CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 092 341 662 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092341662 S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS OF MANI, MARCION, AND BARDAISAN VOLUME I PLATE I PHOTO BY D. MACBETH, BRITISH UDSEUM Folio ISb of the Palimpsest R.M. AM. 14623, inverted to shotu the underwriting. [To face Title-pa^e S. EPHRAIM'S PROSE REFUTATIONS OF MANI, MARCION, AND BARDAISAN OF WHICH THE GREATER PART HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED FROM THE PALIMPSEST B.M. ADD. 14623 AND IS NOW FIRST PUBLISHED BY C. W. MITCHELL, M.A. FORMEKLY RESEARCH STUDENT EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBHIDGK VOLUME I THE DISCOURSES ADDRESSED TO HYPATIUS PUBLISHED FOR THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY BY WILLIAMS AND NOKGATE 14, Henkietta Stebbt, Covent Gaedbn, London, AND 7, Broad Street, Oxford 1912 Complete set S.B.N. GB: 576. 99165. 1 This volume S.B.N. GB; 576.99838.9 Republished in 1969 by Gregg International Publishers Limited Westmead, Farnborough, Hants. , England Printed in Israel PREFACE The work of which this vohime contains the fir'st two parts was begun when I held a Research Studentship at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. It was then my intention to publish a translation of the fragments of .S. Ephraim's prose I'efutation of the False Teachers, published by Overbeck ("S. Ephraemi Syri aliorumque opera selecta,' pp. 21-T:i), and considered to be a valuable document for the history of early Manichaean teaching. In undertaking this I could not fore- see that the work would extend over such a long period, oi' that it would, when complete, pass so fai' beyond the limits of my original plan. An unexpected enlargement of it has lieen made possilile and has developed in the following wa\'. Before I had finished the translation of the OverVjeck section. Professor Bevan, who had suggested the work, informed me that the remainder of Ephraim's Refutation ^^'as extant in the palimpsest H.M. Add. 14623. AVright's description of this manuscript did not encourage the hope that the underwriting could be deciphered. (Jn p. 766 of the catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts he referred to it thus : " As stated abo\'C, the volume is palimpsest through- out, and the miserable monk Aaron deserves the execration of every theologian and Syriac scholar for having destroyed a manu- script of the sixth century written in three columns containing works of Ephraim . . ." These woi'ds not only state with emphasis Wright's opinion of the importance of the manuscript, but also suggest, I think, his fear that its original contents were lost. While [ add, in passing, that they may also l)e taken to indicate the satisfaction which the recovery of that text would ha\'e brought him — a text of which he knew the first part intimately through his active share in the preparation of Overbeok's volume — , I may also venture to express here, by anticipation, the hope that, after the whole of the present work has been pul)lished, both Theology and Scholarship may consent to modify the severity of this verdict on ill-fated Aaron. On examining this palimpsest of eighty-eight leaves, I found that the older writing on a few pages could be read with ease, on a good number of others with much difficulty ; while in PREFACE each of these legible pieces there were more or less irrecoverable passages, and worst of all, only one side of the leaves could be read, except in two or three cases, though there was e'S'idence that the writing was lurking in obscurity below. I decided to edit as many of the pages as were fairly legible, and to publish them along with the translation which I have mentioned above. After I had worked at the palimpsest for a considerable time, my gleanings amounted to over thirty of its pages. But the illegibility of one side of the ^-ellum, coupled with the confusion arising from the disturbance of the original order of the leaves and quires in the hands of the monk Aaron, made it impossible to arrange the deciphered pages so that they could be read con- secutively. As they had been transcribed -svith tolerable com- pleteness, most of them containing about a hundred manuscript lines, and as each page was a section from a genuine work of Ephraim against !Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, the Text and Translation .Society undertook the expense of publishing them as isolated Fragments. In 1908 the pages, grouped in the best way possible according to their subject-matter, began to be printed. Xearly one half of them had passed through the press when the work was unexpectedly stopped by a most fortunate turn of events. Dr. Barnett, Keeper of Oriental ^Manuscripts at the British Museum, began to apply a re-agent to the illegible portions of the palimpsest, and so wonder- fully did its virtue revive the energies of the ancient ink, so distinctly did the under-s\Titing show itself, here readily, there reluctantly, that it now became possible to transcribe almost the entire contents. In consequence, too, of his action, I was able to reconstruct the order of the leaves and quires, and to assign the former Fragments to their proper places in the original document. It will thus not be difficult to see how these successi'^'e extensions (jf my first project prevented the appearance of the volume at the times promised. I feel, however, that the work has, in the mean- time, gained so much in character and importance, that the facts which I ha^e stated above will be a sufficient explanation to the members of the Text and Translation Society for what may have .seemed vexatious delays. Instead of a text and translation of a collection of fragments, torn from their context, and suflfering. i,Teatly from illegible gaps, this volume and that which is to follow it are now able to present to " the theologian and Syriac scholar " the text and translation of Ephraim's "Contra Haereses'^ approxi- mately complete. The lacunre which still remain ^^-ill not, I think, lie found to affect scrioush' the elucidation of many passages of importance. Evan «ith the help of the re-agent, the work of transcriljing PREFACE the palimpsest has been necessarily slow. Not to speak of t\ui arduousness of the decipherer's task, which anyone who has had experience of such work will appreciate, there have been in the present case unusual difficulties owing to the fact that no other copy of the underwriting is extant. Such difficulties are ine\'itable when the decipherer's aim is not collation, but the lecovery of a lost document. In a field of this kind pioneer work cannot go on rapidly ; for it constantly happens that ad\-ance is only possible l)y verifying and re- verifying one's conjectures as to probable words and letters in passages which at first sight seem all l.)ut obliterated. The time, moreover, which I have been able to devote to the work has been limited by my other duties, and has often been rendered still more scanty by the weather. Accurate de- ciphering is only possible under a good sunlight, and London has never claimed an abundance of this among her varied endowments. When bright days have been absent, in the interests of complete- ness and accuracy I have been obliged to postpone both transcribing and proof-correcting. For, howe^'er much the editor of such a work as the present may hope, for the sake of mistakes which he may have allowed to creep in, that he may not be transcribing h dei', yet he must feel that, as the writing soon fades back to that underworld from which it has recently emerged only after a thousand unbroken years of obscurity, there is laid upon him a special responsibility to attain finality in transcription. At the same time, he is aware that there comes a temptation to linger too frequently and painfully over sparse after-gleanings. Perhaps I have sometimes erred in this respect, but at any rate I feel that this edition presents a maximum of text recoverable from the palimpsest, and I have no hope that the lacunae can be filled by a more prolonged study of it. I have tried to make a literal translation, and for the sake of clearness have introduced marginal summaries. The difficulty of the Syriac of the published fragment of the second Discourse was formerly noted by Noldeke [ZDMG for 1889, p. 543), and the remainder of the work is written in the same style. In the next volume containing Parts III. and IV. — the latter of which is now being printed — there will appear the text and transla- tion of an unedited work of Ephraim, called " Of Domnus." It consists of Discourses against Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, and a Hymn on Virginity. The Discourses against Bardaisan are remarkable as showing the influence of the Platonists and the Stoics around Edessa. In the third volume. Part V., I shall endeavour to collect, arrange, and interpret the evidence derived from the first two volumes for the teaching of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan. In that PREFACE iMiiinoction mitos will he fo\inrl on special points, e.g.. the rrfeii'iircs to the Hymn of the Soul, Vol. i, pp. l.\x.\ix., cv.-cvii. ; Ban the Builder, p. xxx. : Bdi.os, p. l.xxii. ; Hl'LE, p. xcix. f. : Maui s Painting, p. .\eii.; the (-!-o.r. CONTENTS PAGE (3)-(10) i-cxix 1-185 Introduotoey Notes Translation of the Five Discourses Syeiac Text of Discourses II-V Plate I . Xn face Title-page Plate II . . - . . . To face p. (4) MANUSCBIPTS OF THE FIVE DISCOURSES ADDBESSED TO HYPATIUS. Two manuscripts— B.M. Add. 14570 and B.M. Add. 14574— have preserved the First Discourse. The first of these is fully described in Wright's Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, pp. 406-7. This small volume contains as well a Discourse of Ephraim " On our Lord." It is written in a small elegant Estrangela of the fifth or sixth century, and each page is divided into two columns. On the first page there is a note stating that this was one of the two hundred and fifty volumes brought to the convent of S. Mary Deipara by the Abbot Moses of Nisibis, a.d. 932. As regards the other manuscript, only the part of it numbered DXXXV by Wright, and described on pp. 407-8, requires mention here. Its nineteen leaves are " written in a fine regular Estrangela of the Vlth century," each page being divided into three columns with from 34 to 38 lines to each. They contain not only the First Discourse but a fragment of the Second, (Overhech, pp. 59-73) and originally belonged to the palimpsest Add. 14623, of which they formed the first nineteen leaves. Along with the eighty-eight leaves of this palimpsest, to which reference has already been made in the Preface, they formed a volume containing " To Hypatius " and " Of Domnus,'' two works which Ephraim intended to be his great refutation of the False Teachings. It thus becomes evident that the text of Discourses II-V, edited in Part ii., pp. 1-185, is really derived from a single manuscript, although, according to the Catalogue, the nineteen leaves and the palimpsest portion appear under different numbers. When this sixth-century volume was rendered a palimpsest by (3) the monk Aaron, c. a.u. S23, fortunately the above-mentioned fragments — its first nineteen leaves — escaped his ruthless hands.' But the surface of the remaining eighty-eight leaves suffered a ruinous transformation through his zealous attempt to remove the Amting, and the treated vellum was re-arranged into new quires. The long list of works which the renovated codex was destined to contain can be seen on pages 464^7 of the Catalogue. The two plates, one facing the title-page, the other opposite this page, show the present appearance of the manuscript. They have been reproduced from photographs of both sides of foUo 13, Mhich is a fair specimen of the leaves. It will be noticed that the under-\mting on the first plate is fairly clear, while that on the second plate showing the other side of the same leaf is, except for the title, completely illegible. The text of both has been transcribed with the help of the re-agent. The photographs have lost somewhat in distinctness in the process of reproduction. On folio 886 there are two notes of interest in connection with the history of this palimpsest (CSM. p. 766). From the first we learn that Aaron was a Mesopotamian monk, a native of Dara, and that he ^^Tote his manuscript in the Thebaid of Egvpt. His date given above shows that Add. 14623 is one of the earliest palimpsests in the Xitrian Collection. Another note on the same page states that the volume was presented with nine others to the convent of S. 3Iary Deipara, bj' Isaac, Daniel and Solomon, monks of the Syrian convent of Mar Jonah in the district of Maris or Mareia, a,d. 851-859. The manuscript was ^ rought from the Xitrian desert by Archdet>con Tattam, and has been in the British iluseum since March. 1843. PIATE II vo - ^. »<'\'PT tat: T^ si^f ^ «^*<^ ^•MiJP If *ff t^J'*P«' «^ V"'^ "^ Uf^' cJW/ rt \-nTin oa. (S) TABLE I SHOWING THE RELATION OF PRIMITIVE QUIRES TO THE MODERN ARRANGEMENT Ancient Modern Quire and Leaf. Qnire and Leaf. I. Original order preserved in B.M. Add. 14574 II. Original order preserved in B.IM. Add. 14574 III. IV. ]).M. Add. 14623 1 = Folio 14 2 = „ 10 3 = „ 9 4 = „ 12 5 = „ 16 6 = „ u 7 = „ 15 8 = „ 18 9 = „ 17 10 = „ IS 1 = Folio 19 2 = „ 22 3 = „ 21 4 = „ 23 5 = „ 20 6 = „ 27 7 = „ 24 8 = „ 26 9 = „ 25 10 = „ 28 C6) II. III. 6 2-^ 1 — 4-^ 8 3 7' 10_J 9- 5.__ 1 4 3—, 5 2-' 9-1 i 6 1 8 _l 7 10- - TABLES I AND II Ancient <3uire and Leaf. V. 1 B.M. Add. 14623 Folio 29 Moderu Quire and Leaf. IV. 1 2 = „ 36 = IV. 8 3 = „ 44 = V. 6 4 = „ 34 = IV. 6 5 = „ 46 = V. 8 6 = „ 41 = V. 3 7 = „ 83 = IV. 5 8 = „ 43 = V. 5- 9 = „ 31 = IV. 3 10 = „ 38 = IV. 10 VI. 1 = Folio 42 = V. 4 2 = „ 39 = V. 1- 3 = „ 35 = IV. 7 4 = „ 47 = V. 9 5 = „ 37 = IV. 9- 6 = „ 30 = IV. 2- 7 = „ 40 = V. 2' The rest of the Quire to Vol. II. belongs J TABLE II GIVING THE TBANSCEIBED LEAVES OF THE PALIMPSEST ACCOEDING TO THE ORDEE OF THEIR NUMBERING IN THE CATALOGUE, AND THE PAGES OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ON WHICH THE TEXT OF EACH LEAF BEGINS olio 9 begins on page 33 ,. 10 28 „ 11 46 „ 12 37 „ 13 63 „ 14 23 „ 15 50 , 16 42 Folio 17 begins on page .59 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .05 68 85 77 72 81 94 '■!) TABLE II (continued) Folio 25 begins on page 103 26 ,. .. 98 27 28 29 30 31 89 107 111 176 146 32 belongs to Vol. II. 33 begins on page 137 34 ,. „ 124 35 „ ,. 164 36 „ „ 115 Folio 37 begins on page 173 38 „ „ 151 39 40 41 42 43 44 160 181 133 155 142 120 45 belongs to Vol. II. 46 begins on page 129 47 „ „ 168 PART I.— TRANSLATION. The First Discourse The Second Discourse . The Third Discourse . The Fourth Discourse The Fifth Discourse . pp. i-xxvin . pp. xxix-1 . pp. li-lxxiii pp. Ixxiv-xci pp. xcii-cxix iShoff lacunm are indicated in the translation hy dots, and longer _x.J<.T for .t-h t h^i Ov. p. 21, 1. U; cf. 1. !). B ii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS also of God, the fountain of good things, by means of Speech (which is) a gift from Him. For by means of this (faculty) which is like God we are clothed with the likeness of God. For divine teaching is the seal of minds, by means of which men who learn are sealed that they may be an image for Him Who knows all. For if by Freewill Adam was the image of God, it is a most praiseworthy thing when, by true knowledge, and by true conduct, a man becomes the image of God. For that independence exists in these also. For animals carmot form in themselves pure thoughts about God, because they have not Speech, that which forms in us the image of the Truth. We have received the gift of Speech that we may not be as speechless animals in our conduct, but that we may in our actions resemble God, the giver of Speech. How great is Speech, a gift which came to make those who receive it like its Giver ! And because animals have not Speech they cannot be the likeness of our minds. But because the mind has Speech, it is a great disgrace to it when it is not clothed with the likeness of God ; it is a still more grievous shame when animals resemble men, and men do not resemble God. But threefold is the torture doubled when this intermediate (party between God and animals) forsakes the Good above him and degrades himself from his natural rank to put on the likeness of animals in his conduct. And a A letter, therefore, cannot demonstrate every matter about otToeak' "^hich a man is seeking to ask questions, because the tongue of Ov. p. 23, the letter is far away from it, — its tongue is the pen of the writer of it. Moreover, when the letter speaks anything written in it, it takes to itself another tongue that the letter may speak with it, (the letter) which silently speaks with two mute tongues, one being the ink-pen, the other, the sight of the (reader's) eye. But if we thus rejoice over a letter poor in treasures, how much more shall we rejoice over a tongue which is near us, the lord and treasurer of the treasures within ! Yet I But I had desired that instead of your seeing me in the written characters of a document, you might have seen me in the because I characters of the countenance ; and instead of the writing of FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS iii my letter thus seeing you, I had desired that my eyes instead felt myself _ . , , unworthy of my writings might see you. But because the sight or our ^o meet face is not worthy of the pure gaze of your eyes, behold you ^^^ P'^*y- are gazing on the characters of our letter. But justly pure writings have met your pure eyes ; not that I say that the pure is profaned by the defiled, but it is not right that pure ■eyes should look at what is not pure. For even though the Exod. xix. People had sanctified their bodies three days, (yet) because they had not sanctified their hearbs he did not allow them to approach the holy Mountain, not that hoUness would be pro- faned by those who were defiled, but those who were defiled were not worthy to approach hoUness. But by Moses, the holy one, who went up into the holy Mountain, God gave an instance for the consolation of the pure and for the refutation of the defiled, (showing) that all those who are holy like Moses are near holiness like Moses. For when one of the Ov. p. 24. limbs of the body is satisfied all the limbs receive a pledge of satisfaction, that they too will be satisfied together with that one in the same manner. For by means of that body, too, in which our Lord was raised, all bodies have, received a pledge that they will be raised with it in hke manner. But, my brother, in that thou didst stir up our littleness to Discreet approach you, know that if I wished I could come, but know, *'"*'t^j''' too, that if I could come I would not wish to be deprived (of from vialt- the opportunity). For I could come if I had no intelligence ; at thy but I have been unable to come because I had intelligence. '^''I^'^^- In (blissful) innocence I might have come on account of love, but (looking at the matter) intelligently I was unable to come on account of fear. And whoever is steeped in love like a child is above fear ; Not that and whoever is timorously subject to fear vain terror always }.^l^^ j tortures him. It helps athletes too in a competition to be at the above fear through the encouragement of a good hope, andofadiJ- npt to fall under the sickly apprehensions which result from a ™^s'°n- timorous habit of thought. Athletes perhaps (might) weU fear because the victor is crowned and the loser suffers shame. For they do not divide the victory between the two of them. But we ought not to fear a struggle in which failure is There IV S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS would victory ; since v\hen the teacher wins the learner too is much gain how- helped. For helper and helped are both partakers in the ever it gain. If, then, we had come to teach there would have been ended. ° a common victory as Error would have been overwhelmed by Ov. p. 25, our Truth. But if we had been unable to teach, yet had I. 3. been able to learn, there would have been a common victory in that by your knowledge there would have been an end of ignorance. The treasure of Him that enricheth every one is open before every one, since Grace administers it, (Grace) that never restrains intelligent inquirers. If, therefore, we had pos- sessed something we could have bestowed it as givers, or if we did not possess anything we could have received as inquirers. But if we had not been able to give nor able even to receive, our coming could not have been deprived of all good. For even if we could not have searched you out «ith our mind yet we could ha\e seen you with our eyes ; since we have no Ex. xxxiii. greater gift than seeing you. But Moses testifies that while it was granted to him to do everything like God, at last he abandoned everything and prayed to see the Lord of all. For if the creatures of the Creator are thus '■ pleasant to look upon, how much more pleasant is their Creator to look upon : but because we have not an eye which is able to look upon His splendour, a mind was given us which is able to contem- plate His beauty. Man, therefore, is more than his posses- sions, just as God is more excellent and more beautiful than His creatures. In.'ipiteof But know, my beloved, that if we had come, it would not my eon- j^^^yg been possible for us to huve been real paupers such as feriority I receive everything, nor again for you to have been complete micht havegiven givers, to give everything. One who lacks is not lacking in all t I . f respects, lest he should be abased ; neither is he who is complete, all are mu- complete in every respect, lest he should exalt himself. But this pendent, lack has arisen that completeness may be produced by it. For in that we need to give to one another and receive from one another, the wants of all of us are filled up by the abundance Ov. p. 21',, of all. For as tlie wants of the limbs of the body are tilled up ]. 7. vyjrf tor vyjc FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS v one by the other, so also the inhabitants of the ^^•orld fill up the common need from the common abundance. Let us rejoice, therefore, in the need of all of us, for in this way unity is produced for us all. For inasmuch as men are dependent on one another, the high bend themselves down to the humble and are not ashamed, while the lowly reach out toA\-ards the great and are not afraid. And also in the case of animals we exercise great care over them on account of our dependence on them, and obviously our need of everything binds us in love towards everything. hated Need ! yet much-loved unity is produced from it. Because countries are dependent on one another, their dependence combines them as into a body ; and like the limbs they give to one another and receive from one another. But these arrange- ments of interdependence belong to one rich complete Being, Whose need is this — to give to everything though He has no need to receive from anywhere. For even what He is thought to receive from us. He takes it astutely from us in His love that He may again give it to us manifold more as the rewarder. This is that astuteness which ministers good things, and our craftiness which ministers evil things should resemble it. But as regards that fear of which we spoke above, not only I said upon us weak ones does the constraint of fear fall, but even that I re- upon the heroes and valiant themselves. Nor have I said this ''■^"^^'^ in order to find comfort for out folly, but that we might ooming through remind thy wisdom. For when Peter despised fear and was fear. Such wishing to walk upon the waters, although he was going g^'pg^™" (thither) on account of his love which was making him run, expe- rienced, yet he was nigh to sinking on account of fear which fell upon him ^ ; and the fear which was weaker than he on dry land, when it came among the waves into a place in which it was strengthened became powerful against him and overcame him. From this Ov. p. 27, 1 13 it is possible to learn that when any one of all the desires in us ' is associated with an evil habit which helps it, then that desire acquires power and conquers us. For fear and love were weighed in the midst of the sea as in a balance, and fear turned the scale and won ; and that Simon whose faith was lacking 1 Read iiJjLj» for JiAiiai Ov. p. 27, 1. 10 (cf. Ov. p. xxv.). VI S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS and rose in the balance was himself nigh to sinking in the midst of the sea. And this type is a teacher for us, that is to say, it is a fear-inspiring sign that all those whose good things fail and are light when rightly weighed, are themselves nigh to sinking into evil. But if any one say : — why is it necessary to frame illustrations of this kind, let him know that this may not be harmful if we receive from everything some helpful lesson for our weakness. If, therefore, Peter was afraid of Ov. p. 28. the waves, though the Lord of the waves was holding his hand, how much more should weak ones fear the waves of Controversy, which are much stronger than the waves of the sea ! For in the waves of the sea (only) bodies are drowned, but in the waves of Investigation minds sink or are rescued. The Pub- But, again, that Publican also w ho was praying in the Temple the Para- ^*® very importunate about forgiveness, because he was much ble was afraid of punishment. He was in a state of fear and love ; he conscious of this both verily loved the Merciful One on account of His forgiveness, and he verily feared the Judge on account of His vengeance. And though, on the one hand, he was praying in love because of his affection, yet, on the other hand, because of his fear he would not dare to lift up his eyes unto Heaven. And though Grace was urging him forward, his fear was unable to cross boldly the limit of justice. Such fear If the fear of the Publican who was justified knew its measure may be a ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ exalt itself to cross the limit, how can weakness dare gain. ' to neglect the measure and to cross the limit of propriety ? For this also (is said) that a man may know the degree of his weak- ness and not exalt himself to a degree above his power. I think that such a man cannot slip. For he does not run to a degree too hard for him and so receive thence a fall. For \\ ithout know- ledge men run to degrees too hard for them ; and before they go up pride urges them on, and after they fall penitence of soul tortures them. On the But, again, indeed, I see that that importunity about which hand, the Our Lord spake was praised and enriched because its importunate ^a aW^ nature ventured to cross the limit of propriety ; for if it had of un- been abashed and observed propriety, it would have gone empty importu- away, but because it was presumptuous and trampled down nity. FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS vii harmful modesty as with its heels, it received more than it had Ov. p. 29, asked. Necessity, whose importunate words enriched its destitution ! For it does not aid necessity to be subject to harmful modesty, but (it is aided) by its importunity being a good instrument for (securing) good things. But if all these praises were bestowed on importunity, which Better, opened closed doors, and aroused those who were asleep in bed, jg whole-' and received more than was its due, how must that indigence be ^°™® ^'^' ' ° portunity, censured which has not approached open doors nor received help than a from the treasuries of the Rich One ! ^ Better, therefore, is he who scrupu- is importunate about his aid than he who is ashamed and loses '°^''^y ^ about his aid. For whoever observes proper modesty while he loses exact his aid, even the propriety which he has observed is in that case subject to censure, and propriety has become impropriety. And he that seeks after exact propriety at all times is neglectful of sound propriety. For from the best wheat, if it shed not much bran, fine flour cannot be made ; for unripe fruit is not palatable, and what is over ripe loses flavour, or else its taste is pungent, or bad. For if we refine things much beyond what is proper, even The the fine and the pure are also rejected. For it is not right for us f^^f^^ ^f to cultivate Ignorance, or deep Investigation, but Intelligence Know- between-these-two-extremes, sound and true. For by means of the two former a man surely misses his advantage. For Ov. p. 30, by means of Ignorance a man cannot understand Knowledge, and by deep Investigation a man cannot build on a sound foundation. For Ignorance is a veil which does not permit one to see, and Investigation, which is continually building and destroying, is a changeful wheel that knows not how to stand and be at rest ; and when it passes in its investigation over true things, it cannot abide by them ; for it has unstable motions. When, therefore, it finds anything it seeks, it does not retain its discovery, and is not rejoiced with the fruit of its toil But if we inquire much into everything we are neglectful of the Lord of everything, inasmuch as we desire to know all things like Him. And since our Knowledge cannot know everything, ' Read rCi^k.^i for r^i ■ ■«■ t Ov. p. 29, 1. 14. viii S. EPHEAIM'S REFUTATIONS we show our evil Will before Him Who knows all things. And while He is higher than all in His Knowledge, the ignorant venture to assail the height of His Knowledge. For if we are continually striving to comprehend things, by our strife we desire to fence round the way of Truth and to confuse by our Controversy things that are fair — not that those fair things are confused in their own nature, but our weakness is confused by reason of the great things. For we are not able completely to apprehend their greatness. For there is One who is perfect in every respect, whose Knowledge penetrates completely through all. It is not But it is not right for us to look at all things minutely, but u3°to rather simply — not that our Knowledge is to be Ignorance ; for seek deep even in the case of something which a man does not do cleverly, Know- ledge : for if he does the thing with clever discrimination then his lack of thmas are Cleverness is Cleverness. And if, by his Knowledge he becomes unknow- an ignorant man so that he ignores those things which he cannot able. See how Sim- know, even his Ignorance is great Knowledge. For because he better '^ knows that they are not known, his Knowledge cannot be Ignor- than ance. For he knows well whatever he knows. But the mind Clever' ness. in which many doubts spring up, destroying one another, cannot do anything readily. For thoughts, vanquishing and vanquished, are produced by it, and the waves ■v\'hich from all sides beat upon Ov. p. 31, it, fix it in doubt and inaction. But it is an advantage that the scale of simplicity should outweigh in us the scale of wrangling- logic. For how many times, in consequence of the clever and subtle thoughts which we have concerning a matter, that very matter is delayed so as not to be accomplished ! And consider that in the case of those matters which keep the world alive. Simplicity accomplishes them without many thoughts. For these matters succeed when a single thought controls them, and they stand still when many thoughts rush in. For there is only a single thought in Husbandry, that is (the thought) that in a simple manner it should scatter the seed in the earth. But if other thoughts occurred to it so that it pondered and reasoned as to whether the seed was sprouting or not, or whether the earth would fail to produce it, or would restore it again, then Husbandry could not so^^•. For morbid thoughts spring up against a single 1. )2. FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS ix sound thought, and ■weaken it. And because a thing is weakened, it cannot work Uke a sound thing. For the soundness of a Ov. p. 32. thought like the soundness of a body performs everything. And the husbandman who cannot plough with one ox cannot plough with two thoughts. Just as it is useful to plough with two oxen, so it is right to employ one healthy thought. Moreover, if the martyrs and confessors who have been Deep crowned had approached with double thoughts they could not ^ion is have been crowned. For when our Freewill is in a strait between ^'^^^^^^ keeping the commandment and breaking the commandment, it is usually the case that it is seeking two reasonings destructive of one another, so that by means of the interpretation of one reasoning it may flee from the pain of the other, that is to say, (it argues) in order that by a false excuse it may cast away the burden of the commandment. Now, without wandering after those things which are unnecessary, or omitting anything that is necessary, let us say in brief and not at length, that if any- thing succeeds by means of a single sound thought, its soundness is weakened by many thoughts. For if we approach with polished wiles any matter which we ought to approach in a simple way, then our intelligence becomes non-intelligence. For in the case of every duty, whenever a man proceeds beyond what is its due, all the ingenuities which he can devise about it, are foolish. So (too) in the case of any investigation in which the investigator slips from its truth, all the discoveries he may make, although his discoveries may be clever, are false. For everything which is clever is not true ; but whatever is true is clever. And whatever is debated is not deep, but whatever is said by God is subtle when it is believed. But there is no subtlety equal to Ov. p. 33. this, that everything should be duly done in its own way, and if it happen that what is to be done can be done simply, its simplicity is subtlety. For it is all the more fitting that we should call this simplicity subtlety in that it accomplishes helpful things without many combinations and reasonings. For in that it does things easily it resembles Deity, Who easily creates everything. It is right, therefore, that we should investigate weU the The ad- vantage of advantage of things by an examination of them ; and if they are simple X S. EPHRAIM'S REPUTATIONS Know- judged by the investigators to be simple, there are many things be seen in which are thought to be obviously unsuccessful, but their unseen the case of qualities achieve a great victory. For there is nothing that bandman. appears more simple than this, that the husbandman should take and scatter in the earth the gathered seeds which he holds in his hands. But, after a time, when it is seen that the scattered seed has been gathered and has come with a multitude like a general with his army, and that the seed which had been regarded as lost is found and finds also other (seeds) with it, then a man marvels at the husbandman's simplicity, which has become a fountain of cleverness. Therefore, with regard to this very thing, hear on the other hand the opposite of it, that if a man spare the gathered seed, so as not to scatter it, he is thought indeed to act prudently in refraining from scattering. But when we see the husbandman's scattered investment collected in the principal and interest, and the earth rewarding him, then the intelligence which refrained from scattering is seen to be Or. p. 34. blindness, because it is deprived of (the chance of) gathering. Therefore, it is not an advantage to us that we should always be led astray by names, nor that we should be deceived by outward appearances. I oonsid- For if, because I wisely discerned that it would not be right matter^ for me to venture to come, I did not come for that reason, carefully perhaps it would have been better for me if I had not wisely before I decided discerned. For, perhaps, my coming to thee in childlike and visit thee simple fashion would have met with success. But know again that if I had come recklessly I would not have wished to come, because our coming would have been indiscreet. For we should have had no fruit of intelligence. For everything which is done indiscreetly belongs either to reckless habit, or blind chance ; and it has no root in the mind of those who do it. In do- But if these two wise conclusions (namely) that I should was"con- ''O"^® ^^'^ that I should not come, (both) belong to my Will, this scioiis of is a single WiU of which one half does battle with the other half, power of and when it conquers and is conquered it is crowned in both within cases. This is a wonder, that though the Will is one, two opinions me : the which are not homogeneous are found in its homogeneity. And nature of Freewill. I know that what I have said is so, but why (it is so) I am not FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xi able to demonstrate. For I wonder how that one thing both enslaves it and is enslaved by it. But know that if this was not so mankind would have no free power of Choice. For if Necessity makes us wish, we have no power of Choice. And if, again, our Will is bound and has not the power to will and not to will we have no Freewill. And, therefore, necessity thus demands :"rhe Will ' .IS both that there should be a single thing, and though it is a single one and thing, when that single thing wills to be two it is easy for it, and ™^"y- when again it wills to be one or many it is a simple matter for it. For in a single day there are produced in us a great number of Volitions which destroy each other. This Will is a root and Ov. p. 35, parent ; it is both one and many. This Will brings forth sweet and bitter fruit. free Root with power over its fruit ! For if it wills it makes its fruits bitter, and if it wills it makes its products sweet. For God to Whom nothing is difficult has created in us something which is difficult to explain, and that is, Freewill. And though this (Will) is one, yet there are two opinions in it, that of A\illing and that of being unwilling ; so that when half of it struggles with and conquers the other half, then the whole of it is crowned by the whole of it. For this is an unspeakable wonder, how, though the Will is one, half of it rebels against the Law and half of it is subject to the Law. For, lo, there are in it two opinions contending together, for part of the WiU desires that Evil should be done, and again, part of it uses restraint and guards against Evil being done. And how on the one hand has the Will not been transformed by that part of it which desires evil things that it may become like its part which desires evil things 1 and how again (on the other hand) has the WiU not been converted by that part of it which loves good things, that the whole of it may become good like the part of it which loves good things ? But if both these parts can be converted to Good or Evil, what shall we call them ? That we should call them Evil (is impossible, for) they can be good, — that we should call them good (is impossible, for) they can be bad. And though these two can be a single Ov. p. 36. thing, yet except they are divided and are two there can be no struggle between them. This is a wonder which we are unable to speak of, and yet we cannot be silent about it. For we know xii .S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIONS tliat a single Will })i)ssessed of many conclusions exists in us. iiat since the Root is one we do not understand how part of the thought is sweet, and part of it bitter, even if it does not com- pletely escape our notice. And how, on the one hand, is that bitterness swallowed up by that sweet thing so as to become pleasant like it ? And how again when it {i.e., the sweet thing) has been swallowed up is it mixed with that bitter thing so as to become bitter like it ? And again, how when these two frames of mind ha\'e been swallowed by one another, and have become one thing affectionately, are they again separated from one another and stand one against the other like enemies ? For where was that Mind before we sinned that brings us to penitence after sins '. And how is that Mind turned to penitence after adultery, which was raging before adultery ? These are frames of mind which are like leaven to one another, so that they change one another and are changed by one another. But here our Truth has conquered the (false) Teachings and bound them so that none of them can bear investigation. This Dis- But if any one wishes to investigate some of the Teachings course is meant for (m question) let him know that we ^ have not been called at friends. present to struggle with enemies, but to speak with friends. But when the statement (intended) for friends is finished, then our belief will show a proof of its power in a contest also. But it is easy for every man to perceive what I have said, because there Ov. p. 37. are in every one two Minds, which are engaged in a struggle one against the other, and between them stands the LaA\- of God , holding the crown and the punishment, in order that when there is victory it may offer the cro«n, and when failure appears it may inflict punishment. False But if the Evil which is in us is evil, and cannot become about the good, and if also the Good in us is good, and cannot become evil origin of (^hgn) these good and evil promises which the Law makes are theLaw an superfluous. For whom will the Rewarder crown — one who is victorious by his Nature and cannot fail ? Or w hom, again, will the Avenger blame — that Nature which fails ^ and cannot con- quer ? But if that good thing M'hich is in us is obedient to ^ Read ^j-ajre" ^_•in^rf Ov. p. lill, 1. 23. 8i'c il. p. x\v. (v.l.). Kiiiil - "■« for . -1 1 »T Ov. p. 'il, 1. 11. FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIDS xiii something evil, how can we call that Good, seeing that it has a or make Good akin close relationship to Evil 1 For by means of that thing ^^•heI■eby to Evil. it becomes obedient to Evil its kinship with Evil is percei^'ed. For that Evil would not be able to draw it to itself if it were not that its lump had an affinity to the leaven of Evil. See therefore, also, that what they call a good Nature is. in \'irtue of what it is, convicted of being an evil Nature ; inasmuch as it has an evil Will which is drawn away after Evil. But inasmuch as it has an evil Will, all Evil things had a tendency towards it. For there is The evU nothing more evil than an evil Will. For that is the root of evil ^.^^^ ^f things. For when there is no evil free Will, then evil things come ■'^'''''■ to an end. For the deadly sword cannot kill apart from the evil Will of its holder. But see, already when we have not advanced Ov. p. :S8. to the contest (even) before the contest, the enemies of the Truth have been conquered beforehand. And if any one ask, what then is this Will '. we must tell him The Will that the real truth about it is that it is the po^^■er of Free-choice, explana- And because it is not right to scorn a good learner, let us now *'°"- like those who hasten and pass on throw him a word, that is to say, one of the words of Truth. For, even from a single word of Truth, great faith dawns in a sound and wise hearer ; just as a great flame is produced by a small coal. For if a single one of a few coals of fire is sufficient to make scars on the body, one of the words of Truth, also, is not too weak to clean away the plague spots of Error from the soul. If, therefore, any one asks, " What is this Will, for though it is one thing, part of it is good, and part of it evil ? " we shall tell him that it is because it is a Will. And if he asks again, we shall tell him that it is a thing endowed with inde- pendence. And if he still continues to indulge in folly, we shall tell him that it is Freewill. And if he is not convinced this unteachableness of his teaches that because there is Free- will he does not wish to be taught. But if he is convinced when they say to him that there is no Freewill, it is truly wonderful tliat in the annulling of his Freewill, his Freewill is proved, that is to say, by his being in a desperate state. And the matter is The very as if some eloquent person wished to harangue and to prove jYeewHl' that men have no power of Speech. And that is great madness ; proves xiv s. ephrai:m's refutations that it for he saj's there is no power of Speech when he uses the power of Speech. For his power of Speech refutes him, for by means Or. p. 39. of Speech he seeks to prove that there is no power of Speech. When Free^\'ill, too, has gone to hide itself in a discussion and to show by argument that it does not exist, then is it with more certainty caught and seen to exist. For if there were no Freewill, there would be no controversy and no persuasion. But if Free- will becomes more evident when it hides itself, and when it denies (its own existence) it is the more refuted, then when it shows itself it is made as clear as the sun. The Will And why does Freewill wish to deny its power and to profess slaved ^o t)e enslaved when the yoke of lordship is not placed upon it ? but IS the Pqj jt, is jiot of the race of enslaved reptUes, nor of the familv Image of God. of enslaved cattle, but of the race of a Bang and of the sons of Kings who alone among all creatures, were created in the image of God. For see every one is ashamed of the name of slaverv and denies it. And if a slave goes to a country where men know him not, and there becomes rich, it may be that, although he is a slave and of servile origin, he may be compelled to say tliere that he is sprung from a free race and from the stock of kings. And this is wonderful that, ■sihUe slaves deny their slavery, yet the Freewill of fools denies its own self. And see, if men give the name of slave to him who saj-s that there is no Freewill, he is displeased and becomes angry, and begins to declare the Freedom of his famUy. Xow, how does such a person on the one hand deny Freewill, and on the other acknowledge it ? And on the one hand hate literal slavery, and (on the other) acknowledge spiritual slavery ? If he chose with inteUigence and weighed the matter soundly it would be right for him to acknowledge that (principle) that he might not be deprived of Ov. p. 40. the mmd's free power of Choice. And here he is exposed who blasphemes very ^\•ickedly against the Good One, the Giver of Freewll, Who made the earth and everything in it subject to its dominion. Freewill is But there is no man who has gone down and brought up a those who croAvn with great toil from the hard struggle, and (then) says wish to ^]^g^|; there is no Freewill, lest the reward of his toil and the glory God for of his croMii should be lost. The man who has failed says there FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xv is no Freewill that he may hide the grievous failure of his feeble thwr •' failures. Will. If thou seest a man who says there is no Freewill, know that his Freewill has not conducted itself aright. The sinner who confesses there is Freewill may perhaps find mercy, because he has confessed that his follies are his own ; but whoever denies that there is Freewill utters a great blasphemy in that he hastens to ascribe his vices to God ; and seeks to free himself from blame and Satan from reproach in order that all the blame may rest with God — God forbid that this should be ! But if he is intelligent he ought not to think that a being endowed with power over itself is similar to a thing which is bound in its The mys- tery of the Nature. And, moreover, it would not be right for any one. Will is a after he has heard that the Will ... to ask (and say), ' But ^1;"^°* ^ what, again is the Will ? ' Does he know everything, and has mystery, this (alone) escaped his knowledge, or does he know nothing at all since he cannot know even this ? But if he knows what ' a bound Nature ' is, he can know what an unconstrained Will is, but that which is unconstrained caimot become constrained, because it is not subject to constraint. But in what is it un- constrained except in that it has (the power) to will and not to will ? And ^ if he is unwilling to be convinced in this way, it is The because the power of his Freewill is so great, and our mouth is p°^^ill is unable to do it full justice : our weak mouth has confessed obvious •■ ' but un- that it is unable to state its unconstrained Will. For it is a speakably Freewill which subjects even God to Investigation and rebuke, explain.' on account of its unconstrained nature. It ventured to bring up aU this because it desired to speak about that which is unspeakable. But that (Freewill) which has ventured to make Ov. p. 41, statements concerning God, itself is not able to state its own nature perfectly. But concerning this, also, we say to any one who asks that this is a marvel which it is very easy for us to perceive, but it is very difficult to give a proof of it. But this But it is is not so only in this matter, but it is the same with everything, to explain For whatever exists may be discussed without being searched ^"yt'i'^g out ; it can be known that the thing exists, but it is not possible pletely. to search out how it exists. For see that we can perceive 1 Read .^rr-o for ..j^i Ov. p. 40, 1. 25. xvi S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIOXS everything, but we caunot completely search out anything at all ; and we perceive great things, but we cannot search out perfectly Let us even worthless things. But thanks '■ be to Him \Mio has allowed God that ws to know the external side of things in order that we may oiurlvnoM ■ i^^j^ Jjq^. -^yg excel, but He has not allowed us to know their ledge of ' things is (inward) secret that -ne might understand how we are lacking. He has allowed us, therefore, to know and not to kno-i^- that by means of what can be kno\vn, our childish nature might be educated, and that our boldness might be restrained by those things which cannot be kno^vn. Therefore, He has not per- mitted us to know, not that \ve may be ignorant, but that our Knowing Ignorance may be a hedge for our Knowledge. For see how we powers of ^"rish to know even the height of heaven and the breadth of the knowing gJ^J.th, but we cannot know ; and because we cannot know we are so limitei.ac\j Ov. p. 43, 1. 9. - Read •tfjJaAso for rtijLaAo.. Ov. p. 44, 1. 3. XVlll S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS I'reewill and the teaching about the Con- stituents areincom patible. Freewill means Freewill not a •bound Nature.' Ov. p. 45. The Law of God presup- Freewill. teach ! let prophets and apostles resign their office ! Why have they vauily laboured to preach ? Or what was the reason of the coming of the Lord of them aU into the world ? But if they profess belief in FreewiU — which is actually what they profess — that Freewill which they profess to believe in compels them to deny that EvU which they beUeve in. For both of them cannot stand. For either our WUl sins, and (at other times) is proved to be righteous, and for this reason we have Freewill ; or if the Constituents of Good and Evil stir in the Win, then it is a Constituent which overcomes, and is overcome, and not the WiU. But if any one says that everything which stirs in our Free- wUl does not belong to Freewill, by his Freewill he is making preposterous statements about Freewill. For how does he call that FreewiU when he goes on to bind it so that it is not Freewill. For the name of Freewill stands for itself ; for it is free and not a slave, being independent and not enslaved, loose, not bound, a WiU, not a Nature. And just as when any one speaks of Fire, its heat is declared by the word, and by the word ' Snow,' its coolness is called to miud, so by the word ' FreewiU ' its inde- pendence is perceived. But if any one says that the impulses that stir in it do not belong to Freewill he is desiring to call FreewiU a ' bound Nature," when the word does not suit a Nature. And he is found not to perceive what FreewiU is, and he uses its name rashly and foohshly without being acquainted with its force. For either let him deny it, and then he is refuted by its working, or if he confesses it, his organs contend one against the other ; for he denies vrith. his mouth what he confesses with his tongue. For the Giver of FreewUl is not so confused (in mind) as this man who is divided (against himseU) part against part, that He should become involved in a struggle v,-iih His nature. For He gave us FreewUl which, by His permission, receives good and evU impulses, and He furthermore ordained a Law for it that it should not do overtly those Evils which by His permission stir invisibly in it. And let us inquire a Uttle. Either though He may have had the means to give us Freewill, He did not wish to give it, though He may have been able to give it, or He may FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xix not have had the means to give, and on this account He was unable to give it. And how was He Who was unable to give Freewill able to give a Law when there was no Freewill ? But if He gave the Law, the righteousness which is in His Law reproves our Freewill, for He rewards it according to its works. And if there is no Freewill, does not this Controversy in which The we are involved concerning Freewill, bear witness that we have among ^ Freewill ? For a ' bound Nature ' could not utter all these ™®" proves various matters controversially. For if all mankind were alike that saying one thing or doing one thing, perhaps there would be an exists. opportunity to make the mistake (of thinking) that there is no Freewill. But if even the Freewill of a single man undergoes many variations in a single day so that he is good or evil, hateful or pleasing, merciful or merciless, bitter or pleasant, blessing or cursing, grateful or ungrateful, so that he resembles both God Ov. p. 46. and Satan, is it not established by thousands of witnesses Deut. xix that we have Freewill ? And, behold, at the mouth of two or i^v, three witnesses is every word established. xviii. 16. For examine all those variations which I mentioned above, Man alone and see that they do not exist in any ' bound Natures,' not in will. Com- the sea nor on the dry land, not in the luminaries nor in the stars, P^^® '^™ •^ ' ' with other not in trees nor in roots ; nor even in animals — and yet there is creatures sensation in animals — nor even in birds, though they have sight the differ- and hearing. But if hawks are birds of prey, they are all birds of ™"'^- prey ; if wolves are destructive, they are aU ravagers ; and if lambs are harmless, they are all innocent, and if serpents are cunning, that subtlety belongs to all ; but man, owing to his Freewill, can be like them all, while they cannot become like him. On this account they have a (fixed) Nature, while we have Freewill. Thou usest the word ' Freewill,' learn its independence The word from the word ; thou usest the word ' Slavery,' learn the bondage musT' (of slavery) from the word; thou usest the word ' Nature,' ^**°d for recognize its immutable fixity by the word ; and thou speakest of ' God,' recognize His actual Existence by the word. For all these are words which are not at variance with their (under- lying) realities. If thou namest these things when thou wishest, thou must of necessity acknowledge them to thyself even if XX S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS thou dost not vish. Speak against Freewill, and in virtue of what it is we can know how powerful Freewill is, since it has struggled with its power against its power. For even when a man Ov. p. 47. gays that there is no Free-Bill, he is able to say there is no Freewill because he has FreewUl ; and, therefore, in proportion as that Free-s^-ill artfully changes Itself in various ways, so those changes tell us that Freewill exists. For a ' bound Xature ' cannot be changed. Why then is it necessary for us to obtain from another direction testimony as to whether Free\^dll exists or not ? For, behold, in virtue of being what it is. the evidence for it is pro- claimed. For wh^n it denies itself, (saying) that it is not inde- pendent, it is convicted of not bemg in bondage. For when any one acknowledges that Freewill exists, it is not right that Xeces- sity shoiild come near it. The But if, as these say, the Constituents of Good and EvU over- about the come, and are overcome, they are able to beheve in a Mixing of Consti- Good and EvU, just as if thev denied that there is a Mixing, then tuents . ■ makes all they are able to believe that Freewill exists. But if they say futile. that, when the evil Constituent is large. Freewill is subject to compulsion ; what, then, is it that the Heretics teach in their Congregations except the Error which they have been taught ? For if they teach it is because there is Freewill ; supposing there is no Freewill, let them shut their mouths and not teach. The Will But let them be asked, are they Teachers of FreewUl or affect the Changers of our Xature ? If a man eats by mistake from a deadly nature of j-qq^^ tjje Will of the eater cannot change that deadly thing, poisons, seeing that it is not an unfettered WUl that he should change it ; but it is an evil Constituent, the nature of which cannot be changed by words. How then can the just Judge condemn mankind (by asking), why they have not changed by the Will the evil Ov. p. 48. Nature which cannot be changed by the Will ? Therefore, let them either admit that unfettered free Wills are changed to Good or Evil or let them admit that if they are ' bound Natures "■ of Good and Evil, they are Natures which cannot be conquered by words. For they ought to supply an antidote as a medicine to counteract a deadly poison. For it is right that by natural illustrations that Teaching should be refuted which was com- posed deceitfully from analogous phenomena in Nature. But FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxi Truth is strong enough to destroy with the single reply which it makes the numerous fabrications of Falsehood. For it is obviously clear from what I say that there are not The great Weights of Good and Evil conquering one another and being ^f ^^j.' ^ conquered by one another. For, behold, in a single hour one thoughts . ' > & showsthat can think even a hundred good thoughts. And if because there we have was at that time ' much Good in a man, his good thoughts were numerous within, behold that man can do the reverse of this in the same hour. For directly after these good thoughts a man can think a multitude of evil thoughts. Which one of these, therefore, do they affirm to be more than the other ? And if they say that the Evil was most (in amount), how then since all that Evil would be in the man did it permit him to think all those good thoughts 1 And if that Evil made room of its own Will, that Evil is good, \\'hich has this good Will. For how did that Evil which, when it wished, finally conquered the Good, consent to give way before it at first ? But if they say that the Good Ov. p. 49. exceeded (in amount), in which of a man's limbs, did all the Good hide itself, and make room for the small amount of Evil to go up and show a great victory ? If, therefore, the Evil submitted to give way before the Good, the Evil is better than the Good, in that it took the crown and gave it to its opponent. But if the Good consented to give place to the Evil that it (i.e., the Evil) might be victorious, the Good is more evil than the Evil in that it gave place to the E-\'il to do corruptly. It is, therefore, clear to any one who has knowledge that The Soul Weights and Constituents of Good and Evil neither outweigh one Mixture ■ another, nor are outweighed by one another ; but on the con- '* ^as free Choices, trary, there are real free Choices which conquer one another and are conquered by one another, since all the Choices can become one Choice. For if good Choices spring up in us from the good Root which is in us, and evil Choices are produced in us from that evil Root which is in us, then these (powers) in us are not independent free Choices, but Natures fixed by Necessity. For if, as one of the Heretics says, Purity and Foulness were Freewill mixed together, it is not Freewill that ^^•ould be required to separate* separate the good Will from the evil Will, but a strainer to *'^^ *^'°"- stitueuts. 1 Read ^ijcn for ^xsa Ov. y^. 48, 1. 14. xxii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS separate the pure from the foiil. For in the case of things that are literally mixed together, a separating hand is required to separate them like the skilful hand which separates witli a fire the dross from the sUver, and separates with a strainer the pure from the foul. IfPree- But if they say that these Natures in A^hich there is mixed alter ^^ excrement have no Freewill whereby they may separate visible j^jjg Poulness from them, let us leave them a little. Even if we Evil, how can it alter wander a little from our subject, let us go with them where they Evil a ^'^ll US- -^o^ Truth on account of its strength goes wherever it bound jg 2g(j a,s a victor, and where it is pressed towards a defeat, there Mature ? . ^ it gains the better crown. Let us leave, therefore, the ' bound Natures ' and let us come to ' the independent Minds ' ; let us see if the AViUs of these men in whom there is Freedom can separate and send out of themselves the evil Ingredient, that by (the example of) the visible Mixing of the visible Evil we may beheve that also the invisible Mixing of the invisible Evil can be Ov. p. 50, separated. If there is a quantity of harmful poison or deadly phlegm in any of these men, let them tell us : will ' the blameless Conduct of Freedom' separate this Evil, or will drugs and medicinal roots ? Does not this fact refute them (and convince them) that the harmfulness which I have mentioned cannot be separated by ' the righteousness of Freedom,' but by medicinal skill ? If therefore, this small Evil which is mingled \\'ith us is not expelled from us by ' blameless Conduct,' but by the virtue of drugs, ho\\- can ' Commandments and Laws ' separate that mighty and powerful Evil which is mixed in Souls ? For, behold, as experience teaches us, (medicinal) virtue can separate from us even the Evil which we have mentioned^ by means of skilful (medical) methods, and not by the ' Conduct of Freedom." For if they talk such nonsense let no one hear those who would relate empty Ov. p. 51. tales to foolish minds. For empty allegories are believed (only) by one whose mind is empty as regards the Truth. The If^ therefore, that deadly Evil is mixed in mankind like a proper cure for noxious poison let them hear the true reasoning with a healthy it is a ®^^" "^"^^ ^® when a vessel of poison is filled up, an emptying poison. is necessary by means of drugs that that poison may not overflow 1 Read .^•isorCl for ^'iaapci- p. 50, 1. '24:. FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxui and produce in us pains and hurts ; so also when Evil is excessive in the Soul a discharge is necessary for it, either from month to month or from year to year. For, behold, just as poison becomes excessive in us from nutriment, so they say that " Evil collects and increases in us from Foods." If, therefore, the measure of the Evil of both kinds becomes excessive in us, it is clear that there must be a discharge and an emptying of the fullness. For, behold, it is also the case that when blood or phlegm increases in us (then) a discharge is necessary for them. Those, therefore, who ought to expel Evil from mankind by Forgive- a visible working, lo, they are purging away the sins of mankind ^^^ ^^^ by an invisible forgiveness. But though the sins of manliind such Evil; much less do not depart from them they are added to those who (say that vicarious they) purge them sevenfold. For around their necks is hung the 'L^^*'' debt of sins for the pardon of which they have falsely gone surety. For also madness, though it does not depart from a dog which has gone mad, enters sevenfold into those who are bitten by the dog. But the disciples were commanded that they should shake St. Matt. X. 14. the dust off their feet against whoever did not receive them, let Ov. p. 52. us shake off the dust of our words against these who do not receive the Truth of our words. For if vengeance was ready to come for the dust of feet, how much more ready will vengeance be for the Truth of a word which is treated despite- fully by him who hears ! But I wish to know this : is Freewill the cause of sins, or is If Freewill Evil the fountain of sins ? But if it is Evil as they say, free j^Hg^ Volitions cannot block up the springs of Evil. By what method fevers how then is the Evil made subject to our Will ? For, lo, when we subdue wish, we stir it up in us to injure us, and when we will we keep g^jj , it quiet mthin so that it cannot harm us. A plain demonstration refutes their obscure Teaching. For, behold, not even a fever within us is subject to our Will, so that when we wish it may rage and abate. If, therefore, this slight fever is not subject to our Freewill, who can make subject to our Freewill that great Evil about which they speak ? If that Evil made itself subject to us, there is nothing kinder than it, for it has made its great power subject to our weak Will. But if the power of Good makes Evil subject to us, it is clear that whenever it hurts us x»v S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIONS that same Good stirs it up to hurt us. And, therefore, even if that Evil is evil because it hurts us, yet that ^^hich permits Evil to destroy us is more evil than it. See how But we are not venturing to blaspheme against the Good, OUT \Vlll is unable ^ut (this is said) in order that by means of what is considered to alter the blasphemous, though it is not blasphemous, the blasphemy of things. madmen may perchance be refuted. For one cannot bring into Ov. p. 53, the way a man who is walking outside of the way, unless one goes 12 a little from the way after him into the wilderness. See, then, that the Nature of things does not follow our Wills, but our Will goes after the Nature of Creation, in that we use them accord- ing to their natural adaptations (lit., as they are natural and for A\hat they are natural). But if even fire is not cold or hot according to our Will, how is the fierce power of that Evil which possesses an Existence of its OMii made subject to the Will of those who are created ? But Evil does not possess an Existence of its own, because Freewill possesses empire over itself. And fire always retains its hot nature, but Evil does not retain the nature of its being even as much as the fire which is a created thing. And, though ^^•e do not wish to be burnt, yet fire still acts according to its o^^ti nature, and when we go near it, it burns us. How then is that Evil, which is mixed in us, if it also has an injurious nature, able to injure us when our Will wishes to be injured ? If our Will gives it power, then the wickedness of our Will is stronger than the A\ickedness of Evil ; and according to their preposterous Teaching it is found that Evil is therefore accused by our Freewill because, as Freewill wishes, and in proportion as it wishes, Evil opposes it. And in vain do they blame Satan since their Will is more hateful than Satan. But if Evil can injure our Freewill A\'henever it (i.e., our Freewill) wills to be injured, it is clear that they are calling Ov. p. 54. Freewill Evil, though they are not aA\are of it. For fire which burns does not wait for Freewill to will or not to ^^-ill, but it injures alike him -sA'ho A^ills and him \vho does not wiU — both of them — if they approach it. The ^^•lll But if they think " that our Will is able to conquer Evil," let changethe "s then dismiss the strife of Controversy, and let us come to "^*'^'', actual experience. Let one of them stretch even the tip of his FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxv little finger into the fire, and if his Will can conquer the power tow can it . -Till- conquer of the fire that it may not injure him, it will be possible to believe the BviJ that the injurious nature of Evil can be conquered. But if the e™ent? fire causes irritation and pain over the whole body when it has touched only our finger, how does that injurious Evil, since it is all mingled with the whole of us, not also injure us like the weak fire ? If they say that He {i.e., God) has not allowed us to con- quer fire by our Freewill, who ' then granted them power over Evil to conquer it by means of their Freewill ? But if another Good (Power) granted to Freewill the power of conquering Evil, all their blasphemy applies to Him Whom they praise. For all the censure is attached to that (Good One). For if He thus changed Evil so that it might not injure us like injurious fire, it is clear that He is also able to change any Evil that injures us at present that it may not injure us. But if He was unable, is our victory still certain ? And let them persuade us (and show) how their Freewill conquers Evil when it cannot conquer fire. But which- ever proof they may choose, they are fettered by the one they choose. If they say that because fire by its nature possesses heat on that account our Freewill is unable to conquer it, it is Ov. p. 55. evident that Evil does not possess Freewill by nature ; and on that account our Will is able to conquer it. But if the injurious and hot nature of fire, though it has been In any created and made, cannot be mitigated, how, seeing that Evil c^n the ^ is an actual Existence, as they say, can the true nature of Exis- Willlessen ' J J ' the evil tence be mitigated, seeing ^ that even (mere) things cannot mitigate Element one another or be mixed with one another unless they have an is akin to affinity so as to receive one another ? And,^ if a thing cannot ^^'^ ^^'^ ' love its opposite, how did Evil, as they say, conceive a Passion for Good, and make an Assault on it and mingle with it ? And how, too, did Good mingle with Evil and love it ? And though teachers and law-givers summon it, it despises their counsels and makes void their laws, nor do the drawn swords of just judges frighten it to abstain from the hateful love which it has for the body -which they call ' deadly,' and it hates and denies the ' In Uv. p. 54, 1. 15, ijL^must be wronj. ' Read probably _^aj3 for _tij Ov. p. 55, 1. 7. ■• Read ^rro ior ,^rfi Ov. p. 55, 1. 10. xxvi S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS good Source of its Nature, and loves to bring forth the evil Rom. xi. fruit of the bitter Root into which it has been grafted for a ^^^- while. And how does the Word of the True' One convict (them), who St. Matt, says : there is no good tree which yields evil fruit ! For if the Soul is a good thing from a good Nature, how does it bear the evil fruit of the ' deadly Body ' ? And how does the Body which they say springs from an evil Element bear good conduct like good fruit 1 They But it is possible for thee to hear, O Hearer, what is greater incredible than this. For lo, when we wiU, the Evil in us may ' become P°^?£.*° lessened' and not injure us. And in the twinkling of an eye, the Will. . ■" 6 J ' again, if we wUl, it may be real and ' fierce ' and ' deadly ' in us. O Ov. p. 56, what a great marvel is this, that is to say, what great blindness (in the false Teaching) ! For see, that when we lessen the Evil in us we do not mix anything in it except the good Will alone, that it may be lessened. And when it (i.e., Evil) revives and rages ^^■e do not mingle anything in it that it may rage except the evil WiU. But if our WUl lessens it or makes it worse, behold, is it not clear even to fools that our Will is good and evil ? Therefore they are alluding to FreewUl when they use all these evil terms, and they are uttering blasphemies against this WUl, though they are not aware of it. For if a man drinks diluted wine and mixes his good Will in it, can it acquire strength and become over- powering though he should mix no (more) ivine in it ? And if, on the other hand, the wine is unmixed and strong, can he lessen its strength by his Will alone, though he mix no water in it ? Therefore, let them take their stand either on a Mixing or on the WUl. If our For if our WUl lessens Evil, that statement is conquered ffo„,*'°^^^ whereby they say that EvU is mixed \\ith Good, and behold (^ood, (they say) "the Good is refined little by little." For behold why is it not our Will is in us always, and is not ' refined at all, nor and"sent '^°^^ ^* S^ °^^ ^^°"^ "^•' ^°'^ ^^ *^^^ ^^^ ' "^^re being refined up? and going out,' our Will would have already come to an end, and it would not be possible for us to wUl rightly. And if our WUl does not come to an end neither do Good and Evil. \Mien, ' Read rCi.>ij.i for K'ii-x.l Ov. p. 55, 1. 20. FIRST DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxvii therefore, does the Refining and Separation of the two take place ? And if there is a Refining of the Good by means of Good Ov. p. 57. so that it goes up from the Depths to the Height, why is there not also a removal of Evil by means of Evil so that it may be sent down to its Depths ? But if they persist in holding this (theory of a) Mixing, that The Mani- (explanation) fails inasmuch as by our Will we conquer Evil, religious and, therefore, instead of ' the Good Words ' which they teach ^°^^]^ they ought to distribute good Parts that mankind may eat or thrust out drink them that those good Parts may enter and lessen the ^f £^11. fierceness of Evil. For words do not lessen the bitterness of roots ; but the (natural) acridness which is in a Nature is lessened by the (natural) sweetness which is in (another) element. For facts are not overcome by Words, nor by Expressions are Natures changed. For that Evil which exists independently, as they say, can be thrust out by means of some Good which also exists independently. For Power thrusts out Power and Substance is thrust out by Substance and Force is conquered by Force. Yet our (mere) Word cannot stir a stone without the hand, nor can our Will move anything without our arms. And if our Will is not able to move such insensible and helpless things, how can it vanquish the great EvU, seeing that a Power is required and not (mere) Will ? For Light does not drive out Darkness by Will, nor by Free-choice does the sweet overcome the bitter. If, therefore, these Natures, because they are Natures, require a powerful Force and not a mere Will, how is it that the quality of Power, not (mere) Free-choice, is not required in the case of Evil and Good, if they have ' bound Natures ' ( But if the Will does not lessen the Evil «hich is mixed with Moral and bitter and deadly roots, whereas Free-choice conquers this Evil gy^f'"* of mankind, how can it be, if it is the very same Evil which is cannot . come from in mankind and m roots, that part of it is conquered by iorce, a single and part by the Will ? Either Evil is divided against itself, or Essence. there are two Evils which are unlike one another in their essence. And if part of the poison which exists in fruits and roots is Ov. p. 58, ' amassed and collected in us ' (and), if Evil is all one, how is part of it in us conquered by 'a Law and Commandment,' and Cf.p. cxvi. 11 2 ^ part conquered (only) by mixtures and drugs ? And Counsel and " ' ' xxviii S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIONS Teaching are of no avail to counteract the poison in our bodies, nor are drugs and mixtures of any use for the Evil which is in our Souls. And here it is seen that the poison which is in us is a ' bound Nature,' and a Law cannot change it, and the Evil \^hich is in our Souls belongs to Free-choice and (medicinal) Roots cannot lessen it. Though, therefore, there are many things which it is possible to say on these subjects, I do not wish to increase (their number), lest it should appear that we have conquered by means of many words, and not by true words. For we do not conquer -nith the weapons of Orators and Philo- sophers, whose weapons are their logical Teaching. For thanks be to Him Whose Teaching thus gains a victory by our child- likeness and His Truth by our simplicity ivithout the Teaching of Philosophy. THE END OF THE FIRST DISCOUESE AGAINST THE DECEITFUL TEACHINGS. THE SECOND (DISCOURSE) TO HYPATIUS AGAINST MANI AND MARCION AND BARDAISAN Look '■ at this Teaching intelligently how it is destroyed by The self- itself, and refuted by its own nature, and unmasked by its own dictions character ; its condemnation is from it and in it. And iust '.V f"' ^ ' •■ teaching. as the very words of the servants gave the verdict against them before the Lord of the Vineyard, so also the very words of this Teaching give the verdict of their condemnation before wise Hearers. For he has set a difficult beginning over against a confused I>arkness . could not ending, things which strive with one another that it may be have had known that not one of them is true. For at the beginning he jo^Lkht said that the Darkness has a longing Passion for the Light ; which is not natural for this Darkness which is visible, inas- much as even this Darkness ^^'hich is visible to us is, as they P- 2, 1- 3. say, of the same nature as that which is invisible to us. Yet this Darkness certainly flees from before the Light as from its opposite, and certainly does not make an Assault upon it as upon what is pleasant to it. Behold one argument in favour of their condemnation, an argument draAMi from the nature of things in general. Hear, again, another argument against them from their Nor does scripture. If the Darkness verUj' longed passionately for the gntuy Light because the Light soothed it, ho^^■ do they say that the ""Pyison 6 ° J .' Darkness. Light is its opposite and finally its torturer ? And if Light is an Element which is desirable and attractive to Darkness, how is there produced from that pleasant Mature something Mhich is bitter to Darkness ? For the sweetness of our place bears witness The that bitterness is not tasted in its midst. But if tliat Prison-house, Darkness not built 1 Fur the Syriac Text of Discourse.-- ii.-v., see pn- 1-186. XXX S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS from the tormentor of Darkness, is built up from the Nature of the Domain of Darkness, a Nature cannot torture itself. For fire does not bum itself. And if the Darkness is tortured by what belongs to itself — a notion difficult to accept — then Good, too, is not at rest in its place, and the matter is found to be preposterous, (namely), that every Entity which is in its own place is in anguish, P. 3, L 9. but in the place of its Opposite it is at rest. For if all Darkness altogether with all that is in it is one Entity all alike, it is not opposed to its o^vn nature ; just as a wolf does not oppose itself nor a lion itself. Nor But if from the Domain of Good that Prison-house is built up from the , -r-. , .... , ■, . Good lor Darkness, how is its enjoyment changed to its torment ? How ^^^ ^^' ^* ^® ^ Nature which is unchangeably pleasant. " For couldBfi,n, the Architect and Builder of that Grave," as their account Grave for says, " is One — whosoever he may be, whose name is BAN — who ar ess? ^ ^^^ ^^yg ^j j^jg adversity became the fashioner of the xlvii., Grave of the Darkness." And how from that one Entity, since it is single, does there come both builder, and that which is built, and from it the Grave and from it the Earth on which the Grave is built ? For this is found (to be the case) with this earth of ours that everything comes from the earth itself, both he who makes and that which is made ; for since it was not created out of Natures and Entities it is changeable into anything as P. 4, 1. 5. the word of the Maker commands. But if all those things are one Nature and from one good Entity, how can it be divided If the up ? And how when that Nature is cut does it not suffer ? the Prison And do not they who are not even willing to break bresid lest come from " they pain the Light which is mixed with it," pain it in cutting Light- and hewing these Stones ; and if the Light suffers in the breaking th^'must °^ bread, how much more does it suffer in the cutting and he%^-ing suffer Qf jts members ! And if it be an Earth in which there is no when cut. sensation, and they be Stones in which there is no feeling, how is it that, though it is one Nature and one Entity, from it there (f. p. come speaking Souls and also deaf-mute Stones 1 Therefore, there is not one homogeneous Essence, but many unlike one another. And if on account of their mute condition, they do not feel when they are cut, behold also this Light being of the same nature is mingled with these things in a mute condition. XXXV. 1. 32. SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxxi Why, therefore, do they not break and cut them, seeing that this p. 5. (Light) does not feel ? But if they do not cut it lest they should pain it, with their teeth they cause it to suffer much more when they eat it, and with their bellies when they confine it there. But if he who framed the Body is evil, as they blasphemously On Mani'a say — and this God forbid, it is not so — if the Darkness contrived that the to frame that Body to be a Prison-house for the Soul that it might ^^ 7"^^ •' ° made by not go forth thence, it would not be difficult for him to know the Evil from this that the refining Furnace which he framed injured him and refines the Light. But if it escaped his notice at the beginning he could, now that experience has taught him, destroy his framing and make another Body, not one that separates (the Light), but one that imprisons ; not one that refines, but one that befouls ; not one that purifies, but one that defiles ; and not one that makes room for the Light (to escape), but one that detains the Light. If this making of the Body really belongs to him (i.e., the Evil One), then his work convinces us concerning him that he is a wise and skilful Maker, he who might have made vessels alien to the Cleansing of the Light. But if he might have made them so P- 6. and yet did not so make them, his workmanship is sufficient to extol him and to put to shame those vtho falsely accuse him. Now wise physicians prove to us — and the limbs with the If the veins bear them witness — that the po./er of food pervades the the same body. But if the Light is refined little by little and goes out, it ?^*^® .^^ is clear that it is a Nature which is dissolved and scattered . would be And so if the Soul is of the same nature, how does it too not go and sent out in the Refining 1 For it must be that the Nature of the "P'asthe Light. Soul itself is capable of dissolution just as the Nature of Light is. How is it that the Light goes c ut while the Soul remains ? and who gave to the Soul this indissoluble fixity ? If this belongs to its nature, how is this Element partly fixed and partly not, partly dissolvable and capable of being scattered, partly fixed and massed together ? For if the Nature was a fixed one from its begirming, the Sons of Darkness when they ate it — if they ate it — would not be able to dissolve its Nature. For just as they could not annihilate its Being so that it should no longer be in existence — for lo, it is in existence — so they would be unable to dissolve the fixity of its Being. These statements, then, can P- 7. xxxii S. EPHRADI'S REFUTATIONS be made without examination, but on examination the}- cannot stand. How could And if they say that that E\t1 One fixed the Soul in the midst One fix of the Body, in order that it might be imprisoned, how then did thelo'd ^ he not fix that Light, which is ' refined and goes out,' so that it could not go out ? And how did he fix a Xature which is incapable of being fixed 1 For who is able to fix the Xature of fire to prevent its being divided in the flame of a lamp ? And although fire is amassed, it can be divided because it has not a fixed nature. But a ray of the sun a man cannot divide because it is fixed through and through in an indissoluble nature. But, if by reason of the entrance of the Soul into the Body which can be confined, that (Soul) was confined which was not confined (before), how is it that that Light, which, they say, is ' refined and departs,' ^^•as not confined along with its kinsman who was con- fined there (in the Body) ? And if it has self-knowledge because it is collected together and fixed, it is clear that those Parts which are not fixed are deaf-mutes ^rithout knowledge, and ^- ^- silent without speech, and quiet without motion. On Bar- And it is in this connection that Bardaisan, the teacher of teacliinc ^^^ani, is found to speak ^lith subtlety, when he said that of seven Soul is Parts the Soul was composed and fixed ; though he is refuted composed as ^^'elI. For the numerous Parts which the Soul gathers and of seven Con- collects, make (possible) many a mixing of the seven Parts ^^'ithout proper regulation. And because it does not receive in equal weight from all the foods the Parts of aU the Con- .^ititutents, it maj' happen that the scale of one of the Constituents may preponderate and overwhelm the rest of its companions ; and this abundance of one is the cause of the disturbance of all the Constituents. And from the Body which is without it is possible to learn about the Soul which is within, (namely), that when- ever one of its Constitutents preponderates on account of the quantity of one of the foods, the injury reaches the whole system. But the spiritual character of Angels proves that their nature receives nothing more ; and not only are those holy beings -P- ^- exalted above this, but even in the case of unclean devils their nature receives no addition to and suffers no loss from what it actually is ; nor is the nature of the sun ever more or less than SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxxiii Mliat it is. For these things, and those that are hke them, are perfect Natures, since at all times the (true) balance of their natural character is maintained. But when anything has either too little or too much, either increases or diminishes, either is lessened or grows weak, its nature is destructible by its creation ; though even over those Natures which are not destructible there rules that Will which made them indestructible. But we have not come to stir up now the mire of Bardaisan ; for the foulness of Mani is quite sufficient. For behold our tongue is very eager to conclude at once and flee from him. But if those Natures which were mentioned above are perfect though made, how much more must the (Eternal) Essence be perfect in its Being ! This doctrine of madmen, then, proclaims an Existence which The is deficient in everything, and this its deficiency refutes those ^j Mani's who proclaim it. For they have put together two Roots with teaoting '- . about two preposterous reasoning, but they are dissolved with straight- 'Roots.' forward reasoning. For if a statement is made without knowledge, P. 10, 1. 5. it is rectified by sound knowledge ; and whoever puts on con- tentiousness is stripped bare by the persuasive arguments of Truth. For they have professedly set forth two Roots, though on investigation it is found that there are many. For he intro- For how duces births and generations which are the opposite of one produce another. But, that though this Entity is one, there should be offspring from it births (which are) the opposite of its nature — this is not them- pleasing to the ear of Truth. For how can that Element bring '^'^ ™^ ' forth anything foreign to itself ? In the case of creation from nothing, this can be ; but in the case of a ' bound essential Nature ' there is no (such) means ; above all (it is impossible), when it (i.e. the Nature) is one and other Entities are not mixed with it. He has set forth, therefore, an Entity which is immortal Or mortal though the children whom it brings forth from itself are mortal, gpj^jfg And whence did mortality spring up in the fruit though it was from an not mixed in the root from which it came ? And how does a Element ? Nature which is not composite bring forth bodies which are p. n. composite, which have been confined and killed ? Thou hast heard this foolishness ; come hear one that is Mani's greater still. "When the Primal Man," he says, "hunted the about the Sons of Darkness he flayed them, and made this sky from their Ji^e'world^ XXXIV S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS If it were true, the Maker would be foolish or inex- perienced. P. 12, 1. 4. Mani teaches that the whole of creation 'refines.' skins, and out of their excrement he compacted the Earth, and some of their bones, too, he melted, and raised and piled up the mountains," — we thank him that his falsehood is revealed — " since there is in them, a Mixture and a MingUng of the Light which was swallowed by them in the begiiming." For his sole purpose in stretching them out and arranging them was, that by means of the rain and dew whatever was swallowed by them might be purged out, and that there might be a Separation and Refining of the Natures from one another. how foolish a workman was this ! But perhaps he was a learner, who had not yet reached experience in workmanship. For if there had been wine (to purify) would he not have known how to make a strainer ? And if there had been silver or copper (to refine), would he not have known how to arrange a furnace ? For by means of these instruments which the wisdom of mortals has contrived, the dregs can easily be separated from the pure and the dross from the silver. But this workman, even after many years, has not acquired intelligence nor after innumerable experi- ments has he been able to know what is necessary for his work- manship, that is to say, how to employ such compendious ' methods. But he made the sky a strainer which is useless all summer, and even in winter it does not refine every day ; but in the remote south it is not even a Uttle moistened. Very stupidly arranged, too, is the hollow of this filter ; for if what is pure descends to the earth, then the dregs are left above in the sky. And this performance is the reverse of the right one, in that the pure descends to the bodily sphere while the dregs remain behind in the spiritual sphere. But as for the other statements, how and what they sav about the Snow, as they are quite futile, let them be gathered within a covering of silence. " Moreover," (he says) "he {i.e., Primal Man) made trees to be Furnaces." Yet they do not at all times separate fruit from the dust and their produce from the soU ; and also cornfields (are said to be furnaces) ; and yet they do not continually draw up life froin the earth. And if, as they teach, a Refining goes 1 Or perhaps "easy," "obvious." See note on p. 12. SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxxv up from the offal of the Archons, then the greater part of that P. 13, 1.12. swallowed Light is going forth by means of the offal of the Archons who swallowed it. Such is the polluted teaching which refines the Parts of its God from the midst of offal ! But if, as some of them say, just as a serpent has a Sheath- On Mani- skin, so out of the Sheath-skins of the Sons of Darkness the sky principles and the earth and the rest of created things were made, let'^®, ° Archons them know that the proof which they offer stands against them, and their For there cannot be lifeless Sheath-skins from things which in alike their nature are immortal. For as the lifeless Sheath-skin of '""rtal. the serpent convinces any one that the serpent also is mortal, and in Uke manner divisible, capable in like manner of being disintegrated and destroyed. And as the Sheath-skin of the serpent proves that its nature is destructible, so also the Sheath- P- 1*. skin of Darkness proves that Darkness is mortal too. For a thing that is derived from an Existence is like it in every respect. Therefore, whether they were Sheath-skins, or real hides, the case is the same. But if the Sons of Darkness were skinned and stretched in Why was the air, they give evidence that Darkness, their Father, is also of t^g mortal because he is composite. Why, therefore, did they not ^°^°P skin him, too, in the beginning and deliver creation from his and im- injuries ? What necessity could there be that he should be left alive, and what reason ^ was there in his case that he should remain and turn again to struggle with pure souls ? . . . And after Cf. p. he has ' intoxicated ' and perverted and put them to shame, after he has made some of them fornicators and minstrels and blas- phemers, then that wise Builder and Architect has sense Cf. p. XXX 1 14. enough to frame a Grave and Prison for him. And instead of the Prison-house being thus built after a long period, and with P. 15. much toil, if the Sons of Light had been gathered together and with these Stones had stoned him, then, lo, he would have come Cf.p.xxx. 1 32 to an end. But if he would not have died, because his nature is not mortal, then this impure Teaching is put to shame in every- thing it says. For how did the sons of the immortal die, and how were the sons of a spiritual one skinned, and how were those ' Or perhaps "indulgence.'' See note on p. 14. xxxvi S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS Mani him- who are not composite disintegrated 1 And they did well who skinned, skinned the lying Mani, who said that Darkness was skinned, though it has neither hide nor Sheath-skin. The Mani- If, moreover, as they say, " the Moon receives the Light teaching which is refined, and during fifteen days draws it up and goes on about the emptying it out for another fifteen days," if she is filled very Moon 13 ^ •' ° ■' impos- gradually till the time of full moon, it may well be because there " ''■ are not sufficient Refiners to give the Light at once, but why, Ci. pp. xxxviii. 11. pray, is it that she empties the Light little by little ? Either 27 127 • ^ij J jj the Receiving-Vessels do not receive and let it go at once, P. 16. or the place into which she empties it is small and there is room for only a part daily. And whUe for fifteen days that Ship of Light seeks to empty out (the Light), where, pray, does that other Light, which is ' being refined and is going up,' go and collect and exist while the Moon is being emptied ? It must wander about and be lost for lack of a place to receive it ; and so Darkness tf- pp. swallows it once more. For if it ' sucked in the Light ' when it xliv. 1. 16 • lxxxv.l.4| was far from it in the beginning, will it not gulp it down all Ixxxix. 1. j.]^g more, now that the Light exists at the very door of its mouth ? jjo^y But understand how foolish that Director is. For, instead of foohshly (j;jj^g arrangement) which would have been right, namely that the ' Director' Moon should go and empty out (the Light) in one hour and return arranged ^o that that former Light which was emptied out might be pre- the Moon's served, and that latter Light which is being refined might not be function! o o lost, (instead of an arrangement such as this), behold, the Moon is worn out with going and coming, and at full moon it is then emptied in such a way that the former Light is worn out and the latter scattered. Xow a woman is A^ith chUd for a long time, since her babe is developed after nine months. But when her P- IV. labour is easy, the birth takes place in a single hour, and thus the child is not in much torment, nor is the mother much ex- hausted. But in the case of the bright and lightly -moving Moon, at the time of full moon her child is produced in such a way that she is worn out and her child exhausted. And if she brings forth each offspring in a day, can she not also bring forth as the scorpion in one day % And if she really empties it out she should be there as long as she is emptying. Why is she worn out with coming SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxxvii (and going), though she takes nothing hence till the time of full moon ? And how is it that from eternity to eternity this Ship of Light How is is filled uniformly and receives neither more nor less ? But this amount of contrivance was not a wise one. For it would be right that, Light received at the time when the Refining is great, the Moon should receive by the more, that is to say, instead of being filled till the time of full ^hrayatlia moon, it would be right that she should be filled in five days, same ? For if their statement were true, it would be right that what I have said should be the case. For to-day there is much of Mani's Mam'a teaching Teaching, and so it is clear there is also much Refining ! But as has not a hundred years ago, this Teaching did not exist — would that ^ggjjjn,,. it did not now — it is evident that the Refining of Light a hundred years ago would be less than it is to-day. And if the Refining of Light was not the same in amount then and now, how was the Moon then and now uniformly fiUed till full moon ? And when the Refiners were few in number, there was not less Light for the Moon, nor to-day when the Manichsans abound is there any Light added to it. But when there were no Manichaeans, and when they are now in existence, there is no increase in the Moon to-day though they exist, just as there was no lessening in the Moon when they did not exist. So by the Moon, fixed in the P.18, 1.31. Height which they have made as a mirror for themselves, it is possible for that secret falsehood of theirs to be brought to light. For if the existence and non-existence of the Manichaeans are alike to the Moon, the lying Teaching is refuted by what is peculiarly its own, in that its existence is on a level with its non-existence. And if they do not exist for the Moon, for which they imagine they do now exist in a very special way, they do not in a very special way exist for God the Lord of the P- 19- Moon. Thus from the Luminaries they receive a special refutation who imagine that they are recognised by the Lumi- naries. And, in fact, does not the reasoning of arithmeticians ' convince them that when those who persuade are many, much more do those that receive measure out ; and when there are many floods the rivers are filled above their limits and rise beyond their wont 1 1 Or " of arithmetic." See note on p. 19. xxxviii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS The lunar And why, indeed, is there a Moon for twenty-nine days and month of 29J days a half ? Let the false Teaching which disguises itself ofEer a proof ?^2?^^ on this point by means of a natural demonstration. But let us view strip it that it may appear bare without any truth. Let them Moon. teU us, therefore, concerning this part of a day why it is defective and not completed ; is there no superfluous Light in any of the months, so that the deficiency for this day may be filled up ? But when it (i.e., the day) is defective it is not finished, and if there is superfluous Light (?) it is not completed. And if on account of the small amount of Light that day is imperfect, there would P- 20. be a chance that other days too would be imperfect. And in like manner when the Light increased, it would be right that the days should be found increasing as weU. The shortage of Light, however, does not make any lessening in. the Moon, nor does the increase of Light fill up this defective part. So let this defective part of a day convict the Heretics that they are altogether lacking in truth. The Mani- And because Truth quickly refutes them, when it passes from teaching dealing with the Moon to the Sun . . . that it may refute by the about the pajj of Luminaries those who while they worship Luminaries are persons whose inteUigence is whoUy dark. For just as he is enlightened who worships the Lord of the Limiuiaries, so is he darkened who exchanges the worship of their Lord for the worship of the Luminaries. Let us, therefore, state the case as they state it, though we shaU not maintain it as they maintain it. For they say that the Sun receives the Light from the Moon ; right Cf. p. worthy ' are these Receiving-Vessels which receive from one f^Z^' another ! And is there then no room in the Sun to receive all xlii. 1. 11. those Parts in one day from the Moon ? But, perhaps, the Sun P. 21. niight receive it, but the Moon is unable to give it ; and behold with whatever load she has, she must hurry along and fling off some of the weight she is carrying. How, again, does the Sun not show that there has been some addition to his Light when he receives fifteen Parts of refined Light ? For, behold, the Moon is clearly marked even by one Part which is added every day, just as she shows when she is lessening. Is the sun then a 1 An ironical exclamation. SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xxxix vessel not completely filled ? And how is its deficiency invisible ? And if it is not deficient how does it receive 1 For if it is complete and its cavity is fuU of its Light — as it is in reahty — (then know that) if thou pourest anything more into a vessel that is already full, it does not receive it ; for anything that falls into it overflows. But this full object (i.e., the Sun) which does not receive anything which the Manichaeans assert (to exist), by its appearance calls us not to accept anything from the Manichaeans. Let us forsake then those doctrines of the Manichaeans, The because they are the only witnesses concerning them, and let nam-tive us hear those of Moses, to which all nations under Heaven bear givea the witness, and in old time the Hebrews who reckoned according purpose to the Moon, and after them all nations who are called Barbarians, gu*^_j and also the Greeks, who use the reckoning of the Sun, though they Moon. do not desert the reckoning of the Moon. And, therefore, even if we prolong our discourse, let us declare what is numbered by Sun- reckoning and what by Moon-reckoning. Days are numbered P. 22, 1.22. by Sun-reckoning. For the dawning and darkness are indicated by the Sun. Behold the division of the day. But by the Moon the months are indicated. For the beginning of the months and end of the months are indicated by the Moon. For it is The Sun by the rising of the Sun and the setting of the Sun that the days {^g'^^avs are divided. But in the matter of months it makes no division, no* the 'nonths. because its succession goes on uniformly, and does not declare any division when thirty days are ended, that it may be known by that division that the month has ended, or begun. But the The Moon Moon, when it is fuU and wanes, makes a division for the months, months but makes no division for the days. For how often does it j°* *''® •' days. happen that the Moon rises at the third or fourth hour, and sets p. 23, 1. 2. at the seventh or ninth hour ; while for two whole days she is not seen at aU. God, in His wisdom who, indeed, ordered the months for the purpose of reckoning and the days for the purpose of numbering, made the Sun to number the days, as also the Moon to number the months, and as the day is completed in its course, so the Moon also is completed in its months, and from its beginning to its end the Moon produces thirty days. But if the day consists of twelve hours, and the Sun moves through a course of twelve hours, it is clear that the Sun is the fount of days. And, again, xl S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS if the month consists of thirty days and the Moon completes thirty days in waning and waxing, it is clear that the Moon is the mother and parent of the months. Their But the exact reckoning is twenty-nine days and a part, ness in ^'^^ ^^^^ ^1^0 in the beginnmg the Wisdom of the Creator tiile^"^ (both) put together and ordered the numberuigs that it might showsthat perfect the reckoning. For when the months are reckoned by, minaries numbering [they liave] thirty days. But the eleven days are de- which are after the months he did not put in their right place, and not and why not ? And, \vherefore are eleven days lacking in the worship. Moon, and why are there three hours more in the year in the course of the Sun 1 They are these three excellent Mysteries (?), as the numbering is interpreted, and the reckoning explained, so that because of the lack which exists in the Moon months are inter- r.24,1. 21. calated, and because of the excess which exists in the Sun days are intercalated in order that since months and days are inter- calated this Luminary may be abased, and the sovereignty of God may be made knoMH. For because many nations go astray in the matter of them (i.e., the Luminaries) on account of their Light, let their numbering convince them (i.e., the nations) that on account of their dependence it is not right that they should be worshipped. For if the numbering of the Sun is not arranged (with exact- ness) the course of the Moon (also) by its swiftness and deficiency changes the seasons of the year, so that summer is turned to winter, and winter to summer. And if again a deficiency is not P. 25. found in the Moon, which is dependent on the fuUness from the Sun, as for these three superfluous hours which are in the Sun there is no place for them (in which) to go and remain in the numbering and reckoning of the year. For in the perfect days of the three hundred and sixty-five days, where may three super- fluous hours enter and exist, (those hours) which cannot be reckoned with the perfect number of the months, and do not exist in the perfect number of the days 1 But between the months of the Moon and the numbering of the days of the Sun, the Lord of the Luminaries arranged for them a place that they may go and rest in it. But we have spoken this rapidly because we were not called to speak of these matters ; but we were compelled to speak SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xli (of them) in order to refute those who wish to turn aside the Luminaries from the service of the months and days, that they may point out in them Refinings which go up from the earth. And inasmuch as the Moon seems to be made for the numbering If the of thirty days, and consists altogether of these parts, \\hen the yeasei thirty days come to an end, it (itself) ceases to exist. Eor !^°^ "^^ it is not one thing and its Light another thing. And because itself wax " the Moon is a vessel into whose midst thfe Light is poured," even if that Light' were lacking, the vessel itself as re- P- ^6, 1-9. gards its own nature with (i.e., in proportion to) the aforesaid^ Light, would not be able to come to an end or increase, since all vessels give evidence that they themselves exist in their natural size, and if there falls into them a greater amount the vessels do not grow larger, and if less falls into them, they do not shrink. And if anything that is in them is emptied out and vanishes, those vessels themselves do not vanish. And since they call the Moon the Ship of Light, let a demonstration come forth from a ship to refute them, (namely), when it is filled or emptied it remains in its proper size, that is to say (in the real proportion) of its length and breadth and height. But in the case of this Ship of Light, which, they say, is in the heavens, the Light which is poured into it or emptied from it is visible to us, but the Ship itself is not visible ; either let them then tell ?• 27. us the nature of the vessel, that we may know that for this purpose it was arranged that it might be filled and emptied as they say ; or let them tell us if that vessel itself is filled and built up and rises, and is completed and demolished and comes down. It is evident even to blind men who do not see that the Moon is made for the numbering of the months, and is not for a Refining. And if they say that because the Moon is very ' pure and The purity ethereal,' therefore, it is not visible, then how is the Sun visible, Moon and seeing that it is a Light purer and more refined than the Moon ? And it is the Sun that goes and comes every day on account of ixxxiV. its purity to the House of Life, as they say. 1 The words ivicnoj vwR*! p. 26, 1. 8, should probably be struck out. ^ With this use of cril^i compare toi^l aij_>l^t _>cneLsacui.=, "butin the days of the aforesaid Peroz " (.Toshua Stylites, ed. Wright, p. U, 1. 9). xlii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS r°°' , And which view shall we hear, that of Bardaisan, who says views of about the Moon that it is an Earth and a Matrix which is fiUed and Mani from a high and lofty overflow and floods those who are below about the ^nd beneath, or that of Mani, who says that the Moon is filled with those who come from beneath and sends (them) away to the Upper Places ? But they both are wrong in both respects, so that the word of Moses may be believed who said concerning the Luminaries, ' they shall be for signs and for P. 28. . . seasons, etc. Mam's £u^; ■^^,J^o y^ ^q^ laugh at the words of children, that the teaching about the Lununaries have finally become the Receiving-Vessels ^ of the aries and School of Mani, and ^ not of anything which is great, but of Dis- Disgorg- gorgings ! For by these the Light is refined if it is refined. For ludicrous, there is no evidence that it is refined by Prayer as they say, but that (it is refined) by Disgorgings its taste gives evidence. And if not, let them pray and disgorge, and let incontrovertible ex- perience show in which of them is the taste of food, in Prayer or in Disgorgings ! But above all there is evidence that he who disgorges looks upwards in order to send upwards by means of the force and violence of the wind that thing which is refimed to the Domain from which it has come down. And, perhaps, this Mystery was secretly in the world, and the world did not perceive it ! And, perhaps, even Mani did not perceive it. And here it is not the man who prays much who is refined, but the man who disgorges much. For those physicians by means of things which are very different excite Disgorgings in order to purge (?) P- ^®- the stomach which does not digest. For when it does not dis- gorge there comes the evidence of its (i.e., the food's) hea\-iness and coldness. And it must be that if it does not digest, it does not liquefy, and if it does not liquefy, it {i.e., the stomach) does not disgorge, and if it does not disgorge, it does not go forth ; and if it does not go forth, it is not refined. For the coldness shuts up the food heavily there, that is to say, the cold phlegm, which is over the food — the great enemy of the School of Mani. For it wishes by its coldness to restrain the Refining, lest it (i.e., the food) should be released, and go forth thence. And, therefore, '■ Cf. pp. xxxvi. 1. 10, xxxviii. 1. 27. » Read oAo for ^oAo, p. 28, 1. 7. SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xliii that pungent radish ' can be the enemy of their enemy ; for it enters and does combat, and as it were, engages in a contest with it, and rends the veil which is spread over the face of the food ; and then a way is opened up for the imprisoned Light which is there that its Refining may go forth in the Disgorging. And thus when the Manichaeans disgorge, because their food has not yet been digested, it is clear'-' that their Refining has not P- 30. yet ' gone up,' and we must say that their Light is still mixed in their vomit, and it would be right for them to turn and swallow it anew in order that that Light which is concealed in it may not abide in corruption. Above aU if ( 1 ) a dog comes and swallows it behold that Light which has gone forth in vomit from the midst of a Manichaean called a Righteous one (zaddIqa), has entered and become imprisoned in the unclean stomach of a dog, [and it is clear] that if the Manichaean had turned and swallowed his vomit immediately, there would have been an ascent to the Height for the imprisoned Light to fly away and 'go up ' to the House of its Father. And that Manichsean ought to be tor- mented instead of it(i.e., the Light), because he knew (?),and(yet) that Light went in and was imprisoned in the beUy of the dog, and thence it was sent forth by a Transmigration (?) when the dog produced young ; and that Light was transmitted in the race of mad dogs and biters ; and it must be mad like them, and bite like them. It is right, too, that it should bite and tear in pieces that Manichsean who disgorged it and did not swallow it again ; for he is the cause of this madness. But if they say P. 31. that in a dog too it is refined, then are dogs more than they are in the Refining-process, and it is right that they should be fed more than they. And if they say that the air ' is refined and sent up,' they ^'^^ . confess, though they do not wish it, that not by Prayer is it of air and refined, but by other causes, such as either dry or boil or heat cannot be or cool. For if, as they say, ' that pleasant taste which is in *'^"®' foods belongs to the Light which is mixed in them,' then just as the mouth perceives that Pleasantness of the Light when it ' The radish is said by the native Arabic authorities to produce disagreeable belchings (see the Lisan-al-'Arab, xiv. 29, 19). " Read _a...u, p. 30, 1. 1 (first word). xliv S. EPHRADIS REFUTATIONS P. 32. Cf. pp. xxxvi. ]. 1 7 ; Ixxxv 1.4; Ixxxix. 1. 26. Why is the Refined Light so gradually sent up to its Place ? P. 33, 1. 7. enters so it ought again to perceive it when it goes out. For i£ the mouth perceived it when it entered, though it \\as mixed mth Bitterness, how much more ought the mouth to perceive it when it goes out, when its Pleasantness has been separated and isolated ! But if it perceives it «hen it enters, but ^\iien it goes out in the Refining-process it does not perceive it, it is clear that the Pleasantness belongs not to the Element which is refined, but to its Opposite. For a thing that is palpable and capable of being tasted when it enters must be palpable and caj)able of being tasted when it goes out. But if they tell additional falsehood, they incur additional exposure. If they say that because the Light has been made very subtle and has been ' refilled,' on that account the mouth does not perceive it, then by this short utterance their whole system is utterly upset as to the manner in which the Primitive Darkness, not merely ' seized ' that Primitive Light, but also 'felt, touched, ate, sucked, tasted, and swaUowed it.' For behold this mouth (of ours) is of the same nature as that Darkness, and it certainlj' does not perceive the Light when it goes out from within it. And here all this falsehood of theirs is felt because a sound ear meets it. For this Reiining which goes out of the mouth is not completely refined ; therefore, it goes from the mouth to the Moon, and from the Moon to the Sun, to be refined, and to be as it A\as of old. For if it is refined and not dependent on the Refining of the Moon, why is it necessary that it should go to the Moon, and from the Moon to the Sun, and (why does it) not fht away outside and go up, and be taken up to its place I For it abides here m idleness for fifteen days while the Moon is being emptied, and then it suffices for thirty days. Or is it possible that it forgot the way to its Home ? And how did it know to go, because it did not know the \\ay I . . . [then Jww does one (i.e., the Moon) know how to go, and does not lose its way, while the other (i.e., the Refined LiglU), loses itself and requires a helper to conduct^ it ? Such easily lost Light would not he able even to find its icay to the Moon, but it ivould require a 1 Read _.CD0J±30J1, p. 33, 1. 22. SECOND DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS xlv helper to conducf^ it, and deposit it in the Moon. But if they are both (i.e., the conducting Moon, and the Refined Light) one Nature, how does one draw - while the other is drawn .?] And how do the Sons of the Omniscient not know how to l 35. go to their House from which they came ? And who can have patience with these (men) ? — unless it be the truth that He S. Luke dehghts in their repentance, He whose sole object in refuting ' ' these (men) is that they may not thus go astray. If,- therefore, this (Light) which goes out of the mouth — inasmuch as taste P. 34. implies an Exhalation and a Mingling — is so ' pure and subtle ' in its going forth from the mouth, (that) the mouth does not perceive it since it is refined, and is more refined and pure than before the Mixing and Mingling, how is the turbid Darkness able to handle that pureness which is not palpable, or how can the corporeal seize the spiritual which is intangible, or how can the bodily eat a thing which h^s no body ? For either the Darkness is ' pure and refined, and subtle,' and that Light is gross in its nature, or they are both subtle, or (both gross) ... (so that) the two of them do not perceite one another, so that as they were ^ perceived in the food, they may be perceived in the Refining. And if they are both light, whence is this heaviness ? And if they are pure turbidness has entered from some other place. And, therefore, it is necessary that we should seek some other Entity who himself disturbed the two of them. . . . But if that Light (?) had been God, if he was good or just, Why did it would have been incumbent on his Goodness and Justice ^-^^ Good to surround his place with a strong wall, and preserve his freedom Being protect and honour from his unclean Enemy and. from his raving Neigh- hisposses- bour, especially when the Good (Being) had perceived that his f^°^ ^^^ nature was capable of being injured, as they say — though God ^^ssavUts of forbid that this should be said concerning the perfect Good ! neigh- But if in their shame they turn and say that it is not injured, ^°""'' then whom do they teach — is it not one who is in error ? And P. 35,1. 30. whom do they heal — is it not one who is smitten ? And whom do they teach the creed — is it not one who denies and 1 Read cvlscusaA. p. 33, 1. 33. ^ Pvead :»i^, p. 33, 1. 31, and i^kao. I. 32. 3 Read cvi\jiM Scripture) is (both) new wine and old. For as for the old its skins taste is in it, and its odour has not gro-n-n faint, but in the ne\\- apphed to ' . Jews and there stirs the ferment of its power and of its violent heat.(?) chseans. ^ut such vessels as do not receive the old convict themseh es by P. 44,1. their impurity, that (?) they are not even worthy to contain it. And such as do not receive the new they are old bottles which it {i.e., the new wine) convicts by its power that thej- are not able to bear it. THE END OF THE SECOIfD DISCOURSE. THE THIRD DISCOURSE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS I DESIRE to utter one more refutation against the three of them I- (i.e., Marcion, Mani, and Bardaisan), that is against Marcion m teaching; the first place who (says) that a heaven is found also ' beneath {jg^^g^g the Stranger. Let us ask who bears up those heavens, and of the what is in them. For a power is necessary to bear them. Or can it be that the heavens of the Stranger are resting on the heavens of the Maker, so that he is the all-sustaining Maker, as indeed is the case ? But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also wUl deal p. 45. frowardly Avith the froward, (and say) that he who is above the Ps. xviii. heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath " them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom isu- brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence . . [inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded, within his bosom there is required for them, another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us L. 26. that there should be anything set up without a foundation. But know that if the Stranger has heavens which have been The created from nothing, we must inquire by whom they were o^tij™^ created. And if they are his in virtue of (their) ' essential being ' Stranger there is a fortified boundary of ' essential being ' beneath him, boun- which he cannot cross. And just as he is not able to go forth ^^^^' ■ from that Place which surrounds him so as to be something which does not exist in a Place, and has no Creator, so he is not able P. 46. 1 Read -•wk-t, p. 44, 1. 25. ' I.e., 'irjiroCs aooording to the Maroionite transliteration. lii S. EPHRAEVrS REFUTATIONS The relations of the Stranger and the Maker. L. 39. P. 47. Surely the Maker could reach the Domain of the Stranger. to cross that boundary which is beneath him. Xor were the Souls able to go up hence to cross it. But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he {i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above allowed him, let them show us why. . . . And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle ^^ith him ? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and l/ontention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is un- likely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neigh- bour ? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come do\vn the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste ^\hich nothing had ever crossed ? And if they make the improbable statement that '' the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war — [though he did not come], (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say I And if they say that these were able but their Maker was not, if they say anything they like, they must hear something they dislike, (namely), that if the Soul, which is all the creation of this Creator, was strong enough so that with the strength of the Stranger, it was able to cross and to go, and did not remain THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS liii anywhere{?) on that immeasurable journey, how much more able P. 48, 1. would the Creator be to go, not only up to the Domain of the Stranger, but even to explore the other regions inside of it, if there were any there ! . . . \Thou mayest know that the system of state- ments which they make is impossible.] For (being) a Person who grows not old nor ever dies or grows weary, who has uo need of a conveyance of any kind, and requires no food, — and in that Domain there were no walls to hinder him, — how was the Maker hindered from travelling to see what was above him, (to see) whether that Domain was empty or had something in it or not ? But if he reached the heavens of the Stranger, even if he did not actually enter he must have struck them to see what they were or whose they were. And when the Stranger went forth from his Domain to come The hither, it is clear that he vacated his Domain. For anything ancfhfs^ which is limited, and in the midst of a place, when it goes forth Domain. from its place, the whole of it goes forth and no part of it remains in its place. But if half of it goes forth and half P. 49, 1. 11 remains, or some portion of it, these things prove' concerning its nature that it is divisible. And if again they wish to change their ground, and say a thing which cannot be, (namely), that when he went forth to come from his Domain, his Domain was not deprived of him at all, because he is a Fullness which P- 4y> 1- does not lack, and a Greatness which is not lessened, then how was his Domain full of him, and the Domain which was in the middle full of him — a place infinite and unlimited ? And, moreover, the Domain of the Maker would be full of him {i.e., of the Stranger), and this creation would be full of him ; even unto Sheol beneath would his extent reach. If before he went out he was the sole occupant (lit., fullness) of that Domain wherein he dwelt, and after he went out that Domain was likewise full P- 5C- of him as before, it is clear that he is something which was found to belong to that Domain, and was (nevertheless) outside. It How the is necessary that we should inquire whence this addition arose ; may^be' or perhaps some veil was upon his face as upon the face of the )^^}\ inside and Sun; and when that veU was drawn aside he extended his outside ' Read ■«■ • »)—i. p. 49, 1. 15 (first word). S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIONS of his Domain. If Mar- cionites use the light of the Sun to illustrate the omni- presence of the Stranger, they dis- honour him. P. 51, 1. 28. P. 52. rays unto ns. And when he gathered himself in and confined himself to his Domain he filled the ^\hole of the Domain in which he dwelt from of old. And it is necessary that we should inquire from whence are those causes which arose in front of him, and impeded the Light ; and here his nature is found to fill all (space), and our place is not found to be foreign to his rays, just as also the vault of creation is not foreign to the rays of the Sun, even if by means of other veils it is concealed from us. But the Sun is one thing and its effulgence is another thing. For the Sun has substance and a circumference, too, and the eye sets bounds to the Sun, but its eiJulgence has no limit and sub- stance. For the eye cannot set bounds to it. And by this proof it is discovered that the child is greater than its parent, since the parent is limited and the child that springs from the parent un- limited. But it {i.e., the effulgence) is not really greater ; it really is less than it. in that it has not substance like it {i.e., the Sun). But because also the Sun is fire we learn to know it {i.e., the Sun) from this lower fire ; for thus also a flame of fire has a substance, but the Light of the fire has no substance. And bodies come and go in the midst of its Light and are not injured, but bodies cannot approach very near to the substance (of the flame). And just as there are flowers or blossoms or one of the roots which have s«eet-smeUing fruits and one small place is able to accommodate them because they are substances, but their scent is diffused outside of them because it has no localised substance ; and ^ve do not say that the scent of spices is more than the spices, or the perfumes of ointments more than the ointments, for they themselves are sold for a price, but the scent of fragrant herbs is freely given to aU who come near them ; and (just as) the censer cannot fill the house, but its smoke is greater than the house, for it is even diffused outside of it. (so) if they have made, therefore, their God like a perfume, which is dissipated and hke a flame which is scattered, though they wish to honour him, they reduce him to inferiority, for they make him (to be) without an in- dependent substantial Existence. II. Bardai. Ban's Again, let the party of Bardaisan be asked concerning those Entities Avhich he speaks of, what supports these things of his THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Iv also/ seeing that they are placed in a deserted and empty Space teaching ; in which there is no breath of air supporting all, especially inas- supports much as he mentions that there are both light and heavy Entities ^^. ^"" ° ■' titles in there 1 For Light is lighter than Wind and Wind than Fire, just Space ? as also Fire is lighter than Water. But light and heavy things cannot exist unitedly in one enclosure without the force of another P. 53. (supporting them). For the light (thing) must dwell abo\e just as the heavy (thing) How could dwells beneath all. Therefore, Fire cannot exist in the same rank titles ever in which Light exists, nor can Water, which is heavy, be in the ^. . , ,- rank of Fire, or of Wind, because there is no force to support them. . . Water puts an end to Fire, which is ■' opposite it. For heavi- L. 29. ness and weight cannot exist in one rank just as they cannot L. .39. ... by the same weight . . . things which are light and heavy in the midst of Water or in Air. These things convince concerning themselves how (far) the heavy approach ^ the light. And if these which are heavier by measure than their companions, do greatly flee towards the depths, how much more distant from those things P- 54. which are beneath, without weight and without measure, will the Darkness be which exists more heavily than all ! For lo, all its heaviness, too, is beneath all . . . [how did the Darkness] go up from them because its heaviness. . . But if it is able to exist L. 16. and be quiet, let them tell us what thing it was which came upon its heaviness (?)* . . . for it is unable to be raised by itself. . . . i-'^- 12,22. But if they say that it crossed its boundary and when it crossed L- 34. it, it crossed it in an upward direction, then (let me ask), which is easier — for a heavy thing to go upwards, which is not natural, or to be sent downwards according to its nature ? For so I'- *^- . . . [owing to some cause or other] to cross its boundary and make an Assault upwards. Above all [the proper nature of its P- 55. (i.e., of the Darkness) heaviness, demands that it] should be continually sent beneath. And because from of old and from eternity everything was actually going down and down the Fire would not be able [to find its way down through the great ' Ephraim alludes to the Heavens of the Stranger, see above, p. li. - Read .^_oenLLa.n£vAi for ^.jKivLanoA, p. 53, 1. 30. 3 Read ,_=>ia for ^taxa, p- 53, 1. 43. ■• Read ca^axjji^, p. 54, 1. 20 (last word). Ivi S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS If a Primal Wind stirred up the Entities, who caused this Wind ? Was it God? Cf. p. Ixxiii, 1. 15. P. 56. Why would the Upper Being do so ? Cf. p. lixiii. 1. 15. P. 57. Bardai- san's reve- lation was not accre- distance to the Darkness beneath or to reach] the Depths which are immeasurable. But let us inquire as to this Fire, what was the cause that stirred it up also to cross the Boundary T^-hich it had never crossed before ? They say that the Wind beat upon it and stirred it up. Let us come to the succession of causes and let us ask also con- cerning the Wind, — what stirred it up too ? And if the causes are multiplied, what, then, was that which was the Cause of all the causes ? If it be not known, there is a great error, but if it be known, there is a right question in reply to which a true argument should be oSered. For if it was God, then He is the cause of aU confusion, He who disturbed things in their state of order and mingled things that were pure and introduced Strife and Conten- tion among Natures that were at peace ; then He Who, they say, is the real cause of aU beauty turns out to be the cause of all ugliness. But ^ whoever stirred up that Evil which was asleep, and gave power to what was powerless and found out a method and ar- ranged the Cause to make the Evil cross the Boundary, a thing that had never crossed its Boundary, that misdeed of his teaches us what name we should give him, with what eye we should look upon him, and with what amazement we should wonder at him ! But if the same Upper Being stirred the Element of the Wind in a manner contrary to its nature, then that Upper Being must have crept and come down from his natural height ; and what Cause, then, stirred him up, too, that he should hurl Contention and Strife among the Entities and Natures which were in a peace- ful state, and, if they know not, whence did this cause spring ? For as regards these other things which they say concerning the Entities, whence did they learn that they are as they say ? If the spirit of revelation made (it) known to them, it ought to have revealed to them (something) concerning the Cause on which all the causes depended. But one must wonder at this Wind that it was not revealed to Moses, the chief of the Prophets, who divided the sea and went through its midst, nor again to Simon, the chief of the Apostles, * ' <■. p. 56, 1. 4 (marg.), is to be omitted. THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ivii was it revealed, he who went down and walked upon the waters, dited by Signg nor and moved lightly upon the waves of the sea ! But it was revealed ia it Scrip- to this Bardaisan who was unable to prevent the dew which ''°™'' dropped upon his bed ! But let them give us the signs and wonders which he did, that by means of the open signs the secrets which he taught may be believed. But if the Prophets and Apostles L. 22. who did many signs and wonders did not say one of the things which Bardaisan by himself denied, and if Bardaisan, who denied many things which are foreign to the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles, did not do any of the signs which they did, is it not clear and evident to any one who wishes to see clearly that there is a great gulf between his Error and their true Knowledge ? Let us ask [what force it is which supported] all those creatures What sup- which Bardaisan preached and the Firmament (?) and the Earth Entities in and those whom he calls Panphlgos ^ (?) and all that earth (?) Space? which is beneath everything and above the Darkness — who supports all these ? Or how does the Darkness, which is beneath every- P. 58, 1. 10. thing, support everything so as to be the foundation of all ? But if they say that everything is placed on nothing, let Bardaisan ^ who said how can it be explained ^ that something comes from nothing, (let him) repeat the thing which went forth from his mouth (and ask) how can something be supported by nothing ? For how can a thing which does not exist support a thing which does exist ? But if he says that it would be easy for God to hang everything on nothing, he confesses, though unwillingly, that it would not be diJBficult for God to create everything out of nothing. For if he was unable to create something from nothing, neither would he be able to set something on nothing . . . [and P. 59. Bardaisan cannot say that the Will of God supported everything]. For (how) was that WiU which they say is light [and unable to L. 7 make anything from nothing able even to support it ?] And, there- L. 13. fore, as it was necessary for the Will to have something out of which to create creatures {[so it needed something] on which to place its creatures. [And if creatures are made from Entities] which are not God ia * I.e. perhaps iriij.(p\oyos, "the all-flaming." « Read .____.!ii3, p. 58, 1. 19. » Read itfs»^Tiiaa, p. 57, 1. 21. Iviii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS the cause dependent on something which supports them, [are not these Entities. Entities dependent] upon something which is not dependent ? And if they say that there is a myriad of . . . each supporting one another . . . [they are not wise in what] they say ; [for let lis L. 33. ask about that last supporter] of them all, who bears it up ? Until of necessity one great and perfect One is found Who is perfect in every respect. Who is identical with His own Domain and exists by His own power, and from nothing makes everything. For if He lacks any one of these things, then He is not perfect, and, there- P. 60. fore. He is in some sort an imperfect God who requires three things — that is, something from which to create created things, and a Pillar which upholds His creatures and a Domain in which His Divinity may dwell. But if the Will of God is supporting by its power the creatures which come from the Entities, it is clear that also that WUl of God was supporting the Entities from the first and the same confused them. And if it was not supporting the Entities, then it does not support anything that comes from them. And if the Entities were dependent on, it {i.e. the Divine Will) and existing by His power, they were not even Entities, especially as the Darkness also is found to exist likewise by the power of the Good One. III. And, therefore, on these grounds we have opposed Mani also Teaching- with a true refutation. For he, too, calls God the Earth of Light, ^K ^T^'^v,'^ which (Earth) is not perfect, but if it is a deficient thing, the very World in word deficiency is enough to refute its claim to perfection. For \rith the its ^^^ si*i^ proclaims concerning the whole if it, that if on its Darkness, gj^jg which is near the Darkness, it is limited by the Darkness, and there- •' by intro- and if it is (so) by nature, its nature is very deficient and im- great diffi- perfect, inasmuch as that which limits it on one side is not a culties. thing which is fair but the Darkness. Now, in the case of a thing which is limited by the EvU, inquire no further as to its weakness ; P. 61, 1. for i* is enough that the Evil limited it. And how, Mani, shall we call that thing the perfect Good which is limited by the Dark- ness, or perfect Light that which is bounded by the Darkness ? For it {i.e., the Darkness) confined and limited its inferiority {i.e., the inferiority of the Light), and did not suffer it to fill all (Space), in addition to the fact that it {i.e., the Darkness) waxed 13 THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS lix bold like a strong one to trample do\vn its Domain and to enter its Boundaries, and to plunder its Possessions. But they say that it {i.e., the Darkness) came as one in need ; but if it was in need, know that this (i.e., the Light) also is weak, and if the former plunders the latter is plundered. And, in order that they may be refuted in all points, if the two frontiers of Good and Evil were thus contiguous, all that side which bordered on the unclean became unclean and defiled, and infected, and corrupted by the contact of the Darkness. And if they say that that side which bordered on the Darkness was not injured by the contact of the P. 62. Darkness, then that side which could not be injured is more excellent than those Souls which were injured by the contact of the Darkness, for it ^ {i.e., the Darkness) is said to have acquired power over the inferior, since this inferior was all injured. But although it {i.e., the side) has contact with the corrupt Darkness from everlasting to everlasting, the injurious contact could not injure it. And if the Enemy was unable to get dominion over it, and the Foe to tread it down and the Marauder to ascend and cross it, then why was it necessary for the Good One to take^ the pure Souls who belonged to him, and to ' hurl ' them beyond his own victorious Frontier into the jaws of the Darkness ? For it has been said that the Darkness could not even cross that mighty Frontier. But if it was a defenceless Frontier, one which could be overcome, and laid low, and trodden down and crossed, then its weakness could also be injured by the contact of the Darkness. And if the Darkness had been able to get dominion over it, if it had wished to destroy it, lo, it would have destroyed p. 63. it by degrees, and made an Assault. And if it desired to rob it, behold it would have approached it stealthily by degrees, and moved onwards. And if (it had wished) to feel a Passion for it and to enjoy it, lo, what gave it Pleasure was at its side ... if L. 13. what gave it Pleasure was in close contact on its side from everlasting to everlasting ; and if it carried its wiU into action, the Darkness had no need to make an Assault and enter the midst of the Earth of Light, because the same Pleasantness was diffused throughout the whole of it {i.e., the Earth). For the Light is one in its nature, and wherever a man has pleasure in it, 1 Read yA aan for ^icm, p. 62, 1. 8. ' Read ~~m . p. 62, 1. 26. Ix S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS it is the same. Look, therefore, at the fabricated system of deceit, for in all this the Pleasantness of the Light is in contact ^th the Darkness, as they say. If it is after the fashion of a park, the one side which bordered on the Sons of the Darkness How did was entirely akin to the Darkness — for it is with them. And tractive- if the Fragrance of that pleasant thing is sent forth into ??^? °^ their nostrils, and if that Light is diffused upon their eyes, and reach the if the Melodies of that sweet Player are poured into their ears, Darkness? ^o^ ' since all this was present with him, did he smeU and per- ceive as from a far mountain that " there was something pleasant P. 64, 1. there " ? And if from the centre of the Earth (of Light) or from 12 the inner sides he received the smeU of the Pleasantness of Light, this, too, is against them. For how did it come about that the sweet smell and effulgence burst forth and entered even there ? And how did this beautiful Fragrance ever smite the Darkness ? If Dark- For if the Darkness had foreknowledge, and by means of that foreknow- ^^ knew that there would be something pleasant (in the realm ledge it is of Light) then is that Entity (of the Darkness) greater and more cellent excellent than this Good, in that it has this foreknowledge. IJcht. ■^'^* ^^' ^^^ Souls who are from this (Entity) are to-day existing in Ignorance and Error. And if he had great foreknowledge, How can when do the Souls who have strayed expect to be ' refined,' escape ^ seeing that ' he who leads them astray ' is so great ? For by his ;|?o™*l"s knowledge he made them to be without knowledge. But, above all, they cannot go forta hence, because, howsoever that Good (Being) may contrive to form ways and means for their departure P. 65, 1. 9. hence, that Evil One knows beforehand all the movements and secrets which are planned there against him ; and that Good (Being) cannot even conceal his secret thoughts from him. And if he cannot conceal from him the thoughts in his own heart and in his own Domain, how does he expect to release from under the hand of this mighty One the Souls who are subject to his authority, Cf. p. especially, too, if they are stored up in the midst of him and ^^^' • ■ ' swallowed,' as they say ? And if, when they were not swallowed, he contrived to swallow them, now that he has swallowed them, who is there that can bring them forth from his midst 1 (This > Read ^.a^rc for ^.a^kb, p. 64, 1. 6. THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixi is a thought) which even Mani himself may have muttered from the midst of the Darkness when he was swallowed. And in his muttering whose help would be invoke ? (Would he invoke) Him who even in his own Domain is guarding himself from that which he fears ? For he is afraid to come because he< knows that if he comes he is swallowed ; but they are ashamed to say that he P. 66. can be swallowed. And how can they conceal it ? For behold those Souls which were swallowed up (so as to be removed) from him make them ashamed. And if they were not swallowed, again they are aU the more ashamed in this point, (namely) : Why did that Nature which cannot be swallowed not contend (?) with the Darkness and swallow all of it ? , „ ., The Eva Behold, two alternatives are set before them ; let them One had choose one, whichever they wish, that they may be put to forekno^- confusion in it. But if in both directions they are put to ledgo. confusion, this is not due to us, but to their wise Teacher, who concocted for them a Teaching which is put to confusion in every respect. But if they say that he had no fore- knowledge, [then let them hear my former questions about the contact of the Darkness with the Light]. Iviii. f. If the Evil One has foreknowledge from the first, how is if Dark- it that he sometimes (?) perceived as if he sometimes knew ? ^^If And it when he knew he did not feel desire ; the question ledge, he is one which resolves itself into two alternatives, (namely), if restraint, he verily made an Assault with his eyes (open ?), it is a thing p. 67. repugnant to his nature ; but if, though he felt desire, he did not make an Assault he remained by reason of his self-restraint for a long time in a state of desire perforce. But these Souls who are from the Good (Being) are put to shame by his self- restraint, since they are found to be fornicators, and they run corruptly into all evUs. And who caused that false ascetic to offend ? Can it have been that Virgin of the Light about Did the whom they say that she manifested her beauty to the Archons, the^ilieht so that they were ravished to run after her ? But it is not tempt him ' possible for pure mouths to speak as they do about the things after this ; so that we will not commit them to writing, but we will take refuge in such discourse as it is possible to use (and argue), that if that Virgin of Light appeared to him and Ixii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS made him offend by her purity, her folly is seen in this. And in what respect was the beauty or pleasantness or fragrance of the Virgin of Light different from that of that Luminous Earth ? So that if there is a question of Passion, behold, P. 68. as a harlot, she embraces the fornicator. For the borders of both Domains embrace one another after the manner of bodies. And, because from eternity and from everlasting they were touching one another, perhaps, also, that Evil one became weary of the perpetual contact. But if a comparison such as that which they employ (Ut., bring) is applicable to the matter, (namely), that one loves and another is loved, the experience of debauchees refutes them, (namely), that, although they love, there comes a time when they are sated and weary of that thing which they love. And if our questions do not please them, neither does it please us that they should speak all this blasphemy against the Truth. If, therefore, they ^^ish to hear many things, in a single L. 33. word . . . that is to say, when they confess that they are in an evil case. And, therefore, silence is our part, and they will P. 69. have profit. But if . . And if they do not A^ish to come to that which overthrows' them (?), let them show how at one How did time the Darkness had a Passion for the Light, though thev Darkness . discover were from everlasting hidden in one another. If this Fragrance '^ ■ was diffused recently, first we must inquire what was the cause which made it spread, and what was the power which stirred it up, and why all this was. (?) And it is clear that that is the cause of the trouble and war. But if the Darkness acquired Thought which . . . , and a Mind which he had not (formerly) aud^ Knowledge which he had not, lo again [we refute them by asking how Mind covld be acquired hy a Nature which did not contain it. It could only come from an outside scnirce — from a region above the Darkness]. L. 40. For Bardaisan had already (?) (i.e., before Mani) said, Theexpla- ' There arose a cause by chance, and the Wind ^^■as impelled against the Fire.' Marcion said [concerning the . . . ] "that ^ Bead rc^u..! for ^i-x.:!, p. 69, 1. 3. * Read ,4 Vi\^, p. 87, 1. 13 (first word). s Read ^-.i^ivi, p. 86, 1. 13. r 1 » Read m-.iAA.a for .rr,^-- ~ ^ - p. 86, 1. 16. Ixxii S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS formerly wickedness, and blaspheme much, and are gixilty of great g^^jj unbelief are foimd like dregs in the midst of one whom they torture call BoLOS ? ^ As they say that " when the fire dissolves all ness ? his iaterior, there is collected every portion of the Light which was mixed and mingled among created things, and those Souls P. 88, 1. 3. who have done much wickedness are assigned to the realm of the Darkness when he is tortured." And if it {i.e., the Light) is a nature which pleases him, as the beginning of their Teach- ing says, how is it the cause of his torment, as the end of their fabricated system says ? But that '■' that Luminous Natmre should become ^ at one time his enjoyment, and [that he shovld like i(\ and enjoy it, and that, again it should be assigned to his realm, and that he (i.e., the Daikness) should be imprisoned and tortured therein — this may happen in the cases of changeable Natures which are created out of nothing : according to the Will of the Creator they can be changed to anything. For loose dust of the earth is the dweUiag of every creeping thing, and according to its liking it crawls in it and dwells in it. But if any one by regulation associates two Natures with the Nature, that is to say, so that it may be moulded with water by the hand of the workman, and receive strength from fire, then there springs from it a vessel and a prison- house to torture . . . that creeping thing which lay in it when it was dust, and crawled in it, and was delighted when it was P. 89. clay. When it becomes a vessel moulded and baked in an oven, it becomes the torturer of those that are imprisoned in it. If, therefore, the Darkness is finally tormented by that Luminous Nature in which it takes pleasure, what was the cause of the negUgence long ago (which brought it about) that the Darkness obtained dominion over all this and took pleasure therein ? And what is the cause of its fierceness so that at last the Darkness is imprisoned and tormented in it ? If its ' Essential nature ' has this strength, then where was 1 I.e. AiiifloXos. Cf. p. Ix. 1. 33. ' Read ocdi for aaa> p. S8, I. 13. ' Read pca«aj for rcacD, 1. 14. THIRD DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxiii it formerly 1 But if this energy conies from another place, why did it not come formerly ? So that instead of the Grave Why was which is now built stupidly for the Darkness, an impregnable ^ot built wall should have been built, and thus there would have been Jf '^^^ (a separation) between the two Domains, (such a wall) as it mains ? would be fitting for the Good (Being) to make, and right for the Just (Being) to keep in repair, and proper for the Wise (Being) to guard. But after those atrocities which the Darkness wrought Of. p. upon the Light, and after those blasphemies which the Souls blasphemed against their Father, and after they committed fornication and folly and polluted and disgraced themselves, P- ^■ and after great blemishes have appeared in them, so that, although their wounds may be healed, they cannot be effaced, and the places of their spots cannot be covered up, after aU this Strife and Contention, and after all this misery and loss Qf „ i^_ — even if there was a gain, the gain of such things would not 1^-13, 26 £. be equal to the loss — he has planned to-day to build a Grave for the Darkness so that at last it may be imprisoned there. And how can a Grave limit him who is infinite ? For if the Darkness can be limited, then the Light also can be hmited. And if the Good (Being) cannot be limited, but the Evil One can be limited, it is clear that this Evil One who can be limited is not an (eternal) Entity, the Companion of that Good (Being) who is not limited ; and it is found that that which hmits is an (eternal) Entity, and that which is limited by whoever is able to limit him, is a creature. But if he is not a creature and is an (eternal) Entity, an Entity cannot limit an Entity without itself being also limited by that other one, his equal, which is limited. P- ^^• THE END OF THE THIRD DISCOURSE. THE FOUETH DISCOUKSE AGAINST FALSE TEACHINGS. How was Ye know that it is right that Mani be asked : From which ness im- ' of the Elements was the Grave built for the Darkness ? But prisoned? jf j<; spontaneously turned and imprisoned itseK, know that, because it cannot mix or mingle with itself anything else — P. 91, 1. for there is nothing — and because, moreover, it cannot change 20 itself — for it is an (eternal) Entity which exists as it existed before, and does not come to change — it cannot become opposed to itself. But if he built (the Grave) from the Element of the Good (Being), how' did he make it from these Souls in whom he takes delight to-day ? But if there is essentially belonging to his nature something which is harder than these Souls, then why did the Darkness not buUd from that hard and deaf {i.e., inexorable) and victorious element a wall for the outer Domain in order to keep his possessions within ? And thus P. 92. he would have been spared all these evils. But, perhaps, this ■nisdom had not come near him at that time, but in the end (?) of his years it happened that he was harassed and learned, practical (?) workmanship and stone-cutting, and architecture. . . . And if these (qualities ?) are there, not only are thei/ there. For many things are required there. For a natural buUding shows how many things it requires to be employed (in constructing it). Things For if they are stones in reality, (?) and if they are cut r''buM *® they say, there is required one who cuts, and the iron the Grave, which cuts, and the stones which are cut, when . . . are L. 30 left, and a rope . . . which in the middle, and all these L. 40 . . . natures . . . which is in it and a destroyer of their 1 Read ^ji^rr for ,^j<, p. 91, 1. 32. Ixxiv FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxv essence ; and, moreover, fire injures iron, for it (i.e., the fire), transforms the nature thereof. And if any one leaves an iron in the furnace there its destruction (?) follows. And P- 93. if any one goes . . . though they are bound (natures), and they go into one another. AU this creation is required there so that it may be found in the Domain of the Good (Being). So when this Teaching professes to explain about the Domain of the Good (Being), its explanation is found to refer to this creation. And just as even when it explains about it {i.e., this creation), . . . lacks intelligence, and just as . . . And this Earth from which the Stones are cut is not essen- L. 26. tiaUy such that is uncomposite, and also incapable of being The Earth cut up. For a thing which is not composite cannot be cut. which the For a composite nature can be dissolved. But if it can be Stonea '■ _ were cut cut . . . And if it has these (qualities) in its nature, it has cannot be no (immutable) Essence in its nature, and it shows that the natures which (spring) from it are composite creations. For that Grave is built, it is certainly composed and . . . But if L. 40. the Architect of the work is skilled in building it is right that it should be put together cunningly. These Stones, p. 94, i. g. therefore, which were compounded there show concerning the Earth from which they were cut, that it also is a composite nature. And just as if any one asks about natural stones ... as to The Earth whence they were cut, it is possible to declare and say that ?'°"''l "f ^ -^^ -^ damagea they are cut and hewn from some place or other — a thing by the whereof also a building in our coimtry is a witness to us — it jng. is right, moreover, to ask whence had this Earth (such re- sources) that these Stones were cut from it. For it is clear cf. p. xxx. that they were made either from something or from nothing. For they cannot say that it exists of itself ; for . . . refutes them. And, therefore, let the great deep and abyss which is in that quarry, from which these Stones were cut, refute A. « them. And when BAN, the Builder, built to make the Grave cf . pp. for the Darkness, he made that great pit in his Domain for^'^^'^ the Sons of his Domain. And whence was the deficiency P. 95. of that Earth filled up (again) ; for if it was fair before it Ixxvi S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS became lacking, it was exceedingly and endlessly disfigured after it had been cut. Thus, the idle tales have become and are a laughing- stock. For if the stone-cutters operate on that Earth, they are at the same time carrying it forth into the Domain of the Darkness. And if it has not a natiu-e to remain ia a Domain which is not its own, then how does it imprison in a Grave buUt from itself the Darkness which is foreign to its nature ? Have And, again, if this Earth stretches unto the Earth of the D^kness Darkness, is it not the fact that, since it is beaten out and w*^^°° everywhere bordering upon it {i.e., the Darkness), it has aU separate become one earth in the Domain of the Light, and in the Domain of the Darkness ? And it is found that one earth supports them both. These are fine Gods and (eternal) Entities which are supported by one another ! And if it is one, as also it is one, for it must be one, then either it is aU dark Cf. xcv. 7. towards the Good and towards the Evil, or, again, it is luminous towards both. For it is impossible that the half of it towards P. 96. the Darkness is dark, and the half of it towards the Light is luminous, because its fixed nature will not allow it. For it is one in its Essence. Or a great gulf exists in the middle between these two Earths, and does not allow them to go forth to one another. If a great And if a mighty gulf which separates above and below divided does exist there, how did the Darkness cross to the Domain DomZs, °^ *^^ ^°°^ (Being) without a bridge ? Or did he forsooth how could make a bridge over it and cross ? For those to whom it crossed? is easy to speak falsely in everything, it is not difficult to lie. And if they say that he crossed without a bridge, even if they speak falsehood, they are refuted. For if the two sides can cross over one to another without a bridge, a wide gulf being in the middle, they are found to be spiritual, and they are not heavy bodies, and it is evident that for Natures which are thus subtle and light, a supporting Earth is not required as for bodies. Therefore, either let them appeal to the Earth, and it shows that they are corporeal, FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxvii and are unable to cross the gulf without a bridge. Or let them appeal to the Abyss, and if they flew and crossed it P. 97. they are spiritual, and are not dependent upon the Earth. And if they flee from these two (alternatives) to (the theory How of) a bridge . . [they are refuted] for when the sons of the bridee^be Darkness bridged (1) the Great Abyss, to cross it, with what "^o"- (did they make it) and how ? And how did they bridge it ; between for those who build a bridge fix (?) its foundations (lit, legs) jj^^j^j^g » on both sides as rivers show, or a deep which is bridged. Why, therefore, did they bridge it ? And how were the Sons of the Darkness able without a bridge to . . . their companions . . . or did they, perhaps, . . . cross the bridge . . . since they were on one side, and the Sons of the Light on the other side ! And if that bridge was . . . the waste in the middle would make it useless. But if it was ... it would not allow them to cross ; and thus the twisting of Mani has come to an end. But if the Earth was all one, since it stretches towards If the Good and Evil, are they not ashamed when they say con- Earth ceming the one, that is to say, concerning the one Essence 'P"°S®'\, that the half of it which is towards Good is good, and the of Dark- half of it which is towards Evil is evil ? But if it is in its suffered Essence praiseworthy (?) what ridiculous Teaching — how can pollution- the Essence of the Earth be praiseworthy (?) [when it touches the vile Earth which was opposite ? ]. And if those illustrations of the Sun and Shadow which P- 98, 1- 8 they bring forward do belong to things ; if (they are) Earths, the Dark- because they are dense bodies, they touched one another""'!.'™'* ■' ■' the Light? and were limited by one another . . . how is it (the Light) l 20. limited by the Darkness, seeing that the Light scatters the Darkness and rends it asunder and (enters) into its Domain, and . . . also its nature . . . ? L. 28. For (as regards) the Sun and the Shadow which touch Mani's one another, the nature of the Sun has no [gross atid dense] tion of body ... to destroy the Shadow, and the Light which is "j^"? ^^^ here . . . seeing that no other body is interposed. More- L. 38. over, a Shadow is not a nature (in) itself. For it is the child of that substance, either of stone or wood, standing in the P- 99- Ixxviii S. EPHRAIlVrS REFUTATIONS face of the Light ; and apart from the Light a Shadow cannot be produced. If the But if they say that, although there was no dense body Light and which hinders the Light, the Light was not able to enter the Darkness j)omain of that Darkness ; they confess, though unwillingly, sidered, that they are ' bound Natures ' in Essence, and that they are ought to unable to depart from their (respective) territories. But if d^ th *^®y ^^^ ' bound Natures,' fixed in their places Hke moimtains. Assault, how did they make an Assault on one another and enter into one another ? And it is very probable that if they do make an Assault on one another, the Light has extension and radiance and effulgence and rays, so that its effulgence may stretch afar. And if the rays of such a thing (as this Light) the nature of which is to scatter its rays afar, were limited by external compulsion, and it did not cross the border of the Darkness, how do they know how to [announce] that the Darkness made an Assault on the Light — when it (i.e., the Darkness) has no (such) nature ? And the Light which ought to have been victorious did not even make a stand for itself. Primitive For these things which they say do not occur ia the case Light*" of this Darkness and Light which are here. Let them either which is appeal to the Light and Darkness which are here, or let visible . now must them admit that this is not the same Light as exists there, ferent in ^^^ another. And if it -is not the same, why do they worship kind. this Sun if it is not the same as that which is in the Domain of the Good (Being) ? And if the Light and the Darkness are not the same, then this world was not mixed and brought P. 100, 1. into existence from these Natures. And whence then are these Luminaries which are in our sphere ? Mini's in- O what (is to be said) of a Teaching whose failures are Teaching, more than its artifices (can remedy) ! For as often a« they need an argument thej- bring forward such proofs as these, and as often as an allegory suits them they concoct such tales as these. For Mani did not know that his deceit would enter the furnace of Truth. For where it suits him, he says that the Darkness made an Assault ; but he does not remember that this visible Light shows him clearly that this cannot FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxix be so. Again, where it suits him, he asserts that the Light is the Light of Souls, that is to say, that the Luminous Nature of the Soul is created (in the form of) Light of the Soul. But the worship with which he worships the visible Luminaries refutes him. Or can it be that the visible Sun is perversely (represented as) the God of the invisible Souls ? p. loi. '' But," he says, " the Primal Man cast his five Bright The Bright Ones (ZiwiNE) into the mouth of the Sons of the Darkness, Ones in order that, as a hunter, he might catch them with his [net]." p^j^i* And here it is found that the Sons of the Light are their food, Man oast to and that the Essence of the Sons of the Darkness [is akin] to Darkness, the Sons of the Bright Ones. To which of them is it like — to the Light, which is visible, or to the Wind which is in- visible ; to the Water which is cold, or to the Pire which is hot 1 . . . Know that this world was not made from these refined L. 26. Natures, and it is necessary that . . . the creation of the world which was from such Natures. But if it was mixed out of these Bright Ones (Ziwane), let them know that the refined Light was also made turbid by its opposite ; but, concerning its nature, he declared that it is visible, [and ^ it consists of] hot Fire and cold Water. And still our question stands, (namely), to which of them (i.e., of the Bright Ones) was their {i.e., of the Sons of the Darkness) Root (Essence) itself like 1 But know (?), Mani, that the fish of the deep and birds of P- 102. the height are caught with a bait which is akin to them, as nature shows from which they bring illustrations. For from the quarter from which they bring illustrations, from there (they) can be refuted. . . . And if . . . them, how does it l 15 oppose them, if it is true that from their own (Elements), and from the (Elements) of Darkness, the whole of it (i.e., Creation) does exist as they say ? But as regards those who say that everything is created The from nothing, and that devils and men haVe Freewill, and has given this Freewill produces good and evil actions — and if it be I"'®®'""- 1 Read ocoo for _>cdci, p. 101, I. 40. Ixxx S. EPHRAIMS REFUTATIONS not so they have no Free^-ill at all — it is impossible tliat we should stand up (and) contend (?)" against them either in words '' or ia wTitings. For a nature is changed into every- thing according to the ^rill of the Creator ; in order that he may show that (Creation comes) not from ' bound Entities ' L. 44. lite the Freewill of mankind [so tlie devils (?) have Freewill] P. 103. . when those who persist in the arrogance of their WUl do entreat and make supplication. And these (words) '" thou has set thy heart on my servant Job, (?) Satan " prove that he (i.e., Satan) has Freewill just as several passages from the Old Testament. But there are many (such passages) belong- ing to the Xew (Testament), and these are sufficient to stand on behalf of us and to contend ^ against our enemies, rrom But, perhaps, this great confusion is a small thing to of the Mani ; and it is right that we should turn again and ask him Natures ^f ^^us Consiuning Fire, from which of these Natures does its does the ° ''Consum- consuming nature come I If it is from the Darkness, how does come ? i^ injure the bodj' which is akin to its nature '. And if it injures its nature, it would be right that it should injure itseK also, if that nature which springs from it is injured. But if its harmfulness is from the Light, ho^\ could the Sons of the Darkness imprison it in their midst without being injured, seeing that bodies, their kinsmen, are not able to stand before its breath ? And if they are two, as if from the two Natures of Good and Evil, then how did they receive P. 104. one another into union when they were opposed to one another ? And all this (that he says, namely), ' they loved one another ' is due to the fact that the difference between them is not known. And how did they become one mind, when they are both suspicious of the two Natures from which they have sprung ? For when good and evU (persons) touch them (i.e., the Elements contained in Fire), they are both injured equally by both of them. And the good Fire which springs from the good Nature does not recognize the good, its kins- men, just as also the evil Fire does not discern the evil, its > Read _x.i»AivJ for . . . io, p. 102, 1. 33. » Read perhaps -'A — - for -'^ ■>- p. 102, I. 35. = Read ,_».iva4u»o, p. 103, 1. 16. FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxxi relatives. And in virtue of the test applied to this one Com- pound (i.e., Fire), we have a right to say that all that Mixture of the two Natures consists of one mingling of love. But if there are some of the Minglings which struggle with one another because they are opposed to one another, why does Fire not struggle with Fire ? Is it not thus plain to an intelligent person that all the The Crea- creatures exist in natures which are different from one another ^n jtg according to the Will of the Creator, He who prepared them diversity Jtlaro CO ill 6 for the numerous uses of mankind ? And there are some that not from are akin to one another, and there are some which are opposed ties but to one another, according as it pleased the Will which arranges fro™ the everything. But when they agree and differ deliberately, and exist in agreement and disagreement [it is obvious] that they are not made from Entities which differ. For if, on p. 105, 1. account of the enmity which they have towards one another, it is supposed that they are differentiated from one thing, then (it follows that) on account of the love which they have, they are known not to be made from Entities which are opposed to one another. For if those were created for our benefit (?) it is clear that we must recognize that likewise all of them were regulated for our sakes. For this is the true cause of their creation^ (?). For if Light and Darkness exist The for their own sakes, and not for our sakes, perhaps he is right (?) jad^e^t/ in thinking that they have enmity towards each other. But ^^^ needa of man- if they exist for our sake and are both useful to us — the kind, not Light for toil and the Night for rest. . . . oppos^°* ****** t""^ ™ Natures. [and they are useful to ms] even if they have a war with one P. 106. another, but for us tkey both bring much peace and health. For when hot fire is necessary for us on account of its heat which is necessary to [warm, us] it is supposed that because it is a consumer it is an enemy opposed to the things which are injured by it, and {why] do I (?) weary myself (?) with many details ? For these many things can be explained even in. . . . Since they are all useful to mankind they are 1 Read ^mi>_.ioT for ^ca^uVs:i, p. 105, 1. 29. Ixxxii S. EPHRABrS REFUTATIONS all at peace with one another, (namely, those) which are supposed to be created from different Entities. For on account of the uses of man, which are unlike one another, creatures were created for his service, and are unlik e one another. For if his use were (only) one, then it would be a single thing which w£is necessary for his service. And if his service were one, there would be one thing for his use. But "■ because everything is useful to him, everything was created for his use. And even those things which are considered unnecessary p. 107. are necessary (to promote) either his awe or his chastise- ment (?) or his fear, or iu the course of his swimming through this world that this dweUing may not cause his nature to sink, (this dwelling) which also hated the true lodger (?) ; and the temporary lodgiug-place was acceptable to that Grood L. 15. (Being) lq His grace and not . . . but (he set) upon him the constraiat of many troubles, that on account of the troubles that are ia the world he should hate the dwelling and desire to return to his true profit. These are the true causes on account of which the different creatures which are unlike one another were created. See how But seek out completely ^ the creatures as related to one ™°'° ^ > another, and seek them out again as related to man, and see creatures that creatures which are not all useful to one another are all opposite useful to man, and those which are thought to be strange (to qualities. ^^^ another) are aU related to the service of man. For how is the bull Hke the horse in running ? And (yet) the swiftness of the horse and the slowness of the ox are both useful to man. p. 108. And how is the printer like the summer in comparison ? And (yet) the coldness of the one and the heat of the other are a source of help to man. And how are fierce things like gentle things ? And (yet) they both do one common ser\-ice. And, therefore, their histories are too long and their numbers are too great, and their kinds are too abundant that we should labour (?) to complete the comparison of them, but some tastes (i.e., specimens) of them are sufficient to convince con- cerning them all. r 1 1 Read ^, A\ao, p. 106, 1. 41. ' Read rtdaoj., p. 107, 1. 2S. FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxxiii But those Heretics who do not examine creatures accord- Mani- {\hcfKQT\a ing to the reason of their use in relation to us, but compare attribute creatures with one another (saying) "how is the Darkness *°® '"®" . like the Light, and sweet like bitter, and that which harms oreaturea like that which is harmed," when they bring comparisons of jiij^t^^g one thing with another, they cause the simple to err by means °* Light. of their names, and because childhood has not (sufficient) knowledge to oppose them, it is perplexed. But also they are refuted by their own words. For because they perceived that everything was created as for our service — for there is no single thing among all these which is benefitted but they must needs make an assumption and say " that it is due to the Light which is mingled with all," and to that cause the benefit P. 109. of everything is to be ascribed, [and] they have confessed, though unwillingly, that if a man is helped by them all, (then) they all were created on his account. We turn, again, to examine that thing which they also They fail . to account mvestigate, (namely), of what use are harmful creepmg for the things which have been created. But being eager to win, ^^ture of they have been quickly defeated. For how does a creeping animals, thing do harm, seeing that even in it, as they have said, there is mixed in it some of the Good Nature which is scattered through everything ? And where is the Evil that is not mixed in an iimocent lamb, if it is scattered in everything ? And so it is possible to distinguish between Good and Evil by means of wolves and lambs, and by means of serpents and ■doves, and the Mixing of Good and Evil has appeared in man alone ! And how are wolves always evil and rapacious, Cf. p. xix. and lambs always illtreated and innocent, whereas men some- times ravage like wolves and sometimes are illtreated hke lambs ? Who is he who arranged these things . . . and who P. 110, 1. is he who [gave] to creatures a ' bound Nature ' so that creatures [have a fixed disposition], and to man gave an independent Will? If the Darkness has Freewill — for behold as they say, by If Light its Will it made an Assault, and, again, if the Light has an neas had independent nature — if from two natures which have Freewill 2"g'nally and Independence and Thought all creatures have come, why do Ixxxiv S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS not all how (?) ' is it that they all have not Life, and all have not possess it? Thought, as also they all have not independent Freewill ? Does man And here it is found that man alone is from these two Natures * °®, which have these (qualities), because he also has such (quali- a Mixing ? ties) as these. Whence therefore ^ came the rest of creatures^ and of beasts and plants which do not possess these (qualities), and are not from the two Natures from which man comes ? Or let them be convinced that there is one Will which created everything from nothing, as was useful for Freewill and for P. 111. our boldness' (?) according to the reasoning which we wrote above. Refuta- But consider also that according as it suits their cause Summary, they leam to construct discourses, but because they are (artificially) constructed they are reduced to nothing, and because they are decked out they are refuted, and because they are powerless they are not able to stand in a contest. If the Sun for they say that everything which injures is from the- COIDGS from the Evil (Nature), just as everything which helps is from the Nat*^ Good (Nature). And they say concerning the Sun that it why does purifies from Evil, because it goes and comes every day to the eye ? Domain of the Good one, which is a purification. And yet Cf. p. xli. the eye which fixes its gaze much upon it is injured by its strength, but if it fixes its gaze to look on the shadow or thick darkness it is not injured, and so it is found that the Sun of the Good (Being) is harmful. They can- And if they say that it harms the body which is akin to that It' *1^^ Darkness, why did it not always harm it, but instead (of only hurts that) it actually save Pleasure to it ? And how is the Soul the Body. ' •' ^ , , , . which is in the midst of it (and) akin to the nature of the Light harmed by the Body ? For it causes it to sin, since the P. 112. Bitterness (?) of the Darkness is not all like itself, as also the Pleasantness of Light is not the same in everything. For this visible Darkness by its colour confuses the eye, and does not imprison it ; it is rather Satan who by Thought enslaves the Soul, and it is not the Colour (which does it), and this 1 Read yjkJt^ for vwrc, p. HO, line 21. ' Read V ■»"■. p. 110, 1. 35 (last word). ' Read perhaps .^oiisaAa, "instruction," p. 110, 1. 48 (first word). FOURTH DISCOURSE TO HYPATIUS Ixxxv (Darkness) which has Colour has no Thought. And the Primal Darkness from which they both come, on account of its (greedy) hunger, harmed the Light which it ' passionately cf „„ •desired and ate, and sucked in, and swallowed, and imprisoned f^?J^' in its midst, and mixed in its limbs.' xliv. 1. 16; And what is the nature of all of this harrnful (Darkness), j 26. seeing that this Darkness, which is from it, confuses us by Primal its Colour, and Satan, who is from it, by his Thought slew ^"^g^*"* the Light, but the Primal Darkness crushed it with its teeth ? Darkness . , , . must be And just as this Darkness is not like itself, so neither is different. the Light (like itself). For this Sun by its Colour delights us. So the and not by its Voice, and the Soul which in his (Mani's) the Sun Teaching is akin to it (i.e., the Sun), delights by means of its ^^'ht'^of Voice, and not by its Colour. And how is this Sun wanting the Soul in Thought (?), and how does the Darkness not possess Speech ferent : like its original Father ? . . . the creation and learned . . . *!l^ ^""/'' ° silent ; the to give to them his Refining that he may bring them to the Soul can House of Life. And why does the Moon go on quietly, and why are the stars in silence? If they all come from an p. 113. 1. eloquent Xature, why are they not all eloquent like the "' Nature from which they come ? And though Bodies are from the Darkness, as they say, they have Speech and Mind ' (and) Beauty, and there is no . . . and as regards the lightly-moving Luminaries which are from an Element endowed with Speech which shuts up their mouths like a scorpion ... let them be refuted concerning the Luminaries (and shown) that because they are lamps created for our service, the Sun and Moon are rightly deprived (?) of Speech. For by Speech [our superiority in the The rank of creatures is clearly demonstrated and the Luminaries are] aocou'nt for our service, God ... [50 the Luminaries'] are found "* the CVeation aganist them, so that though they do not wsh it they estab- is the true lish the word which Moses wrote. For ;\hen God created °"'^' everything for the service of man, and that he might show that creatures were created to serve him, He did not give them Speech and Mind as (He did) to him that their inferiority Speech is > Read perhaps xivi-^i^, p. 113, 1, 18. Ixxxvi S. EPHRAIM'S REFUTATIONS God's gift might prove about them that they were certainly for service, as, also, the superiority of man proves concerning him that he 4. ' is certainly to be served. And not only harmful creatures did Harmful He create for the service of Adam ; for it might be thought creatures show that if they were harmful they might be able to cause him superi- harm, on this account God created those creatures which are ority, and fierce, and those which are terrible, and those which are cruel, only harmful and those which are harmful, in order that the sovereignty FaU °^ Adam might be seen, set over all like that of God. But he possessed this power over them before he siimed, but they received this power against him after he had sinned. There- fore God said, let us make man in our Image, that is in the Image of His authority, so that just as the authority of God rules over all so also the yoke of Adam's lordship had been set over everything. Man is Let them tell us, therefore — those who speak against the than the GiO