Front Matter

Writings of Athenagoras

ΑΘΗΝΑΓΟΡΟΣ

Athenagoras

Translated by Rick Brannan
with assistance from AI techniques

APPIAN WAY PRESS

WRITINGS OF ATHENAGORAS ΑΘΗΝΑΓΟΡΟΣ

Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Copyright 2025 by Rick Brannan

Published 2025 by Appian Way Press

Web: https://AppianWayPress.com

Email: info@AppianWayPress.com

About This Translation

This translation was created on 2025-09-07 using the model gpt-4.1-mini from OpenAI. To ensure the translation is communicating the same meaning as the original, a sentence-level semantic similarity check was performed between the source text and translation using the model bowphs/SPhilBerta, which is available from HuggingFace. In addition to the sentence-level semantic similarity check, the text-to-translation length ratio was evaluated for each verse to locate and review possible hallucination.

Disclaimer

Please note, as indicated above, that this translation is a machine-generated translation. There are several older works that are either not available in English or only available in old and difficult to read translations. This translation is an attempt to provide a readable and fairly literal modern English translation of the source text. The process that created this translation has done its best to mitigate hallucinations, but there may still be translation issues.

About the Source

Translated from: Patrologia Graeca volume 6.

A Plea for the Christians by Athenagoras the Athenian, a Christian Philosopher

To the emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, conquerors of the Armenians and the Sarmatians, and above all, to the philosophers.

1. Your great empire of kings, the inhabited world, is governed by different customs and laws in different places, and none of them, by law and fear of punishment, even if the customs are ridiculous, forbids honoring the ancestral traditions.. But the man from Ilium calls Hector a god, and worships Helen as Adrasteia; the Spartan honors Agamemnon as Zeus, and Phylonoe, daughter of Tyndareus, and Tennes Odias; the Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as Poseidon; and the Athenians bring rites and mysteries to Agraulus and to Pandrosus, who were thought to be impious for opening the chest.. And in one word, among nations and peoples, they bring sacrifices and mysteries as men wish.. But the Egyptians consider cats, crocodiles, snakes, shields, and dogs to be gods.. And to all these things both you and the laws allow; so, on the one hand, considering it impious and irreverent not to regard any god at all; but on the other hand, it is necessary to use whatever each one wishes as gods, so that they may keep away from wrongdoing by reverence toward the divine.. But for us (and do not be misled, as many are, by hearsay), you are hated because of the name.. For it is not the names that deserve hatred, but the wrongdoing that deserves justice and punishment.. Therefore, admiring your peaceful and gentle nature, and your peaceful and kind attitude toward everyone, some are equal under one law, and the cities share in equal honor according to the value of equality; and the whole world enjoys deep peace because of your understanding.. We who are called Christians (so that you do not misunderstand us, forgive us, we do nothing wrong, but, as the argument will show, we are most devout and just toward both the divine and your kingdom, yet we are driven, carried, and persecuted, attacked by many only because of the name) have dared to report what concerns ourselves (you will learn from the argument that we suffer without trial and against all law and reason), and we ask you to consider us as well, so that we may at last stop being slaughtered by slanderers.. For the harm from those who persecute us is not about money, nor is the shame about punishment, nor any greater damage (for we despise these things, even if they seem important to many; we have learned not only to resist, but also not to be judged by those who lead us away and seize us; but to some, even if they strike us hard on the head, we offer the other cheek; to others, if they take away our tunic, we also give our cloak), but they plot against our bodies and souls when we refuse money, stirring up a crowd with accusations—accusations that we do not even suspect, but that belong to those who are idle and to their kind.

2. And if anyone has grounds to accuse us of wrongdoing, whether small or great, we do not refuse to be punished, but we consider ourselves worthy to endure even the harshest and most merciless punishment.. But if the accusation reaches even to the name (for at least today the common and uncritical opinion of people speaks about us, and no one has proven a Christian to be unjust), it is already your work, O greatest, most humane, and most learned kings, to prepare by law a restraint on arrogance against us; so that just as all the cities have shared in your benefits and in one accord, we too may hold gratitude toward you, proudly, because we have ceased to be slandered.. For it is not according to your justice that others, having been accused of wrongdoings, should be punished before being proven guilty; but with us, the name of those who judge in court holds greater power: not if the one being judged has done wrong, but the judges seek to disgrace him by attacking his name as if it were a crime.. No name by itself and through itself is considered either bad or good; but because of the actions attached to it, whether bad or good, it seems either worthless or good.. But you know these things more clearly, as if driven by philosophy and all education.. Because of this, even those accused by you, though they flee to the greatest places, are confident, knowing that you will examine their life, and neither will you add to their names if they are empty, nor to the charges from accusations if they are false. They accept the condemning vote and the acquitting vote in equal order.. Therefore, we also demand the same treatment for everyone, not that because we are called Christians we should be hated and punished (for what harm does the name bring us?), but that we be judged based on what someone is responsible for, and either the charges against those acquitted be dismissed, or the guilty wicked ones be punished—not because of the name (for no Christian is wicked, unless he pretends the word), but because of the wrongdoing.. In the same way, we see those judged by philosophy.. None of them seems to the judge to be good or bad before the trial because of their knowledge or skill; but if thought to be unjust, he is punished, having committed no crime by philosophy itself (for the one who is wicked is not truly a philosopher, as the law says; knowledge itself is innocent). But if the accusations are cleared, he is acquitted.. Let the same be true for us as well: let the life of the one being judged be examined; but let the name be free from all blame.. It is necessary for me, as I begin to defend this argument, to ask you, greatest emperors, to be fair listeners to us, and not to be swayed beforehand by common and unreasonable rumors, but to allow your love of learning and truthfulness, and your attention to the argument about us, to prevail.. For you will not fail through ignorance, and we, having freed ourselves from the uncertain rumor of the many, will stop being attacked.

3. Three crimes are charged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, and incest like Oedipus. But if these things are true, spare no one's family; bring out the wrongdoings. You killed us along with our wives and children, as if someone among humans lives by the law of beasts. Yet even beasts do not touch their own kind, and by the law of nature, and only for a time of reproduction, they do not mate without permission; and they know from whom they benefit. If then someone is wilder than the beasts, who, having promised such a law, will be thought to be punished justly and fittingly? But if these are fabrications and empty slanders, opposed by natural reason to virtue when set against vice, and if those opposing each other fight by divine law, and none of these things have been done wrong, you are witnesses, urging us not to agree; then it remains for you to examine our life, our beliefs, our eagerness and obedience toward you, your household, and the kingdom, and so never again allow those who persecute us to have any excuse. For we will overcome them, tirelessly for the truth and even giving our lives.

4. As for the charge that we are atheists (I will answer each of the accusations one by one, so that those who say them are not thought ridiculous for failing to prove them), the Athenians rightly called Diagoras an atheist, not only because he rejected the Orphic teaching, and the mysteries at Eleusis and those of the Cabeiri, and because he broke the statue of Heracles to stop the complaints; he openly declared that there is no god at all. But we separate God from matter, showing that matter is one thing and God another, and that God is far above matter (for the divine is unbegotten and eternal, perceived only by mind and reason; matter is created and perishable [31]). Is it not then unreasonable to call us atheists? For if we thought like Diagoras, having so many proofs of reverence for God—the order, the harmony throughout, the size, the color, the shape, the arrangement of the world—then the reputation of impiety and the cause of being driven out would rightly be added to us. But since our teaching leads to one God, the maker of all things, who himself is uncreated (because what exists is not made, but what does not exist is made), and all things are made through his word; we suffer both charges without reason, and are spoken against and persecuted unjustly.

5. Poets and philosophers who have studied about God have not seemed atheists. Euripides, on the one hand, was confused about the gods commonly accepted by popular belief;

He ought to have said, if there is one in heaven

Zeus, not to make him the same unlucky one.

But concerning the one understood by knowledge (as he was asserting [33]):

Do you see the height of this boundless sky,

And the earth held around with moist embraces?

Consider this one as Zeus was thought to be, and this one as the god was regarded.

For I have seen that neither the substances, to which the name happened to be applied, nor the things themselves, were underlying,

(For I do not know Zeus himself, who is Zeus, except by word)

Nor are the names said of things according to what underlies them; for if the substances do not underlie, what more do the names have over them? But the one who understands the unseen things from their works sees the appearances of air, ether, and earth. Therefore, the one whose creations these are, and by whom the spirit is guided, was taken to be God (with Sophocles agreeing with this),

One God exists in the truths, one God there is,

Who made both the sky and the vast earth,

toward the nature of that beauty of God being filled [39]), both, and where God must be, and that there must be one, teaching.

6. And Philolaus, as if in a fortress, saying that all things are surrounded by God, and that there is one, and that it is above matter, shows. Resolution and vision: one defines God as an unutterable number, the other as the highest of numbers, surpassing the nearest.. If the greatest number is ten, according to the Pythagoreans, being the tetractys and containing all the numerical and harmonic ratios, then nine lies close to it; God is the unit, that is, one.. For the greatest surpasses the nearest by the smallest amount to it.. Plato and Aristotle (and not as if I were showing off the doctrines of the philosophers exactly, but rather I will explain what they have said about God). For I know that as much as you surpass in understanding and power over the kingdom of all, so much do you also rule over every kind of education precisely; thus, by completing each part of education, not even those who lack one part of it are successful.. But since it is impossible to show this without listing names, that we do not enclose God alone in unity, I turned to the opinions [45]; thus Plato says: To find the maker and father of this whole universe, and having found him, to speak about him to all is impossible; there is one God, unbegotten and eternal, who is understood.. But if he knows others as well, such as the sun and the moon and the stars, he knows them as beings that are born; gods of gods, of whom I am the creator and the father of works, nothing is impossible if I am willing.. Everything that is bound is therefore able to be loosed.. If then Plato is not godless, but thinks of one unbegotten God as the creator of all; neither are we godless, since through him all things have been created by the Word and are held together by the Spirit from him, knowing and ruling this God.. Aristotle and those who follow him say that God is a kind of composite living being, made up of soul and body. They think his body is the ether, and that the wandering stars and the sphere of the fixed stars move in circles around him. They say his soul is the reason for the movement of the body; he himself is not moved, but becomes the cause of this movement.. Those from the Stoa, even though they change the names according to the variations of matter through which they say the spirit of God moves, multiply the divine names; but at least in action they think of God as one.. For if God is technical fire moving along the origins of the world, containing all the seed-like reasons by which each thing comes to be according to fate, and his spirit passes through the whole world; then God is one according to them, called Zeus in relation to the heat of matter, Hera according to the air, and the others according to each part of matter through which it has passed.

7. So when the divine being is mostly one, even if they do not want it, all agree on this, coming to the origins of all things, we hold that the one who arranged all this is God. What is the reason that some are free to say and write whatever they want about the divine, while for us there is a law that what we think and rightly believe is that God is one, and to show this with signs and words of truth? For poets and philosophers, like others, have imposed their own speculations, each moved by sympathy with the breath from God, each seeking by their own soul to find and understand the truth if possible; but having been able only to think deeply, they have not found anything that was not from God about God, worthy to be learned, but each from himself. Therefore, each of them formed different opinions about God, matter, forms, and the world. But we, what we think and believe, have prophets as witnesses, who spoke by the Spirit inspired about God and about the things of God. You might say also, with understanding and true reverence for the divine, that others are superior, as if irrational, leaving aside belief in the Spirit from God, as if the mouths of the prophets were moved instruments, paying attention to human opinions.

8. Therefore, think that the one God, the maker of this whole universe, has been from the beginning, so that you may also hold to our reasoning of faith.. If from the beginning there were two or more gods, either they were together in one and the same, or each one was separate on his own.. But they could not be in one and the same.. For if they were gods, they would be alike; but since they are unbegotten, they are not alike.. For the created things are like their models; but the uncreated are unlike, neither made from anything nor made toward anything.. If, like hand and eye and foot belong to one body, completing its parts, and one of them completes it, then God is one; yet Socrates, although born and perishable, is composed and divided into parts; but God is unbegotten, impassible, and indivisible.. Therefore, not composed of parts.. But if each of them exists separately, the one who made the world being above what has come into being and above what he both made and arranged, where then is the other?. Or the others?? For if the world, having been completed as a sphere, is enclosed by the circles of the heavens, and the maker of the world, holding himself above what has come into being, governs it by the providence of these things, what then is the place of the other God or of the others?? For it is neither in the world, since it belongs to another; nor around the world; for the God who made the world is above it.. But if it is neither in the world nor around the world (for everything around it is controlled by this one), where is it?? Above the world and above God.? In another world, or around another.? But if it is in another and around another, it is no longer about us.. For it neither rules the world, nor is it great in power; for it is in a limited place.. But if it is neither in another world (for all things are filled by this one), nor around another (for all things are held by this one), and it does not exist, it is not in what exists.. Or what does it do, being of another whose world it is, but itself being higher than the maker of the world, and not being either in the world or around the world?? But there is something else, so that the one who has come into being stands somewhere against what exists, but God and the things of God are above it.. And what place will there be, when that which is above this world is full?? But he foresees? And indeed, he has done nothing, if he does not foresee.. But if he does not act, neither does he foresee, nor is there another place where this one is, who from the beginning is the only creator God of the world.

9. If then we are satisfied with such ideas, one would think that the reason about us is human. But since the voices of the prophets confirm our thoughts (I think also you, being most eager to learn and most knowledgeable, are not ignorant of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, moved by the divine Spirit working within them, spoke out in ecstasy of their thoughts; the Spirit being used like a flute player breathing into a flute). What then are these? The Lord our God; no other will be reckoned alongside him. And again: "I am God first, and after me there is no God." "Before me no other God was formed, and after me there will not be." "I am God, and there is none besides me". And about his greatness: "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What house will you build for me, or what place for my rest?" I leave it to you, who have studied these books, to examine their prophecies more carefully, so that with proper reasoning you may prepare your understanding about us.

10. Therefore, it is clear enough to me that atheists are not, since there is one uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, and indivisible being, grasped only by mind and reason, contained in ineffable light, beauty, spirit, and power, through whom all things came into being and are arranged and held together by the same Word—this being God. For we also understand the Son of God. And let no one think it ridiculous that the Son is God. For we have not imagined gods better than humans, as poets do, either about God and the Father or about the Son. But the Son of God is the Word of the Father in form and activity. For through him and by him all things came into being, there being one Father and one Son. And since the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, united and empowered by the Spirit, the mind and Word of the Father, the Son of God. But if you wish to consider this more deeply with great understanding, I will say briefly what the Child wants: that he is the firstborn of the Father, not as something made (for God from the beginning, being eternal mind, had the Word in himself, being eternally rational), but as the idea and activity that came forth like a nature separate from all material things and the earth's vessel underlying them, mixed with the denser parts toward the lighter ones upon them. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with the Word; for the Lord says, "He created me the beginning of his ways for his works." And indeed, we say that the holy Spirit, which works through those who speak prophetically, is a flowing forth from God, flowing out and returning, like a ray of the sun. Who then would not be puzzled, hearing one speak of God the Father, and the Son God, and the holy Spirit, showing both their power in unity and their distinction in order, and call them atheists? And our theology does not stop there; but we also say there is a multitude of angels and ministers whom the creator and maker God of the world distributed through the Word with him, and appointed them over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all things in it, and their good order.

11. If I explain our reason carefully, do not be surprised; for so that you do not share in common and unreasonable opinion, and so that you may have the truth known, I speak precisely. Since even through the very doctrines to which we attend, which are not human but divine and God-taught, we can persuade you not to hold us as atheists. What then are the words by which we are nourished? I say to you: Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become children of your Father who is in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. Allow here a word unheard before, spoken with much outcry, to be brought forth boldly, as if defending itself before kings and philosophers. For who, among those who analyze arguments, dissolve doubts, and clarify etymologies, or among those who explain homonyms, synonyms, predicates, and axioms, and what is the subject and what is the predicate, who promise happiness to those present through such words and the like, have purified souls so much that instead of hating enemies, they love them, and instead of, at the least, speaking badly of those who first insult, they bless and pray for those plotting against their life? These people always do the opposite, mining such hidden things for themselves, and always desiring to work some evil, making the craft of words, not a display of deeds, their work. But among us you would find common people, craftsmen, and old men, if they are unable to provide benefit by word, showing benefit by deed from choice. For they do not remember words, but show good deeds; beaten so as not to strike back, and seized so as not to judge, giving to those who ask, and loving neighbors as themselves.

12. Then, if we do not think that God stands over the human race, would we clear ourselves in this way? It cannot be said. But since we are convinced to attribute every word of this life here to the Maker of both us and the world, God, and since we choose a moderate, kind, and humble life, we do not think that any such great evil will convince us here, even if some take away our soul, from whom we receive there the gentle, kind, and reasonable life from the great judge. Plato said that Minos and Rhadamanthus judge and punish the wicked; but we say, even if one is Minos or Rhadamanthus, or even their father, we do not think he escapes the judgment of God. Then some, thinking this life to be all, say, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die," and they put death as a deep sleep and forgetfulness (sleep and death are twins ), and they believe they are god-fearing; but men, considering this life here to be of little and small worth, and sent only by one who perhaps knows God and the Word with him, who is the unity of the Child with the Father, what is the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the union of so many, and the distinction of those united—the Spirit, the Child, the Father—knowing the life they expect is much better than words can say. If, being pure from all wrongdoing, we are sent away; and so kind-hearted that we not only love friends (for if you love those who love you, and lend to those who lend to you, what reward will you have?), being such as we are, and living such a life, to escape judgment, do we disbelieve in godliness? These things then, small from great, and few from many, so that we do not trouble you more; for even tasting honey and cheese in a small part of the whole, they test the whole to see if it is good.

13. Since many of those who accuse us of atheism have not even dreamed what God is, being ignorant and unseeing of natural and theological reason, measuring piety by the law of sacrifices, they accuse us of not even bringing gods into their own cities. Consider this for me, emperors, about each point, and first about not sacrificing. The creator and father of all this does not need blood, nor smoke, nor the fragrance from flowers and incense; he himself is the perfect fragrance, lacking and needing nothing. But the greatest sacrifice to him is if we know who stretched out and gathered together the heavens, and set the earth like a center, who gathered the waters into seas, and separated light from darkness, who adorned the sky with stars, and made every seed to grow from the earth, who made animals, and formed man. When we have the creator God holding and watching over all things with knowledge and skill, by whom all things are led, we lift holy hands to him—what further need does he have for a hundredfold sacrifice?

And some with sacrifice and abundant prayer,

People also offer libations and smoke.

Begging, whenever someone might go beyond and sin.

But what use are burnt offerings to me, if God does not need them? And yet it is necessary to offer a bloodless sacrifice, and to bring a reasonable worship.

14. The argument about not approaching and about the same gods being worshiped in the cities is very simple for them. But even those who accuse us of impiety, since we do not worship the same gods they know, agree with them in vain about gods. The Athenians have established Celeus and Metaneira as gods; the Lacedaemonians have Menelaus, and they sacrifice to him and celebrate festivals; the people of Ilium, not even hearing the name, bring Hector; and the Chians have Aristaeus, whom they consider both Zeus and Apollo; the Thasians have Theagenes, under whom a murder also happened at Olympia; the Samians have Lysander, despite so many slaughterings and so many evils; Alcman and Hesiod have Medea; and the Cilicians have Niobe; the Sicilians have Philip, son of Boutakides; the Amathusians have Onesilaus; the Carthaginians have Hamilcar. The day will fail me to recount the full number. So when they themselves disagree about the gods they have, why do they call us impious for not agreeing with them? And is it not also ridiculous concerning the Egyptians? For they beat their chests in the temples during festivals as if for the dead, and they sacrifice as if to gods. And this is nothing strange; for they also worship animals as gods, and they shave themselves when they die, and bury them in temples, and raise public mourning cries. Therefore, if we are impious because we do not worship the gods commonly with them, all cities and all nations are impious; for not all of them worship the same gods.

15. But let them worship the same gods; what then? Since most people are not able to distinguish what is matter, what is God, and how much is in between them, they worship idols made from matter. Should we, who distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created, the being and the non-being, the intelligible and the sensible, and give each its proper name, approach and worship statues because of those? For if matter and God were the same, two names for one thing, then not considering stones and wood, gold and silver as gods would be impiety. But if they are very different from each other, as much as the craftsman and his skill in the craft, what are we accused of? Just as the potter and the clay (matter is the clay, the potter is the craftsman ), and God is the creator, with matter obeying him in the craft. But just as clay by itself cannot become vessels without skill, so the all-receiving matter without the creator did not receive distinction, shape, or order. And just as we do not prefer the clay over the one who made it, nor the cups and gold over the smith who made them; but if anything about those is skillful according to the craft, we praise the craftsman, and he is the one who receives glory for the vessels; so also for matter and God, the arranger of the adorned, it is not matter that rightly has glory and honor, but the creator God himself. For if we were to worship the forms of matter as gods, we would be ignoring the true God, equating what is perishable and corruptible with the eternal.

16. For the world is indeed beautiful, both in its size and in the arrangement of the things within the oblique circle.. and those around the Bear, and in its truly spherical shape; but not this one, rather the craftsman himself must be worshiped.. For even those subjects who come to you do not leave behind serving your rulers and masters, from whom, whenever they need something, they might obtain it, and they turn to the sacred origin of your authority; but they rightly admire the royal hearth, which they encounter in a different way, and you lead them in all things with glory.. And you kings cultivate royal origins for yourselves; but the world did not come into being as if God needed it. For God himself is everything to himself: unapproachable light, perfect order, spirit, power, reason.. If then the world is a fitting instrument, moving in rhythm, arranging and striking the notes, and singing a harmonious melody, I do not worship the instrument.. For just as the victors do not crown the lyres, having left behind the harpists, so too I do not crown the instruments.. Whether (as Plato says) it is an art of God, admiring its beauty, I pay respect to the artist; or whether it is substance and body (as those of the Peripatetic school hold), without neglecting to worship God, the cause of the body's movement, we fall down before the poor and weak elements, worshiping the impassive air as if it were a passive matter; or whether one thinks of the powers of God as the parts of the world, we do not serve the powers themselves, but their maker and master.. I do not blame the matter for what it does not have, nor, neglecting God, do I serve the elements, to which nothing more than what they were commanded is allowed.. For it is good to see the works of the creator's art, but these belong to the nature of matter itself.. Plato also bears witness to this statement (25: For he says, "The one whom he called heaven and world shared in many blessings from the Father; yet he also partook of a body; therefore, it is impossible for him to be subject to change."). If then, admiring the heaven and the elements of art, I do not worship them as gods, knowing the reason for their dissolution; and since I know men who are creators, how could I call these things gods?? Consider for me briefly.

17. It is necessary, in defense, to provide more precise arguments, both about the names, since they are newer, and about the images, since they came into being yesterday and the day before, so to speak.. You yourselves also know these things to be more worthy, so that in all things and above all you may be connected with the ancients.. I say, then, that Orpheus and Homer and Hesiod are the gods spoken of by those people.. Herodotus also bears witness; for I think Hesiod and Homer to have been older than me by four hundred years, and not more, those who gave both kinds and names.. These are the ones who composed the theogony for the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, and assigned honors and roles, and marked their forms.. Images, until the time when sculpture, painting, and statue-making existed, were not even considered. These arts came about with Saurius of Samos, Craton of Sicyon, Cleanthes of Corinth, and Kore of Corinth. Saurius invented shadow-drawing, having outlined a horse in the sunlight; Craton invented painting, by shading the shadows of a man and a woman on a white panel; and from Kore came the invention of clay modeling.. Having a certain love for him, she traced his shadow on the wall while he was sleeping; then the father, pleased with the perfect likeness (he was a potter), carved the outline and filled it in with clay.. The mold is still preserved in Corinth even now.. After these, Daedalus and Theodorus of Miletus came along and added modeling and statue-making.. The time was indeed so short for the twenty and for the study of images, that one might say each craftsman had a god.. For the one at Ephesus of Artemis, and that of Athena, rather of Athela (for Athela, as the more secret ones say, is the old name from the olive tree ), and the seated Endoios was made by a student of Daedalus; the Pythian was the work of Theodorus and Telecles; and the Delian and the Artemis were the art of Idectaeus and Angelion; but the Hera at Samos and at Argos were the hands of Smilidas, and the rest of the images were by Phidias; the Aphrodite at Knidos was a courtesan, the work of Praxiteles; and the Asclepius at Epidaurus was the work of Phidias.. To sum up, it can be said that nothing among them escaped being made by human hands.. If then they were gods, why were they not from the beginning? ? What gods are newer than those who made them?? What need did they have, before coming into being, of humans and skill?? These things are earth and stones, and wood, and elaborate skill.

18. Since, then, some say that these are images, but gods are those on whom the images depend; and that the offerings given to these images and the sacrifices are brought to and become for those gods; and that the gods cannot be approached in any other way than this (and gods appear to be clearly difficult to reach), and the actions of some idols provide proof that this is so; bring it, let us examine their power over the names. I will ask you, greatest emperors, before the argument, to forgive the thoughts if the truth is offered. For it is not my purpose to criticize the idols, but by removing slanders, I offer a reason based on our choice. You should examine the heavenly kingdom for yourselves; for since everything has been handed over to you by the Father and the Son, having received the kingdom from above (for the soul of the king is in the hand of God, says the prophetic Spirit), so everything has been subjected to one God and to the Word, the Son, understood as indivisible. Consider this first before the others. The gods were not from the beginning, as they say, but each of them came to be in this way, just as we come to be; and this agrees with all of them. For Homer says,

Oceanus, the origin and mother of the gods, Tethys;

Orpheus (who was also the first to discover their names, and traced their origins, and told what each of them had done, and is believed among them to speak more truly about the gods—whom even Homer mostly follows, especially regarding the gods), also presents their first origin as coming from water;

Oceanus, just as the origin of all things has been established.

