A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion.1

Mara, son of Serapion, to Serapion, my son: peace.

When thy master and guardian wrote me a letter, and informed me that thou wast very diligent in study, though so young in years, I blessed God that thou, a little boy, and without a guide to direct thee, hadst begun in good earnest; and to myself also this was a comfort — that I heard of thee, little boy as thou art, as displaying such greatness of mind and conscientiousness:2 a character which, in the case of many who have begun well, has shown no eagerness to continue.

On this account, lo, I have written for thee this record, touching that which I have by careful observation discovered in the world. For the kind of life men lead has been carefully observed by me. I tread the path of learning,3 and from the study of Greek philosophy4 have I found out all these things, although they suffered shipwreck when the birth of life took place.5

Be diligent, then, my son, in attention to those things which are becoming for the free,6 so as to devote thyself to learning, and to follow after wisdom; and endeavour thus to become confirmed in those habits with which thou hast begun. Call to mind also my precepts, as a quiet person who is fond of the pursuit of learning. And, even though such a life should seem to thee very irksome, yet when thou hast made experience of it for a little while, it will become very pleasant to thee: for to me also it so happened. When, moreover, a person has left his home, and is able still to preserve his previous character, and properly does that which it behoves him to do, he is that chosen man who is called “the blessing of God,” and one who does not find aught else to compare with his freedom.7 For, as for those persons who are called to the pursuit of learning, they are seeking to extricate themselves from the turmoils of time; and those who take hold upon wisdom, they are clinging to the hope of righteousness; and those who take their stand on truth, they are displaying the banner of their virtue; and those who cultivate philosophy, they are looking to escape from the vexations of the world. And do thou too, my son, thus wisely behave thyself in regard to these things, as a wise person who seeks to spend a pure life; and beware lest the gain which many hunger after enervate thee, and thy mind turn to covet riches, which have no stability. For, when they are acquired by fraud, they do not continue; nor, even when justly obtained, do they last; and all those things which are seen by thee in the world, as belonging to that which is only for a little time, are destined to depart like a dream: for they are but as the risings and settings of the seasons.

About the objects of that vainglory, too, of which the life of men is full, be not thou solicitous: seeing that from those things which give us joy there quickly comes to us harm. Most especially is this the case with the birth of beloved children. For in two respects it plainly brings us harm: in the case of the virtuous, our very affection for them torments us, and from their very excellence of character we Suffer torture; and, in the case of the vicious, we are worried with their correction, and afflicted with their misconduct.

Thou hast heard,8 moreover, concerning our companions, that, when they were leaving Samosata, they were distressed about it, and, as if complaining of the time in which their lot was cast, said thus: “We are now far removed from our home, and we cannot return again to our city, or behold our people, or offer to our gods the greeting of praise.” Meet was it that that day should be called a day of lamentation, because one heavy grief possessed them all alike. For they wept as they remembered their fathers, and they thought of their mothers9 with sobs, and they were distressed for their brethren, and grieved for their betrothed whom they had left behind. And, although we had heard that their10 former companions were proceeding to Seleucia, we clandestinely set out, and proceeded on the way towards them, and united our own misery with theirs. Then was our grief exceedingly violent, and fitly did our weeping abound, by reason of our desperate plight, and our wailing gathered itself into a dense cloud,11 and our misery grew raster than a mountain: for not one of us had the power to ward off the disasters that assailed him. For affection for the living was intense, as well as sorrow for the dead, and our miseries were driving us on without any way of escape. For we saw our brethren and our children captives, and we remembered our deceased companions, who were laid to rest in a foreign12 land. Each one of us, too, was anxious for himself, lest he should have disaster added to disaster, or lest another calamity should overtake that which went before it. What enjoyment could men have that were prisoners, and who experienced things like these?

But as for thee, my beloved, be not distressed because in thy loneliness thou hast13 been driven from place to place. For to these things men are born, since they are destined to meet with the accidents of time. But rather let thy thought be this, that to wise men every place is alike, and that in every city the good have many fathers and mothers. Else, if thou doubt it, take thee a proof from what thou hast seen thyself. How many people who know thee not love thee as one of their own children; and what a host of women receive thee as they would their own beloved ones! Verily, as a stranger thou hast been fortunate; verily, for thy small love many people have conceived an ardent affection for thee.

What, again, are we to say concerning the delusion14 which has taken up its abode in the world? Both by reason of toil15 painful is the journey through it, and by its agitations are we, like a reed by the force of the wind, bent now in this direction, now in that. For I have been amazed at many who cast away their children, and I have been astonished at others who bring up those that are not theirs. There are persons who acquire riches in the world, and I have also been astonished at others who inherit that which is not of their own acquisition. Thus mayest thou understand and see that we are walking under the guidance of delusion.

Begin and tell us, O wisest of men,16 on which of his possessions a man can place reliance, or concerning what things he can say that they are such as abide. Wilt thou say so of abundance of riches? they are snatched away. Of fortresses? they are spoiled. Of cities? they are laid waste. Of greatness? it is brought down. Of magnificence? it is overthrown. Of beauty? it withers. Or of laws? they pass away. Or of poverty? it is despised. Or of children? they die. Or of friends? they prove false. Or of the praises of men? jealousy goes before them.

Let a man, therefore, rejoice in his empire, like Darius; or in his good fortune, like Polycrates; or in his bravery, like Achilles; or in his wife, like Agamemnon; or in his offspring, like Priam; or in his skill, like Archimedes; or in his wisdom, like Socrates; or in his learning, like Pythagoras; or in his ingenuity, like Palamedes; — the life of men, my son, departs from the world, but their praises and their virtues abide for ever.

Do thou, then, my little son, choose thee that which fadeth not away. For those who occupy themselves with these things are called modest, and are beloved, and lovers of a good name.

When, moreover, anything untoward befalls thee, do not lay the blame on man, nor be angry against God, nor fulminate against the time thou livest in.

If thou shalt continue in this mind, thy gift it not small which thou hast received from God, which has no need of riches, and is never reduced to poverty. For without fear shalt thou pass thy life,17 and with rejoicing. For fear and apologies for one’s nature belong not to the wise, but to such as walk contrary to law. For no man has even been deprived of his wisdom, as of his property.

Follow diligently learning rather than riches. For the greater are one’s possessions, the greater is the evil attendant upon them. For I have myself observed that, where a man’s goods are many, so also are the tribulations which happen to him; and, where luxuries are accumulated, there also do sorrows congregate; and, where riches are abundant, there is stored up the bitterness of many a year. 

If, therefore, thou shalt behave with understanding, and shalt diligently watch over thy conduct, God will not refrain from helping thee, nor men from loving thee.

Let that which thou art able to acquire suffice thee; and if, moreover, thou art able to do without property, thou shale be called blessed, and no man whatsover shall be jealous of thee.

And remember also this, that nothing will disturb thy life very greatly, except it be the love of gain; and that no man after his death is called an owner of property: because it is by the desire of this that weak men are led captive, and they know not that a man dwells among his possessions only in the manner of a chance-comer, and they are haunted with fear because these possessions are not secured to them: for they abandoned that which is their own, and seek that which is not theirs.

What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom18 by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence, without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied. For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole19 of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into Every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Moreover I, my son, have attentively observed mankind, in what a dismal state of ruin they are. And I have been amazed that they are not utterly prostrated20 by the calamities which surround them, and that even their wars21 are not enough for them, nor the pains they endure, nor the diseases, nor the death, nor the poverty; but that, like savage beasts, they must needs rush upon one another in their enmity, trying which of them shall inflict the greater mischief on his fellow. For they have broken away from the bounds of truth, and transgress all honest laws, because they are bent on fulfilling their selfish desires; for, whensoever a man is eagerly set on obtaining that which he desires, how is it possible that he should fitly do that which it behoves him to do? and they acknowledge no restraint,22 and but seldom stretch out their hands towards truth and goodness, but in their manner of life behave like the deaf23 and the blind. Moreover, the wicked rejoice, and the righteous are disquieted. He that has, denies that he has; and he that has not, struggles to acquire. The poor seek help, and the rich hide their wealth, and every man laughs at his fellow. Those that are drunken are stupefied, and those that have recovered themselves are ashamed.24 Some weep, and some sing; and some laugh, and others are a prey to care. They rejoice in things evil, and a man that speaks the truth they despise.

Should a man, then, be surprised when the world is seeking to wither him with its scorn, seeing that they and he have not one and the same manner of life? “These” are the things for which they care. One of them is looking forward to the time when in battle he shah obtain the renown of victory; yet the valiant perceive not by how many foolish objects of desire a man is led captive in the world. But would that for a little while self-repentance visited them! For, while victorious by their bravery, they are overcome by the power of covetousness. For I have made trial of men, and with this result: that the one thing on which they are intent, is abundance of riches. Therefore also it is that they have no settled purpose; but, through the instability of their minds, a man is of a sudden cast down from his elation of spirit to be swallowed up with sadness. They look not at the vast wealth of eternity, nor consider that every visitation of trouble is conducting us all alike to the same final period. For they are devoted to the majesty of the belly, that huge blot on the character of the vicious.

Moreover, as regards this letter which it has come into my mind to write to thee, it is not enough to read it, but the best thing is that it be put in practice.25 For I know for myself, that when thou shale have made experiment of this mode of life, it will be very pleasant to thee, and thou wilt be free from sore vexation; because it is only on account of children that we tolerate riches.26

Put, therefore, sadness away from thee, O most beloved of mankind, — a thing which never in anywise benefits a man; and drive care away from thee, which brings with it no advantage whatsoever. For we have no resource or skill that can avail us — nothing but a great mind able to cope with the disasters and to endure the tribulations which we are always receiving at the hands of the times. For at these things does it behove us to look, and not only at those which are fraught with rejoicing and good repute.

Devote thyself to wisdom, the fount of all things good, the treasure that faileth not. There shalt thou lay thy head, and be at ease. For this shall be to thee father and mother, and a good companion for thy life.

Enter into closest intimacy with fortitude and patience, those virtues which are able successfully to encounter the tribulations that befall feeble men. For so great is their strength, that they are adequate to sustain hunger, and can endure thirst, and mitigate every trouble. With toil, moreover, yea even with dissolution, they make right merry.

To these things give diligent attention, and thou shalt lead an untroubled life, and I also Shall have comfort,27 and thou shalt be called “the delight of his parents.”

For in that time of yore, when our city was standing in her greatness, thou mayest be aware that against many persons among us abominable words were uttered; but for ourselves,28 we acknowledged long ago that we received love, no less than honour, to the fullest extent from the multitude of her people: it was the state of the times only that forbade our completing those: things which we had resolved on doing.29 And here also in the prison-house we give thanks to God that we have received the love of many: for we are striving to our utmost to maintain a life of sobriety and cheerfulness;30 and, if any one drive us by force, he will but be bearing public testimony against himself, that he is estranged from all things good, and he will receive disgrace and shame from the foul mark of shame that is upon him. For we have shown our truth — that truth which in our now ruined kingdom we possessed not.31 But, if the Romans shall permit us to go back to our own country, as called upon by justice and righteousness to do, they will be acting like humane men, and will earn the name of good and righteous, and at the same time will have a peaceful country in which to dwell: for they will exhibit their greatness when they shall leave us free men, and we shall be obedient to the sovereign power which the time has allotted to us. But let them not like tyrants, drive us as though we were slaves. Yet, if it has been already determined what shall be done, we shall receive nothing more dreadful than the peaceful death which is in store for us.

But thou, my little son, if thou resolve diligently to acquaint thyself with these things, first of all put a check on appetite, and set limits to that in which thou art indulging. Seek the power to refrain from being angry; and, instead of yielding to outbursts of passion, listen to the promptings of kindness.

For myself, what I am henceforth solicitous about is this — that, so far as I have recollections of the past, I may leave behind me a book containing them, and with a prudent mind finish the journey which I am appointed to take, and depart without suffering out of the sad afflictions of the world. For my prayer is, that I may receive my dismissal; and by what kind of death concerns me not. But, if any one should be troubled or anxious about this, I have no counsel to give him: for yonder, in the dwelling-place of all the world, will he find us before him.

One of his friends asked Mara, son of Serapion, when in bonds at his side: “Nay, by thy life, Mara, tell me what cause of laughter thou hast seen, that thou laughest.” “I am laughing,” said Mara, “at Time:32 inasmuch as, although he has not borrowed any evil from me, he is paying me back.”

Here endeth the letter of Mara, son of Serapion. 

FOOTNOTES

1 [Elucidation I. See Introduction to Ancient Syriac Documents, announcement 2]

2 Lit. “good conscience.

3 Or, “my daily converse is with learning.” So Dr. Payne Smith is inclined to take these difficult words, supplying, as Cureton evidently does, the pronoun. The construction would be easier if we could take the participle as a passive, and render. “It (the kind of life men lead) has been explored by me by means of study.”

4 Lit. “Græcism.”

5 The meaning probably is, that the maxims referred to lost their importance for him when he entered upon the new life of a Christian (so Cureton), or their importance to mankind when Christianity itself was horn into the world. But why he did not substitute more distinctive Christian teaching is not clear. Perhaps the fear of persecution influenced him.

6 That is, the matters constituting “a liberal education”

7 Cureton’s less literal rendering probably gives the true sense: “wit the whose liberty nothing else can be compared.”

8 Cureton: “I have heard” The unpointed text is here ambiguous.

9 A substitution has been made for the original Syriac “peoples.”

10 Perhaps “our” is meant.

11 Cureton: “and the dark cloud collected one sighs.” But the words immediately following, as well as the fact that in each of the clauses the nominative is placed last, favours the rendering given.

12 Lit., “borrowed.”

13 Lit., “because thy loneliness has.”

14 Or “error.” He may refer either to the delusion of those who pursue supposed earthly good, or to the false appearances by which men are deceived in such pursuit.

15 A substitution has been made for the original Syriac of the printed text.

16 Cureton: “A sage among men once began to say to us.” This would require the substitution of a different Syriac word.

17 

18 Lit., “made captive.”

19 A substitution has been made for the original Syriac of the printed text.

20 No verb is found in the lexicons to which this word can be referred. It may perhaps be Eshtapel of a verb cognate with “to be bent.”

21 A substitution has been made for the original Syriac of the printed text.

22 Or “moderation.”

23 Cureton: “dumb,” The word has both senses.

24 Or “penitent.”

25 So Dr. Payne Smith, who is inclined to take the phrase in the sense, “it goes before, it is best, with respect to it.” Cureton translates, “it should also proceed to practice,” whereas Dr. Smith renders it thus: “but that it should be put in practice is best with respect to it.”

26 This appears to show that the life of learned seclusion which he has been recommending is one of celibacy — monasticism.

