Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea on the Theophania or Divine Manifestation of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated into English with notes from an ancient Syriac version of the Greek original now lost; to which is prefixed a vindication of the orthodoxy, and prophetical views, of that distinguished writer. Inscribed by permission to his grace the Duke of Northumberland, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. By Samuel Lee, D.D. of the University of Halle; Cambrodge: Printed at the University Press, Duncan and Malcolm, London. MDCCCXLIII.
1. THE human race, O my friends, stood (thus) in need of God the Saviour : and God alone was the helper, who, could give abundance to those who had suffered loss, and life to them who had become subject to death. The advent therefore of God, and the divine manifestation of the common Saviour of all;—-of him who arose (as the sun) upon mankind was necessary, because all that was upon the earth, had, through the insanity (inculcating) a plurality of gods, and the envy and solicitation of demons, become corrupted to the last stage of vice, and (immersed) in the depth of ungodly error.
2. But again, that the cause of the Divine manifestation of the common Saviour of all among men, might the better be known, let us first of all speak on the great fall of the human race, on their lawless wickedness and iniquity : and then let us pass on to the hidden mysteries of the doctrine of this divine Revelation.
3. For, it was not as some disease which (lay) on man, and was mighty as opposed to every other; but it was, that the evil 1Demon so led, and ruled over, the whole human race, like a pestilence that is mortal, (and) far surpassing every thing that is (generally) evil and hateful, that he drove him who was more peaceful than any other being, to the last stage of brutality; and him who was rational, to that of being the most irrational of all. Hence2 it was that men, in the blindness of their souls, recognized not the God who is over |67 all; The Cause and Maker of all; The Reverend Name of that nature of the ONLY (Begotten) which had no beginning, Him who was before all3, THE WORD OF GOD; The Father of the essence which is intelligent and rational; Him who rules both in heaven and earth ; Him who is at all times present to this world, and is in it, and is the (efficient) Cause of every good to all; That providential care ; That Saviour; That Upholder; That Giver of rain, and Dispenser of light, and Prince of life; That Creator of this whole (they recognised not, I say), but gave that Reverend Name to the Sun, the Moon, the very Heavens, and the stars; nor did they confine themselves to these4,—-
4. But also, to matter warm and cold, wet and dry, to the very waters, the earth, the air and fire;—-things which we perceive with our eyes, have neither soul nor reason ;—-and to the rest of the (constituent) portions of the world, they likewise gave the names of Neptune, Vulcan, Jupiter, Juno, and of others, and honoured them with the title of god: nor did they confine themselves to these,—- |68
5. But, they also made Gods of the earthy nature of the fruits of the earth, and of the provisions intended for the bodies of every kind (of animal, and named them) Ceres, Proserpine, Bacchus : and, of other things allied to these, they made Idols: nor did they confine themselves to these,—-
6. But, they hesitated not to call the cogitative faculty of their minds, and their reason, which is the interpreter of of these, also Gods. Their faculty of thought they named Minerva, and their speech Mercury. The powers inventive of moral doctrines, they called Memory, and the Muses : nor did they confine themselves to these things,—-
7. But, increasing in manifold impiety and the excess of wickedness, they made themselves Gods of their own passions; which it was becoming they should have put away, and have cured by the effort of pure reason :—-of their lust, their baser infirmities and passions; of their grosser members also fitted for corrupt acts, and of the different parts of the body. And again , the appetency to the intemperate |69 lusts, they named Cupid, Priapus, 5Venus, and other things allied to these: nor did they confine themselves to these,—-
8. But, they also prostrated themselves to that which was born6 of the human body, and to the life which is subject to death; they made men into Gods; and published of these, after undergoing a common mortality, that they were Gods and Demigods; imagining that the divine and immortal essence moved about the sides of graves, and among the monuments of the dead: nor did they confine themselves to these things,—-
9. But, they also honoured with the Reverend name, every species of irrational animal, and noxious reptile7! nor did they confine themselves to these “,—- |70
10. But, they also cut down trees8, and hewed the rocks: the metals too of the earth, brass, iron, and other matter, they sought out, and formed into the appearances of women, forms of men, and into the likenesses of wild beasts, and of reptiles; and to these again they gave the name of Gods! nor did they confine themselves to these,—-
11. But, they also ministered, by means of libations and the fumes of sacrifices, to the evil demons which had insinuated themselves into these same images9, which had been set up in the innermost recesses of darkness; and to them they gave the name of Gods! nor did they confine themselves to these,—-
12. But, they also drew over to themselves, by means of the ties10 of those who used abominable incantations, by |71 songs and other forcible and lawless enchantments, tho se invisible Demons11 and Powers which fly in the air: and again, they availed themselves of these, as abettors of the error of the deities, which they had (so) fabricated. And thus did they set up mortal men, as the Gods of Others. For the Greeks honoured Bacchus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Apollo, and other men, with the names of Gods and Demigods ; while the Egyptians12 imagined of Horus, Isis, Osiris, and again of other men such as these, that they were Gods. Nor did their wise men, who are boasted of for their excessive wisdom, and the invention of Geometry, Astrology, and Arithmetic, know or understand how to weigh or to discriminate in their minds, between the distinguishing measure of the Divine power, and that of irrational mortal nature. On this account, they hesitated not to give the name of Gods, to every frightful image of the animals ; to every sort of untamed beast, and reptile; and to the fiercest animals. The Phoenicians too, named 13 Malkuthrudun, |72 14 Ousurun, and other mortal men more contemptible than these, Gods ; while the Arabians did the same to 15 Dusarin, and 16Oubadon; the Getas (Goths), to 17 Zalmacusin : the Cilicians, to 18 Mopsus ; the Thebans, to 19 Amphiaraus. And with others, again, others,—-who differed in no respect from mortals, but were in truth men only,—-they also honoured with the name of Gods. |73
13. The whole of the Egyptians, therefore, at once with the Phoenicians and the Greeks, (thus) availed themselves, contrary to humanity, of every mortal species,—-even as the rising of the sun illuminates (all) the portions of the universe,—-of the very elements, of the fruits20 which grow out of the earth, even of their own passions21; and again, even of the madness of demons, and (other) delusions; and before these, of mortal men22! Nor did they set up, during their lifetimes, the doctrine which is excellent; nor did they point out to men, the instruction which attends purity of life; nor did they shew forth the requirements of (true) philosophy, or discover the practices favourable (to this) : nor did they leave behind themselves any disciples of their superiority, or deliver either precepts or writings conducing to happiness of life23. On the contrary, they busied themselves with women, and the baser lusts ; and, as it happened,—-I know not by what error of the participation in the deeds of Demons,—-they named (these) Gods and Demigods, and honoured (them) with sacrifices, and services (connected) with the error of enchanters! They also built Fanes and Temples (to these) both in the cities and villages: but Him who alone is beyond the universe, THE WORD OF GOD in verity, the King of all, and Maker of all, they set at nought! |74 These same multiplied all this, in the madness and corruption of (their) mind, to such an extent, that they forthwith called any men, with whom they happened to meet, Gods; and immediately attached themselves to these same passions of mortals! And to these did they ascribe lawless adulteries, abominable deeds, and perverse lives and deaths. Nor did these things come from others, so that they could say these were their calumniators; but they themselves are the witnesses of these things, confessing the error, the sorrows, the deaths; and prior to these, the adulteries, the corruptions, of men (with men), and the rapes of women24. Nevertheless, they filled all their cities, villages, and (other) places, with the Fanes, Images, and Temples (of these)!
14. Nor25 was it this only, but also, from the speeches which they made about their Gods, they received every provision for the life which was lawless and base; and, in the first place, corrupted by every sort of abomination, at once both their souls and bodies. And, that such were the things which they did, when assimilating themselves to their Deities, we can readily shew from this, that the Phoenicians our neighbours, as we ourselves have seen, are busied with these things, even now, in Baalbeck; the ancient injurious excesses and corrupting paths of vice, being persevered in there, even to this time; so, that the women there enter not into the bands of lawful marriage, until they have been first corrupted in a way contrary to law, and have been made to partake in the lawless services of the mysteries of Venus26. Now indeed, this city alone |75 remains in this sickly state of folly, by way of proof of these ancient vices; when, from ancient times, many thus suffered while the disease inflicted by Demons had more abundant hold.
15. Nor was it this only, but also, the very men who rejected the gods mentioned (above), preached up, by means of hymns, elegies, sacrifices, mysteries, books, and votive offerings to Idols, that Father and Leader of all the Gods, who was overcome by bodily lust, and fell in love with Ganymede27: and, as it were in emulation of their Gods, they transgressed the bounds of nature, and remained in this excess, at a distance not to be described, or (received) as real into the hearing. They fearlessly abused each other, as the Divine declarations affirm : “Man with man working that which was shameful, and receiving in themselves the return of reward, which was due to their error28''.
16. Nor was it this alone, but they also subverted |76 the common mind of all, placing under an irrational Fate, and natural necessity, the constitution and essence of every thing. They led too, the lives of beasts, even the life which was no life. Nor did they enquire into the essence of the soul, or think on the righteous judgments of God. The victory attendant on virtue, they never called to mind, nor again, the punishment due to a wicked life.
17. Nor was it this alone, but they also ran as herds into the midst of the theatres, old and young together ; mothers with their sons and daughters; and, conformably with the doings (there), they contracted every base and intemperate disposition. Men and women too, being (thus) congregated together, became at once filled with intoxication (as it were) and lasciviousness! How then, could they do that which was good, when they stored not their hearing by listening to words that were pure, inculcating the fear of God? and applied not their eyes for the advantage of their souls? but (the hearing), to the instruction of sentiments that were base; and the sight, to the representation of every (sort) of lascivious-ness? For, things such as these, were those which (were presented) to the sight; (and), on which whole multitudes so fixed their attention, that in them (was evinced) the maddened excitement of the stallion, the vile pleasure (felt) over those devoured by wild beasts; (the |77 excitement) of grains of corn parched29 (by the fire); (or over) those killed in the lion-hunt; but not (any feeling) belonging to human beings! And again, the impudent laugh (set up) at the vilest things; the intense and foolish desire excited by the music; the lascivious shows personating women; and the loud uproar set up at the songs! For these, indeed, and such like things, were immense multitudes of the ignorant inhabitants brought together, with those who were their Princes, their Generals, and their Governours, and became saturated (as it were) with the corruptions which debase the soul30.
18. Nor was it this only, but they also built seminaries of the precepts of ungodliness both among the (country) people, and in the cities31. Instead of the precepts of righteousness, and those which were advantageous to the world ; and, instead of the doctrine which was pure, and the love of God; they received into the memory,—-through the impious babblings of the poets, in which there were |78 corrupt recitations, and stories about their male and female deities,—-passions filled with every thing shameful, as well as hard sufferings32, differing in nothing from (those of) mortal nature; (I say), through the instruction and study of the lying writings of the Dramatists, both tragic and comic, these things, corrupting and injurious (as they were) of life, they first sowed in their own souls, and afterwards in those of the young. And accordingly, (through) the iniquity, which was the first and last of every other,—-which was, at once and entirely, that of all men, of Princes and Subjects, of the Sovereigns of nations, of Lawgivers, of Armies, of the Inhabitants both of villages and cities, among both Greeks and Barbarians;—-the praise which was due, and was suitable to Him alone who is King of all, they perversely gave to that which was adverse (to Him), and called the demons that had corrupted them, (their) Gods! They sang hymns moreover, to earthly and wicked spirits, to the inanimate elements, and to the sensible portions of the universe! And (thus), the companies of the rational animals which were on the earth, rendered not the praise of the officiating priest; nor, with their brethren who are in heaven, the holy Angels and Divine Spirits,—- those who praise the King of all,—-did they render praise, the praise (I say) which is proper for such : but, on the contrary, they sang, both in their feasts and festivals, that which was foreign to propriety, and was unsuitable, to those seducing Spirits which had led the world astray! To them, too they gave the honour of worship; insomuch, |79 that henceforth, the whole element of the earth, uniformly with all nations throughout the whole of creation, became nothing better than the vessel in the storm, whose entire and violent wreck in the extreme depths of perdition, is momentarily threatened!
19. Much therefore, on account of all these things, was God the Saviour and (only) helper, needed by mankind. Had some societies only been led to this state of error, the evil would indeed have been (but) small. But now, the Princes of cities, the Leaders of the nations, the Kings of countries, the Heads of territories, and the Honourable of the nations, had at once become fully, and completely, diseased in this same error of Demons, and of a plurality of Gods. And behold! again, even those,—- who boasted themselves among the Greeks of (their) philosophy, and made the profession, that in them was knowledge superior to any that was in the many ; were pompous in the streets, swelling with pride, and casting their mantles loosely about them ; had wandered in the great and wide earth; had freely taken from other nations this magnificence of doctrine about things; from this place, geometry; from another quarter, arithmetic; and again from another place, music, the art of healing, and those other things, which have their being in rational experiment33: for, these things, and others like them, they |80 got together from every place:—-these fell (nevertheless), into a deadly and ungodly state of mind! By the mere discovery of persuasive words moreover, some of these set it up,—-as if they would make no experiments even after the truth,—-that indivisible34 bodies (atoms), having no extent, or having projecting parts, and infinite, were, forsooth, the origin of all things! These same too, determined 35Rest to be the extreme good : that which is, and |81 evidently (so), a greater corruption than all the (other) vices. For, What could be more worthy of honour than Rest, with those who laid it down, that there is in this something which exists, neither Providence, nor God, nor soul that is immortal, nor intelligent essence, nor WORD OF GOD which is above all, nor (yet) beginning, nor end? and, that the things alone that are irrational and inanimate, which are indivisible and subtile bodies (atoms), and fall not, on account of their excessive smallness, under the (observation of the) senses;—-that they should predetermine these very things, which are inanimate, irrational, as being without beginning, ungenerated, and in their multitude infinite, and as having, from times not to be comprehended, been dispersed just as it has happened?—- still, things being thus, have affirmed, that these were the cause of this universal order; and, that there was neither God, nor Providence, nor Reason which viewed, or which governed, the whole? But, even if there were, that He would not possess the being of any one thing; neither would He give it to others36! And, as my judgment is, the “Rest” which was (so) lovely to them, and which they also attributed to God Himself37,—-just as the doings |82 of those were who arose as Philosophers of the school of Epicurus and Democritus, and as was the whole traditionary (doctrine) of those amongst the Greeks,—-was that of (this) life. And, being thus eminent, they approached the multitudes; at one time, walking to the temples with the inhabitants (generally) ; at another, shewing themselves to be those who feared the Gods; because of the fear of punishment (otherwise to be expected) from the law38. But such were these, who contended for Rest (as the extreme good).
20. Others too, fixed the limits of Providence as far off as the moon39; the company of those too, who were of the school of Aristotle, excluded it from every other portion of the world: which same also, determined the extreme good to be, neither Virtue, nor Philosophy, unless indeed, it happened to be attended by wealth of possession40, abundance of gold and of silver, Family, and and the glory which takes with the many! And, What could hinder such from boasting themselves in these things? —- men, who had shut up, as with bolts and doors at the distance of the moon, the Providence which is over all? or, that they should affirm, that the intelligent and |83 rational soul41 which is in man, is mortal; and, that it is nothing, but even as the body, or as its colour, or its form? They usually term it moreover, Entelechia42. Nor did they, by any means, place in apposition with the chief good, either the life of Philosophy, or the superiority of rule: on the contrary, they lapsed into the things of accident, riches, greatness, and family: (affirming), that with these existed the superiority that was worthy of reason ; and that, without these things, it was nothing! Nor had the wise man any thing superior, unless he were also rich : nor had he, who was careful about purity of life, any thing good about him, unless he were a person of family! nor, would justice itself, or the complete |84 beauty of virtue in the person of any one, be sufficient for the life of happiness, unless he happened to have a complete symmetry of bodily limbs! These men then, considered these things as being apart, in a place (removed) from the things pertaining to men, (and) higher than the moon : that a Godhead existed; but affirmed, that the providence of God looked not to the things on earth. Nor did they recognize the common Saviour of all, THE WORD OF GOD, the Preserver of all things; but drew near for the purpose of reverencing those Deities, that were in certain places, and in the cities43: professing themselves to be wise in some things, with those who knew them ; but performing others in their deeds. In their writings and common conversation, they made the oaths of their Gods: but, in their minds, no such thing existed. On the contrary, they submitted to this for the sake of the applause of the many44. So that hence these same were Demons, rather than men, (and) to be despised by every sort of sound Philosophy.
21. Others also, besides these who boasted themselves (as being) the best of Philosophers, dared with ungodly |85 mouth to affirm, that God is a body; and, that His nature differs in no respect from fire. And this is the extreme error of the Stoics, who say of this sensible world, that it is God : and (so) set up a doctrine, which is impious and all-corrupting. For (they affirm), that the operative Cause, and the passiveness45 of matter, are of one and the same essence; and, that the maker and the made, are both bodies : and also, that the King of all, God who is above all, differs in nothing from sensible fire; but, that he mixes Himself up at once, with every thing,—-just as fire does in (its) progress,—-at the appointed times. But great is the |86 sin (to affirm), that God is subject to change; and again, to combustion! This therefore, is the doctrine of the Stoic Philosophers, that all being, even the whole world, shall in time be mixed up with God46 in fire: and, (that) the whole shall effect a change, as in seed; and, that out of this, universal order shall again be produced, just as it was at the first: and that all these are Gods, as are all the portions of the world; and, because the whole consists of all its parts, the entire universe itself wholly constitutes the Deity47! These same again affirm, that this intelligent and reasonable soul which is in man, is corruptible, just as it is corporeal. What then, could hinder such from daring to speak against God, the King of all? or again, from determining, that these souls (consist) of matter, and body? and, that they are nothing else but the dense smoke, and fumes of bodies48? and again, that after the close of life, they |87 shall continue, during the times destined for them? and (this) not of all, but only of the souls of the Philosophers 49? and, that at last, with the general conflagration, these also shall burn together with God, and the whole universe? and, that at the same time, the souls of the wicked and of the just shall be dissolved ; the thing's also of the just, together with those of the atheists, shall be fused, as it were, by one and the same fire? and again, that the worlds shall be reborn from this consumption of universal fire, differing in nothing, but in every thing, similar to the former; so that again, as from a beginning50, these (worlds) shall in those be reproduced; as shall this same traditionary (life). Modes of life again, such as shall in all respects be similar, and not differing: the same fashions too, customs, regulations, and passions, shall exist within these. In the same manner also, the same sorrows, honours, recreations, oppressions, shall subsist among these, and happen to the same individuals. So that Helen51, and the calamities of Ilium, (Troy) may again be expected: and again, |88 Anytus 52, and Melitus, and the deadly poison of Socrates: again too, the contentions of the Philosophers themselves: the same divisions on the same subjects; and, at last again, shall the whole be consumed by fire ; and again, after it has been burnt, again shall it be restored anew: and again shall consist of the same reducible materials53. And indeed these, adhered thus violently to their error!
22. The descendants however, of the Philosophers, who were named the “primitive (students of) Physics”54, (and) who preceded all (others), laid the origin of all upon the inanimate Elements, and recognized neither God, nor Providence, nor Creator, nor Maker of any thing; but vainly, emptily and falsely, arrogated to themselves the name and show of Philosophers: some of them affirming the earth, and dry substance, to be the origin of all; others the ocean55, the Parent of all ; for thus they named the humid substance and waters : others, fire56; others, the |89 air57; and others, a compound58 of these. They also introduced many male, as they likewise did, female Deities. Marriage too, and the bringing forth of children, they perverted by natural metaphors, and the specious diction of the fictitious stories of the Poets, to the adorning of (this their) vain glory59. So that these also, fell down again, as it were by perverseness, from the heights above, upon the material elements and sensible portions of the universe!
23. Others however, exclusive of these, determined the reverse of all those mentioned ;—-that there was nothing divine in (all) this which exists; neither God that was over all; nor the (Deities) which were in certain places, nor that superior name, nor the imposition of (plastic) hand upon matter, were things really existing: so that they proceeded to the greatest extent of impiety60.
24. Plato alone, of all the Greeks, (as) it seems to me, adhered more eminently to (the true) Philosophy ; and held correctly, respecting that good Being who is the First, and Cause of all; and became truly wise, respecting the Second (61 Cause), who is the Creator of all. |90
25. He also established (it) justly and well, that the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars, and wholly and at once, the whole world, were made by the God of all62. |91
26. He also affirmed of the essence of the soul, that it is incorporeal and foreign to corruption. He was also cognizant of the intelligent Essences; and confessed, that the mind which is over all, (and) which we call THE WORD OF GOD, is King of all. To the same he gave the Rule over all, after the manner of a shipmaster, who well and duly provides for all: Him he also shewed was Governour63. This man alone, of all the Greeks, confessed—-just as we do,—-of THE WORD OF GOD the Creator of the world. But, he is at hand, and we may hear (this) from himself, when discoursing of God thus :—-
27. “64 Let us render honour, neither to that (heavenly body) which is of the year, nor to that of the month. Nor let us cut off to these indeed, any portion : neither the time in which it proceeds in its orbit, and completes the visible world, which THE WORD OF GOD has set in order. Of all who are in it, he who is happy will have wondered |92 (at Him), and afterwards acquired such love, as to investigate (Him) as far as mortal nature is able.
28. This man moreover, now calls THE DIVINE WORD, the Father, the Lord of all, and also Governour of all, in the very same words, and names Him just as we do ; expressing himself thus :—-
29. “This65 Epistle, all you who consist of three should read, particularly in society: but, if not, between |93 two in common, as each may be able. As often as ye shall be able, avail yourselves of compact (together), and of the Law; and, by that Lord, who is justice (itself) swear ye, at once with care ;—-not without wisdom,—-and with erudition the sister of care; and, by that Governour of all, of the things that are, and of those that shall be; and, by the Father of the Governour and of the (efficient) Cause, the Lord, swear ye:—-Him, whom, if we are truly Philosophers, we shall all clearly know, as our power (may be, being) of those who are happy men.”
30. This (philosopher) also taught, that there was a just Judgment of God, and that He would render to every man as he should deserve: he very divinely shewed too, that the extreme good was this, that (men) be like to the Godhead66; be attached, and made (as it were) twin brothers, to virtue. Nevertheless, he also fell justly4, (and as it was) likely, more than they all under reprehension. Why? Because he knew God as He was; but honoured Him not as God. He concealed the truth too, and put forth falsehood to the many. To those whom he loved, he spoke openly and well, as a Philosopher, of the Father and Creator of this whole. But, with the inhabitants of Athens, he conducted himself as no Philosopher; and went down to the Pirasus to Socrates, at his word, to pray to the Goddess, and, at once, to complete the festival of Bendis67, together with all the inhabitants. And again, |94 he himself said of his master, that, when the end of his life drew near, he commanded them to sacrifice a cock! Nor did the best of Philosophers blush;—-nor was it concealed :—-that, the Father of his philosophy commanded them to propitiate the Deity, by means of fabricated earthly matter, and a little blood ;—-the body of a dead bird68! And again, he called those (Deities) that were honoured in the cities, Demons: and this he did well. But, he further confessed, that these same were, and that they were formerly known as being, mortal men. And (here) he spoke the truth. Nevertheless, he advised that (men) should worship these same as Gods! And, because he submitted himself, with the multitudes, to the error of these, he may well have been memorialized as (implicated) in their pretences, because he concealed the word of truth under the show of Philosophy, and attached himself to |95 falsehood. Hear therefore, the things that he has said in the Timaeus:—-
31. ” To speak of the other Demons, and to know their power, is too great for us. We assent however, to those who have said before us, that they were the sons of the gods, even as they have affirmed : and they well knew their own fathers. It is impossible therefore, we should not approve of the sons of the gods, when behold, they advance neither probabilities nor strong proofs69. But, as they affirmed, that they narrated respecting those who were their own (fathers) ; (so) we, adhering to the law, believe. Thus therefore, as these affirmed a generation respecting these gods, (so) let it be; and be affirmed, that the Ocean and |96 Tethys were the sons of the Earth and the Heavens; and of these same, Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea (Ops): and of Saturn and Rhea, Jupiter and Juno: and those others, whom we know were all of them brothers of those mentioned: and others again, the children of these.”
32. You (now) view the very Philosopher—-who is from above70, and of the exemplars that are above the world, and of the intelligent essences which are incorporeal,—-beneath on the earth and on the ocean, immerged as it were in the depths of error71! He has moreover, introduced a generation of the gods,—-him who could himself alone, say with a mind, the voice of which was more elevated than that of man,—-
“What is that which always is, but that it might |97 exist, has no being? And it is this same which is apprehended by knowledge together with reason, and exists in all time according to itself. But, that which is to be considered by the sense that is irrational, and was, and is corruptible; that it might fully exist, it never had even being.”
34. This selfsame Combatant therefore, now honours this identical (something,)—-this which was, and is corruptible, but never fully existed, on account of its elemental and dissoluble character,—-with the name of gods! And again the very same, (virtually) reprehending the expositors of this story of the gods, says of them, that it was neither from probabilities nor from strong proofs, that they spoke and put forth the error of these Deities. And, having accused them in this manner, he afterwards says, “We give our assent to them, and approve ;” when, behold! they had said nothing truly! Besides, when he called them the sons of the gods, |98 he clearly knew, that he was introducing their fathers who were, like all (other) men, subject to mortality! And again, he memorializes mortal gods, and mortal sons, who were like to their fathers, and who plainly said that they knew their own fathers. Nor does he conceal himself when he says, “It is impossible therefore, that we should not believe the sons of Gods;” still, he immediately accuses them, that they had advanced neither probabilities, nor strong proofs, and adds, “We approve of them, as saying that they narrated respecting their own” (fathers.) He says not—-and (this) fully and carefully,—-that they narrated; but, as “they said that they narrated;” and, we “assent to them as saying, that they were the sons of the gods.” And, Whence had he learned this, that he should affirm just as they had said? For (says he) they said this: It was not I. That is; Still to them, when speaking of themselves, and unable to establish (the assertion) respecting themselves, either by probabilities or strong proofs, we nevertheless give our credence! He says too after this: ” Thus therefore, as these affirmed the generation of the gods, (so) let it be;“ necessarily, says he, just as these say! Not indeed as my opinion is, but as theirs (was,) let these things be affirmed72!
35. You perceive therefore, that he advises it as proper, that we should adhere to error! And, For what cause does he set this up? Not because of any other thing, except the Law : that is, because of the death that was suspended on the Law! And this he openly acknowledges when he says, ” We, adhering to the Law, believe.“ The fear then of man, and of the Law, dismissed from the Philosophers, that Fear, and Law, which (were) of the truth! Where then, are those excellent and wise things, |99 which the same elegant tongue,—-(and) wholly for the sake of which,—-said in astonishing language, and thus magnificently?—-
36. ” For73 there is neither law, nor any one ordinance superior to erudition; nor is it just, that the mind be subservient or subjected to any thing: it is, on the contrary, Prince of all, if indeed it be free in its nature.“ This same too, is he who said, that “Wheresoever74 a man places himself, thinking it to be best, there he ought, as I think, to remain, (even) in the storm; making no account of any thing, neither of death, nor of any other thing, before things hateful.” He also said afterwards; “For75 this, that one should fear death, O men, would be nothing else, but that we should suppose him to be wise when he is not so.”
37. How then can you, O Philosopher! be moved by death after these expressions? or, draw near to |100 honour” mortal Gods, on account of the Law? And, How can you dignify these, as sons of the Gods, in order that we might approve, and give (our) assent to them? In your own words you both reproach, and chastise (them), as having said nothing soundly, or by way of proof, respecting (these) their own Fathers. How then, having thus accused them, can you now advise men to approve of them? But, of these their Fathers, let us make inquiry :—-
38. Of the Earth, you say, and the Heavens, the Ocean and Tethys were the progeny: and again, Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea. And so after all these, Jupiter and Juno! Jupiter, after the Earth and Heavens! Jupiter, after Saturn! and Rhea, after the whole of these! What say you, O Combatant?—-Where is the great Jupiter, who drove the flying chariot in the Heavens? Or, Is not that a sentiment of thine, over which every body cries out and wonders, when thou thus sayest:—-
39. “ The same great Jupiter therefore, drove and guided the flying chariot in the heavens, and to the same adhered the hosts (both) of the Gods and of the Demons76?”
40. But, I know not whence Jupiter is to be viewed, after these (viz.) the Earth, the Sea, the Ocean, Rhea, and |101 Saturn, mortals! or How, according to this sentiment of thine, we can give our assent to that of those who said before us, that “ they are the sons of the Gods, just as they affirmed; as they clearly knew their own Fathers. It is impossible therefore, we should not approve of the sons of the Gods, when, behold! they advance neither probabilities nor strong proofs.” And he adds; “Thus therefore just as they affirmed a generation, respecting these Gods (so) let it be, and be affirmed.” After this he makes a long story, which is that of the generation of the Gods, (as) related by the Poets. And, upon this He assures us and says, that from Saturn and Rhea were Jupiter and Juno, and all those whom we know ; and the brothers of these, are they all said to be; and others again, who were the children of these.
41. Do you observe then, how this man goes on stating, —- stating too not things that are not difficult, but impious, and those which are directly opposed to his own Philosophy? For this is he who in the Republics, drives |102 away contemptuously (and) entirely from his commonwealth, those whom he here calls the sons of the Gods! —-those ancients (I say) who spoke of the Divinity of these; Homer himself, Hesiod, and prior to these, Orpheus! But now, the same Philosopher advises, that we give credence to these; calling them the sons of the Gods! He supplicates too,—-subsequently to the earth and the heavens, and to that humid substance which he names the Ocean, (implicated) in generation and corruption!—-that Father of all, both of men and Gods; and Juno, with those others succeeding them, who—-as he affirms—-are said to be their brothers; and confesses, that they are the sons of those who are of the Earth, and of the Ocean: and he afterwards advises, that we should worship these as Gods77! Where then is that multitude of intellectual Essences? And, Where that incorporeal Form which is beyond the world? or, that Divine story about the nature that has neither colour nor form78? And, if indeed every soul be immortal, Why dost thou subject to mortal beings, those that are immortal? And, to the bodies of Demons, that which is Incorporeal? The intelligent and rational Essence too, to those that are of sense, and subject to corruption? It seems right to me therefore, to consider this man more reprehensible than (all) the rest; since an attachment, on account of the kindred character of his doctrines, drew me to him. For, as it appears to me, this man alone of all the Greeks, attached himself to the outward portals of the truth, and shewed, in many (of his) sentiments, a relationship with us. Nevertheless, such cannot be honoured by the truth; because he is, as it appears to me, more reprehensible by it than all |103 others. For he,—-whose (main) desire was to live, while those things which attached themselves to his doctrine (virtually) effected his condemnation to death; and, while his opinion was that, (these) were no Gods;.—-he did nevertheless submit himself (to them), as if he recognized no other life, but that only which was present.
42. The Peripatetics79 too, so attached,themselves to a belief, similar to that of the Originator of this Philosophy, that they supposed the soul which is in man to be mortal; and affirmed, that its form and body, was (what they termed) the Entelechia. For the sake of the present life,—-which alone they acknowledged,—-they submitted to the many. They believed too, that those were never Gods, which were (made) such by the law of the commonwealth: they submitted themselves (nevertheless to these) through the fear of death, and of the punishment of the Law.
43. The Stoics again, who taught that all was body, and that this sensible world alone was God, and that the (constituent) portions of this were Gods, persuaded themselves to do the things—-although these might be odious,—- which were conformable to these their precepts! And, because they called the (constituent) portions of the world Gods, and worshipped the earthy substance, How could |104 they escape severe reprehension? These too, as they determined that the Elements were the origin of all things, worshipped the Elements accordingly.
44. He however (i. e. Plato) determined, as by divine revelation, what that is “which exists in all time, but which could not be (of itself) ;” and what that is “which is apprehended by knowledge together with reason, and (is) in all time according to itself.” He also said, in what way it exists; stating openly, well, and wisely, (and) in plain terms, the true account of the Deity, as (its) nature is, in these words: “God80 therefore, according to our former discourse, holds the beginning, middle, and end, of this all which exists: and, proceeding according to nature, He rightly disposes (it). And to Him does justice ever adhere, awarding punishment to those who swerve from the Divine Law.” But, How came he to swerve from the Divine Law, and to think defectively of the justice which is over all? and to put forth for us, these laws of mortal men? this Philosopher too,—-this (I say), who could send the soul above the curvature of the heavens,—-to fear Death? Besides, I cannot think that this same man held soundly of |105 the immortality of the soul, because he made the notion of the vulgar his own. For, it was not (according to this) that the souls of men only were immortal; but also, (those) of dogs, hedgehogs, ants, horses, asses, and of the rest of the irrational animals ; and, that (these) differed in nothing, as to their essence, from the souls of the Philosophers! He (also) affirmed after the Egyptian manner81, that these same eiFected a change into every sort of body ; those of men being transfusable into the beastly nature. On these accounts, he is as worthy of reprobation in this case, as in that in which he gave his approval82, but lied on the other side! And, although this was (such) an astonishing man, that he could apprehend the Maker and Creator of this whole; nevertheless, as he put not forth the word of righteousness, he is particularly deserving of the reprehension of every man : because “ he knew God83, but honoured Him not as God; but worshipped and served the creature, exclusive of the Creator.” He also named those Gods, and worshipped them (as such), which were (supposed to be) fixed in visible bodies; the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, confessing at once, and at the same time, that they were made, were perishable, and compounded in their nature of fire, earth, and at the same time, of the rest of the elements! And these same he worshipped, he honoured, and called them Gods! And then again, he afterwards |106 confessed that these very same (Deities) were both dissoluble, and subject to corruption! But we may hear him,—-as the thing said is at hand,—-saying in the Timaeus:—-
45. “Gods84 of the Gods, of whom I am the Creator: every thing therefore, that has been bound together, is dissoluble; hence, because you came into being, in order to exist, you are not immortal: neither (are you) wholly indissoluble.” And again (speaking) on their being, whence this is, and how to be determined, he says: “What fire is to air; such the air is to the water; and the water to the earth : out of which He bound up and established the visible and sensible heavens. And, by means of these things, and out of them, which are thus and |107 the number of which is four, the body of the world came into being.” After this he says : “And, as to the existence of time, in order that time might be, the Sun, the Moon, and the five other Stars, which have the title of wandering (planetary), came into existence; (and this) for its determination, preservation, and calculation. So God made each one of these bodies, and placed them (each) in (its) course.” And again, he says of the heavens, how they existed in all time; there being no beginning of the essence (of these) not even one: or being, of what sort this was in its primitive commencement. He then turns his discourse to his soul, and says, “it became existent, is visible, is subject, to sense, and has a body: and, that all such things are thus subject to sense, and, that those which are subject to sense, are apprehended by thought, and (so) perceived to be existences”.
46. Was it not therefore, lapsing far from soundness of mind, that he, who spoke so orderly and well of these things, should call them Gods? that he should confess also, that they were made out of the perishable and corporeal matter of fire, water, air, and earth? and affirm that they were subject to dissolution, and in their nature corruptible? and, again, should name these selfsame beings Gods to be honoured85? For, What participation can that Name and Honour have, which is the Cause of |108 all things, with bodies that are subject to sense, and to dissolution? Or, What sort of companionship of the WORD, inseparable from Him who is in all time, but cannot be86, (i. e. as we are, subject to corruption), with that which always was, but never had an existence (of its own), so that he should call these Deities God? For, if He is truly God, He who exists in all time, but has not that he might be (as we are) ; so far as He existed not thus, He was no God. But if he be God, who was at all times, but never existed (of himself): whatever he might otherwise be, he is no God. And, What sentiment can be more impious than this? For, the two things are opposed in their natures ;—-this, which is apprehended by reason and knowledge; and that, which is to be considered by irrational sense:—-this too, which is capable of action : and that, which is passive. How (I ask) can such opposites deserve one (and the same) name? For, this would be, as though a man should wonder at the science of the architect, but should attach the honour (due to him) to the work that was by him ; and (so) invert the order (of things)! And, should any one name the ship, the shipmaster; or the coachman, the chariot with its horses; so likewise, would he act most foolishly, who should dare to name the Creation of God, Gods; when behold! it had not escaped him,—-but he had openly confessed,—- that they were bound up in the bands of God the Creator of all, and (affirmed, that they) were constituted out of the inanimate elements, fire, water, air, and earth! Nevertheless even this man thus (taught)!
47. But, What necessity can there now be, that I should bring to light, how the wise men collected themselves together in ranks, as it were, sectioned themselves off, separated, and mightily armed themselves against one another, just as in battle array, and met |109 with shields, spears, and hosts,—-as one of the Poets says, “Behold the abundance of the uproar thickened—-of the destroying and the perishing?”—-for Plato termed their warfare with one another, the conflict of Giants when he thus spoke,—-
48. “And behold! the conflict between them might be assimilated to that of Giants, because of the contention they had with one another about matter.”
49. Nevertheless, Plato himself said these things either against the Philosophers who were before him, or against those who were his contemporaries: and, that these also,—-(as) he also afterwards cries out,—-were those who took up arms against him, the evidence is clear. For Aristotle, who arranged himself against Plato, went off with his whole school from his doctrines. |110 Others again, the Juniors87 afterwards arose, who attacked the philosophical notions of Aristotle; and, on the other hand, animadverted on the Stoics. Others, the Sceptics, put forth Pyrrho88 and the reserve89: and, at once, ridiculed every body! For, they all fully equipped themselves for a mighty war of soul against one another: and (this) by means of words, fell moreover, but little short of arming themselves, fighting, and attacking one another, with spears and shields! Where it was any thing but right, they divided: but, where it was necessary they should contend with all their power,—-I know not how it was,—-they agreed; and particularly in the error of a multiplicity of Gods! They agreed (I say) in that, which before all men, and more than all men, they knew was a non-entity! That is to say, the Epicureans, (agreeing) with the Stoics: the followers of Aristotle, with those of Plato: the professors of Physics, with the Sceptics; (these) one and all, together with their wives, their daughters, and the ignorant crowd, going to the Temples, and presenting themselves for the purpose of worshipping with (their) vows, as Gods, the inanimate Idols, (formed) |111 in the likeness of men: and these they honoured with libations, fumes, blood, and the sacrifices of irrational animals: shewing by this means,—-and in this one thing only did they relax their enmity towards one another,—- that they all studiously gave their assent to this their error. And (again), when the truth was laid open to them, they opposed it! For it was right, that where their knowledge was correct, there should they have shewn their character to be firm: that they should have contended and warred for the truth; and, had it been necessary, they should have even died for it: (and) should have received it readily in the love (thereof), as men boasting themselves that they were Philosophers. These same persons were therefore, friendly to one another in this, that they brought themselves together for the sake of falsehood: and, about those things, on which it was unbecoming they should contend,—-because of the hidden and unknown properties of these,—-they contended as if it had been for the truth; readily too was their contention carried on about shadows, while they attacked and reproached one another, with innumerable wounding expressions. But, What need can there be, that (I should record) the contentions of the Philosophers against one another, their controversial expressions, and the common warfare which they set up, and in which they fell; since they availed themselves of human wisdom (only), and of the reasoning of the mortal mind: God the Teacher not having presented himself to them? |112
50. How was it then?—-How, that those who contended about these things, had no God; when, behold! there was a multitude of Deities among them?—-since that of Delphos90, and that of Lebadia91, was (each) a Diviner? —-that of Colophon92 gave responses?—-'that of Miletus93 was also a Diviner?—-and another was crying out from another quarter? Nevertheless, not even one of these could so teach these wise men, that they could apprehend the truth! All of them too worshipped these, as did their Fathers; and all the Greeks confessed, that they were gods: yet, they were not the more assisted in the discovery of the doctrines which are divine; when, behold! there was nothing hindering them from being forthwith (so) instructed in the truth, (or) from availing themselves of the Gods, who were on the earth and at hand, as (their) Teachers. Nor should they have injured, and reviled one another ; but, should have ceased from dispute, and have enquired of the Gods about the matters of contention; and so have learned the truth, as it were from Physicians, and (thence) have received advantage. And first, it was |113 the duty of the school of Epicurus to have learned not to be godless, and not to have subjected themselves to “Rest”94 (as the chief good) : nor so to have infatuated themselves with ridiculous (notions), as to ascribe to subtile and indivisible bodies95 the power of making the universe; but to have persuaded themselves from the Gods, when (so) taught of the things respecting them. It was also the duty of the school of Aristotle,—-who saw with their own eyes the Temples, Fanes, and Idols (that were) on earth : not one (only) but myriads (of these), in every city and place,—-to have examined them as to their power: and, from the fact, no more to have confined their discussions about Providence, either to the (regions) above the heavens, or even to (those) above the moon96; but, to have persuaded themselves, that there were Gods also on the earth, and that they exercised a providential care over the men among whom they resided. And, as it was in their power to learn from these same their own (Deities), they should no more have contended with those that were arrayed against them, as to whether the soul was mortal, or immortal. They should therefore, have asked the God who was at hand, and (so) have received, as from the Gods, the true decision (of this question). Thus also, (it was the duty) of the Stoics; and thus too, of the Platonists: thus also, of the Sceptics who are termed Pyrrhonists : and thus also, of those who were in former times styled the Philosophers of Physics, that they should not have desisted from inquiry as to the truth, nor have supposed, as those do who play at chess, that every thing coming into their mind was truth. They should, on the contrary, have asked the Gods who were residing among them about every thing that was unknown: but not even one of the Wise Men has done this, nor did it even |114 enter his mind! Was it then, that they were godless, and evil-minded towards the Gods, that (the task) was unwelcome to them, and (that) they acted thus? But, thus were they all at once godless; and the Philosophers appear to have been particularly so, and much more wicked than those who were unintellectual: those (I say), who made it no unwelcome task to enquire of the Gods about the taking of wives; the taking of a journey; blindness, or the infirmity of the body :—-these too, were readily heard: and to those, who so sought did (the Gods), not in.vidiously, give their divinations. But, behold! it was any thing but becoming in the wise, to have enquired of those Gods who were among them, and to whom they rendered worship and honour, respecting their bodies (only) ; but not about the healing of their souls. And, as not even one of these marvellous Philosophers did this ; it remains, that we assure ourselves of one of two things; (viz.) Either, that these men were no Philosophers; or, that those (Deities) were no Gods. For if, when (these) were really Gods, they set them at nought; they were no Philosophers, but were fools and ignorant men: but, if they had in truth made any approach to the love of wisdom, and abounded in knowledge more than the many; it is clear that they would, with pure conscience, have laughed at the folly of the many ; and it is likely (they did so).
51. But, if those who have been mentioned, were really Gods; Why was it, that the conversation which is on earth, happened to be that of their lives? Was it for the common advantage of all? If indeed this was the case; Why did they not give up those (their) vain stories, and preach to all men the things, that would aid in the acquirement of virtue? And, Why did they not give themselves to the enacting of laws for man, corrective of the common conduct? and (to the performance) of deeds, pointing out the life of virtue to all? And, Why was not their care more particularly exerted for healing the passions of the soul, than (the sufferings) of the body?—-rather to deliver those who fled to them, from foolishness and ignorance, than from the loss of possessions, when they saw that men desired wisdom ; that they were labouring night and day |115 for the discovery of the truth ; and were seeking (both) by labour and contention, for a decision as to the reverence due to these same Gods? And again, (these) went in among the Diviners, and offered sacrifices just as their Fathers had done; and honoured those (Gods) with the honours which they had by custom retained. Why then, did they not receive these with terms of affection? praise them for their labours? and, so delivering them from the contention which they had with one another, give them such aid from their labours, that they should become truly wise in God, and be (real) Philosophers?—-and (thus) teach them the science of that true Philosophy, which is free from falsehood? But, as they did not this, they made it plain to every man's perception, that they were no Gods: and, that those who boasted that they were Philosophers, were unworthy of that name! For, had they been truly wise, they never could have supposed that these were Gods: inasmuch as they had afforded to them nothing worthy of Deity, nor had it in their power to teach those, who were anxiously careful about the knowledge respecting them, the things pertaining to Deity.
52. Thus these (Philosophers) became in (appearance) what they (really) were not: besides, they presented themselves to the many, and called those Gods, which they knew more accurately than all (other) men, were no such things! What sort of name these deserve, it is not necessary for me further to say, except, that those who made their locks to flow down97, frequented the Temples together with |116 tavern-keepers, with men the refuse (of society), and harlots! And, Did these wise men (then) ask of the Gods the things advantageous to the Philosophers? There is no one who will say this of them!—-nor, in like manner, how it was, that no instructing Deity presented himself to afford the erudition which would aid them. But (the things asked) were,—-as the Diviners (themselves) say,—-the commodities and helps of life generally; the discovery of a slave, if one had happened to run away; of a broken vessel; the purchasing of an estate; merchandise; the taking of a wife; or, other things similar to these. About these it was, |117 that their admiration and reverence were called forth to their Gods; (and this) in the little blood of a cock, the immolation of a ram or of a bull; the (offering of) cups and bowls, or of a little wheat flower, or of purchased crowns! And, Had they any truth—-teaching Deity, as to the things (comporting) with virtue, or to those which respected the healing of the soul? No, not (even) one! On this account, these Philosophers appear to me, to have laboured insolently in (their) warfare against one another, greatly to have aggravated their mutual differences, and to have departed (willingly) from the real knowledge of God : and accordingly, one might hear from them in words, of the Gods, the sons of the Gods, of Demigods, and of good Demons : but in deeds, every thing was adverse: and in opposing, they boasted themselves of opposition! Just as if one should he willing to point out the sun, with the luminaries that are in the heavens; but be unwilling to lift up his eyes to Him who is above (these): should cast down both his hands and soul to the earth, and seek among the clay and mud, the Powers that are in the heavens! In this manner therefore, had the whole race of men persuaded themselves, together with their Philosophers, and Kings,—-through an estrangement of the intellect, and the error of wicked Demons,—-that the rational and Divine Essence which is above the heavens, and beyond the universe, existed in place, below, among material bodies, and subject to the passions of both mortals, and immortals! And, since this entire estrangement of mind had infected the whole human race, Have we not soundly affirmed that God the Saviour, a Divine Revelation, and a common Helper of all, was required for this our state of life?
53. And98 again, all had been led to such a state of insanity, that they even sacrificed their friends to those who were thought to be Gods: nor did they spare their own nature; on the contrary, they put to death, through |118 the madness and bondage of their minds, even their only children99, and the friends of their children! And, What madness can be greater than this, that (men) should sacrifice human beings, and pollute all their cities and houses with their own blood? And, behold! Do not all the Greeks bear testimony to these same things? And, Is not the whole of their histories filled with the records of them100?
54. For, the Phoenicians annually sacrificed (some of) their friends, and their only children to Saturn101! To the same again, was a man also sacrificed in Rhodes on the sixth of the month Conun (March)102! This same custom too |119 greatly obtained, and was thus changed : They kept one of those, who had been publicly condemned to death, until the feast of Saturn; and, when the feast arrived, they brought the man out beyond the gate, over against the Image of Aristobule (Diana): they then gave him wine, and put him to death.
55. In the (place) also which is now called Salamis103, but formerly Coronea, was a man sacrificed in the month named among the Cypriots Aphrodisius104, to Argaula the daughter of Cecrops and daughter-in-law of Argaulis! And this custom continued to the time of Diomedes; and was (then) so changed, that they sacrificed the man to Diomedes! And in one (and the same) inclosure was the Temple of Minerva, of Argaula, and of Diomedes. He then, who was to be sacrificed, was accordingly—-when his equals in age had led him three times round the altar, —-stricken on the stomach with a lance by the priest. He was then wholly burnt on a fire that had been got together. This law however, Diphilus,—-who was king of Cyprus in the times of Seleucus the Theologian105,—-abrogated: He also changed this custom for that of sacrificing a bull. |120
56. The law too, whereby men were sacrificed in Heliopolis (a city) of Egypt, was abrogated by Amosis, as Manetho attests in what he wrote about primitive justice106.
57. Men were also sacrificed to Juno, and were chosen just as immaculate calves were sought after, and were slain! There were three moreover, sacrificed in one day! But Amosis commanded that equivalents of wax, resembling these, should be substituted for them107.
58. They also sacrificed a man to the Omadian Bacchus in Chios, when they had torn him (to pieces)! and also in Tenedos, as Euelpis the Carystian affirms! |121
59. The Lacedemonians also, as Apollodorus affirms, sacrificed a man to Mars! The Phoenicians too, in their greater calamities, whether wars, pestilences, or famines, sacrificed one of their friends, who was selected (for this purpose), to Saturn. The history too of the Phoenicians —-composed by Sanchoniatho in the language of the Phoenicians, and (which) Philo Biblius translated into the Greek, in Eight Books,—-is full of this, (viz.) as to those who were (so) sacrificed.
60. Ister108 also says, in (the) collection of select sacrifices, that the Curetes formerly sacrificed boys! And Pallas, who collected abundantly on the mysteries of |122 Mithra109, affirms, that the sacrifices of men entirely ceased every where, in the days of Hadrian the Emperour.
61. A Virgin was also annually sacrificed to Minerva, in Laodicea of Syria; but now a hart is.
62. The Carthaginians also, who were of Libya, made the same sacrifice ; which Iphicrates110 caused to cease. The Dumatians111 too, of Arabia, sacrificed a boy annually: him they buried beneath the altar, and this they used as an Idol!
63. Philarchus too has left it on record, that all the Greeks commonly sacrificed men, before they went out to battle!
64. But I omit the Thracians and Scythians; and also the Athenians, who put to death the daughter of |123 Erectheus and Praxithia112. But, Whom has it escaped, that even to this time, a man is sacrificed in the Great City113 (Megalopolis) at the feast of Jupiter Latiaris? For even up to this time, it was not only to Jupiter114 in Arcadia, nor to Saturn in Carthage, that they all commonly sacrifice men ; but, through the remembrance of the law, they shed their own blood upon the altars every year115! The most select Philosophers also attest, that things were thus: for Diodorus116 who abridged the Bibliotheca has affirmed, that the Libyans117 publicly sacrificed two hundred of the sons of the nobles to Saturn! Nor did they add to the sacrifices, fewer than three hundred others118! He |124 too, who wrote the history of the Romans, whose name is Dionysius (of Halicarnassus) has said, that Jupiter and Apollo required upon a time, human sacrifices from those in Italy who were called the Aborigines. These however, had sacrificed to the Gods that select part (Tithes) both of their fruits and flowers, which was required of them. But, as they had offered no human sacrifices, they fell into every sort of calamity. Nor did they obtain any relief from these evils, until they had decimated themselves119! Thus therefore, having selected a tithe of the |125 men, and sacrificed them to Jupiter and Apollo, they became the cause of (their) country's ruin! And, so far had this entire corruption of soul destroyed human life, that no other hope of salvation could be prescribed, except that which was from God the Saviour: this alone, and no other, was wanting to the race that is mortal.
65. And thus, in these (distresses) of soul were all men, in every place : nor, was it enough for them, after these things, to act basely ; but, they were also harassed by innumerable other incurable calamities from without, in every place and city. For, all nations at once, throughout the whole creation, Barbarians and Greeks, were so inflamed by means of the maddening deeds of Demons,—- |126 were so stirred up by the grievous and calamitous disease (of these), that neither intercourse nor agreement existed among men,—-that so far,—-and farther,—-was the great body of (our) common nature forcibly urged on, that, in every corner of the earth in which men lived, they were, both from their usages and laws, in a state of warfare with one another. Nor was it this only, but they were also so fierce in the commotions and wars, in which they opposed each other, that, always and throughout their whole lives, they so engaged themselves that no one who desired (this), could take a voyage for the purpose of merchandize to any place, unless he (first) armed himself as for war. In the villages and fields too, the Agriculturists put on swords, and furnished themselves with an excess of equipment, over and above that of the implements necessary for the cultivation of the earth. Men considered it (also) a virtue to rob, and steal from, their neighbours120: and, to our affirmation do all the writings, both of the Greeks and Barbarians, give testimony. The Books also, which are among the Jews, teach (us), that, from times prior to Augustus and Tiberius121,—-in whose days our Saviour appeared,—-there were in the world, in every city and village, kings and Toparchs fully (established) from the earliest times.
66. The Jews therefore, immediately after the egress from Egypt by Moses, when they had come into Palestine, expelled the Kings, thirty122 in number, from their cities. Those however, who were not extirpated, remained and availed themselves of their population, local residences, and |127 kings: those (I say), who resided apart in Gaza, Ashkelon, Joppa, and Azotus, again rebelled among themselves. Scythopolis123 too, and the cities about it, were accordingly so governed, that hence it happened, that their study was in contention and wars with their neighbours. And also, when in Jerusalem the wonderful Temple was built, (and) which Solomon erected, What necessity can there be for saying, how many subsequent wars (happened) and dealt vengeance even on the Jews, on account of their dissimulation in the worship of their God; and on which account, they became divided from each other? They also arose against themselves, and availed themselves of (the aid of) various Kings and enemies ; some of whom took the metropolis formerly called Samaria, but now Sabastia124; others again, resided in Jerusalem, and were always engaged in wars with their own people, and these with them125.
67. Not unlike these too, did those suffer who resided in Arabia : for, among these also, there was a multitude of local Princes126. The same also was the case with the Syrians, who were in subjection to their (many) kings. The Phoenicians again, so guarded their territories, that no one could mix himself with them, or pass through them: while they were continually desolating the lands of those who resided on their borders, and were constantly engaged in the reduction of cities, and in making captives of one another. Nor was it this only, but also the |128 whole of Libya and of Egypt, subjected themselves to all these Princes and Kings, as if they had been Gods! They had too, thousands of different Gods, both in the villages and cities, as they also had of kings, who enacted laws adverse to them, and were the inventors of every form of Deity. These were they, from whom many places in Egypt received their names, as well as laws; which they still retain. These Deities moreover, and Laws, so affected those who were subject to them, that they made them at once, both enemies and haters to those who were in their neighbourhood; and that hence, they gave up the whole period of their lives to contention! And they were as much excited against one another, as if they had employed the many princes of the vilest Demons! Hence also, the error of a multiplicity of Gods127 began and obtained dominion,—-like some evil and destructive disease of soul,—-over the rest of the countries of the heathen! The Egyptians were moreover, (occupied) more than all other men in the worship of the Gods; and more able were they than all others, scientifically to honour them. But, that such fruits were the recompence of their worship, Do not thou (now) enquire. For, the causes of peace and mutual agreement, now so visible to the eyes, had no existence in former times; on the contrary, every thing opposed to these. On this account they were, during the whole period of their lives, harassed with wars and contentions against one another; and (hence), they filled their lands with their own blood, and with the slaughter of themselves; these very Deities apportioning to them, as a recompence for their worship, these and similar doings!
68. If however, these things are not known to all; yet Who, of those that are fond of reading of the affairs of the Greeks, can be ignorant of them?—-of the war (for |129 example) of the Peloponnesians and Athenians, of which Thucydides is the writer?—-how Greeks warred with Greeks?—-how they subdued the Potidaeans?—-how they trampled on the Thebans and Plataeans?—-how the Thracians and Macedonians at one time assisted the Athenians, and at another became their enemies?—-how the Athenians reduced Corinth, and desolated the country of the Epirotae and Traezenii?—-how they wasted the Lacedemonians; and these again, suffered in like manner from the Lacedemonians when they invaded Attica, and depopulated the country of the Athenians? At another time, the Olynthians128 made war on the Athenians; and these again, on others: and these, on their neighbours! Every species of warfare moreover, abounded among them: fights in ships (by sea), fights by land, and fights with cavalry! All these innumerable things did the Gods,—-as one may affirm,—-fully bring to pass at that time among the Greeks! Nor was it (this) only, but they were also conversant among men; they were honoured, and they were served : not as is now the case; but,—-as (all) affirm, —- as their fathers worshipped those ancient (Deities), and gave themselves up to them, so as to be their friends and to converse with them, as being Gods (present) with them, and residing with them on the earth. And in many things, both by divinations and revelations, did these assist them. Nevertheless, the fruits of honouring these Gods were these; wars, contentions, desolations, and captivities!
69. But, if you wish to investigate things more ancient than these, contemplate with your mind him who was in |130 Delphos, and held his seat (there) in the presence of the Greeks. I speak of the Pythian ; of him who was preached to all the Greeks, and who proclaimed to the Lydian (Croesus),—-but was infirm when he did so,—-129“ I know the number of the sand, and the measure of the sea: the deaf I understand, and the dumb I hear.” He therefore, sent to this same (as) a reward for this song, the bricks of gold of two talents (weight), the phials of gold, and bowls in like manner130. Nevertheless, Croesus was, with this his declaration, all infirmity : nor did this Deity in any way help those descendants of his house, so that they might live happily and soberly. On the contrary, Pisistratus131 became embittered against the Athenians, while this Pythian was seer among the Greeks, and the rest of the Gods had dominion over them, and were even partakers in (their) wars! The people of Argus accordingly, fought against the Corinthians; the Lacedemonians, against the Traezenians; the Locrians again, waged war with the other Greeks, and the Corcyreans with others. Messena too, was taken four times by the Lacedemonians; and the Arcadians were reduced! The walls of the Orchomenians132 were also |131 rased to the foundations, and the Athenians: overcame the people of Aegina: and again, the Megarians, the Corinthians; the Lacedemonians, the Athenians; the Athenians, the Boeotians; and the Locrians, the people of Phocis! These things therefore, (did) all the Greeks to the Greeks; the Gods nevertheless, sitting at the side of Jupiter while all these came to pass! The Clarion Pythius; that of Dodona, which was in Epirus, did—-since they were Demons filled with fumes,—- very gladly receive the sacrifices which were of Demons, both the sacrificial bestial hecatombs of bulls, and those human sacrifices, which were of their own friends! And, while they were inflamed with this vile delirium and love of war, and were (even) rabid against one another; these Grecian Gods,—-behold! when with them; these friends, (I say) and provident beings, these lovers and guardians of the Greeks,—-restrained them not! But, if we must speak truly, these were the friends of war; these the haters of mankind; these the contenders with God! For, they were the cause of all these things, because they delighted in the slaughter of mankind. And when they had it not in their power to delight in war, they forthwith did so in human sacrifices, and in the libations of human blood, with which they glutted themselves in every city!
70. One of two things is, therefore (the case) : Either, they were nothing; and it was grievous error that had then so taken hold of mankind, as to induce them to honour inanimate images as Gods, and vainly, emptily, and by a sort of madness, to sacrifice their own friends |132 (to them) : or, if they were possessed of power, it is likely that this would be fully effective, either of good, or of evil. Now, if they were in their nature beneficent Deities, remaining too on the earth, and occupying the middle part of the cities; they would not have evinced this sufficiently, unless for the advantage and safety of those among whom they lived. But, if they were wicked Demons, they would be engaged in every thing opposed to goodness. What then, can constitute a surer proof as to these things, than the fruits which (grew) out of their government; for, “from its fruits is the tree known133.”
71. It is time therefore, that we enquire whether the wars and contentions—-not of enemies, nor yet of Barbarians who arose against the Greeks, but of the Greeks themselves, who subscribed to the Gods of their fathers, and were infuriated against one another; —- were these fruits: the Gods too being within (their cities), and nearer than the (very) gates, and daily honoured by their citizens. What (then) did they give, worthy of this worship, to those who so worshipped them? Was it, first of all, peace? that they might live a life of ease and comfort? —- and thence, laws that were efficient, arid preservative of every thing good? If indeed, the things just now said were of this sort; there is no necessity we should doubt of the existence of good governours. But, if the extreme of evils had taken hold of the whole family of the Greeks:—-the Gods being more numerous than the inhabitants: nor was it, that they were honoured in every city only, but also in every house:—-and, (if) when they were (so) honoured, they supplied nothing more to those who honoured them, than the slaughter of wars, the desolation of villages, the rasing of cities, captivity, and spoil; the Greeks being inflamed against the Greeks by these things:—-What can there be wanting to our knowing, and (thence) affirming, one of the two things supposed (above)? For, either these Gods could do nothing, because they were nothing: and thus, were far from being the cause of the evils : or, they possessed some |133 power, and were the cause of these: or, that they permitted these things to be so: or, that they themselves did them. If then, they were the doers of these evils, it would thus seem, that they should be styled the Princes of evil. But if, when these evils were done by others, they connived (at them), they were again, the betrayers of their Friends: they were not (their) helpers: but (their) deceivers; and were therefore, vicious.
72. For, if they were no Gods, and in their nature by no means superior to ourselves, but, were otherwise men who had realized sincerity through their excellency and wisdom ; Would they not have interposed themselves, and have relieved their Friends from contention?—- either persuading them by reason, or, saving them by power, and severing them to a distance from each other? counselling them also in the things which were becoming?—- when acting (I say only) as good men; and, as being their Friends, relieving them from their (mutual) enmity, and bringing them together for peace?
73. How then ;—-for good men would have done this, had they happened (to be circumstanced as just mentioned): —- did the Gods (act), being present with the Greeks and conversant among them, and honoured by all? Did they neglect their Friends, giving them up to bloodshed, desolation, and mutual slaughter? and, Why? Because they were unable to help them? or, being able, were unwilling? For if, when able, they were unwilling; it was no office of helpers which they performed for those who honoured them, but of enemies and deceivers! For those, who can deliver from calamities, but do it not, are in nothing better than enemies. But if, when willing, they were unable ; they merited desertion on account of their weakness. And, if they were thus circumstanced, the reputation of their being Gods was superfluous: nor did men truly ascribe to these the title of helpers; inasmuch as they did not help them to salvation, because of the weakness of their own nature.
74. But, if they advance a superintending fate134, such |134 as to take hold of every thing, and even of the Gods themselves, and (affirm), that this was the cause of the wars, and of every thing which came to pass among men ; this will overthrow the whole course of our life, as it will make every thing that is (virtuous) among us, vain ; and a doctrine false and vicious will, instead of this, make its ingress among us. And thus also, will the purposes of the Gods themselves be rendered vain, since they can do nothing hut that which has been fated. The things, which this makes it necessary should happen, (shall happen) even when the Gods will (them) not! And thus again, will the anxiety of those who reverence these Gods become vain and empty, since they render honour to beings who can effect nothing.
75. But in this were these astonishing (Deities) caught, that they had not the power to help against the evils of mankind ; that they were openly seen delighting in base and abominable stories about their own divinity, and in the wicked and unlawful sacrifices of men. From these things therefore, it becomes us to judge of these same Gods, as doing such things among the men of those times ; because, as their nature was attached to evils and to wars, they were convicted by their own deeds.
76. But now in our times, every anxiety about the Beings just mentioned has suddenly lost its power ; and the things belonging to this ancient disease have been cut off: every city, region, and locality, among the heathen, now remaining in the profoundest peace! The whole of Asia, Europe, Lybia, and Egypt, which were formerly not better than a ship in a storm, on which the violent winds and tempests had fastened from every quarter, and had thus far, —- and still farther by the northern blast, —- contributed to her immersion ; are now so righted by the happy guidance of the helm of peace, in a serenity that is peaceful and a calm that is resplendent, that they subscribe to the ONE Ship-governour of all things. Such are all things now, |135 since he that was in Delphos has been desolated; since that Pythian, (I say) has been extinguished, and since the recollection of the rest of the Gods has been wholly withholden from the hearing of mankind. Nor have such things as that necessity of fate, or (those) war-loving Demons, agitated the cities. For, since the doctrine of our Saviour has obtained throughout the whole creation of man, in every city, village, and place ; and again, since no race of Demons, but He alone who is the King of all, God, and that Creator of the whole world, THE WORD OF GOD, has been made known and honoured by all men, Barbarians and Greeks; every word about fate has been rendered unavailing: every war-making necessity too has been removed far away: the Divine peace-making WORD is hymned throughout the whole earth: the race of man is reconciled to God its Father ; and peace and love have been restored to all nations! The things, which pertained to the Gods, are now no more done; —-nor are those which set up the system of warfare (that men carried on) against one another, when those (their) ancient temples occupied the highest positions throughout the whole earth,—-(now that these) have fallen under the extremity of desolation, and all those Gods, which formerly uttered their cry in every place, have either from shame or fear, been reduced to silence135: every city too, nation, and region, have by means of the right hand of love, been made at once to enjoy peace, and are delighting |136 themselves under one government in the deepest established order and agreement. In what manner of life all, both among the Greeks and the Barbarians, existed formerly, when they honoured the Gods far more than their own friends, there is now no need we should shew at length, having shortly laid these things open already, except (to say) that these ancient things are, as such, matters of record.
77. But, Why should any one say that these are things of recent occurrence? since, as far back as (the death) of Alexander of Macedon, not long before the manifestation of our Saviour, many governments arose. For Arridaeus136, the brother of Alexander, received the Kingdom of Macedon: of those that were in Europe, Antipater took possession ; Ptolemy, of Egypt and Alexandria ; Seleucus became Governor of Phoenicia and Coelo-Syria: Philotos, of Cilicia; Antigonus, of Asia ; Casander, of Caria ; Leonatus, of the Hellespont ; Eumenes, of Paphlagonia ; and Lysimachus, of those parts that bordered upon Thrace. From this time these, with those who had received their governments, poured forth as rivers against one another in war. For, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, marched fifteen times out of Egypt. Seleucus too, met Ptolemy King of the Macedonians, and was killed. Perdiccas also, entered Egypt with an army. Ptolemy took Cyprus, and Demetrius seized upon Syria. Another too, went forth to another place, and, with the violence usually attendant on robbery, seized upon those who resided on his borders.
78. Thus therefore, during this same time, were things brought to pass one after another in every quarter of the world. When the worship of many Gods prevailed, there was neither peace nor agreement ; while mutual enmity abounded. Sacred places, Fanes, and Temples too, were abundantly appropriated to these in every city. With |137 many votive offerings were these temples adorned. Much talk too was engaged in respecting these Gods, by the kings of those times, as was also by the people, the inhabitants of villages, and of every (other) place; so that they honoured with images and altars these (Deities) of their fathers, in their houses, their very treasuries, and inner chambers. Nevertheless, when thus circumstanced, they were no better than demoniacs whose souls had been perverted by madness, (and) that during their whole lives, they polluted themselves with the blood of their own countrymen! And truly demoniacal were they in their wars with one another, and in their pertinacity in the reduction of cities: the demons, the leaders astray of the world, being their helpers in these matters!
79. Those too who were thought to be Gods, who gave out divinations, and foreknowledge (of things to come) to their worshippers, were not so discerning as to foreknow, or to foretel, their own destruction137: which happened to them all, at the manifestation of our Saviour among mankind! This too is a mighty proof of their inferiority, as it is a well grounded reproach on the divinations which were formerly published among all the Greeks. Nor did any one of the Diviners indeed, foretel that manifestation of our Saviour138, which (has taken place) among men ; nor yet, the |138 new doctrine which has been given by Him to all the nations. Neither did that Pythian (Apollo), nor any other of the great Demons, foreknow his own destruction; nor did he prophesy respecting Him who was to come (to be) the destroyer and uprooter of them all; nor yet, did he foresee respecting all those of the nations, both Greeks and Barbarians, who should leave the error of a plurality of Gods, and acknowledge the God who is over all.
80. What Diviner139 then, or Enchanter? What Demi-god, Demon, or God, has foreshewn by divination, that these their beauties should be extinguished, when He should be manifested, who was to be a new thing140 in the life of man, and (is) the “knowledge141 of God” who is above and over all, and whose worship has now been communicated to all nations? Who is he (I ask), that has prophesied of the destruction of their Temples, and of their own utter ruin? and, Who,—-supposing of these Images of gold and silver which are every where, whose fusion was by fire, and whose change as to appearance was quite useless, were supremely serviceable to man;—-that, as (these) their Gods were (but) molten, they should, by way of contempt and derision, be afflictively cut to pieces? Which (I ask) of the Gods has ever put (this) on record? And, How was it with their supporters, that they lent no aid to their Temples, when these were rased to the ground by men? And, How were those circumstanced who, in former times were engaged in creating wars, that in their own calamities they should look with complacency on their uprooters, who were in the profoundest peace142? But, the |139 wonder of the matter is this, that, when their Temples were subjected to destruction, a peace, administering increase to every excellency and good, had taken firm hold on the life of men: every thing happening to the contrary, when the Gods were in peace! For, during their prosperity, wars, conflicts, commotions, and the reducing of cities,—-as shewn in history, and as we have already said,—-(prevailed) among men: but, in their desolation, an entire peace with every good thing without drawback. Whence it must be evident to every one capable of reflection, that these were no Gods, as it also must, that they were not good Demons, but on the contrary, vicious ones. Those must also have been destroyers, whose prosperity was the cause of calamities to mankind, and whose ruin led the way to the bringing in of every good to all. But, how (all was) formerly in commotion among the Greeks, and how the nations throughout the whole earth were agitated, we now know, as to a few things:—-
81. And hence we may perceive why appointments, the character of which was varying, subverted the lives of all. For the Egyptians had a law, allowing them to take their own sisters as wives143: the Persians, to hold shameful and sinful converse with their own mothers144: others, to |140 pollute their own daughters in unlawful wedlock145: and of these, the extent was such, that (“the natural use of) the woman was interdicted. The wickedness too, of the Philosophers themselves, as also the intercourse with men which is out of nature, had reduced all the Greeks to insanity146. Besides there were some, by whom it was thought right to conceal (their own while living) in the earth in Sepulchres147; and by others, to deliver (these) to the flames! Others however, gave up these things as impious148, and exposed their dead |141 (only) to the dogs and birds of prey. Others murdered those who came to them as guests149! Others too, feasted themselves on human flesh150! And again, there were those who, when their friends were in the agonies (of death), sacrificed them and feasted on them, before they expired151! Others, who were approaching old age, they threw from rocks152! Others they gave up to strangulation153! Others154 they threw |142 to the dogs, while still living; and others, while dying155! Others they buried with these (alive156)! while others put the living to death on the funeral pile; those (I say), whom those (now) dead had loved 157!
82. Thus therefore, had the whole human race been led on to the last stage of brutality, so that he, who was (once) rational, became the most irrational of all. Nor was there any other (being), of those that were on the earth, more vicious than man; who had been (so) led into every vile affection, and had (so) corrupted his mind with every species of wickedness, that he readily forsook even the reflection which belonged to his nature, and did nothing well, either of the things pertaining to the soul, the body, or of those, which were external to him; but, he every where became subject to vice upon vice!—-For, the lives of men are divided among the things which are of the soul, of the body, and of those which are external (to both). But, the error of the Demons had (now) so possessed in every form, and had so corrupted, the lives of men, that the things of the soul were at war with them, through the madness of the Demon-worship which had (so) seized upon them, and through their foolishness and blindness as to the truth,—- about which (truth) even the family of Philosophers was in a state of agitation. And, as to the things of the body, (they consisted) in the human sacrifices which (prevailed) throughout the whole earth ; and again, in the base, lawless, and corrupt practices, which were foreign to nature. The things too, which were external (to both, consisted) in this, |143 that in the cities, localities, and nations, all were, at one time, divided into parties ; at another,—-when they were brought together,—-they contended against each other, by means of the desolations and reductions of cities, in which they mutually laboured. And, the length of the day would be insufficient for me, were I to relate all the things pertaining to this ancient disease, which had (so) seized upon the whole race of man. And, on this account more particularly, was God the Saviour necessary to this our (mortal) life, as to those who had been cast down to the last extremity of evil: nor was there any other cure or aid (for this), except by means of the glorious and divine manifestation (of Christ).
83. What, then, was it right that THE WORD, the Father of rational beings, the Saviour of all, the Guardian, the providential Care, the Shepherd of the rational flock which is on the earth, should, after (the occurrence of) these things, do, in order to raise to great honour the rational and intelligent Essence which is in man, (and) which had (so) fallen into the vast depths of evil? And that he, who had with his own hands (so) dragged upon himself the cause of his ruin, might see (and know Him as) his friend? Would it have been well, that (even) a man should pass over the safety of his friends, and unpityingly neglect them when thus perishing, who had the highest claim to his providential care? No Captain indeed, would ever be termed wise, who should give up his ship with its crew to go down, having by him that which (would secure) the safety of those who sailed with him, but not applying it. Nor was there ever a General so merciless, as to give up, unavenged, the soldiers of his army to their enemies. Nor is there any good Shepherd, who unfeelingly neglects the (single) sheep |144 that has strayed from his flock; but, he leaves those that are not lost and in a secure place, and undergoes every thing for the discovery of that which has strayed ; and, should it be necessary, he will even engage with the wild beasts158 (in its defence). The providential care, however, of THE WORD, the Saviour,—-of Him who has provided every thing for (His) rational creatures,—-was not put forth (merely) for a flock that is irrational. For, it is man (only) of the creatures that are on the earth, who is (thus) beloved of God; and it is man also, to whom He has, as a Father, given up every kind of irrational animal in subjection. It is to man too, to whom He has assigned the navigation of the seas; and for whom He has adorned the earth with every sort of plant. To him He has subjected both the (various) kinds of beings that swim in the unseen depths, and of the birds that fly in the heights. It is man moreover, to whom He has granted the faculty of knowledge for receiving every sort of learning. To him likewise, has He made plain the observation of things in the heavens, the (annual) courses of the sun, the (monthly) changes of the moon, and the progress of the stars both planetary and fixed159.
84. How then, after (the occurrence) of these things, could it have been becoming, that the fatherly anxiety and providential care which is over all,—-which had (so) rightly exerted its care for those other things of the body, and of this sensible world,—-should be so crippled as to become inactive, as it respected the healing of the rational Essence vested in man? It had afforded every sort of provision for man, every sort of remedy, and (means) of health, for the body, growth also, strength, beauty, riches, delights, and the increase of possession for (his) convenience. And, Would He put forth not so much as one effort of care, that they might become acquainted with the things which are |145 most excellent in them, with their own souls, and the Essence which is intelligent? But thus, it is likely one would rather blame the imbecility (or) carelessness, not of the sheep wandering from the flock, but of the shepherd: and again, not the infirm of soul, or those calamitously circumstanced ; but the contempt or imbecility of the physician, if he gave not every sort of medicine for the healing and aid of those, who (so) needed (it). Every necessity would therefore call upon Him, who is the Guardian and Saviour of all, for the healing of his (rational) flock.
85. It is likely therefore, that the compassionate WORD OF GOD would, as a good Shepherd, Saviour, and Guardian, when His rational flock on earth was (thus) implicated in the greatest evils, deign openly to make a Divine manifestation of Himself; since, behold! He had never allowed even a period to pass, in which He did not fully exert His providential care, for the supply of every good thing to those who were in need. At every period therefore, in all ages of the world, He both looked, and engaged Himself, upon the things belonging to the earth; and gave freely in times of necessity, of the things which were (laid up) with Him: and so without upbraiding, evinced He the promptness of His providential care towards all men, that He even afforded instruction to those among mankind who were worthy (of this), by revelations of Angels, and by raising up holy Ministers of God : by Prophecy also, and familiar intercourse, He preached the Godhead of His Father, and the life that was most excellent, to those who were capable of being taught in the mysteries of the worship of God: at that period, too, he gave the instruction which was from Himself to our Fathers, as to those who were still infants, and inexperienced in evil.