For water was the beginning for all things according to him, and from the water came mud, and from both was born a living dragon, having the head of a lion, and in the middle of them the face of a god, named Heracles, and Time. This Heracles produced a huge egg, which, being filled, was violently broken into two by the one who had been born, through rubbing. The part at the top was completed as heaven; the part that fell down was earth. Then a god of the earth came forth through the body; and heaven, mixed with earth, gave birth to the females Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos, and the men the hundred-handed Cottus, Gyges, Briareus; and the Cyclopes Brontes, Steropes, and Arges; whom, after binding, he put in order, having learned that they would be overthrown by the children of the ruler. Therefore, angered, the earth gave birth to the Titans;

And the earth, the mistress, gave birth to the youthful Uranian ones,

whom indeed they also call by the name Titans,

Because I took vengeance on the great starry heaven.

19. This is the beginning of the account about the gods themselves and the whole universe. Now this: for each of those called gods is said to be the beginning. For if they came into being without being, as those who speak about them say, then they do not exist. Either something ungenerated and eternal exists, or something generated and perishable exists. And I do not think this way, but philosophers think differently. What is always being has no origin; or what has come into being, but is never being? Discussing the intelligible and the sensible, Plato teaches that what is always being, the intelligible, is ungenerated; but what is not being, the sensible, is generated, having a beginning and an end. To this, those from the Stoa add that all things will be burned by fire and again will be, having taken a new beginning of the world. But if, although there are two causes according to them, one active and primary, as is providence, and the other passive and receptive, as is matter, it is impossible for the world that has come into being to remain the same while being both foreseen and generated; how then does the arrangement of these things remain, not by nature existing, but by becoming? Why are the gods superior to matter, if the arrangement comes from water? But even according to them, water is not the principle of all things; from simple and uniform elements, how could things be arranged? There must be an artisan for matter, and matter for the artisan; or how could impressions be made without matter or the artisan? Matter cannot be older than God; for the creative cause must precede what is generated.

20. If then, up to the point of saying that the gods came into being, and that the arrangement comes from water, their theology was unbelievable, I would be adding nothing but more accusations against them. But since they have assigned these bodies to them: Heracles, because he is a god in the form of a coiled serpent; the hundred-handed ones they named; and the daughter of Zeus, whom he begot from the mother Rhea and Demeter or Demeter herself, they said she naturally has two eyes, and two on her forehead, and a face on the back of her neck, and also horns. Because of this, Rhea, frightened by the child's monstrous form, fled and did not nurse it; hence she is called secretly Athena, but commonly Persephone and Kore, not the same as Athena who is called "from Kore". This, they say, is a precise account of what happened: Cronus cut off the genitals of his father and threw him from the chariot, and killed his male children by swallowing them; Zeus bound and overthrew his father, as did Uranus with his sons; he fought the Titans over the rule, and pursued his mother Rhea who forbade his marriage; when she became a serpent, he himself changed into a serpent, tied her with the so-called Heracleotic band, and joined with her—the rod of Hermes being the symbol of their union. Then he joined with Persephone, his daughter, forcing himself on her also in the form of a serpent, from whom the child Dionysus was born; it is necessary to say even this much. What is sacred or fitting in such a story, so that we might believe that Cronus, Zeus, Kore, and the others are gods? The dispositions of their bodies? And what man, judged and having come to contemplation, would believe that a snake was born from God? (Orpheus:

But if Phanes begot another terrible generation

From the sacred womb, to look upon a fearsome-faced serpent,

Whose locks from the head, and a beautiful face

Could be seen, but the rest of the parts were of a fearsome dragon.

From the top of the neck.

Either to receive Phanetas himself, being a primordial god (for he is the one poured forth from the egg), or to have the body or form of a dragon, or to be swallowed by Zeus, so that Zeus might become unrestrained? For if they do not surpass in any way the most base beasts (it is clear that the divine must distinguish between earthly things and those separated from matter ), they are not gods. What indeed is the use of those who have the nature of beasts, but themselves are beast-shaped and dreadful?

21. And yet, if they said that they were only fleshly and had blood and seed, and feelings of anger and desire, even then these words would be foolish and laughable; for neither anger, nor desire and craving, nor seed that produces children, exist in God. Let them be fleshly, then, but stronger in spirit and anger; so that Athena is not seen

"Scolding father Zeus, but fierce anger takes hold of him" ;

Hera is seen,

Hera did not have anger in her heart, but spoke to him;

a stronger pain;

"Oh woe! A dear man being chased around the wall,"

"I see with my eyes; but my heart laments."

For I call people unlearned and foolish when they give in to anger and grief; but when the father of men and gods laments his son,

Those who (saying) when Sarpedon, the dearest of men to me,

That fate was to be overcome by Patroclus, son of Menoetius.

But powerless, lamenting, to snatch him away from danger,

Sarpedon, son of Zeus; but he does not defend even his own child;

Who would not blame those who believe in such stories as god-loving, but rather godless, for their ignorance? Let them be fleshly; but let them not be wounded, nor Aphrodite's body by Diomedes,

Not even I, son of Tydeus, hot-tempered Diomedes.

Or the soul by Ares,

As Aphrodite, daughter of Zeus, found me lame,

He always dishonors, but loves the unseen Ares.

But he buried the beautiful body.

The terrible one in wars, the ally of Zeus against the Titans, seems weaker than Diomedes;

(He raged like when Ares, the spear-handed, rages).

Be silent, Homer; God does not rage. But you call him both bloodstained and destroyer of mortals,

(Ares, Ares, destroyer of mortals, bloodstained one)

Describe the god, and explain his adultery and the bonds;

They went to the bed and fled; and around were bonds

Skillful ones poured out of the wise Hephaestus,

It was not possible to move any of the limbs.

Do they not cast down this great impious nonsense about the gods? Heaven is cut apart, Cronus is bound and thrown into Tartarus, the Titans rise up, Styx dies in battle. Already they even show the mortals themselves; they love one another, they love humans;

Aeneas, born to Anchises by the goddess Aphrodite,

On Ida's slopes, the goddess lay with a mortal.

Do they not speak? Do they not suffer? For the gods, does desire touch them? And if a god takes on flesh according to divine plan, is he already a slave to desire?

For never before has the love of a goddess or a woman been like this for me.

A spirit poured out within my chest subdued me;

Nor ever did I fall in love with the wife of Ixion,

Nor even when Danaë, daughter of Acrisius with beautiful hips,

Nor even when the far-famed daughter of Phoenicus;

Nor even when Semele, nor Alcmena in Thebes;

Nor even when Demeter, queen with beautiful hair;

Nor even when of famous Leto, nor of yourself.

He is born, he is mortal, having no part of God. But even so, they serve as slaves to men;

O house of Admete, in which I endured—

To praise the Thessalian table, though being a god.

And they tend cattle;

"Having come to this land, they fed cattle for a stranger" ,

And they saved this household.

Then Admetus is better than the god. O prophet and wise one, who foresaw what would happen to others, you did not prophesy the death of the one asked about, but you yourself killed your friend with your own hand.

And I also [am] the divine, unfailing mouth of Phoebus.

I hoped to be, by the art of prophecy, full of skill;

(How Aeschylus blames Apollo as a false prophet)

Here I am praising you myself, here I am present in the feast,

Having said these things myself, I am the one who kills.

My own child.

22. But these things may be a kind of poetic error, yet there is a natural and fitting argument behind them,

Zeus the bright (as Empedocles says), and Hera the ever-young, and Hades,

Fasting, who wets the mortal spring with tears.

If then Zeus is fire, Hera the earth, and Hades the air, and fasting is water, these are the elements: fire, water, and air. None of these is a god, neither Zeus, nor Hera, nor Hades; for their composition and origin come from matter separated by God.

Fire, and water, and earth, and air, the gentle height,

And friendship with them.

It cannot remain without friendship, being confused by strife.. How then could anyone say that these are gods?? Friendship is the beginning, according to Empedocles; the mixtures begin; and the beginning is the master.. If we consider one power that is both the beginning and the ruler, we will make ourselves equal to matter, which is perishable, fluid, and changeable, compared to the uncreated, eternal, and always harmonious God.. Zeus is the boiling substance according to the Stoics; Hera is the air, and the name, if it were joined to it, would be sounded together; Poseidon is the drink.. Others explain differently; some say Zeus is a two-natured air, both male and female; others say time turns into a favorable mixture; therefore, only Cronus escaped.. But concerning those from the Stoa, it is possible to say this: They believe that the highest God is one, eternal, and uncreated, and that the change of matter is equal to a mixture, and that the spirit of God has taken place through matter according to its variations, saying that it receives different names. The forms of matter will become the body of God's being, but as the elements are destroyed by burning, it is necessary that the names perish together with the forms, with only the spirit of God remaining.. Since the change according to matter is of perishable bodies, who would believe these to be gods?? To those who say that Cronus is time, and Rhea is earth; that she conceives from Cronus and gives birth (hence she is considered the mother of all ), and that he both generates and consumes; and that the cutting is the necessary union of the male with the female, cutting and casting seed into the womb, and producing a human, having within himself desire, which is Aphrodite; and that the madness of Cronus is the turning of time, destroying living and non-living things; and that the bonds and Tartarus are time turned by seasons and becoming invisible; to these we say: Whether Cronus is time, it changes; whether it is season, it turns; whether it is darkness, or frost, or moist substance, none of these remain; but the divine is immortal, unmoving, and unchanging.. Therefore, neither Cronus nor the image upon him is a god.. About Zeus, if he is air born from Cronus, of whom the male is Zeus and the female Hera (therefore both sister and wife), he changes; but if he is a season, he turns.. The divine neither changes nor shifts.. What more is there to say to trouble those who know better than anyone else the things naturally spoken by each?? Either as those who wrote about nature understood it; or about Athena, whom they say reason has heard through all things; or about Isis, the nature of the age from which all were born and through which all exist, they speak; or about Osiris, who was killed by Typhon, his brother, concerning Pelorus, the son, Isis searched for the body parts, and finding them, prepared them for burial; a burial that is still called Osirian today.. For turning up and down around the forms of matter, they fall away from the reason of the visible God; but they make the elements and their parts divine, giving them different names at different times: the seed of wheat as Osiris (whence, they say, Isis was mysteriously named at the finding of the parts or the fruits: "We have found, we rejoice"); the fruit of the vine as Dionysus; and Semele herself as the vine, and the lightning bolt as the flame of the sun.. And what do those who make the myths divine say, if not more than theology, not knowing that by defending the gods with these stories, they actually confirm the arguments against them?. What do Europa and the Bull and the Swan and Leda have to do with earth and air, so that there might be a foul mixing of Zeus with these, or of earth and air?? But falling away from the greatness of God, and unable to rise above reason (for they have no sympathy with the heavenly realm), they have melted down into the forms of matter, and falling down, they make divine the changes of the elements; like if a ship in which someone sailed were to be taken instead of the pilot.. Just as a ship, no matter how well equipped for all things, is nothing without its pilot; so too, the elements, though arranged, are of no use without the providence of God.. For the ship by itself will not sail, and the elements apart from the creator will not move.

23. You might say, then, that all surpass in understanding: But by what reason do some of the idols have power, if they are not gods on whom the statues are founded?? For it is not reasonable that lifeless and motionless images have power by themselves without the one who moves them.. Indeed, we do not deny that in certain places, cities, and nations, some power is attributed to idols by name; yet, even if some have been helped and others hurt, we do not consider those who acted on both sides to be gods.. But also, for what reason do you think the idols have power, and who are the ones acting, riding on their names? We have examined this carefully.. It is necessary for me, in what follows, to show who are the ones acting through the idols, and that they are not gods, having appealed also to some witnesses from philosophy.. First, Thales divides (as those who analyze his divisions carefully recall) into God, into demons, into heroes.. But God is understood as the mind of the world, demons as spiritual beings, and heroes as the separated souls of humans, the good being good souls, and the bad being wicked ones.. Plato, holding to other things as well, divides into the unbegotten God, and those who have come into the world of heaven from the unbegotten, both the wandering and the fixed stars, and into demons.. About these demons, he himself refuses to speak, considering it worthy to pay attention to those who have spoken about them.. To speak about the other demons, and to know their origin, is greater than for us.. We must believe those who spoke before, saying that these demons are descendants of the gods, since they clearly know their own ancestors.. It is impossible, then, to disbelieve the children of the gods, even if they speak without clear and necessary proofs; but, as they say, one must believe those who follow the law when they report what is proper.. So then, according to them, let our account of the origin of those gods be established and spoken.. Children of Earth and Heaven were Ocean and Tethys; from these came Phorcys, Cronus and Rhea, and all who were with them; and from Cronus and Rhea came Zeus, Hera, and all those whom we know and call their brothers; and from these, other descendants as well.. So then, the one who understands God as eternal mind and reason, and who explains what has happened to him—the truly existing, the only-begotten, the good flowing from him, which is truth—and about the first power; and how, as the king of all, everything belongs to him, and because of him everything exists, and he is the cause of all; and about two and three, second about the second things, and third about the third things; about those said to have come from the sensible earth and heaven, he thought it better to learn the truth itself rather than what is said about them.? Is it not possible to say?? But since it is impossible to generate and give birth to gods, he thought it better to follow what comes into being, and even more impossible is to persuade the many who accept myths without question; for this reason, he said it is better to know and speak about the birth of the other spirits, who are neither able to learn nor explain the generation of gods.. And what was said to him, "Indeed, the great leader in heaven is Zeus, driving a winged chariot, going first, arranging all things and taking care of them; after him follows a host of gods and spirits," does not hold for Zeus, as said to be from Cronus.. For in this, there is a name for the maker of all things. And Plato himself shows this, not having another way to express it, using a common name, not as a personal name of God, but for clarity, since it is not possible to carry God in all ways. He used the term "great," to separate the heavenly from the earthly, the unbegotten from the begotten, the younger heaven and earth, and the younger Cretans, who stole him so that he would not be destroyed by his father.

24. What then is necessary, since every argument has been set in motion toward you, either to remember the poets or to examine other opinions as well?? Having so much to say, if even poets and philosophers recognized that there is one God, but concerning this, some thought of him as a spirit, others as matter, and others as a man who came to be, we would rightly investigate by a dividing argument, using distinctions about God, matter, and the very essence of these.. Since we say God, and the Son is his Word, and the Holy Spirit, united indeed in power, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, because Mind, Word, Wisdom, Son of the Father, and an outflow, like light from fire, is the Spirit; so also we have taken other powers concerning matter and through it; one indeed is the opposite; not because it is something contrary to God, like strife is to friendship, according to Empedocles, and night to day, according to appearances (since, even if it opposed God in some way, it would cease to be, having been undone by the power and strength of God's composition), but because it is opposed to the good of God, which is accidental to him and coexisting, like color to a body, without which it does not exist (not as a part, but as a necessarily accompanying and joined and mingled attribute, like blond to fire, and blue to the air), the spirit that holds to matter is opposed; having been made by God, just as the others were made by him as angels, and having believed in the governance over matter and the forms of matter.. For this the arrangement of the angels was made by God through providence for those ordered under him, so that God would have complete and general care of all things, and the angels appointed over them would have care in part.. Just as with humans, who have free will and both virtue and vice (for you would neither honor the good nor punish the wicked if both vice and virtue were not in them; and some are found trustworthy by you, while others are found untrustworthy), so it has been established similarly concerning the angels.. For some others remained free, as they were made and ordered by God, abiding in what God made and arranged for them; but others insulted both the substance and the authority; this one, the ruler of matter and the forms within it, and others concerning this first firmament (know that we say nothing without witness, but it has been proclaimed by the prophets, to reveal it); those others fell into desire for virgins and were found weaker than flesh; but this one, neglecting and becoming evil regarding the governance entrusted to him.. From those concerning the virgins, the ones called giants were born.. If anyone has spoken in part about the giants and poets, do not be surprised, for the difference between worldly wisdom and theological wisdom, as much as truth is persuasive, is like a mixture of both, one being heavenly and the other earthly.. And according to the ruler of matter.

We know that many false things are said that resemble the true.

25. These, then, are the angels who fell from the heavens, holding to the air and the earth, no longer able to look up to the higher heavens; and the souls of the giants, who wander around the world as demons, making similar movements—some demons by the bodies they received in their formation, and some angels by the desires they had. The ruler of matter, as can be seen from these events, watches over and governs in opposition to the goodness of God;

Many times a thought passed through my mind

Whether chance or demon rules life;

Against hope and against justice

Those falling away from their homes

He leads those without life, and those who are fortunate.

Euripides made the claim that to act well or badly beyond hope and justice is a kind of madness, a view of his earthly rule, in which one might say:

So then, seeing these things, either the race of the gods

Shall we say that they exist, or that we follow laws?

This is why Aristotle spoke without foresight when he made the following about what is under the sky, although the eternal providence of God also remains with us;

(The earth, whether it wants to or not, is compelled

Growing what kind of plants it takes hold of;

In part, according to truth and not opinion, it happens among those who are worthy, and among the rest according to the common law of composition foreseen by reason. But since the demonic movements and actions from the opposite spirit bring these disorderly burdens, already people are carried differently, one by one and by nations, partly and generally according to the reason of matter and the sympathy toward the divine, moving from within and from without; because of this, some, whose opinions are not small, thought that the whole of this was not arranged by any order, but was driven and carried by irrational chance; not knowing that concerning the arrangement of the whole universe, there is nothing disorderly or neglected, but each of them has come to be by reason; therefore they do not even break the fixed order upon them. But man, according to what he has made himself, also stands in good order, both according to the nature given at birth, holding one and common reason, and according to the disposition formed, not breaking the law upon it, and the purpose of life, which remains equal and common; but according to his own reason and the rule of the one who holds power, and the activity of the accompanying demons, each is carried and moved differently; all having in common the reasoning within themselves.

26. And those who draw people toward idols are the demons mentioned before, those who stand beside the blood from the priests, and who are stained by these things; but the gods who please the many, and are called by images, as it is known from their history, have become men. And the belief that each of these demons is the power behind the names they ride upon is their faith. Some cut off the genitals, those around Rhea; others cut or mutilate, those around Artemis. And the one in Tauris kills strangers. For I refuse to call those who torment themselves with knives and dice, and all kinds of demons, gods. For it is not God who moves toward things against nature.

Whenever a demon brings evil to a man,

It first harms the mind.

God, being completely good, is eternally a giver of good. Therefore, that others are the ones acting, and that images arise from others, is the greatest proof in the cases of the Trojans and the Parian; the former has the images of Nerullinus, a man among us; the latter, of Alexander and Proteus. Alexander's image and tomb are still in the marketplace. The other statues of Nerullinus are a public ornament (if indeed the city is adorned by these), and one of them is even believed to give oracles and to heal the sick; and the Trojans offer sacrifices to it, anoint it with gold, and crown the statue. As for the statues of Alexander and Proteus (you do not ignore that this one threw himself into the fire near Olympia), Alexander's is also said to give oracles.

(Dyspari, a noble form, mad with rage against women)

Public sacrifices and festivals are held as to a hearing god. So, is it Nerullinus, Proteus, and Alexander who work these things around the statues, or is it the arrangement of the material? But the material is bronze; what can bronze do by itself? It can be reshaped again into another form, like the foot-washer that Amasis had near Herodotus. What more can Nerullinus, Proteus, and Alexander do for the sick? For what the image is now said to do, the living and sick Nerullinus also did.

27. What then? First, the irrational and image-like movements of the soul around opinions, sometimes taking different forms—some drawn from matter, others shaped and conceived by themselves. This especially happens to the soul when it has taken on a material nature and is held together by spirit, not looking upward to the heavens and their maker, but downward to earthly things, generally toward the earth, becoming only blood and flesh, no longer a pure spirit. These irrational and image-like movements of the soul produce idol-mad fantasies. But when the soul is gentle and receptive, yet deaf and inexperienced in flowing words, unable to see the truth, and unaware of the Father and maker of all, it becomes sealed with false opinions about itself; the demons around matter, like flies around smoke and the blood of priests, deceitful to humans, take hold of these false opinions—movements of the many souls—and give them fantasies, as if coming from idols and statues. Riding on these thoughts, they allow them to enter; and as the soul itself, being immortal, moves rationally, foretelling what is to come and caring for what is present, the demons take the credit for these things.

It is perhaps necessary, according to what has been said before, to say a few things about names.. Herodotus and Alexander, son of Philip, in the letter to their mother (each said to have arrived in Heliopolis, and also in Memphis and Thebes, to speak with the priests), are said to have become men from those places, to learn.. Herodotus said: Since images already existed, they showed themselves as such—being like gods but far removed from them.. Before these men, the rulers in Egypt were gods, not at the same time humans; and among them, there was always one who held power. Later, Horus, the son of Osiris, ruled there, whom the Greeks call Apollo.. After this one defeated Typhon, he became the last king of Egypt.. Osiris is Dionysus in the Greek language.. The others, then, and the last king of Egypt (from whom the names of the gods came to the Greeks), were Apollo, the son of Dionysus and Isis (as Herodotus says: they say that Apollo and Artemis are the children of Dionysus and Isis; Leto became their nurse and savior). These were considered heavenly beings and held the first kingship. Some out of ignorance of the true piety toward the divine, and some by the favor of their rule, led gods along with their wives.. Now all the Egyptians sacrifice clean bulls, the male ones, and calves; but they are not allowed to sacrifice the female ones. The females are sacred to Isis, whose image is a woman with cow's horns, just as the Greeks depict Juno.. Who would believe these things more readily than those of the family line, child after father, as they inherit the priesthood and the history?? For it is not likely that the priests who perform the sacred rites would themselves be false about the images.. If then Herodotus said anything about the gods, as about humans, that the Egyptians were historians, and said. To Herodotus: "Now, I am not willing to tell the divine stories as I heard them, except for a very few of their names; do not believe as if it were a myth-maker's tale. But since Alexander and Hermes Trismegistus call upon them, linking their eternal race, and countless others (so that I do not list each one separately), there is no longer any reason to deny that they were kings who were not considered gods.". And that they were men, the most learned of the Egyptians show clearly, who, calling gods the air, the earth, the sun, the moon, consider the other men mortal, and hold their tombs sacred.. Apollodorus also shows this in his work On the Gods.. Herodotus also calls their teachings mysteries.. In the city of Busiris, as they celebrate the festival of Isis, it was told to me earlier.. For after the sacrifice, all men and women strike themselves, countless thousands of people.. The way they strike themselves is not proper for me to say.. If they are gods, then they are immortal; but if they strike themselves, their sufferings are their mysteries, and they are human—just as Herodotus himself says. And there are also tombs, which I do not consider proper to name in such a matter, at Saïs, in the temple of Athena, behind the entire temple, near the wall of Athena's temple.. There is a lake surrounded by a stone edge, decorated in a circle, about the size, as it seems to me, of the one in Delos called the Wheel-shaped.. In this lake, the Egyptians call the signs of his sufferings the mysteries of the night.. Not only is the tomb of Osiris shown, but also the embalming; when a dead body is brought to them, they show to those who bring it wooden examples of the dead, carved in writing; and they say that the most important of these is the one they call "Not Making Holy," a name I do not consider proper to use for such a matter.

29. But also among the Greeks, those wise in poetry and history concerning Heracles;

Cruel, he did not respect the face of the gods nor the table,

He set it before him; then he also killed Iphitus .

Being such a man, he was rightly mad; and rightly, having lit a fire, he burned himself. As for Asclepius, Hesiod says:

Father of men and gods

When he was angry, he struck from Olympus with a flashing thunderbolt

He killed the son of Leto, his dear one, stirring up his spirit.

Pindar says:

But wisdom is also gained.

Gold appeared in his hands, turning him also, the young man, by its gentle reward.

And so by the hands of the son of Cronus,

With a throw through both, a breath

He poured down upon the chest

Quickly; and a blazing thunderbolt struck death.

So then, if they were gods, they themselves did not care for gold

(Oh feast, the finest banquet for mortals,

As if even a mother does not have such pleasures,

Not children.

For the divine is both ignorant and better than desire), and they did not die; or having become human, they were evil through ignorance, and less in wealth. Why should I say more, mentioning Castor or Polydeuces, or Amphiaraus, who, so to speak, yesterday and this morning were men born from men, are considered gods; whenever even Ino, after her madness and the sufferings of madness, is believed to have become a god?

Wandering in the Pontus; named Leukothea.

And her child;

The solemn Palamon will be called to the sailors.

30. For even if the gods were thought to be detestable and hated by the gods, and the daughter of Derketo, Semiramis, a lustful and bloodstained woman, was considered a Syrian goddess; and because of Derketo and the doves and Semiramis, the Syrians worship (for the impossible, the woman changed into a dove; the story is from Ktesias); what is surprising is that some were called gods at the beginning and in tyranny by those under them, (Sibylla, and Plato remembers her too;

"Indeed, then, in the tenth generation of mortal men,"

"From then on, a flood came upon the earlier men,"

"And Cronus ruled, and Titan, and Iapetus,"

"the best children of Earth and Heaven, they were called"

"Men, giving the names Earth and Heaven,"

"Because they were the first of mortal men."

