confederates from without, who make many inquiries about those who arrive, and the wants of each, and what he is come to request; also that they conceal within their temples many secret shrines and recesses inaccessible to the multitude; and that the darkness also helps their purpose not a little; and not least the anticipatory assumption itself, and the superstition of those who approach them as gods, and the opinion which has prevailed among them from the time of their forefathers. To this must be added also the silliness of mind of the multitude, and their feeble and uncritical reasoning, and on the other hand the cleverness and craftiness of those who are constantly practising this mischievous art, and the deceitful and knavish disposition of the impostors, at one time promising what will please each person, and soothing the present trouble by hopes of advantage, and at other times guessing at what is to come, and prophesying obscurely, and darkening the sense of their oracles by equivocations and indistinctness of expression, in order that no one may understand what is foretold, but that they may escape detection by the uncertainty of their statement.

They might also say that many events coincide with other frauds and quackeries, when certain so-called spells are associated with the events, with a kind of unintelligible and barbaric incantation, in order that the occurrences which are not in the least affected by them may seem to be hastened by them. Most, too, even of those who are supposed to start with a good education are especially astonished at the poetry of the oracles themselves, finely adorned as it is by the combination of the words, finely inflated also by the pompous grandeur of the language, and arrayed with much, boastful exaggeration and arrogant pretence of inspiration, and deceiving nearly all the people by their ambiguous sound.

CHAPTER II

Certainly all their oracles which have been free from ambiguity have been uttered not according to foreknowledge of the future but by mere conjecture, and thousands of these, or rather almost all, were often convicted of having failed in their prediction, the issue of the matters having turned out contrary to the answer of the oracle; unless perhaps on rare occasions some one event out of tens of thousands agreed therewith by some course of luck, or according to the conjectural expectation of what would happen, and so was thought to make the oracle speak true.

And of this you would find them most loudly boasting, and carving inscriptions upon columns, and shouting to the ends of the earth, not choosing to remember at all, that so many persons, it might chance, were disappointed, but publishing it high and low that to this one man out of ten thousand something promised by the oracle had turned out right. Just as if, when men were casting lots two at a time out of ten thousand, and it happened perhaps just once that they both fell upon the same numbers, a man should wonder how one and the same number happened to come round to both at once in consequence of divination and foreknowledge.

For such is the case of the one out of myriads upon myriads of oracular answers that on some one occasion happened to turn out true; and on observing this the man who possesses no firmness in the depth of his soul is exceedingly amazed at the oracle, though it were much better for him to cease from his folly by calculating to how many others the aforesaid soothsayers have been the cause of death, and of sedition, and wars, and to consider the histories of the ancients, and observe that they never pointed out any effect of divine power even at that time when the oracles of Greece were flourishing, and those which formerly were celebrated, but now exist no longer, were firmly established, and thought worthy of all care and zeal by their countrymen, who revered and fostered them by ancestral laws and mysterious rites.

And certainly in that period especially they were proved to be impotent in the calamities of war, in which the fine soothsayers being powerless to help were convicted of deceiving those who sought their protection by the ambiguity of their oracles; and this we shall accordingly show at the proper opportunity, by proving how they even goaded on those who consulted them into war with each other, and how they failed to give answers even about serious matters, and how they used to mislead their inquirers, making sport of them by their oracles, and tried to conceal their own ignorance by the darkness of uncertainty.

But observe from your own inquiries how they often promised to the sick strengthening, and life, and health, and then being trusted as though they were gods, exacted large rewards for this inspired traffic; and not very long afterwards it was discovered what sort of persons they were, being proved to be human impostors and no gods, when some unfortunate catastrophe seized upon their deluded victims.

What need to say that these wonderful prophets did not render their assistance even to their own next neighbours, those I mean who dwelt in the same city? But you might there see persons sick, and maimed, and mutilated all over their body, in thousands. Why in the world then did they promise such good hopes to the foreigners, who arrived from a far country, but not also to those who dwelt in the same place with them, to whom before all, as being their own friends and fellow citizens, they ought to have rendered the benefit of the presence of their gods? Was it not that they could more easily deceive the strangers, who knew nothing of their roguery, but not their intimates, as these were not ignorant of their craft, but conscious of the trickery practised upon those who were to be initiated?