86. Because then (men) had by a perversion which |146 was not good (growing) out of their liberty, and from the will of their minds, set themselves up, and (hence) had fallen from the life that is excellent into (many) evils; it is likely, that the same WORD OF GOD, would again,—-as the Physician of souls,—-by adequate aids succour those who suffered this malady, and bring back by bitter medicines, those who had not benefited by these His gifts160. On these grievous diseases of vice therefore, He took vengeance by pestilences, famines, wars, conflagrations, and inundations (of waters); and thus turned back to Himself, those who stood in need of these things. At one time He purged the entire life of all, by destructions of waters: at another, He punished the wicked by excessive rains in (certain) places, by strokes of the lightning, by burnings, or by withholding the (necessary) rains. And again, in the abundance of His mercy, He made certain by these same deeds, both (his) rebukes and teachings against the errors of Demons. The Temples too, of those who were thought to be Gods, and (their) Fanes, together with the images and Gods themselves, did He desolate by destructive strokes of lightning; and thus He put to shame those follies. Nor was it (this) only, but He taught them to distinguish by their own reason, that these never were Gods, and, that it was not in their power even to help themselves: and also, that they were neither of the household of God the King of all, nor friends of Him, who (thus) waged war against them. For, How could He who is the cause of every good thing, give up to destruction by fire, the Temples which (men) had built to His own honour; unless (indeed) He did this for a reproof of their error? For, if it was His will that the Demons which resided in these should be honoured, Why did He destroy their Temples together with their images? By means of the arrows which were sent from above from God, He drove far away from their eminences those who resided in these (Temples), and fully preached, in this way (and) by these doings, in the hearing of all men, crying out (as it were), Cease ye from the error of Demons, and (from affirming) that there are many |147 Gods; and acknowledge that Lord of heaven and earth and of the whole universe, who is God (indeed): that Saviour, that Nourisher, that Preserver;—-Him, who, (as) they may see with their own eyes, has openly shewn His providential care over them ; at one time, in the supply of seasonable rains, of fruits borne of all (that springs) out of the earth, of wealth, and of comforts, unsparingly : at another, by the chastisements sent from God, and by the modes of discipline which were from Himself, has He brought back as with a bridle, those who were insensible of the good things, with which He had furnished them. Nor was it (this) only, but He also so cured the error of those who supposed these to be Gods, by a continuance of the lightnings and conflagrations which (came) upon them, that the Temples of the Gods were even burnt, together with those who had fabricated Gods for themselves, by ambushments of men: plainly exhibiting to those who could see, the rebuke which was due to the error of these. Nevertheless, when these worshippers of the Gods witnessed these early (occurrences), they entertained no greater a disposition towards the correction of their impiety!
87. And161 again also, when they believed in these Gods, who had (virtually) confessed by their divinations, that they could effect nothing beyond what had been fated;—-for Fate is the cause of all (in this acceptation);—- they understood not, nor did they consider, that, as (this) Fate took hold both of themselves and of the Gods, vain must be (every) trust put in these, as they could neither help, nor injure mankind in any thing. And, Only so? —-If it were right to honour Fate, as the cause of every thing; still this, as being a necessity impervious to change, could have no power even over itself! But, He has put forth the knowledge of Himself,—-in order that (men) might know Him to be Lord of this (fate), and also of every (other) thing;—-at one time, by the supply of every sort of good thing; at another, by chastising the error of a plurality of Gods in thunderings and in |148 lightnings. And it has accordingly been made matter of history, that the Temple of Delphos,—-of that Pythian (Apollo) who was (so much) preached162 of formerly,—-underwent upon one occasion (an entire) conflagration; but these, remaining in their error, raised it up a second time; and God the second time destroyed it! They renewed it also a third time; and He again, expelled entirely from its place, not the Temple, but the Demon that resided within its chamber, by his Divine manifestation! so that now, this is no more a house of divination ; nor does he, who formerly led the Greeks astray, (any more) practise there.
88. The Temple of Diana too at Ephesus, came to (its) destruction three several times. On one occasion, the Amazons163 burnt it; on another, Herododus164 (Herostratus), one of the inhabitants of Ephesus; and lastly, on another, (it was ruined) by God who is over all. So that now, after the manifestation of our Saviour, nothing more |149 is visible even there, except the great (and) signal mark of the victory of (its) overthrow.
89. They have recorded moreover, that the Temple of Juno in Argus was destroyed on one occasion by fire165; as was also that in Abas166, in like manner, when the Thebans made an incursion and burnt it, and with it five hundred men!
90. It is also said, that on one occasion, lightning struck the statue of Jupiter167 in Olympia.
91. The Roman histories likewise inform us, that the Temple of Vesta168 which is in Rome, and which is called |150 the Pantheon169,—-(all) the Gods being assembled together there, as it should seem,—-was again, destroyed by lightning.
92. And again, on one occasion, lightning fell from heaven on that which is called by them the Capitol, and destroyed that house of every Temple170. |151
93. With all these modes of discipline therefore, has the Providence which is over all, THE WORD OF GOD, put to shame from all time, those who worshipped Demons. Nor was it (this) only, but He also taught them, from ancient times by doctrines worthy of God, that they should worship His Father. He has likewise, cast forth (as seed) among mortal men, the doctrines conducive to life; divine laws, and precepts of righteousness, as herbs (productive) of things that are good, and as medicines for the salvation of reasonable souls. Thus (did He) in ancient times with the Hebrews through Prophets, men who partook of the Divine Spirit. And again, from a long extended antiquity, through other Friends of God171: and again afterwards, through those who were vested with the Divinity, did He call those who had been cast off to death, to (the means of) recovery. He also sowed (as it were) in the souls of men, the rudiments of the Divine laws;—-of various kinds of instructions ; of doctrines of every kind; of predictions, and of prophecies of things to come; as also the love of that life (which is devoted) to the worship of God. Hence poured forth as from a fountain, even in every part of the creation, the seed, (and thence) the rational observances (of life): and hence, laws and lawgivers were seen among all the nations; and the name of virtue and of philosophy became known among men. (Now) came into being the love of things most excellent; and, the desire to discover the truth was in such active operation with the many, that the error of their forefathers came into utter contempt, and, with the intelligent, those things which belonged to the worship and love of God, into repute. The truth too had been wanting; and great had been the differences respecting this with the many, as had the contentions and divisions of those, who disputed about doctrines. And thus did these things shew, that the Providence (exerted) over mankind, was from |152 all time great, (and) evincing the care for every man, which was both suitable and sufficient.
94. Because then, great would be the change for the better in every one, upon human life's becoming tranquillized, and the common conduct (of all) being changed from its former wildness to something approaching to benignity ; it is likely, that the common Saviour of all, the compassionate WORD OF GOD, would more particularly, and the more readily, make his Divine manifestation at a time that would be (most) suitable172. He accordingly came in by the mission of himself, and shewed forth to men,—-who could by no other means arrive at the knowledge of the truth, by the instrumentality of a human vessel,—-the God of truth. The God of truth did then, through the divine operations and astonishing miracles which were evident to all, shew forth the doctrine of heavenly teaching which respected His Kingdom ; in order that by these, He might henceforth,—-even as He had formerly afforded aid by means of the things already mentioned,—-instruct the whole human race in the doctrine which is heavenly. It was impossible indeed, in ancient times, to make those who had been driven to the last stage of vice, pure by words (only), inviting (them) to the perfect knowledge of God, and to the better life of purity and of righteousness. On this account, just as Physicians prescribe their remedies to those who are sick and debilitated by pains and sufferings, not the healthy food proper for the robust, but things that give uneasiness and pain; and, should it be |153 necessary, do not excuse themselves from applying cauteries and bitter draughts, to coerce the disease:—-not the aliments proper for the healthy, but those suitable to the sick: but, when they have become convalescent, they will henceforth allow them to partake of wholesome and strengthening food :—-
95. So likewise the common Saviour of all, as the Shepherd and Physician of His rational flocks on earth, taught those—-who had previous to His last divine manifestation entered into the many follies of a plurality of Gods, and had been maddened by the evils and fierceness attending (this) corruption of mind,—-by bitter punishments, by pestilences, famines, and the continuance of wars against each other. And again, by excessive rains, by the withholding of the rains, and by calamitous strokes of lightning, did He annihilate these instances of obstinacy : besides, He afforded opportunity to the worshippers of the Demons to see, by the vengeance taken in the strokes of lightning sent upon the Idols, the reproach due to the error of a plurality of Gods.
96. He again as a good Father, thus also afforded instruction to the foolish; for He imparted to them ungrudgingly, the gifts which were from Himself, in the provision of every good and rich thing: rains in their seasons; the production of fruits; the changes of the seasons ; and the carrying forward of animal life. The rational means also of all kinds of art; the seeds of these, and the (due) consideration of them, He cast forth into the souls of men. Again also He sowed (as it were), by means of the Prophets who are preached of among the Hebrews, the rudiments of the Divine precepts; the instruction pertaining to the fear of God; the entrance, the stages, and principal things, attending the Divine laws ; such (I say) as were suitable to the men of those times. He again from his providential care, (and) by means of many others, also gave the aid which was convenient for men as then (existing).
97. Because therefore, the life of man had henceforward undergone a change, by means of these things, to a state of peacefulness and rest, and was prepared to receive the perfect doctrine relating to God ; well again, did |154 the common Saviour of all, the only (begotten) WORD OF GOD, the King of all, shew forth at a time that was suitable, and by these same operations, the Divine manifestation of Himself. But, as these things have been largely set forth already, it is (now) time we should proceed to those that (should) follow them.
The End of the Second Book of (Eusebius) of Caesarea.
[Selected footnotes. Notes concerned only with points of the Syriac and large chunks of Greek have been omitted]
1. 1 This, according to our author, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. ix. is the person spoken of, Is. xiv. 12. That the king of Babylon is here primarily meant, there can be no doubt: but whether the ” common enemy“ of man is secondarily, may be matter of debate.
2. 2 We now come again to certain passages in the Orat. de laudd. Constantini, identical with some in this work. Cap. xiii. pp. 531, D. 632, &c. See also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x.
3. 3 It must, I think, be sufficiently certain from this place, that Eusebius was no Arian. A passage, similarly strong, is to be found in his Orat. de laudd. Constantini, (cap. ii. p. mihi 501. A—-D.) in these words: [Greek] “Et ille quidem unigenitus Dei Sermo, a saeculis principio carentibus, ad infinita usque et interminata saecula regnat cum Patre.” See above Book i. §. 4, 30: also iii. 19, 39: iv. 8: v. 51. and, above all, Theodoriti Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. capp. xi. xii. in the latter of which a Copy of the Nicene Creed is given, as emanating from Eusebius, and this for the specific purpose of shewing, that he was no Arian. See also his Eccl. Hist. Lib. i. cap. ii. also the Introduction to this Work. See also, generally, the two Works of our author against Marcellus. In Lib. ii. Eccl. Theolog. cap. xiv. he speaks, indeed, of His having a beginning, but this is with reference to his proceeding from the Father: in other words, bis being revealed to created rational existences.
4. 4 This argument is admirably prosecuted in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. xiii. p. 117. seq. as it is also in the “Graecarum affectionum Curatio,” by Theodoret, Sermo. I. seq.
5. 12 See also, De laudd. Constant, cap. vii. p. 513. B. where we have a similar recension of these Deities. Our passage, however, is found ib. cap. xiii. 532. A.
6. 13 See also the Homilia Clementina Quinta. xxii. xxiii. seq.
7. 15 Cicero (de Natura Deorum in. 15, 16) has admirably depicted this state of things : ” Piscem Syri venerantur : omne fere genus bestiarum Aegyptii consecraverunt. Jam vero in Graecia multos habent ex hominibus Deos ; Alabandum Alabandi ; Tenedii Tenem ; Leucotheam, quae fuit Ino, et ejus Palaemonem filium, cuncta Graecia; Herculem, Aesculapium, Tyndaridas ; Romulum nostri, aliosque complures, quos, quasi novos et ascriptitios cives, in coelum receptos putant…Haec igitur indocti. Quid vos philosophi? qui meliora? . . . Quare igitur plures adjungimus Deos? quanta autem est illorum multitudo? . . . singulas enim stellas numeras Deos; eosque aut belluarum nomine appellas, ut Capram, ut Nepam, ut Taurum, ut Dionem; aut rerum inanimatarum, ut Argo, ut Aram, ut Coronam. Sed, ut haec concedantur, reliqua qui tandem non modo concedi, sed omnino intelligi possunt? Cum fruges, Cererem; vinum, Liberum dicimus, genere nos quidem sermonis, utimur usitato: sed ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, Deum credat esse?“
8. 1 Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. B. See also Clemens Alexandr. Admonitio ad Gentes, p. 34. seq.
So Horace Serm. Lib. i. Sat. viii. 1. “Olim truncus eram,” &c. Athenagoras Legat. pro Christ, p. 66, gives an admirable account of the first Images, and Image-makers, among the Greeks.
9. 3 So Tertullian, Eccles. Hist, of the second and third centuries, by the Bishop of Bristol, Cambridge, 1826, p. 216. An Image among Idolaters is nothing, until consecrated and a Deity supposed to reside within it. They are then considered as Temples. ([Arabic], Pocock. spec. Hist. Arab. pp. 91, 144, seq.) or Chapels of the Deity. From the following passage of Lactantius (Lib. it. cap. xviii. p. 103,) it is obvious, that Images could not have had place in the Church:…” non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubicunque simulacrum est. Nam si religio ex divinis rebus est; divini autem nihil est, nisi in coelestibus rebus; carent ergo religione simulacra, quia nihil potest esse coeleste in ea re, quae fit ex terra.“ …Quicquid enim simulatur, id falsum sit necesse est: nec potest unquam vere nomen accipere, quod veritatem fuco et imitatione mentitur.
10. 4 See sect. 63. Book I.—-Gr. (Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib.) ” katade/smoij;“ which, as Valesius shews, ib. notes, p. 255, is a term applied to magical usages. See this note. See also the Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. cap. ix. p. 271. C.
11. 5 Lactantius (Lib. ii. cap. xiv.) says of these, that they were originally Angels sent from Heaven to protect and govern men ; but, falling into lust through the temptations of Satan, they at length became his ministers: which has evidently been taken from the Jews. See the Targums on Gen. vi. 2. He further tells us, that the Grammarians say they are so called, as being dah&monej, i. e. knowing. Such is, I think the Boot ([?] originally Boodhi, wise) of the East, to this day. —- Hesiod also makes them the guardians of men, “fu&lakej qnhtw~n a0nqrw&pwn.” (Oper. et Dies. Lib. 1. 122.). This opinion prevails still in the East: and it is affirmed, that whole regions are subjected to their controul, as may be seen in the Dabistan, the Hakk olyakeen ( [Arabic] ), and many other Persic and Arabic works. Lactantius tells us, a little lower down, from Hermes Trismegistus, that piety, consisting in the knowledge of the true God, was sufficient to save men from their evil influence. Porphyry tells us (Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. x. p. 197. and Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford. p. 131.) that they are all evil Demons: their Chief being Sarapis, i.e. Pluto, or Hecate: and (Prep. Evang. ib,) much the same is said by Anebo the Egyptian.
12. 6 See Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. x. : ii. cap. i. Diodor. Sicul. Lib. i. x —- xiii. Lactant. Lib. i. cap. viii —- xv. who prosecutes this argument at much length, and gives us even the philosophical Cicero deifying his own daughter!
13. 7 Syr. [Syriac], Gr. Meli/kamqoj, the Phoenician Hercules according to Sanchoniathon, Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. x. p. 38. In the
Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 532. it is written Melka&qaron. The word has been greatly deformed by the Copyists in our text. See the note of Valesius to the above place, cap. xiii. p. (notes) 255.
14. 1 [Syriac] Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. Ou!swron. Prep. Evang. p. 35. Ou!swron.
15. 2 Syr. [Syriac], Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533, Dou&sarij: the Dusa&rhj of the Greek and Latin writers, as noted by Bochart, and, after him, by Pococke, Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 106, and which he thinks is the Arabic [Arabic] Dhushara, or Bacchus. See also the note of Valesius ad cap. xiii. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 255.
16. 3 Syr. [Syriac]. Probably the 0Obo_d, Uranius of Stephen of Byzantium, as cited by Pococke Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 137, &c. and variously accounted for by him. The passage is found in “Euseb. Orat. de laudd. Constant.” p. 532—-3. 1Obdon. But see the note of Valesius on this place, ib. p. 255, which is full and valuable.
17. 4 Syr. [Syriac] Gr. Za&lmocij, or Za&molcij. See Vossius de Idololatria, Lib. i. cap. xxxix. Herodot. iv. 94. and Photius. The Zalmoxis or Zamolxis, of the Getae. The Syriac does not support the conjecture (pai~dej) of Valesius here. In these cases, the Syriac Translator seems to have taken the termination of the Greek accusative case.
18. 5 Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. Mo&yoj. Ovid. Metam. viii. 350. termed Ampycides, as being the son of Ampycus. It. ib. xii. 456. 528. See also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. Mo&yion, and the note of Valesius.
19. 6 Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. 0Amfia&rewn. Laudd. Constant, ib. See the Odyss. O. 244. Hor. Od. iii. 16. Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 3. Ovid. Ex. Pont. Epist. Lib. in. 1. 52. &c. Euseb. laudd. Constant. 0Amfia&rewn. Valesius. note ib. 0Amfia&rew. The Trojans also, according to Athenagoras, worshipped Hector and Helen, the Lacedemonians Agamemnon, and Phylonae: and so of others. Legat pro Christianis, at its commencement, So ib. p. 60. Again, ib. p. 63, he gives us the story of the mundane egg ; which identifies this mythology, with that of the Brahmins of Hindustan. So also Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. ii., who refers to the “Aves” of Aristophanes as his authority: p. 116. it. Clemens Alexand, Admonitio ad Gentes. p. 35. seq.
20. 7 The Greek text, Orat. de laudd. Constant, is defective here, as Valesius has properly remarked, and as some of the MSS. have intimated by inserting the word ” lei/pei “. (p. 533. and 255 notes).
21. 8 . . .”Quod si ita est, Coeli quoque parentes Dii habendi sunt, Aether, et Dies, eorumque fratres et sorores, qui a genealogis antiquis sic nominantur, Amor, Dolor, Metus, Labor, Invidia, Fatum, Senectus, Mors, Tenebrae, Miseria, Querela, Gratia, Fraus, Pertinacia, Parcae, Hesperides, Somnia; quos omnes Erebo et Nocte natos ferunt. Aut haec monstra probanda sunt, aut prima illa tollenda.“ Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 17.”
22. 9 “Ergo hi Dii sunt habendi, mortalibus nati matribus? (sc. Apollo, Vulcanus, Mercurius, Hercules, Aesculapius. Bacchus. &c.) Cic. ib. c. 18. Comp. Clemens. Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 18. seq.”
23. 10 “Jam vero quid vos illa delectat explicatio fabularum, et enodatio nominum? exsectum a filio Coelum, vinctum itidem a filio Saturnum? &c., Cic. ib. iii. 24. From passages of this sort, occurring in the profane authors, it should seem, that the best informed of those times were growing weary of the follies of heathenism. Nevertheless they adhered to these errors, and even defended them : for which Lactantius, very properly castigates them, and Cicero in particular, Lib. ii. ii.
24. 1 Gr. [Greek] the stealing of women, which proved the cause of so many wars in ancient times. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 533. A. B.
25. 2 The Greek text of the Orat. de laudd. Constant, leaves us here; but. recurs to this passage, ib. p. 534. D.
26. 3 The most famous instances of this sort was. perhaps, afforded by the Temple of Venus in Cyprus; to which people resorted from all quarters. A similar usage obtained among the Babylonians. Herodot. i. 199.
27. 5 The well-known rape of Ganymede, son of Tros king of Phrygia. Ovid. Met. x. 155. shortly details the matter thus: ” Rex Superum Phrygii quondam Ganymedis amore Arsit: et inventum est aliquid, quod Jupiter esse, Quam quod erat, mallet.“ See also Lactantius de falsa Relig. Lib. i. cap. x. p. 34. Edit. 1698. “Illud vero summae impietatis ac sceleris, quod regium puerum rapuit ad stuprum:” seq. See also Clemens Alexand., who recites several such cases. Ib. Theodoret. Graec. affect. curat. Serm. iii. p. 520. seq. And Arnobius adversus Gentes, Lib. i. p. 165. seq. Edit. 1604.
28. 6 Rom. i. 27. Our text differs so much from the Peschito, as to warrant the assumption, that it was translated for the occasion. It stands thus: [Syriac]. This place occurs in the Orat. de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 535. A. That our author has not overstated this matter, is evident from many ancient writers of the greatest respectability. The following is from Cicero, De Nat. Deorum. i. 16. ” Exposui fere, non philosophorum judicia, sed delirantium somnia. Nec enim multo absurdiora sunt ea, quae Poetarum vocibus fusa, ipsa suavitate nocuerunt; qui et ira inflammatos et libidine furentes induxerunt Deos, feceruntque, ut eorum bella, pugnas, proelia, vulnera, videremus ; odia praeterea, dissidia, discordias, ortus, interitus, querelas, lamentationes, effusas in omni intemperantia libidines, adulteria, vincula, cum humano genere concubitus, mortalesque ex immortali procreates.“ Nor, according to Cicero himself, were the philosophers in any respect better. Compare the first few sections of the work, De Natura Deorum. To the same effect, Porphyry in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 172. D. And ib. Lib. xii. cap. xlix. p. 618. Origen contra Cels. Lib. vii. p. 365. Plato in his Republics, Lib. x.—- Much of this noxious sort of matter is to be found in some of the Classic authors still extant, and which are too often put into the hands of our youth, e. g. The Comedies of Plautus, Terence, and Aristophanes; the Epigrams, &c. of Martial and Ausonius, &c.—-See Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. iii. p. 142. seq.
29. 3 Syr. [Syriac] should perhaps, be the reading of the second word here. The meaning of our author probably is, that the excitement received at these exhibitions was not unlike that—- together with the other things here mentioned,—-witnessed in corn parched by a sharp fire: i. e. by having an unnatural stimulus applied, evinced an unnatural action. The whole place however, is obscure.
30. 4 So Tatian (Orat. contra Graecos, p. 176. C. seq.) [Greek] ” Quid obsecro fit apud vos egregium, aut admiratione dignum? Obscoena verba naso resonante effutiunt, et motus indecentes moventur, et adulteriorum in scena magistros filias et filii vestri spectant,“ &c. See the notes to sect. 13 above; some good remarks on this subject will be found, cited from Porphyry, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 172. D. From Plato, ib. Lib. xii. 49. D. seq. In Theodoret, Gr. affect, curatio, Serm. iii. Tom. iv. p. 511. D. seq. See also Theophilus ad Autolycum, Lib. in. p. 149. D. where an admirable lesson to Christians will be found on this point.
31. 5 So Eph. iv. 18, 19. ” Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life, of God … being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.“ Plato seems to have held much the same opinion on these matters, see the place just pointed out. See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 39. seq.
32. 1 Such for example, as the labours of Hercules; and, in the present day, those of Buddha, Rama, &c. as abounding in the poetic fictions of the Buddhists, Hindoos, and others. Cicero was so much impressed with the absurdities put forth by the Philosophers, that he confesses, that although he is most willing to receive the truth, yet he doubts, whether it is at all to be found without much admixture of error. His words are, (De Natura Deorum, i, 5.) ” Non enim sumus ii, quibus nihil verum esse videtur, sed ii, qui omnibus veris falsa quaedam adjuncta esse dicamus, tanta similitudine, ut in iis nulla insit certa judicandi et assentiendi nota.“ Plato's opinions on these foolish and abominable stories may be seen in Gaisford's Edit. of Theodoret. Gr. affect. curat. p. 121. seq. Prep. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. vii.
33. 4 See the Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. i. seq. it. Lib. xiv. cap. ix. p. 740. Also Tatiani contra Graecos Oratio. in its outset, and Theodoret Gr. affect, curat. Serm. i. For a general account of the Philosophers and their chronological succession, see the Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. xiv. Diog. Laert. Lib. i. pref. seq. Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. Our author has shewn pretty much at length, Prep. Evang. Lib. ii. cap. i. p. 45 : ib. 460 —- 168, that the Greeks were great copyists, and even plagiarists, both from foreigners and from one another. So also Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. vi. near the beginning: and, on the succession of the Greek Philosphers, ib. Lib. i. p. 300. C. seq. Edit. 1620.
34. 1 So Epicurus after Democritus, according to Plutarch (de Placit. Philosoph. p. 877. See also their lives in Diog. Laertius.) Atoms are, in our work, termed [Syriac] bodies that cannot be cut: i.e. indivisible. So called, according to Plutarch, [Greek] i. e. It is termed atom, not because it is very small, but because it cannot be cut, or divided. The Syrian translator has availed himself of this, and adopted it accordingly. These atoms had, according to Democritus, figure and magnitude ; to which Epicurus added weight ; without which, as he thought, they could not gravitate. They were supposed too, to be various in form, round, oval, angular, hooked, &c. &c. (See Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. p. 1263. Tom. i.) : which, I suppose, our author intimates when he says, “without extent, or, having projecting parts,” &c. Syr.[Syriac]. Matter similar to this will be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. viii. And the whole passage from Plutarch, ib. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. p. 749. A. seq. which see.
35. 2 So also Numenius, Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxii. [Greek]. Plutarch ascribes the notion about Rest, to Archidamus, (Laconica Apophthegmata, p. 218. seq. Tom. ii. Edit. 1620) in these words: Kalo_n h9suxi/a : i.e. Rest is good. Again, (ib. Com. repugnant Stoic, p. 1033), he speaks of this sentiment as praised by Hieronymus and Epicurus (see §. 50 below), and blames the Philosophers for adopting it, while they recommended an active life. His words are : [Greek]. And so Diogenes Laertius in his life of Democritus: [Greek]. “Finem vero esse rectum, quietumque animi statum, quam eu0qumi/an vocat, quse, ut quidam oblique interpretantur, non idem sit quod voluptas, rerum secundum quam animus magna tranquilitate constantiaque beatus est, dum nullo metu, nulla superstitione, aut alia quavis perturbatione agitatur. Eandem vero et Eu0estw_ appellat, a bonitate constantiae, multisque nominibus aliis.” It should seem also, that he wrote two books on this subject, one entitled, “De sedatione Animi,” and the other, ” Euesto.“ See ib. This probably was the origin of the Epicurean tenet, of Pleasure being the chief good. See also Brucker, Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. p. 1177. seq. it. 1200: where we are told, that the pleasure of rest was the Epicurean tenet: that of motion, the Cyrenaic: and, that Epicurus has been greatly wronged, by having been thought a sensualist.
36. 3 Which is but an echo of (Diog. Laert. life of Epicurus), [Greek]
37. 4 And so the Hindoos of the present day. Lactantius enters fully, and eloquently on this subject, Lib. i. cap. ii. de falsa religione.
38. 1 Such, according to Plutarch, was Euripides the tragic Poet; not daring openly to profess his notions, through fear of the Areopagus. De Placit. Philos. p. 880. Vol. ii.
39. 2 Much the same thing is said by Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ, p. 71. D. and in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. v. p. 708….[Greek] To the same effect also Theodoret, Serm. de Provid. i. Tom. iv. p. 322. A. Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos, in the outset, and Diog. Laert. in vita Arist. near the end. Theodoret again, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, adds on this subject. [Greek] Inquit enim ad lunam usque Dei gubernationem deferri; quae vero sunt infra lunam fato esse subjecta.”
40. 3 Plato, as cited by Laertius, (Lib. iii. segm. 78) makes health, strength, the integrity of the senses, wealth, family, glory, &c. necessary to happiness; but he does not exclude virtue. So also Aristotle, according to Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos. init.
41. 4 The opinions of the Ancients on the soul, are given at length in Aristotle's work, “ De anima,” Lib. i. cap. ii.
42. 5 Aristotle, De anima, Lib. n. eap. i. seq. Diog. Laert. in vita Arist. prope finem. Plutarch de Placitis Philos. (p. 875.) [Greek] “ Tum ipsa forma, quam vocamus entelecheian.” The origin of this he ascribes to Aristotle, (ib. p. 878.) as a principle in nature. [Greek] Aristotle made Entelechia, or form, matter, and privation, principles, &c. But, how this is said to be ascribed to the soul by Aristotle and his followers, may be seen in an extract from Plotinus, Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. x. Edit. Viger. p. 811. seq. and Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. p. 821. seq. Cicero (Tuscul. Qusest. Lib. i. cap. x. 22.), tells us that this was a fifth element with Aristotle: i. e. in addition to those of earth, air, fire, and water: his words are, “Quintum genus adhibet, vacans nomine; et sic ipsum animum e0ntele/xeian appellat novo nomine: quasi quandam continuatam motionem et perennem.” See also Justin Martyr. Orat. Parenet. Ed. Steph. p. 13. 1. 15. Theodoret Graec. affect. curat. p. 195. Edit. Gaisford. [Greek]
43. 1 Lactantius Lib. i. cap. v. 22. Ed. 1698. tells us that, “ Aristoteles, quamvis secum ipsa dissideat, ac repugnantia sibi et dicat et sentiat: in summum tamen unam mentem mundo praeesse testatur,” which seems to me admirably to suit this place. Brucker,—-an invaluable writer on the philosophy of the ancients,—-thus speaks summarily on Aristotle, (Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. I. p. 814. Ed. secund.)
44. 2 Again, speaking of the Demonology of Aristotle, he says (ib. p. 831.) “Quibus (i. e. demonibus) an preces et sacrificia offerenda sint,…cautus non explicuit; verisimile tamen, Aristotelem ea inter istas fabulas, ad popellum deliniendum…excogitatas, retulisse.” Athenagoras charges him with believing, that the one God consisted both of soul and body ; and that this body was ethereal, or consisted of the Aether. Legat. pro. Christ. p. 54.
45. 4 The doctrine here had in view, is thus stated by Aristocles (Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xiv.) [Greek]. They say that fire is an element of things,—-just as Heraclitus did—-and that of this (element) the originators were Matter and God,—-as Plato had.—-But these say, that both are bodies, both the doing and the suffering : while he affirmed, that the first was the active and unembodied cause. They also say, that, after certain defined and fatally appointed periods, the whole world shall be burned, and again be set in beautiful order, &c.—-It is added, (ib.) that this fire contains within it, as seed, the properties and causes of all things, past, present, and future. See also, ib. capp. xv. xvi.
46. 1 So Porphyry, (as cited ib. cap. xvi.) God, they say, is a sort of intelligent fire, which will consume, and pervade all things, &c. which he condemns as utter folly. See also Spencer's note on Origen contra Cels. Lib. i. p. 6. lin. 52.
47. 3 So Arius Didymus (as cited Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xv.) [Greek]. They term the whole world, with its parts, God. This, they say, is one absolute, living, and eternal being, and God: that, in this all bodies are contained, and that no void (vacuum) exists in him .. that the world is eternal, and is God,—-He goes on to say, that with respect to order, Etc. it is begotten, and, as to the infinite periods of time through which it has passed, or is to pass, it is subject to change; and may be considered as a sort of mansion for Gods and men: or as a city of which the Gods are the governours; men the governed.
48. 4 Cleanthes affirmed that Zeno, with Heraclitus and others, placed the nature of the soul in sense, or vapour. [Greek]. And again. Souls arise as vapour from things humid. [Greek] Prep. Evang. Lib. xv. cap. xx. D. See the whole of the article, with the refutation from Longinus, ib. cap. xxi.
49. 5 The soul, they say, is both generative and perishable; but is not dissolved with the body, but remains of itself for some time: but the souls of the studious will endure till the general conflagration; while those of the ignorant will endure only for a certain period of time. [Greek] Ib. cap. xx. p. 822. B.C. It is added, that the souls of the ignorant, as well as those of the irrational animals, will perish with their bodies. The xxii. Chapter, ib. contains a long and valuable article on these matters from Plotinus.—-See also Theod. Graec. affect. Curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 195. seq.
50. 6 There can be no doubt, I think, that this notion, about an universal conflagration, was originally taken from the Bible, and misapplied both by heathens and believers. The first passage occurs in Deut. xxxii. 22—- 24.; the last, 2 Peter iii. 7, which, with all their parallels, cannot by any legitimate interpretation extend to any thing beyond the fall of Jerusalem, and of heathen Rome. In like manner, we have a sort of Millennium and of Antichrist, common to both Mohammedans and Christians, and misapplied by both.
51. 7 Syr. [Syriac]. That again Helen and the evils of Ilium. Anaximander also held, that the world would be dissolved and again produced. Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. p. 548. B.C. seq.
52. 1 Syr. [Syriac], Anytus and Melitus. Two persons who were particularly unfriendly to Socrates, and at length brought about Ms condemnation. See Plato's Apology for Socrates, and Diogenes Laertius ii. 38: Tatian. Orat. contra Graecos, near the beginning: and Origen contra Cels. Lib. iv. p.208. seq.
53. 2 On this general conflagration, see the Prep. Evang. ib. capp. xviii. xix. p. 820. In the former, Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus, are said to have been the most ancient teachers of this doctrine.
54. 3 Syr. [Syriac]. Among these Thales the Milesian, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Leucippus, Heracitus, Epicurus, and others. The person, who according to Brucker was peculiarly styled “ Physicus” was Strato of Lampsaca, the successor of Theophrastus in the Lyceum. (Vol. i. p. 845. See ib. p. 458. seq.)
55. 4 Syr. [Syriac] So Thales, Brucker, &c. ib. p. 465. seq. So the Brahmins of India of the present, and former times. Which is probably nothing more than the Chaos of the Bible. According to Brucker however, it is very doubtful whether Thales was atheistic, grounding this on the requirements of the emanation system. He got his philosophy in Egypt, according to Plutarch; but see the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xiv. the various opinions of this subject, as cited from Plutarch, and followed by the comment of our author.
56. 5 This was the opinion of Heraclitus, and Hippasus, who added, that as fire was the origin of all, so should it be the destruction. Anaximander too, according to Plutarch (de Placit. Philos.) affirmed that God was a globe of fire.
57. 6 This was the opinion of Anaximenes, while Archelaus made both the air and infinity the origin of all things: Anaximander, infinity only. Pythagoras—-the prince of Philosophers—-number, and its proportions.
58. 7 Empedocles held, that the Elements of all were fire, air, earth, and water; while the Principles were, Friendship and Discord: the one uniting all things; the other dissevering them. For a more particular account of these Philosophers, see Brucker, Tom. ii. Pars. ii. Lib. ii. cap. i. seq.
59. 8 In the abominations practised in most of their mysteries, as of Venus, the Eleusinian, &c. of the Phallus in Egypt, of the Fascinus of the Vestals, and of the Lingam of the Hindoos even at this day; many of which obtained among the Gnostics, and do now among the Druzes on Mount Libanus. See also Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Serm. i. p. 482.
60. 9 These were termed Atheists by the philosophers generally. See Vossius de Idololatria.. Lib. i. c. 3…Brucker, Tom. i. Index Atheus. Lactan. De falsa relig. Lib. i. cap. ii. &c.
61. 10 To our author's fondness of this philosophy, of First and Second Cause, and to the particularity with which he followed it up, may perhaps be ascribed all the bad names bestowed on him, both by the ancients and moderns. When arguing with the philosophers of his day, he would, naturally enough, seize upon those things which they appeared to hold in common with himself; and might thence be tempted also to adopt their illustrations, to an extent which would prove unfavourable to himself in the end,—-a mistake more frequently committed, perhaps, than most men are aware. In his Praeparatio Evangclica he has I think, given good proof of this. In Book vii. ch. xi. and ib. Book xi. ch. xiii. he has shewn, that the Hebrews held, in common with Plato, the doctrine of One only supreme God. Again, Book vii. cap. xii. he gives us what he styles the Theology of the Hebrews on the Second Cause, the second Essence, the Divine power, the first subsistence, THE WORD ( lo&goj ), the Wisdom, and the Power, of God. He then gives (cap. xiii.) the opinions of Philo Judaeus on this subject, which are extremely curious; and then (cap. xiv.) those of Aristobulus on the same. Again (Book xi. ch. xiv.) we have Plato (ch. xv.), Philo, and (ch. xvi.) Plato again, and (ch. xvii.) Plotinus on Plato, (ch. xviii.) Numenius on Plato, and (ch. xix.) Amelius reasoning after St John, on the same subject. All of which, our author affirms, is in strict accordance with the mind of the sacred writers. And, I have no doubt, this is to a certain extent true: and, that these views originated in one common source, viz. the Sacred Scriptures. But then, several passages cited by Eusebius, have obviously been misunderstood by him, e. g. Job xxviii. 20; Ps. xxxii. 6, &c. Others have no authority, viz. Wisd. vi. 24: vii. 22: viii. 1. which are apocryphal. And again, in following out these views, (ib. Book vii. ch. xv. p. 325), he has unhappily adopted comparisons, which have brought upon him the charge of Arianism: although he has, perhaps, said nothing more than many of our own divines have, in the trite comparison, which makes the body of the Sun to represent the Father, the light issuing therefrom the Son, and the warmth the Holy Ghost. This subject will, however, be resumed in our Introduction, and entered into more particularly. This doctrine, of a Second Cause, is also to be found in Clemens. Alexand. Strom. Lib. vii. p. 708. B.
62. 1 Cicero, nevertheless, accuses him (as our author does) of the greatest inconsistency in these matters, e.g. De Nat. Deor. Lib. 1.13. 20. Ed. 1830. p. 818. “ Jam de Platonis inconstantiae longum est dieere….. quod vero sine corpore ullo Deum vult esse, ut Graeci dicunt a0sw&maton…… Idem et in Timaeo dicit, et in Legibus, et Mundum Deum esse, et Coelum, et Astra, et Terram, et animos, et eos quos majorum institutis accepimus: quae et per se sunt falsa perspicue, et inter sese vehementer pugnantia.” Of this Maker of the world, Cicero likewise takes notice; and, as it was not unlikely,—-circumstanced as he was,—-ridicules. Ib. cap. ix. 18. “Audite……non futiles commenticiasque sententias, non opificem aedificatoremque mundi, Platonis de Timaeo Deum: nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pro&noian,” &c. For a full and accurate account of Plato, his Philosophy, Writings, &c., the reader is referred to Brucker. Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. i. Index, with the authors cited.
63. 2 See the Prep. Evang. Lib. xii. cap. li. p. 626. B. seq. ib. p. 627. B. C. seq. it. 628. B. seq. it. cap. lii.
64. 3 This passage occurs in the Prep. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. and there said to be taken from the Epimenides of Plato. But no dialogue bearing that title is now to be found among the writings of Plato, as Viger has remarked in his notes. (Prep. Evang. p. 51. notes.) It occurs, however, in the Epinomis, §. 9. (p. 30. Edit. Lond. 1826.) …The place is cited (as Viger also tells us) by Cyril. Alexan. Lib. viii. against Julian, (Edit. Spanh. p. 271. 2.) and by Theodoret, Graecar. affect. Edit. 1642. Tom. iv. p. 499. Edit. Gaisford, p. 89. See also the note to the Lond. Edit, of Plato, as above.
65. 1 This passage occurs in the sixth Epistle of Plato, (Edit. London, 1826. p. 96.) and is given by Eusebius, (Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. Edit. Viger. p. 534.) also by Cyril of Alexandria, against Julian (Edit. Spanh. p. 271.), by Theodoret—-for the most part—-(Graec. affect. curatio. Serm. ii. Edit. 1642. p. 498. Tom. iv. Edit. Gaisford, p. 87.) and by (Clemens. Alexand. Strom. v. pp. 436, 698: and Origen contra Celsum Lib. vi. p. 280. See ib. p. 308. […]
66. 2 The passage here imitated is cited by Laertius, Plato. Lib. in. Segm. 78. […]
67. 3 Syr. [Syriac] The Bendidi/a e9orth_ of the Athenians, called also Bendi/deia, and Be/ndeia. In the Lexicon to the Timaeus of Plato, Bendis is said to be the same with Artemis (Diana), a Thracian word: and, that Bendidia signifies the feast of Diana, with the Thracians. [Greek] The term occurs in Plato's Polit. (Lond. Edit, p: 326. Tom. vi.—-Steph. p. 354.) Eusebius had in view, perhaps, the following passage of Origeri against Celsus, (vii. p. 277.) when he wrote this: viz. [Greek] But they, who wrote such things about the, supreme good, go down to the Piraeus to pray to the Goddess Diana, and to see the celebration of the feast of Bendis. I adopt the reading of Hemsterhusius, which receives no small degree of authority from this place of Eusebius. The place of Plato, is probably that on which the Scholiast has thus remarked: (London Edit. Tom. IX. p. 89.) [Greek]. The allusion here is to the Polit. i. p. 253. Lond. Edit. It stands thus: [Greek]. See the notes here. On which the Scholiast (Tom. ix. p. 67. seq.) gives some further particulars stating, that this feast was common both to the Athenians and Thracians, and was celebrated at the Piraeus on the 19th day of the month Thargelion. […]
68. 1 In the Phaedo of Plato, §. 155. Lond. Edit. Vol. v. p. 409, see the notes. It, Lactantius, iii. 20, “de falsa sapientia.” See also Spencer's note on Origen (contra Cels. Lib. vi. p. 277. notes, p. 74.), where we are told, that this is to be taken figuratively.
69. 5 So also Cicero (Natura Deorum, Lib. in. §. 6.)…“ Majoribus autem nostris etiam nulla reddita ratione, credere.” And again, as cited by Lactantius: “non esse illa vulgo disputanda, ne susceptas publice religiones disputatio talis extinguat.” Lib. ii. cap. ii.
70. 1 It is probable, I think, that Eusebius had a passage, in a work ascribed to Justin Martyr, here in view: viz. “ [Greek]. For Plato indeed, as coming from above, and having seen and learned accurately all things in the heavens, says, that the most high God exists in a fiery essence. Paeren. ad Graecos, p. 12. Edit. Steph.
71. 2 Syr. [Syriac]. The “Ideas” of Plato are perhaps alluded to here. See the Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxiii. xv. xiii. xlv. it. Lib. xii. xix. p. 593. B.
72. 1 This argument is also touched upon by Cyrill of Alexandria in his work against Julian. (Edit. Spanh. p. 284.) The Syriac here speaks in the first person, as is usual with Oriental writers: thus, [Syriac]. For not as my opinion, but as theirs: i.e. Plato here makes the statement, not as resting on his authority, but on theirs. See also Vossius de Orig. et prog, idololatrise, Lib. i. cap. xli. p. 15]. and the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. i.
73. 2 Theodoret (Graec. affect. curat. Serin, v. p. 547: Gaisford's Edit. p. 207. seq.) gives the opinion of Plato very much as it is here stated, but he does not cite this place. I have to thank Mr Professor Schole-field for pointing it out to me: otherwise I fear the work must have gone to press without it. It will be found in the London Edit. Tom. viii. p. 446. Bekk. p. 102. Legg. ix. as follows. [Greek] Our translator does not seem to have read [Greek] in his copy.
74. 3 This appears to be the passage cited from the Apology of Socrates, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. x. (Edit. Viger. p. 660. B.) thus:—-[Greek]
75. 4 This is also taken from the Apology of Socrates, and occurs, Prep. Evang. ib. D. as spoken by Socrates:
76. 3 Justin Martyr (Param. ad Graecos. p. 27.) thus introduces a part of this passage;…[Greek]…which, he says, is copied, from the Cherubim of Scripture. This passage, occurring amongst the most fanciful and silly matter of any in Plato, and honoured probably more frequently by citation than any other, is to be found in the Phaedrus (Edit. Lond. 1826.) Vol. i. p. 78, where it stands thus: [Greek] See the notes here. It has been cited by Clemens Alexand. Cohort. ad Gentes. et Strom. v. 598. Sylb. (T. ii. p. 709. Potter) Stob. Serm. v. p. 67. v. 32. Spanheim. ad Julian. Orat. i. p. 119. and Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ, p. 69, &c.
77. 1 The same too, and in nearly the same words, is given by Theodoret. (Ib. pp. 475, 490. seq. and 512. seq.)
78. 2 Much interesting matter to this effect cited from Plato, will he found, Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. i. seq. See also Vigor's notes. The place alluded to here, is in the Phaedrus, Lond. Edit. Vol. i. p. 82. See the notes: cited also by Origen contra Cels. Lib. vi. p. 288. Edit. Spencer.
79. 3 These were the followers of Aristotle. See sect. 20 above, also Bruckeri, Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. i. p. 78, seq. Syr. [Syriac].
80. 2 This is taken from the Fourth Book of the Laws […]
81. 4 Allusion is, perhaps, here made to a passage in the Timaeus, (Edit. Lond. Tom. vn. p. 280. seq.)…” [Greek] “ Contra vero agentes cogi in ortu secundo, sexu mutato, fieri mulirem, et qui ne tum quidem finem peccandi faciet, qua tenus depravatur, eatenus in brutorum naturam suis moribus similem permutari.” Which is a full recognition of the doctrine of the Metempsychosis. See also the Prep. Evang. Lib. xm. cap. xvi. where the same question is discussed.
82. 5 Sect. 31, above.
83. 6 Passages, it. Lib. xiii. cap. xviii. to the same effect will be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. capp. xxxi, xxxii. seq. from the Timaeus, &c. The Scripture cited is, Rom. i. 21, 25, but is rather accommodated here, than exactly quoted.
84. 1 Considerable extracts to this effect are given from the Epinomis, the Timaeus, and the Tenth book of the Laws of Plato, in the Prep. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. xviii.
85. 7 In the tenth Book of the Laws, not far from the beginning, Plato speaks very much as our author does; while he seems disposed to excuse the wanderings of antiquity as to these things. To no one, perhaps, can the words of Ovid be more properly applied ; “ Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.”
86. 1 That is, came into being such as ours is. See sect. 33, above.
87. 1 Probably the followers of the New Academy. See Brucker. Tom. i. p. 759. seq.
88. 4 Syr. [Syriac]. Pyrrho, who was the originator of this sect. See Diog. Laert. in his life, Bruckeri Hist. Philos. Crit. Tom. i. Pars. ii. Lib. ii. cap. xiii. p. 1317 : and Tom. ii. Per. ii. Pars. i. Lib. i. cap. ii. Sect. ix. p. 627. Suidas sub. voce Pu&r0r9wn, and Pur0r9w&neioi. See also Euseb. Prep. Evang. Lib. xiv. cap. xviii. seq.
89. 5 Syr. [Syriac] Gr. e0poxh& This is the term from which the 0Efektikoi/, Ephectics took their name : it is thus given in the Greek by Suidas : [Greek] This place in Suidas is, cited from Laertius, Lib. ix. seg. 70, who gives, le/gw de\, for the le/gw dh_; of Suidas. (Edit. Wetst.) The term (e0poxh_) also occurs Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. iv. p. 512. A.
90. 1 Delphos, Gr. oi9 Delfoi/. In Phocis, and said to be in the midst of all Greece, and of the earth as its navel, stood this celebrated city and Oracle, near the springs of Castalia.
91. 2 Lebadia, Gr. lebadi/a, and leba&deia, was near Phocis in Boeotia: it was famous for the Temple of Jupiter Trophonius, which it contained. Syr. [Syriac]. To the same effect Origen contra Cels. Lib. in. p. 131. seq.
92. 3 Colophon, Gr. h9 kolofw&n. Famous for the Clarian Apollo, who gave responses there. Syr. [Syriac] A city of Ionia.
93. 4 Miletus, Gr. Mi/lhtoj, an ancient and large city of Ionia, where there was a Temple of the Didymean Apollo, which was burnt down by Xerxes. Ib. cap. iii. Syr. [Syriac]. Some exceedingly interesting and valuable matter on these, and other Oracles of Greece, as well as of other places, will be found in the Prep. Evang. See the index, under Oracula. Also in Theodoret, Graecar. affect. curatio, Serm. x. Tom. iv. p. 623. seq. The latter is particularly valuable: as is also Origen's account of them, (contra Cels. Lib. vii. p. 333. seq.)
94. 5 See Sect. 19, above.
95. 6 Ib. Atoms. See also Theophilus ad Autolycum. Lib. III. p. mihi 144 seq. where we have some admirable remarks on this subject.
96. 7 See Sect. 20, above: Note.
97. 2 […] There is another passage in Plutarch, which speaks of nourishing the hair as commendable: (Life of Lysander, 1st. par.) speaking of the image of Lysander as, [Greek] well adorning the hair, after the ancient manner, and sending down a noble beard. It is added, as a saying of Lycurgus, that hair made the good still more becoming; the vicious, more frightful. [Greek]. Theodoret (Serm. i. de Providentia, p. 321. Tom. iv.) speaks thus of the beard and hair of the Philosophers, together with the white robe, (tribw_n.) [Greek] Hence we see too, that the tribw_n was white. It was probably woollen, and the same as that worn by the Soofee Philosophers of the East; and so called because made of wool ([Arabic] soof.) It should seem from a passage in Diog. Laert. that it was the moral Philosophers only, who wore their hair long and flowing. In vita Carnead…[Greek]
98. 3 Here again we have the Greek text, as preserved in the Orat, de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 533. C.
99. 1 This clause is wanting in the Greek.
100. 2 See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 27. seq. Edit. 1629. This argument is urged, Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 4. and the Gr. text found as cited above.
101. 3 This appears to be taken from Philo Byblius (Sanchoniathon,) as preserved in the Prep. Evang. cap. x. p. 40. and Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 156, in these words: [Greek]. We are then told, that Israel, who reigned in Phoenicia, and was there only another name for Saturn, had so sacrificed his son Jeud ( 0Ieou&d ); which in the Phoenician language meant “only son,” ( mongenou&j ). This is apparently told as being the origin of their custom. We may observe however, that the name Israel is evidently taken from the Hebrew Bible, as is the name Jeud (Judah); for Israel certainly had such son. There is a blunder however, in the application; for, it was Abraham who laid his son on the altar for sacrifice; and that son's name was Isaac, not Jeud. There is, moreover, another blunder here, for Jahid ([Hebrew] Syr. [Syriac]) must have signified only one; or monogenh_j in the Phoenician.
102. 4 This is found in the Gr. as above cited, but defectively, and has been taken from Porphyry, Prep. Evang. p. 155. B. [Greek] Part of this is also found in Cyrill. Alexandr. against Julian, p. 128. seq. Edit. Spanh. […]
103. 5 Syr. [Syriac], imitating the form of the Greek case in It is worth remarking here, that Porphyry,—-from whom this passage is taken (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. pp. 155, 102.)—-says, this place was formerly named Coronea, Korw&neia: which appears to me, generally to have escaped the Geographers. This was the Salamis of Cyprus, as the context shews.
104. 6 Our March.
105. 11 The Seleucus who spoke of God: a periphrasis for the Greek qeolo&goj. He was, as Viger thinks, (notes ib.) a Grammarian of Alexandria, who wrote commentaries on most of the Poets, &c. and a hundred books on the Gods; and, that on this last account he was termed the Theologian. See also Suidas sub voce. This place is also cited by Cyrill .of Alexandria, Edit. Spanh. p. 128, with considerable varieties of reading from that of Eusebius. [..]
106. 1 This is an exact translation of the passage preserved in Eusebius (Prep. Evang. ib.), so much so, that the very order, ellipses, &c. of the Greek are followed. […] —-This Amosis was, according to some, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Prep. Evang. Lib. x. cap. x. pp. 490, 493, &c.
107. 2 This too is found in Porphyry, the Prep. Evang. ib. and Viger's notes, ib. p. 11. it. Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib.
108. 13 A disciple and interpreter of Callimachus, and an author of many works both in verse and prose. See Vigor's note (p. 11.).
109. 1 Syr. [Syriac] See a very curious note on these mysteries. Origen contra Cels. p. 8. line 44. Spencer's notes, p. 11.
110. 7 It is not very certain who this was: some attribute this to Gelo, a prince of Syracuse. See Viger's notes, ib. p. 12.
111. 8 Syr. [Syriac]. Gr. Douma&tioi. See Vigor's notes. Perhaps the Arabian Doumat 'l Jandal, Arab. [Arabic]. The latter word is, probably a modern adjunct, given by way of distinction. This place (See Pocock. Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 95. Ed. White) was famous for the worship of an idol named Wadd ([Arabic]), our Woden, or the Indian Bhuddha. The sacrifice of the Boy was an imitation, no doubt, of that of Isaac, as were evidently the human sacrifices of Phoenicia, noticed above. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 534. A. but defectively.
112. 12 […]. According to tradition, Erectheus had two sons and two daughters, all of whom were sacrificed for the good of the State. De laudd. ib., but in some respects differently.
113. 13 […] It was a city of Arcadia, formed out of many inconsiderable neighbouring places, soon after the battle of Leuctra, under the auspices of Epaminondas. See Cellarius Geog. Antiq. sub voce.—-Orat. de laudd. ib., omits much here.
114. 14 […] The feast of Jupiter must therefore, I think, be meant, and not the lupercalia of Rome, which the translations given of the Greek seem to intimate.
115. 16 The citation from Porphyry ends here. The words immediately following are those of Eusebius.
116. 17 […] This passage is also given in the Prep. Evang. but much more at length, (pp. 158—-161.) and is taken from the Bibliotheca of Diodorus Siculus (Lib. xx. cap. xiv.).
117. 18 Syr. [Syriac] meaning Carthaginians.
118. 19 […] Lactantius (De falsa religione Lib. i. cap. xxi.) refers to this in these words: “Pescennius Festus in Libris historiarum per satiram refert, Carthaginienses Saturno humanas hostias solitos immolare, et cum victi essent ab Agathocle rege Siculorum: iratum sibi deum putavisse; itaque, ut diligentius piaculum solverent, ducentos nobilium filios immolasse.” He gives some other instances too, which may be added to the above: viz. “ Apud Cyprios (See Sect. 55, above) humanam hostiam Jovi Teucrus immolavit: idque sacrificium posteris tradidit: quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum.” Ib. cap. xx.—-“Erat lex apud Tauros…ut Dianae hospites immolarentur: et id sacrificium multis temporibus celebratum est.” (See Sect. 53,64, above). Ib.—-“Ne Latini quidem hujus immanitatis expertes fuerunt, siquidem Latialis Juppiter etiam nunc sanguine colitur humano.”—-“ Non minoris insania; judicanda sunt publica illa sacra, quorum alia sunt matris deum, in quibus homines suis ipsi virilibus litant ;…alia Virtutis, quam eandem Bellonam vocant, in quibus ipsi sacerdotes, non alieno, sed suo cruore sacrificant,” &c. which is probably the case noticed above (Note 15.) by Eusebius, and is identical with that of the priests of Baal, mentioned in 1 Kings xviii. 28. To this horrid list of vices, Theophilus ad Autolycum, (Lib. m. p. 143. seq.) adds several others too disgusting to be mentioned, and yet many of them recommended by some of the most famous Philosophers! See also Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad gentes. p. 22. seq. which is cited here in the Prep. Evang. p. 157. Similar practices prevailed among the Druids of Gaul and Great Britain as Caesar intimates, as also among the Nomades of Tartary.
119. 1 The account of this is cited at length in the Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 158. seq. as taken from Lib. i. of the work of Hallicarnassensis: it occurs also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 534. B. with certain variations. This circumstance is said to have happened to the Pelasgi in Italy, and to have been the cause of their migrating into distant countries. We are told, ib. p. 159. B. that Myrsilus the Lesbian relates much the same things as having happened to the Tyrrhenians. The author tells us moreover, that these offerings were made to Jupiter, Apollo, and the Cabiri: [Greek] and, that this decimation of men (young men, it should seem) was called for by the Oracle, and enforced by the magistrates, —-notwithstanding the migrations which hence took place,—-until Hercules put an end to it, by commanding that images of men, dressed up as for the sacrifice, should be annually thrown into the Tibur. (Edit. Steph. 1540. p. 16.) It should seem, from accounts now before the public, that human sacrifices still prevail in the East to some extent. In the district of Ganjam in Hindustan, a tribe of natives called Khoonds annually sacrifice a human victim, in order to secure good crops. The Chieftains, it is said, of the different districts, take it by turns to offer this sacrifice annually: at other times, the offering is made to avert, or remove, some evil. These Chieftains then, have a child, sometimes children, purchased, or taken, in their marauding expeditions in the low country, to bring up for this express purpose: the more full grown and perfect, the better. This victim is put to death by the blow of an axe: the blood is sprinkled on the Idol, which is the image of a Peacock,—-carved in wood,—-with three heads. The body is then divided into as many parts as there are districts, and again into as many small pieces as there are families, who bury each his portion cither in his house, or about his fields. It is stated in a Paper in “the Journal of the Asiatic Society,” No. xiii. p. 136, that “this horrid custom …is in a fair way of being entirely rooted out by the vigorous measures of Lord Elphinstone.” The writer of the same paper, tells us of mounds in Southern India, which he thinks are composed of the ashes of sacrificial victims. His words are (ib. p. 1,35.)—-“I must admit, though reluctantly, the possibility of some of them being the remains of great sacrifical holocausts performed by the Rishis of old in their solitudes, since the ancient annals of the country abound in allusions both to bestial and human sacrifices… on a fearful scale of magnitude.” He alludes (ib.) to the Druidical sacrifices made formerly in our own land.
120. 1 As indeed the marauding tribes of Turcomans, Tartars, Bedouins, and others in the East still do.—-Orat. de laudd. Constant, ib. D. but with certain discrepancies.
121. 2 This is said also in the Preparatio Evangelica, (Lib. i. cap. iv. p. 10. D.) and is there advanced with reference to the Roman Empire being consolidated under Augustus, and thence enjoying—-under one comprehensive government—-a peace, unknown to it before. So also here, Book in. Sect. 1. seq. and Book v. Sect. 52.
122. 3 The Kings enumerated in Joshua xii. 24. are in the Heb. Bible thirty-one, in the Sept. Greek twenty-nine, in number. Our author thought it sufficient, perhaps, to give the round number thirty.
123. 4 Syr. [Syriac]Cellar. Geogr. Antiq. Tom. ii. Lib. iii. cap. xiii. p. 316. The Bethshan of the Old Testament. Jud. i. 27, &c. situated not far from the Lake of Gennesaret.
124. 5 […]. So named by Herod in honour of Augustus. See Cellarius. Geog. Antiq. p. mihi 112. with the authorities there cited.
125. 5 This paragraph was probably in the mind of Theodoret, when he wrote the passage, (Serm. x. de Oraculis, p. 633. Tom. iv.) commencing at line 10 from the bottom. Our author here refers to the wars of the Canaanites with one another, and with the Jews, as related generally by Josephus.—-This place is not without its obscurity.
126. 7 See Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. i. p. 178. D. Syr. [Syriac]. lit. Heads of places.
127. 1 This seems to assign the origin of Idolatry to Egypt: the plains of Shinar (Gen. xi. 2. seq. comp. Rev. xvii. 5.) seem to me to lay a better claim to this. Egypt may, indeed, have adorned it much with its science : hut so did Babylon. (See Is. xlvii. 12, 13. it. ib. xiv. 12—-14. with the Commentators on these places.) Greece perhaps got much of its Idolatry from Egypt, while the East was more particularly supplied with this from Bahylon. See also Vossius de Idololatria, passim.
128. 14 The places of Thucydides here referred to, will be readily found by consulting the Indexes of the best Editions of that writer.
129. 1 This is taken from Herodotus, Lib. i. c. xlvii. who gives it thus : [Greek]. To which three other lines are added. See the notes in the best editions here. The passage is alluded to, and commented upon, by Oenomaus in the Prep. Evang. Lib. v. cap. xx. p. 210. seq. It is cited ib. p. 230. B. with a few variations, (see Vigor's notes in each place,) as it also is in Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 63.
130. 2 The particulars here referred to, will be found in Herodotus, 1. c. et seq. On these Oracles, generally, see the Index to the Prep. Evang. (sub voce “ Oracula,” Viger's Edit.) Theodoret, Serm. ix. Graec. affect. curatio, &c.
131. 3 Herodot. Lib. i. lix. lxiv. Syr. [Syriac]
132. 12 Syr. [Syriac]. The Orchomenians. But I can find no account of this in the histories. An argument not unlike this is urged at length by Cicero (de Nat. Deor. in. 32 - 33. seq.), where Pisistratus is also adduced as an instance either of weakness or wickedness in the Gods.
133. 1 Matt. xii. 33. The reading here, as elsewhere, differs slightly from the Peschito.
134. 2 On this subject, generally, see the Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. Prooem. p. 236. seq. and cap. vii. Theodoret, Graec. affect. curat. Serm. vi. p. 562. Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. iv. p. 495. C. Lactant. Lib. in. cap. xxix. Our author against Hierocles, p. 541. Edit. 1628. Plutarch, Libellus de Fortuna, and Ephrem Syrus, Tom. ii. Syr. et Lat. p. 451. seq. where our form [Syriac], is applied again and again.
135. 2 According to Plutarch,—-who lived in the times of Trajan, and wrote a very valuable work on the failing of the Oracles (De defectu Oraculorum),—-excepting Lebadia in Boeotia alone, the Oracles had every where become silent, and their fanes ruined. His words are: (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 205.)… [Greek] This is followed (ib.) by an account from the same author, of the general decay of demoniacal influence, which, according to him, commenced in the times of Tiberius Caesar:—-the very time,—-as Eusebius proceeds to remark—-when our Lord cast them out, and declared that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning. He tells us too, (ib. p. 164. D.) that human sacrifices, which had every where prevailed, entirely ceased in the times of Hadrian—-when the Christian religion had become generally known—-as noticed above.
136. 1 Syr. [Syriac]. This is, no doubt, the Arridaeus, Ar0r9idai~oj of Diodorus Siculus : who, as he says, was the son of Philip, now received the name of Philip, and was made king. His words are:… [Greek]. (Bibl. Tom. viii. ii.) The authors, therefore, of the Universal History are wrong when they say, that this man was the Son of Roxana, and named Alexander.
137. 3 Eusebius does, nevertheless, give a passage from Porphyry, (Prep. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. xvi. p. 204.; see also p. 238.) in which Apollo is made to speak of their failing. The context, however, in this case is sufficient to shew, that this revelation was not put forth until the thing foretold had come to pass. This is followed (ib.) by a quotation, noticed above (par. 7C.), from Plutarch, on the general failing of the Oracles. See Viper's notes on both.
138. 4 Yet it is certain that very many intimations of “ the coming of the Just One” had got abroad among the heathen; and, of this, the Preparatio Evangelica of Eusebius presents many striking examples. Libb. ix. x. &c. see also the Oratio Constantini ad Sanctor. caet. cap. xviii. seq. These however, did not originate with the Oracles. —- All this was indeed, foretold by Isaiah (chap. xvii. 7. &c.) according to Theodoret. Edit. Gaisford, p. 395, and fulfilled in the times of Constantine. See ib. p. 412. seq. where he more than intimates that ALL had been fulfilled, just as our author has done in many places.
139. 1 De laudd. Constant, ib. p. 517. D. seq.
140. 3 This is, perhaps, an allusion to Jer. xxxi. 22, where the Syriac Peschito text has, The Lord createth a new thing in the earth, [Syriac]
141. 4 Alluding, perhaps, to 2 Cor. iv. 6.: or, it may be, to the term Wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i. 24., so frequently given to Christ in this work.
142. 5 Cicero adduces the tyrant of Sicily, when he had robbed the fane of Proserpine at Locris, and was sailing homeward with a prosperous gale, saying these words: “Videtisne, amici, quam bona a Diis immortalibus navigatio sacrilegis datur?” A similar thing is said of Gelo, and the Olympian Jupiter (ib. Nat. Deor. iii. 34.), and also of Aesculapius, &c. Lactantius too, —- a contemporary of our author, —- makes some pithy remarks on this subject. Lib. ii. cap. iv. p. mihi 108. seq. as also does Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 34. —- If it be said that, neither does revealed religion put forth vindictive powers, on occasions of insult offered by unbelievers, the answer is this : Revealed religion did put forth miraculous powers vindicating its own authority, when it was necessary it should do so. To do so on every occasion, would answer no good end. Unrevealed religion never has, and never could, when it wanted it most, do this. This is the true distinction : and it is an adequate one.
143. 7 Most of the statements made here, will also be found in the Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iv. pp. 11, 48, 275 —- 279, &c. See also Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 53.5. A. B. which will enable us to ascertain the intention of our author here, where he is occasionally obscure. This first is cited from Diodorus Siculus (Prep. Evang. p. 48. D.) in these words : . . [Greek]
144. 8 Ib. p. 11. it. 275. C. where we are told, that the Persian laws allowed
allowed marriage with sisters, daughters, and mothers, on the authority of Bardesanes. See p. 279. ib.
145. 1 As just cited from Bardesanes. And, in his days, many of these things were practised in Media, Egypt, Phrygia, and Galatia, as carried thither by the Magi.
146. 2 See Viger's note (ib. p. 25. “ para_ Pe/rsaj”) Bardesanes too, (ib. p. 276. D.) charges the Philosophers of Greece with this detestable crime)… [Greek] (Ib. p. 277.) This is said to have been practised under the sanction of the laws in Gaul. That Socrates, the most virtuous of all the Philosophers, was addicted to this practice, many ancient authors of respectability may be adduced to shew: and Theodoret with others asserts, that it was recommended by Plato in his Republic. See Theod. Graec. affect. curat. Serm. ix. p. mihi 618. I). Tom. iv. Viger is certainly mistaken when he imagines that the Zerasdas of Theodoret, means Plato ; it being self evident, as I think, that the Persian Zerdusht, ([Arabic]) or Gr. Zoroaster, must have been intended. Notes to the Prep. Evang. p. 25. seq. where it may be seen, that Autolycus accuses both the Epicureans and the Stoics of the same crime. Caesarius imputes the same to the Chaldaeans and Babylonians, (ib.) See also the Prep. Evang. (p. 11.) and Theodoret, Gr. affect. curat. Ed. Gaisford, p. 472. seq. It may be doubted perhaps, whether some of these charges can be substantiated. See Luzacii de Theodoreto judicium, prefixed to Dr Gaisford's work. —- These abominations are again touched upon, Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. x. p. 361, and Origen contra Cels. Lib. v. p. 248. seq.
147. 3 These particulars seem to be resumed more specifically near the end of this section. Our text has [Syriac] here, for [Syriac] I presume. I have, therefore, translated it by in sepulchres : alluding, perhaps, to the sacrificing, and otherwise destroying, of children.
148. 4 So, in the Prep. Evang. (p. 11. C.).. [Greek] (See also Plutarch, Tom. ii. p. 409.) So also Bardesanes, who attributes this to the Medes, &c. (ib. p. 277.) [Greek] Theodoret says
on the same subject:…[Greek] (p. 615. see also p. 614.) See also Cicero. Tusc. Quaest. Lib. i. cap. xlv.
149. 5 So Bardesanes. (Prep. Evang. p. 275. B.) [Greek] See also Viger's Note, (p. 25.) where much interesting matter, to this effect, is collected together, it. Orat. de laudd. Constant, p. 535. B.
150. 6 This is applied to the Scythians, generally, in the Prep. Evang. (p. 11.) in these words [Greek] Bardesanes affirms that there is also a people in India, who indulge in cannibalism, (ib. p. 278. D.) [Greek]
151. 7 This seems to be applied to the Derbices of Persia, (Prep. Evang. ib. p. 11.) and the Massagetae…[…]
152. 8 This, according to Euseb. (l.c.) and Theodoret, (l.c.) was done by the Tibareni. Theod. [Greek]
153. 9 Mention is made of this (Prep. Evang. ib.) in these words, […] Lit. Nor, as formerly, do they cast over the aged with a snare (noose, &c.) A practice, perhaps, not unlike that of the Persian hunters and warriors, who threw a sort of noose, —- called the [Arabic] Camand, —- over the head of the animal they wished to take. […]
154. 10 So the Hyrcaneans and Bactrians (Prep. Evang. pp. 11, 12, and Theodoret as above.)
155. 1 So the Caspians (Prep. Evang. ib.) and Bactrians (ib. p. 12.) Strabo Geogr. Lib. xi. p. 356. Edit. Casaubon.
156. 2 This, according to Theodoret, (Graec. affect, curat. p. 615.) was done by the Scythians: [Greek] So Ibn Batuta tells us (Travels, p. 220,) that he saw, at the funeral of the Emperor of China, six favourite Mamluks, and four female slaves all buried alive with him! See also Prep. Evang. (ib. p. 156. C.)
157. 3 So the Indians, as Bardesanes tells us, burned the wives, together with the dead body of the husband, on the funeral pile (Prep. Evang. p. 277. D.), just as it is the practice still in Hindustan. See also Plutarch, Tract. [Greek] Tom. ii. p. mihi 499. See also Origen contra Cels. Lib. v. p. 254. seq. as given by Celsus himself.
158. 1 Alluding perhaps to the case of David. 1 Sam. xvii. 34—-36.
159. 2 Not unlike this Porphyr. ad Boeth. Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xxviii. p. 556. C.
160. 1 See our author's Eccl. Hist. Lib. ix. cap. viii.
161. 2 See Prep. Evang. Lib. vi. capp. i-iii. p. 236; where cap. iii. we have a poem from Porphyry on the conflagrations of the Temples. See also ib. Lib. III. cap. ii. p. 134. D.
162. 1 […] Eusebius, Prep. Evang. (p. 134. D.) This (Simson's Chron. p. 640) happened A. M. 3457; his words are, “ A Pisistratidis incensum prodidit Philochorus apud Pindari Scholiastem ad Od. 7. Pyth. Non multo post ab Alcmaonidis instauratum.”
163. 2 Syr. [Syriac]. It has been affirmed by some, (Simson. Chron. A. M. 2948,) that the Amazons first built this Temple ; others deny this, and state that one Cresus, with Ephesus the son of Carter, built it: while Strabo makes Chersiphron its first builder. I have met with no account, however, of it having been destroyed by the Amazons.
164. 3 Syr. [Syriac] Strabo, however, Lib. xiv. p. 440, tells us, that it was Herostratus, who, to secure fame to himself, burnt it the second time. See also Valerius Maximus, Lib. viii. cap. xiv. Extern. 5. This was the Temple in which the image that fell down from Jupiter (Acts xix. 35.) was said to be preserved: which image, according to Pliny, was made of ebony by one Canitia. (Lib. xix. cap. iv.) So the authors of the Universal History, and, after them apparently Rees's Encyclopedia, Art. Diana. But, I can find no such thing in Pliny, nor any statuary of the name of Canitia. The words of Pliny are (Lib. xvi. 79), “De ipso simulacro Dea? ambigitur: ceteri ex ebeno esse tradunt. Mucianus ter consul, ex his qui proxime viso scripsere, vitigineum, et nunquam mutatum septies restituto templo.”
165. 4 So Thucydides, Lib. iv. 133; not unlike this too, Pausanias Descript. Gr. Lib. vii. cap. v. This happened (Simson's Chronicon. p. 769.) A. M. 3582—-which see.
166. 5 This Temple was, according to Herodotus, very rich, and more ancient than that of Delphos, and was burnt by the Medes in conjunction with the Thessalians, Lib. vni. 33. Eusebius, however, speaks of an invasion and burning by the Thebans which was, perhaps, on another occasion. See also Pausanias, Graec. Descript. Lib. x. cap. xxxv. This happened A. M. 3658. (Sims. Chron. p. 905.)
167. 6 This was, according to Strabo, (Lib. viii. p. mihi 244.) one of the finest works of Phidias. It was made of ivory, in a sitting posture, and so large, that if standing the Temple could not have contained it, its height would have been so great. See also Pausanias, Lib. i. cap. xviii. This Temple was once destroyed by an inundation of the sea. Pausan. Lib. in. cap. ix. I can find no account of the destruction of this statue by lightning. See Prep. Evang. p. 135. A.
168. 7 An account of this is found in Herodian, as happening in the times of Commodus, (Lib. i. 14.) He first tells us, that the Temple of Peace suffered by lightning after many prodigies had appeared in the heavens, with pestilences, &c. on the earth. [Greek] “ Maximum autem nefas cum in praesens dolorem attulit, tum in futurum pessimo augurio universos conterruit. Nam cum neque imbres ulli neque nubes, tantumque exiguus terrae motus antecessisset, seu nocturni casu fulminis, sive igni aliquo in ipso terrarum motu velut extrito, totum de improviso Pacis templum consumptum incendio est: quod unum scilicet opus cunctorum tota urbo maximum fuit atque pulcherrimum: idem templorum omnium opulentissimum…inter qua; etiam Vestae templum, sic ut Palladium quoque conspiceretur: quod inprimis colunt atque in arcano habent Romani, Troja (ut perhibent) avectum.” See also Xiphilinus near the end of Commodus. The Temple of Fortune at Rome is said, by Zosimus, to have been burnt in like manner. (Lib. ii. Constantinus et Licinius.) The Temple of Vesta was also burnt in the first Punic wars. See Dion. Hallicarn. Lib. ii. p. 94. Edit. 1546, where this Palladium is also spoken of. See also Clemens. Alexand. Admon. ad Gentes. p. 30-85. seq. and Pausan. Lib. v.
169. 1 […] Xiphilinus tells us in his Epitome of Dion, that in the times of Titus, the Temples of Serapis and Isis; the Septa; the Temple of Neptune; the Baths of Agrippa; the Pantheon ; the Diribitorium; the Theatre of Balbus; the Scena of Pompey ; the houses of Octavius, with the books; the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, with the adjoining Temples, were all destroyed by fire, which the Historian thinks were Divine, rather than human, occurrences. (Edit. Sylburg. Ed. 1590. p. 827.) See also Prep. Evang. Lib. in. cap ii. p. 134. D. seq. It. Simsoni de Sibyl. Vaticin. disquis. col. 1712.
170. 2 […] This happened in the times of Domitian, of which Suetonius (Lib. xi. cap. xv.) gives the following account. […] &c. We are told in the next chapter, that on consulting a German soothsayer concerning this lightning, he was told that it portended a change of things. Which harmonizes well with the general expectations those times. The soothsayer, however, appears to have lost his life, on account of this answer. Comp. Tacit. Hist. Lib. iv. 54, and Simson, Chron. Cathol. pars. vii. p. 1674. The Capitol was also burnt in the year before Christ, 80, together with the Chapel and Sybilline books. Simson, Chron. A. M. 3923.
171. 3 In like manner in the Orat. de laudd. Constant, cap. xiii. p. 535. C.
172. 1 To the same effect Origen contra Cels. Lib. ii. p. 79.[…]