27 Or, “and thou shalt be to me a comfort,” as Cureton.

28 That is, “myself.”

29 Such appears to be the sense of this obscure passage. The literal rendering in, “We acknowledged of old that we received equal love and honour to the fullest extent from bee multitude” (or, from her greatness); “but the time forbade our completing those things which were already accomplished in our mind.” What things he refers to (for his words seem to have a particular reference) is not clear. The word rendered” greatness,” or “multitude,” is in reality two words in pointed mss. Here it does not appear, except from the sense which is intended.

30 Lit., “We are putting ourself to the proof to see how far we can stand in wisdom,” etc.

31 “This is a very hopeless passage…. Perhaps the codex has, ‘the kingdom of our ruin,’ i.e., the ruined country in which we used to dwell. For possibly it refer to what he has said before about the ruined greatness of his city, captured by the Romans. I suppose Mars was a Persian.” — Dr. Payne Smith

32 Or, “the time.”

Ambrose.1

A memorial2 a which Ambrose, a chief man of Greece, wrote: who became a Christian, and all his fellow-senators raised an outcry against him; and he fled from them, and wrote and pointed out to them all their foolishness.

Beginning his discourse,3 he answered and said: – 

Think not, men of Greece, that my separation from your customs has been made without a just and proper reason. For I acquainted myself with all your wisdom, consisting of poetry, of oratory, of philosophy; and when I found not there anything agreeable to what is right, or that is worthy of the divine nature, I resolved to make myself acquainted with the wisdom of the Christians also, and to learn and see who they are, and when they took their rise, and what is the nature of this new and strange wisdom of theirs,4 or on what good hopes those who are imbued with it rely, that they speak only that which is true.

Men of Greece, when I came to examine the Christian writings, I found not any folly sin them, as I had found not any folly5 in them, as I had found in the celebrated Homer, who has said concerning the wars of the two trials:6 “Because of Helen, many of the Greeks perished at Troy, away from their beloved home.”7 For, first of all, we are told8 concerning Agamemnon their king, that by reason of the foolishness of his brother Menelaus, and the violence of his madness, and the uncontrollable nature of his passion, he resolved to go and rescue Helen from the hands of a certain leprous9 shepherd; and afterwards, when the Greeks had become victorious in the war, and burnt cities, and taken women and children captive, and the land was filled with blood, and the rivers with corpses, Agamemnon himself also was found to be taken captive by his passion for Briseis. Patroclus, again, we are told, was slain, and Achilles, the son of the goddess Thetis, mourned over him; Hector was dragged along the ground, and Priam and Hecuba together were weeping over the loss of their children; Astyanax, the son of Hector, was thrown down from the walls of Ilion, and his mother Andromache the mighty Ajax bore away into captivity; and that which was taken as booty was after a little while, all squandered in sensual indulgence.

Of the wiles of Odysseus the son of Laertes, and of his murders, who shall tell the tale? For of a hundred and ten suitors did his house in one day become the grave, and it was filled with corpses and blood. He, too, it was that by his wickedness gained the praises of men, because through his pre-eminence in craft he escaped detection; he, too, it was who, you say, sailed upon the sea, and heard not the voice of the Sirens only because he stopped his ears with wax.10

The famous Achilles, again, the son of Peleus, who bounded across the river, and routed11 the Trojans, and slew Hector, – this said hero of yours became the slave of Philoxena, and was overcome by an Amazon as she lay dead and stretched upon her bier; and he put off his armour, and arrayed himself in nuptial garments, and finally fell a sacrifice to love. 

Thus much concerning your great “men;”12 and thou, Homer, hadst deserved forgiveness, if thy silly story-telling had gone so far only as to prate about men, and not about the gods. As for what he says about the gods, I am ashamed even to speak of it: for the stories that have been invented about them are very wicked and shocking; passing strange,13 too, and not to be believed; and, if the truth must be told,14 fit only to be laughed at. For a person will be compelled to laugh when he meets with them, and will not believe them when he hears them. For think of gods who did not one of them observe the laws of rectitude, or of purity, or of modesty, but were adulterers, and spent their time in debauchery, and yet were not condemned to death, as they ought to have been!

Why, the sovereign of the gods, the very “father of gods and men,” not only, as ye say, was an adulterer (this was but a light thing), but even slew his own father, and was a pæderast. I will first of all speak of his adultery, though I blush to do so: for he appeared to Antiope as a satyr, and descended upon Danaë as a shower of gold, and became a bull for Europa, and a swan for Leda; whilst the love of Semele, the mother of Dionysus, exposed both his own ardency of passion and the jealousy of the chaste Hera. Ganymede the Phrygian, too, he carried off disguised as an eagle, that the fair and comely boy, forsooth, might serve as cup-bearer to him. This said sovereign of the gods, moreover killed his father Kronos, that he might seize upon his kingdom.

Oh! to how many charges is the sovereign of the gods amenable,15 and how many deaths does he deserve to die, as an adulterer, and as a sorcerer,16 and as a pæderast! Read to the sovereign of the gods, O men of Greece, the law concerning parricide, and the condemnation pronounced on adultery, and about the shame that attaches to the vile sin of pæderasty. How many adulterers has the sovereign of the gods indoctrinated in sin! Nay, how many pæderasts, and sorcerers, and murderers! So that, if a man be found indulging his passions, he must not be put to death: because he has done this that he may become like the sovereign of the gods; and, if he be found a murderer, he has an excuse in the sovereign of the gods; and, if a man be a sorcerer, he has learned it from the sovereign of the gods; and, if he be a pæderast, the sovereign of the gods is his apologist. Then, again, if one should speak of courage, Achilles was more valiant that this said sovereign of the gods: for he slew the man that slew his friend; but the sovereign of the gods wept over Sarpedon his son when he was dying, being distressed for him.

Pluto, again, who is a god, carried off Kora,17 and the mother of Kora was hurrying hither and thither searching for her daughter in all desert places; and, although Alexander Paris, when he had carried off Helen, paid the penalty of vengeance, as having made himself her lover by force, yet Pluto, who is a god, when he carried off Kora, remained without rebuke; and, although Menelaus, who is a man, knew how to search for Helen his wife, yet Demeter, who is a goddess, knew not where to search for Kora her daughter.

Let Hephæstus put away jealousy from him, and not indulge resentment.18 For he was hated,19 because he was old and lame; while Ares was loved, because he was a youth and beautiful in form. There was, however, a reproof administered in respect of the adultery. Hephæstus was not, indeed, at first aware of the love existing between Venus20 his wife and Ares; but, when he did become acquainted with it, Hephæstus said: “Come, see a ridiculous and senseless piece of behaviour – how to me, who am her own, Venus, the daughter of the sovereign of the gods, is offering insult – to me, I say, who am her own, and is paying honour to Ares, who is a stranger to her.” But to the sovereign of the gods it was not displeasing: for he loved such as were like these. Penelope, moreover, remained a widow twenty years, because she was expecting the return of her husband Odysseus, and busied herself with cunning tasks,21 and persevered in works of skill, while all those suitors kept pressing her to marry them; but Venus, who is a goddess, when Hephæstus her husband was close to her, deserted him, because she was overcome by love for Ares. Hearken, men of Greece: which of you would have dared to do this, or would even have endured to see it? And, if any one “should” dare to act so, what torture would be in store for him, or what scourgings!

Kronos, again, who is a god, who devoured all those children of his, was not even brought before a court of justice. They further tell us that the sovereign of the gods, his son, was the only one that escaped from him; and that the madness of Kronos his father was cheated of its purpose because Rhea his wife, the mother of the sovereign of the gods, offered him a stone in the place of the said sovereign of the gods, his son, to prevent him from devouring him. Hearken, men of Greece, and reflect upon this madness! Why, even the dumb animal that grazes in the field knows its proper food, and does not touch strange food; the wild beast, too, and the reptile, and the bird, know their food. As for men, I need not say anything about them: ye yourselves are acquainted with their food, and understand it well. But Kronos, who is a god, not knowing his proper food, ate up a stone!

Therefore, O men of Greece, if ye will have such gods as these, do not find fault with one another when ye do such-like things. Be not angry with thy son when he forms the design to kill thee: because he thus resembles the sovereign of the gods. And, if a man commit adultery with thy wife, why dost thou think of him as an enemy, and yet to the sovereign of the gods, who is like him, doest worship and service? Why, too, dost thou find fault with thy wife when she has committed adultery and leads a dissolute life,22 and yet payest honour to Venus, and placest her images in shrines? Persuade your Solon to repeal his laws; Lycurgus, also, to make no laws; let the Areopagus repeal23 theirs, and judge no more; and let the Athenians have councils no longer. Let the Athenians discharge Socrates from his office: for no one like Kronos has ever come before him. Let them not put to death Orestes, who killed his mother: for, lo! the sovereign of the gods did worse things than these to his father. dipus also too hastily inflicted mischief on himself, in depriving his eyes of sight, because he had killed his mother unwittingly: for he did not think about24 the sovereign of the gods, who killed his father and yet remained without punishment. Medea, again, who killed her children, the Corinthians banish from their country; and yet they do service and honour to Kronos, who devoured his children. Then, too, as regards Alexander Paris – he was right in carrying off Helen: for he did it that he might become like Pluto, who carded off Kora. Let your men be set free from law, and let your cities be the abode of wanton women, and a dwelling-place for sorcerers.

Wherefore, O men of Greece, seeing that your gods are grovelling like yourselves, and your heroes destitute of courage,25 as your dramas tell and your stories declare – then, again, what shall be said of the tribulations of Orestes; and the couch of Thyestes; and the foul taint in the family of Pelops; and concerning Danaus, who through jealousy killed his sons-in-law, and deprived them of offspring; the banquet of Thyestes, too, feeding upon the corpse set before him by way of vengeance for her whom he had wronged; about Procne also, to this hour screaming as she flies; her sister too, warbling, with her tongue cut out?26 What, moreover, is it fitting to say about the murder committed by dipus, who took his own mother to wife, and whose brothers killed one another, they being at the same time his sons?

Your festivals, too, I hate; for there is no moderation where they are; the sweet flutes also, dispellers of care, which play as an incitement to dancing;27 and the preparation of ointments, wherewith ye anoint yourselves; and the chaplets which ye put on. In the abundance of your wickedness, too, ye have forgotten shame, and your understandings have become blinded, and ye have been infuriated28 by the heat of passion, and have loved the adulterous bed.29

Had these things been said by another, perhaps our adversaries would have brought an accusation against him, on the plea that they were untrue. But your own poets say them, and your own hymns and dramas declare them.

Come, therefore, and be instructed in the word of God, and in the wisdom which is fraught with comfort. Rejoice, and become partakers of it. Acquaint yourselves with the King Immortal, and acknowledge His servants. For not in arms do they make their boast, nor do they commit murders: because our Commander has no delight in abundance of strength, nor yet in horsemen and their gallant array, nor yet in illustrious descent; but He delights in the pure soul, fenced round by a rampart of righteousness. The word of God, moreover, and the promises of our good King, and the works of God, are ever teaching us. Oh the blessedness of the soul that is redeemed by the power of the word! Oh the blessedness of the trumpet of peace without war! Oh the blessedness of the teaching which quenches the fire of appetite! which, though it makes not poets, nor fits men to be philosophers, nor has among its votaries the orators of the crowd; yet instructs men, and makes the dead not to die, and lifts men from the earth as gods up to the region which is above the firmament. Come, be instructed, and be like me: for I too was once as ye are. 

FOOTNOTES

1 This piece has much in common with the Discourse to the Greeks (Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας), ascribed by many to Justin, which is contained in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. pp.271-272 of this series. Two things seem to he evident (1) That neither of the two pieces is the original composition: for each contains something not found in the other: (2) That the original was in Greek: for the Syriac has in some instances evidently mistranslated the Greek.

2 The Greek ὑπομνήματα.

3 Lit., “and in the beginning of his words.”

4 Lit. “what is the newness and strangeness of it.”

5 The word also means “sin;” and this notion is the more prominent of the two in what follows.

6 It is difficult to assign any satisfactory meaning to the word, which appears, however, to be the reading of the ms., since Cureton endeavours to justify the rendering given. “Calamities,” a sense the word will also bear seems no easier of explanation. If we could assume the meaning to be “nations” (nationes). a word similar in sound to that found in the text, explaining it of heathen peoples. Gentiles (comp. Tertullian, de Idol., 22, “per deos nationum”), this might seem to meet the difficulty. But there is no trace in this composition of a Latin influence: if a foreign word must he used, we should rather have expected the Greek ἔθνη.

7 Il., ii. 177 sq.

8 Lit., “they say.”

9 It has been proposed to substitute in the Greek copy λιπαροῦ, “dainty,” for λεπροῦ. But the Syriac confirms the ms. reading. The term is thought to he expressive of the contempt in which shepherds were held. See vol. 1. p.271, note 1.

10 In the Greek this is adduced as an evidence of his weakness: because he was unable to stop his ears by his self-control (φρονήσει).

11 The reading of the text, which can only mean “fled,” is manifestly incorrect. The Aphel of this verb, “caused to flee,” is suggested by Dr. Payne Smith, who also proposes, “exstirpavit.”

12 Or, “your heroes.”

13 This is not intended as a translation of the Syriac, which is literally “conquered.” Dr. Payne Smith thinks it just possible that there was in the Greek some derivative of ὑπερβάλλω = “to surpass belief,” which the Syrian translator misunderstood.

14 This is conjectured to be the meaning of what would he literally rendered, “et id quod coactum est.”

15 Lit., “of how many censures is… full.”

16 Since he could change his form to suit his purpose.

17 That is, “the Daughter” (namely, of Demeter), the name under which Proserpine was worshipped in Attica.

18 Because the behaviour of which he had to complain was sanctioned by the highest of the gods.

19 For “was tried,” the Greek has μεμίσητο. Cureton: “forgotten.”

20 The word is “Balthi.”

21 Dr. Payne Smith makes a substitution which, as Cureton says, is not in the lexicons.

22 The reading of the Greek copy, ἀκολάστως ζῶσαν, is here given. The Syrian adapter, misunderstanding ἀκολάστως, renders: “and is without punishment”

23 Cureton, “break.”

24 Lit. “look at.”

25 So in the Greek copy. The Syriac which has “valiant,” appears to have mistaken ἄνανδροι for ἀνδρεῖοι.

26 The tradition seems to be followed which makes Procne to have been changed into a swallow, and her Sister (Philomela) into a nightingale.

27 Cureton: “play with a tremulous motion.” But the Syriac very well answers to the Greek ἐκκαλούμενοι πρὸς οῖστρώδεις κινήσεις, if we take the word to denote result: q.d., “so as to produce movement.”

