Contra Julianum

Address of the blessed Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, to the most pious and Christ-loving emperor Theodosius. Worthy of hearing and exceptional and beyond all speech are the achievements of your devout majesty, and your incomparable devotion to piety, descending upon you from above like some inheritance, you have kept invincible against the arrows of envy, because of your skill in all the best things, both ancestral and still grandfatherly, as is seen clearly in these matters. And it is my purpose to fit to you yourselves the words of our Savior; for he said: A city cannot be hidden when it is set upon a mountain; for the conspicuous always follows, in a way, those who are raised on high. And what could be equal to your serenity? Nothing at all; for the glory of your scepter has passed through to the highest rank, dazzling all things with the brightness of good order, and gladdening heaven—that is, the higher and rational powers in heaven—with gentleness and piety toward Christ. For you are so admired in both respects that, having virtue in them equally matched, you have surpassed every manner of praise. So then, from others, the victories, crowns, and words of thanksgiving for you, O Christ-loving emperor Theodosius, are offerings, and the things by which the dominions of emperors would not inappropriately be honored. But it was fitting that books also be brought forward by us who have received the divine priesthood, composed very well for the glory of God.

For it is always dear to you and customary and truly much-prayed-for to uphold it, and to regard those who in any way at all rave madly against it as utterly abominable and to place them in the lot of the most hostile, and to deem worthy of all honor as many as choose to think and speak what tends to the glory of God. And I would say that this advantage too is holy and fitting, and most especially becoming to your celebrated heads. For somewhere, singing to Christ the Savior of all, the inspired prophet David said: "Did I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and was I not consumed with grief over your enemies? With perfect hatred I hated them; they became enemies to me." And the saying holds very much as is likely; for just as someone makes a clear demonstration of his goodwill toward you by loving to set himself against those who, I know not how, from excessive folly have chosen not to love, so too he would reveal the genuineness of his love for Christ by vigorously opposing those who have slandered his cause, all but crying out and saying what is found in the God-inspired Scripture: "I have been very zealous for the Lord." But what sort of thing is the dedication of my words to you, it is necessary to say.

Grant me pardon, then, as I choose to speak not merely against the emperor, but on behalf of the glory of Christ, the great King, who reigns together with all things alongside his own Father, to whom alone it would befit that the saying should belong: "By me kings reign." For he himself is the Lord of glory, both in heaven and on the earth. It is therefore fitting and necessary that we, the champions of the sacred doctrines—clearly we who have been appointed to this by him—should rise up with words able to plead in defense against those who wish to do injustice to his glory, and such words as would be to

the benefit of those who will read them: for those whose heart is easily swayed and most readily carried off to what is not fitting, a most necessary aid; but for those well established in the faith, a staff, as it were, able to sustain them toward the need to be fixed more firmly and to hold the tradition of the right faith unshaken. Who, then, is the one who has fought against the glory of Christ? Very many indeed, as many as have been led to this at various times through the perversity of the devil, but most of all Julian, who once shone with the boasts of kingship, but did not know Christ, the giver of kingship and of the power to rule. For before the times of his kingship he was numbered among the believers, and he was deemed worthy even of holy baptism itself, and he had been trained in the sacred books.

But I do not know how men who had become abominable and superstitious to him made themselves familiar and let loose words on behalf of apostasy, and then, taking Satan as their fellow soldier for this purpose, they brought him over to the customs of the Greeks and showed him to be a worshipper of unclean demons—he who had been raised in holy churches and monasteries. For evil companionships corrupt good morals, as the all-wise Paul says. And I say that those who wish to have a steadfast mind and to keep the tradition of the right faith like some pearl must give no entrance to their mind, that is, no place of free access, to those who wish to be superstitious. For it is written: With the holy you shall be holy, and with the innocent man you shall be innocent, and with the elect you shall be elect, and with the perverse you shall be perverse. Having, then, a naturally gifted tongue, the most mighty Julian sharpened it against Christ, the Savior of us all; and indeed he wrote three books against the holy Gospels and against the pious religion of the Christians, and through them he shakes many and has done no small injury. The light and easily swept away fall readily into his snares and become a sweet prey for the demons; but sometimes even those who have stood firm in the faith are disturbed. For they think that he knows the sacred and divine Scriptures, since he heaps up very many testimonies from them for his own arguments, although he does not know what he is saying.

Since very many of the superstitious, encountering those who hold the things of Christ, revile them up and down, thrusting forward that man's writings against us, asserting that they possess an unassailable force, and that no one ever of our teachers has been able either to speak against or to overturn his arguments, and since many urged me to this, and indeed I too, taking courage, say to God even now: "Go, and I will open your mouth," I have set myself to the task of casting down the Greek brow that is lifted up against the glory of Christ, and of coming to the aid as far as possible of those who have been deceived, and of showing that he who has accused Christ, the Savior of us all, is deceived and does not know the divine Scriptures. I have dedicated the discourses on this matter to your Christ-loving and most holy head, which may God always keep in unshaken good cheer, magnified over enemies, and having all things under its feet, and passing on the holy kingdom to children's children, with Christ consenting, through whom and with whom be glory to God and the Father with the Holy Spirit forever, amen.

Of our father among the saints, Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, concerning the pious religion of the Christians, against the writings of Julian, the one among the godless.

Book One. The wise and discerning and those knowledgeable in the sacred doctrines marvel at the beauty of the truth, and in every discourse they have made it their aim to be able to understand a parable and a dark saying, both the words of the wise and riddles. For thus, thus, by fixing their precise and well-articulated understanding upon the God-inspired Scriptures, they fill their own souls with the divine light, and having taken up the enviable boast of a right and most lawful conduct, they would be both a source of the highest benefit to others as well. For it is written: Son, if you become wise for yourself, you will be wise also for your neighbor. But those who are perverse in heart and who have a stubbornness in their mind, and who are wholly without a share in the divine light, set themselves against the doctrines of piety, and they speak very boldly and exalt themselves against the ineffable glory, and sending forth contradictory voices they speak injustice on high, as it is sung in the Psalms. But I think that this sickness has come upon them from very great madness and from the ignorance that is in them, or rather, if one must speak the truth, from the plotting of the evil and author of evil, the serpent—I mean Satan. And to this very point the divine Paul strengthens us, having written: But if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of Christ should not shine forth.

That the one who was thought to be the god of this age and the thief of the highest glory has darkened their heart is not unclear; for they have plainly gone astray and set over human life gods more numerous than can be counted, both demons and the souls of heroes, as they themselves say and have resolved to believe. But the tears of the right-minded would have been upon them, had they chosen to keep very much silent about the things for which one would be ashamed; but now their attempt at impiety advances to such a point that they seek to inject the disease of this shameful superstition into others as well. For like certain snakes lying in wait at the crossroads, they leap bitterly upon those who pass through them, pouring the venom of destruction into the easily misled; and concerning them it might be said, and very fittingly: Snakes, offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things, being evil? And the Lord would not miss the truth when he says: The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil things, and: Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

And I say these things having encountered the books of Julian, who made no tolerable denunciation of our revered religion, saying that we have gone astray and have foolishly departed from the road that is straight and blameless, and are going as if over rocks, and are in every way offering worship unwanted by the God over all, neither consistent with the laws given through the all-wise Moses, nor indeed with the superstitions of the Greeks—that is, their customs and manners—but have innovated a life that is, as it were, a middle course and errs with respect to both. And I would say that we have been delivered from the madness of the Greeks, and that a strong argument walls off the Christian things from their idle chatter; for there is no fellowship of light with darkness, nor a portion for the faithful with the unfaithful. But that we are not different from the books of Moses, nor have we pursued a way of life that contradicts his ordinances, I shall attempt to establish as far as I am able, the fitting occasion training our discourse in these matters. Nevertheless, I shall think it necessary to say this for the present: for it is true that, as it is parodied by some, one wise man comes from another, and it would surely be evident that the things of the

The successors of the first men would know these things, and not rather those before them know the things of the later men. Therefore, since the children of the Greeks think greatly of their own teachers, and imagine they strike terror into some by naming to us Anaximanders and Empedocles, Protagoras and Platos, and adding to these the others who became the inventors of their impious doctrines and, so to speak, the sources of their ignorance—come, let us say that one might observe them rising up against one another with conflicting opinions, and bringing forward on every point an inconsistent defense. Then, in addition to this, let us demonstrate that Moses obtained the primacy in time, and introduced a right and most unerring opinion concerning the ineffable and highest of all essence, and recorded most excellently the creation of the world, and was a wondrous arbiter of laws pertaining to piety and justice; while those called wise among them came later and most recent, and stole his teachings and wove them into their own words, even if they were not able to keep them sound in every respect, and so to seize a venerable reputation and to seem to say something of the truth. Therefore some came after Moses, and others flourished at various times alongside the holy prophets after him; of these, those who chose to follow their opinions were deemed worthy of a better vote than the others, although they did not make the exposition of their opinion concerning God entirely free of falsehood.

That the inspired Moses was the most ancient, I mean in respect of the time of his coming into being, while those after him were the latest, we shall make clear by examining the books of those who wrote chronologies accurately. And I say that those who will read them ought not to be superficial about the reading and the list of names, that is, the enumeration of the times, but should rather thirst intensely for the good and profitable assurance concerning each one. Therefore Noah was, a man among those most beloved of God, the tenth from the first, that is, Adam. To him the God of all commanded, since the flood was going to be and the things on the earth were going to be destroyed in utter ruin, to build an ark, and together with his dearest ones and wives and all kinds of cattle, birds, and reptiles, to embark and sail in it. And when this had been brought to completion, the whole human race and the other animals were destroyed, but he was saved with his whole household. And when the waters had subsided, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, that is, of Armenia, and he, planting his foot again on the earth, offered thanksgiving sacrifices. The God-inspired Scripture is therefore sufficient for belief; but since some of the superstitious say that our accounts are idle myths and have from nowhere either plausibility or truth, I shall necessarily mention also their own historians, I mean Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus.

For they themselves have made the account of these things in their own writings, even if not entirely without blame, but rather strangely, inasmuch as they have no share in the doctrines of piety.

And Alexander says thus: When Otiartes died, his son Xisouthros reigned eighteen sari; in his time they say the great flood occurred; then he says that Xisouthros was saved, Kronos having foretold to him beforehand what was to be, and that it was fitting to build a vessel and to sail in it together with birds and reptiles and cattle. Abydenos, however, makes the account clearer, saying thus: After whom others also ruled, and Xisouthros; and to him Kronos foretold that there would be an abundance of rains on the fifteenth of Daisios, and he commanded that everything whatsoever that was in writing be hidden in Heliopolis in Siparoi. And Xisouthros, having accomplished these things, straightway sailed away to Armenia, and immediately the things from God overtook him. And on the third day, when the rain had ceased, he released the birds, making a test whether they might see land emerging from the water; but they, since a vast expanse of sea awaited them and they were at a loss where to settle, came back again to Xisouthros, and after them others; and when he succeeded with the third ones—for they were found to have their feet covered with mud—the gods made him disappear from among men. And the vessel was in Armenia and provided to the local inhabitants charms of wood against harm.

Xisouthros, then, they name Noah, perhaps in the Assyrian tongue, and in this again they have missed the truth, saying that Cronus was assigned to him instead of the God over all; and it is no wonder, for they have had no share in the divine light, nor have they beheld with the eyes of the mind the venerable beauty of the truth. So Noah, having come forth from the ark, sacrificed, and he lodged there together with his dearest ones. And there were three sons born to him, and very many others from them, and they became a second beginning of those upon the earth; and at first they dwelt together, and in the land facing the sun only, but after this they were scattered everywhere, when the God over all divided them into many tongues; for he was angered at the building of the tower. And that those just now named by us have also remembered this history, we shall know no less from what they have written.

For Alexander says as follows: But the Sibyl says that, when all men were of one speech, some of them built a tower exceeding great, so that they might ascend into heaven; but God blew winds against the tower, and overturned it and gave to each their own speech; and for this reason the city was called Babylon. And Abydenus again: In this place, they say, the first men that arose, puffed up with strength and greatness and thinking themselves far better than the gods, raised a towering citadel, where now Babylon is; and already it was nearer to heaven, and the winds, aiding the gods, overturned the device about them; and its ruins are called Babylon, and those who were formerly of one tongue received from the gods a many-voiced speech.

So then, after the descendants of Noah by blood had been scattered abroad, and after a time had passed by, the first to reign conspicuously over the Assyrians is said to have been Ninus, the son of Arbelus, after whom also the city of Nineveh is named, whose walls Semiramis, having lived with Ninus, magnificently constructed. While Ninus, then, was governing the kingdom of the Assyrians, and Europus that of the Sicyonians, they say that the blessed Abraham was born, a man of all understanding and much learning, and one who earnestly desired to be reckoned among those most zealous to know what was true, and who the creator and lord of all things is. For he was setting himself apart and withdrawing to the greatest distance from the opinions of the Assyrians—those, I mean, concerning the polytheistic error. Having supposed that the knowledge of the truth would suffice him for every prosperity, he was accepted by God; for he heard: Go forth from your kindred and from your father's house, and come into the land which I shall show you. What manner of life, then, he lived, and how many were born from him, I shall pass over in speaking for the present, since the occasion necessarily diverts our account to other matters. But passing by those in between because of the multitude of histories and names, I shall come swiftly to Moses himself, the hierophant. For when the four hundred and twenty-fifth year had elapsed after the wondrous Abraham, Moses is born in Egypt, the descendants of Abraham by blood having settled there. And while he was still young and had come to experience the wisdom of the Egyptians, such a thing

He made human affairs a preliminary exercise for the more divine. So then, having brought the chronology down from Abraham to Moses, let us begin here again another reckoning of years, setting the birth of Moses before the numbers. In the seventh year of Moses, they say Prometheus and Epimetheus came to be, and Atlas the brother of Prometheus, and also Argus the all-seeing. In the thirty-fifth year of Moses, Cecrops, surnamed the two-formed, first reigned at Athens; they say he was the first of men to sacrifice a cow, and to name Zeus the highest of the gods among the Greeks, as they themselves say. In the sixty-seventh year of Moses, they say the flood in the time of Deucalion occurred in Thessaly, and indeed also in Ethiopia Phaethon, whom they themselves call the son of Helios, was consumed by fire. In the seventy-fourth year of Moses, Hellen, so called, the son of Deucalion and Pyrrha, became for the Greeks the beginning of this appellation, although they were formerly called Graeci. In the hundred and twentieth year of Moses, Dardanus founded the city of Dardania, while Amyntas was king of the Assyrians, Sthenelus of the Argives, and Rameses of the Egyptians; and he himself was called Aegyptus, and so was the brother of Danaus. In the hundred and sixtieth year after Moses, Cadmus reigned over Thebes, whose daughter was Semele, from whom came Dionysus, as they themselves say, from Zeus; and at that time there were also Linus the Theban and Amphion, the musicians. And at that time Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron succeeded to the priesthood among the Hebrews, evidently after the death of Aaron. In the hundred and ninety-fifth year after Moses, they say the rape of Kore, celebrated among the Greeks, occurred at the hands of Aidoneus, while he was king of the Molossians.

It is said that he reared the huge dog Cerberus, which he set upon Pirithous and Theseus when they came to carry off his wife; and they say that when Pirithous was destroyed, Heracles, arriving on the scene, rescued Theseus; for which reason they mythologize that he fled from Hades. In the two hundred and ninetieth year, Perseus kills Dionysus, whose tomb they say is at Delphi beside the golden Apollo. In the three hundred and fifty-fifth year after Moses, Priam reigns after Laomedon. In the four hundred and tenth year after Moses, Ilium was sacked, when Essebon was governing the Hebrews, Agamemnon the Argives, Ouaphres the Egyptians, and Tautanus the Assyrians.

There is gathered, then, from the birth of Moses until the capture of Ilium, four hundred and ten years. And again consider for me those who follow in order; for I shall speak in summary fashion, not lingering over the events that occurred in between, but rather bringing my account to anchor at the essential persons. Accordingly, in the fifth year of the capture of Ilium, Aeneas reigned over the Latins, Demophon the son of Theseus over the Athenians, and Samson was judge among the Hebrews. In the sixty-fifth year of the capture of Ilium, the priest Eli died, at least according to what is written in the first book of Kingdoms; and the Philistines carried off the ark to their own land, while the blessed Samuel was prophesying and Saul had by then been anointed king. In the one hundred and sixty-fifth year of the capture of Ilium, they say that Homer and Hesiod were born, when Labotes was reigning over the Lacedaemonians, Laosthenes over the Assyrians, Alba Silvius over the Latins, and Agelaus over the Corinthians.

In the two hundred and sixty-eighth year from the capture of Troy, Elijah and Elisha were prophesying, while Joram was governing the kingdom of the Hebrews, and Archelaus was king of the Lacedaemonians. In the three hundred and sixty-fifth year from the capture of Troy, Lycurgus was giving laws to the Lacedaemonians, when Agemon was king of the Corinthians and Procas Silvius king of the Latins. In the three hundred and eightieth year from the capture of Troy, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Jonah were prophesying. Some say that Hesiod was not a contemporary of Homer, but that he lived in these times, when Azariah, also called Uzziah, was governing the affairs of the Hebrews, Arbaces was king of the Medes, and Procas Silvius king of the Latins.

There are therefore gathered together from the capture of Troy to the first Olympiad four hundred and five years, and from the birth of Moses to the same first Olympiad eight hundred and fifteen years. In the first Olympiad, Arctinus of Miletus is said to have been an epic poet, and Romus and Romulus were born, when Jotham was king of Judea and Pekah king of Israel. In the ninth Olympiad they say that Eumelus the epic poet lived, and the Erythraean Sibyl. In the seventeenth Olympiad they say that the Sibyl whom they also called Herophile lived. In the twenty-third Olympiad they say that Archilochus lived, when Manasseh was governing the affairs of the Jews. In the twenty-ninth Olympiad they say that Hipponax and Simonides were known, and Aristoxenus the musician. In the thirty-fifth Olympiad Thales son of Examyes of Miletus is said to have been the first natural philosopher, and they say that his life extended to the fifty-eighth Olympiad.

In the thirty-sixth Olympiad, the inspired Jeremiah was prophesying in Judea, and Sophonias as well. In the forty-second Olympiad, Alcmaeon and Pittacus of Mitylene, one of the seven sages, and in addition to these Stesichorus the poet was known. And around these very times were the men with the blessed Daniel.

In the forty-sixth Olympiad, Solon legislated, abolishing the laws of Draco except those concerning homicide. In the forty-ninth Olympiad, when the Jews were in Babylon, that is, in the mountains of the Persians and Medes (for they had become captives), Daniel and Ezekiel were prophesying among them. In the fiftieth Olympiad, the seven sages were known, and Anaximander of Miletus, a natural philosopher. In the fifty-sixth Olympiad, when Cyrus was governing the empire of the Persians, Haggai and Zechariah were prophesying, and Simonides and Chilon, being among the seven sages, were already known. In the fifty-eighth Olympiad, Theognis the poet was named. In the fifty-ninth Olympiad, Ibycus the lyric poet and Pherecydes the historian and Phocylides and Xenophanes, poets of tragedies, came to be. In the sixty-second Olympiad, Pythagoras is said to have been born. In the seventieth Olympiad, they say Democritus and Anaxagoras, natural philosophers, came to be, and together with them Heraclitus, surnamed the Obscure. In the seventy-fourth, Phrynichus and Choerilus and Diagoras, natural philosophers. In the eighty-sixth Olympiad, they say Democritus of Abdera came to be, and Empedocles and Hippocrates, and Prodicus, Zeno and Parmenides. In the eighty-eighth Olympiad, they say Aristophanes the comic poet, and Eupolis and Plato came to be.

In the one hundred and third Olympiad, they say that Aristotle was a student of Plato, being quite young in age. In the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad, they say that Alexandria in Egypt was founded, in the seventh year of Alexander's reign; and at that time Anaximenes and Epicurus the philosophers were born.

In the one hundred and twenty-fourth Olympiad, while Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus was reigning over Egypt, they say that Sarapis came to Alexandria from Sinope, and that he is the same as Pluto; whence also a temple was built for the statue, which the Egyptians in their native tongue call Rhakotis, signifying by this nothing other than Pluto; and for this reason they made the temple a neighbor to the tombs. The account concerning him is disputed among the Greeks; for some do not deem him to be Pluto, but rather Osiris, while others say he is Apis. Since, then, there was much contention about this, they set up the image, they say, as if by a single agreement, having come to unanimity, as Osiraps, so that in the same name both Osiris and Apis might be understood. But both of these are said to have died and been buried; for they were men. But long custom, having dropped the OSI, made the image be called Sarapis. This Ptolemy, having been among the most learned of men, sent one of his intimates to Judea, writing to Eleazar, who was at that time priest according to the law, that he should send him all the books of Moses and of the holy prophets, since he was very eager to learn, and should also send along with them those able to translate them into the Greek tongue; and this indeed came to pass.

In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad, while Augustus Caesar was reigning over the Romans, our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh. From the accurate record, then, of the times and indeed of the genealogies, how is it not clear to all that the divinely inspired Moses was the most ancient of all the wise men among the Greeks, and that they were recent and, as it were, newly appeared? For they came into being long ages after the registration of the Olympiads began. Hence, I think, it is easier to observe and to state truthfully that, having not been wholly without a share in the doctrines of Moses, nor indeed uninformed of the God-given and unadulterated wisdom that was in him, they sometimes babble the truth, weaving falsehood into it and, as it were, stirring up mud in the most fragrant myrrh. For what teaching, wise and worthy of acceptance, is not present in the words of Moses? Or how could one not admire his works? For those who have accurately mastered the curiosities of the Greeks say that philosophy is divided into theoretical knowledge and indeed practical, and even if someone should be skilled in both, they say that this man has passed through to seeming to succeed well in philosophy. Consider, then, consider Moses as such a man; for he speaks of God as no other does—the things concerning the highest essence of all and incomparable glory and the supremacy over all things—and he declares the one and only God to be the creator and lord of the universe. And to those who have earnestly pursued the good and the matter of living well in word, he is seen legislating the best and most excellent of all things, and the things through which they would be most especially revered. But perhaps someone will say:

Indeed, the things of Moses are older than the wise men among the Greeks; yet it cannot be said that they were caught having stolen or in any way appropriated the wisdom that was in him. So then, unless our argument carries great probability, let those who love to listen judge. The historians among them, traversing, so to speak, the whole earth, always wished to learn something so that they might seem to know many things; for they made it their adornment of writing to pass over nothing of what had happened. How then would such men, accustomed as they were to acquire useful learning, have neglected to learn thoroughly histories so venerable, and the accurate exposition of doctrines and laws of the most ancient dignity? And yet Pythagoras of Samos and Thales of Miletus, having spent no small time in Egypt, and having collected the things from there and gathered together the accumulation of learning which they are said to have obtained, returned to the land that bore them. Moreover, Plato himself, the son of Ariston, says in the Timaeus that Solon of Athens came to the land of the Egyptians, and inquired of one of the false prophets there, that is, the priests, who said: O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, and there is no old Greek, but you are all young in your souls. For you have no ancient opinion among yourselves, nor any learning grown grey with time; but it has escaped you, because for many generations you end with letters that are voiceless.

But, I think, through these considerations one may also see that the things of the Christians are of ancient dignity. For the knowledge of letters was not yet among the Greeks—Cadmus having barely brought them to them from Phoenicia—except that the things of Moses had been written. But Solon, the inventor of the laws at Athens, and indeed Plato himself, having been in Egypt in order to seem to know something more than all others, surely admired the very things of Moses. And that Moses was most well known to the historians of the Greeks can be seen from what they themselves have written. For Polemon made mention of him in the first of his Greek Histories, and Ptolemy of Mendes, and indeed Hellanicus and Philochorus, and Castor, and others besides these. And Diodorus, having busied himself much with the affairs of the Egyptians, says he heard about him from the wise men there, and he wrote word for word as follows: "For after the ancient constitution of life in Egypt, which is mythologized to have occurred in the time of gods and heroes, they say that the first to persuade the masses to use written laws was a man great in soul and most novel in life among those remembered by the Jews, Moses, the one called god. For since they beheld Moses filled with every virtue, they also named him god, honoring him, I think, some of those in Egypt, or perhaps having learned what was said to him by the God over all: 'Behold, I have given you as god to Pharaoh.'" Concerning antiquity, then, I think, and indeed that the things of Moses rise before the wisdom honored among the Greeks and hold a more ancient glory, our argument has been sufficiently worked out, possessing an irreproachable and clear demonstration.

I say that after this we must inquire diligently into the opinion of the Hebrews, which they held concerning God and the origin or framing of the world, and then in turn make clear to those who will read it what seemed good to the wise men of the Greeks. For wherever they agree with the words of divinely inspired Scripture, one may see that they are better than themselves and that they agree with one another; but wherever each one gives an account of his own inventions, it is easier to demonstrate that they are at variance and drunk on strange opinions. For it was not possible at all to discern the things beyond mind and our own reasonings, unless the God who rules all things had sent light into the mind and begotten wisdom and widened the tongue and allowed them to both understand and speak something of the unutterable things concerning himself, so far as is possible. But such grace would not come indiscriminately to all, but rather to those who are beyond the passions of the flesh and freed from earthly uncleanness, and who are sound in mind and knowledgeable in the noble deeds that lead to piety. And to this the God of all sharpens us, speaking through the voice of David: Be still and know that I am God, and indeed also our Lord Jesus Christ: Blessed are the pure in heart, he says, for they shall see God. And the nature that is above all things would be seen not with the eyes of the body, but with the eyes hidden within the mind, since it sends into it a subtle and exact curiosity and draws the rays of the vision of God into the imaginations that are beyond sense perception.

Those men, then, who came from Adam down to Noah honored one God, who is by nature and truly the creator and Lord of all things; for no one was accused of inclining to other gods or of assigning reverence to unclean demons. But after the flood and the building of the tower and the division of tongues, those scattered throughout the earth held even their opinion concerning God in irreconcilable conflict. For having turned their mind away from the truth and having anchored it in transient and earthly matters and in the pleasures of the body, they rushed headlong into every sort of the most outlandish error, and, as it were, divided among themselves the charges of polytheistic deception. Some, then, supposed heaven to be God, others the sun and moon, and besides these the stars and the elements of the world—fire and water, air and earth—from which the individual things are said to be composed. Others again, having slipped into the last and lowest ignorance of all, rushed into such vulgarity of thought as even to build temples and sanctuaries adorned with costly materials, to set up sacred seats for them and pillars of men, and, after weeping over the dead, to dare to regard these very ones as gods and to honor them with libations and sacrifices. Very many indeed throughout their lives are those who attach to the elements of the world the opinion that belongs to God alone; but the Chaldeans above all others have been devoted to such writing, and they most meticulously measure the motion of the stars, and they make the flights of birds a pretext for divination.

But, as I have already said, the inspired Abraham was different from their follies; for he did not think it right to reckon the highest nature of God, which is beyond all things, among things perceptible and visible, nor did he love to make it so, nor indeed did he err from the truth by enclosing it among created things, but rather he lifted it up on high and placed it above everything called into being, and so he was rightly admired. For this reason he was also taken up by God; for the one who was sought now made himself manifest to him. Let us see, then, what glory the forefather Abraham is seen to have, and then who among those after him will be worthy to set forth clearly the faith and glory that was in him; but, I think, for this Moses would suffice us, who was his descendant and who both himself thought fit to think the things he knew him to have thought, and handed them down in writing. Accordingly, composing the book of Genesis, he said that certain men had laid waste the lands of the Sodomites, and then, having taken Lot captive along with the others, they rejoiced as having conquered, but they were deceived in their hope, when Abraham unexpectedly led out against them and overcame them by force and released from captivity those who had once been taken. And when he returned from the slaughter of the five kings (for it is written thus), the king of Sodom, Chodologomor, begged him, saying, Give me the men, and take the horses for yourself; but he, not enduring to have the losses of others as the wages of his brave deeds, made the matter a thing sworn off, saying:

I will stretch out my hand to God the Most High, who created heaven and earth, if I take from all that is yours from a thread to the strap of a sandal, so that you may not say, "I made Abraham rich," and he crowned him as one who had conquered. And the king of Salem, that is Melchizedek, blessed him, saying, "Blessed be Abraham by God the Most High, who created heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High, who delivered your enemies under your hand." And when he sent one of his trusted servants, that is, of his most well-disposed household, into the midst of the rivers and commanded him to become a bride-finder for Isaac, he says, "I will make you swear by the God of heaven and the God of the earth." So then the inspired Abraham knew and clearly confessed that there is one God, and only one, and he called him Most High and the creator of all things, both those in heaven and those on earth. Therefore the height is not perceptible, nor indeed is it conceived as being in a place, nor such as one might take in a bodily sense, but it consists in his presiding over all things in a manner befitting God, and in all things in the heavens and on the earth having been made by him, and the firmament itself, and indeed the earth—I mean the element itself. But if all things have come to be by him, then surely he is also other than all things, and other by nature, since he is neither created nor indeed from things that are not, but rather unbegotten and eternal and older than all time and the beginning of all things. So then the inspired Abraham knew that there is one God, just as I said a moment ago, and he clearly confessed it, and to him alone he offered pure and undefiled worship. But since the

A time for advancement in what he had rightly come to know sharpened his mind, and then, then he was taught the words concerning the Godhead more slenderly; for he did not learn only that there is one God and no other beside him, but he was also taught that in the holy and consubstantial Trinity the fullness of the one and undefiled nature is understood, as it were still in types, and almost even sensibly. For what reason? Because to those who have just been called to the knowledge of the truth, and who do not have their mind well rubbed in the contemplations concerning it, the light of the vision of God seems in some way inaccessible, and truly is. For such knowledge requires a mind that is advanced and exercised and knows how to see sharply, and besides these things has first taken faith into itself; for this is the foundation and unshaken basis of the words concerning the Godhead. And to this the prophet Isaiah strengthens us, saying: Unless you believe, you will not understand. And that there is absolutely need of the pedagogy through riddles for those who are just now applying themselves to such slender and, as it were, pounded-down concepts, namely those concerning God, how could anyone doubt, when not even the wise among the Greeks were ignorant of the matter? Porphyry, at any rate, who had no ignoble reputation among them for worldly learning, in the first book of his Philosophic History says something of this sort concerning those called wise, that is, those who had acquired a reputation for conceited wisdom:

For, he says, being unable to hand down clearly in speech the primary forms and first principles, both because of the difficulty of comprehending them and the difficulty of expressing them, they resorted to numbers for the sake of clear instruction, imitating the geometers and the grammarians. For just as these, wishing to hand down the powers of the letters and the letters themselves, resorted to the written characters, saying that these are letters with a view to first instruction, yet later they teach that the characters are not themselves the letters, but through these there comes the notion of the true letters; and the geometers, being unable to present incorporeal things in speech, resort to the diagrams of figures, saying "this is a triangle," not intending that the thing falling under the sight is this triangle, but such a one, and through this they present the notion of the triangle; so too in the case of the primary principles and forms the Pythagoreans did the same: not being able to present incorporeal things and the first principles in speech, they resorted to indication through numbers, and thus they called the principle of unity, and that of sameness and equality, and the cause of the concord and sympathy of the whole and of the preservation of that which is in the same state and manner, one.

Therefore, since the things proper and peculiar to the Godhead are both hard to set forth and hard to express and not readily grasped by contemplation, and any words that might be spoken about it would be altogether small and would be found trailing far behind the truth, we learn the things concerning it through figures and the clearer types, as in a mirror and in a riddle. Thus we say that the wondrous Abraham was educated; for it is written as follows concerning him: And God appeared to him by the oak of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent at midday. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood above him; and seeing them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent and worshiped to the ground and said: Lord, if I have found favor before you, do not pass by your servant. And after other things, he says: And he said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he answered and said: Behold, in the tent. And he said: I will return to you at this time, in due season, and Sarah your wife shall have a son. Behold, then, quite clearly he says that God appeared to him, yet that the men seen were three,

But the divine Abraham, running to meet them, did not speak to them as to three, saying, "Lords, if I have found favor before you, do not pass by your servant," yet he names the three in the singular as "Lord," deeming them worthy to come down to him as one; since also, being as one, the three spoke again as from one person: "Where is Sarah your wife?" and, "I will return at this time in due season." Consider then, consider that those who appeared to him were three and each subsisted with his own individual subsistence, yet by the principle of consubstantiality they were gathered into one and were eager to conduct their conversations in this way. But the images of such things are somewhat dim and far inferior to the truth, yet they have their usefulness for leading us by the hand, I mean, to the things beyond mind and reason. By the purest thoughts, however, the light of the divine vision enters in, and as it were from sensible things we fly up somehow to things higher than sense and surpassing the power of the words within us. For there is confessedly one nature of the Godhead, which is over all and through all and in all, but it is widened in a intelligible way into a holy Trinity, venerable and consubstantial, into Father, I say, and indeed the Son, and into the Holy Spirit. Although each of those named subsists individually—this being in truth what it is and is called—yet the principle of consubstantiality gathers them into an unvarying nature. For the Son has been begotten from the Father and is in him and from him naturally, and the Spirit also proceeds, being proper to God the Father and likewise to the Son.

For the Father sanctifies through him what is by nature capable of being sanctified. Therefore our forefather Abraham did not fail to know the one worshiped in the Holy Trinity, the creator of earth and heaven and all things, and the one who holds power over all. Indeed, those who came from him—I mean Isaac and Jacob—did not think otherwise, but following in the footsteps of their father's virtue, they became zealous imitators of his faith. At any rate, the blessed Moses, explaining the things concerning them in the book of Creation, says that the God of all things appeared to Jacob, and confirming him in good hopes, said: "I am the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac." And Jacob himself also confessed, saying: "If the Lord gives me bread to eat and garments to put on, then the Lord shall be my God."

And these things are sufficient concerning them; but I say that the account must now also be applied to the divine Moses himself. For he too proclaims one God by nature and truly, not having failed to know the one through whom all things were brought into being, I mean his living and subsistent Word, and the Spirit that is in God and from him, the life-giving Spirit, which is sent to creation through the Son. For he said: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," and having declared him in this brief statement, in a summary fashion, to be the generator of all things, he elaborates the narrative, and has shown that through the living Word of God who rules over all, things that once were not were brought into existence, and are given life also in the Spirit. For he said, he says, God said: "Let there be light, and there was light; let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and it was so.

And in the case of each of the things that have come to be, one may observe the Father saying, "Let this or that particular thing come to be," and bringing through the Word into existence whatever he wills, without any delay at all; for the Word of God is living and active, and if he but nods assent, what seems good already is. And he said: "But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water." Therefore he recalls most clearly Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and in other ways as well he proclaims the one Godhead, both by nature and truly, in the holy and consubstantial Trinity. For when indeed

he was bringing fire upon the Sodomites who had transgressed beyond endurance, "the Lord rained," he says, "fire and brimstone upon Sodom from the Lord."

But indeed I think I should also bring that passage into the middle, I would say, as being among the most advantageous for those who will read it. For it is written as follows concerning the making of man: "And God said: Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness," and then shortly after: "And God made man, in the image of God he made him." For the Son is the image of God and Father, to whom we too have been formed in a spiritual way, and this is the pre-eminent thing with which man's nature has been enriched; for the beauty of the one who made it shines forth in it. Then what would those say who set themselves against our arguments, and counterfeit piety by agreeing that God is one and only, but not that he has begotten the Son from himself? To whom did God say: "Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness"?

Will someone not reckon that the holy and consubstantial Trinity itself, as it were, holds converse with itself about these matters—since the all-wise Moses wished to demonstrate that the fashioning of man was not made by God without deliberation, but was, one might almost say, honored with prior counsels? For the divine and undefiled Mind would have no need of deliberation, hesitation, or inquiry concerning anything whatsoever; for as soon as it wills something, that thing is rightly and irreproachably established. And, as I said, the nature of man has been honored, as it were, with certain prior counsels.

But let us not pass over in silence the arguments of the godless either. For they might perhaps say at once to these things: "The Father did not speak with his own Word and Spirit, as you think and deem worthy to hold, but with those who are second to himself and are gods among lesser beings." And yet how is it not evident to all—even to those accustomed to philosophize in the Greek manner—that they thought it right to agree that there is one God, the creator of the universe and by nature beyond all things, and that certain other gods were made by him and brought forth into generation, as they themselves say, both intelligible and perceptible? At any rate, Plato says most clearly: "It must then, in my opinion, first be divided: what is that which always is and has no generation, and what is that which becomes and never is. The one is grasped by knowledge with reason, always being in the same state; the other is opined by opinion with unreasoning perception, becoming and perishing, and never being." For he names as the highest nature, and one superior to being made, that which always is and has no generation—I mean, of course, the God of the universe and the one who truly is.

For thus, surely, he himself also says to the hierophant Moses: "I am the one who is." But that which is coming to be, and never is, was brought over from non-being into existence by some ineffable and incomprehensible power of God, who crafted this whole universe. Therefore it is clear—and it has been shown to me very plainly, not only from our own sacred Scriptures but also from what they themselves have acknowledged both to think and to say—that all things were brought by God into being, and that he has allotted to himself a nature that is not of the same kind as the things that have come to be. For the thing made is naturally subordinate and in every way less than the maker. Since our account of these matters stands thus, what then do they say who have supposed that the God of all things spoke to other gods: "Let us make man in our image and likeness"? For if he wished to fashion the rational creature on earth according to the image of the created things, why does he bring in a person proper to them, saying "Let us make" and "according to our image"? But if he judged that it must be formed according to his own and his alone most God-befitting beauty, why does he admit the imitation of others—that is, the form—or however one might well put it? For not in identity

...would be reckoned as creator and creation, generated and ungenerated nature, incorruptible and subject to corruption, if indeed it is possible to say without error that everything conceived as being in generation would be subject also to the necessity of being corrupted. For the divine Moses, looking toward things to come through the mystical guidance of the Holy Spirit, foresaw what concerns us, and in what manner I will state: since the one and ineffable and incomprehensible nature of God is conceived in Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that is, in the consubstantial Trinity, lest anyone, led astray from excessive folly to things that were not fitting, should say that man was made according to the image and likeness of God, but no longer of the Son—and yet it was surely also natural to suspect the opposite, and to say that man came to be according to the likeness of the Son, but no longer of the Father—foreseeing beforehand, as I said, the clever inventions that would sometimes arise from certain people, he said that the holy Trinity itself said to itself: "Let us make man according to our image and according to likeness," so that he might be understood as formed in relation to the whole—obviously in a noetic sense—the ineffable nature of the Godhead. But they, though they are exceedingly wise in their own conceit, think that these things are certain trifles, and because of their very great stupidity, having the light of the truth unapproachable, they perhaps insist that he directed his utterance to certain falsely named and bastard gods. And yet how is it not worth considering that the creator by nature would not have granted the surpassing dignity of his own glory and preeminence to the nature of things that have come to be?

And we do not say anywhere that he was envious, but that the nature of created things could never attain to the preeminence of divine dignities, nor, I think, could it ever richly possess anything—and that essentially—of the things that belong most of all to the ineffable nature alone and uniquely. And it is absurd in another way too to think that the King and Lord of all said to other gods: "Let us make man in our image and likeness." For what had he suffered, so to speak, that he made them as it were fellow-workers and assistants for the fashioning of man alone, although he had sketched out all the rest of creation—I mean Angels and Dominions, Principalities, Authorities, intellectual Powers, heaven and earth, sun and moon, stars and light, and in sum all things both in the heavens and on the earth? Would anyone say that, having suffered the weakness of incapacity, that is, not having sufficient power, he admits helpers for this? And yet how would it not be a charge of the utmost folly for some to choose to think thus? For the divine is all-powerful and self-sufficient for anything whatever, and nothing is unaccomplished for it. Dismissing, then, the nonsense in these matters, let us proceed to that point, that we must agree that the fullness of the ineffable Godhead is understood in the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and that we are formed according to the true and most exact image of the Father, that is, according to the Son, and that his divine beauty is imprinted on our souls through participation in the Holy Spirit; for he is in us, as the Son himself says: "For the Spirit is the truth," as it is written.

Thus truly did the all-wise Moses initiate us into the mysteries, and the holy prophets and apostles and evangelists who came after him did not think anything different from him. One and the same manner of theology is seen in all, and no one would find them in any respect whatsoever wholly at variance with one another. For having truly called upon God, they speak the things that come from one Holy Spirit, and our Lord Jesus Christ does not permit us to doubt this either, saying most clearly in them: It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of our Father who speaks in you. Having therefore the unswerving glory concerning God that comes down to us from above and from the holy fathers, we boast in it, and we are certainly not accustomed to assign it to the Israelites according to the flesh as though it belonged to them more; far from it. But we count ourselves also among the children of Abraham. For we are the children according to promise, and Paul will persuade us, writing: For not all those of Israel are Israel, nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed. To bring very many things against what has been said concerning our pious religion and the blameless glory that we have maintained concerning God who rules over all is nothing difficult. But since our argument, by the rules of sound method, persuades us to assign each of the speculative matters to its proper bounds, setting those aside for now, I shall rather turn to the need to state the opinions of the Greeks, and to busy myself with what is found among them and to make an exact examination of the opinion of each.

They say that Orpheus, son of Oeagrus, was more superstitious than all others and that he preceded the poetry of Homer, being older also in time, and that he wove songs and hymns for the falsely named gods and won no unadmirable reputation for this, and then, having condemned his own doctrines and understood that, all but abandoning the highway, he had fallen out of the straight road, he crossed over to better things and chose truth instead of falsehood, and spoke thus concerning God: I will utter what is lawful for those to whom it is lawful; but do you, all ye profane, shut the doors. Yet hear thou, offspring of the light-bearing Moon, Musaeus; for I will declare true things; and let not the things that formerly appeared in thy breast deprive thee of dear life. Look upon the divine Word, and attend to it, directing the noetic hollow of thy heart, and tread well upon the path, and look upon the King of the cosmos alone. He is one, self-begotten; from one have all things been made, and he himself prevails among them; and no mortal sees him, but he himself is seen by all. And after other things again: For he himself is fixed upon the bronze heaven, on a golden throne, and he has set his feet upon the earth; and he has stretched out his right hand to the boundary of Ocean on every side; for the long mountains tremble around him, and the rivers, and the deep of the grey, glancing sea. One, therefore, and this one self-begotten, he names God through all things and over all things, and he says that heaven is his throne, and that the earth lies beneath his feet, wishing, I think, to signify by this the unboundedness of the undefiled nature, and that it comes through all things and fills all things.

That he extends his hand over the whole universe he would have hinted by saying that his hand is stretched even to the very boundaries of Ocean, while mountains and sea and, in a word, the entire cosmos tremble. For as the God-inspired Scripture says: All the earth calls upon the truth, and heaven blesses it, and all things are shaken and tremble. So much, then, for the verses of Orpheus. But Homer, the best of poets, one might say, I think, differs little from those who dance in booths; for the lovers of spectacles say that these, being accustomed to shape the natures of things by gestures and nods, seem to show the things themselves almost present to those who watch; whereas he has made it his study to deify virtues and vices, and the parts of the cosmos, and the very nature of the elements. At any rate, he says that the gods once clashed with one another at Ilium, and he clearly sets forth who opposed whom: Indeed, Phoebus Apollo stood face to face with lord Poseidon, holding his winged arrows; and the grey-eyed goddess Athena against Enyalius; and against Hera stood noisy Artemis of the golden distaff, the arrow-pouring sister of Hecate; and against Leto stood the strong-running Hermes; and against Hephaestus stood the great deep-eddying river. Observe then in these verses, and very clearly, that he strives to demonstrate in a manner the virtues rising up against the vices. For Ares it is the custom of the Greek poets to call foolish and mad, and in addition to this also fickle; and Athena most gainful and

…of many devices," and similarly to suspect Leto of forgetfulness, and Hermes of memory and reason. Then he touches on natural philosophy and explains the difference of the elements from one another, saying: "For indeed, over against lord Poseidon stood Phoebus Apollo, holding his winged arrows; and against Hera stood the golden-distaffed, loud-shrieking one… and against Hephaestus the great deep-eddying river." For here too, it seems to me, he called Poseidon the moist substance, Apollo the sun, and Hera the air, and the golden-distaffed, loud-shrieking one the moon, and Hephaestus fire, and the river he accepts as standing in the place of the cold. But even if the love of myth is very great in him, nevertheless we shall find that he did not wholly fail to know the truth; for he said somewhere again: "…not even if a god himself should promise me, having scraped away old age, to make me young and in the bloom of youth…" For he does not say, "if one of the gods should promise me the selling off of old age, and youth to be recovered again"; but he has reserved the matter to the one God who is over all, attributing to his powers alone the ability to accomplish all things without toil, and things beyond hope and beyond our reason. "Not even if a god himself," he says, "should promise me"; for the phrase "a god himself" would not signify one of those fabricated in myths, but the one who truly is God alone. But Homer seemed thus to think and speak; let us come now also to those very solemn and brow-frowning men, who have obtained no ignoble reputation for conceited wisdom among the children of the Greeks.

Porphyry, then, who poured out bitter words against us and all but trampled upon the religion of the Christians, says that the men called wise, seven in number, seized this title for the following reason. He writes thus in the first book of his Philosophical History: "Though there were nine, seven were called wise for a reason such as this. When a fisherman sold a cast of fish to some young men, it happened that a golden tripod was found in the cast. But when the fisherman said he had sold fish and not a tripod, and the young men referred the discovery to their own fortune, it seemed good to refer the judgment to the god. When the god gave an oracle that the tripod should be given to the wise man, the tripod was first brought to Thales, but he sent it off to Bias, saying that he was the wise man; and he sent it to another, and that one to another, until the tripod had been passed around to the seven and returned again to the first, and it seemed good to dedicate it to the god; for this man was the wisest of all. What sort of opinions, then, they held will be stated by us in due time. Thales of Miletus, then, says that the god is the mind of the world; Democritus of Abdera agrees in part, but adds something else besides; for he too insists that the god is mind, but in a spherical fire, and that this is the soul of the world. Anaximander, going as it were altogether another way, defines the infinite worlds to be god, saying I know not what.

But the man who possesses the greatest, and not beyond wonder, sharpness of thought for tortures of concepts—I mean Aristotle of Stagira, the student of Plato—calls God a separate form, and maintains that he stands upon the sphere of the universe. And indeed those called Stoics say that God is a craftsman-like fire, proceeding by a path toward the generation of the world. Plutarch and others of their notable men have written about these things, and also the bold Porphyry against us. Are they not, then, different from one another, and rather guessers than discerners of the truth—those who are so intoxicated with manifold opinions? And yet those who have known truly and without error ought in no way to be set against one another's conceptions, just as indeed it is possible to see in our own case. But someone will say to this, I think: What then, sir? Are there not many heresies among you yourselves too, and some are split off to think and say different things? But at least, O best of men, I would say, those who were the first and in the beginning teachers of our sacred doctrines all agree with one another, and those in the middle and the last concur with the first. For Moses did not think one thing, and those after him teach things fighting against his own; but there is one word concerning God from all, as I said, down to the holy apostles and evangelists.

For all confess one God who is over all and through all and in all, unoriginate and eternal, unbegotten, incorruptible, life and life-giver, maker of heaven and earth and, in sum, of all things in them. But if some of those after them, not understanding their own doctrines, have erred from the truth, the charge of having gone astray follows not so much those men as these, at least according to right reasoning. If, then, those who have become inventors of the stupidity that is in them and teachers of unholy doctrines agreed with one another's opinions, let them show it and I will cease. But if the foremost among them are themselves at variance with one another and of different minds, how is it not evident to all that they walk outside the path of the straight way and have gone astray? For if someone wished to learn thoroughly the correct and unadulterated account concerning the God who is beyond all things, whose opinion would he accept and not miss the mark? For Thales and Anaximander, and the others whom we mentioned just now, would be caught having babbled at random. But Pythagoras and Plato, having spent time in Egypt and encountered many of the people there, inasmuch as they were most eager for learning and most fond of inquiry, did not fail to know the excellence of Moses; for the things concerning him were among the Egyptians in no moderate wonder. From this, I think, having learned the account concerning God not inelegantly, they formed opinions about him somewhat more reasonably than the others, and indeed chose to think so. We shall find that some of the Athenians also agreed with the things well esteemed by them.

I think it necessary to deem worthy of mention and remembrance the Egyptian Hermes, whom they say was also called Trismegistus, since those of that time honored him and, as some think, likened him to the one mythologized as born of Zeus and Maia. This Hermes of Egypt, then, although he was a hierophant and always sat among the precincts of idols, is found to have thought the things of Moses—if not entirely correctly and blamelessly, yet in part; for he too was benefited. Mention of him has also been made in his own writings by the one who composed the fifteen books called Hermaic at Athens. He writes thus in the first book about him, and he has introduced one of the priests saying: "That we may therefore come to similar matters, do you not hear that our Hermes also divided all Egypt into lots and allotments, measuring the fields with a cord, and cut canals for irrigation, and established districts, and named the regions after them, and set up contracts of agreements, and newly devised a register of the rising of the stars, and divided plants, and besides numbers and calculations and geometry, astronomy and astrology, and music and all grammar, having discovered them, he handed them down." I shall therefore make the exposition of the opinions of each, and I shall also mention others who among them obtained no unadmirable name for learning; and I say that those who will encounter the writings ought to approach them with a most learned disposition rather than with a superficial one.

Pythagoras, then, says: "God is one; he is not, as some suppose, outside the ordering of the universe, but wholly in himself, in the whole circle, overseeing all generations, being the mixture of all the ages, and the light of his own powers and works, the beginning of all things, a luminary in heaven, and the father of all things, mind and the animation of all things, the motion of all circles." See here plainly he says that the God of all things is one, and the beginning of all things, and the worker of his own powers, a luminary and animation, that is, the life-giving of all things, and the motion of all circles; for nothing is self-moved, but all things have been brought forth by him, and appear to have received their motion from non-being into being. And Plato speaks somewhat thus: "For to find the father and maker of this universe is a task, and having found him, to declare him to all is impossible." Rightly indeed; for "the glory of the Lord hides a word," as it is written, and every word about him is weak and comes behind his worth; for he is beyond all conception, and we see the things concerning him through a mirror and in a riddle, as the all-wise Paul says. And Porphyry says in the fourth book of his Philosophical History that Plato both held this opinion and moreover again spoke concerning one God, that no name applies to him nor does human knowledge comprehend him, but that the appellations spoken of him are applied to him loosely from things that come after. But if one must dare to say something about him from our names at all, the appellation of the One and of the Good should be assigned to him. For the One indicates the simplicity concerning him and through this his self-sufficiency.

For he needs nothing—neither parts, nor substance, nor powers, nor activities—but is the cause of all these things, and he presents the good, since from him is everything that is good, while other things imitate, as far as they are able, his own peculiarity, if one may so speak, and are preserved through it. And thrice-great Hermes speaks somehow thus: To conceive God is difficult, but to express him is impossible even for one to whom it is possible to conceive him; for to signify the incorporeal by a body is impossible, and for the perfect to be grasped by the imperfect is not possible, and for the eternal to have fellowship with the short-lived is difficult; for the one always is, but the other passes away, and the one is true, but the other is shadowed by imagination. Therefore, by as much as the weaker differs from the stronger and the lesser from the better, by so much does the mortal differ from the divine and immortal. If, then, anyone has an incorporeal eye, let him go out from the body to the vision of the beautiful, and let him fly up and be suspended, seeking to behold neither shape, nor body, nor forms, but rather that which is the maker of these things, the quiet, the calm, the steadfast, the unchanging, the same in all things and alone, the one, the same from itself, the same in itself, the same like itself, which is neither like another nor unlike itself. And again the same: Therefore, never conceiving anything concerning that one and only good, do not say it is impossible; for he is all power, nor think him to be in anything, nor again outside anything; for he, being boundless, is the boundary of all things, and being contained by nothing, he contains all things.

For what is the difference between bodies and the incorporeal, and between things generated and the ungenerated, and between things subject to necessity and the free, or between earthly things and heavenly, and between corruptible things and eternal? Is it not that the one is free, while the other is subject to necessity, and the lower things, being imperfect, are corruptible? But indeed Sophocles also speaks thus concerning God: One in truth, one is God, who made heaven and the wide earth, and the joyful swell of the sea, and the violence of the winds; but mortals are many, who, wandering in heart, have set up for themselves comforts of sorrows, images of gods from stones and wood, or figures wrought of gold or ivory, and offering sacrifices to these and empty festivals, thus we think to be pious. And indeed also the most wise Xenophon: At any rate, he who shakes all things and keeps them still, as one great and powerful, is manifest; but what sort of form he is, is unseen; nor

indeed does the all-shining sun, which seems to be, even this one appear to permit itself to be seen, but if anyone shamelessly gazes at it, it takes away his sight. That there is, then, one God by nature and truly, higher than every mind and reason, incomprehensible, formless, life-giving, and the beginning of all, unbegotten, incorruptible, the creator of all things, has been clearly testified both by the God-inspired Scripture and through the voice of their own poets and prose writers; and that they also have known the Son naturally begotten from him, his creative Word, we shall demonstrate from what they have written, setting forth the passages concerning these things. For Porphyry says in the fourth book of his Philosophical History that Plato, speaking concerning the good, said thus:

From this, in a manner beyond human conception, a Mind came to be, whole and subsisting in itself, in which are the things that truly are and the whole substance of beings; which is also primarily beautiful and self-beautiful, having the form of beauty from itself, and came forth before the ages, moved from God as its cause, being self-begotten and self-fathered. For it was not by that one's being moved toward his generation that his coming forth took place, but by his coming forth self-generated from God—coming forth, not from a temporal beginning (for time did not yet exist), nor is time anything to him even when time has come to be; for the Mind is always timeless and alone eternal. And just as God, the first, is one and alone forever, even though all things come from him—by the fact that they are not counted together with him, nor can their worth be ranked alongside his existence—so too the Mind is alone eternal and subsisted timelessly, and though he is among things in time, he himself is time, remaining in the sameness of his own eternal subsistence. And indeed Orpheus again says somewhere thus: I adjure you by Heaven, the wise work of great God; I adjure you by the Father's voice, which he uttered first, when he established the whole cosmos by his counsels. By the Father's voice which he uttered first he means his only-begotten Word, who always coexists with the Father; for there was no time when God and Father could be conceived as existing apart from his own Word; and at the same time he showed that God is the creator of all things. And Thrice-Great Hermes speaks thus about God: For his Word, having come forth, being all-perfect and generative and creative, falling upon generative water in a generative nature, made the water pregnant. And the same again:

The pyramid, then, he says, is subject to nature and to the intelligible world; for it has as its ruling head the creative Word of the Master of all, who after that one is the first power, unbegotten, boundless, having emerged from that one, and he presides over and rules the things created through him, and he is the progenitor of the perfect and is perfect and fruitful, a genuine Son. And again, the same writer, when one of the temple-dwellers in Egypt asked and said: Why, then, O greatest good spirit, was this one called by this name by the Lord of all? he says: I also said this in what came before, but you did not understand. The nature of his intelligible Word is a generative and creative nature; this is, as it were, his generation, or nature, or custom, or whatever you wish to call it, call it that, understanding only this, that he is perfect in the perfect one, and from the perfect one he works and creates and gives life to perfect good things. Since, then, he possesses such a nature, he has rightly been given this name. And the same writer, in the first discourse of his Detailed Addresses to Tat, speaks thus about God: The Word of the Creator, O child, is eternal, self-moved, without increase, without diminution, unchangeable, incorruptible, alone, always like himself, equal and even, steadfast, well-ordered, being one after the foreknown God; and he signifies, I think, by this very one the Father. These things, then, are sufficient for the most complete demonstration that they too have conceived of the only-begotten Word of God. But I think it necessary to add to what I have said also the

What they have said about the Holy Spirit. For Porphyry, setting out the opinion of Plato, says that the substance of the divine advanced as far as three hypostases, and that the highest god is the Good, and after him a second, the Demiurge, and third the soul of the world; for divinity advanced as far as soul. See here clearly in these words he insists that the substance of the divine advanced as far as three hypostases. For there is one God of all, but knowledge of him is widened, as it were, into a holy and consubstantial Trinity—I mean Father and Son and Holy Spirit—which Plato also calls the soul of the world. But the Spirit gives life, and proceeds from the living Father through the Son, and in him we live and move and have our being. For our Lord Jesus Christ speaks truly: It is the Spirit that gives life. And again the same Porphyry concerning Plato: Therefore, hinting at these things in secret, he says: All things are around the King, and all things are for his sake, and he is the cause of all good things; and a second around second things, and a third around third things. For since all things are around the three gods—but already primarily around the King of all, secondarily around the god who is from him, and thirdly around the one who is from this one.

He has shown, by indicating also the hypostasis of things from one another, beginning from the King, and the subordination and diminution of those after the first, through saying "firstly" and "secondly" and "thirdly," and that all things are from one and are saved through him. He has, then, not observed the truth soundly in every respect, but he divides and hypostatizes in the same way as those who have thought the things of Arius, and he introduces the hypostases as set beneath one another, and he thinks there are three gods, dividing the holy and consubstantial Trinity. Nevertheless he has not been wholly ignorant of the truth, and I think that even if he had spoken and thought soundly, he would have brought out to all others the exact state of the opinion concerning God, unless perhaps he feared the indictment of Anytus and Meletus and the hemlock of Socrates. And Hermes also says in the third discourse of the To Asclepius: For it is not possible to impart such mysteries to the uninitiated; but hear with the mind. There was one intellectual light alone before the intellectual light, and it exists always, a luminous mind of mind; and there was nothing else than its unity; always being in itself, it always contains all things by its own mind and light and spirit. And after other things he says: Apart from this, there is no god, no angel, no daemon, no other substance; for he is Lord and Father and God and source and life and power and light and mind and spirit of all things, and all things are in him and under him.

For he says that the Son is Mind from Mind, as I myself think, and as light from light; and he makes mention also of the Spirit, as encompassing all things; and he says that neither an angel, nor a demon, nor indeed any other nature or substance lies outside the divine pre-eminence, that is, the authority, but he determines that all things are under it and exist through it. And again the same writer in the same third discourse of the To Asclepius, when someone asked about the divine Spirit, speaks thus: If there had not been a certain providence of the Lord of all, so that I should reveal this account, neither would such a desire now have possessed you to inquire about this; but now hear the rest of the account: All things need this Spirit, of which I have often spoken beforehand; bearing all things, it gives life and nourishes all things according to worth, and it hangs from the holy fountain, being always a helper to spirits and generative of life for all things, being one. He knows, then, that it both exists with its own proper subsistence, and gives life to and nourishes all things, and hangs from God the Father as from a holy fountain. For it proceeds from him by nature, and is supplied to creation through the Son. Having therefore busied ourselves with their books as far as possible, we have made the opinion of each one most clear, so that those who come upon them may know

That many of the Greek philosophers, having relied on their own judgment, have gone astray, and have held opinions that rise up against one another, but there are some who were not without a share in the words of Moses, because they traveled as far as Egypt for the sake of learning; these have thought somewhat better than the rest, having come near to the truth, yet they did not keep the eye of their mind entirely free from mud; and anyone, I think, who called them dim-sighted would not miss the likely reckoning. That, then, the things of the Christians are both older and full of truth, and are esteemed by those chosen among the learned to be well off, and are incomparably better than the trumpery of the Greeks, the argument has, I think, sufficiently demonstrated. [End of the first volume of the refutations of Cyril the God-wise]

Second volume of the same. Having considered that it is nothing unreasonable, but rather that we deemed it useful and necessary, that one must first say who came before whom in time, and indeed what sort of opinions each held about God, we have made our account of them most exact. And perhaps someone might blame us, saying: Why ever, having chosen to speak in support of the doctrines of the Christians, and being eager to bring the prevailing argument against the blasphemies of Julian, did you not think to walk this road, but diverting as it were the straight impulse of the argument that goes toward what is fitting, you set yourself upon genealogies, and arranged to busy yourself with the opinions of the Hebrews and the Greeks? Let us therefore set aside the accusations on these points, maintaining that we have brought the argument around to this with good reason.

For since the one who emulated the Babylonian Rabshakeh has not feared with unbridled tongue to jeer at the glory of God, and having impiously spat upon our holy religion, he frequently recalls the wise men among the Greeks, and crowns their false opinions with every kind of praise, but grows bold against the sacred doctrines of the Church, and mocks the histories of Moses, and speaks against absolutely all the saints, for this reason (and very reasonably), we have piled up beforehand as a kind of material for our refutations the clear and most vivid demonstration that the writing of the all-excellent Moses is also older than the wise men among the Greeks, and indeed that one would see the tradition of the Christian faith surpassing in incomparable excellences those things that are held in honor among them. And it was so, and not otherwise, both to free the subsequent arguments from a longer digression, and from the appearance of sometimes being carried somewhere far from the meaning of the matters at hand. And of these things, enough. For the rest, one must go to his own writing, and setting out the lines in its very wording, we shall make our own reply in the order that is fitting to his utterances, having decided that one must bring them back against him in no ignoble manner.

But since, as I said, opening his mouth without a gate he has made the greatest possible slander against Christ the Savior of us all, and hurls reviling words against him, I shall not recount such things, but having passed over—quite prudently—the things by which one might be defiled even if he only touched his words, I shall rise up against the necessary points, showing him everywhere to be fond of mockery and a teller of random tales, and to have wholly failed in being able to say anything of the truth. It should be known, however, also this: for in his first discourse he comes through very many thoughts, and does not cease turning the same things up and down and rolling them around. And whatever he might be found saying at the beginning, this same thing he sets out also in the middle and at the end, and so he would show the arguments of his refutation to have been made, perhaps, not in good order; for it is in every way necessary that those who have chosen to contend against what he says be seen always repeating the same things not once but very many times. Having therefore divided his discourse in the more fitting order, and having gathered the thoughts in it by kind, let us meet them not many times each, but sufficiently once and skillfully. He begins, then, his discourse against us and says: {JULIAN} It seems good to me to set out to all men the reasons by which I was persuaded that the contrivance of the Galileans is a fiction of men composed by villainy, having nothing divine, but having used the myth-loving and childish and foolish part of the soul, and brought its wonder-mongering to belief of truth.

He says, then, as I at least think, that the holy apostles are Galileans, and that the writings of Moses and the predictions and divine oracles of the holy prophets are a tale of wonders. And perhaps he has been ignorant, or rather he has not made the denunciation of his own superstition without divine permission. For there are two Galilees, of which the one is in Judea, while the other is contiguous and adjacent to the cities of the Phoenicians. At any rate, in the Gospels it is written concerning Christ the Savior of us all that, walking beside the sea of Galilee, that is, the lake of Tiberias, he made his chosen disciples. And God said somewhere through one of the holy prophets: And what are you to me, Tyre and Sidon and all Galilee of the foreigners? And indeed the inspired Isaiah also says: The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and the rest who dwell by the coast, Galilee of the nations, the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. So then Galileans would surely not be understood as only those in Judea, but rather also all the nations; for it is Galilee, he says, of the nations. It is unclear, then, and not yet evident against whom his argument would proceed most fittingly and truly: whether against us, or rather against himself and those who have honored the senseless and dear-to-him superstition. For they too are Galileans—or rather, no one could doubt in any way that the force of what has been said would fit the infatuations of the Greeks.

For where is there such a great deal of myth, so babbling and childish, frigid and ill-advised, and full of all senselessness, except among them alone, who by many tricks have played the wonder-worker and attempt to bring falsehood to belief in truth? And their ugliness is so great and so abundant that even those who are chosen among them, who are accustomed to philosophize best about their own matters, have made the greatest possible outcry against the madness of the poets—not the inspired madness, but the outlandish one—and it is fitting to say openly that they depart from their own trickery. For Plato does not accept Homer's gods and goddesses, since he has introduced them as condemned for licentiousness and wronged by human greed, and as weeping and grieving over their kinsmen who have died, and saying "woe is me" in womanly fashion, because they wish to snatch someone from death but are no longer able to do this, but are defeated by the Fates and yield to Destiny, as being evidently stronger even than the one who excels among the other gods, whom they indeed call supreme Zeus. But since I am still able to say many things on this point, I pass by, so as not to seem to depart from what is fitting, and I will return to the proposed aim of the matters at hand. The mythical element belongs to the Greeks, and they themselves have eagerly sought to bring wonder-tales to belief in truth, not from simple notions but rather impiously and maliciously contrived, and they have composed their malicious fabrication against the ineffable glory of God who rules over all, and like some snare

They set their contrivance against the souls of the simpler sort. For they led astray those throughout all the earth, saying that heaven is a god and the other elements as well. And, as the all-wise Paul writes, claiming to be wise they were made foolish, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. But that we may yield to his own notions too, not attributing what has been said to others rather than allowing even the holy apostles to be assailed—that is, once for all, both to the all-wise Moses himself and to the holy prophets—let him come, let him show clearly what the fabrication is that has been cunningly put together, and what he says the wonder-mongering is, and what is the myth-loving and childish character of the religion of the Christians. Has Moses written myths for us, saying that there is one God by nature and truly—unbegotten, eternal, incorruptible, without quantity, invisible, unchangeable, intangible, life and life-giving, wisdom, power, creator, king, Lord of all things? Has the word of the holy prophets missed the truth, when it has earnestly striven to follow in the track of the Mosaic doctrines? Shall we find that the teaching of the holy apostles is otherwise? By no means.

Then how does he claim that the Galileans hold nothing divine, and say that their teachings are merely random myths and tales of wonders? And yet who would not agree that nothing better could come to humans than to know well and without error the one who by nature and truly is the Creator and Lord of all things? They themselves, I know, would say that the most beautiful and excellent part of philosophy is and is called the contemplative, through which, for those able to discern more intelligently, the things concerning God become—barely, and so far as is attainable by humans—graspable. But since he says he himself has been persuaded, let him teach from where or from whom. For let him not boast that he alone knows this; but if he was persuaded by himself alone, even this is sufficient for the most complete proof—as at least he thinks and says—that the Christians' affairs are not well, because I will pass over saying that the matter is nonsense to him; nevertheless, let him alone revel in his charges against us, for we will not use so hostile a judge. But if he thinks that the arguments of those who examine charges against certain people must be true and not falsified, let him not say that he alone has persuaded himself, but let him prove it by facts. That he will justly inscribe the charge of myth-making against himself rather than against us, and that his accusation is not free from suspicion, we shall again learn from what he said.

{JULIAN} But since I am about to give an account of all the doctrines they call their own, I wish to say this first: that those who come forward, if they wish to contradict, ought, as in a court of law, not to busy themselves with anything extraneous, nor to counter-accuse what is said, until they have made their defense concerning the primary charges. It is better, then, and clearer, to set up one's own treatise separately whenever they wish to examine something of ours, but in the matters where they defend themselves against our examinations, not even to counter-accuse. {CYRIL} Tell me, then, must the man you are prosecuting be speechless, and do you command the defendant to be convicted in silence, and to choose to ratify the indictment against himself without making any mention at all of your own doctrines? And yet the wish not to say anything of yours belongs to one who fears the refutation and has not been ignorant of the unpleasantness of the shamefulness in them. If, then, he himself, while accusing the religion of the Christians, does not deem it worthy of all praise, and crowns the superstition of the Greeks with the highest honors, let him demand the same in return; but if he exults in his words against us and kindles the better opinion for his own bad counsels, then the

Having set them alongside the Greeks as superior, how does he think it right that we keep silent and make no mention at all of what is found among them, when we, wishing to advocate our own doctrines, direct our arguments to this very point?

If, then, having set aside the need to contend against your arguments, we had been diverted to the necessity of mentioning only the Greek doctrines, I would say that he has done well and not unreasonably in making his argument on this very point. But when we are defending ourselves and wish to meet whatever he says, how could he still justly reproach us, if we, having chosen to speak in support of our own doctrines, are eager to strip bare the shame of the Greeks' impiety? For just as among things of different kinds it is possible to see the appearance of colors more clearly (for the light shines in the darkness, as it says), in this same way, I think, the beauties that are inherent in virtues would become manifest to the minds of the more ignorant in no other way except through the ugliness of their opposites alone. For the uncomeliness of baseness persuades people to award the vote of victory to the better things. For this reason, very reasonably, he fears his own doctrines and does not allow to come into the open those things of which he is ashamed, but commands us to be silent even when we are setting these things straight, and he accuses us in other ways as well, speaking thus:

{JULIAN} It is worth taking up briefly whence the notion of God first came to us and in what manner, then to set side by side what is said about the divine among the Greeks and among the Hebrews, and after this to ask those who are neither Greeks nor Jews but belong to the Galilean sect, for what reason they chose the things of those people in preference to our own, and on top of this why on earth they do not even abide by those things, but having departed from them too have turned to a road of their own, having agreed to nothing of what is noble or earnest, neither of the things among us Greeks nor of the things among the Hebrews from Moses, but culling from both, as it were, certain banes fastened upon the nations, godlessness from Jewish frivolity, and a base and slipshod life from our own carelessness and vulgarity—this they wished to be called the best religion. {CYRIL} He who says that those who encounter the slanders he might utter against us ought, if they wish to contradict, like men in a courtroom to busy themselves with nothing extraneous nor to bring a counter-charge against what is said, clearly promises in these words to set side by side what is said about the divine among the Greeks and among the Hebrews. Does the manner of this juxtaposition, then, look to some end? And what would be his purpose in bringing the doctrines of the Hebrews, that is, of the Christians, in against the doctrines of the Greeks? For surely no one would say that, having set aside refutation and removed from himself the need to slander, he will employ as upright judges those who will encounter his words, so as even to wish to learn from them what is better or what is worse.

He supposes, presumably, that he will not otherwise have any to praise the opinion about God that is in him, unless the things of the Christians are defamed by comparison with the Greek things, receiving a more shameful verdict upon themselves. But this could never happen among those who know both the weakness of falsehood and the power of truth. Consider that point, however: for, as if legislating for us that we ought to be silent and remember his own words, when we make arguments on behalf of our own religion, he is found caught in the very things he laid down. And since he also brings a question—why ever, having left the things of the Greeks, we have inclined to the Hebrews—come, let us say the same things to him in return: for why ever, having left the things of the Christians and run away from the truth, do you love falsehood, and most senselessly prefer that most abominable self-chosen worship—I mean that of the idolaters—to the accurate opinion about God, and then think that you have deliberated well and not rather that you have undergone the last of all evil opinions? But if he should wish to understand the truest cause for which, having left the things of the Greeks, we have honored the things among the Hebrews, taking his own words, we say it. For he spoke thus:

{Julian} So then, the Greeks fabricated myths about the gods that are incredible and monstrous (for they said that Cronus swallowed his children, and then vomited them up again), and already unlawful marriages; for Zeus had intercourse with his mother, and having begotten children from her, he himself married his own daughter—or rather, he did not even marry his own daughter himself, but having simply had intercourse with her, he handed her over to another; and then the rending of Dionysus and the joining together of his limbs. Such things the myths of the Greeks tell. {Cyril} You have from this a sufficient defense. Do you then resolve, in return for what you think fit to call us to account for, that we, all but spurning with our heel the thus shameful and incredible random myth-making of the Greeks, have given the better vote to the truths? For the inspired Moses, and besides him the choir of the holy prophets, apostles and evangelists, glorify the one God who is by nature and truly God, and they persuade us to be disposed in this way, leading us away from myths and all marvel-mongering and shameful thinking, and molding us into a life worthy of admiration. But nothing of what is among them has been fabricated, nor does it have an incredible exposition of its thoughts. For that the things concerning us agree with the proclamations of Moses and of the holy prophets, and that the power of the evangelical and apostolic teaching concurs with the conceptions of those who came before, the argument will clearly demonstrate to us in due time.

Since he insists, saying I know not what, that nothing of the noble or good is among us, come, let him demonstrate this too; for let him not make his accusation bare and unproven. For how is there nothing of the noble among us? Is not the precise and polished account of God and of the creation of the world found among Christians? Have we not been furnished from the Holy Scriptures with the knowledge of things to be done, blameless and beyond reproach? And yet how is it not clear to everyone that the best philosophy would be carried through rightly in no other way, I think? For contemplative and practical philosophy besides these would be full of all praise, and is admired among those who have devoted themselves to the things of the Greeks; therefore we have not learned godlessness from the opinion of the Hebrews—for he said this too—but if anyone wishes to speak the truth, it is from the God-inspired Scripture that we have condemned the ignorance of the Greeks. And that godlessness is more among them, who do not know the one and by nature and truly God, how would this not be clear to everyone? But he says that we have chosen a base and slovenly life from the ease that is among them, calling gluttony indiscriminately and the rejection of none of the foods "vulgarity" and "Greek ease." For in this very thing they most of all display the power of piety and think it is a fine thing to attain to all virtue, if indeed they should reject some of the foods.

Yet why ever do they define the manner of purity in these things? For all things have come from God, and all things from the good are altogether good; and the all-pure and undefiled one would do nothing of the things that customarily defile us. For what would eating produce in those who have partaken of it? Or what sort of pollution would it bring in upon them? But it is fitting, I think, to reject the things through which one would reasonably be defiled, and the ways of wickedness would do this quite generally: adulteries, fornications, slanders, false testimonies, sycophancies, love of money, and the rest. But those who have reckoned none of such things pretend to fast, and sometimes even reject some of the edible things, yet they fear nothing of the outlandish. And in addition to this they delight the supreme Zeus, having chosen to honor his rites, and they serve the powers of the Cyprus-born goddess. Countless indeed are the things against us from him; but he speaks very loosely and makes no moderate denunciation against the all-wise Moses and his writing. For he says that the one who composed the book of the creation of the world said nothing at all of the truth, but simply heaped up old wives' tales, and that all the things which it was fitting to deem worthy of every account he made of no account, but that, having simply stitched them together at random, he seemed to say something wise and worth hearing. And he has marveled at the opinions of the wise among the Greeks on this matter, and above all others he crowns Plato with praises and applause.

But I shall again refrain from saying that he is not moderately pompous in this matter too, and I shall try, as best I can, to set out that he lifts his brow in vain over the inventions of the Greeks. I think I ought again to set side by side, having selected from their own books, the opinion of each man which they thought fit to hold about the construction of the world, and then to bring in Moses' account of the origin of the world in reply; for in this way both the nonsense of their petty talk and the purity of Moses' writings unto truth will be evident to those who read. Plutarch, then, a man who was not undistinguished among them, in the second book of his Collection of Physical Doctrines, speaks thus about the world: Pythagoras first named the encompassing of all things "cosmos," from the order within it. Thales and those from him: one world. Democritus and Epicurus and his teacher Metrodorus: infinite worlds in the infinite, in every direction. Empedocles: the circuit of the sun is the boundary of the limit of the world. Seleucus: the world is infinite. Diogenes: the all is infinite, but the world has been bounded. The Stoics: the all and the whole differ; for the all is everything together with the infinite void, but the whole is the world apart from the void; so that the whole and the world are the same.

Then he speaks again about the shape of the world as follows: "The Stoics say the world is spherical, others conical, others egg-shaped; Epicurus says that the worlds may be spherical, but may also have used other shapes." And again, setting out the opinions of the Greek philosophers for explanation as to whether the world is ensouled or not, he said thus: "All the others said the world is ensouled and administered by providence; but Democritus and Epicurus and all who introduce atoms and the void say it is neither ensouled nor administered by providence, but by some irrational nature; Aristotle says it is not ensouled as a whole through and through, nor rational, nor intelligent, nor administered by providence; for the heavenly bodies share in all these things—for they contain ensouled and living spheres—but the things around the earth share in none of them, and orderliness is present by accident, not primarily." And these things are said about these matters. Since their aim was again to examine whether the world would be by nature corruptible or not, they have also opined as follows about this: "Pythagoras and the Stoics say the world is generated by God, and corruptible as far as its nature is concerned—for it is perceptible because it is also corporeal—but it will certainly not be corrupted, by the providence and sustaining power of God; Epicurus says it is corruptible because it is also generated, like an animal, like a plant; Xenophanes says the world is ungenerated and eternal and incorruptible; Aristotle says the part of the world below the moon is subject to change, in which also earthly things waste away." Do you hear, men, and understand from now on how great is the nonsense in these things?

For by setting their opinions against one another, and simply belching out this and that in confusion and without examination, according to what seems right to each, how could they be thought to be guessers rather than knowers of the truth? For some say there is one world, others many, others that it is generated; and there are those who are wholly opposed to these and differ in their judgments, saying that it is incorruptible and ungenerated; and some say it is governed by the providence of God, while others assign even its orderly motion of the elements apart from providence to automatisms and accidents; and some say it is ensouled, while others say it is neither ensouled nor intelligent; and, simply put, one could see their account of each matter, as it were, drunk and tossed about here and there. But since, having selected Plato above the others, he lingers especially over his opinions, I would say that Plato and Pythagoras hold somewhat more reasonable opinions about God and the world; but they gathered their education or knowledge for this by plunging into the Egyptians, among whom there was much talk about the all-wise Moses and the wonder of his doctrines was honored. However, they say that Plato himself held opinions contrary to himself, and that Aristotle, having studied under him, did not choose to think his own thoughts rather than Plato's, but opposed and contradicted him. For Porphyry says that Plato held an opinion about heaven, and said that its bodily form was composed of the four elements, having been brought into agreement with one another by a soul; therefore, he says, even now it remains mixed and has been named according to what predominates.

He etymologizes the name, I think, and says that it is called "ouranos" as being, so to speak, something visible, so that from being seen it might be understood as "ouranos." To Aristotle, however, these things did not seem to be so. From where? For he says that the heaven is not composed, nor indeed is it from the four elements, but he conceives of a certain fifth body, which has no share in the four and is wholly deprived of them. And Plato says that the world is ensouled and an intelligent living being, and he also assigns providence to it; but his student again has not thought so: for he says it is neither ensouled as a whole through and through, nor intelligent, nor governed by providence. And again, the one determines it to be both generated and corruptible as far as pertains to its own nature, while the other does not grant that it is even generated, but as incorruptible and ungenerated. And again, the formidable and renowned Plato determines that there are three principles of the universe: God, matter, and form; and he says that God is the maker, matter the underlying subject, and form the paradigm of each of the things that come to be; but Aristotle again opposes him and does not agree at all; for he does not deem form worthy to be thought or called a principle, and he says that there are two principles: God and matter. And again Plato, saying that the principles of all things are three—God, matter, and form—adds a fourth as well, which he names the universal soul. And in addition to this, having said that matter is ungenerated, he also says that it is generated; then, having granted that form, whatever it is, subsists by itself, he fights against his own discoveries; for he said that it exists in the thoughts of God and does not have its own existence, that is, its own substantial being.

To what then should the investigators of truth incline so as to run along the blameless and most unerring path? Whom among those who have been named shall we acquit of speaking falsely? To whom is it fitting to assign the vote of having erred in no way at all? Or rather, how could they be trustworthy enough to persuade anyone, since they have missed the truth to such an extent that they not only conflict with one another but even contradict their own opinions? The all-wise Julian praises and marvels at these things, and he mocks the writings of Moses, and stirring everything up and down, he dares to set the words of Plato against them, and says: {JULIAN} Let us here compare, if you wish, the words of Plato. Consider, then, what he says about the creator and what utterances he attributes to him in the creation of the world, so that we may compare the creation of the world according to Plato and Moses with each other. For in this way it would become clear who is the better, and who is more worthy of God: whether Plato, who served idols, or he of whom the Scripture says that God spoke to him mouth to mouth. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was borne over the water. And God said: Let there be light, and there was light, and God saw the light that it was good. And God separated between the light and between the darkness, and God called the light day and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and God called the firmament heaven.

And God said: Let the water under the heaven be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass of the field and a fruit-bearing tree. And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, that they may be for light upon the earth; and God set them in the firmament of heaven, to rule the day and the night.

In these words, then, he says neither that the abyss was made by God, nor the darkness, nor the water; although surely, having said concerning the light that it came to be by God's command, he ought also to have spoken concerning the night and concerning the abyss and concerning the water. But he said nothing as though they had come to be at all, although he often mentioned them. Besides this, he makes no mention of the generation or making of the angels, nor in what manner they were brought forth, but only of the bodies about heaven and about the earth, so that God, according to Moses, is the maker of no incorporeal thing, but the arranger of underlying matter. For the words "But the earth was invisible and unformed" are nothing other than his making the dry substance matter, and introducing God as its arranger. CYRIL: Concerning Moses, then, the account would be great and long for those who wish to speak well of him; for he heard God saying clearly: I know you above all, and you have found favor with me. And indeed a very clear proof of the manifold virtue that was in him would be the power of the wonder-working in Egypt. For he stood at the service of the God of all things, and was a servant when he set creation against the madness of the Egyptians.

What sort of man Plato was, even if no one said so, the journey from Athens to Sicily would make it widely known; for they say that Dionysius, far from being won over by his flatteries, sold him, as one who had in any case imposed a penalty most fitting for a slave upon an illiberal man. But for now let the account about this be set aside, and let it return again to what is at hand. For the inspired Moses is not seen to have composed idle words for us, nor indeed was he simply impelled to this out of love of honor, but he devised something of the things necessary for the benefit of life. For he did not set out to discourse on natural philosophy in a subtle manner, that is, to say anything about the so-called first principles or the elements derived from them; for I think these things are rather too curious and not easily grasped by the minds of some. His aim was to fix the mind of those at that time upon the doctrines of the truth. For they had wandered astray, and each one, worshiping whatever seemed right to him, was caught, and through excessive ignorance not knowing the one God by nature, they served the creation. And some inscribed heaven as god, others the circle of the sun, and there are those who hastened to assign the glory of the highest nature to the moon and stars and earth and plants and the nature of waters, to birds and irrational animals. Since, then, matters had come to this for them, and of so dreadful a sickness

When it had been distributed to all, Moses was a helper and was shown forth as an introducer of the finest teachings to all: first, because he openly proclaimed that the creator of all things exists by nature, and he separated him from the other things which were brought into being through him to be and to exist at all. Having therefore passed over, most usefully and very clearly, the great mass of subtle speculation, he proceeded to the account of the more necessary matters. For what need was there to say what the nature of the waters is, or how it came to be in the beginning, and to measure out both the abysses and the nature of heaven, and to busy oneself about the manner of the existence of the angels? For I think it is agreed that these things would be difficult to explain for anyone. But if it was at all possible even to set them forth for the wise God, who would be the hearer, or rather who would be able to understand things so subtle and even beyond understanding? And yet we shall find those of that time, when the writing of the all-wise Moses was also being carried out, to be behind the very ignorance of the Greeks; for those men, from the things by which they were able clearly to discern the glory of God, would by these very things be caught, having fallen into the pit of the last of all foolishness. For as the God-inspired Scripture says, those of old ought surely to have understood the creator and craftsman of all things from the beauty of created things; but they were held fast by ill counsel toward this, so that even by the things from which it was reasonable to be carried to the knowledge of the truth, by these very things they were caught, suffering the affliction of clinging to falsehood. And the all-wise Paul would be a faithful witness of this too, having written as follows.

For his invisible attributes, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity—since they are without excuse, because, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their foolish heart was darkened. And this would indeed be fitting for those who have invented the herd-like, vulgar, and altogether irrational false worship, such as were, as I said, those against whom the word of the all-wise Moses was spoken. But that those who came after them, having become full of the madness that has reached its allotted end, might be convicted, we shall easily see by examining the opinion of those who came after them. For Plutarch, who is exceedingly concise, said somewhere about them in the first book of the Collection of Physical Doctrines: "They received from this a notion of God; for the sun and moon and the rest of the stars, having been carried beneath the earth, rise again alike in their colors, equal in their sizes, and in the same places." And again in the same book: "They define the notion of God thus: an intelligent and fiery spirit, having no form, but changing into whatever it wishes and assimilating itself to all things." And they received a notion of this first from the beauty of the things that appear, considering that none of the beautiful things comes to be in vain or by chance, but by some art that creates. And to these I would add what the Thrice-Great Hermes also once wrote To His Own Mind (for the book is titled thus): "Then, you say, is God invisible? Speak reverently. And what is more manifest than he? For this reason he has made [all things], so that through all things one might see him.

This is the good of God, this is virtue: that he appear through all things.

But we shall see that even the accuser of our reverend religion, Julian himself, agrees with these things. For he insists that the knowledge of God is something untaught and self-learned for humans, and he says thus: {JULIAN} That this exists for humans not by teaching but by nature, let the first proof for us be the eagerness of all humans concerning the divine, both privately and publicly, both individually and by nation. For all of us have believed, without being taught, in something divine, concerning which the precise knowledge is neither easy for all

nor possible for those who have known it to state in every respect. And after other things again: With this common notion of all humans there is also another: for all humans are so naturally attached to heaven and to the gods that appear in it that even if someone supposed another God besides them, he would assign heaven entirely as his dwelling place, not separating him from the earth, but as it were seating the king of all in that which is more honorable than the whole, supposing that from there he oversees the things here. {CYRIL} Observe then how those who did not endure the coarse and vagrant and, so to speak, vulgar error, and who departed from the opinion of the herd, have not been wholly deprived of the true notion concerning God, but have inferred both who and how great is the preeminence of the power that is in him, so as to subject so great and admirable a creation to laws of good order.

But the others, about whom our account is, did not know God through created things; rather they were so thunderstruck and had gone out of a mind befitting a human being that they chose to worship not only heaven and earth and moon and the other stars, but also set up in shrines images of many forms, and engraved on them shapes not only of humans but also of irrational animals and birds and reptiles, and called them gods and saviors. Then how could one not admire the skill of Moses, who said nothing either overcurious or deep and hard to accept for those who were speaking at that time, but rather those things through which they were able to pass over to what holds rightly and to direct what knows toward blameless opinion—that concerning, I mean, God who rules over all? Then would one not praise the teachers of the young, and quite reasonably, as they accommodate themselves to their pupils' minds and lead them by the hand little by little toward being able to see something of the ineffable, and do not set before them at the beginning any of the things too highly elaborated and somehow steep in their approach—and shall we not deem Moses, the most sacred, worthy of all praise for having done this? But if it seems to you that we have said nothing of what is necessary, do you wish us to touch on the subjects dearest to you? Let us investigate as far as possible the exactness of Hesiod's Theogony.

For he lays claim to speaking as a god, and to being thought inspired by the Muses, assigning this to himself as some great and lovely possession. "Tell," he says, "how first the gods and earth came to be, and rivers, and the boundless sea raging with its swell, and the shining stars and the broad heaven above." Then, saying that chaos and night came to be, and not adding in what manner: "Earth," he says, "first bore equal to herself starry Heaven, that he might cover her all around." And having declared Heaven to be the child of Earth, because she also bore the seas after lying with Heaven—Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, and Theia and Rhea and Themis and Mnemosyne, and Phoebe besides these, whom he also names golden-crowned, and indeed Tethys, and he says that Cronus was the youngest of all; then upon these he appends certain promiscuous outpourings of random and incoherent tales. But perhaps he will say that Hesiod invented these things as a poet's fiction; for perhaps he blushes at his own tales. Why, then, does he accuse the hierophant Moses, who composed a clear and most unerring account of true histories? For he said that heaven and earth were made by God, and sun and moon, stars and light, birds and fish, and the forms of irrational animals, and the beauties of plants, and edible fruits, and the grasses in the fields. And observe how by these words he most wisely cuts away the error that had fallen upon the ancients; for do they not name heaven Zeus, and Demeter—

—the earth, and Apollo the sun, and the far-sounding one with the golden distaff, that is, Artemis, the moon? And, to put it simply, giving each of the things that came to be from God whatever name seemed good, they worshipped them as gods. But that the account of the creation of the world given to the divine Moses is clear and easy to survey, and has nothing elaborate about it, but is marked by great precision—come now, let us demonstrate it. For "In the beginning," he says, "God made the heaven and the earth." For he does not himself allow matter to be understood as co-beginning and co-eternal with God and unbegotten, as some hold, nor that which once was not as running alongside and co-existing with the eternal, nor that which came into being in time and was barely brought into generation as belonging with that which always is, nor that which is moved with that which remains in the same state and manner, nor that which is subject to corruption with the incorruptible; but rather by time and a beginning that calls to generation he bounds the creation, as having been brought by the will of God from non-being into being—namely, this very thing that it is. And he surely does not say that, with matter already underlying and previously discovered, God simply became its arranger and craftsman, giving form to the formless in whatever way he knew, and merely casting upon it differences of qualities, sizes, and masses; but rather that by some ineffable and unutterable power he brought that which is not and does not exist at all into the beginnings of being. But in what manner he creates is impossible for our mind to see, and, I say, it is beyond all reason. For how could anyone express the things that are beyond mind? And I think the discoveries of the highest of all essences, and its path toward any and every thing to be done, will surpass the things that are ours by as much as we are by nature inferior to it.

When, therefore, Moses says, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," understand that he recounts the generation of the whole creation in summary, as it were gathering all things together and in brief. Then he proceeds artfully to the necessity of stating in what manner each thing was adorned and how each of the things made received well and truly that which it is. And he says that he created by the all-powerful Word; for the creator of all things is God, and his Word is by nature from God. For "God said," he says, "Let there be a firmament," and see at once the firmament fixed by the power of the Word, which indeed he also called heaven. "God said, Let the dry land appear," and the water gathered together into one gathering. He said besides that the sun should come to be, and it came to be, the moon, the stars, and light, and land animals and water animals, and birds besides. And that the very nature of the elements does not have from itself and of itself the power to escape corruption, but rather needs the hand of him who holds it together for its well-being, he taught by saying, "The Spirit of God was borne upon the water"; for the Spirit of God gives life to all things, being itself life by nature, as from the living Father, and all things need it, and it would not otherwise have stability in being that which it is. Observe, then, as I said, the firmament fixed by the Word, and the dry land rising up when the waters were gathered together into one.

See with what grasses and plants the earth is green, and that seminal principles (logoi) exist within them, so that through them things of brief duration, stealing as it were the power of existing eternally, may endure and be preserved. Consider the luminaries in the firmament, made by God for no other purpose except only that they might shine upon those on the earth, and might also mark seasons and days and years. He says that the earth was also commanded to bring forth the nature of irrational animals, each according to its kind, the Creator distributing both how many and for what purpose each should come to be. And when the whole had now been made in the cosmos, and nothing at all was lacking for human needs, then indeed, then, the Creator was considering in what manner he himself would be—for his own generation was not, like the other creatures, fashioned at random. Since, then, it is great and exceptional—or rather, beyond all things, beyond mind and reason and wonder, the supreme nature is conceived and is—he willed to liken the living creature to himself, as far as possible; and for this very reason, quite fittingly, lest it should seem to be something small and cast down, or to differ but little from the other living creatures—the living creature that was to be according to his image and likeness, that is, man—he does not make his generation without careful design.

And yet someone might say, and he would not miss the truth, that nothing escapes the divine mind; it knows, it knows all things before their coming to be. What then was he considering, although he foreknew human nature? In a providential manner, as I said, the all-excellent Moses says that man was honored, so to speak, even by prior counsels, introducing his coming to be not as something simple, as one might say, and in no way distinguished from the other creatures, but as though God had placed the matter itself under consideration. And the account is indeed hyperbolic, yet it might, I think, seem to have been well put, if we say that man is the best of all living things on earth, and was made also in the image of his Creator. But that the whole creation was brought into existence by the all-powerful noddings of God, there is nothing difficult, as I think, to learn thoroughly even from what the teachers of his superstition have written; for it seemed to all both to think and to say, in sum, that all things had been created by him, both intelligible and sensible, invisible and visible. For they have agreed that all things are around the King and Lord of all; and indeed Plato insists on saying: Gods of gods, of whom I am the craftsman and father of works. Now then we have adduced the usages of the Greeks, those, I mean, on these matters, and I will pass over repeating the same things, but I will call to mind the words of Hermes Trismegistus. For he said in the work To Asclepius: And Osiris said, he says: Then, O greatest good daimon, how did the whole earth appear? And the great good daimon said:

In order and drying up, as I said, and when the many waters were commanded by the Lord to withdraw into themselves, the whole earth appeared muddy and trembling; once the sun had shone forth and was continually burning and drying, the earth was established upon the waters, being encompassed by the water. And indeed also elsewhere: The Creator and Lord of all spoke thus: "Let there be earth," and "let the firmament appear," and immediately the earth became the beginning of creation. And these things concerning the earth; but concerning the sun again he speaks as follows: And Osiris said: "O Thrice-greatest good daemon, whence did this great sun appear?" And he said: "Osiris, do you wish us to recount the generation of the sun, whence it appeared? It appeared by the providence of the Master of all. And the generation of the sun is from the Master of all, having come to be through his holy and creative Word." Similarly he himself also says in the first detailed discourse To Tat: And the Lord of all immediately spoke to his own holy and intelligible and creative Word: "Let there be sun"; and at the same moment as he spoke, Nature drew to herself by her own spirit the fire that partakes of an upward nature—I mean the unmixed and most luminous and more active and more generative—and raised it on high from the water.

That all things were made by the command of God through the Creator Word would befit a man to understand and to speak truly; but how or in what manner, He alone would know. That He distributes to each of created things their being in such-and-such a way according to His authority, and that the mode of existence of all things has Him as its determiner, would become clear also from what Moses said: "Let there be a firmament," and it came to be so; and: "Let the water be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear." For these things define the nature of each of the things brought into generation. The Thrice-Great Hermes among them also recalls this again; for he has introduced God saying to the creatures: "I will place upon you who are under me this necessity, the command given to you through my Word; for you have this as law." For, as I said just now, the Creator defined a natural law for each of created things, and by His noddings it is evident that they have received their being in such-and-such a way or not. And the straightforward and unadulterated account would run thus; but he himself has marveled no little at the opinion of Plato, and says: {JULIAN} But hear what Plato says about the world. Whether the whole heaven, or world, or whatever other name it might best receive, let this be the name for us: was it always, having no beginning of generation, or has it come to be, beginning from some beginning? It has come to be; for it is visible and tangible, and has a body; and all such things are perceptible, graspable by opinion with perception. And after other things:

So then, in a manner that accords with probable reasoning, one must say that this world came to be, in truth, a living being, endowed with soul and mind, through the providence of God. {CYRIL} Behold, then, clearly even Plato himself, divine and all-wise as he is, confidently affirms that the whole world—or whatever one might call it—is generated and has its beginning from some first principle, and indeed that it is tangible and visible and corporeal and opined by perception, and that it was made by the providence of the Creator. But the man who hangs wholly upon Plato's cleverness of speech and crowns it with praises to the utmost, because he too has gone astray with him and has thought nothing of the blameless teachings, but is carried about as by every wind—we shall make clear before long, again setting out his own words, those of Julian. For he spoke as follows: {JULIAN} Let us compare one thing with one thing only: what sort of creation, and of what kind, does the God of Moses make, and what sort does the God of Plato? And God said: Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heaven and the cattle and all the earth and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth. And God made man; in the image of God he made him; male and female he made them, and God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heaven and all the cattle and all the earth. Hear now also the Platonic public address, which he attributes to the Creator of all things:

Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator and father of works—these works will be indissoluble if I so will. Everything bound is dissoluble, but to wish to dissolve what has been well fitted together and is in good condition is the act of an evil being. Therefore, since you have come into being, you are indeed not immortal, nor altogether indissoluble; yet you will not be dissolved, nor will you meet the portion of death, since my will has obtained for you a bond greater and more sovereign than those with which you were bound when you came into being. Now then, learn what I am declaring to you: three mortal races of living beings remain ungenerated, and if these do not come into being, the heaven will be incomplete; for it will not contain all the races of living beings within itself. But these, having been generated by me and having partaken of life, would be equal to gods. In order, then, that there may be mortal beings and that this whole universe may truly be all, do you turn by nature to the creation of living beings, imitating my power in your own generation. And insofar as it is fitting for them to be called by the same name as the immortals—being called divine and having a ruling principle within them that always follows justice and willingly obeys you—I will hand them over, having sown and provided the beginning. For the rest, do you, weaving the mortal together with the immortal, bring living beings to completion and beget them, and giving them nourishment, increase them, and receive them again when they waste away. {CYRIL} So then, this noble fellow mocks and is bold in his arguments against us—the generation of man, I mean, which is told through the all-excellent Moses

He thinks that the fact that man was made in the image and likeness of God was announced and given by God to human nature only in small measure. Yet how could anyone of those accustomed to think rightly not agree that this matter belongs to those who know best how to adorn it exceedingly? For tell me, what is better than to say that the divine likeness has been stamped upon us? Do we not say that the divine essence is the highest and most exalted of all things, shining forth with ineffable glory, and being in very truth every form and beauty of virtue? Then how is what I said not clear to all? Why then does he mock such excellent things, and why does he scoff at the fact that the intelligent, rational, and most God-like of the living beings on earth—I mean man—must be honored with the first rank over all? And indeed the very nature of things agrees with the words of Moses; but he makes no account of what is fitting, and has also turned away unrestrainedly to the view that one must cling only to the words of Plato. And he has also admired—and this without examination—the speech which he has, I know not how, fabricated for himself, which he says the God of all things made to certain generated and falsely named gods. I think we too must say something to him on this point. For if in these words Plato is creating a character and, according to the custom of poets, putting on the person of God words which he thinks appropriate to him, he has missed his aim no little, and one might censure him for not knowing how to create a character in the way he ought. But if he pretends to be speaking from God, let him be off with his nonsense.

For it is not lawful to say that the God who has authority over all things allowed the glory that properly and uniquely belongs to him alone to be shared with gods that are not true. For he said: "I will not give my glory to another, nor my virtues to graven images." And come, let us briefly set the truth in opposition to Plato's words and say this. For let it be conceded, if it seems good, that the powers above, both the intellectual ones, having come to be from God, have been honored with the name of God; for we say that there are certain beings in heaven both called gods and lords. But we ourselves too have been crowned with such a name, God saying to us: "I said, you are gods, and all sons of the Most High." But there is in these matters a most necessary cause of the thing, and the account of God's generosity toward us would most rightly hold good. For the Creator of all things, since he made the intellectual and rational creation in his own image and likeness, being indeed also good, has honored it with the name of God, and there is nothing incongruous in this. For we ourselves too are accustomed, let us say, to name a man's image "man" by homonymy. Therefore the intellectual and rational creation, since it also stands in greater account with God than the creation that is not rational and intellectual, appears to have obtained the better glory, being gilded with the name of God. But of the other created things, not one at all has been named god.

For that the heaven—that is, the world—is neither a living being simply, nor indeed wholly ensouled, even if one of those among us who are initiated should choose to say so, is sufficiently refuted, even apart from the others whom they call wise, by Aristotle himself, the student of Plato. For he said, as we have already previously maintained, that the whole world through and through is neither ensouled nor rational nor intelligent. That, then, the whole world through and through—or whatever this universe is (for he himself spoke thus)—neither is ensouled nor indeed intelligent, the power of truth does not permit him to say, since it has its resistance, as I said, from his own writings and from those most closely associated with him, most sufficient. But that God would not have said that gods wholly nonexistent, whether ensouled or intelligent, ought to create, the very nature of the matter will demonstrate to us, proceeding through fitting examinations. For what in the world, having considered in himself, did the Creator of all things hand over to other gods the task of laboring over the creation of the three kinds? He hesitated, then, they might say, or deemed our affairs worthy of no account; but these things, as I think, are utterly alien to the highest of all beings. For if the Creator is good, how could any hesitation at all arise in him concerning anything? For thus Plato himself somewhere says: he was good, and no envy arises in a good being concerning anything. But to deem him unworthy to speak would be nothing other than to assign vanity to him and to inscribe a charge of contempt. And how would he choose to rule over those whose generation he dishonors? Or in what way does he rejoice in our acts of worship, if he did not deign to create at all in the beginning?

That he wishes also to be honored by us, and requires what is well-disposed, and wills that human nature be made like to himself through every virtue, I could set beside it—quite easily—very many and true testimonies of the God-inspired Scripture. But since Julian finds his own authorities more credible, I say that Porphyry wrote in the second book of On Abstinence from Ensouled Beings as follows: Let us therefore sacrifice too, but let us sacrifice as is fitting, to the God who is over all, as some wise man said, neither burning incense nor naming anything perceptible. For nothing material is not at once unclean to the immaterial; wherefore neither is speech by voice proper to him, nor the inner speech, whenever it is defiled by a passion of the soul, but through pure silence and pure thoughts concerning him let us worship him. It is necessary, then, having been joined to him and made like him, to bring our own conduct as a sacred sacrifice to God, the same conduct also hymning our salvation. In impassibility, then, and in the contemplation of God, this sacrifice is accomplished. God, then, wishes to be honored by us, and to be marked out toward himself noetically through a holy conduct, inscribing his beauty in our own souls. Then how, tell me, does he ask these things from us, all but casting us aside to other creators and, so to speak, depriving us of the self-working that has been granted to all other creatures? And for what reason does he at all provide for the things on the earth, although, according to Plato's opinion, they have been given as a plaything to other gods? For that he does provide, and that his sparing and gentleness extends even to the most worthless, he himself, who knows his own Father God, will teach, saying:

Are not two sparrows sold for an assarion, and not one of them will fall to the ground without our Father who is in the heavens? But perhaps he himself, as though it were not true, will write off the saying (for he fights against God in an extraordinary way), but he will accept those who have become his own—I mean with respect to their having gone astray. Alexander, the disciple of Aristotle, then writes as follows in On Providence: To say that God does not wish to exercise providence over things here is utterly alien to God; for it belongs to a nature that is envious and altogether absurd not to do the better things when it is able. Since, then, each of these is alien to God, neither both nor either can be attributed to him. It remains, therefore, that the divine is both able and willing to exercise providence over things here; and if it is willing and able, it is clear that it also exercises providence. Nothing, then, not even of the things that happen by chance, can reasonably come to be without the divine mind and will.

Some say that Plato also held this opinion, but Zeno of Citium and the Stoics openly champion this doctrine. That the highest God, both by nature and alone over all things, also exercises providence over the things that are ours, they too have testified. What then is the point, one might ask? Yet it belonged to one who deems providence worthy, not to deprive the human race of what is best—and this is to have come to be rather than from him, and that certain ones should not receive the lot of being made and having from without a bare and mere claim of God as their maker, even if especially of the divine

It will be a campaign against glory to think that others too can create and call into existence things that never were; for it is surely not lawful to say that the properties and prerogatives of the divine and ineffable nature can naturally belong to any of the things that have come to be from it. Rather, this will fit it and it alone, and the matter will redound to the highest glory; for, as I said just now, inaccessible to creation are the things that belong to the highest essence alone and uniquely. And we say that one of such things is also the power to work creatively and to bring into existence things that never were. How then could a generated and made nature—to which, according to the principles inherent in its nature, I mean, destruction must in every way and altogether follow—work the works of God?

For if the manner of creating is understood in God as a matter of knowledge, one would not grant beyond reason that the knowledge of creating has been given by him to creation, since we ourselves too sometimes create certain things, having the underlying matter and employing skill in these matters; but if, as I said, it is the activity and power of a magnificent nature, and creating is beyond the measures of creation in a God-befitting way, why do they drag down the dignity of the highest nature and bestow it, as seems good to them, on things that are in generation and corruption? Then do they think they understand something of what is necessary, or rather do they slander the divine utterances? For they say that the unbegotten has entrusted his own prerogatives to things that are generated and that they can fulfill those of him alone. But yes, they say, for surely it was also necessary that, if anything came to be from God, this should by all means be superior to dying and being destroyed.

Then, O excellent sirs, the Creator was surely envious of certain beings, and did not permit them to share in the finest thing, but implanted it, as it were, in the inferior ones, by not enduring to create them himself. He feared necessity, then, which did not allow him the power to make mortal things, or perhaps he was wholly ignorant. If, then, they say he was ignorant, the creation knows something more than he does; for it creates, as they themselves say, things that are subject to corruption. But if, setting this aside, they will confidently assert that he knew, how is it the mark of a good being not to do what he knows to be good? And surely the immortal is better than the mortal.

Then, in addition to these things, I think it is not ignorant, but rather wise, to say this as well. For they say that the gods to whom they claim the King and Lord of all entrusted the work of creation are not immortal, but are bound together and dissolved and remain for a time outside of corruption, being in these things by the will of God. Since, therefore, nothing is by its own nature incorruptible or immortal or indissoluble, how would they not be ignorant in saying that the God of all did not endure to create the three mortal kinds, but rather handed this over to others to do? But leaving aside the nonsense of the Greeks, we say that the Creator made the variety and multiformity in creation, and the fact that one thing is otherwise than another and not the same, as in genus and species, exercising a power most befitting God. For, as I said, nothing is immortal or indissoluble; but the will of God concerning each of the things made—this is nature to it—and it reaches through everything without any hesitation, even to the things that are ours; for he is one and only, not having learned this from another.

For the matter is not a form of knowledge, but a God-befitting prerogative of his own nature, growing together with it and with it alone, just as indeed are the other of his dignities, which are by no means accessible to created beings, but have been allotted, as I said, to it and to it alone by nature. And that it is among the most absurd things of all to assign the work of creation to other gods, turning it away from the God who is by nature and truly God, one might see even from his own teachers.

For Hermes, surnamed Trismegistus, writes thus to Asclepius concerning the nature of the universe: If, then, two things are acknowledged to exist, that which comes to be and that which makes, they are one in their union, the one preceding, the other following; preceding is the God who makes, following is that which comes to be, whatever it may be. And do not, because of the variety of things that come to be, hold back, fearing to attach lowliness and dishonor to God; for his one glory is to make all things, and this is to God as it were the body—making. But to the maker himself nothing is considered evil or shameful. For these are the passions that attend generation, like rust on bronze and filth on the body; but neither did the bronzesmith make the rust, nor did those who begot make the filth. And after other things he again comes to more fervent arguments, setting forth a clear example, and says: Then can the same painter make heaven and earth and sea and gods and men and all irrational and lifeless things, but God cannot make all things? O great foolishness and ignorance concerning God. For such people suffer the most terrible of all things:

For in claiming to reverence and bless God, by not attributing to him the creation of all things they do not even know him as God; and besides not knowing him, they commit the greatest impiety against him, imputing to him a passion—disdain or weakness. For if he does not make all things, he does not make them either out of disdain or from inability, which is impious; for God has only one passion, the good, and the good is neither disdainful nor powerless. For this is God—the good, the whole power to make all things. And what is generated by the good and by him who is able to make all things comes to be. But if you wish to learn how he himself makes, and how the things that come to be come to be, it is permitted you: look at the fairest and most similar image—a farmer casting seed into the earth, here wheat, there barley, and there some other of the seeds; look at the same man planting a vine and an apple tree and the other trees; so also God sows immortality in heaven, change on earth, and in the whole life and motion.

And these things are what those of old among the Greeks who were not undistinguished both thought themselves and also deemed that others should choose to think. But this fair-minded and admirable man, having bidden farewell to the opinions of others, is vanquished by the words of Plato alone, and indeed he tries to make clear, as he supposes, cleverly, the address which he says was made by Plato in the person of God, and he says: {JULIAN} But surely this is not a dream; understand it by considering it. Plato names as gods the visible ones—sun and moon, stars and heaven—but these are images of the invisible ones: the sun that appears to our eyes is an image of the intelligible and invisible one, and again the moon that appears to our eyes, and each of the stars, are images of the intelligible ones. Those invisible gods, then, existing in and coexisting with and begotten and proceeding from the Demiurge himself, Plato knows; reasonably, therefore, the Demiurge in his account says, "gods," speaking to the invisible ones—clearly the gods of the visible ones. And the common Demiurge of both is this one who fashioned heaven and earth and sea and the stars, having begotten in the intelligible realm the archetypes of these. Consider, then, that what follows is also well said; for there remain, he says, three mortal kinds—clearly that of humans, that of animals, and that of plants; for each of these is defined by its own principles. If, then, he says, each of these also should come to be by me, it is altogether necessary that it become immortal. For nothing else is the cause of immortality for the gods and for the visible cosmos than to have come to be by the Demiurge. What, then, does he say?

How much of it is immortal, it is necessary that it be granted by the Creator to be among these things; and this is the rational soul. Therefore, if you are willing, I will hand over the forms of these things, having sown the seeds and made a beginning; but for the rest, do you weave the mortal into the immortal? It is clear, then, that the creator gods, having received the creative power from their father, begot on the earth the mortal kinds of living things. For if heaven was to differ in nothing from man, and—by Zeus—from a beast, and finally from the reptiles themselves and from the fish that swim in the sea, then the Creator ought to be one and the same for all. But if there is a great distance between immortal and mortal things—a distance made greater by no addition and diminished by no subtraction in relation to mortal and perishable things—then it is fitting that some things have one cause and others another. {CYRIL} But in these very words, that he confounds everything and mixes up the natures of things with one another, is something that those who wish can see, and very easily. For first he says that the more manifest of the gods are images of the less manifest, which Plato also seemed to call intelligible and sensible, naming the things seen "opinable with perception." And through these things our noble Julian seems to wish to make clear the ideas, which Plato at one time insists are substances and subsist by themselves, and at another time defines as thoughts of God. However that may be, those skilled in these matters say that the account concerning this is unacceptable even to his own disciples; for "farewell to the forms," says Aristotle, "for they are twitterings, and even if they exist, they contribute nothing to the argument.

For what reason, then, does he himself think it right to affirm this and attempt to introduce it as an unimpeachable opinion—something that even his own teachers are supposed to have held incorrectly? Then, in addition to this, we shall find another of his arguments, not moderately diseased in its ignorance. For he said that Plato knew the intelligible and more invisible gods as existing in and coexisting with and begotten from the Demiurge himself and proceeding forth. And he adds that the God of all things, who fashioned earth and heaven, is the creator of both the visible and the intelligible. Since, then, as he himself has clearly acknowledged, the unbegotten God is the generator of both these and those, how does he say that they were begotten from him and coexist with and exist in him? How, tell me, will the begotten coexist with the unbegotten God? And in what manner will it exist in him? For we maintain that the Word of God, being unbegotten, necessarily coexists with the one who begot him and exists in him, but proceeded forth from him by generation. But the exact advocate of Plato's invention-mongering says that the highest God is unbegotten, but that those who came to be from him exist in him and were begotten from him and proceeded forth, confounding and confusing all things and deeming the pure vision of God worthy of no account. One might say to him what is parodied in the tongues of the many: apart are the boundaries of Mysians and Phrygians. Away with such cold, random mythologizing, man! Your account concerns the God who is beyond all things, and you are caught having thought altogether trifling things about his glory.

Then, after he himself has declared the Creator of all things and the one who alone sufficed for the creations so brilliant and worthy of admiration, he says that other gods also joined with him and cooperated in the creation for the lesser things of all, who might perhaps say to the God over all: "Gather a contribution from us, and bring in the three mortal races that are lacking to the whole; for when you give the soul, we will add the body, weaving the mortal onto the immortal." But perhaps he will also somewhere speak and shield his own doctrines, inserting this: that the nature of earthly bodies is wrought by the concourse of the elements. In this, then, he follows his own teachers; for they say that Empedocles the son of Meton also held this opinion and indeed chose to think so; for he says the principles of beings are fire, air, water, and earth, and he adds to these Love and Strife. Plotinus also mentions these things in the work On the Three

Primary Hypostases, and speaks thus: "For Empedocles, Strife divides, and Love unites; and this is incorporeal for him too, while the elements are as matter." So that even if the concourse of the elements contributes some benefit of their own to earthly bodies, we will not accept the matter without examination. For we will necessarily investigate who awards them the coming-together and has gathered into one the things that fight against nature, and, as it were, tames them so that the power of each does not remain unmixed with the others, but all converge upon one another, as it were, into the existence and generation of any one thing.

Was it not, then, clearly the all-excellent God who contrived this too for earthly bodies, so that, lacking none of the elements, they might have the enjoyment that comes from them? For like is somehow dear to like. Therefore the creators would not be any others than these three kinds, but rather the generative cause of all things would reasonably be understood to be the highest and only one and the beginning of all things, after whom there is absolutely nothing beyond, but all things are rather under him and through him and beneath his feet, as things created. And that he rejoices in his works the arguments of the Greeks also insist, and we too affirm it, since the divinely inspired Scripture itself agrees with this. For Wisdom says: I was she in whom he delighted, and day by day I was gladdened in his presence, at every time when he was gladdened, having completed the inhabited world, and he took delight among the sons of men. How, then, is it not better that he rejoice rather in his own creations and not in the creations of others?

But perhaps, he says, Plato held that he was overcome by hesitation, or, as I said, that he begrudged the better things to those on the earth; and it is no wonder, when even of God the Creator himself, having first set down the good itself as unmoved, unshaken, stable, and removed from both needing and willing to work any of the things brought into existence, he says that, as it were shrinking back from these things, he assigned the work of creating to the second god who is from him and after him. But behold, he also sets other gods beside him, those who know how to work equally, so that nothing in him may appear to be superior.

Since he thinks he is saying something wise and precise—namely that, if the Creator of all things were conceived as one and only, heaven will differ in no way from a human being, nor indeed from a beast, nor from those creatures born to swim in the sea, nor yet from reptiles, and that for this reason the Creator must be brought in proportionally, corresponding to the measure of each created thing—come, let us speak to him on this point as well. And yet what is opposed or in conflict with right conceptions, if one should choose to say that all things are the work of one Creator? Is it that the power which sufficed for things so far superior would not at all endure for the lesser? Or is this in no way the case, but rather that to be above and to excel belongs, among things that differ most from others, to that alone—namely, to have obtained its own direct working from God? Then how is this not a peculiar disinheritance, since he has dishonored, as it were, the rest of the creatures, and has all but bidden the earthly things a long farewell? But that we have said these things beforehand is nonsense and full of the utmost stupidity—let him state that. He says that the begotten gods fashioned the remaining three kinds. Are there not, then, among them—setting aside those of our own kind—the greatest possible difference clearly seen in genera and species and sizes of bodies? For their generation would extend from the highest things all the way to the most worthless of all; and indeed, if these same things were said about the plants, one would not be mistaken. Shall we, then, set the Creator over each proportionally, so that what is superior may not be insulted, even if the same one is said to be the maker of the inferior things too?