Thus then the whole business was not divine nor beyond the power of man's device; so that in the greatest calamities, I mean those which are suspended from on high over the heads of the ungodly from the all-ruling God, their temples, with votive offerings, statues and all, were subjected to utter destruction and sudden overthrow.

For where will you find the temple that was at Delphi, celebrated from the earliest times among all the Greeks? Where is the Pythian god? Where the Clarian? Where even the god of Dodona? As for the Delphian shrine, the story goes that it was burnt a third time by Thracians, the oracle not having been able to give any help to the knowledge of what was coming, nor the Pythian god himself to guard his own abode. It is recorded also that the Capitol at Rome met the same fate in the times of the Ptolemies, when the temple of Vesta at Rome is also said to have suffered conflagration. And about the time of Julius Caesar it is recorded that the great statue, which was the glory of the Greeks and of Olympia, was struck by lightning from the god at the very time of the Olympic games. On another occasion also, they say, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was burnt, and the Pantheon destroyed by lightning, and the Serapeium at Alexandria burnt down in like manner.

Of these events written testimonies are current among the Greeks themselves; but it would be a long story, if any one meant to enumerate the several particulars, in trying to prove that the wonderful oracle-mongers have been found unable to defend even their own temples; and it is not likely that they who have been of no use to themselves in misfortunes would ever be able to give help to others.

By adding one circumstance to those which have been mentioned, such man would have clearly seen the main sum and substance of the matter, that ere now, many of the most highly inspired even of their chief hierophants, and theologians, and prophets, who were celebrated for this kind of theosophy, not only in former times but also recently in our own day, under cruel tortures before the Roman courts declared that the whole delusion was produced by human frauds, and confessed that it was all an artfully contrived imposture; and they had the whole character of the system and the methods of their evil practices registered in the words uttered by them in public records. Therefore they paid the just penalty of their pernicious deception, and revealed every word, and certified by actual facts the proof of the things which we have mentioned.

But, you ask, what sort of persons were these? Think not that they were any of the outcast and obscure. Some came to them from, this wonderful and noble philosophy, from the tribe who wear the long cloak and otherwise look so supercilious; and some were taken from the magistrates of the city of Antioch, who indeed in the time of our persecution prided themselves especially on their outrages against us. We know also the philosopher and prophet who suffered at Miletus the like punishments to those which we have mentioned.

These arguments then, and yet more than these, one might bring together to assert that the authors of the oracles are not gods nor yet daemons, but the delusion and deceit of human impostors.

And there were among the Greeks themselves whole sects distinguished in philosophy who defended this opinion; as the school of Aristotle, and all the successors of the Peripatetic school; Cynics too and Epicureans, in whom what I most admire is, how, after being brought up in the customs of the Greeks, and been taught even from the cradle, son from father, that those of whom we speak are gods, they have not been easily caught, but proved with all their might that even the renowned oracles, and the seats of divination which were sought after among all, had no truth, and declared that they were useless, nay rather mischievous.

But though there are thousands who have wrought the overthrow of the oracles by many arguments, for me I think it is sufficient at present, for a testimony of what I have stated, to make a single quotation from one of them in answer to the arguments devised by Chrysippus concerning fate from the predictions of the oracles. This author then writes against him to prove that he wrongly derives indications of fate from the oracles, and that the oracles of the Greeks give false answers in most cases, and that rarely from a coincidence some events agree with them, and that their prediction of the future is useless and mischievous. Hear, however, what he says, word for word.

CHAPTER III

[DIOGENIANUS] 'But Chrysippus, in the book before mentioned, brings also another proof of the following kind. He says that the predictions of the prophets could not be true unless all things were fast bound by fate: which is itself a most silly argument. For he argues as if it were evident or would be more readily admitted by any one, that all the predictions of the so-called prophets came to pass, than that all things take place according to fate, as if the former would not itself be an equally false statement, since plain experience shows the contrary; I mean that not all the things foretold, or rather not the greatest part of them, come to pass.

'Thus Chrysippus has brought us his proof, by establishing each proposition from the other. For he wishes to show that all things take place according to fate from the existence of prophecy: but the existence of prophecy he could not prove in any other way, if he did not first assume that all things occur according to fate.