28 Greek, ἐκβακχευόμενοι.

29 Lit. “bed of falsity.” [Compare notes on vol. 1. pp.271-272.]

Elucidations

I.

(Mara, son of Serapion)

I cannot withhold from the student the valuable hints concerning “the dialect of Edessa” by which Professor Nöldke1 corrects the loose ideas of Mommsen, more especially because the fresh work of Mommsen will soon be in our hands, and general credit will be attached to specious representations which are sure to have a bearing on his ulterior treatment of Christianity and the Roman Empire.

Of the Syriac language Professor Nöldke says: – 

“It was the living language of Syria which here appears as the language of writing. In Syria it had long ago been compelled to yield to the Greek as the official language, but private writings were certainly yet to a great extent written in Aramaic. We cannot lay much stress upon the fact that the respectable citizen in the Orient would have the schoolmaster of the village compose a Greek inscription for his tomb, of which he undoubtedly understood but little himself. And what a Greek this often was! That no books written by Aramaic Gentiles have been preserved for us, does not decide against the existence of the Aramaic as the language of literature in that day; for how could such Gentile works have been preserved for us? To this must be added, that that particular dialect which afterward became the common literary language of Aramaic Christendom – namely, that of Edessa – certainly had in the Gentile period already been used for literary purposes. The official report of the great flood in the year 201, which is prefixed to the Edessa Chronicles, is written by a Gentile. To the same time must be ascribed the letter, written in good Edessan language by the finely educated Marâ bar Serapion, from the neighbouring Samosata, who, notwithstanding his good-will toward youthful Christianity, was no Christian, but represented rather the ethical stand-point of the Stoicism so popular at that time. The fixed settling of Syriac orthography must have taken place at a much earlier period than the hymns of Bardesanes and his school, which are for us very old specimens of that language, since these hymns represent a versification much younger than the stage of development which is presupposed in this orthography. In general, it must be granted that the dialect of Edessa had been thoroughly developed already in pre-Christian times; otherwise, it could not have been so fixed and firm in writing and forms of expression. And the Syriac Dialogue on Fate, which presupposes throughout the third century, treats of scientific questions, according to Greek models, with such precision that we again see that this was not the beginning, but rather the close, of a scientific Syriac literature, which flourished already when there were but few or possibly no Christians there. Of course I recognise, with Mommsen, that Edessa offered a better protection to the national language and literature than did the cities of Syria proper; but circumstances were not altogether of a different nature in this regard in Haleb, Hems, and Damascus than they were in Edessa and Jerusalem. If, as is known, the common mass spoke Aramaic in the metropolitan city of Antiochia, it cannot safely be accepted that in the inland districts the Greek was not the language of the ‘educated,’ but only of those who had specially learned it. The Macedonian and Greek colonists have certainly only in a very small part retained this language in those districts down to the Roman period. In most cases they have been in a minority from the beginning over against the natives. Further, as the descendants of old soldiers, they can scarcely be regarded as the called watchmen of Greek custom and language.”

II.

(No verb is found in the lexicons, etc., See A Letter to Mara, footnote 20.)

The study of Syriac is just beginning to be regarded as only less important to the theologian than that of the Hebrew. The twain will be found a help, each to the other, if one pursues the study of the cognate languages together. In fact, the Book of Daniel demands such a preparation for its enjoyment and adequate comprehension.2 Let the commend to every reader the admirable example of Beveridge, who at eighteen years of age produced a grammar of the Syriac language, and also a Latin essay on the importance of cultivating this study, as that of the vernacular of our Lord Himself. This little treatise is worthy of careful reading; and right worthy of note is the motto which he prefixed to it, – “Estote imitatores mei, sicut et ego sum Christi” (1Co_11:1).

When one thinks of the difficulties even yet to be overcome in mastering the language, – the want of a complete lexicon, etc.,3 – it is surprising to think of Beveridge’s pioneer labours in extreme youth. Gutbir’s Lexicon Syriacum had not yet appeared, nor his edition of the Peshito, which preceded it, though Brian Walton’s great name and labours were his noble stimulants. Nobody can read the touching account which Gutbir4 gives of his own enthusiastic and self-sacrificing work, without feeling ashamed of the slow progress of Oriental studies in the course of two centuries since the illustrious Pocock gave his grand example to English scholarship. All honour to our countryman Dr. Murdock, who late in life entered upon this charming pursuit, and called on others to follow him.5 May I not venture to hope that even these specimens of what may be reaped from the field of Aramaic literature may inspire my young countrymen to take the lead in elucidating the Holy Scriptures from this almost unopened storehouse of “treasures new and old”? 

FOOTNOTES

1 For previous quotations refer to Introduction to Ancient Syriac Documents.

2 It must not be inferred that I speak as a Syriac scholar. I have laboured unsuccessfully, and late in life, to repair my sad neglect at an earlier period; and I speak only as a penitent.

3 Dean Payne Smith has assumed the unfinished task of Bernstein.

4 See his Preface to the Testament, published at Hamburg a.d. 1664. He had the type cut at his personal expense, and set up the press and lodged the printers in his own house.

5 See his translation of the Peshito Syriac version, Stanford & Swords (Bishop Hobart’s publishers), New York, 1855.

Under the title of Fragments of The Second and Third Centuries are grouped together, in the Edinburgh series, a mass of valuable illustrative material, which might have been distributed with great advantage through the former volumes, in strict order of chronology. Something is due, however, to the unity of authorship, and to the marked design of the editors of the original edition to let these Fragments stand together, as the work of their accomplished collaborator, the Rev. B. P. Pratten, with whose skill and erudition our readers are already familiar.1

I have contented myself, therefore, with giving approximate order and continuity, on chronological grounds, to the series of names subjoined. Bardesanes has been eliminated here, and placed more appropriately with the Syriac authors. The reader will find references which may aid him in seeking further information. Some of these names are of lasting value and interest in the Church. I prefer to call these “Fragments” their “Remains.”

To each of the following names I have prefixed some details of information, with such dates as the learned supply.

The following is the Translator’s Introductory Notice.

The fragments that follow are the productions of writers who lived during the second century or the beginning of the third. Little is known of the writers, and the statements made in regard to them are often very indefinite, and the result of mere conjecture.

1. Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries.

2. Aristo of Pella, a Jew, was the author of a work called The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus. Nothing further is known of him. He flourished in the first half of the second century.

3. Melito was bishop of Sardis, and flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. He wrote many works, but all of them have perished except a few fragments. The genuineness of the Syriac fragments is open to question.

4. Hegesippus also flourished in the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. He is the first ecclesiastical historian; but his book was rather notes for an ecclesiastical history, than a history.

5. Dionysius was bishop of Corinth in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. He wrote letters to various churches.

6. Rhodon went from Asia to Rome, and became a pupil of Tatian. After the lapse of his master into heresy he remained true to the faith, and wrote against heretics.

7. Maximus flourished about the same time as Rhodon, under the emperors Commodus and Severus.

8. Claudius Apollinaris was bishop of Hierapolis, and presented a defence of the Christians to Marcus Aurelius. He wrote many important works, of which we have only a few fragments.

9. Polycrates was bishop of Ephesus. He took part in the controversy on the Passover question. He died about 200 a.d.

10. Theophilus was bishop of Cæsarea. He was a contemporary of Polycrates, and, like him, engaged in the Passover controversy.

11. Serapion was ordained bishop of Antioch a.d. 190, but almost no other fact of his life is known. He wrote several works.

12. Apollonius wrote a work against the Montanists, probably in the year a.d. 270. This is all that is known of him.

13. Pantænus, probably a Sicilian by birth, passed from Stoicism to Christianity, and went to Judæa to proclaim the truth. He returned to Alexandria, and became president of the catechetical school there, in which post he remained till his death, which took place about the year 212 a.d.

14. The Letter of the Churches in Vienne and Lyons was written shortly after the persecution in Gaul, which took place in a.d. 177. It is not known who is the author. Some have supposed that Irenæus wrote it, but there is no historical testimony to this effect.

FOOTNOTES

1 See vol. 2. (p. 125), etc.

[a.d. 126.] Quadratus2 is spoken of by Eusebius as a “man of understanding and of Apostolic faith.” And he celebrates Aristides as a man of similar character. These were the earliest apologists; both addressed their writings to Hadrian, and they were extant and valued in the churches in the time of Eusebius.

From the Apology for the Christian Religion.3

Our Saviour’s works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure; and, indeed, some of them have survived even down to our own times.4

FOOTNOTES

1 But see Lightfoot, A. F., part ii. vol. i. p. 524.

2 On Quadratus and Aristides, consult Routh, R. S., p. 71; also Westcott, On the Canon, p. 92.

3 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 3.

4 [Westcott supposes the Diognetus of Mathetes (vol. 1. p. 23.) may be the work of Quadratus; Canon, p. 96.]

[a.d. 140.] Aristo of Pella1 is supposed to have been a Jew, whose work was designed to help the failing Judaism of his country. Though his work is lost, alike the original and the Latin translation of one “Celsus,” it seems to have been a popular tract among Christians of Cyprian’s time, and the Latin preface is often suffixed to editions of that Father.

The work of Aristo is known as the Disputation of Papiscus and Jason, and Celsus tells us that Jason was a Hebrew Christian, while his opponent was a Jew of Alexandria. Now, Papiscus owns himself convinced by the arguments of Jason, and concludes by a request to be baptized. Celsus, who seems to have been a heathen or an Epicurean, derides the work with scornful commiseration; but Origen rebukes this, and affirms his respect for the work. All this considered, one must think Aristo was “almost persuaded to be a Christian,” and deserves a place among Christian writers.

From the Disputation of Jason and Papiscus.

“I remember,” says Jerome (Comm. ad Gal., cap. iii. comm. 13), “in the Dispute between Jason and Papiscus, which is composed in Greek, to have found it written: ‘The execration of God is he that is hanged.’”

From the Same Work.

Jerome likewise, in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis, says: “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. The majority believe, as it is affirmed also in the Dispute between Jason and Papiscus, and as Tertullian in his book Against Praxeas contends, and as Hilarius too, in his exposition of one of the Psalms, declares, that in the Hebrew it is: ‘In the Son, God made the heaven and the earth.’ But that this is false, the nature of the case itself proves.”

Perhaps from the Same Work.

…And when the man himself2 who had instigated them3 to this folly had paid the just penalty (says Eusebius, Hist, iv. 6), “the whole nation from that time was strictly forbidden to set foot on the region about Jerusalem, by the formal decree and enactment of Adrian, who commanded that they should not even from a distance look on their native soil!” So writes Aristo of Pella.

From the Same Work.

I have found this expression Seven heavens (says Maximus, in Scholia on the work concerning the Mystical Theology, ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, cap. i.) also in the Dispute between Papiscus and Jason, written by Aristo of Pella, which Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of the Outlines,4 says was composed by Saint Luke.

Concerning the Same Work.

Thus writes Origen:5… in which book a Christian is represented disputing with a Jew from the Jewish Scriptures, and showing that the prophecies concerning the Christ apply to Jesus: although his opponent addresses himself to the argument with no common ability,6 and in a manner not unbefitting his Jewish character.

FOOTNOTES

1 Routh, R. S., vol. i. p. 93. Westcott, Canon, p. 106. Grabe’s mention. Routh’s discussion, in annotations, is most learned and exhaustive.

2 Barchochebas.

3 The Jews.

4 Ὑποτυπώσῶς.

5 Contra Celsum, iv. 52.

6 Οὐκ ἀγεννῶς.

[a.d. 160-170-177.] Melito1 may have been the immediate successor of the “angel” (or “apostle”) of the church of Sardis, to whom our Great High Priest addressed one of the apocalyptic messages. He was an “Apostolic Father” in point of fact; he very probably knew the blessed Polycarp and his disciple Irenæus. He is justly revered for the diligence with which he sought out the evidence which, in his day, established the Canon of the Old Testament, then just complete.

In the following fragments we find him called Bishop of Sardis, Bishop of Attica, and Bishop of Attica. He is also introduced to us as “the Philosopher,” and we shall find him styled “the Eunuch” by Polycrates. It is supposed that he had made himself a cœlebs “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” without mistaking our Lord’s intent, as did Origen. He was not a monk, but accepted a single estate to be the more free and single-eyed in the Master’s service. From the encyclopedic erudition of Lightfoot we glean some particulars, as follows: – 

1. I have adopted his date, as Lightfoot gives it, – that is, the period of his writings, – under the Antonines. The improbability of seventy years in the episcopate is reason enough for rejecting the idea that he was himself the “angel of the church of Sardis,” to whom our Lord sent the terrible rebuke.

2. His silence concerning persecutions under Vespasian, Trajan, and Antoninus Pius cannot be pleaded to exempt them from this stain, against positive evidence to the contrary.

3. A coincidence with Ignatius to the Ephesians2 will be noted hereafter.

4. Melito, with Claudius Apollinaris and even Polycrates, may have been personally acquainted with Ignatius;3 of course, one with another. These lived not far from Smyrna; Asia Minor was, in the first century, the focus of Christian activity.

5. We know of his visit to the East from his own account, preserved by Eusebius. The Christians of proconsular Asia were accustomed to such journeys. Even Clement of Alexandria may have met him, as he seems to have met Tatian and Theodotus.4

6. Melito vouches for the rescript of Hadrian,5 but his supposed reference to the edict of Antoninus does not bear close scrutiny as warrant for its authenticity.6 

7. The Apology of our author was addressed to Aurelius in his mid-career as a sovereign, about a.d. 170. Justin, Melito, Athenagoras, and Theophilus all tell the same sad story of imperial cruelty. Even when Justin wrote to Antoninus, Marcus was supreme in the councils of the elder emperor.7

8. He became a martyr, probably under Marcus Aurelius, circa a.d. 177;8 some eminent critics have even dated his Apology as late as this.

I. A Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus Cæsar, and He Exhorted9 the Said Cæsar to Acquaint Himself with God, and Showed to Him the Way of Truth.

He began to speak as follows: – 

“It is not easy,” said Melito, “speedily to bring into the right way the man who has a long time previously been held fast by error. It may, however, be effected: for, when a man turns away ever so little from error, the mention of the truth is acceptable to him. For, just as when the cloud breaks ever so little there comes fair weather, even so, when a man turns toward God, the thick cloud of error which deprived him of true vision is quickly withdrawn from before him. For error, like disease10 and sleep, long holds fast those who come under its influence;11 but truth uses the word as a goad, and smites the slumberers, and awakens them; and when they are awake they look at the truth, and also understand it: they hear, and distinguish that which is from that which is not. For there are men who call iniquity righteousness: they think, for example, that it is righteousness for a man to err with the many. But I, for my part, affirm that it is not a good excuse for error that a man errs with the many. For, if one man only sin,12 his sin is great: how much greater will be the sin when many sin together!