Those honored for strength, like Heracles and Perseus, and those honored for skill, like Asclepius; to some, either the rulers themselves gave part of the honor, or the rulers received it themselves—some shared it out of fear, others also out of respect. And Antinous was considered a god because of the kindness of your ancestors toward their subjects. Those who came after accepted this without question.

Cretans are always liars; for even your tomb, O lord,

The Cretans were killed; but you did not die.

Believing, Callimachus, in the knees of Zeus, you disbelieve his tomb; and thinking to overshadow the truth, you proclaim to those who do not know that he is dead. If you see the cave, it reminds you of Rhea, the mother; but if you see the corpse, you darken your view of the dead, not knowing that only the unbegotten God is eternal.

Either the stories told by many and by poets about the gods are untrustworthy, and the reverence toward them is excessive (for the words are not false); or, if the births, loves, murders, thefts, mutilations, and thunderbolts are true, they no longer exist, having ceased to be, since they once happened but are no longer.

For what reason is there to believe some and disbelieve others, when the poets have recorded these things in detail? For those who were thought to be gods, and who made their history solemn, did not lie about their own sufferings.

Therefore, since we are not atheists, holding the creator of this universe to be God, and the Word from him, according to my ability, even if not fully worthy, has been demonstrated.

31. They even invent false teachings and mixtures about us atheists, so that they might seem to hate us with reason, and thinking that by fearing us, either they will drive us away from life by objection, or prepare the rulers to be harsh and unyielding because of excessive blame. Playing to those who know, as if somehow there is a custom from above, and not only among us, following some divine law and reason, to fight evil with virtue.

Thus Pythagoras was burned along with three hundred others by fire, Heraclitus and Democritus—one was driven out of the city of Ephesus, the other of Abdera, accused of madness—and the Athenians condemned Socrates to death. But just as those men did not harm the cause of virtue because of the opinion of many, neither does the unmeasured slander of some darken our holiness of life. For we are well thought of by God.

Yet I will answer these accusations as well. You, then, and by what I have said, I know well that I have defended myself. For despising all with understanding, who think that life is measured by God as a standard, so that each of us might be blameless and faultless before him, know that these men never even considered the slightest sin. For if we were convinced to live only this one life here, and even then it was possible to suspect sin while serving the flesh and blood, or being less than gain or desire, we would sin.

But since we have come to believe that the one we think of and speak about, whom we know both night and day, is God, and that he is all light, and sees what is in our hearts, we are convinced that after this life here, we will live another life better than this one, a heavenly life, not an earthly one (since if you live with God and in God, your soul remains steady and free from passion, not as flesh, even if we have it, but as a heavenly spirit).

Or, if we were to fall along with the rest into something worse and through fire (for God did not make us as sheep or beasts of burden, a side matter, so that we might perish and be destroyed), it is not reasonable for us to willfully do evil, nor to hand ourselves over to the great judge to be punished.

32. Therefore, it is nothing wonderful that they make up stories about us atheists, like those they say about their own gods, and reveal their sufferings as mysteries. If they were to judge it terrible to mix freely and carelessly, either to hate Zeus—who was born from his mother Rhea, and the daughter of Kore, and who took a wife who was also his sister —or to hate Orpheus, their creator, because he made Zeus impious and foul for the sake of Thyestes. For he also, according to prophecy, slept with his daughter, being king and wanting to take revenge on Thyestes.

But we keep ourselves so indifferent that we do not even allow ourselves to look with desire. For he says that anyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery in his heart. Therefore, those who can see nothing more than what God made their eyes for, to us their eyes are light; and those whose seeing has turned into adultery, having eyes for other things, will be judged by understanding. How could these people be thought to be wise when they disbelieve?

For our argument is not about human laws, which someone might become wicked and escape (and at first I insisted to you, master, that the teaching about us was God-taught); but we have a law that has made them a measure of justice and holds those near to them. Because of this, we consider sons and daughters by age, and we have brothers and sisters; and we give honor to those who have gone before us, our fathers and mothers.

Therefore, those whom we call brothers and sisters and the rest of the family, we consider their bodies to remain uninjured and incorruptible for us; again, as the word says: "If someone kisses a second time because he pleased him," and adds, "Thus the kiss must be exacted, and even more so the worship", so that if the mind is a little confused, we might be cast out from the eternal life that is given.

33. Therefore, having hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even the pleasures of the soul. Each of us, if he takes a wife according to the laws established by us, considers her only until she bears children. Just as a farmer, planting seeds in the ground, waits for an unplowed field, not sowing again; so for us, the measure of desire is procreation.

You will find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, hoping to be more united with God. And if remaining in virginity and chastity brings one closer to God, then coming even to the thoughts and desires leads away from him; from which thoughts we flee, much more do we reject the deeds.

Our way is not by words, but by demonstration and teaching through deeds; either one is able to be born again, or to remain in one marriage. For the second is a kind of adultery. For he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; neither is it allowed to divorce the one whose virginity has been ended, nor to remarry.

For he who deprives himself of his former wife, even if she has died, is a hidden adulterer, transgressing the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman; and by uniting flesh to flesh in marriage, he made them partners in offspring.

34. But such people (oh, what could I say about the unspeakable?) we hear the proverb, "The prostitute hates the chaste." For those who have set up a market of prostitution, and made unlawful brothels for the young, offering every shameful pleasure, sparing not even males, males doing terrible things with males; those who dishonor the most honorable and beautiful bodies in every way; dishonoring even the beautiful work of God (for beauty on earth is not self-made, but sent by the hand and will of God), these, as they understand themselves and call their own gods, boast about these things as sacred, even of the gods themselves, and they insult us for these things.

Adulterers and pederasts insult the eunuchs and the monogamists; those who live like fish (for these also swallow the fallen, the stronger driving out the weaker; and this is touching human flesh, breaking the laws laid down by you and your ancestors after examining all justice), they say that even the rulers of the nations sent by you are not enough for justice, and that those who are not beaten should not allow themselves to be treated badly or praised.

For it is not enough for justice to be just (and justice is to give equal to equals), but it must be for the good and the unresentful.

35. Who then, thinking well, would say that we are such as to be murderers? For it is not possible to eat human flesh without first killing someone. So they lie about the first; and even if someone asks them whether they have seen what they say, no one is so enraged as to say he has seen it.

And yet they are slaves to us, some many, some fewer; whom it is not possible to hide; but none of these, among us, has ever lied about such things. For those who are known to endure even justly being killed, who would accuse them of murder or cannibalism?

Who does not know about the struggles by arms and beasts, especially those fought by you? But we, thinking it close to seeing a person killed as to killing, have forbidden such sights. How then, not even seeing, so that we do not bring shame and pollution upon ourselves, could we be able to kill?

And those who use the things of the womb, we say that to kill and to lessen the word of abortion before God is murder; by what kind of murder do we kill? For it is not the same, to think that a being is living in the womb and therefore cared for by God, and having come into life, to kill; and not to expose what is born, as those who expose are child-killers, but again to kill what has been nourished.

But we are all alike and equal everywhere, serving the word and not its rulers.

36. Who then, believing in the resurrection, would offer himself as a tomb to bodies raised again? For it is not possible both to believe that our bodies will rise and to eat them as if they will not rise. And to think that the earth will give back its own dead, those whom someone has buried for himself, and that they will not be demanded back.

On the contrary, it is likely that those who neither speak of a life here that is either evil or good, nor believe in resurrection, perish together with the body and think they are extinguished, would not dare to refrain from anything. But those who believe that nothing escapes God's judgment, and that the body which served the irrational impulses and desires of the soul will be punished, have no reason to sin even in the smallest things.

If it seems foolish to some that the rotten, dissolved, and vanished body will be restored again, we would not rightly be blamed for wickedness because of those who do not believe, but rather for foolishness. For when we deceive ourselves with words, we wrong no one.

Indeed, it is not only among us that the resurrection of the bodies is believed, but also among many philosophers. It is strange to show this now, so that we do not seem to bring forward arguments that are foreign to those we address, either about the intelligible and the sensible and their composition, or that the immaterial is older than the body, and the intelligible comes before the sensible, even if we begin with the sensible things, which are composed from the immaterial according to the combination of intelligible bodies, and from the intelligible.

For according to Pythagoras and Plato, the dissolution of the bodies from which the principle was composed does not prevent those same bodies from being composed again. But let the discourse about the resurrection be laid aside for now.

37. But you, who are good and moderate and kind in every nature and education, and worthy of the kingdom, having your sins forgiven and showing that you are both God-fearing and gentle and souls corrected, nod to the royal head. For who, being more just, would be more in need to receive it than those of us who pray for your rule, that as a son you may rightly succeed your father in the kingdom, and that your rule, with all under your authority, may grow and be increased?

And this is also for us, so that we may live a calm and peaceful life, while we ourselves eagerly serve all the commands given.

On the Resurrection of the Dead, by Athenagoras the Athenian, a Christian Philosopher

1. Every doctrine and word that holds to the truth in things that exist has some falsehood growing alongside it.. But this falsehood does not grow from some underlying principle moving according to nature or from the cause of each thing itself, but rather it is produced by those who have sown error for the destruction of the truth and have eagerly worked toward its ruin.. This can be discovered, first, from those long ago who were occupied with these concerns, and from the disagreements that arose between them and their elders as well as their contemporaries; and not least from the very disturbances among those involved in the middle.. For these men left nothing true unreported—not the essence of God, nor the knowledge, nor the activity, nor the things that follow in order from these, nor the teaching that confirms piety for us. But some completely reject the truth about these things; others twist it to what seems right to them; and others even try to be uncertain about what is clear.. Therefore, I think it is necessary for those who labor concerning these matters to have two kinds of words: some in defense of the truth, and others about the truth; and the words in defense of the truth are for those who do not believe or who doubt; while the words about the truth are for those who are grateful and receive the truth with goodwill.. For this reason, those who wish to examine these matters must consider the need at hand each time and measure their words accordingly; they must adjust the order of discussion about these things to what is proper, and not always hold to the same principle based on what seems right, neglecting what is appropriate and the particular circumstances that apply to each case.. For when it comes to proof and the natural order, the words about the truth always take the lead over those in defense of it; but when it comes to what is more necessary, the words in defense of the truth take precedence over those about it.. For neither can a farmer properly sow seeds in the earth without first removing the wild plants that harm the seeds being sown; nor can a doctor give any healing medicine to a body needing treatment without first cleansing the existing disease or stopping the flow of the spreading illness.. Nor indeed can one who wishes to teach the truth, speaking about the truth, persuade someone when a false opinion is secretly influencing the mind of the listener and opposing the words.. Therefore, turning to what is more necessary, we also put first the words in defense of the truth rather than those about the truth.. In the same way, it does not seem useless now to do the same regarding the words about the resurrection, since they consider what is necessary.. For even in these matters we find some who completely disbelieve, some who doubt, and among those who accept the basic premises, some who are also puzzled like the doubters; but the most unreasonable thing of all is that they suffer these doubts without having any real cause for disbelief from the facts themselves, nor do they find any reasonable reason to say why they disbelieve or are confused.

2. Let us consider it this way: If all disbelief does not come about rashly and without careful thought for some, but rather from a strong cause and from security according to the truth (for a plausible argument saves only when the thing itself, about which there is disbelief, seems unbelievable; for it is the work of people who are not sane to disbelieve what does not exist, when they use sound judgment about the truth), then it is necessary that those who disbelieve or are puzzled about the resurrection do not hold their opinion carelessly or as a license given to the undisciplined. Rather, they either kindle the origin of disbelief in people from no cause at all — which is very easy to refute — or they attribute the cause of existing things to God, aiming at the hypothesis of this doctrine, and through this show that the resurrection has no trustworthy basis anywhere.. They will do this if they are able to show that it is either impossible or against the will of God to reunite and gather again the dead bodies, or even those completely broken down, back to the composition of their own people.. But if they are not able to do this, let them stop this godless disbelief and cease from blaspheming what is not lawful.. For it will become clear from what has been said that they are speaking neither the impossible nor the against-the-will.. Something is truly known to be impossible either because what will happen is not known, or because there is not enough power to do well what has been recognized.. For one who does not know what must happen would neither attempt nor be able at all to do what he does not know; but when he knows well what is to be done, and from where it would come, and how, yet has no power or not enough power to do what is known, he would not attempt the beginning, if he were sensible and considered his own strength. But if he attempts recklessly, he would not complete what he intended.. But it is neither possible to be ignorant of God concerning the nature of the bodies to be raised, both as a whole and in part, nor where each of the things dissolved fits, nor which part of the elements has received what was dissolved, and how it fits with what is related— even if it seems very unclear among humans how the whole is again properly united.. For the nature of each one's own composition was not unknown before, nor the nature of the elements from which human bodies are made, nor the parts of these from which the form was to be taken for the composition of the human body. It is clear that even after the whole has been dissolved, it will not be unknown where each of the things it took has gone for the completion of each one.. For as far as the current order of things and the judgment about others that we have hold, it is greater to know beforehand what has not happened; but in relation to the worth of God and his wisdom, both are natural, and it is also easy for the one who knows what has not happened to know what has been dissolved.

3. And indeed, the very origin of these bodies shows the power sufficient for their resurrection. For if the human bodies and their elements were not made according to the first composition, and if, after being dissolved, they will be raised again with the same ease—this is also possible for him. And there is no harm in the argument, even if some suppose that the first elements come from matter, or that the human bodies come from the elements as first principles, or even from seeds. For it is the power of these to shape the formless as it is customary with them, and to arrange the shapeless and unadorned into many and diverse forms, to gather the parts of the elements into one, to take one seed and divide it simply into many, to join what is unjoined, and to give life to what is not living. It is the same power that unites what has been dissolved, raises what lies down, brings back to life the dead, and changes what is perishable into imperishability.

And the same power and wisdom would also be for the many creatures broken into parts, as many as are accustomed to be allowed to such bodies and to gather satisfaction from them, to separate from there, to unite again with their proper parts and members—whether one living being comes from one of those, or many, or from there to others, or mixed with those very ones brought back to the first elements according to natural dissolution. This is what seemed to trouble some, even among those admired for wisdom, who thought strongly about the difficulties brought by the many.

4. These men say that many bodies of fish that die in shipwrecks and rivers, and many of those who die in wars, or by some other harsher cause and circumstance of events, deprived of burial, are set before living animals as food. Of the bodies thus consumed, and of the parts and members that complete them, broken into a great number of animals and joined to the bodies of those fed by them through food, they say first that it is impossible to distinguish these. And second, even more puzzling is this: of the animals that have fed on the bodies of humans, as many as are suitable for human food, passing through their stomachs and joined to the bodies of those who have taken them in, it is necessary that all the parts of humans, as many as have become food for the animals that took them in, pass into other human bodies. Among these animals fed between them, the food from which they were fed is ferried back to those humans of whom it became food.

Then they add to this the tragic stories of cannibalism attempted in famines and madness, and the children born to enemies who are bound, and that Persian feast, and the tragic dinners of Thyestes, and such new disasters among Greeks and barbarians. From these they construct, as they think, the impossibility of resurrection, because the same parts cannot be raised again in different and different bodies. Either the earlier parts cannot be composed again, having been transferred to others who complete them, or if these parts are returned to the earlier ones, the parts of the later ones will be lacking.

5. To me, such people seem first to be ignorant of the power and wisdom of the one who created and governs this whole universe, who has fitted the proper and suitable food to the nature and kind of each living being, and who neither allows every nature to go toward the union or mixture of every body, nor is puzzled by the distinction of what has been joined. But he also permits each nature of the beings to do or suffer what it is naturally inclined to, sometimes even preventing it, and allows or changes whatever he wishes and toward whatever he wishes.

Besides what has been said, they do not even consider the power and nature of each of those feeding or being fed. For if they had known that not everything offered is truly food for the living being because of external necessity, then that would be proper food. But some things are naturally destined to be destroyed together with the parts folded into the stomach, being digested and separated and differing in another way, so as not even briefly to endure the first and natural digestion—that is, the mixture into the one being fed. Just as not everything that has died and first received change fully passes into the parts of those fed, some are rejected by the stomach's nutritive power itself, others are distinguished by the second change and digestion occurring in the liver, and pass into something else, which has lost the power of nourishing.

And not all of the change occurring in the liver turns into food for humans, but is separated into what is naturally waste. And sometimes the leftover food in them, changing into something else for the parts and members of those fed, according to the dominance of what is excessive or leftover, tends to corrupt or turn back toward itself, as it is accustomed to do.

6. Since there is great natural difference in all living beings, and even the natural food changes together with the kind of each living being and the body being fed; and thirdly, because of the purification and separation that happens according to the food of each living being, it is necessary that all food which is foreign to the nourishment of the animal be destroyed and separated or changed into something else, so that it cannot be held together.

It also naturally happens that the power of the feeding body acts upon the powers of the animal being fed, and this power, coming through the natural judges with which it was born and purified exactly by natural purifications, becomes the most sincere reception into substance. This alone, if someone were to confirm it by facts, would be called food, since it removes all that is foreign and harmful to the constitution of the animal being fed, and that large mass introduced serves to fill the stomach and satisfy appetite.. But no one would deny that this [pure food] is united with the body being fed, being mixed and spread through all its parts and members. The other kind, which is different and unnatural, is quickly destroyed if mixed with stronger power, and easily corrupts what has been held, turning into harmful juices and poisonous substances, carrying nothing that is natural or friendly to the body being fed.. And the greatest proof of this is that pain, danger, or death often follows for many of the animals being fed if something poisonous and unnatural is mixed with the food by a stronger appetite and is swallowed. This would certainly be destructive to the body being fed, if it is nourished by what is natural and proper, but is harmed by what is opposed to it.. If then, according to the difference among animals that differ by nature, food is naturally divided, and not everything that is brought to the animal, nor whatever chance comes from it, is received into a mixture with the body being fed, but only that which has been purified through all digestion and truly transformed into union with the making body and fitting well with the parts being fed; it is clear that nothing unnatural would ever be joined to these, for which no proper and suitable nourishment exists, but either it is separated by the very stomach before it produces some other juice, raw and corrupted, or, gathering in excess, it causes suffering or a severe disease, destroying together the natural food and even the flesh itself that needs nourishment.. But even if it is sometimes driven away by certain poisons, or better foods, or by natural powers having been overcome, a great amount of harm still breaks out, because it brings nothing peaceful to what is natural, due to being incompatible with nature.

7. In general, even if one allows the food coming from these things (let it be noted that this is more common), though it is unnatural, to be separated and transformed into one of the moistening or drying, heating or cooling substances, still nothing productive will come from what is allowed to them—bodies that rise again from their own parts—nor will any of the mentioned parts exist, nor the relation or order that belongs to a part. Nor will it always remain with the parts of the body being fed, or rise together with those that rise; nor will it still contribute to living—not blood, not phlegm, not bile, nor spirit.. For the bodies being fed will never need those things again, even then, when the need and decay of what they were fed on have been taken away.. Therefore, even if one assumes that the change from such food reaches as far as the flesh, it is still not necessary that the flesh recently changed from such food, having joined the body of another person, will again be completed as a part of that body—neither always keeping the flesh that took it in, nor remaining permanent and fixed in the place where it was added. Moreover, it undergoes many other changes, sometimes altered by pains or worries, at other times wasted away by grief, fatigue, or diseases, and by the bad humors caused by burning or chilling, which do not change along with the flesh but carelessly remain in the parts that receive the food.. When such sufferings happen to the flesh, one would find them much more in flesh fed from foreign sources—now growing in size and swelling from what it has taken in; then again spitting out whatever it can in some way and shrinking, caused by one or more of the previously mentioned reasons. Only those parts remain that are naturally meant to connect, cover, or warm, chosen by nature and joined to those that complete life according to nature, along with the pains involved in life. But neither when examined closely as they should be, nor when accepted with allowance after being tested by those experiences, can what is said about them be shown to be true. Nor could the bodies of humans ever be held together with those of the same nature, even if by ignorance they sometimes lose sensation by sharing the body of another like that, or if from lack or madness they become defiled with a similar body. Surely some among us, being human-like beasts or having a mixed nature of humans and beasts, as the boldest poets have been used to imagining, have not forgotten this.

8. And what need is there to speak about bodies that belong to no living creature for food, but are assigned only to burial in the earth as a respect to nature? For the one who made them has not assigned any other animal of the same kind as food, even if in some other cases food comes naturally from different kinds. If, then, they have proof that human flesh has been assigned to humans for eating, nothing would prevent mutual eating from being natural, just like other things that naturally agree with each other. And those who dare to say such things have their place among the bodies most beloved to them as more familiar, or even among their own eunuchs. But if it is not even proper to say this, then that humans share the flesh of other humans is the most hateful and utterly foul thing, and more unlawful and unnatural than any eating or action. And the unnatural would never be allowed as food for the parts and members that need it. And what is not allowed as food would not be joined to those things that are not naturally meant to feed it. Nor would the bodies of humans ever be joined to similar bodies that are unnatural as food, even if often, through the passage of their stomachs, by some most bitter misfortune, they depart from the power of nutrition and scatter back to those from which they first had their composition. They are joined to these for as long as each happens to last; then, separated again by the wisdom and power that arranges the nature of every living thing with its own powers, each is continually joined to its own, whether burned by fire, destroyed by water, consumed by beasts or other animals encountered, or cut off from the whole body and dissolved from the other parts. When joined again to one another, they hold the same place in harmony and composition with the same body, and the resurrection and life of the dead or even completely dissolved body. These things, then, are not easy to extend further; the judgment is agreed upon, at least by those who are not mixed beasts.

9. Since there are many things more useful for the present examination, I now pass over those who rely on the works of humans, and those human creators who are unable to renew broken works, whether worn out by time or otherwise destroyed. Then, like potters and carpenters, they try to show that even God would neither will nor be able to raise a body that is dead or even dissolved. And they do not consider that by these claims they insult God with the worst kind of disrespect, equating the powers that are completely separated, and even more so the substances and artifices used by these powers, with the natural ones. It is not blameworthy to be eager about these matters. For it is truly foolish to argue against what is obvious and vain; far more glorious and most true is the saying that what is impossible for humans is possible for God. And if through these things, as glorious and through all the small things examined earlier, the argument shows that it is possible, it is clear that it is not impossible. But it is also not unwilling.

10. For the unwilling, or as unjust, is unwilling to him, or as unworthy.. And again, the unjust is considered either concerning the one who will be raised or concerning someone else beside him.. But that no one is wronged by those outside and those counted among the living is clear.. For neither the spiritual natures would be wronged by the resurrection of humans (for this is no obstacle to their being, no harm, no insult is the resurrection of humans); nor indeed the nature of irrational beings, nor of lifeless things; for they will not exist after the resurrection; and concerning what does not exist, there is no injustice.. And even if it were assumed that there is some existence, these would not be wronged by the renewal of human bodies. For if, now subject to the nature of humans and lacking their needs, being under a yoke and all kinds of slavery, they are not wronged; much more, when they become incorruptible and free from need, and no longer require these needs, and are freed from all slavery, they will not be wronged.. For even if they had a voice, they would not blame the creator for the humans being lessened unjustly, because they did not receive the same resurrection as these.. For since their nature is not equal, the just one does not assign them an equal end.. Apart from these, there is no judgment of justice, nor any blame of wrongdoing, against those.. Nor indeed is it possible to say that injustice is considered against the one who rises up.. For this one belongs to both soul and body; and injustice does not affect either the soul or the body.. For no one who is wise would say that the soul is wronged, since it will take away with it the present life as well.. For if now, living in a perishable and suffering body, it is not wronged at all, much more will it not be wronged living with an imperishable and impassible one.. But the body is not wronged either.. For if now the perishable is not wronged when joined with the imperishable, it is clear that the imperishable will not be wronged when joined with the imperishable.. No one would say that it is an unworthy work of God to raise up and gather together a body that has been broken apart. For if it is not unworthy to make a body that is worse perishable and subject to suffering, then much more it is not unworthy to make one that is better, which is imperishable and impassible.

11. But if each of the things examined has been shown through the natural first causes and those following them, it is clear that the resurrection of the broken bodies is also possible, willed, and worthy of the creator's work.. For through these things, what opposes them and the reasoning of the unbelievers have been shown to be false.. For what need is there to speak about the reversal of each thing toward each other and their mutual connection?? And if it is necessary to speak of connection, as a certain difference of things separated, it also says that what is possible is willed, and that what is willed by God is entirely possible, and according to the worthiness of what is willed.. And that the argument about the truth is one thing, and the one in favor of the truth is another, has been moderately explained through what came before, by which each was held back, and when and for whom it is useful.. Perhaps nothing prevents making a new beginning from these things and those related to them, for the sake of common certainty and the connection of what has been said to what remains.. It was fitting for one to take the lead according to nature, and for the other to attend upon the first, to make the way, and to prevent as much as possible any obstacle or hindrance.. The argument about the truth, being necessary for all people for safety and salvation, takes the lead both by nature and by order and by need: by nature, as it provides knowledge of things; by order, as it exists in and with those things of which it is the messenger; and by need, as it becomes the cause of safety and salvation for those who know it.. But the one who supports the truth is naturally and by power inferior.. For it is less to expose falsehood than to hold the truth strong; and it ranks second in order. For it has power against those who hold false opinions; false opinion, however, grows from sowing and corruption.. But even with these things as they are, it is often put first and sometimes becomes more necessary, as it removes and clears away the disbelief that troubles some and the doubt or false opinion that has just come to others.. And each is referred to one goal (for both exposing falsehood and holding the truth have reference to piety), yet they are not simply one; rather, the one is necessary, as I said, for all who believe and care for the truth and their own salvation; the other sometimes becomes more necessary even for some and in certain cases.. And let these things be said to us briefly as a reminder of what has already been spoken.. It is necessary to come to the main point, and the true account of the resurrection must be shown, both from its cause, by which the first man came to be and those after him (even if not in the same way), and from the common nature of all humans as humans; furthermore, from the judgment of the one who made them, according to how long each lived and under which laws they lived—this judgment no one would deny is just.

12. The account from the cause is this: if we consider whether a human came to be simply and without purpose, or for some reason; and if for some reason, whether this very living and continuing came to be according to the nature it took on, or because of some necessity.. But if it is by necessity, either that of the one who made him, or of someone else belonging to him and worthy of greater care.. And looking at it more generally, we find that everyone who thinks well and acts with reason toward doing something does nothing without purpose; either for their own use, or because of the need of someone else they care about; or because of what is happening itself, moved by some natural attraction and affection toward its own origin.. Suppose (let it be said by way of an example, so that the matter at hand becomes clear) a person builds a house for their own need, but builds shelters for oxen and camels, or for other animals that are in need, not for their own use as it seems, but for the sake of the end, and also because of the care they have for those creatures.. He also has children, not for his own need, nor for any other of his own concerns, but so that those born from him may exist and continue as long as possible, comforting himself with the succession of children and descendants, and thinking that through this he makes the mortal immortal.. But these things are done by these people.. But God certainly did not make man in vain (for he is wise; no work of wisdom is in vain); not for his own need, for he is in no way lacking; and nothing created by him would serve any personal need for one who needs nothing at all.. But he did not make man for any of the works created by him.. For nothing that is governed by reason and judgment, whether greater or lesser, has been or is made for the need of another, but for the life and existence of the things themselves.. For reason does not find any cause for the birth of humans; since the immortals lack nothing and do not in any way need human help to exist; and the irrational beings, governed by nature and fulfilling their own needs for which each is made, do so without needing humans, nor were they made to be used by them.. For it was not and is not right for the ruler and leader to be subject to the use of those who are lesser, or for the rational to be placed under the irrational, which are unfit to rule.. Therefore, if a human came into being neither without cause nor in vain (for nothing made by God is in vain, at least according to the intention of the maker), nor for the need of the one who made him, or of any other creature made by God; it is clear that, according to the first and more general reason, God made the human for himself and for the goodness and wisdom seen in all creation; but according to the more specific reason related to those who have come into being, it was for their life, which is not briefly touched upon and then completely extinguished.. For to the creeping things, I think, and to the flying and swimming creatures, or more generally to all irrational beings, God assigned such a life; but to those who bear the image of the maker in themselves, and who share in reason and the judgment of the rational mind, the maker gave the inheritance of eternal existence, so that, knowing their own maker and his power and wisdom, and following law and justice, they may live together forever without trouble, even though they have bodies that are perishable and earthly.. For as many things as have come into being for the sake of something else, when those things for whose sake they came into being cease, it is reasonable that the things themselves will also cease to be, and they would not remain in vain (since nothing made by God has a place for the vain); but those things that have come into being by their very nature for existence and life, having received existence together with the cause itself by nature, and considering existence alone, would never accept any cause that completely destroys their existence.. If existence is always considered in itself, then the living being that has come into being must be preserved completely, both in its activity and in its suffering, each coming from the two causes that contribute to it from itself: the soul, which exists and continues smoothly in the nature in which it was made, and exerts effort according to its nature (for it is naturally inclined to govern the body, and it always judges and measures what happens to it by proper standards and measures); and the body, which moves naturally toward what it is made for, and accepts the changes allotted to it, along with the other changes that come with age, form, or size—this is the resurrection.. For resurrection is a kind of change and the final change of all, and it is still a change toward the better for those who survive that time.

13. Having been buried alongside those already born, and observing our own nature, we accept life with its lack and decay as fitting for this present life, and we firmly hope for an existence that lasts without corruption. This hope is not shaped by humans in vain, nor do we deceive ourselves with false hopes as shepherds do, but we trust with unwavering confidence in the guarantee given by the mind of the one who created us. According to that mind, he made man from an immortal soul and a body; he also fashioned a mind for him and implanted a natural law for salvation and the guarding of what was given by him, suitable for a sensible and rational life. We know well that he would not have made such a living being, nor adorned it with all things necessary for lasting existence, if he did not intend for what was made to endure.

Therefore, if the creator of this whole universe made man to share in a sensible life, and made him a witness to his grandeur and to all wisdom, so that he might always share in the vision of these things according to that creator's plan, and according to the nature he received, then the cause of birth guarantees eternal existence, and eternal existence guarantees resurrection, without which man could not endure.

From what has been said, it is clear that resurrection is shown plainly by the cause of birth and the mind of the creator. Since this is the cause by which man came into the world, it follows naturally to consider the reasoning that accords with nature or order. According to this examination, the cause of birth is the nature of born humans; the nature of those born is the just judgment of the creator over them; and to all these belongs the end of life. Having examined these points, we must next consider the nature of humans.

14. The proof of the truths of doctrines, or of anything put forward for examination, which brings unwavering faith to what is said, does not have its origin from outside anywhere, nor from some who seem or are given, but from the common and natural understanding, or from the sequence of secondary things following the first.. Either the doctrines concern the first principles, and then only a reminder is needed to stir up the natural understanding; or they concern those things that follow naturally from the first principles, and the natural sequence, and then the order established upon these must be shown, indicating what truly follows from the first or the prior principles, so that one neither neglects truth or the security based on it, nor confuses what is set and defined by nature, nor breaks the natural order.. Therefore, I think it is right for those who are serious and want to judge wisely about the matters at hand, whether the resurrection of human bodies happens or not, first to carefully examine the powers contributing to the demonstration here, and what place each one holds, and what comes first, what second, what third, and what last among these.. After arranging these, one must first set in order the cause of the birth of humans, that is, the plan of the creator according to which he made man; and to this one must closely join the nature of the created humans, not as secondary in order, but because the judgment cannot be made about both at the same time; even though they mostly coexist with each other and provide equal power toward the matter at hand.. Through these, as first things, and the clear beginning of what comes from creation, the resurrection is plainly shown; no less can the faith about it be taken through the words of providence. I mean through the just honor or judgment owed to each person according to right judgment, and the end according to human life.. For many, when discussing the matter of the resurrection, have placed all the cause on the third alone, thinking that the cause happens because of judgment.. This is clearly shown to be false from the fact that all the dead humans rise, but not all those who have risen are judged.. For if only what is just according to judgment were the cause of the resurrection, then certainly those who have done no wrong, or who have lived rightly, would not rise—that is, the young children who have died.. It is possible for all to rise, both the others and indeed those who have died in their earliest age, and they themselves are justified, showing that resurrection does not happen primarily because of judgment, but because of the will of the creator and the nature of the created.

15. Since the cause seen in the birth of humans alone is enough, show the resurrection as a natural consequence following the bodies that have been dissolved; it may be right not to reject any of the points made, and accordingly, following what has been said, also show the reasons arising from each of the following points for those who cannot understand them by themselves; and before all else, show the nature of created humans, leading to the same idea and giving equal faith concerning the resurrection.. For if the nature of all humans together is made up of an immortal soul and a body joined to it at birth, and God has not separated such a birth from the nature of the soul by itself or the nature of the body by itself, nor life and the whole existence, but has made them for the humans born from these, so that from what they are born and live by, after living through it, they come to one common end; it is necessary that the whole arrangement of these two beings—both the one suffering all the sufferings of the soul and all those of the body, both acting and doing all that the sensory or rational judgment requires—be referred to one end; so that all things and through all things come together in one harmony and the same feeling of a human: the birth of a human, the nature of a human, the life of a human, the actions and sufferings, and the life, and the end proper to the nature.. But if there is one harmony of the whole being and one feeling, both of those born from the soul and those carried out through the body, then the end for all these must also be one.. There will truly be one end for the same being according to its own composition, for which the end itself is the goal.. The same living being will be purely composed of all the same parts from which the living being is made; and the same parts, according to their particular union, will be again joined to the composition of the living being after being separated.. The composition of the same human beings necessarily shows the resurrection of the bodies that have died and been dissolved.. For without this, the same parts would neither naturally join together, nor would the nature of the same humans be formed.. And if mind and reason have been given to humans for the purpose of distinguishing things not only by their being, but also by the goodness, wisdom, and justice of the one who gives them; then it is necessary that the judgment given for these things, for which reason has been given, also remains.. But it is impossible for this to remain without the nature that received it and that remains in the things in which it exists.. The one who has received both mind and reason is a human, not a soul by itself.. Therefore, the human, who is made from both, must remain forever.. But it is impossible for this to remain without rising again; for if resurrection does not happen, the nature of humans as humans would not remain. And if the nature of humans does not remain, the soul is joined in vain to the body's need and its sufferings. In vain is the body bound to get what it desires, yielding to and being controlled by the reins of the soul. In vain is the mind, in vain is understanding, and the keeping of justice, or even the practice of every virtue, and the setting and ordering of laws, and, in short, everything that is good in humans and through humans, and even more so the very origin and nature of humans themselves. But if all the works of God and the gifts given by him are lost from all and everywhere, then the body's lasting existence must absolutely continue together with the soul's endless life according to its own nature.

16. Let no one be surprised if we call life that is cut off by death and decay a lasting existence, thinking that the word is not used in the same way, or that the measure of lasting is not the same; for even among those who last, their natures are not the same.. For if each of those who last has lasting existence according to its own nature, one would not find lasting existence equal among those purely incorruptible and immortal, since the essences of the higher beings are not to be equated with those differing in rank. Nor is it proper to seek the same smooth and unchanging lasting existence among humans; for those who were made immortal and lasting from the beginning exist only by the will of the creator without end; but humans have unchanging lasting existence according to the soul from birth, and according to the body they receive incorruption through change. This is what the teaching of the resurrection intends. Looking toward this, we await the dissolution of the body as following the life that is subject to need and decay, and after this, we hope for lasting existence that is incorruptible. We do not equate our end with that of irrational creatures, nor do we equate the lasting existence of the immortal with the lasting existence of humans, so that we do not mistakenly equate with this both the nature and life of humans with those to which they do not belong.. Therefore, it is not proper to be troubled if someone sees irregularity concerning the lasting existence of humans, nor to reject resurrection just because the separation of the soul from the parts and members of the body breaks continuous life.. For just as we do not think that the natural interruptions of sensations and natural powers during sleep, which happen according to feeling, break life, even though humans sleep for equal periods of time and in a way come back to life again, so too we refuse to call that life anything other than the same life.. Because of this reason, I think some call sleep the brother of death, not tracing their origin from the same ancestors or fathers, but because of the similar experiences that happen to both those who die and those who sleep, namely the calmness and the lack of awareness of what is present or happening, and even more so the absence of being and of their own life.. If then the life of humans is filled with such irregularities from birth until dissolution, and is interrupted by all the things we mentioned before, we do not refuse to call it the same life; nor should we deny the life beyond dissolution, which brings about resurrection, even if it is interrupted for a time by the separation of the soul from the body.

17. For this is the nature of humans, having irregularity joined from above and according to the plan of the Creator; it has an irregular life and duration, sometimes interrupted by sleep, sometimes by death, and by the changes that happen at each age, not clearly visible to those who come first, but to those who come later. Who would believe, if not taught by experience, that in the equally measured and formed seed there are so many and such great powers, or the difference of the masses joined and fixed to it—bones, I say, and nerves and cartilage, even muscles, flesh, organs, and the other parts of the body? For neither in the moist seeds is anything of these visible, nor in infants does anything appear of what happens in adults; either the things of the grown-up come from those who have passed childhood, or those of the old come from the grown-up. Yet, although some of the things said do not appear at all, and some only faintly show the natural order and the changes that happen by nature in humans, still those who are not blinded by evil or laziness in judging these things know that first the seed must be formed, then each part and portion arranged, and when these come into the light of those conceived, growth happens during the first age, and with growth comes completion; when complete, the natural powers decline until old age, then the bodies, worn out, dissolve. Just as, therefore, neither the life or form of humans is written in the seed, nor the dissolution of life into the first elements, the order of natural events provides faith to those who do not have faith from the things seen; much more, the word, tracing truth from the natural order, confirms resurrection, being more certain and stronger than experience for faith in truth.

18. Of the earlier words proposed to us for examination and believing in the resurrection, all are of the same origin, as born from the same beginning (for their beginning is the creation of the first humans); but some are strengthened by that first origin from which they were born, while others, following both the nature and life of humans, receive faith from God's providence concerning us (for the cause by which and through which humans have come to be, joined with the nature of humans, has its power from creation; but the word of justice, by which God judges those who have lived well or badly, comes from the end of these things); for they grow from that source, but are rather sustained by providence.. Having shown to us the first things as possible, it would be good also to show the one proposed through the later things; I mean through the just judgment owed to each human according to honor or justice, and the end according to human life. Of these things, let us first put forward the one considered natural; and first examine the word about judgment, having said only so much out of care for the proper beginning and order of the things proposed, that those who accept God as the Creator of this whole universe must entrust to his wisdom and justice the care and providence of all things created, if they wish these things to remain in their own proper beginnings. And those who think about these things should consider nothing as ungoverned or without providence, neither those on earth nor those in heaven, nor unplanned, but should know that the care from the Creator extends equally over all things, both unseen and seen, small and great.. All things that have come into being need the care of the Creator, especially each one according to what it is by nature, and according to what it must be used for.. For I do not think it is out of ambition to now bring down or divide, or to want to assign what is fitting to each nature.. But the human being, about whom we are now about to speak, is, as a needy one, in need of food; as mortal, in need of succession; and as rational, in need of justice.. If each of the things mentioned belongs to a human by nature, and a human needs food for life, needs succession for the continuation of the race, and needs justice because food and succession are lawful, then it is necessary, of course, that justice be applied to food and succession together, since they are carried along together. For this reason justice is also applied. By "together" I mean the human being made up of soul and body. And such a human becomes subject to all actions done, receiving either honor or punishment for them.. If just judgment applies to both together regarding what has been done, then neither the soul alone should receive the consequences of what was done with the body (for it is powerless by itself concerning the faults related to bodily pleasures or food and care), nor the body alone (for it is without law and justice by itself). But the human being, who is one of these two, receives judgment for each of the things done to him. However, this reasoning does not find fulfillment in this life (for what is deserved is not preserved in the present life, because many live as atheists, practicing all lawlessness and evil, and the evils continue without end until death; and on the other hand, those who have shown their lives examined by every virtue live in pain, in hardships, in slanders, insults, and all kinds of suffering). Nor does it happen after death (for the composite no longer exists, the soul being separated from the body, and the body itself being scattered back to those elements from which it was taken, preserving nothing of its former nature or form, that is, the memory of what was done). It is clear to everyone that what remains must, according to the Apostle, put on incorruption and immortality, so that, when those who died are made alive again by the resurrection, and those separated are reunited, or even those completely dissolved, each one may justly receive what he did through the body, whether good or bad.

19. To those who agree with providence and have accepted the same principles as we have, but then fall away from their own affairs, I would use such arguments, and many more than these, if anyone wishes to expand briefly and in overview what has been said.. But for those who differ about the first things, it might be good to assume a different starting point before these, joining with them in what they believe, and considering such matters together: is it really so that human life and all of existence are completely blind, and that some deep darkness is poured over the earth, hiding both humans themselves and their actions in ignorance and silence? Or is it much safer to believe that the maker stands over his own creations, the overseer of all things that exist or come to be, and the judge of deeds and plans?. For if there were no judgment anywhere for what people have done, humans would be no better than irrational animals; indeed, those who are slaves to their passions and care for piety and justice, or any other virtue, would act even more miserably. The best life would be a beastly and savage one; virtue would be foolishness; the threat of justice would be a wide laughter; and pleasure would be the greatest good that cures all. The common belief and law of all these is that the reckless and lustful are favored: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.". For the end of such a life is not pleasure according to some, but complete numbness.. But if there is someone who cares for the maker of humans as for his own works, and if the judgment of those who have lived well or badly is preserved somewhere, either during this present life, while those who have lived in virtue or vice are still alive, or after death, when they are in separation and dissolution,. But it is not possible to find the just judgment preserved in either of the cases mentioned; for neither do the serious people in this present life bear the rewards of virtue, nor do the wicked bear the punishments of vice.. For I pass over saying that, while the nature in which we now are is preserved, neither is the mortal nature able to bring about a fair judgment of those who have committed more or heavier faults.. For the robber, tyrant, or despot who unjustly takes thousands upon thousands, would not pay the just penalty for these by a single death; and the one who holds no true belief about God, living in every kind of outrage and blasphemy, ignoring the divine things, breaking laws, insulting children and women alike, unjustly destroying cities, burning houses with their inhabitants, ravaging the land, and with these acts wiping out towns and peoples, or even an entire nation—how could a corruptible body be enough to give just punishment corresponding to these, when death comes before the deserved penalty, and the mortal nature is not sufficient for any one of the deeds done?? Therefore, neither in this present life nor after death is the judgment shown according to what is deserved.

20. For death is the complete extinction of life, with the soul dissolving together with the body and being destroyed; or the soul remains by itself, untroubled, undispersed, and incorruptible, while the body is destroyed and broken down, no longer preserving any memory of what was done, nor any sensation of the sufferings endured. Since the life of humans is completely extinguished, no care will be shown for those humans no longer living, nor will there be judgment for those who lived in virtue or in vice; but the shameful acts of lawless life will be revenged, along with the absurd crowd that follows it, and the chief cause of this lawlessness, godlessness. If the body were destroyed and each one returned to their kindred of the dead, but the soul remained by itself as incorruptible, even then the judgment concerning it would have no place, since justice would not be present; for it is neither lawful to suppose that any judgment comes from God or by God that lacks justice. Justice is not present in judgment if the one who did the just or unjust deed is not preserved. For the one who did each thing in life, on which judgment depends, was a human, not a soul by itself. To say this in general, this argument will not preserve justice in any way.

21. For the body will clearly be wronged when punishments are given for achievements, since it shares with the soul in the efforts made in serious matters but does not share in the honor earned for those achievements; and often the soul receives pardon for certain faults because of the body's lack and need, while the body itself falls away from sharing in the honors for which it endured pains together in life. And indeed, when faults are judged, justice is not preserved for the soul, especially when it alone suffers punishment for faults committed because the body, disturbed and drawn by its own desires or impulses, has sinned; sometimes through robbery and theft, sometimes through a more violent dragging, and at other times through complicity, in a measure of favor and treatment of this condition.. Or how is it not unjust for the soul to be judged by itself for things over which it has no control according to its own nature—no desire, no impulse, no urge—such as lust, violence, greed, injustice, and the wrongs connected to these?? For if most of these kinds of evils happen because people fail to control the troubling passions, and these passions are disturbed by the body's lack and need, and by the effort and care for these (for all possession exists because of these, and before them is use; also marriage and all actions in life, in which both fault and non-fault are considered), where is justice in judging the soul alone, when the body first suffers and draws the soul into sympathy and sharing in the actions it must perform?? And both desires and pleasures, as well as fears and pains, on which all excess depends, come from the body's movement; yet the sins arising from these and the punishments for the sins are laid upon the soul alone, which neither needs such things, nor desires them, nor fears them, nor suffers anything of this kind by itself, as a human naturally suffers.? But even if we say that the passions belong not only to the body but also to the person, rightly so, because life is one from both, surely we will not say that these things belong to the soul when we look purely at its own nature.. For if the soul is completely without need of any food, it would never desire those things it does not need to exist, nor would it rush after any of those things it is naturally not meant to use; nor would it be troubled by lack of money or possessions, since none of these belong to it.. And even if it is better than decay, it fears nothing at all as something perishable to itself; for it does not fear hunger, disease, injury, insult, fire, or iron. Since it is not able to suffer any harm or pain from these, none of these things touch it at all, neither the body nor bodily forces.. And if it is absurd to attribute the passions specifically to the souls, then to say that the souls alone bear the sins that come from these passions and the punishments for them is excessively unjust and unworthy of the judgment of God.

22. And along with what has been said, how is it not absurd that virtue and vice cannot even be understood apart from the soul (for we know that human virtues are virtues, just as the vices opposed to them are vices, not separated from the soul of the body, but existing by themselves); yet honor or punishment for these is borne by the soul alone? Or how could anyone think of courage or endurance as belonging to the soul alone, which has neither fear of death, nor of wounds, nor of injury, nor insult, nor the pains that come with these, nor the suffering that results? How about self-control and temperance, when no desire for food, or drink, or other pleasures and delights pulls it, nor does anything else disturb it from within or provoke it from outside? How about prudence, when there are no actions to be done or not done under its control, no choices to be made or avoided; rather, it has no movement at all, neither natural impulse toward any of the things to be done? And where at all is there justice among souls toward one another, or toward any other kindred or different beings, when they have neither source, nor means, nor way to distribute justly or proportionally what is due, with the honor due to the one God removed; nor do they have any impulse or movement toward using their own things, or refraining from what belongs to others? The use of what is natural, or the abstaining from what is natural to be used, is considered; but the soul neither needs anything, nor is it made to use anything or anything at all, and therefore it cannot be found to have what is called the private activity of the parts in a soul that is held in this way.

23. And indeed, that is the most unreasonable of all: that the laws established for humans should apply to them, but the judgment for what has been done lawfully or unlawfully is turned solely upon the souls.. For if the one who accepts the laws would also justly accept the judgment for wrongdoing, and if it is a human who accepts the laws, not the soul by itself, then it is a human who must also promise to pay the penalty for sins, not the soul by itself.. Since God did not establish for souls to abstain from anything that belongs to them, such as adultery, murder, theft, robbery, dishonor against one's parents, and all desires generally arising in injustice and harm toward one's neighbor,. For the command, "Honor your father and your mother", is not suitable for souls alone, since such names do not belong to them; for souls do not call souls their father or mother, but humans call humans so.. Nor, then, could the command, "You shall not commit adultery," ever be properly said or understood about souls, since there is no difference of male and female in them, nor any suitable connection for union, nor any desire for it.. Since there is no such desire, union is also impossible.. Among those with whom there is no union at all, there is also no lawful union, which is what marriage is.. Since there is no lawful union, neither is it possible for desire or union to occur with another man's wife; for this is adultery.. But neither does it forbid theft, or the desire for more, which is natural to souls; for those who lack by nature or need have been accustomed to steal or rob, such as gold, or silver, or animals, or anything else suitable for food, shelter, or use.. For all that is desired by those in need is useless to one who is immortal by nature, as if it were useful.. But let the more complete discussion about these things be left to those who wish to consider them more carefully or to compete more eagerly with those who differ.. Since what has just been said is enough for us, and since we believe in the resurrection in agreement with these things, there would no longer be time to spend on the same matters in more detail.. For we have not aimed to say everything that exists, but to show briefly to those gathered how one should think about the resurrection, and to match the reasons brought forward for it with the power of what is present.

24. Having examined how much of what was proposed remains, there would still be the matter of considering the end, which already appears in what has been said, but requires such understanding and addition that it does not seem we have left anything we spoke of briefly forgotten, or harmed the subject or the division made from the beginning. For these reasons, and because of what depends on them, it would be enough to point out only this much: that both things that come from nature and those made by art must each have their proper end, which perhaps is taught by the common understanding of all and confirmed by what is seen with the eyes. For do we not see that those who farm have a different end from those who heal; and again, that what grows from the earth is different from the animals fed on it, and that they are born according to a certain natural order? If this is clear, and it is necessary that the natural or technical powers and their effects follow the natural end, then it is necessary that every human end, as belonging to a distinct nature, be separated from the common end of others. Since it is not lawful to suppose the same end for those lacking rational judgment and those who act according to the natural law and reason, living a rational life and practicing justice. Therefore, the painless end would not be proper for these (for it would belong also to those who are completely without feeling); nor would the enjoyment of nourishing or pleasing the body, nor the abundance of pleasures; for the beastly life must be primary, but the life according to virtue is incomplete. For I think this end belongs to beasts and cattle, not to humans who possess an immortal soul and rational judgment.

25. Nor indeed is there blessedness for a soul separated from the body; for we do not consider the life or end of either part of what makes up a human being, but of the whole composed of both. For every person who has received this life is such, and there must be a proper end belonging to this life. But if the end belongs to the whole, it is neither possible to find this end in their life while still living according to this life, because of the many causes already mentioned, nor in the soul when separated, since such a person does not exist as a whole, the body having been dissolved or scattered entirely, even if the soul remains by itself. It is necessary, therefore, that the end of humans be shown in some other arrangement of the whole living being composed of both parts. And following this necessity, there must be a resurrection of the dead or even completely dissolved bodies, and the same humans must be reconstituted; since the end is not simply set by the law of nature for any humans who happen to exist, but for those who have lived according to the preceding life. But it is impossible for the same humans to be reconstituted if the same bodies are not given back to the same souls. It is impossible for the same body to receive the same soul otherwise, but it is possible through resurrection alone. For when this happens, the end appropriate by nature to humans follows. And no one would err in saying that the end of a life with reason and rational judgment is to continue unbroken with those to whom natural reason is especially and primarily joined, rejoicing endlessly in the contemplation of being and the gifts given to it; although many humans, more passionately and intensely affected by these things, remain mistaken about this. For the multitude of those who fall away from the proper end does not invalidate the common allotment, which is distinct in its examination of these matters and measured for each according to the honor or justice due for how well or poorly they have lived.