'But what method of proof could be more wretched than this? For that some things come to pass according to the plain meaning of what the prophets foretell would be a sign, not of the existence of prophetic science, but of the accidental concurrence of the events in agreement with the predictions----a thing which gives us no indication of any science.

'For neither should we call an archer scientific who hit the mark once now and then, but missed many times; nor a physician who killed the greater number of those who were attended by him, but was able to save one sometimes; nor do we ever give the name of science to that which does not succeed in all, or at least in the greatest part of its proper operations.

'Now that most of the predictions of the so-called prophets fail, the whole experience of human life would bear witness; and so would these men themselves who profess the art of prophecy, because it is not by this that they help themselves in the exigencies of life, but use sometimes their own judgement, and sometimes the counsel and cooperation of those who have been thought to possess experience in each kind of affairs.

'But with regard to the want of consistency in this which we have chosen to call prophecy, we will render fuller proof elsewhere, bringing forward the opinions of Epicurus on this point also. But at present we will add to what has been said only this much, that at most the fact of the so-called prophets speaking truth sometimes in their predictions must be an effect, not of science, but of an accidental cause; for it is not that a man never hits the proposed mark, but that he does not hit it always, nor even in most cases, and not from science even when he does occasionally succeed, this is what we have chosen to call a work of chance----we who have arranged our own ideas in clear order under each term. Further, if even by hypothesis it were true that the prophetic art is able to discern and to foretell all things future, it might be concluded that all things are according to fate, but the usefulness of the art and its benefit to life could never be shown; and it is for this purpose especially that Chrysippus seems to sing the praises of the prophetic art.

'For what benefit would it be to us to learn beforehand the misfortunes certain to come to pass, which it would not even be possible to guard against? For how could any one guard against the things which take place according to fate? So that there is no benefit to us in the prophetic art, but rather it would tend to some mischief, by causing mankind to grieve in vain beforehand over the predicted misfortunes which must of necessity come to pass.

'For no one will affirm that the prediction of future blessings affords on the other hand equal delight: since man is not naturally so disposed to rejoice over expected blessings, as to be grieved over misfortunes. Especially as we hope that the latter will not happen at all to ourselves, until we hear it: but all of us, so to say, rather look for blessings, because our nature is congenial thereto; for most persons have formed hopes of things even greater than what can possibly come to pass.

'Hence it results that the prediction of blessings either does not at all increase the joy, because even apart from the prediction every one of his own accord expects the better fortune, or else increases it but little by the supposed certainty, and often even diminishes the joy, when less is foretold than what was hoped for; but the prediction of evils causes great perturbation, both because of their repulsive nature, and because the prediction is sometimes opposed to men's hopes.

'But even if this did not happen, nevertheless it would be evident, I think, to every one that the prediction would be useless. For if any one shall affirm that the usefulness of the prophetic art will be maintained on account of the prediction of the misfortune which will certainly happen unless we should guard against it, he can no longer show that all things are to happen in accordance with fate, if it is in our power either to guard or not to guard against them.

'For if any one shall say that this choice also is controlled by necessity, so as to extend fate to all things that exist, the usefulness of prophecy on the other hand is destroyed; for we shall keep guard if it is so fated, and evidently we shall not keep guard if it is not fated that we shall keep guard, even though all the prophets foretell to us what is about to happen.

'As to Oedipus, for instance, and Alexander son of Priam, even Chrysippus himself says that though their parents had recourse to many contrivances to kill them, in order that they might guard against the mischief predicted from them, they were unable to do so.

'Thus there was no benefit, he says, even to them from the prediction of the evils, because they were effects proceeding from fate. Let this then be enough, and more than enough, to have been said in regard to not merely the uncertainty but also the uselessness of the prophetic art.'

Thus far the philosopher. Do thou however consider with thyself, how those who were Greeks, and had from an early age acquired the customary education of the Greeks, and knew more accurately than any men the customs of their ancestors concerning the gods, all Aristotelians, and Cynics, and Epicureans, and all who held like opinions with them, poured ridicule upon the oracles which were renowned among the Greeks themselves.

And yet, if the stories current concerning the miraculous power of the oracles were true, it was natural that these men also should have been struck with wonder, being Greeks, and having an accurate understanding of the customs of their ancestors, and regarding nothing worthy to be known as of secondary importance.

To collect, however, these and all similar evidences, in order to overthrow the argument on behalf of the oracles, there would be abundant means: but it is not in this way that I wish to pursue the present discussion, but in the same way as we started at first, by granting that those who stand forth in their defence speak truth; in order that from their own avowals, when they affirm that oracles are true, and that the alleged responses are divinely inspired Pythian oracles, we may learn the exact explanation of the things alleged.

CHAPTER IV

Now I think it is plain to every one that the proof of the matters before us will embrace not a small part, but a very great and at the same time very necessary part of the evangelic argument. For suppose it should b be shown that all men everywhere, both Greeks and Barbarians, before the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, had no knowledge of the true God, but either regarded 'the things that are not as though they were,' 2 or were led about hither and thither like blind men by certain wicked spirits fighting against God, and by evil and impure daemons, and were by them dragged down into an abyss of wickedness (for what else ailed them but possession by daemons?)----how can the great mystery of the Gospel dispensation fail to be seen in a higher light? I mean, that all men from all quarters have been sailed back by our Saviour's voice from the delusion handed down from their fathers about the tyranny of daemons, and that the men who dwell as far off as the ends of the earth have been released from the deception which from the earliest age oppressed their whole life. For since His time and up to the present the antiquated seats of delusion in all the heathen nations have been broken up and destroyed----shrines and statues and all----and temples truly venerable, and schools of true religion have been raised up in honour of the Absolute Monarch and Creator of the universe in the midst of cities and villages by the power and goodness of our Saviour throughout the whole world. And by prayers of holy men the sacrifices which are worthy of God have been purified from all wickedness, and in freedom of soul from all passions, and in the acquirement of every virtue, according to the divine doctrines of salvation, are day by day continually offered up by all nations----those sacrifices which alone are acceptable and pleasing to the God who is over all?

Now if these things be so, how can we have failed to show at the same time, that with sound reason, arid without giving ourselves over to folly, we have turned away from the superstition handed down from our fathers, and with just and true judgement have chosen the better part, and become lovers of the inspired and true religion? But enough of this, and let us now take in hand the subjects before us.

CHAPTER V

Those, therefore, who have accurately discussed the Greek theology in a manner different from the systems which we have already mentioned, distribute the whole subject under four heads. First of all they have set apart the first God, saying that they know him to be the One over all, and First, and Father and King of all gods, and that after him the race of gods is second, that of daemons third, and heroes fourth. All these, they say, participating in the nature of the higher power act and are acted upon in this way and in that, and everything of this kind is called light because of its participating in light. But they also say that evil rules the essence of the lower nature; and this evil is a race of wicked daemons, who treat the good in no way as a friend, but possess chief power in the nature of the adversaries of good, just as God does in that of the better sort; and everything of this kind is called darkness.

After defining these points in this manner, they say that the heaven, and the ether as far down as the moon, are assigned to gods; and the parts about the moon and the atmosphere to daemons; and the region of the earth and parts beneath the earth to souls. And having made such a distribution they say that we ought to worship first of all the gods of heaven and of the ether, secondly the good daemons, thirdly the souls of the heroes, and fourthly to propitiate the bad and wicked daemons.

But while making these verbal distinctions they in fact throw all into confusion, by worshipping the wicked powers only, instead of all those whom we have mentioned, and are wholly enslaved by them, as the course of our argument will prove. It is in your power, at any rate, to consider from what will be laid before you, what character we ought to ascribe to the powers which operate through the statues, whether as gods or daemons, and whether bad or good.

For our divine oracles never call any daemon good, but say that all are bad who share this lot and even this appellation, since no other is truly and properly god except the One Cause of all: but the gentle and good powers, as being in their nature created, and following far behind the uncreated God who is their Maker, but nevertheless separated also from the mischievous race of daemons----these the Scriptures deem it right to name neither gods nor daemons, but as being intermediate between God and daemons they are accustomed to call them by a well-applied and intermediate name, angels of God, and 'ministering spirits,' 3 and divine powers, and archangels, and any other names corresponding to their offices; but the daemons, if indeed it behoves us to declare the origin of their name also, are called according to their nature daemons, not as the Greeks think in consequence of their being knowing (δαημονας), and wise, but because of their fearing and causing fear (δειμαινειν).

Certainly the divine and good powers are different in name as well as in character, from the daemons; since it would be of all things most absurd to adjudge one and the same appellation to the powers which are alike neither in purpose nor in natural character.

CHAPTER VI

Come then, let us examine what is, according to them, the character of the oracles, in order that we may learn what kind of power we must ascribe to them, and whether we withdrew from them rightly or not. Now if I were going to bring forward my own proofs of the matters to be set forth, I know well that I should not render my argument unassailable by those who are inclined to find fault. Wherefore instead of asserting anything of my own, I shall make use again of the testimonies of those who are without.

But as there are among the Greeks historians and philosophers without number, I judge the most suitable of all in reference to the subjects before us to be that very friend of the daemons, who in our generation is celebrated for his false accusations against us. For he of all the philosophers of our time seems to have been most familiar with daemons and those whom he calls gods, and to have been their advocate, and to have investigated the facts concerning them much the most accurately.

He therefore, in the book which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, made a collection of the oracles of Apollo and the other gods and good daemons, which he especially chose out of them as thinking that they would suffice both for proof of the excellence of the supposed deities, and for the encouragement of what he is pleased to call 'Theosophy.'

From these oracles, therefore, which have been selected and thought worthy to be remembered it is fair to judge the soothsayers, and to consider what sort of power they possess. But first let us observe how at the beginning of his work the person indicated swears in the following words that he is 'verily speaking the truth':4

CHAPTER VII

[PORPHYRY] 'Sure, then, and steadfast is he who draws his hopes of salvation from this as from the only sure source, and to such thou wilt impart information without any reserve. For I myself call the gods to witness, that I have neither added anything, nor taken away from the meaning of the responses, except where I have corrected an erroneous phrase, or made a change for greater clearness, or completed the metre when defective, or struck out anything that did not conduce to the purpose; so that I preserved the sense of what was spoken untouched, guarding against the impiety of such changes, rather than against the avenging justice that follows from the sacrilege.

'And our present collection will contain a record of many doctrines of philosophy, according as the gods declared the truth to be; but to a small extent we shall also touch upon the practice of divination, such as will be useful both for contemplation, and for the general purification of life. And the utility which this collection possesses will be best known to as many as have ever been in travail with the truth, and prayed that by receiving the manifestation of it from the gods they might gain relief from their perplexity by virtue of the trustworthy teaching of the speakers.'

After making such preludes, he protests and forewarns against revealing to many what he is going to tell, in the following words:5

CHAPTER VIII

[PORPHYRY] 'And do thou endeavour to avoid publishing these above all things, and casting them even before the profane for the sake of reputation, or gain, or any unholy flattery. For so there would be danger not only to thee for transgressing these injunctions, but also to me for lightly trusting thee who couldst not keep the benefits secret to thyself. We must give them then to those who have arranged their plan of life with a view to the salvation of the soul.'

And further on he adds:

'These things I beg you to conceal as the most unutterable of secrets, for even the gods did not make a revelation concerning thein openly, but by enigmas.'

Since, then, his discourse adopted such lofty strains, let us now examine, by help of the inspired Pythian oracles, what character we ought to ascribe to the invisible deified powers: for thus may the man also be tested from his own words and practices.

The aforesaid author, then, in his work which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, gives responses of Apollo enjoining the performance of animal sacrifices, and the offering of animals not to daemons only, nor only to the terrestrial powers, but also to the etherial and heavenly powers.

But in another work 6 the same author, confessing that all, to whom the Greeks used to offer sacrifices by blood and slaughter of senseless animals, are daemons and not gods, says that it is not right nor pious to offer animal sacrifices to gods.

Hear, therefore, his first utterances, in which, collecting the facts concerning The Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, he shows how Apollo teaches that the gods ought to be worshipped. This he sets forth in writing as follows:

CHAPTER IX

[PORPHYRY] 'Next in order after what has been said concerning piety we shall record the responses given by them concerning their worship, part of which by anticipation we have set forth in the statements concerning piety. Now this is the response of Apollo, containing at the same time an orderly classification of the gods.

"Friend, who hast entered on this heaven-taught path,
Heed well thy work; nor to the blessed gods
Forget to slay thine offerings in due form,
Whether to gods of earth, or gods of heaven,
Kings of the sky and liquid paths of air
And sea, and all who dwell beneath the earth;
For in their nature's fullness all is bound.
How to devote things living in due form
My verse shall tell, thou in thy tablets write.
For gods of earth and gods of heaven each three:
For heavenly gods pure white; for gods of earth
Cattle of kindred hue divide in three
And on the altar lay thy sacrifice.
For gods infernal bury deep, and cast
The blood into a trench!
For gentle Nymphs Honey and gifts of Dionysus pour.
For such as flit for ever o'er the earth
Fill all the blazing altar's trench with blood,
And cast the feathered fowl into the fire.
Then honey mix'd with meal, and frankincense,
And grains of barley sprinkle over all.
But when thou comest to the sandy shore,
Pour green sea-water on the victim's head,
And cast the body whole into the deep.
Then, all things rightly done, return at last
To the great company of heavenly gods.
For all the powers that in pure ether dwell,
And in the stars, let blood in fullest stream
Flow from the throat o'er all the sacrifice:
Make of the limbs a banquet for the gods,
And give them to the fire; feast on the rest,
Filling with savours sweet the liquid air.
Breathe forth, when all is done, thy solemn vows."'
Then a few words later he explains this response, interpreting it as follows:

'Now this is the method of the sacrifices, which are rendered according to the aforesaid classification of the gods. For whereas there are gods beneath the earth, and on the earth, and those beneath the earth are called also infernal gods, and those on the earth terrestrial, for all these in common he enjoins the sacrifice of black four-footed victims. But with regard to the manner of the sacrifice he makes a difference: for to terrestrial gods he commands the victims to be slain upon altars, but to the infernal gods over trenches, and moreover after the offering to bury the bodies therein.

'For that the four-footed beasts are common to these deities, the god himself added when questioned:

"For gods of earth and Erebus alone
Four-footed must their common victims be;
For gods of earth soft limbs of newborn lambs."
'But to the gods of the air he bids men sacrifice birds as whole burnt-offerings, and let the blood run round upon the altars: birds also to the gods of the sea, of a black colour, but to cast them alive into the waves. For he says:

"Birds for the gods, but for the sea-gods black."
'He names birds for all the gods save the Chthonian, but black for the sea-gods only, and therefore white for the others.

'But to the gods of the heaven and the ether he bids thee consecrate the limbs of the victims, which are to be white, and eat the other parts: for of these only must thou eat, and not of the others. But those whom in his classification he called gods of heaven, these he here calls gods of the stars.

'Will it then be necessary to explain the symbolic meanings of the sacrifices, manifest as they are to the intelligent? For there are four-footed land animals for the gods of the earth, because like rejoices in like. And the sheep is of the earth and therefore dear to Demeter, and in heaven the Ram, with the help of the sun, brings forth out of the earth its display of fruits. They must be black, for of such colour is the earth, being naturally dark: and three, for three is the symbol of the corporeal and earthly.

'To the gods of earth then one must offer high upon altars, for these pass to and fro upon the earth; but to the gods beneath the earth, in a trench and in a grave, where they abide. To the other gods we must offer birds, because all things are in swift motion. For the water of the sea also is in perpetual motion, and dark, and therefore victims of this kind are suitable. But white victims for the gods of the air: for the air itself is filled with light, being of a translucent nature. For the gods of heaven and of the ether, the parts of the animals which are lighter, and these are the extremities; and with these gods we must participate in the sacrifice: for these are givers of good things, but the others are averters of evil.'

Such are the wonderful theosophist's statements taken from The Philosophy to be derived from Oracles.

CHAPTER X

But now come, let us compare with this the same person's contrary utterances, set down by him in the book which he entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food. Here indeed, moved by right reasoning, he first of all confesses that we ought not to offer anything at all, either incense or sacrifice, to the God who is over all, nor yet to the divine and heavenly powers who come next to Him.

Then as he goes on, he refutes the opinions of the multitude, by saying that we ought not to regard as gods those who rejoice in the sacrifices of living creatures. For to offer animals in sacrifice, he says, is of all things most unjust, and unholy, and abominable, and hurtful, and therefore not pleasing to gods. But in speaking thus it is evident that he must convict his own god: for he said just before that the oracle enjoined the sacrifice of animals, not only to the infernal and terrestrial gods, but also to those of the air, the heaven, and the ether.

And whereas such are Apollo's injunctions, yet he, appealing to Theophrastus as witness, says that the sacrifice of animals is not fit for gods, but for daemons only: so that, according to the argument of himself and Theophrastus, Apollo is a daemon and not a god; and not Apollo only but also all those who have been regarded as gods among all the heathen, those to whom whole peoples, both rulers and ruled, in cities and in country districts, offer animal sacrifices. For these we ought to believe to be nothing else than daemons, according to the philosophers whom we have mentioned.

But if they say that they are good, how then, if indeed bloody sacrifice was unholy and abominable and hurtful, could those who were pleased with such things as these be good? And if they should also be shown to delight not only in such sacrifices as these, but, with an excess of cruelty and inhumanity, in the slaughter of men and in human sacrifices, how can they be other than utterly blood-guilty, and friends of all cruelty and inhumanity, and nothing else than wicked daemons?

Now when these things have been demonstrated by us, I suppose that good reason has been rendered for our withdrawal from the practices mentioned. For even to confer the honour of one who is invested with regal dignity among men upon robbers and housebreakers is not holy nor pious, much less to degrade the adorable name of God and His supreme honour to wicked spirits.

Hence we who have been taught to worship only the God who is over all, and to honour in due degree the divinely favoured and blessed powers which are around Him, bring with us no earthy or dead offering, nor gore and blood, nor anything of corruptible and material substance; but with a mind purified from all wickedness, and with a body clothed with the ornament of purity and temperance which is brighter than any raiment, and with right doctrines worthy of God, and beside all this with sincerity of disposition, we pray that we may guard even unto death the religion delivered unto us by our Saviour.

But now after these previous explanations it is time for us to proceed to the proofs of our assertions. And first of all it is reasonable to go through the arguments by which the aforesaid author, in his book entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food, says that neither to the God who is over all, nor to the divine powers next to Him, ought we to bring anything of earth either as burnt-offering or sacrifice; because such things are alien to seemly worship.

CHAPTER XI

[PORPHYRY] 7 'To the God who is over all, as a certain wise man said, we must neither offer by fire nor dedicate any of the things of sense; for there is no material thing which is not at once impure to the immaterial. Wherefore neither is speech by the outward voice proper to Him, nor even the inward speech, whenever it is defiled by passion of the soul. But we worship Him in pure silence, and with pure thoughts concerning Him. United therefore and made like to Him, we must offer our own self-discipline as a holy sacrifice to God, the same being both a hymn of praise to Him and salvation to us. Therefore this sacrifice is perfected in passionless serenity of soul and in contemplation of God.'

CHAPTER XII

'But to the gods who are his offspring, and known only by the mind, we must now add also that hymnody which is produced by speech: for the proper sacrifice for each deity is the first-fruit of the gifts which he has bestowed, and by which he sustains our being and keeps it in existence. As therefore a husbandman brings first-fruits of sheaves and of tree-fruits, so let us offer them first-fruits of noble thoughts concerning them, giving thanks for the things of which they have granted us the contemplation, and because they feed us with true food by the vision of themselves, dwelling with us, and showing themselves to us, and shining upon the path of our salvation.'

So speaks this author; and statements closely related and akin to his concerning the First and Great God are said to be written by the famous Apollonius of Tyana, so celebrated among the multitude, in his work Concerning Sacrifices, as follows:8

CHAPTER XIII

[APOLLONIUS OF TYANA] 'In this way, then, I think, one would best show the proper regard for the deity, and thereby beyond all other men secure His favour and good will, if to Him whom we called the First God, and who is One and separate from all others, and to whom the rest must be acknowledged inferior, he should sacrifice nothing at all, neither kindle fire, nor dedicate anything whatever that is an object of sense----for He needs nothing even from beings who are greater than we are: nor is there any plant at all which the earth sends up, nor any animal which it, or the air, sustains, to which there is not some defilement attached----but should ever employ towards Him only that better speech, I mean the speech which passes not through the lips, and should ask good things from the noblest of beings by what is noblest in ourselves, and this is the mind, which needs no instrument. According to this therefore we ought by no means to offer sacrifice to the great God who is over all.'

Now these things being so, see next what kind of account the former writer gives of animal sacrifice, calling up Theophrastus as witness of his statement.9

CHAPTER XIV

[PORPHYRY] 'But when the sacrifices of first-fruits were allowed by mankind to run into great disorder, they began to adopt the most dreadful offerings full of cruelty, so that the curses formerly denounced against us seemed now to have received accomplishment, by men cutting the victims' throats, and defiling the altars with blood, from the time that they experienced famines and wars, and had recourse to bloodshed. Therefore the deity, as Theophrastus says, indignant at these several crimes, seems to have inflicted the suitable punishment, inasmuch as some men have become atheists, while others would more justly be called evil-minded than impious, because they believed the gods to be in their nature vile and no better than ourselves. Thus some of them, it appears, came to differ no sacrifices, while others offered evil sacrifices and had recourse to unlawful victims.'

Again the same author adds this also:

'Which things being so, Theophrastus rightly forbids those who wish to be really pious to sacrifice things with life, making use of other arguments of this kind.' 10

He further says:

'Moreover we ought to offer such sacrifices as shall injure no one, for a sacrifice above all things ought to be harmless to all. But if any one should say that God has given us animals for our use no less than the fruits of the earth, yet at all events when he sacrifices animals he inflicts some harm upon them, inasmuch as they are robbed of their life. These then we must not sacrifice, for by its very name sacrifice is something holy; but no one is holy who renders thank-offerings out of things belonging to another, whether grain or plants, if taken against his will. For how can it be a holy thing, when wrong is done to those who are robbed? But if he who lays hands even upon another man's crops makes not a holy offering, most certainly it is not holy to take things more precious than these from any, and offer them: for thus the harm becomes greater. And far more precious than the fruits of the earth is life, which man ought not to take by sacrificing living things.' 11

And he adds:

'We must abstain therefore from offering living things in our sacrifices.' 12

And again he says:

'What therefore is neither holy nor of little cost must not be offered in sacrifice.' 13

And presently:

'So that if we are to sacrifice animals to the gods, even these we must offer for some of the following purposes: for whatever we sacrifice is sacrificed for some one of these purposes. Would then any one of us, or would any god think that he received honour, when by what we consecrate we are at once shown to be doing wrong? Or would he not rather think that such a deed was a dishonour? But surely we confess that by slaying in our sacrifice those animals which do no wrong we shall do wrong to them: so that we must not sacrifice any of the other living beings for the sake of honouring the gods: no, nor yet as rendering thanks to them for their benefits. For he that would render just recompense for a benefit, and a worthy return for a kind deed, ought to provide these gifts without doing evil to any. For he will be thought to make no better return, than a man would if he were to seize his neighbour's property to crown any persons by way of repaying them with gratitude and honour. Nay, nor yet (may we offer animals) because of any need of good things. For if a man seeks to gain good treatment by unjust conduct, it is suspected that, even if well treated, he will not be grateful.

'So that not even in hope of benefit must we sacrifice animals to the gods: for in so doing one might perhaps deceive man, but to deceive God is impossible. If therefore sacrifice should be offered for some one of these purposes, and if we must not offer animals for the sake of any of them, it is manifest that we must not offer such sacrifices to the gods at all.' 14

And again he adds:

'For both nature and the whole feeling of man's soul were pleased with offerings of the former kind: 15

"When with pure blood of bulls no altar dripped,
But this was held by men the foulest crime,
To rend the life, and feed upon the limbs."' 16

And after other matters he says:

'But when a young man has learned that gods delight in costliness, and, as is said, in feasts upon kine and other animals, when would he ever choose to be thrifty and temperate? And if he believes that these offerings are pleasing to the gods, how can he avoid thinking that he has license to do wrong, being sure to buy off his sin by his sacrifices? But if he be persuaded that the gods have no need of these sacrifices, but look to the moral disposition of those who approach them, receiving as the greatest offering the right judgement concerning themselves and their affairs, how can he fail to be prudent, and just, and holy? 17