“Now, the sin of which I speak is this: when a man abandons that which really exists, and serves that which does not really exist. There ‘is’ that which really exists, and it is called God. He, I say, really exists, and by His power doth everything subsist. This being is in no sense made, nor did He ever come into being; but He has existed from eternity, and will continue to exist for ever and ever. He changeth not, while everything else changes. No eye13 can see Him, nor thought apprehend Him, nor language describe Him; and those who love Him speak of Him thus: ‘Father, and God of Truth.’

“If, therefore, a man forsake the light, and say that there is another God, it is plain from what he himself says that it is some created thing which he calls God. For, if a man call fire God, it is not God, because it is fire; and, if a man call water God, it is not God, because it is water; and, if he so call this earth on which we tread, or these heavens which are seen by us, or the sun, or the moon, or some one of these stars which run their course without ceasing by Divine command, and do not speed along by their own will, neither are these gods; and, if a man call gold and silver gods, are not these objects things which we use as we please? and, if he so call those pieces of wood which we burn, or those stones which we break, how can these things be gods? For, lo! they are for the use of man. How can ‘they’ escape the commission of great sin, who in their speech change the great God into those things which, so long as they continue, continue by Divine command?

“But, notwithstanding this, I say that so long as a man does not hear, and so does not discern or understand that there is a Lord over these creatures, he is not perhaps to be blamed: because no one finds fault with a blind man though he walk ever so badly. For, in the same manner as the blind, so men also, when they were seeking after God, stumbled upon stones and blocks of wood; and such of them as were rich stumbled upon gold and silver, and were prevented by their stumblings from finding that which they were seeking after. But, now that a voice has been heard through all the earth, (Comp. Rom_10:18) declaring that there is a God of truth, and there has been given to every man an eye wherewith to see, those persons are without excuse who are ashamed of incurring the censure of their former companions in error, and yet desire to walk in the right way. For those who are ashamed to be saved must of necessity perish. I therefore counsel them to open their eyes and see: for, lo! light is given abundantly14 to us all to see thereby; and if, when light has arisen upon us, any one close his eyes so as not to see, into the ditch he must go.15 But why is a man ashamed of the censure of those who have been in error along with himself? Rather does it behove him to persuade them to follow in his steps; and, if they should not be persuaded by him, then to disengage himself from their society. For there are some men who are unable to rise from their mother earth, and therefore also do they make them gods from the earth their mother; and they are condemned by the judgments of truth, forasmuch as they apply the name of Him who is unchangeable to those objects which are subject to change, and shrink not from calling those things gods which have been made by the hands of man, and dare to make an image of God whom they have not seen.

“But I have to remark further, that the Sibyl16 also has said concerning them that it is the images of deceased kings that they worship. And this is easy to understand: for, lo! even now they worship and honour the images of those of Cæsarean rank17 more than their former gods; for from those their former gods both pecuniary tribute and produce accrue to Cæsar, as to one who is greater than they. On this account, those who despise them, and so cause Cæsar’s revenue to fall short, are put to death. But to the treasury of other kings also it is appointed how much the worshippers in various places shall pay, and how many vesselfuls18 of water from the sea they shall supply. Such is the wickedness of the world – of those who worship and fear that which has no sensation. Many of them, too, who are crafty, either for the sake of gain, or for vainglory, or for dominion over the multitude, both themselves worship, and incite those who are destitute of understanding to worship, that which has no sensation.

“I will further write and show, as far as my ability goes, how and for what causes images were made to kings and tyrants, and how they came to be regarded19 as gods. The people of Argos made images to Hercules, because he belonged to their city, and was strong, and by his valour slew noxious beasts, and more especially because they were afraid of him. For he was subject to no control, and carried off the wives of many: for his lust was great, like that of Zuradi the Persian, his friend. Again, the people of Acre worshipped Dionysus,20 a king, because he had recently21 planted the vine in their country. The Egyptians worshipped Joseph the Hebrew, who was called Serapis, because he supplied them with corn during the years of famine. The Athenians worshipped Athene, the daughter of Zeus, king of the island of Crete, because she built the town of Athens, and made Ericthippus her son king there, whom she had by adultery with Hephæstus, a blacksmith, son of a wife of her father. She was, too, always courting the society of Hercules, because he was her brother on her father’s side. For Zeus the king became enamoured of Alcmene, the wife of Electryon, who was from Argos, and committed adultery with her, and she gave birth to Hercules. The people of Phoenicia worshipped Balthi,22 queen of Cyprus, because she fell in love with Tamuz, son of Cuthar king of the Phoenicians, and left her own kingdom and came and dwelt in Gebal, a fortress of the Phoenicians, and at the same time made all the Cyprians subject to King Cuthar. Also, before Tamuz she had fallen in love with Ares, and committed adultery with him; and Hephæstus, her husband, caught her, and his jealousy was roused against her, and he came and killed Tamuz in Mount Lebanon, as he was hunting23 wild boars; and from that time Balthi remained in Gebal, and she died in the city of Aphiki,24 where Tamuz was buried. The Elamites worshipped Nuh, daughter of the king of Elam: when the enemy had carried her captive, her father made for her an image and a temple in Shushan, a royal residence which is in Elam. The Syrians worshipped Athi, a Hadibite, who sent the daughter of Belat, a person skilled in medicine, and she healed Simi, the daughter of Hadad king of Syria; and some time afterwards, when Hadad himself had the leprosy upon him, Athi entreated Elisha the Hebrew, and he came and healed him of his leprosy. The people of Mesopotamia also worshipped Cuthbi, a Hebrew woman, because she delivered Bakru, the paternal king25 of Edessa, from his enemies. With respect to Nebo, who is worshipped in Mabug, why should I write to you? For, lo! all the priests who are in Mabug know that it is the image of Orpheus, a Thracian Magus. Hadran, again, is the image of Zaradusht, a Persian Magus. For both of these Magi practised magic at a well which was in a wood in Mabug, in which was an unclean spirit, and it assaulted and disputed the passage of every one who passed by in all that country in which the town of Mabug is situated; and these Magi, in accordance with what was a mystery in their Magian system, bade Simi, the daughter of Hadad, to draw water from the sea and pour it into the well, so that the spirit should not come up and commit assault. In like manner, the rest of mankind made images to their kings and worshipped them; of which matter I will not write further.

“But thou, a person of liberal mind, and familiar with the truth, if thou wilt properly consider these matters, commune with thine own self;26 and, though they should clothe thee in the garb of a woman, remember that thou art a man. Believe in Him who is in reality God, and to Him lay open thy mind, and to Him commit thy soul, and He is able to give thee immortal life for ever, for everything is possible to Him;27 and let all other things be esteemed by thee just as they are – images as images, and sculptures as sculptures; and let not that which is only made be put by thee in the place of Him who is not made, but let Him, the ever-living God, be constantly present to thy mind.28 For thy mind itself is His likeness: for it too is invisible and impalpable,29 and not to be represented by any form, yet by its will is the whole bodily frame moved. Know, therefore, that, if thou constantly serve Him who is immoveable, even He exists for ever, so thou also, when thou shalt have put off this body, which is visible and corruptible, shall stand before Him for ever, endowed with life and knowledge, and thy works shall be to thee wealth inexhaustible and possessions unfailing. And know that the chief of thy good works is this: that thou know God, and serve Him. Know, too, that He asketh not anything of thee: He needeth not anything.

“Who is this God? He who is Himself truth, and His word truth. And what is truth? That which is not fashioned, nor made, nor represented by art: that is, which has never been brought into existence, and is on that account called truth.30 If, therefore, a man worship that which is made with hands, it is not the truth that he worships, nor yet the word of truth.

“I have very much to say on this subject; but I feel ashamed for those who do not understand that they are superior to the work of their own hands, nor perceive how they give gold to the artists that they may make for them gods, and give them silver for their adornment and honour, and move their riches about from place to place, and then worship them. And what infamy can be greater than this, that a man should worship his riches, and forsake Him who bestowed those riches upon him? and that he should revile man, yet worship the image of man; and slay a beast, yet worship the likeness of a beast? This also is evident, that it is the workmanship of their fellowmen that they worship: for they do not worship the treasures31 while they are laid by in the bag, but when the artists have fashioned images out of them they worship them; neither do they worship the gold or the silver considered as property,32 but when the gravers have sculptured them then they worship them. Senseless man to what addition has been made to thy gold, that now thou worshippest it? If it is because it has been made to resemble a winged animal, why dost thou not worship the winged animal itself? And if because it has been made like a beast of prey, lo! the beast of prey itself is before thee. And if it is the workmanship itself that pleases thee, let the workmanship of God please thee, who made all things, and in His own likeness made the workmen, who strive to do like Him, but resemble Him not.

“But perhaps thou wilt say: How is it that God did not so make me that I should serve Him, and not images? In speaking thus, thou art seeking to become an idle instrument, and not a living man. For God made thee as perfect as it seemed good to Him. He has given thee a mind endowed with freedom; He has set before thee objects in great number, that thou on thy part mayest distinguish the nature of each thing and choose for thyself that which is good; He has set before thee the heavens, and placed in them the stars; He has set before thee the sun and the moon, and they too every day run their course therein; He has set before thee the multitude of waters, and restrained them by His word; He has set before thee the wide earth, which remains at rest, and continues before thee without variation:33 yet, lest thou shouldst suppose that of its own nature it so continues, He makes it also to quake when He pleaseth; He has set before thee the clouds, which by His command bring water from above and satisfy the earth – that from hence thou mayest understand that He who puts these things in motion is superior to them all, and mayest accept thankfully the goodness of Him who has given thee a mind whereby to distinguish these things from one another.

“Wherefore I counsel thee to know thyself, and to know God. For understand how that there is within thee that which is called the soul – by it the eye seeth, by it the ear heareth, by it the mouth speaketh; and how it makes use of the whole body; and how, whenever He pleaseth to remove the soul from the body, this falleth ta decay and perisheth. From this, therefore, which exists within thyself and is invisible, understand how God also moveth the whole by His power, like the body; and that, whenever it pleases Him to withdraw His power, the whole world also, like the body, will fall to decay and perish.

“But why this world was made, and why it passes away, and why the body exists, and why it falls to decay, and why it continues, thou canst not know until thou hast raised thy head from this sleep in which thou art sunk, and hast opened thine eyes and seen that God is One, the Lord of all, and hast come to serve Him with all thy heart. Then will He grant thee to know His will: for every one that is severed from the knowledge of the living God is dead and buried even while in his body. Therefore is it that thou dost wallow on the ground before demons and shadows, and askest vain petitions from that which has not anything to give. But thou, stand thou up from among those who are lying on the earth and caressing stones, and giving their substance as food for the fire, and offering their raiment to idols, and; while themselves possessed of senses, are bent on serving that which has no sensation; and offer thou for thy imperishable soul petitions for that which decayeth not, to God who suffers no decay – and thy freedom will be at once apparent; and be thou careful of it,34 and give thanks to God who made thee, and gave thee the mind of the free, that thou mightest shape thy conduct even as thou wilt. He hath set before thee all these things, and showeth thee that, if thou follow after evil, thou shall be condemned for thy evil deeds; but that, if after goodness, thou shall receive from Him abundant good,35 together with immortal life for ever.

“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder thee from changing thy evil manner of life, because thou art a free man; or from seeking and finding out who is the Lord of all; or from serving Him with all thy heart: because with Him there is no reluctance to give the knowledge of Himself to those that seek it, according to the measure of their capacity to know Him.

“Let it be thy first care not to deceive thyself. For, if thou sayest of that which is not God: This is God, thou deceivest thyself, and sinnest before the God of truth. Thou fool I is that God which is bought and sold? Is that God which is in want? Is that God which must be watched over? How buyest thou him as a slave, and servest him as a master? How askest thou of him, as of one that is rich, to give to thee, and thyself givest to him as to one that is poor? How dost thou expect of him that he will make thee victorious in battle? for, lo! when thy enemies have conquered thee, they strip him likewise.

“Perhaps one who is a king may say: I cannot behave myself aright, because I am a king; it becomes me to do the will of the many. He who speaks thus really deserves to be laughed at: for why should not the king himself lead the way36 to all good things, and persuade the people under his rule to behave with purity, and to know God in truth, and in his own person set before them the patterns of all things excellent – since thus it becomes him to do? For it is a shameful thing that a king, however badly he may conduct himself, should yet judge and condemn those who do amiss.

“My opinion is this: that in ‘this’ way a kingdom may be governed in peace – when the sovereign is acquainted with the God of truth, and is withheld by fear of Him from doing wrong37 to those who are his subjects, and judges everything with equity, as one who knows that he himself also will be judged before God; while, at the same time, those who are under his rule38 are withheld by the fear of God from doing wrong to their sovereign, and are restrained by the same fear from doing wrong to one another. By this knowledge of God and fear of Him all evil may be removed from the realm. For, if the sovereign abstain from doing wrong to those who are under his rule, and they abstain from doing wrong to him and to each other, it is evident that the whole country will dwell in peace. Many blessings, too, will be enjoyed there, because amongst them all the name of God will be glorified. For what blessing is greater than this, that a sovereign should deliver the people that are under his rule from error, and by this good deed render himself pleasing to God? For from error arise all those evils from which kingdoms suffer; but the greatest of all errors is this: when a man is ignorant of God, and in God’s stead worships that which is not God.

“There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honour of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knoweth it not. Yet thou, despicable man! within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, hast nevertheless gone and bought thee wood from the carpenter’s, and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God.39 To this thou offerest sacrifice, and knowest not that the all-seeing eye seeth thee, and that the word of truth reproves thee, and says to thee: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of thyself that thou makest and worshippest. Because the wood has been sculptured, hast thou not the insight to perceive that it is still wood, or that the stone is still stone? The gold also the workman40 taketh according to its weight in the balance. And when thou hast had it made41 into an image, why dost thou weigh it? Therefore thou art a lover of gold, and not a lover of God. And art thou not ashamed, perchance it be deficient, to demand of the maker of it why he has stolen some of it? Though thou hast eyes, dost thou not see? And though thou hast intelligence,42 dost thou not understand? Why dost thou wallow on the ground, and offer supplication to things which are without sense? Fear Him who shaketh the earth, and maketh the heavens to revolve, and smiteth the sea, and removeth the mountain from its place – Him who can make Himself like a fire, and consume all things; and, if thou be not able to clear thyself of guilt, yet add not to thy sins; and, if thou be not able to know God, yet doubt not43 that He exists.

“Again, there are persons who say: Whatsoever our fathers have bequeathed to us, that we reverence. Therefore, of course, it is, that those whose fathers have bequeathed them poverty strive to become rich! and those whose fathers did not instruct them, desire to be instructed, and to learn that which their fathers knew not! And why, forsooth, do the children of the blind see, and the children of the lame walk? Nay, it is not well for a man to follow his predecessors, if they be those whose course was evil; but rather that we should turn from that path of theirs, lest that which befell our predecessors should bring disaster upon us also. Wherefore, inquire whether thy father’s course was good: and, if so, do thou also follow in his steps; but, if thy father’s course was very evil, let thine be good, and so let it be with thy children after thee.44 Be grieved also for thy father because his course is evil, so long as thy grief may avail to help him. But, as for thy children, speak to them thus: There is a God, the Father of all, who never came into being, neither was ever made, and by whose will all things subsist. He also made the luminaries, that His works may see one another; and He conceals Himself in His power from all His works: for it is not permitted to any being subject to change to see Him who changes not. But such as are mindful of His words, and are admitted into that covenant which is unchangeable, ‘they’ see God – so far as it is possible for them to see Him. These also will have power to escape destruction, when the flood of fire comes upon all the world. For there was once a flood and a wind,45 and the great46 men were swept away by a violent blast from the north, but the just were left, for a demonstration of the truth. Again, at another time there was a flood of water, and all men and animals perished in the multitude of waters, but the just were preserved in an ark of wood by the command of God. So also will it be at the last time: there shall be a flood of fire, and the earth shall be burnt up, together with its mountains; and mankind shall be burnt up, along with the idols which they have made, and the carved images which they have worshipped; and the sea shall be burnt up, together with its islands; but the just shall be preserved from wrath, like as were their fellows of the ark from the waters of the deluge. And then shall those who have not known God, and those who have made them idols, bemoan themselves, when they shall see those idols of theirs being burnt up, together with themselves, and nothing shall be found to help them.

“When thou, Antoninus47 Cæsar, shall become acquainted with these things, and thy children also with thee, then wilt thou bequeath to them an inheritance for ever which fadeth not away, and thou wilt deliver thy soul, and the souls of thy children also, from that which shall come upon the whole earth in the judgment of truth and of righteousness. For, according as thou hast acknowledged Him here, so will He acknowledge thee there; and, if thou account Him here superfluous, He will not account thee one of those who have known Him and confessed Him.

“These may suffice thy Majesty; and, if they be too many, yet deign to accept them.”48

Here endeth Melito.

II. From the Discourse on Soul and Body.49

For this reason did the Father send His Son from heaven without a bodily form, that, when He should put on a body by means of the Virgin’s womb, and be born man, He might save man, and gather together those members of His which death had scattered when he divided man.

And further on: – The earth shook, and its foundations trembled; the sun fled away, and the elements turned back, and the day was changed into night: for they could not endure the sight of their Lord hanging on a tree. The whole creation was amazed, marvelling and saying, “What new mystery, then, is this? The Judge is judged, and holds his peace; the Invisible One is seen, and is not ashamed; the Incomprehensible is laid hold upon, and is not indignant; the Illimitable is circumscribed, and doth not resist; the Impossible suffereth, and doth not avenge; the Immortal dieth, and answereth not a word; the Celestial is laid in the grave, and endureth! What new mystery is this?” The whole creation, I say, was astonished; but, when our Lord arose from the place of the dead, and trampled death under foot, and bound the strong one, and set man free, then did the whole creation see clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the gave. For our Lord, when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might Show mercy, was bound in order that He might loose, was seized in order that He might release, suffered in order that He might feel compassion,50 died in order that He might give life, was laid in the grave that He might raise from the dead.51

III. From the Discourse on the Cross.52

On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion,53 – appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing54 the likeness of His Father. He sustained every character55 belonging to Him in an immutable nature: He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things.

IV. On Faith.56

We have collected together extracts from the Law and the Prophets relating to those things which have been declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your love that this Being is perfect reason, the Word of God; He who was begotten before the light; He who is Creator together with the Father; He who is the Fashioner of man; He who is all in all; He who among the patriarchs is Patriarch; He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever. For this is He who was pilot to Noah; He who was guide to Abraham; He who was bound with Isaac; He who was in exile with Jacob; He who was sold with Joseph; He who was captain of the host with Moses; He who was the divider of the inheritance with Jesus the son of Nun; He who in David and the prophets announced His own sufferings; He who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; He who was born in Bethlehem; He who was wrapped in swaddling-clothes in the manger; He who was seen by the shepherds; He who was glorified by the angels; He who was worshipped by the Magi; He who was pointed out by John; He who gathered together the apostles; He who preached the kingdom; He who cured the lame; He who gave light to the blind; He who raised the dead; He who appeared in the temple; He who was not believed on by the people; He who was betrayed by Judas; He who was apprehended by the priests; He who was condemned by Pilate; He who was pierced in the flesh; He who was hanged on the tree; He who was buried in the earth; He who rose from the place of the dead; He who appeared to the apostles; He who was carried up to heaven; He who is seated at the right hand of the Father; He who is the repose of those that are departed; the recoverer of those that are lost; the light of those that are in darkness; the deliverer of those that are captive; the guide of those that go astray; the asylum of the afflicted; the bridegroom of the Church; the charioteer of the cherubim; the captain of the angels; God who is from God; the Son who is from the Father; Jesus Christ the King for evermore. Amen.

V.57

This is He who took a bodily form in the Virgin, and was hanged upon the tree, and was buried within the earth, and suffered not dissolution; He who rose from the place of the dead, and raised up men from the earth – from the grave below to the height of heaven. This is the Lamb that was slain; this is the Lamb that opened not His mouth.58 This is He who was born of Mary, fair sheep of the fold. This is He that was taken from the flock, and was led to the slaughter, and was slain in the evening, and was buried at night; He who had no bone of Him broken on the tree; He who suffered not dissolution within the earth; He who rose from the place of the dead, and raised up the race of Adam from the grave below, This is He who was put to death. And where was He put to death? In the midst of Jerusalem. By whom? By Israel: became He cured their lame, and cleansed their lepers, and gave light to their blind, and raised their dead! This was the cause of His death. Thou, O Israel, wast giving commands, and He was being crucified; thou wast rejoicing, and He was being buried; thou wast reclining on a soft couch, and He was watching in the grave and the shroud.59 O Israel, transgressor of the law, why hast thou committed this new iniquity, subjecting the Lord to new sufferings – thine own Lord, Him who fashioned thee, Him-who made thee, Him who honoured thee, who called thee Israel? But thou hast not been found to be Israel: for thou hast not seen God, nor understood the Lord. Thou hast not known, O Israel, that this was the first-born of God, who was begotten before the sun, who made the light to shine forth, who lighted up the day, who separated the darkness, who fixed the first foundations, who poised the earth, who collected the ocean, who stretched out the firmament, who adorned the world. Bitter were thy nails, and sharp; bitter thy tongue, which thou didst whet; bitter was Judas, to whom thou gavest hire; bitter thy false witnesses, whom thou stirredst up; bitter thy gall, which thou preparedst; bitter thy vinegar, which thou madest; bitter thy hands, filled with blood. Thou slewest thy Lord, and He was lifted up upon the tree; and an inscription was fixed above, to show who He was that was slain. And who was this? (that which we shall not say is too shocking to hear, and that which we shall say is very dreadful: nevertheless hearken, and tremble.) It was He because of whom the earth quaked. He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was borne up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body – God put to death! the King of Israel slain with Israel’s right hand! Alas for the new wickedness of the new murder! The Lord was exposed with naked body: He was not deemed worthy even of covering; and, in order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened60 because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree. It was not the body of our Lord that the luminaries covered with darkness when they set,61 but the eyes of men. For, because the people quaked not, the earth quaked; because they were not affrighted, the earth was affrighted. Thou smotest thy Lord: thou also hast been smitten upon the earth. And thou indeed liest dead; but He is risen from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, having suffered for the sake of those who suffer, and having been bound for the sake of Adam’s race which was imprisoned, and having been judged for the sake of him who was condemned, and having been buried for the sake of him who was buried.

And further on: – This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

VI.62

He that bore up the earth was borne up on a tree. The Lord was subjected to ignominy with naked body – God put to death, the King of Israel slain!

Fragments.63

I. From the Work on the Passover.64

When Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time that Sagaris65 suffered martyrdom, there arose a great controversy at Laodicea concerning the time of the celebration of the Passover, which on that occasion had happened to fall at the proper season;66 and this treatise was then written.67

II. From the Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.68

For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts69 everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men’s goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong.

If these proceedings take place at thy bidding,70 well and good.71 For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace.

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians;72 and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired73 possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son,74 if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this – that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes75 of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times.76 But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts77 those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him78 in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians79 are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.

III. From the Same Apology.80

We are not those who pay homage to stones, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word81 existing before all time.

IV. From the Book of Extracts.82

Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: – 

As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability to perform this task: well knowing your zeal for the faith, and your eagerness to become acquainted with the Word, and especially because I am assured that, through your yearning after God, you esteem these things beyond all things else, engaged as you are in a struggle for eternal salvation.

I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows: – 

The five books of Moses – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua,83 Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.

V. From the Catena on Genesis.84

In place of Isaac the just, a ram appeared for slaughter, in order that Isaac might be liberated from his bonds. The slaughter of this animal redeemed Isaac from death. In like manner, the Lord, being slain, saved us; being bound, He loosed us; being sacrificed, He redeemed us…

For the Lord was a lamb, like the ram which Abraham saw caught in the bush Sabec.85 But this bush represented the cross, and that place Jerusalem, and the lamb the Lord bound for slaughter.

For as a ram was He bound, says he concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, and as a lamb was He shorn, and as a sheep was He led to the slaughter, and as a lamb was He crucified; and He carried the cross86 on His shoulders when He was led up to the hill to be slain, as was Isaac by his father. But Christ suffered, and Isaac did not suffer: for he was but a type of Him who should suffer. Yet, even when serving only for a type of Christ, he smote men with astonishment and fear.

For a new mystery was presented to view, – a son led by his father to a mountain to be slain, whose feet he bound together, and laid him on the wood of the sacrifice, preparing with care87 whatever was necessary to his immolation. Isaac on his part is silent, bound like a ram, not opening his mouth, nor uttering a sound with his voice. For, not fearing the knife, nor quailing before the fire, nor troubled by the prospect of suffering, he sustained bravely the character of the type of the Lord. Accordingly there lies Isaac before us, with his feet bound like a ram, his father standing by, with the knife all bare in his hand, not shrinking from shedding the blood of his son.

VI. Two Scholia On Gen_22:13.88

The Syriac and the Hebrew use the word “suspended,”89 as more clearly typifying the cross.

The word Sabek90 some have rendered remission,91 others upright,92 as if the meaning, agreeing with the popular belief, were – a goat walking erect up to a bush, and there standing erect caught by his horns, so as to be a plain type of the cross. For this reason it is not translated, because the single Hebrew word signifies in other languages93 many things. To those, however, who ask it is proper to give an answer, and to say that Sabek denotes lifted up.94

VII. On the Nature of Christ.95

For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature96 like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures:97 of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate98 as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.

VIII. From the Oration on Our Lord’s Passion.99

God has suffered from the right hand of Israel.100

IX.101

Head of the Lord – His simple Divinity; because He is the Beginning and Creator of all things: in Daniel. (Dan_7:9, Dan_7:13, Dan_7:22)

The white hair of the Lord, because He is “the Ancient of Days:” as above.

The eyes of the Lord – the Divine inspection: because He sees all things. Like that in the apostle: For all things are naked and open in His eyes.” (Heb_4:13)

The eyelids of the Lord – hidden spiritual mysteries in the Divine precepts. In the Psalm: “His eyelids question, that is prove, the children of men.” (Psa_11:4)

The smelling of the Lord – His delight in the prayers or works of the saints. In Genesis: “And the Lord smelled an odour of sweetness.” (Gen_8:21)

The mouth of the Lord – His Son, or word addressed to men. In the prophet, “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken;” (Isa_1:20) and elsewhere, “They provoked His mouth to anger.” (Lam_1:18)

The tongue of the Lord – His Holy Spirit. In the Psalm: “My tongue is a pen.” (Psa_45:1)

The face of the Lord – His manifestation. In Exodus, “My face shall go before thee;” (Exo_33:14) and in the prophet, “The face of the Lord divided them.” (Lam_4:16)

The word of the Lord – His Son. In the Psalm: “My heart hath uttered a good word.” (Psa_44:1)

The arm of the Lord – His Son, by whom He hath wrought all His works. In the prophet Isaiah: “And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isa_53:1)

The right hand of the Lord – that is, His Son; as also above in the Psalm: “The right hand of the Lord hath done valiantly.” (Psa_118:16)

The right hand of the Lord – electio omnis. As in Deuteronomy: “In His right hand is a fiery law.” (Deu_33:2)

The wings of the Lord – Divine protection. In the Psalm: “In the shadow of Thy wings will I hope.” (Psa_57:1)

The shoulder of the Lord – the Divine power, by which He condescends to carry the feeble. In Deuteronomy: “He took them up, and put them on His shoulders.” (Deu_33:12)

The hand of the Lord – Divine operation. In the prophet: “Have not my hands made all these things?” (Isa_66:2)

The finger of the Lord – the Holy Spirit, by whose operation the tables of the law in Exodus are said to have been written; (Exo_34:1) and in the Gospel: “If I by the finger of God cast out demons” (Luk_11:20)

The fingers of the Lord – The lawgiver Moses, or the prophets. In the Psalm: “I will regard the heavens,” that is, the books of the Law and the Prophets, “the works of Thy fingers.” (Psa_8:3)

The wisdom of the Lord – His Son. In the apostle: “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God;” (1Co_1:24) and in Solomon: “The wisdom of the Lord reacheth from one end to the other mightily.”102

The womb of the Lord – the hidden recess of Deity out of which He brought forth His Son. In the Psalm: “Out of the womb, before Lucifer, have I borne Thee. (Psa_110:3)

The feet of the Lord – His immoveableness and eternity. In the Psalm: “And thick darkness was under His feet.” (Psa_18:9)

The throne of the Lord – angels, or saints, or simply sovereign dominion.103 In the Psalm: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” (Psa_45:6; Comp. Psa_5:1-12, Psa_29:1-11)

Seat – the same as above, angels or saints, because the Lord sits upon these. In the Psalm: “The Lord sat upon His holy seat.” (Psa_47:8)

The descent of the Lord – His visitation of men. As in Micah: “Behold, the Lord shall come forth from His place; He shall come down trampling under foot the ends of the earth.” (Mic_1:3) Likewise in a bad sense. In Genesis: “The Lord came down to see the tower.” (Gen_11:3)

The ascent of the Lord – the raising up of man, who is taken from earth to heaven. In the Psalm: “Who ascendeth above the heaven of heavens to the east.” (Psa_68:33)

The standing of the Lord – the patience of the Deity, by which He bears with sinners that they may come to repentance. As in Habakkuk: “He good and measured the earth; (Hab_3:6) and in the Gospel: “Jesus stood, and bade him be called,” (Mar_10:49) that is, the blind man.

The transition of the Lord – His assumption of our flesh, through which by His birth, His death, His resurrection, His ascent into heaven, He made transitions, so to say. In the Song of Songs: “Behold, He cometh, leaping upon the mountains, bounding over the hills.” (Son_2:8)

The going104 of the Lord – His coming or visitation. In the Psalm.

The way of the Lord – the operation of the Deity. As in Job, in speaking of the devil: “He is the beginning of the ways of the Lord.” (Job_40:19)

Again: The ways of the Lord – His precepts. In Hosea: “For the ways of the Lord are straight, and the just shall walk in them.” (Hos_14:1-9:10)

The footsteps of the Lord – the signs of His secret operations. As in the Psalm: “And Thy footsteps shall not be known.” (Psa_77:19)

The knowledge of the Lord – that which makes men to know Him. To Abraham He says:” Now I know that thou fearest the Lord;” (Gen_22:12) that is, I have made thee to know.

The ignorance of God105 is His disapproval. In the Gospel: “I know you not.” (Luk_13:25)

The remembrance of God – His mercy, by which He rejects and has mercy on whom He will. So in Genesis: “The Lord remembered Noah;” (Gen_8:1) and in another passage: “The Lord hath remembered His people.” (Additions to Esther 10:12, NRSV)

The repentance of the Lord – His change of procedure.106 As in the book of Kings: “It repented me that I have made Saul king.” (1Sa_15:11)

The anger and wrath of the Lord – the vengeance of the Deity upon sinners, when He bears with them with a view to punishment, does not at once judge them according to strict equity. As in the Psalm: “In His anger and in His wrath will He trouble them.” (Psa_2:5)

The sleeping of the Lord – when, in the thoughts of some, His faithfulness is not sufficiently wakeful. In the Psalm: “Awake, why sleepest Thou, O Lord?” (Psa_44:23)

The watches of the Lord – in the guardianship of His elect He is always at hand by the presence of His Deity. In the Psalm: “Lo! He will not slumber nor sleep.” (Psa_121:4)

The sitting of the Lord – His ruling. In the Psalm: “The Lord sitteth upon His holy seat.” (Psa_47:8)

The footstool of the Lord – man assumed by the Word; or His saints, as some think. In the Psalm: “Worship ye His footstool, for it is holy.”

The walking of the Lord – the delight of the Deity in the walks of His elect. In the prophet: “I will walk in them, and will be their Lord.” (Eze_37:27)

The trumpet of the Lord – His mighty voice. In the apostle: “At the command, and at the voice of the archangel, and at the trumpet of God, shall He descend from heaven.”107

FOOTNOTES

1 Routh, R. S., vol. i. p. 113. And see Westcott, Canon, p. 245.

2 Lightfoot, A. F., vol. ii. p.48.

3 Lightfoot, A. F., vol. i. p. 428.

4 Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2. (Stromata) p. 301, this series.

5 Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. p. 186, this series.

6 Lightfoot, A. F., vol. i. p. 468.

7 Lightfoot, A. F., vol. ii.

8 Lightfoot, A. F., pp.446, 494.

9 “Which was delivered in the presence… and in which etc.” This appears to be the sense intended, and is that given by M. Renan: “Sermo qui factus est.” Cureton renders, “Who was in the presence, etc.,” and supposes that Melito first saw and conversed with the emperor, and afterwards wrote this discourse. Melito speaks of it more than once as written. This view, however, does not dispose of the fact that Melito is here affirmed to have “exhorted (lit., said to) Cæsar etc.” It was clearly meant to be understood that the discourse, or speech, was spoken: the references to writing merely show that it was written, either before or after the delivery.

10 Cureton: “passion.” The word takes both meanings.

11 Lit. “sojourn beneath it.”

12 Cureton: “act foolishly.”

13 Lit. “sight.”

14 Cureton: “light without envy.” But the expression resembles the Gk. ἀφθόνως, ungrudgingly, without stint.

15 Lit. “to the ditch is his way.” Comp. Mat_15:14.

16 See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. p. 280, this series, where the following lines are quoted by Justin Martyr from the Sibylline Oracles: – 

“But we have strayed from the Immortal’s ways,

And worship with a dull and senseless mind

Idols, the workmanship of our own hands,

And images and figures of dead men.”

17 Cureton: “those belonging to the Cæsars.” But the Cæsars themselves are clearly meant.

18 Cureton: “sacks full.” The first word is used of a leathern pouch or wallet, as in Luk_10:4 (Peshito) for πήρα.

19 Lit., “they became,”

20 Cureton, without necessity, reads the word “Dionysius.”

21 Cureton renders “originally.” But comp. Judith 4:3, where the same word answers to προσφάτως.

22 Venus.

23 Cureton’s conjecture of has been adopted.

24 Some have identified it with Aphek, Jos_19:30. The rites observed here were specially abominable.

25 Cureton: “the patrician.” Dr. Payne Smith, Thes. Syr. s.v., regards the word as equivalent to πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως, pater civitatis, “a title of honour found in the Byzantine writers,” and is inclined to think it a term belonging to the dialect of Edessa. A similar use of the same adjectives quoted from Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talm., p.12: “àالاجéé cognomen R. Nachmanis, qui a celebritate familiæ sic cognomiruitus est, quasi Patritius.” This view appears to be supported by the similar use of an adjective for a substantive above: “persons of Cæsarean rank,” for “Cæsars.”

26 Lit., “be (or, get to be) with thyself” Cureton: “enter into thyself.” The meaning appears to be, “think for thyself.”

27 Cureton: “Everything cometh through His hands.” It should rather be,” into His hands,” i.e.,” He has power to do everything.” See Bardesan, footnote 23.

28 Lit., “be running in thy mind.”

29 M. Renan translates “commovetur.” This, although correct in grammar, does not suit the sense. The grammars recognise the form as a possible Eshtaphel, “tangere,” but it is not found in actual use.

30 Or, “that which is fixed and invariable.” There seems to be a reference to the derivation of “truth” from firmus (stabilis) fuit. Cureton has strangely mistranslated “that which, without having been brought into existence, does exist.”

31 Cureton: “materials.” The printed text has “drugs.”

32 Lit., “the property of the gold or silver,” if the word is rightly taken. Although no such derivative of the word is found in the lexicons, the form is possible from the Palel of that verb. See Hoffmann, Gram. Syr., sec. 87, 19.

33 Lit. “in one fashion.”

34 Or, “of what pertains to it.”

35 Lit. “many good things.”

36 Lit. “be the beginner.”

37 Cureton is probably right in so taking the words, although the construction is not quite the same as in the similar sentence a little below.

38 Lit. “hand.”

39 Lit. “into an insult of God.” So M. Renan, “in opprobrium Dei.” Cureton, admitting that this may be the sense, renders, “an abomination of God,” and refers to the circumstance that in Scripture an idol is frequently so spoken of. But the word is not used in such passages, nor does it appear ever to have the meaning which Cureton assigns to it.

40 Lit. “he.”

41 Lit, “hast made it”

42 Lit. “heart.”

43 Lit. “be of opinion.”

44 This seems preferable to Cureton’s, “and let thy children also follow after thee.”

45 So the Sibylline oracle, as quoted by Cureton in the Greek:

“And, when he would the starry steep of heaven

Ascend, the Sire Immortal did his works

With mighty blasts assail: forthwith the winds

Hurled prostrate from its height the towering pile,

And bitter strife among the builders roused.’

46 Lit. “chosen.”

47 The ms. has “Antonius.”

48 Cureton, for the last clause, gives “as thou wilt,” remarking that the sense is obscure. The literal rendering is, “if thou wilt, the consequent clause being unexpressed. “If you please, accept them,” is seems what is meant.

49 By Melito, bishop of Sardis.

50 A substitution has been made for the original Syriac of the printed text.

51 [Such passages sustain the testimony of Jerome and others, that this venerable and learned Father was an eloquent preacher.]

52 By the same.

53 Or “wove – a body from our material”

54 Lit. “changing.”

55 Lit. “He was everything.”

56 Of Melito the bishop.

57 By Melito, bishop of Attica. [Of this epigraph, which becomes Ittica below, I have never seen a sufficient explanation.]

58 Lit. “the Lamb without voice.”

59 The Greek γλωσσόκομον.

60 [For Phlegon’s testimony, see references, vol. 7. p. 257. But note Lightfoot, Ap. F., part ii. vol. i. p. 512; his remark on Origen, Celsus, vol. 4. p.437, this series.]

61 This is the rendering of the printed text; but Cureton has “fled,” as though he read another word.

62 By the holy Melito, bishop of the city of Ittica. [For Melito, in Lightfoot’s Apost. Fathers, consult part ii. vol. i. pp. 133, 328, 428, 443-446, 468-469, 494. See Lardner Credib vol. ii. 557, etc.: Westcott, Canon, p. 246. See Polycrates, infra; on which consult Schaff; History, etc., vol. ii. p.736. Above all, see Routh, R. S., tom. i. pp.113-153.]

63 The following Fragments of Melito are translated from the Greek, except No. IX., which is taken from the Latin.

64 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iv. 26. [Melito wrote two boosts on the Paschal and use On the Lord’s Day (ὁ περὶ κυριακῆς λόγος), according to Eusebius. But is this On the Lord’s Day other than one of the books on the Paschal) It may be doubted. Routh refers us to Barnabas. See vol. 1. cap. 15, note 157, p. 147, this series. See also Dionysius of Corinth.]

65 He was bishop of Laodicea, and suffered martyrdom during the persecution under M. Aurelius Antoninus. – Migne.

66 The churches of Asia Minor kept Easter on the fourteenth day from the new moon, whatever day of the week that might be; and hence were called Quartodecimans. Other churches, chiefly those of the West, kept it on the Sunday following the day of the Jewish passover. In case here referred to, the 14th day of the month occurred on the Sunday in question.

67 Migne, not so naturally, punctuates otherwise, and renders, “which had happened then to fall at the proper season, and on that Occasion this treatise was written.”

68 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 1. c.

69 Migne thinks that by these are meant the orders given by magistrates of cities on their own authority, in distinction from those which issued from emperors or governors of provinces.

70 The reference must be to private letters: for in any of the leading cities of Asia a mandate of the emperor would have been made public before the proconsul proceeded to execute it. – Migne.

71 Ἔστω καλῶς γενόμεϚοϚ seems to be here used in the sense of καλῶς alone. The correctness of Migne’s translation, recte atque ordinefacta sunto, is open to doubt.

72 The Jews. Porphyry calls the doctrines of the Christians βάρβαρον τόλμημα. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 59. – Migne.

73 Εὐκταῖος.

74 Commodus, who hence appears to have been not yet associated with his father in the empire. – Migne.

75 Εὐχάς.

76 Ἀφο  ὧν καὶ τὸ τῆς συκοφαντίας ἀλόγῳ συνηθείᾳ περΐ τοὺς τοιούτους ῥυῆναι συμβέβηκε ψεῦδος.

77 Ἐγγράφως.

78 The reading of Valesius, σοῦ τὰ πάντα συνδιοικοῦντος αὐτῷ, is here adopted.

79 Περὶ τούτων.

80 In the Chronicon Alexandrinum.

81 Ὄντως Θεοῦ Λόγου.

82 In Eusebius, 1. c.

83 Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ.

84 From Melito of Sardis.

85 The Hebrew word ٌہلبêہ, thicket, is not found as a proper name.

86 Τὸ ξύλον.

87 Μετὰ σπουδῆς. Migne: Cum festinatione.

88 In the edition of the LXX. published by Card. Caraffe, 1581.

89 κρεμάμενος. The Hebrew is ًàçو, meaning simply “caught.”

90 See note on the fragment just before.

91 ἄφεσις.

92 ὄρθιος.

93 Lit. “when translated.”

94 ἐπηρμένος.

95 In Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, ch. 13.

96 Or, according to Migne’s punctuation, “His soul, and the body of His human nature.” The words are, τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀφάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος τῆς καθα ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπινῆς φύσεως.

97 Οὐσίας [Comp. note 100.]

98 Τὸ ἀτέλες.

99 Anastasius, Guide, ch. 12.

100 [Ὁ Θεὸς πεπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξίας Ἰσραηλίτιδος. Compare Tatian, vol. 2. p.71, note 39; also Origen, vol. 4. p.480, note 115, this series. And see Routh, R. S., i. p. 148. So “God put to death,” See Melito, V.]

101 From The Key.

102 Sap. viii. 2.

103 Ipsa regnandi potestas.

104 Gressus.

105 Nescire Dei.

106 Rerum mutatio.

107 1Th_4:15. [The above has been shown to have no claim to be the work of Melito. It is a compilation of the sixth century, in all probability.]

[a.d. 170.] One of the sub-Apostolic age, a contemporary of Justin and of the martyrs of “the good Aurelius,” we must yet distinguish Hegesippus2 from the apologists. He is the earliest of the Church’s chroniclers – we can hardly call him a historian. His aims were noble and his character was pure; nor can we refuse him the credit due to a foresight of the Church’s ultimate want of historical material, which he endeavoured to supply.

What is commonly regarded as his defect is in reality one of his greatest merits as a witness: he was a Hebrew, and looks at the Church from the stand-point of “James the Lord’s brother.” When we observe his Catholic spirit, therefore, as well as his Catholic orthodoxy; his sympathy with the Gentile Church and Pauline faith of the Corinthians; his abhorrence of “the Circumcision” so far as it bred sects and heresies against Christ; and when we find him confirming the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, and sustaining the traditions of Antioch by those of Jerusalem, – we have double reason to cherish his name, and to treasure up “the fragments that remain” of his works. That touching episode of the kindred of Christ, as they appeared before Domitian, has always impressed my imagination as worthy to be classed with the story of St. John and the robber, as one of the most suggestive incidents of early Christian history. We must lament the loss of other portions of the Memoirs which were known to exist in the seventeenth century. He was a traveller, and must have seen much of the Apostolic churches in the East and West; and the mere scraps we have of his narrative concerning Corinth and Rome excite a natural curiosity as to the rest, which may lead to gratifying discoveries.

Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church.

I. Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book V.3

James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor,4 nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place:5 for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people – so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel’s, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias,6 which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: “What is the door of Jesus?” 

And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: “A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: “We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit7 of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also.”

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said: “Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judæa, taking them captive.

Concerning the Relatives of Our Saviour.8

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Cæsar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.9

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church. 

When they were released they became leaders10 of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.

Concerning the Martyrdom of Symeon the Son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem.11

Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Cæsar, when Atticus was consular legate12 in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.

He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trajan Cæsar: that is, until the time when he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by the various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and, while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself, were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified.

…Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation,13 they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching “knowledge falsely so called.”

Concerning His Journey to Rome, and the Jewish Sects.14

And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith15 up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.

On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession,16 and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord….

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord’s uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.

Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching.17 Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthæus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothæus, from whom come the Masbothæi. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles – men who have split up the one Church into parts18 through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ….

There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothæi, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.

FOOTNOTES

1 Westcott, Canon, p.228.

2 Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. i. pp.205-219. Lightfoot is culpably lax in calling Rome “the Papal throne” (temp. Anicet.), and mistaking alike the testimony of Irenæus and of our author. Ap. F., part ii. vol. i. p. 435.

3 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., ii. 23. [Comp. Isa_3:10, Sept.]

4 Σίκερα.

5 Τὰ ἅγια.

6 The reference appears to be to the Hebrew word ٍةôئى, a rising ground, which was applied as a proper name to a fortified ridge of Mount Zion. See 2Ch_27:3. It has bees proposed to read ἐκαλεῖτο Σαδδὶκ καὶ Ὠζλιὰμ, ὅ ἐστιν δίκαιος καὶ περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ. The text, in which not only a Hebrew word but also a Greek (Δίκαιος) is explained in Greek, can hardly give the correct reading. [The translator suggests Ὠβλίας as the probable reading of the LXX., though it is corrupted as above.]

7 Πτερύγιον. [Mat_4:5]

8 Also in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 20.

9 Τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτοῦ.

10 Ἡγήσασθαι.

11 Also in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 32.

12 Ὑπατικοῦ. [St. John died a few years before.]

13 Τοῦ σωτηρίου κηρυγματος.

14 Also in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 22.

15 Ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ.

16 [Elucidation.]

17 Ἀκοαῖς ματαίαις.

18 Ἐμέρισαν τὴν ενωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. [Act_20:29-31.]

[a.d. 170.] Eusebius is almost diffuse in what he tells us of this Dionysius,1 “who was appointed over the church at Corinth, and imparted freely, not only to his own people, but to others, and those abroad also, the blessings of his divine labours.” He wrote “Catholic Epistles;” he addressed an epistle to the Spartans and the Athenians; and, as Eusebius says, Dionysius the Areopagite, the convert of St. Paul, was the first bishop of Athens.2 He wrote to the Nicomedians, refuting Marcion, and closely adhering to “the rule of faith.” In an epistle to the Gortynians and others in Crete, he praises Philip for his courageous ministry, and warns them against the heretics. He seems to recognise Palmas as bishop of Amastris and Pontus, and adds expositions of Scripture, and rules regarding marriage, its purity and sanctity. He also inculcates tenderness to penitent lapsers and backsliders. With Pinytus, bishop of the Gnossians, he corresponds on similar subjects; but Pinytus, while he thanks him and commends his clemency, evidently regards him as too much inclined to furnish “food for babes,” and counsels him to add “strong meat for those of full age.” He also writes to Chrysophora, his most faithful sister, imparting spiritual instruction.

Fragments from a Letter to the Roman Church.

I.

For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send resources to many churches which are in every city, thus refreshing the poverty of the needy, and granting subsidies to the brethren who are in the mines.3 Through the resources which ye have sent from the beginning, ye Romans, keep up the custom of the Romans handed down by the fathers, which your blessed Bishop Sorer has not only preserved, but added to, sending a splendid gift to the saints, and exhorting with blessed words those brethren who go up to Rome, as an affectionate father his children.

II. From the Same Epistle.4

We passed this holy Lord’s day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement.

III. From the Same.

Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went5 to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.6

IV. From the Same.7

For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such.8 

FOOTNOTES

1 Book iv. cap. 24, from which these Fragments are collected. See Westcott, On the Canon, p. 206.

2 See Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p.555, where he corrects the reading καὶ Πολύκαρπος.

3 [Routh (also on Pinytus and Soter), R. S., p.177. This series, vol. 6. p. 102, note 188. Note also Lightfoot, A. F., part ii. vol. ii. p.192, note 1; and Westcott, Canon, p.206.]

4 [Comp: See Melito, footnote 69 Also Ignatius, vol. 1. p.63, this series.]

5 mss. “planted.”

6 The text is evidently corrupt.

7 [For the reply of Pinytus, and what is said by Eusebius of seven other epistles, see Routh, R. S., vol. i. pp. 181-184.]

8 i.e., of such importance or of such a character.

[a.d. 180.] This Rhodon2 was supposed by St. Jerome to have been the author of the work against the Cataphrygians, ascribed to Asterius Urbanus more probably.3 Eusebius4 gives us the fragment from his work against Marcion, addressed to Callistion, which is here translated. He tells us that he was a pupil of Tatian, and expresses an intention of furnishing original solutions of Scriptural problems sated by Tatian,5 and by that author explained in a manner apparently unsatisfactory. He also appears to have written against the blasphemous Apelles,6 whose Hexaëmeron was an attempt to refute Moses; but whether he also fulfilled his promise concerning an Ἐπίλυσις of Tatian’s Problems (or Questions), seems doubtful. Routh has devoted to the fragment here translated six pages of notes,7 which he subjoins to the Greek text (of Eusebius) and a Latin version of the same.

Wherefore also they8 disagree among themselves, maintaining as they do an opinion which has no consistency with itself. For one of their herd, Apelles, who prides himself on the strictness of his life,9 and on his age, admits that there is only one first principle,10 yet says that the prophecies have come from an opposing spirit, in which opinion he is influenced by the responses of a soothsaying11 maid named Philumene. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, like Marcion12 himself, introduce two first principles. These men, following the Pontic wolf, and not being able to discover any more than he the division of things, have had to recourse to rash assertion, and declared the existence of two first principles simply and without proof. Others of them, again, drifting from bad to worse, assume not two only, but even three natures. Of these men the leader and champion is Syneros, as those who adopt his teaching say….

For the old man Apelles entered into conversation with us, and was convicted of uttering many false opinions. For example, he asserted that men should on no account examine into their creed,13 but that every one ought to continue to the last in the belief he has once adopted. For he declared that those who had rested their hope on the Crucified One would be saved, provided only they were found living in the practice, of good works. But the most perplexing of all the doctrines laid down by him was, as we have remarked before, what he said concerning God: for he affirmed that there was only one first principle, precisely as our own faith teaches ….

On asking him, “Where do you get proof of this? or how are you able to assert that there is only one first principle? tell us,” – he said that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they had uttered nothing at all that was true: for that they were discordant and false, and self-contradictory. As to the question, “How does it appear that there is only one first principle?” he said he could not tell, only he was impelled to that belief. On my thereupon conjuring him to speak the truth, he solemnly declared that he was expressing his real sentiments; and that he did not know” how” there could be one uncreated God, but that he believed the fact. Here I burst into laughter and rebuked him, because he professed to be a teacher, and yet was unable to confirm by arguments what he taught.

FOOTNOTES

1 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 13.

2 Or Rhodo.

3 Vol. 7. pp. 333, 338 this series, where I neglected to insert a reference to Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. pp.283-257.

4 H. E., book v. cap. 13.

5 Vol. 2. p. 62, this series.

6 See Origen, vol. 4. p.567, this series.

7 Rel. Sac., vol. i. pp.437-446.

8 The Marcionites.

9 Πολιτείᾳ. See Migne’s note.

10 Ἀρχήν. (See vol. 7. p. 365, this series.]

11 Δαιμονώσης.

12 Some copies have “Marcion the Sailor,” and so Tertullian (de Præscriptionibus) speaks of him. [Vol. 3. cap. 30, p.257, this series.]

13 Τὸν λόγον.

[a.d. 185-196.] He was a noted character among Christians, according to Eusebius; living, according to Jerome, under Commodus and Severus. He wrote on the inveterate question concerning the Origin of Evil; and the fragment here translated, as given by Eusebius, is also textually cited by Origen against the Marcionites,1 if that Dialogue be his. The reader will not fail to recollect that liberal citations out of this work are also to be found in Methodius, On Free-Will.2 But all who desire fuller information on the subject will be gratified by the learned prolegomena and notes of Routh, to which I refer them.3 Whether Maximus was the bishop of Jerusalem (a.d. 185) mentioned by Eusebius as presiding in that See in the sixth year of Commodus, seems to be uncertain.

From the Book Concerning Matter, or in Defence of the Proposition That Matter Is Created, and Is Not the Cause of Evil.4

“That there cannot exist two uncreated substances at one and the same time, I presume that you hold equally with myself. You appear, however, very decidedly to have assumed, and to have introduced into the argument, this principle, that we must of unavoidable necessity maintain one of two things: either that God is separate from matter; or else, on the contrary, that He is indissolubly connected with it.

“If, then, any one should choose to assert that He exists in union with matter, that would be saying that there is only one uncreated substance. For either of the two must constitute a part of the other; and, since they form parts of each other, they cannot be two uncreated substances. Just as, in speaking of man, we do not describe him as subdivided into a number of distinct parts, each forming a separate created substance, but, as reason requires us to do, assert that he was made by God a single created substance consisting of many parts, – so, in like manner, if God is not separate from matter, we are driven to the conclusion that there is only one uncreated substance.

“If, on the other hand, it be affirmed that He is separate from matter, it necessarily follows that there is some other substance intermediate between the two, by which their separation is made apparent. For it is impossible that one thing should be shown to be severed by an interval from another, unless there be something else by which the interval between the two is produced. This principle, too, holds good not only with regard to this or any other single case, but in any number of cases you please For the same argument which we have employed in dealing with the two uncreated substances must in like manner be valid if the substances in question be given as three. For in regard to these also I should have to inquire whether they are separate from one another, or whether, on the contrary, each of them is united to its fellow. For, if you should say that they are united, you would hear from me the same argument as before; but if, on the contrary, you should say that they are separate, you could not escape the unavoidable assumption of a separating medium.

“If, again, perchance any one should think that there is a third view which may be consistently maintained with regard to uncreated substances, – namely, that God is not separate from matter, nor yet, on the other hand, united to it as a part, but that God exists in matter as in a place, or possibly matter exists in God, – let such a person observe the consequence: – 

“That, if we make matter God’s place, we must of necessity admit that He can be contained,5 and that He is circumscribed by matter. Nay, further, he must grant that He is, in the same way as matter, driven about hither and thither, unable to maintain His place and to stay where He is, since that in which He exists is perpetually being driven about in one direction or another. Beside this, he must also admit that God has had His place among the worst kind of elements. For if matter was once in disorder, and if he reduced it to order for the purpose of rendering it better, there was a time when God existed among the disordered elements of matter.

“I might also fairly put this question: whether God filled the whole of matter, or was in some part of it. If any one should choose to say that God was in some part of matter, he would be making Him indefinitely smaller than matter, inasmuch as a part of it contained the whole of Him;6 but, if he maintained that He pervaded the whole of matter, I need to be informed how He became the Fashioner of this matter. For we must necessarily assume, either that there was on the part of God a contraction,7 so to speak, of Himself, and a withdrawal from matter, whereupon He proceeded to fashion that from which He had retired; or else that He fashioned Himself in conjunction with matter, in consequence of having no place to retire to.

“But suppose it to be maintained, on the other hand, that matter is in God, it will behove us similarly to inquire, whether we are to understand by this that He is sundered from Himself, and that, just like the air, which contains various kinds of animals, so is He sundered and divided into parts for the reception of those creatures which from time to time exist in8 Him; or whether matter is in God as in a place, – for instance, as water is contained in earth. For should we say ‘as in air,’ we should perforce be speaking of God as divisible into parts; but if ‘as water in earth,’ and if matter was, as is admitted, in confusion and disorder, and moreover also contained what was evil, we should have to admit that God is the place of disorder and evil. But this it does not seem to me consistent with reverence to say, but hazardous rather. For you contend that matter is uncreated,9 that you may not have to admit that God is the author of evil; and yet, while aiming to escape this difficulty, you make Him the receptacle of evil.

“If you had stated that your suspicion that matter was uncreated arose from the nature of created things as we find them,10 I should have employed abundant argument in proof that it cannot be so. But, since you have spoken of the existence of evil as the cause of such suspicion, I am disposed to enter upon a separate examination of this point. For, when once it has been made clear how it is that evil exists, and when it is seen to be impossible to deny that God is the author of evil, in consequence of His having had recourse to matter for His materials,11 it seems to me that a suspicion of this kind disappears.

“You assert, then, that matter, destitute of all qualities good or bad, co-existed at the outset with God, and that out of it He fashioned the world as we now find it.”

“Such is my opinion.”

“Well, then, if matter was without any qualities, and the world has come into existence from God, and if the world possesses qualities, the author of those qualities must be God.”

“Exactly so.”

“Since, too, I heard you say yourself just now that out of nothing12 nothing can possibly come, give me an answer to the question I am about to ask you. You seem to me to think that the qualities of the world have not sprung from pre-existing13 qualities, and moreover that they are something different from the substances themselves.”

“I do.”

“If, therefore, God did not produce the qualities in question from qualities already existing, nor yet from substances, by reason that they are not substances, the conclusion is inevitable, that they were made by God out of nothing. So that you seemed to me to affirm more than you were warranted to do, when you said that it had been proved impossible to hold the opinion14 that anything was made by God out of nothing.

“But let us put the matter thus. We see persons among ourselves making certain things out of nothing, however true it may be that they make them by means of something.15 Let us take our illustration, say, from builders. These men do not make cities out of cities; nor, similarly, temples out of temples. Nay, if you suppose that, because the substances necessary for these constructions are already provided, therefore they make them out of that which already exists, your reasoning is fallacious. For it is not the substance that makes the city or the temples, but the art which is employed about the substance. Neither, again, does the art proceed from any art inhering in the substances, but it arises independently of any such art in them.

“But I fancy you will meet the argument by saying that the artist produces the art which is manifest in the substance he has fashioned out of the art which he himself already has. In reply to this, however, I think it may be fairly said, that neither in man does art spring from any already existing art. For we cannot possibly allow that art exists by itself, since it belongs to the class of things which are accidentals, and which receive their existence only when they appear in connection with substance. For man will exist though there should be no architecture, but the latter will have no existence unless there be first of all man. Thus we cannot avoid the conclusion, that it is the nature of art to spring up in man out of nothing. If, then, we have shown that this is the case with man, we surely must allow that God can make not only the qualities of substances out of nothing, but also the substances themselves. For, if it appears possible that anything whatever can be made out of nothing, it is proved that this may be the case with substances also.

“But, since you are specially desirous of inquiring about the origin of evil, I will proceed to the discussion of this topic. And I should like to ask you a few questions. Is it your opinion that things evil are substances, or that they are qualities of substances?”

“Qualities of substances, I am disposed to say.”

“But matter was destitute of qualities and of form: this I assumed at the outset of the discussion. Therefore, if things evil are qualities of substances, and matter was destitute of qualities, and you have called God the author of qualities, God will also be the former of that which is evil. Since, then, it is not possible, on this supposition any more than on the other, to speak of God as not the cause of evil, it seems to me superfluous to add matter to Him, as if that were the cause of evil. If you have any reply to make to this, begin your argument.”

“If, indeed, our discussion had arisen from a love of contention, I should not be willing to have the inquiry raised a second time about the origin of evil; but, since we are prompted rather by friendship and the good of our neighbour to engage in controversy, I readily consent to have the question raised afresh on this subject. You have no doubt long been aware of the character of my mind, and of the object at which I aim in dispute: that I have no wish to vanquish falsehood by plausible reasoning, but rather that truth should be established in connection with thorough investigation. You yourself, too, are of the same mind, I am well assured. Whatever method, therefore, you deem successful for the discovery of truth, do not shrink from using it. For, by following a better course of argument, you will not only confer a benefit on yourself, but most assuredly on me also, instructing me concerning matters of which I am ignorant.”

“You seem clearly to agree with16 me, that things evil are in some sort substances:17 for, apart from substances, I do not see them to have any existence. Since, then, my good friend, you say that things evil are substances, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of substance. Is it your opinion that substance is a kind of bodily structure?”18

“It is.”

“And does that bodily structure exist by itself, without the need of any one to come and give it existence?” “Yes.

“And does it seem to you that things evil are connected with certain courses of action?”

“That is my belief.”

“And do actions come into existence only when an actor is there?” “Yes.”

“And, when there is no actor, neither will his action ever take place?”

“It will not.”

“If, therefore, substance is a kind of bodily structure, and this does not stand in need of some one in and through whom it may receive its existence, and if things evil are actions of some one, and actions require some one in and through whom they receive their existence,-things evil will ‘not’ be substances. And if things evil are not substances, and murder is an evil, and is the action of some one, it follows that murder is not a substance. But, if you insist that agents are substance, then I myself agree with you. A man, for instance, who is a murderer, is, in so far as he is a man, a substance; but the murder which he commits is not a substance, but a work of the substance. Moreover, we speak of a man sometimes as had because he commits murder; and sometimes, again, because he performs acts of beneficence, as good: and these names adhere to the substance, in consequence of the things which are accidents of it, which, however, are not the substance itself. For neither is the substance murder, nor, again, is it adultery, nor is it any other similar evil. But, just as the grammarian derives his name from grammar, and the orator from oratory, and the physician from physic, though the substance is not physic, nor yet oratory, nor grammar, but receives its appellation from the things which are accidents of it, from which it popularly receives its name, though it is not any one of them, – so in like manner it appears to me that the substance receives name from things regarded as evil, though it is not itself any one of them.

“I must beg you also to consider that, if you represent some other being as the cause of evil to men, he also, in so far as he acts in them, and incites them to do evil, is himself evil, by reason of the things he does. For he too is said to be evil, for the simple reason that he is the doer of evil things; but the things which a being does are not the being himself, but his actions, from which he receives his appellation, and is called evil. For if we should say that the things he does are himself, and these consist in murder, and adultery, and theft, and such-like, these things will be himself. And if these things are himself, and if when they take place they get to have a substantial existence,19 but by not taking place they also cease to exist, and if these things are done by men, – men will be the doers of these things, and the causes of existing and of no longer existing. But, if you affirm that these things are his actions, he gets to be evil from the things he does, not from those things of which the substance of him consists.

“Moreover, we have said that he is called evil from those things which are accidents of the substance, which are not themselves the substance: as a physician from the art of physic. But, if he receives the beginning of his existence from the actions he performs, he too began to be evil, and these evil things likewise began to exist. And, if so, an evil being will not be without a beginning, nor will evil things be unoriginated, since we have said that they are originated by him.” 

“The argument relating to the opinion I before expressed, you seem to me, my friend, to have handled satisfactorily: for, from the premises you assumed in the discussion, I think you have drawn a fair conclusion. For, beyond doubt, if matter was at first destitute of qualities, and if God is the fashioner of the qualities it now has, and if evil things are qualities, God is the author of those evil things. The argument, then, relating to that opinion we may consider as well discussed, and to me it now seems false to speak of matter as destitute of qualities. For it is not possible to say of any substance20 whatsoever that it is without qualities. For, in the very act of saying that it is destitute of qualities, you do in fact indicate its quality, representing of what kind matter is, which of course is ascribing to it a species of quality. Wherefore, if it is agreeable to you, rehearse the argument to me from the beginning: for, to me, matter seems to have had qualifies from all eternity.21 For in this way I can affirm that evil things also come from it in the way of emanation, so that the cause of evil things may not be ascribed to God, but that matter may be regarded as the cause of all such things.”

“I approve your desire, my friend, and praise the zeal you manifest in the discussion of opinions. For it assuredly becomes every one who is desirous of knowledge, not simply and out of hand to agree with what is said, but to make a careful examination of the arguments adduced. For, though a disputant, by laying down false premises, may make his opponent draw the conclusion he wishes, yet he will not convince a hearer of this; but only when he says that which22 it seems possible to say with fairness. So that one of two things will happen: either he will, as he listens, be decisively helped to reach that conclusion towards which he already feels himself impelled, or he will convict his adversary of not speaking the truth.

“Now, it seems to me that you have not sufficiently discussed the statement that matter has qualities from the first. For, if this is the case, what will God be the maker of? For, if we speak of substances, we affirm these to exist beforehand; or if again of qualities, we declare these also to exist already. Since, therefore both substance and qualities exist, it seems to me unreasonable to call God a creator.

“But, lest I should seem to be constructing an argument to suit my purpose, be so good as to answer the question: In what way do you assert God to be a creator? Is He such because He changed the substances, so that they should no longer be the same as they had once been but become different from what they were; or because, while He kept the substances the same as they were before that period, He changed their qualities?”

“I do not at all think that any alteration took place in substances: for it appears to me absurd to say this. But I affirm that a certain change was made in their qualities; and it is in respect of these that I speak of God as a creator. Just as we might happen to speak of a house as made out of stones, in which case we could not say that the stones no longer continue to be stones as regards their substance, now that they are made into a house (for I affirm that the house owes its existence to the quality of its construction, forasmuch as the previous quality of the stones has been changed), – so does it seem to me that God, while the substance remains the same, has made a certain change in its qualities; and it is in respect of such change that I speak of the origin of this world as having come from God.”

“Since, then, you maintain that a certain change – namely, of qualifies – has been produced by God, answer me briefly what I am desirous to ask you.”

“Proceed, pray, with your question.”

“Do you agree in the opinion that evil things are qualities of substances?”

“I do.”

“Were these qualities in matter from the first, or did they begin to be?”

“I hold that these qualifies existed in combination with matter, without being originated.”

“But do you not affirm that God has made a certain change in the qualities?”

“That is what I affirm.”

“For the better, or for the worse?”

“For the better, I should say.”

“Well, then, if evil things are qualities of matter, and if the Lord of all changed its qualities for the better, whence, it behoves us to ask, come evil things? For either the qualities remained the same in their nature as they previously were, or, if they were not evil before, but you assert that, in consequence of a change wrought on them by God, the first qualities of this kind came into existence in connection with matter, – God will be the author of evil, inasmuch as He changed the qualities which were not evil, so as to make them evil.

“Possibly, however, it is not your view that God changed evil qualities for the better; but you mean that all those other qualities which happened to be neither good nor bad,23 were changed by God with a view to the adornment of the creation.”

“That has been my opinion from the outset.” 

“How, then, can you say that He has left the qualities of bad things just as they were? Is it that, although He was able to destroy those qualities as well as the others, He was not willing; or did He refrain because He had not the power? For, if you say He had the power, but not the will, you must admit Him to be the cause of these qualities: since, when He could have put a stop to the existence of evil, He chose to let it remain as it was, and that, too, at the very time when He began to fashion matter. For, if He had not concerned Himself at all with matter, He would not have been the cause of those things which He allowed to remain. But, seeing that He fashioned a certain part of it, and left a certain part as we have described it, although He could have changed that also for the better, it seems to me that He deserves to have the blame cast on Him, for having permitted a part of matter to be evil, to the ruin of that other part which He fashioned.

“Nay, more, it seems to me that the most serious wrong has been committed as regards this part, in that He constituted this part of matter so as to be now affected by evil. For, if we were to examine carefully into things, we should find that the condition of matter is worse now than in its former state, before it was reduced to order. For, before it was separated into parts, it had no sense of evil; but now every one of its parts is afflicted with a sense of evil.

“Take an illustration from man. Before he was fashioned, and became a living being through the art of the Creator, he was by nature exempt from any contact whatever with evil; but, as soon as ever he was made by God a man, he became liable to the sense of even approaching evil: and thus that very thing which you say was brought about by God for the benefit of matter,24 is found to have turned out rather to its detriment.

“But, if you say that evil has not been put a stop to, because God was unable to do away with it, you will be making God powerless. But, if He is powerless, it will be either because He is weak by nature, or because He is overcome by fear, and reduced to subjection by a stronger. If, then, you go so far as to say that God is weak by nature, it seems to me that you imperil your salvation itself; but, if you say that He is weak through being overcome by fear of a greater, things evil will be greater than God, since they frustrate the carrying out of His purpose. But this, as it seems to me, it would be absurd to say of God. For why should not ‘they’ rather be considered gods, since according to your account they are able to overcome God: if, that is to say, we mean by God that which has a controlling power over all things?

“But I wish to ask you a few questions concerning matter itself. Pray tell me, therefore, whether matter was something simple or compound. I am induced to adopt this method of investigating the subject before us by considering the diversity that obtains in existing things. For, if perchance matter was something simple and uniform, how comes it that the world is compound, 25 and consists of, divers substances and combinations? For by ‘compound’ we denote a mixture of certain simple elements. But if, on the contrary, you prefer to call matter compound, you will, of course, be asserting that it is compounded of certain simple elements. And, if it was compounded of simple elements, these simple elements must have existed at some time or other separately by themselves, and when they were compounded together matter came into being: from which it of course follows that matter is created. For, if matter is compound, and compound things are constituted from simple, there was once a time when matter had no existence, – namely, before the simple elements came together. And, if there was once a time when matter was not, and there was never a time when the uncreated was not, matter cannot be uncreated. And hence there will be many uncreated substances. For, if God was uncreated, and the simple elements out of which matter was compounded were also uncreated, there will not be two uncreated things only, – not to discuss the question what it is which constitutes objects simple, whether matter or form.

“Is it, further, your opinion that nothing in existence is opposed to itself?”

“It is.”

“Is water, then, opposed to fire?”

“So it appears to me.”

“Similarly, is darkness opposed to light, and warm to cold, and moreover moist to dry?”

“It seems to me to be so.”

“Well, then, if nothing in existence is opposed to itself, and these things are opposed to each other, they cannot be one and the same matter; no, nor yet be made out of one and the same matter.

“I wish further to ask your opinion on a matter kindred to that of which we have been speaking. Do you believe that the parts of a thing are not mutually destructive?”

“I do.”

“And you believe that fire and water, and so on, are parts of matter?”

“Quite so.”

“Do you not also believe that water is subversive of fire, and light of darkness, and so of all similar things?”

“Yes.” 

“Well, then, if the parts of a whole are not mutually destructive, and yet the parts of matter are mutually destructive, they cannot be parts of one matter. And, if they are not parts of one another, they cannot be composed of one and the same matter; nay, they cannot be matter at all, since nothing in existence is destructive of itself, as we learn from the doctrine of opposites: for nothing is opposed to itself – an opposite being by nature opposed to something else. White, for example, is not opposed to itself, but is said to be the opposite of black; and, similarly, light is shown not to be opposed to itself, but is considered an opposite in relation to darkness; and so of a very great number of things besides. If, then, matter were some one thing, it could not be opposed to itself. This, then, being the nature of opposites, it is proved that matter has no existence.”

FOOTNOTES

1 A fact which gave rise to a controversy, on which consult Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p.78.

2 See vol. 6. p. 358, note 5, etc., this series, where I have spoken of Maximus as the original of the Dialogue ascribed to Methodius.

3 Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p.85. See pp. 77-121, devoted to this author.

4 In Eusebius, Præp. Evang., vii. 22.

5 Χωρητὸν, the reading of one ms., instead of χωρητικόν.

6 For εἰ δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς, ὅλον ἐχώρησεν αὐτόν, Migne reads, ἔι γε (or εί δὴ) μέρος αὐτῆς ὅλον, κ.τ.λ.

7 Συστολήν τινα.

8 Τῶν γινομένων (ἐν) αὐτῷ, Migne.

9 This word, ἀγέννητον, is added from Migne’s conjecture.

10 Ἐκ τῶν ὑποστάντων γενητῶν.

11 Ἐκ τοῦ ὕλην αὐτὸν ὑποτιθέναι.

12 Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. [Note this phrase. Comp. vol. 6. p.292, n. 6.]

13 Ὑποκειμένων.

14 For συλλελόγισται ὡς οὐκ ἀδύνατον εἶναι δοξάζειν, Migne reads, ὡς συλλελόγισται ἀδύνατον εἶναι δοξάζειν.

15 Lit. “in something.” Whether the materials or the art is meant is not very clear. Possibly there is a play of words in the use of the two prepositions, ἐκ and ἐν.

16 Migne, instead of παραστῆναι, conjectures παραστῆσαι, which, however, would not suit what appears to be the meaning.

17 Οὐσίας τινάς.

18 Σωματικήν τινα σύστασιν.

19 Τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει.

20 Migne reads οὐσίας for αἰτίας

21 Ἀνάρχοως.

22 Reading, with Migne, εἰ ὅ τι for εἴ τι.

23 Or “indifferent:” ἀδιάφοροι

24 Migne reads ἐπι εὐεργεσίᾳ for ἐστὶν εὐεργεσία.

25 The text has, σύνθετος δὲ ὁ κόσμος; which Migne changes to, πῶς δὴ σύνθετός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος;