Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Emm as : w . J . SPARROW SIMPSON, D .D.
W . K . LOWTHER CLARKE , B .D.
SER IES I
GREEK TEXTS
THE APOCRITICUS OF
MACAR IUS MAGNES
CONTENTSPAGE
INTRODUCTIONSummaryThe Nature o f the ApocritzcusThe Histo ry o f the Apocr ztzcus to 1 867I ts Histo ry since 1 867The Heath en Objectio ns In the ApocrztzcusThe Date o f the Apocr zticurTh e Auth o rsh ip o f the ApocrztzcusThe Title o f the Wo rk
The L iterary Relatio ns o f the Afiacr z'tz'cusThe Text an d MSS .
Its Th eo lo gica l an d Apo logetic Val ueTRAN SLATIONBOOK I . Fragment o f ch . vi . Co ncerning Berenice o r
the woman with an issue o f blo o dBOOK I I . Ch . vn . Answer c o ncerning the saying
Th ink n o t that I am come to send peace o n th e
earthCh . viii . Answer co ncerning the saying : Who is my
mo ther, who are my brethren i‘
.
Ch . ix . Answer co ncerning the sayings : No ne isgo o d save o n e, even Go d ; an d A go o d man
o ut o f the go o d treasure o f his heart bringethfo rth that wh ich is go o d
Ch . x . Answer conc erning th e saying : L o rd,h ave
p ity o n my so n , fo r h e 15 lunaticCh . x i . Answer co ncerning the saying . If I bear
witness o f mysel f, my witness is n o t trueChs. x i i . an d xv i i . ! uestio n an d answer c oncerning
the discrepanc ies o f th e Evangelists (with briefintro ductio ns to th e next five questio ns an d
answers by the Ph ilo sopher an d the Christian ) .
Ch s. x i i i . an d x v ii i . ! uestio n an d answer co ncerningthe saying . But when th ey came to Jesus , wh enth ey saw He was al ready dead
,th ey brake n o t
H is legs
vi CONTENTS
PAGEChs. x i v . an d xix . ! uestio n an d answer co ncerning
the Resurrectio n o f Ch rist an d H is manifestat io n .
Ch s. x v . an d xx . ! uestio n an d answer co ncerningthe saying : Now is th e j udgment o f the wo rld ,n ow shal l the prince o f th is wo rld be casto utside
Chs xv i . an d m i. ! uestio n an d answer co ncerningthe saying : Ye canno t h ear my wo rd
(The summaries o f Bo oks I I I an d IV are translated fromthe h eadings o f the chapters in the Athens MS . )
BOOK I I I . These wo rds are co ntained in the Th irdBo ok o f the wo rds o f Answer to the Greeks. 1
Pro em (Intro ductio n to seven attacks by the
Ph ilo sopher)The Ch ristian (Introductio n to h is seven answers)
Chs. i. an d vii i . How Jesus endured to be c rucifiedwith insult
Ch s . ii. an d ix . How it is sa id : If it be po ssible, letthe cup pass
Ch s. i i i . an d K . How it is said : If ye bel ieve Mo ses,ye wo uld bel ieve me
Chs. iv . an d x i . What is the meaning o f the swinean d the demo ns ?
Chs. v . an d x i i . What is the meaning o f the sayingI t is easier fo r a camel to go th ro ugh a needle,than a rich man into the kingdom o f Go d ?
Ch s. vi. an d x i i i . How it is said : About the fo urthwatch o f the nigh t He came upo n the sea
Ch s. v i i . an d x i v . What is the meanin g Of The po o rye h ave always , but me ye have n o t always
The Greek (Intro ductio n to th e next eigh t attacks)Ch s. x v . an d xx i i i . (With th e Ch ristian’s In tro d uc
tion to h is eigh t an swers . )What 'is the meaning o f Except ye eat my fleshan d drink my bloo d , ye have n o l ife in yo u ?
Ch s. xv i . an d xx 1 v . How it is said : An d if th eydrink an y deadly th ing, it shal l n o t h urt them
Chs. xv i i . an d xx v . What is th e meaning o f thegrain o f mustard seed ?
Chs. x
ariii. an d xx v i . How it is said : Cast thyselfown
.
1 7 8 W ci‘lroxpun xaw Irpbc'
Ba a ; Aéywv . But the full title o f the wo rk is firstg1ven as Tire Apocrztzcus or {Plon ogm es to tlze Greeks d M acar z
'
us M ap s“ ,
concern ing tluquestion s a n d so lution : in tire Gospel.
CONTENTS vii
PAGECh s. x ix . xx . an d xxvu . What is the meaning o f
Get thee beh ind me, Satan an d th e address toPeter ? What is the meaning o f th e seventytimes seven ?
(The beginning o f ano ther propo sitio n from the Acts o rthe Apo stles . )
Ch s. xxi. an d xxv i i i . How Peter killed Ananias an dSapph ira
Chs. xx i i . an d xx ix. How Peter went fo rth when th epriso n was sh ut“
Ch s. xxx . an d xxxvu . (With brief intro ductio ns tothe next six questio ns an d answers by th e Greekan d the Christian .)
How Paul c ircumc ised T imo thyChs. xxx i . an d xxx v i i i . Ho w Paul says he is a
Roman , th o ugh h e was n o t a RomanChs . xxx i i . an d xxx ix . Ho w it is sa id N0 o n e go eth
a warfare at h is own chargesChs. xxx i i i . an d x1. How it is said : He is a debto r
to d o the wh o le lawChs . xxx i v . an d x l i . How it is said The law entered ,
that the transgression migh t abo undChs. xxx v . an d xiii. How it is said : I wo uld n o t
that ye sh o uld become partakers o f demo nsChs. xxxvi. an d x liii. How it i s said : In the latter
t imes some shal l depar t from the faith
BOOK IV. The fo l lowing is co ntained in the FourthBo o k o f the wo rd s o f Answer to the Greeks. 1
Proem (I ntro ductio n to ten attacks by the Ph ilosopher )
The Ch ristian (Introductio n to his answer in eigh tchapters)
Chs. i. an d x i . Co ncerning h ow it is said Thefash io n o f th is wo rld passeth away
Ch s. ii. an d x i i . How it is said : We wh ich are al iveshal l be caugh t up in the c lo uds
Ch s. iii. an d x i i i . How he says : The Go spe l shal lbe preached in all the wo rld
Chs. iv . an d xiv . How the L o rd speaks to Paul by avisio n , an d h ow it befel l that Peter was crucified
Ch s. v . an d xv . What is the meaning o f Take heed ,fo r many shal l come saying , I am Ch rist ?
0
1 The.
full title is again first given , in somewhat d ifferen t fo rm , as TheApacr
o
z trcm o r M on ogm es to tire Greeks of M aca r z'
us M agn et , con cern ing the
guestwm an d a n swers we d z’
sfiute in the N ew Teetamm t.
vi ii CONTENTS
PAGEChs. vi. , vu. an d xvi.l What is the meaning o f the
jud gmen : in the Apo c rypha ? How it Is sa1dThe heaven shal l be ro l led together as a scro ll ,an d the stars shal l fal l as leaves.
Chs. viii . , ix . an d xv ii .l What is the meaning o f theleaven , the mustard seed , an d the pearl ? How
it is said : Tho u hast h id these th ings from the
wise an d prudent , an d revealed th em unto babes.Chs. x . an d xviii. What is the meaning o f They
that are wh o le need n o t a physic ian , but theythat are sick ?
Chs. xix . an d xx v . (With brief Intro ductio ns to the
next s ix questio ns an d answers by the Philo sopher an d the Ch ristian. )What is the meaning o f But ye were washed ,but ye were sanctified ?
Chs. xx . an d xxv i . What is -
,the meaning o f th e
Mo narchy ?Chs. xx i . an d xxvn . What is the meaning o f the
angels having immo rtal ity ? What i s the meaning o f the tables being written with the fingero f Go d ? 2
Ch s . xx i i . an d xx vii i . How the Godhead was madeflesh in Mary an d was bo rn
Chs. xx i i i . an d xx 1x . How it is said : Th o u shalt n o trevile go ds
Chs. xx i v . and xxx . What is th e meaning (if theresurrect ion o f the flesh ?
BOOK V.
Fragment quo ted in G reek by F. Turrianus in the
sixteenth centuryFurther quo tatio n from the same auth o r , wh ich isprobably a translatio n o f Macarius
INDEx .
1 Macarius replies to two questio ns in o n e an swer.
2 The head ing gives it thus as tw o separate chapters , although there is buto n e chap ter In the text In the case o f bo th questio n and an swer.
NOTE — When passages in th e Apocr iticus are referred to by page an d lin e ,the numbering is that o f the Greek ed itio n ,
an d n o t o f the tran slatio n co n tain edIn th is bo o k .
INTRODUCTION
AN introduction to theApocrz’
tz'
eus of Macarius Magnescannot be written on the ordinary lines . This i s the
first t ime that it has been introduced to English readers,an d those who wish to study i t in the original Greekwill find it very difficult to obtain a copy o f the o nlyedition . My own study o f this obscure an d neglectedautho r has probably been mo re lengthy than that o f
an y o ne outside Germany, an d i t i s therefo re a great
pleasure to share wi th others the result o f i t . He i sst ill surrounded with so much uncertainty that it i simpo ssible to offer final conclusions with regard to him ,
bu t he is full of an interest which is in many ways unique,an d his work n o t only affords a critical problem whichsho uld prove fascinating to many besides myself, bu talso contains much that i s both interesting an d novel .The Apom
'
fz'
eus really presents us with two separateworks, fo r the questions of a h eathen objecto r are ineach case quoted verbatim before the answer ’’ i s given .
As the o bjections represent an attack on the Scripturesin deta il, an d undoubtedly reflect the philo sophy o f
Porphyry, the famous NeOplatomst of the third century ,the reproduction o f them preserves fo r us a form o f antiChristian literature in a fulness which has no paral lel .I have therefore translated them withou t any abbreviat ion .
The answers have proved too lengthy to give in full,but, rather than offer a mere selection, I have translatedthe most important parts, an d given the res t in the formo f a summary .
Such is the chequered histo ry o f the work, that theauthor’s name, date, an d country have always been a
matter o f doubt, while the dialogue which he claims toix
x INTRODUCTION
be reproduc ing in his bo ok has generally been considereda mere li terary device. I t was rescued from oblivion byits use in a bi tter co ntro versy in the ninth century, afterwhich there i s n o mention o f it until the sixteenth , whenits use was again co ntro versial . When its genuinenesswas then called in quest io n, the only Manusc ript wasfo und to have disappeared from Venice. Nothing morei s heard o f the boo k unti l 1 86 7, when a Manusc ript wasfo und in Epirus , an d taken to Athens . I t was collatedby a young French scho lar, who died before it co uld bepublished . The destructive criticism o f a series ofGerman scholars reduced its importance an d checkedthe study o f it . While I was myself talking o f anotherco llation, a German scho lar sough t it at Athens an d
fo und that the Manuscript was n o t in the Library,but
in private possession, with the risk o f being lost . The
o nly edition is increasingly difficult to o btain, an d there
i s a danger o f the Apocrz'
tz’
eus again sinking into Oblivion .
I therefore greatly welcome this Oppo rtunity of makingit more widely known .
THE NATURE OF . THE APOCRI TI CUS .
I t may be stated at the o utset that it was originally awork in five books, an d claims to represent a dialoguebetween Macarius an d a heathen ph ilosopher, whichto ok place o n five successive days . The Athens MS.
is mutilated, beginning in Chapter VI I o f Bo ok I I , an dending in th e middle o f Chapter XXX o f Bo o k IV. Afragment o f Bo ok I has been preserved in Niceph o rus,
1
an d I had myself the go od fortune to discover a fragment o f Book V in Turrian us .
2 The questions are
mo stly o bjec tio ns to selec ted verses o f the Go spels,Ac ts, an d Pauline Epist les, but o n e o r two concern the
Old Testament, an d some in the later part are purelydoc trinal . There seems some sequence in their subjec ts
,
1 See Nicepho rus, An tirrlzetz’
ez'
L z'
brz'
, ap. Pitra, s '
eilegv'
umSolermeme
, tom. i . p . 303 et seq .
Turrian us , D ogmatz’
cur d e j urtz'
ficafz’
on e ad German o: ad verrmLuteran os, Romae , I 557 , p . 37 et seq .
INTRODUCTION x i
Christ’s miracles being first attacked, an d then Hiswo rds , the chief charge being that o f inconsistency .
There follow like charges o f inconsistency against S .
Peter an d S . Paul, an d then objec tions are brought tosuch doctrines as the Incarnat ion, the M onarchy o f Go d ,an d the Resurrection . The fragment from Book Vsuggests that th e latter part dealt with some of themore inward doctrines o f Christianity, such as justification by faith .
1 The method o f th e book i s to give aboutseven objections in a series, an d then their respectiveanswers, with a few words o f introduction in each case,espec ially at the beginning o f each book .
THE H ISTORY OF THE APOCRI TI CUS To 1 867 .
The book seems to have disappeared until the ninthcentury . This is n o t to be wondered at when the antiChristian blasphemy o f the ques tions is remembered,which might have caused its suppression under the
edic ts o f Theo dosius I I o r Justinian . Possibly the survival o f the copy then brought to light was d ue to the
fac t that i t had as frontispiece a portrai t o f the author inecclesiastical vestments . In the Iconoclastic controversy ,those wh o were in favour o f the destructio n o f imagesgarbled a quo tation from it as a support to their position .
Niceph o rus, Patriarch o f Co nstantino ple,in answering
them, had some d ifficulty in finding out anything abouti t . He was able to show that his opponents had usedi t wro ngly, but regarded it with little favour on the
gro und that it was inclined towards heresy . His impo rtance, however, lies in the fac t that he also quoteda fragment from the first bo o k, which has not beenpreserved otherwise. I t contains part o f the answer o fMacarius to an objection to the mirac le o f the womanwith the issue o f blood, in which th e story appears thatshe was a great woman o f Edessa named Berenice, an dthat a bronze s tatue in that c ity still commemorated herhealing .
2
See p. 1 66,n. I . 2 See p . 3 1 .
x ii INTRODUCTION
The Apocrilz’
ms next appears in the sixteenth century,when it was o n e o f the favo urite weapons in the patris t icarmoury o f the Jesuit Franciscus Turrian us (De la Torre)in his contro versy with the Lutherans . 1 He not onlyquotes from all the extant books, but makes a quotat io nfrom the lost fifth book . He gives the author’s nameas Magnetes, an d places his date soon after A.D . 1 50 .
His opponents in the Eucharistic contro versy refused tobelieve that there was such a book, an d when searchwas made in S . Mark’s Library at Venice, the MS . was
nowhere to be fo und, th ough'
men tio n ed in the catalo gue.
Little is heard about the book in the centuries thatfo llowed . Boivin, o f Paris, considered the autho r to havebeen a younger contempo rary of Athanasius . MagnusCrusius,
2a Gottingen professor, believed his Oppo nent
to be none o ther than Porphyry the NeOplato n ist, an dplaced the wo rk at the en d o f the third o r beginning Ofthe fourth century. He held that neither o f the author’sappellations was necessarily his proper name
,as o f course
Macarius Magnes may simply mean“ The Blessed
Magnesian .
ITS H ISTORY S INCE 1 86 7 .
In 1 867 a MS. o f the Apoerz’
tz’
eus was discovered at
Athens, an d o n the death o f its first editor, C . Blo ndel,I t was finally published by h is friend Fo u
’
cart,
3 butwithout an introd uc tio n . Th i s was supplied th e nextyear
O
by Duchesne,4 who bel ieved that the Athens MS.
was Identical with the o n e lost three centuries before at
Venice. As other evidence has been added since histime, this theo ry cannot now be accepted . He thinks
I See F .
.
Turrianus, Ad versary Magd eéurgem er, Co lo n . 1 573 , 1 1 .
3 , p. 1 65 ;_
1 . 5, p . 2 1, an d i i. 1 3 , p . 208.
See.
M 1gne, Pair . Graee. x . p . 1 343 et seq . I-I is Opinio ns aresummar1sed by Pitra , Spied . Salerm . i . p . 545.
9 Ma mriz'
Magn etz'
r guae supersaur, ex z’
n ed z'
to eoa’z'
ee
C. Blo ndel, Klin ck sieck , Paris , 1 876 . I t is th is wh ich has beenused in th e translatio n wh ich fo l lows
,an d reference is o ccasio nally
made to 1 15 pages .M aearz
'
o M agn ete et rcr z'
ptz'
s ej uf , Klia SiCCk , Paris ,I
INTRODUCTION x iii
the au thor was from Magnesia, bu t locates his abode asnear Edessa, ,
giving him a date between A.D . 3 0 0 an d
3so . Co ncerning h is Oppo nent he makes the brilliantsuggestion that he was the well-known Hiero cles, whowas something o f a Neoplatonist philosopher, an d a
follower of Porphyry, but was al so governor o f Bithynia,an d perhaps also at another t ime o f Palmyra. Thisman wro te two books called Plzz
'
laletfiezlr L ogoz'
(Oftensimply referred to as P /zz
'
laletlzes,o r
“ Friend o fan d after addressing them “ not against the Christiansbut to them
,
” 1 he became an instigator o f the terriblepersecution o f the Christians which bro ke out underDiocletian in A.D . 303 . I have found much to substan tiate this theory
,an d shall therefore refer again to
i ts acceptance.
However, a series of German critics 2 refused to d atethe work from the fourth century, an d identified the
autho r with the Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, who wasat the Synod o f the Oak in A.D . 40 3 , an d accused Heraclides of Ephesus o f heresy in his fo llowing of Origen .
This n ew German theory was real ly an old French o ne,
which had been suggested by Le ! uien nearly twocenturies before . There i s much to be said against it
,
as I have sh own in my articles o n this subject in the
j ourn al of l eologz'
eal Stud ies .
3 I t is quite impossibleto repeat in this short introduction the arguments o n
this an d many points, so I venture to refer the reader towhat I have alread y
‘
written elsewhere . In 1 9 1 1 Har
nack took up the subject, an d set fo rth lengthy arguments fo r the theory that the heathen objector is Porphyryhimself, an d actually suggested that it affo rds materialfo r an editio n o f his lo st treatise in fifteen books against
1 Lactan tius , D iv. I n stz'
t. v . 2 .
Mol ler , Se/zz'
irer’
s Theal. L it. Zez‘
t. 1 877 , p. 52 1 Zah n ,Zez
’
tsclzr zfi f zir B . i i . p. 450 et seq . , 1 878Wagenmann , j abrbz
’
iefierfu’
r Deutse/ze T12m]. B . xxii . p . 1 4 1 , 1 878.
On such autho rity, Dr. Salmo n simply states it as a fact in theartic le o n Macarius ln the B u t. C/zrzrt. B zog.
a See] T S o f April 190 7 (vo l. viii. No . 3 1 ) , p . 404 et seq.
M acarzur M ag nes, a Nee/acted Apolog ut, an d July 1907 (vo l. vi1i.
NO, 32 , p. 546 et seq .
xiv INTRODUCTION
the Christians . 1 But he has to admit that in an y casethe Apotriticas Simply contains a series o f excerpts fromPo rphyry made by a later anonymous e ter, an d thatMacarius did n o t know they were from Porphyry, or hewould n o t in o n e o f his answers have referred hisopponent to Po rphyry
’s book D e Abstinen tia as an
authority . With regard to the answers, Harnack acceptsthe theo ry o f a later date, an d puts aside my argumentsin favo ur o f the earlier . For the many weaknesses inhis theory, an d the difficulties which may be betterovercome by o ther e xplanatio ns, I must
'
again refer towhat I have already written .
2 The only other recen tcontribution to the subjec t was made by Schalkhausser,3who searched fo r the so li tary MS. o f the Apoeritieusin the National Library at Athens, an d made the strangedisco very that the MS. had been the property o f the
late l ibrarian Apo stolides, who had left it to his widow,an d it was now n o t to be traced . I t may be mentionedhere that ten short fragments remain o f ano ther work o f
Macarius, his Homilies o n Genesis . The only placewhere they are all to be found to gether i s an appendixto the treatise o f Duchesne.
4 They contain the wo rdMo n ogen es, which is the sub-title o f the Apoeritieus, as
a title o f God the So n . And the allegorical metho dused , ,in clud ing the interpretatio n o f the co ats of skins
,
shows the same following o f Origen as we see in the
rest o f Macarius.
THE HEATHEN OBJECTIONS IN THE APOCR/T/CUS .
Nowhere else do es so detailed an attack on Christianityremain to us . I t evidently comes from o n e wh o is n o tmerely engaged in the vulgar work o f trying to destro ythe faith ; fo r he c laims a h igher morality, an d writes as
1 K ritik d es Neues Testaments von einen griech ischen Ph i lo so phend er 3 Jah rhunderts, etc . (Texte n n a
’
Un tersa c/zungen , etc. xxxvii .4 , Leipzig ,
zj . T.S . Apri l an d July 1 91 4 (vo l. xv . No s . 59 an d The
w ork of Porphy ry again st t/ze Christian s, an d its recon struction .
3 Geo rg Schalk hausser, Zn a’
er Sc/zri’ten a’
es M akarios van
M agn esia , L eipzig , 1 907 .
0p. cit. pp. 39 an d 1 2 .
INTRODUCTION xv
a philoso pher. And the mo dern character o f many 0 1his attacks, an d o f some o f his actual arguments, givehis wo rk more than an antiquarian interest. Theseassaults o f long ago , which were successfully parried by achampion of the faith, may have a reassurin g effec t uponthose who think that their religion has never met withsuch plausible assaults as to d ay. They reflect the
master-mind o f Porphyry, the great Neoplatonist philoSopher, but even Harnack admits that they are borrowedfrom him by some smal ler man , who thus popularisedhis work . This is exactly the case of so many who speakan d write agains t the Church tod ay . And the mos trecent tendency o f those who refuse to accept the
Ch ristian faith is to approve at least in some sense ofit s Founder Himself, but deny that the Church haseither the power or the right to interpret Him to the
wo rld . The objections before us are mostly to the humanside o f the faith , an d are directed against the Evangelistsrather than the Leader whose words an d deeds theypro fess to recount, an d against the unreaso nableness o fthe Apostles an d their teaching rather than that o f Chris t .We will take the theo ry as substantiated that the
author was Hiero cles, who at tacked Christianity withthe pen before he tried to destro y it with the sword ofpersecution . Harnack has given unintentional supportby Showing that the Apoeritieas i s really to be dividedinto two parts, after iii . 1 9, though the au thor has
concealed the division .
1 This I s a n ew argument fo r thetheory that he is using the two bo oks o f the P/zi/alet/zeisL ogoi, o r P/zilalet/zes, o f Hiero cles . But there are otherpro blems connec ted with the Apom
'
tieus which thistheory helps to solve. For instance, Duchesne adducesan inscription 2 as proving that
,before his governorship
o f Bithynia in A.D . 304 he had been in ofiice at
Palmyra. Now Macarius came from Asia Minor,bu t
when he points his oppo nent to the effects o f the faith, itis to Syria that he turns, especially to Edessa an d Antio ch .
See p . 95, n . 2 .
Corpus I n script. L at. t . 3 , No . 1 33 , ap Duch . p. 20 .
xvi INTRODUCTION
Again , we find that in the Apoeritieus the life of Christ isbelittled by adduc ing that of Apollonius o fTyana, whosemiracles were said to be superior, an d who , ins tead ofhumbly submitting to death, “ Spoke boldly to the
Emperor Domitian an d then disappeared .
” 1 Eusebiushimself wrote an answer to Hiero cles, in which he saysthat Apollonius was thus adduced, an d gives a s tatementof Philo stratus about him,
saying, He says that he dis
appeared from the judgment-seat ” 2 Lactan tius givessimilar testimony, fo r in writing abo ut Hiero cles he
speaks o f Apollonius who, as y ou d escribe, suddenlywas not to be found at the j udgment-seat , whenDomitian wished to punish him .
” 3 I t may be addedthat, whereas the language of the objector in theApoeritieushas nothing in common with the extant words o f
Po rphyry, there are a few sentences given by Eusebiusas o ccurring verbatim in the Pizila/et/zes of Hiero cles,in which, out of eleven words o f a distinc tive kind, noless than seven are found in the Apocriz
‘ieus .
5
THE DATE o r THE APOCR I TI CUS .
Upon the date o f Macarius depends the question as to
whether a real dialogue underlies his work o r n o t. If
such is the case, we must place him at the beginning o fthe fo urth century, though he may have wri t ten his bookyears after the dialogue had taken place . Critics havebeen so unanimous in declaring that the book was
written lo ng afterwards, an d that its form is a merel iterary device, that I do not like to make an assertion tothe co ntrary . But at least I would plead that, unless otherconsiderations make such a date impo ssible, there i s a
strong suggestion o f reality about the dialogue described
Apocr . i ii. 1 .
Euseb. , I n Hieroe/em,in Go ttfried us Alearius’s editio n o f Ph ilo
stratus , Lipsiae, 1 709, p . 459. d cpavw fl'
rjva t (pmrlv a t’
rrdv sho uld becomp ared with t
’
upavij s o f the Apoeritieus.3 D iv. I n stil. v . 3 .
Migne, Patr . Graee. xxn . pp. 797—800
,ch . 2 .
Fo r details, an d fo r further po ints in th is co nnexio n , see/ 7 15 .
o fApril 191 1 , p . 377 et seq .
xviii INTRODUCTION
2 .In the other direction the date i s limi ted by the
statement that “ many rule the wo rld ,” 1
an d th e takingo f Hadrian as an example o f a
“ monarch, fo r the
Empire was divided among two August i an d twoCaesars in the year A.D . 292 .
3 . Macarius gives a short list o f some o f the peopleso f th e earth who had n o t yet heard the preaching o f theGo spel . 2 They n o t o nly inc lude some o f th e E thio pians ,but also Mauretania, which h ad certainly heard the
Go spel long befo re the en d o f the fo urth century .
4 . He also has a list o f heretics, which do es notextend further than the Manichaeans, an d makes n o
mention o f the Arians. I t is true that some have though tthat the lat ter are meant by Ch ristomachi (i i i . 1 4 ,
p .
but they are further defined as“ sharers in Judaistic
folly,
an d seem to refer to the Mo narchians .
5. But in the eyes o f all German c ritics other co nsideratio n s have been co nsidered enough to brush these aside .
The Trinitarian doctrine o f the boo k has been consideredas belonging to a period some time after A .D . 3 25. I t i strue that there is a passage o n th e baptismal fo rmulawhich contains the wo rds “ that the name o f three Personsin o n e substance may be reco gnised .
” 3 But two po int ssho uld be co nsidered ;4 — this i s n o t the ordinary use ofthe wo rds {w rits-m o ts an d c r
’
im’
a in the boo k ; an d the
who le passage is co ntained in twenty-three lines whichare extrao rdinarily inappro priate to an argument with a
pagan, with whom the argument has just been abo ut theMo narchy o f the o n e Go d . Brief theological phrasesreplace the usual diffuse s tyle o f Macarius, an d the
possibility is suggested that the words are a later in terpolatio n, inserted fo r the instruc tion o f Christians, not fo rthe defence o f the faith .
The o ther consideration is suggested by the l ikeness
1 Apocr. 1 1 . 1 5, p . 24 .2 I bia
’. iv. 1 3 .
3 1M . Iv . 25 : r pté‘
w in roo 'rafo ewv év obo fqt (M C?
“
v oto efi Tbbl
l’OHa but th is is n o t identical with th e later stereo typed phrasejufa obaia iv r pto ly fi r oa
'
r ofaecrw .
Fo r a discussio n o f th e wh o le subject, see j .T. S . o f July 1 90 7 ,p . 553 et seq . See also below , pp . xxviii , 1 4 1 , 1 42, an d 1 55.
INTRODUCTION x ix
o f some of the words an d arguments o f the Apocritien s
to some of the fathers o f the fourth century, notablyGregory of Nyssa. But an examinatio n reveals the fac tthat the passages are mo stly o f a charac ter which expressideas c ommon in the fo urth century, so th at the theory thatMacarius borrowed in each case cannot be substantiated .
Fo r instance, the language o f Macarius about o ur Lordenticing the devil to at tack Him in the Passion , an dSatan
,like a fish, gulping down the bai t o f His humanity,
an d so being caught by the bo o k o f His divini ty, ismuch like that o f Gregory .
1 But a close parallel i sfo und in a passage o f Rufinus,
2an d ano ther in Amphi
lo chius .
3 And indeed the lat ter, in introducing it, usesthe unusual title Mo n ogen es in speaking o f Christ ; bu tthis is the al ternative ti tle o f the Apoeritieus itself, an dpro bably was originally the chief o n e . SO that he mayhave used the t i tle because he was borrowing from a
bo o k o f that name. But as a matter o f fact the similedates back to Origen (Comm. in P salm an d the
idea i s present in germ in Ignatius, Aa’
. Ep/z. xix .
Fo r a further discussion o f the date, I mus t refer towhat I have written elsewhere 4 If German conc lusionsare to be accepted , it is abo ut A.D . 4 1 0 . But suffic ienthas been said to show that there are many objec tions tothis, an d that i t i s quite possibly a century earlier . Of
course this makes a great deal of difference to th e
importance o f the answers .
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCRI TI CUS .
In spite o f the ambiguity Of his double name,5 we maysafely speak o f the author as Macarius, an d regardMagnes as a place-name, meaning “
the Magnesian .
Apocr . i i i . 9; Greg .
.
Nyss ., Or . Cat. chs . xxi . - xxvi .
3 Rufinus, Commen t. in Sy mo. Apart. 1 4 .
Ho l l . , Amplzi1. p . 91 et seq .
‘j . T.S . A ril an d July 1 907 .
5 Some scho lars have regarded “ The Blessed Magnesian as
simply a n om d eguerre, o r as suggest ing an ano nymo us auth o r, wh i leo thers have simply written o f him as Magnetes .
xx INTRODUCTION
The question still remains whether the latter impliesthat he was Bishop of Magnesia. The fact that therewas such a bisho p, whose n ame was Macarius, has
naturally suggested an identificat ion o f the two . Pho tiusrecords that this Macarius came forward at the Synod o f
the Oak in A.D . 403 as o n e of thosewho accused Heraclid es
o f Ephesus o f heresy, his offence consisting o f an unduefollowing o f Origen . But it is difficult to see how sucha charge can have been brought by the author o f theApoeritieus, who is himself steeped in O rigenism . No t
o nly was this the conclusion arrived at by Nicepho rus,when he studied the book in the ninth century,1 but i t i so bvious to an y o n e who lo oks at it . And i t i s a com
plete puzzle why such a man should have though t itnecessary to represent himself as having a desperateencounter wi th a heathen philosopher of a hundredyears before, an d facing his long-forgotten arguments infear an d trembling. And internal evidence i s against thefact o f the autho r having been a bishop . When hiso pponent says that, if to drink an y deadly thing
”canno t
hurt a true believer, this ought to be made a tes t in th e
choo sing of bishops, there is no attempt at perso naldefence in the answer .” An d , after giving examples o f
great bishops o f former t ime an d the power o f theirprayers, he refers to those o f his own d ay in a way thatseems to indicate that h e himself bore n o such exal tedposition in the Christian community. It i s true thatNicephorus called him a Hierarch ,
”an d said there was
a po rtrai t of him on the MS . of his book, in which hewas ro bed as a priest,3 bu t this do es not prove anythin g .
4
And it is evidently n o t in Asia M ino r that th e Apoeritieus was written . I t i s not only that
, as already
1 He is condemned , part icularly with regard to the n o n -eternityo f punishment, o f being a fo llower 7 9 17 6110 0 53 017 : real d r owk fim ou
Nic . , op . cit. cf. Apocr . iv . 1 6, p . 187 , l . 32 .
3 Apocr . i i i . 1 6, p . 96 , an d i ii . 24 , p . 1 08 et seq .
3 N1c . , op . cit. , aToA-lw iepe
'
ws d ywexdjuevov.
L umper (ap. Migne, Patr . L at. v . p . 343) suggests that o ur
autho r was co nfused with the Macarius o f the Oak , an d “ h in cfortasse sive fraude, sive igno rantia, Episcopi titulam ad d id eritlibrarius , Magnetis vetustIOrIS opus exscriben s. ”
INTRODUCTION xx i
stated,
1 he points his Opponent to the East, an d partieularly to Antioch an d Edessa, an d that he once usesthe Persian word “ parasang ” as a measure o f distance .
2
But,when he gives a l ist o f countries which had not yet
heard the Gospel, he locates E thiopia as south-west,
wh ich implies that he was as far eastward as Syria. And
yet he shows a Special interest in Asia M inor also . Inhis list o f heretics , in which he refers exclusively to thoseo f the East, he speaks of Montanus o f Phrygia, an d
Do sitheus of Cilic ia, an d he shows a knowledge o f the
Encrati tes o f Asia Minor , which suggests that thoseregions were familiar to him .
3 He also knows details O fother natives o f those parts, such as Aratus, the astro nomero f Cilicia
,
4an d Apollonius of Tyana
,about whom he adds
further facts to those mentioned by his opponent .5 Whenhe mentio ns the hero es of the Church , there i s o n e abou twhom he gives details , namely, Po lycarp o f Smyrna
,
concerning whom he reco rds stories like those given in theVita P oly earpi, which may have formed a local t rad it ion .
6
It i s true that he turns to theWest for the res t o f his list,which has led Duchesne to the surmise that the authorhad visited Rome . And he recalls traditions about both8 . Peter an d S . Paul at Rome, which might suggest thathe was linked with that part of the world
,
’ were it notthat he speaks elsewhere o f the Romans as “
a barbarianrace.
” 3 Whether all this accords with the authorship o f
such a small-minded man as the Macarius o f the Oak ,who accused another of the same tendency which is soplainly seen in the Apoeritiens, i s very doubtful .I t must be remembered that the title “ Of Magnesia
do es n o t necessarily imply that.he was bishop there . I t
i s o ften used o f the locality whence a man derived hisbirth or upbringing, as i s the case with Joannes Damascenlus, or John of Damascus . I t seems better to picture
1p . xv .
.
Apocr . i ii . 40 , p . 1 38, l l . 2 1 , 223 W . 1 5, an d i i i . 43 , p . 1 51 .laid . iv . 1 7 , p . 191 , l . 1 7 .
laid . i ii . 8 , p . 66, l . 1 9 1m . i i i. 24 .
7 Ibid . iv . 14, p. 1 82 .
9 I bid . i i . 1 7 , p . 29, l . 1 2 .
xxii INTRODUCTION
the author as a man bearing the very common nameo f Macarius,
1 who was not a bishop , but came fromMagnesia, an d , after perhaps having travelled as far as
Rome, had sett led in Syria at the t ime that he wro te hisbo ok . As he makes no attempt to
‘
co n n ect his oppo nentwith Syria, an d o nly refers him to those regio ns in an
entirely natural way, there i s no reaso n fo r thinkingthat his language is merely part o f a l iterary device.
And a reaso n fo r the neglec t o f his work from the firstmayfind an explanation in the fac t that his theo logy wasentirely different from that o f the schools o f Antioch orEdessa which were flo urish ing during the fo urth century .
His allegorical method o f interpretation, wh ich is evenfuller o f Origenism than that o f Origen himself, wouldhave been distasteful to the theo lo gians o f the neighbourho o d , wh ich wo uld explain the fac t that his book seemsto have been unappreciated, an d al lowed to pass intooblivio n, the o nly MS. o f i t to be fo und in the ninthcentury possibly owing i ts preservatio n to the portraitwh ich formed the fro ntispiece .
2 Whether he wrote inthe first decade o f the fo urth century, or at a later period,is impossible to dec ide with certainty. Harnack has
evo lved an elaborate theory o f there being two men whoare respo nsible fo r the heathen objectio ns in the book,namely, Po rphyry an d an ano nymous author who madeexcerpts from his book an d issued them in the fo rm o f
an at tack on the New Testament an d i ts teaching .
Perhaps therefore I need not apolo gise fo r a similarat tempt with regard to the answers
,though in this case
It 15 the earlier an d n o t the later authority who isano nymous . I can imagine an Origenist writing a wo rk,not far into the fo urth century
,in which he faced,
probably by name, Hiero cles an d the arguments whichhe had brought against the Scriptures in his P /zilalet/zes,
1 No less th an twenty-fo ur o f that name are given in the ‘
D iet.CIzrist
,B zog .
HIS o utlo ok is mo re Alexandrian than Antioch ene, but h ad hebelonged to Egypt, it is to th at part o f the wo rld , an d n o t to Syria,that h e
.wo uld have po inted fo r an example o f the growth o fmo nasticism .
INTRODUCTION xxiii
a real dialogue being conceivably the foundation o f hiswork . He was l iving in the East, but had visited Rome ,an d was also well acquainted with the eastern part o f
Asia - M inor. He was a really great exponent o f the
Ch ristian faith, an d wo rthy to be ranked with some o f the
great fathers o f that century . His work was seized uponby Macarius Magnes
,the Bishop o f Magnesia, who is
heard o f in A .D . 40 3 , an d wo rked into its present form ,
the original divisio n o f the two bo oks o f Hiero cles beingquite o bscured . Nothing leads us to expec t any greatoriginality o r literary talent or powers o fCatholic exegesisfrom th is Macarius. I t well acco rds with what we knowo f h im,
that he should simply arrange another man’swo rk . He carefully suppresses th e names o f bo thHiero cles an d the man who had answered him
,an d al ters
j ust enough to make i t appear a work o f his own t ime,
perhaps changing 2 0 0 years into 3 0 0 (as Harnacksuggested), an d making the Trini tarian doc trin e mo redefinite 1 when opportunity o ffered . He does n o t troubleto change the locality from the East to Asia M inor, n o rto ad d to the list o f earlier heretic s , but i t is perhaps hewh o i s respo nsible fo r the details about a local hero ,Po lycarp o f Smyrna. As an Oppo nent o f Origenism ,
he
wo uld n o t have used such methods himself,but h e
allowed those he found to remain in their place . He mayhave curtailed the number o f questions an d answers tosui t his purpose, which would explain the o ccasio nalfai lure o f sequence in the questio ns, to which Harnackhas called attentio n . I t i s surprisin g that so weigh ty awork was n o t carefully preserved by the Church . But if
,
in addition to the fact that it c o ntained blasphemouso bjec tio ns to Holy Writ, it bore the name o f an Obscurebishop, o f whom What was known was n o t particularly tohis advantage, i t can easily be understo o d h ow it was
“
so o nfo rgot ten an d was very nearly lost to posterity . The
abo ve theory o fauthorship is merely a suggestion I leavei t to others to improve o n it .
1 Apocr . iv. 25.
xx iv INTRODUCTION
THE T ITLE OF THE WORK .
The double title is a s trange o n e, Mo n ogen es orAnswer-boo k to the Greeks (Movoyemjs i!
i
Afl '
OKpLTLKdS
s pas I ts very strangeness may have prod uced the further title fo und in the Athens MS.
, viz .
“ Anacco unt o f the disputed questions an d so lutio ns in the
New Testament ” (n cpi d rropovp e'
vwv £11 177 Ka tvfiAtafiijxn {177 17711 11e Kai Mitr emy Adyo s) , with the addedmentio n o f five books . Neumann 1 long ago suggestedthat the ti tle i s to be transposed as
“ Mo n ogen es
o r Apo criticus to the Greeks,”
an d this is tac i tly ac
c epted by Bard en hewer.
2 Bu t the further suggestionthat the t itle M onogenes, as applied to Go d th e So n ,
was probably made mo re use o f in th e first part o f thewo rk
,now lost
,i s n o t borne out by the fac t that o f
th e seventeen times the wo rd o ccurs in th e extant books ,fo urteen are in six chapters o f Bo ok I I I . I prefer tothink that the first part Of the title was Apoeritien s, as
given in the MS., an d I would Offer the fo llowing
explanation o fM on ogenes to tire Greeks. I f we co nsiderthe . o ppo n en t
’
s boo k to have been “ Philalethes, to the
Christians,” i t i s natural that the answer should bear a
name reminiscent o f i t . There is a certain amount o fsimilarity between the word Ph ilaleth es (friend o f truth )an d M o n ogen es (Only-begot ten) , though the seco nd isinfinitely higher, an d points to Him o n wh om reliance i splaced fo r the answers. So we can und erstand the cho iceo f such a t itle, with a further address To the Greeks,
”
to co rrespo nd to the dedication “ To the Christiansin th e earlier wo rk . I t may be added that there i s a
suitabili ty in this dedicatio n in each case. For Hiero cles13 said to have addressed h is bo ok “ To the Ch ristians,not against them,
3an d in the objec tions the second per
son plural is o ften used in addressing the hearers, as
1 C. I . Neumann , j ul. Imp. L ib. con tra Christi qn ae supersun t,pp. 1 4
— 23 , L ips. 1 880 .
1 Patrologie, 1 894, p. 550 .
1 Lactan tius, D iv. I n s/it. v . 2.
xxv i INTRODUCTION
Hiero cles uses the text o f Codex Bezae in quoting Markxv. 34 as
“ My Go d , my God, why hast thou reproachedme ? an d also in Jo hn xii . In the lat ter caseMacarius fo llo ws him , but adds that there is anotherreading “ Now shall the prince o f this world be castdown instead o f “
cas t out ” (Karim fo r This isthe reading o f the Old Syriac an d some o f the Latinversio ns .
2 Passing from the Scriptures , we may notethat Macarius makes several indirec t references to Apo cryphal literature an d legendary stories . His statementthat milk flowed from the wo und at the martyrdom o f
S . Paul ,3 i s also to be fo und in Pseudo-Abdias an d
Pseudo -Linus . 4 The lat ter was translated into Latin inth e fo urth century, so i t may wel l have been previouslyknown further East . The Acts of P aul an d Tbecla isreferred to in i i . 7 , p . 6, when , in speak ing o f the waythe Go spel divides kinsfo lk, Macarius gives as an instancethe parting o f Thec la from h er mo ther Theo cleia.
As h e is so steeped in the spirit o f Origen , we shal lexpect to find co nsiderable indebtedness to the similarapo logetic wo rks in which O rigen had answered the
attacks o n the faith made by the heathen ph ilo sopherCelsus . There are at least four o bjec t ions to the Gospelwh ich are identical in their respective o pponents, but ineach case the defence o f Macarius i s entirely differentfrom that o f Origen, an d al though th e Con tra Celsnm
must have been known to h im,h e does n o t seem t o have
used it in writing his Apocrz'
tz'
cn s.
5 But i t is with the
writers o f the fo urth century that mo st similarities havebeen fo und , an d i t i s the suggestion o f the indebtednesso f the Apocriticn s to i t s l iterature which has inc lined so
many to relegate the work to the fo l lowing century .
There i s n o do ubt that its explanatio n o f the Passion as
1 See] . T.S . o f July 1 907 , pp . 56 1—
562 .
1 See Burkitt , a ngelion d a-M epbarres/ze, vo l. 1. p . 449.
1 Apocr. iv. 1 5, pp. 1 26 an d 1 2 7 , n . 1 .
1 Duchesne, op . cit. p. 37 . A l so D . C.B . , art. L inus.1 Fo r a discussio n o f th e questio n
,I must refer to what I have
e tten in T. S . o f April 1 907 , pp. 408—409. He certainly do es
n o t fo l low Origen’s reso lve n o t to use al lego rical explanatio ns inanswering a pagan (Con tra Cels. i i.
INTRODUCTION
a deceptio n o f the devil, wherein Chris t surrounded theho ok o f His divinity with th e bai t o f His humanity, i sthe same as that o f Gregory o f Nyssa, Rufinus, an d
Amphilo ch ius, but i t has already been s tated that th eidea dates from an earlier time, an d so the fact o f
dependence must remain unproven. 1 In the case o f
the suggested similarity between the li st o f heresies inMacarius an d o n e in Epiphan ius, i t does n o t lo ok as
i f either borrowed from the other .2
THE TEXT AND MSS . OF THE APOCR I TI CUS .
We d o not n ow kno w th e whereabouts o f a single MS.
The Athens MS.,which was at first general ly considered
to be identical with the Venice MS. which disappearedin the sixteenth century, was fortunately collated byFoucart an d Blo ndel while in th e National Libraryat Athens, before i t passed into private po ssession bybeing left by the curato r Aposto lides to his widow. I t
i s a paper MS. o f the fifteenth century , an d is describedby Duchesne as badly written, with many gaps . I tsaccuracy can only be tested by comparin g it with th e
fragments wh ich are quoted by Niceph o rus an d Turrianus,an d a few MSS . containing fragments . In every case,many mistakes an d corruptions are revealed in the
Athens MS.
3 And besides this, Blo ndel has had toalter obvio us blunders o n every page, o r to note thatthey have been corrected by a later hand . No r i s thetext always to be trusted in the form in which he hasbeen content to leave it . In the translation whichfollows, I have suggested a few obvious emendatio ns,but mo re remains to be do ne, an d , as the MS. i s n ecessary fo r the purpo se
,i t i s particularly unfortunate that i t s
present whereabo uts is so,
uncertain ,
This side o f the Apocriticn s was discussed at length a
few years ago by Schalkhausser, who confined himselfto the textual problem, an d did n o t to uch the literary
1 See p . 1 9, an d j . 7 1S . o f July 1 907 , pp . 550—551 .2 T-S o f July 1 907 , pp. 548
—
549.
3 See T.S . o f July pp . 569—57 1 .
xxviii INTRODUCTION
o n e.
1 He carefully sets fo rth the quotatio ns preservedin Turrianus from the Venice MS. ,
to pro ve that i t wasn o t the Athens MS. which he had before him . After avery lengthy discussio n o f the pro blem,
he adds a pieceo f evidence (p . 1 1 2 ) which , if i t i s to be rel ied o n
, i ssuffic ient in i tself to prove the point. I t seems that theAthens MS. ,
which only co ntains three out o f the five
bo o ks o f the Apocriticns (an d even they are mu ti latedat both ends) , c onsists o f o n e hundred an d twenty-fiveleaves, but an ancient catalogue reveals the fact thatthe Venice MS. ,
which was complete, contained only o n ehundred an d four.Schalkhausser also cites certain other MSS. which
contain the famo us chapter (iii . 2 3 ) o n the Eucharist,which is the most familiar an d oftenest-cited passage inthe Apocriticus . At the en d o f it they ad d the sto ry o fthe co nvinc ing o f a doubting brother, wh ich is plainly aninterpolat ion . Linked by a colon or a hyphen to the finalwo rds o f the chapter that “ that which is eaten remainsunconsumed, comes the abrupt commencement o f a
narrative.
“ A certain brother was in doubt concerningthe things which were co nsecrated, saying that they weren o t the Body an d Bloo d o f the Lord , but types o f thesethings .” I t proceeds to tel l Of the vision he had , whilethe deacon was reading the Gospel , o f the heavenlyChild slain an d offered fo r food
, o f h is inabili ty to eat
the flesh thus given, an d o f its being turned into breadas a concessio n to man’s weakness . There seems n o
do ub t whatever that the story is a mere insertio n, o f a
later date than Macarius. Perhaps some o n e wh o readsth IS may recognise the source from which i t comes .But the fac t o f there being such an interpo lation addspo In t to my own suggestio n with regard to the passageabout th e Trinity, where there is a sudden change o f
style, an d the use o f seemingly po st-Nicene terms for“ Person an d “ Substance.
”If the Eucharist ic chapter
tempted some o n e to interpolate, the passage o n Baptism1 Geo rg Sch alkhausser, Zn d er Scbr iften d es M akar ios van
M agn esia, L eipzig, 1 90 7 , being No . 4 o f vo l. xxxi . i n Texte a n dUn tersuc/mngen , etc.
INTRODUCTION xx ix
in the name of the Trinity may wel l have done the
same .
1
THE THEOLOGICAL AND APOLOGETIC VALUE OF THEAPOCR I TI CUS .
We may set aside th e charges o f heresy bro ugh tagains t the work by Niceph o rus, who was biassed byits use by his oppo nents . He specifies the particulardogma in it derived from Origen as being the noneternity o f punishment , an d in iv . 1 6, p . 1 87 , we find a
second an d better beginning pos tulated o f“the whole
nature an d substance o f c reated things . He speaks o fChris t in o n e place as of Him “ Who seemed to be sub
ject to human affections (i ii . 8 , p . bu t other passagesare entirely Opposed to any thing Do cetic . In o n e passage
(iii . 1 4) he speaks o f His manhood as having becomedivine after the Passion, but i f his language i s heretical ,he i s following his master Origen . The Virgin-birth isregarded by his Opponent as well as himself as an essentialpart o f the fai th (iv . Th e power o f Christ’s atoningdeath is set forth in iii . 9 an d 1 4, an d His Resurrectionan d appearances are shown in ii . 1 9 to res t on the power,n o t of men , but o f God . His Ascension an d presen tubiquity are discussed in iii . 1 4 , His Godhead an d Hismanho o d being fo r ever indisso luble. Allusion has
already been made to the very definite Trinitarianpassage in iv . 2 5.
With regard to the Church an d the Christian life,iv . 25 an d i ii . 2 3 are of the chief value. The water ofHoly Baptism has the power to c leanse from the staino f evil, n o r is i t the fault o f the Giver i f this grace isabused . The Eucharis t i s the plainest explanatio n o f
Christ’s words about eating His flesh an d drinking Hisblood
, an d i s far more than a mere type . Bread an d
wine are produced from the earth which He made,an d
so bread is already in a mystical sense His flesh . Butthe bread o f the Eucharis t i s n o t o rdinary bread, but is“ tilled in the blessed land o f Christ .”
In spite o f its present o bscurity,I believe the
1 See Intro d ., p . xvi i i .
xxx INTRODUCTION
Apocm'
ticn s to rank as o n e o f the great apolo gies fo r
the faith . O thers deal with outlines, bu t Macarius isunique in his defence o f detai ls, an d , except fo r hisfrequent use o f allegory, his answers are mo stly so und inth e l ight o f to-d ay . I t is a great thing fo r a man to
answer so many cunn ing objec t io ns withou t involvingh imself in inco nsistency . He shows his readiness to meeth is o ppo nent on his own ground, an d an absence o f
narrowness wh ich o ught to appeal to the modern reader .For instance, when the Mo saic bo oks are discreditedas written long after Moses, he accepts a later datewith o ut an y weakenin g o f their authentic i ty (i ii . Inanswering the charge Of discrepanc ies in the Go spels ,he replies that details o f expression are n o t the cri terio no f the truth o f a fac t, an d in such narratives as tho seo f the Cruc ifixion, the varied acco unts may be truthful ,an d yet reflect the suspense o f the c risis, the verystrangeness o f which had unnerved all wh o were present .On e i s tempted to multiply illustratio ns o f the teaching
an d methods o f Macarius,but it is better simply to
refer to the pages which follow . There are some whowill lo ok in them chiefly fo r the pagan Objec tions o f hiso ppo nent, which have a spec ial value o f th eir own apartfrom the answers .I have thought i t best an d handiest n o t to follow the
plan o f giving abo ut‘ seven quest io ns in successio n an d
proceeding to give the answers . This involves muchturning o f pages in order to read the correspo ndinganswer after each o f them . I have therefo re placedeach quest ion an d its answer together, irrespective o f
chapters in th e book . The only drawback to this isthat i t makes the li ttle exo rdium wi th which Macarius
begins each fresh series, seem somewhat out o f place .
Let me conc lude by saying that my great ho pe inwrltmg thus o n Macarius Magnes i s that many to whomh IS name has meant nothing will regard h im with interesthenceforth, an d that tho se who know something o f theApocriticn s will be induced to stud yit again fo r themselves,an d po ssibly to help in the so lutio n o f tho se interestingpro blems which are st1ll raised in connexion with it.
THE APO’
CR IT ICUS OF
MACAR IUS MAGNE S
BOOK I
[L o st, with the except io n o f th e fo l lowin g fragment o f ChapterV I , wh ich is preserved in the An tirr/zetica o f Niceph o rus , Spicil.
Solesm . i p .
CONCERNING Berenice, 1 o r the woman with the issueo f bloo d . Berenice, wh o once was mistress Of a
famous place, an d ho no ured ruler o f the great c ity o f
Edessa,2 having been delivered from an unc lean issueo f bloo d an d speedily healed from a painful affec tio n ,whom many physic ians to rmented at many times, bu tinc reased the affec tion to the wo rst o f maladies with nobetterment at all, He made to be celebrated an d famo usin sto ry till the present d ay in Mesopo tamia, o r ratherin all the world— so great was her experience 3 — fo r sh e
was made whole by a to uch o f the saving hem o f Hisgarment .4 Fo r the woman, having had the reco rd o f
the deed itself no bly represen ted in bronze,5 gave i tto her son
, as something done recently, n o t longbefore .
1 O r Bero n ice , wh ich is equivalent to Vero nica . Her name i sal so reco rded In the Ad a P ilati (see ch . v11 . in Tischendo rf, E vang .
Agocryph p 2 7 7 )2 All the o ther reco rds
,viz . Eusebius
, So z omen ,Philo sto rgius ,
an d Jo annes Malalas, say that the statue was at Pan eas . No r isth is co ntradicted by Macarius .
1nar d wjua , o n e o f th e favo uritewo rds o f Macarius, thus l ink ing
th is fragment o f Bo o k I with th e rest .1awr npfou xpamre
'
d ov, perhaps The hem o f the Savio ur’sgarment .”
5 The statue is minutely described by Eusebius, H .E . vn . 1 8 .
So z omen (17 . E . v . 2 1 ) say s that Julian to ok it down an d put uph is own instead , but the Cbron icle o f Malalas (ed . Din d o rf, p . 329)says it was stil l in existence in a church at Pan eas, in abo ut A. D . 600 .
3 1
BOOK I I
[The Athens MS . do es n o t begin til l Chapter V I I . Th e firstset o f o bjectio ns in the Bo o k is therefo re lo st. Chapters V I I—XIco ntain answers to five o bjectio ns. Th is lo oks as if Chapter Iwas in the nature o f an introductio n , unless there were six objectio ns, an d Macarius has combined two o f them in o n e answer , ash e do es mo re than o nce in the later part o f his wo rk .]
CHAPTER VII . This is an answer to an objec tio n basedo n the wo rds o f 8 . Mat t . x . 34 ff. :
“ I came n o t to
send peace o n the earth , but a sword . I came toseparate a man from his father,
”etc .
Tbefirst part of t/ze an swer is lack ing, an d tbe rest
is lengt/zy ana’a’
ifi’
use. Tbe follow ing is a summaryof it
[To tho se who wish to receive the heavenly armourChrist Speaks thus : “ This warfare will mean puttingaway all earthly thoughts an d giving up all human dearo nes . After the vic to ry a heavenly Father will take theplace o f the earthly o n e who has been reno unced . Thisis the o nly way to co nquer sin . The man who prefersearthly relationships will not survive the fray , an d i sn o t a soldier worthy o fme.
”
Success in such a warfare may be plainly seen in the
deaths o f the martyrs . They were able to leave all
th o se that were dear,an d take up their cross an d fo l low
Christ . This is what is meant by the “ swo rd, whichcuts relations from each o ther, as i t cut Thec la fromTheo cleia .
1 Daughters have taken this swo rd an d cutthemselves Off from their mothers ei ther by martyrdomor vIrgIn s
’ vows . So ns o f great men have left theirfamIly customs to practise abstinence. No r are thoseangered who are left behind . Go through the c it ies o f
1 Fo r th e well-known sto ry, see the Acts of Paul an d Tbee/a .
34 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
did the miracles I have do ne ? As n o such man everhas do ne or will d o them, why cal l me a mere man withbrethren ? The man born blind saw the Godhead withthe eyes o f h is soul , but you are blind to the brigh tnesso f such power in your midst . So I say to yo u as to
blind men ,‘ He that doeth the will o f my Father (with
which mine i s identical) i s my mo ther an d bro ther,’fo r
in so do ing he both brings me forth as a mo ther does,having conceived me in do ing the Father’s will, an d h ealso is bro ught fo rth along with me, n o t by coming into :
perso nal subsistence, 1 but by being made o n e in grace o f
will . Fo r he that doeth the will o f my Father bringethme fo rth in the fellowsh ip Of the deed , an d i s bro ughtfo rth with me. Fo r he that believes that I am th e OnlyBegotten o f Go d in some sense begets me
,n o t in sub
sistence but in faith,being mystically present with that
which is bego t ten .
”
Note that Christ does n o t specify an y o f His Apostlesby name , but simply says, He that doeth the will o f theF
CHAPTER IX . Answer to an objec tion based o n S . Mark x .
1 8 an d S . Mat t . xii . 35. Come n ow, let us also makec lear the question o f those two sayings : “ None i sgo o d save Go d ,
”an d “ The go od man out o f th e
good treasure o f his heart bringeth forth that whichis good .
”
See h ow plainly here also Jesus dissoc iates Himself fromman when He says,
“ No ne is goo d save o ne,even Go d .
”
And without doubt Ch rist i s Himself Go d , even as Jo hnsays,
“An d th e Wo rd was Go d .
” Also the Savio urHimself, revealing the essence o f His own Godhead,says,
“ I an d the Father are o n e wh ich means thatundo ubtedly He who spoke the words was Go d . Why
,
then, if He be God , did He deny that He was Go d , bysaying,
“ None i s good save o n e, even Go d ; why calles t1aim iv in roar o
i
aet 0 130511 5~ y ey dp evo s . In th e l igh t o f o therpassages In Macarius, there is a spec ial interest in his use o f thesewo rd s . See Introd .
, p . xvfir.
BOOK II . VI II, 1x 35
thou me goo d ? I f your desire i s to pay a genuineheed to the saying, the subjec t will become c lear an deasily grasped, though it be disputed an d a matter o fdiscussio n amo ng many . A certain young man o f
comely appearance pic tured in the Savio ur’s presence at
state o f righteous action, 1 imagining that He, who fo rman’s sak e had become man ,
‘
was like other men ,
po ssessed o f no relationship besides that which is mortal .This yo ung man played the impo sto r an d desired to
show himself o ff as often receiving much praise at the
hands o f many,besides thinking that the Lord was an
ordinary man . So it was not as Go d but as man that headdressed Him when he came near an d said,
“ Goodmaster .” Christ faces the man who has such an o piniono f Him by saying,
“ Why dost thou cal l me good whentho u thinkest me a mere man ? Thou art mistaken,young man , in holding the theory that I am mortal an dyet addressing me as goo d ; fo r among men there i snothing inherently go od, but in Go d alone. So according to thee at least I deny that I am good, since I amreckoned as a man . For if thou didst hold the beliefthat God is in me, an d the unalloyed nature o f the
Godhead, thou wouldst have decided that I bear affinityto th e nature o f the Good, an d wo uldst have had nodo ubt ? But since thou didst secretly steal away thegood that is abso lute, an d dost bear unreasoning witnessto the good that is relative,3 thou canst n o t recko n me as
a partner o f this thy reckless act\o f theft . For do not
suppose that I myself have ever used the word ‘ good ’
without d ue tho ught . For even if I sad ‘ The go o dman out o f the go od treasure bringeth fo rth that whichis good,
’ I do n o t cal l the man good absolutely, bu trelatively, whenever h e performs some good actionthrough sharing in that which is good . Take an i llustrat ion . The fire i s warm
, an d that which is brought near1rear/{0 11 0s 7 1s ein rpoaa
’
mq: ”(ii/I an 0 017 Ewrfipos (y a poo fiev 81 11 0 10Trpa
'
yfas {fw'
ypaicpet TroAf'revp a . Or d o es ein rpoaa
frmp ax
‘fmar t meanIn specio us fo rm1 Read ing éved ofaa'
as instead o f éfl efiofaaa .
1 L iteral ly,go o d by n ature (M0 151) an d go od by po sitio n (M0 1 1).
36 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
the fire is also said to be warm.
1 But o n e i s calledwarm absolutely an d the o ther relatively. I t is not thatth e identity o f name steal s away the truth an d has a
sin gle way o f expressing the matter. Rather is the
difference o f th e nature o f each wo nt to determine theidentity o f name . Thus if an y o n e calls the Creatorgoo d, an d al so that which is c reated, he makes i t plainthat in the o n e case the goo dness is in Himself, an d inthe other case i t i s derived from another. Hence a man
i s goo d ,2 not as having this possessio n from his ownnature, but as having obtained this advantage fromano ther. But Go d i s goo d, n o t as having receivedo r won this from anoth er, but as a good which isabsolute, an d as such is neither changeable n o r visible.
”
This then must be th e distinc tio n in your mind withregard to what i s “ go od .
” I t will prevent you from thinking that Chri st stultified His own words by saying, NO
o n e is go od save o n e , even Go d .
”Fo r the abso lute
go od, the inherent good, the archetypal good, the invisible an d unchangeable go od ,— this, He declares , i sunique, an d the Godhead underlies i t . But the relat ivegoo d, the good that i s easily altered , that does n o t standsteadfast, but suffers change,— this He connects withman ,
an d also with an y created thing ; as for examplewhen He called a fish o r an egg go o d, by sayin g,
“ Yeknow how to give good gifts to yo ur children .
”
CHAPTER X . Answer to an objection based o n S . Matt .xvii . 1 5 :
“ Have pity o n my so n,fo r he I S lunat ic ,”
alth ough i t was n o t the effect o f the mOo n ,but o f a
demon .
[In answering this question, we wil l also co nsider the
apparently uncal led fo r rebuke which Christ adds to themultitude, in the words “
0 faithless generatio n, h owlo ng shall I be with you ?The dragon o r demon was cunning eno ugh to attack1 The same i l lustratio n 1 3 used In iv . 26 , o f th e relat io n o f Go d to
the go ds o f heathenism.
1 Reading ay aObs instead o f d y aedy .
BOOK II . Ix'
,x,x1 3 7
the boy at the changes o f the moon, so that men migh tthink that his sufferings were d ue to its influence. Thusby o n e act he accomplished two objec ts, for he bothtortured th e boy’s body, an d suggested blasphemy to theminds Of those who saw i t, fo r if they ascribed i t to themoon’s actio n, they would naturally blame Him whocreated the moo n.
Christ perceives that they likewise have been affectedby the demo n, an d so calls them a
“ faithless generatio n, because o f their ideas abou t the moon . Byexpelling the demon, He shows them their error .S . Matthew does not prove, by saying that “
a lunaticbo y was bro ugh t to Christ, that he really was under themoo n’s influence . Like a go od historian, he recordedthings as he heard them ,
n o t as they actual ly were ]
CHAPTER XI . Answer to an objec tion based on S . Johnv. 3 1 How is i t that Chris t said , I f I bear witnessto myself
,my witness i s n o t true
,an d yet He did
bear witness to Himself, as He was accused o f do ingwhen He said,
“ I am the light o f the world ”?
(John viii. 1 2,
[Such witness i s not true in man’s case, but it is in
Go d’s . The Jews tho ught Chris t was only man ,but i t
wo uld have been a sad thing fo r the world if He had
accepted their j udgment an d sought man’s witness fo rHis divine acts .80 He speaks as man when He does not bear witnessto Himself, bu t seeks i t from God . But it is as Go dthat He says He i s the Light, the Truth, etc . ,
disdainingwitness from his inferiors . He therefore simply allowsthat if, in their erroneous judgment , He is merely man
,
His witness i s not true. Thus He contradicts,not His
own statement, but their Opin ion about Him .]
38 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
CHAPTER XI I . Objection based on the discrepancy ofthe Gospels about the Crucifixion .
T/ze Pbilosopber .
But he with bitterness, an d with very grim look , bentforward an d declared to us yet more savagely that theEvangelists were inventors an d not historians o f th e
even ts concerning Jesus . Fo r each o f them wrote an
account of the Passion which was n o t harmonious bu tas contradictory as co uld be. Fo r o n e records that,when he was c rucified, a certain man filled a spongewith vinegar an d brought it to him (Mark xv . Butanother says in a different way , “ When they had cometo the place Go lgotha, they gave h im to drink winemingled with gall
,an d when he had tasted i t, he wo uld
not drink ”
(Matt . xxvii . And a litt le further,“ And about th e ninth hour Jesus c ried wi th a loudvo ice saying, Elo im, Elo im,
lama sabachthani ? That is,My Go d , my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?
” Thisis Matthew (0 . And ano ther says, “ Now there wasset a vessel full o f vinegar . Having therefo re bound a
vessel 1 full o f the vinegar with a reed,they o ffered i t to
his mouth . When therefore he had taken the vinegar,Jesus said , I t i s finished
,an d having bowed his head ,
he gave up the ghost ” (John xix . But anothersays,
“ And he cried out with a loud voice an d said,Father, into thy hands I will commend 2 my spiri t .
” Thishappens to be Luke (Luke xxiii . From this o ut-Of
date an d contradic tory reco rd,o n e can receive it as the
statement o f th e suffering,not o f o n e man ,
but o f many .
Fo r.
if o n e says “ Into thy hands I will commend mySpirit, an d another “ I t i s finished, an d ano ther “ MyGod, my God , why hast thou forsaken me ?
”an d ano ther
0
My Go d , my God, why didst thou reproach me ?” 3 it
I S plain that thi s i s a discordant invention, an d either
1o n efigs o i’iv near by 0 08 5£ovs 0 6V 150 0 161rcp apoa d iio
'
a I/Tes . In theChristIan 5 answer the reading is similar but n o t identical .
1r epaid /70 011 11 1 , as some MSS .
3 meth o d s y e Th is is the reading o f Co dex Bezae.
BOOK II . x1 1 , xv1 1 39
points to many who were cruc ified , or o n e who diedhard 1 an d d id not give a clear view of his passion totho se who were present . But i f these men were not ableto tell the manner o f his d eath in a truthful way, an d
simply repeated i t by rote, neither did they leave an yclear record concerning the rest of the narrative .
CHAPTER XVII . Answer to the objec tion based onthe discrepancy of the Evangelists.
Thus far an d in such words did he declaim , settingfo rth with boas ting the Hellenic view. Bu t we werenot overcome by the din o f his words, nor did we fearfo r o ur life. Though we shrank from speaking the
essential wo rd as the result o f acquaintance with it, weSpoke as th e divine grace gave us help . Speaking as
follows, we gave a clear in terpretatlo n o f the Evangelist sas preserving o n e tenor o f a single record, though withinterchange o f phraseology .
No o n e seeks the truth that is in the nature o f the
facts from syllables o r let ters, but starting from the fac the estimates the divergences o f language. For instance,if some o n e simply speaks o f the rational as “ man
,
”an d
ano ther as “ mortal ,”ano ther as endowed with speech,
an d yet another as“ human being,
”he will mention
many things in word, bu t there will be o n e th ing thatunderlies them all. And whether any o n e says mortal
,
”
o r“ human being, o r
“endowed with speech
,
”he means
no thing else but “ man .
” Similarly in the case o f the
outer garment . Whether a man speaks o f a “ mantle ”
o r a“ clo ak ” or a “ robe ”
o r“ woven garment
,he does
n o t mean many things,but some o n e thing with an
interchange o f names . Thus the Evangelists, writingin their eagerness o f what was once do ne at the Crucifixio n , spo ke o n e in o n e way an d o n e in another, butthey did not mar the record . SO then, if o n e said
1 sw ear/m am a . The po int o f the saying is n o t quite plain . I t
wo uld be mo re In keeping 'with the sentence to read Bls Oauar ofiura,i. e. o n e wh o died twice.
”
40 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
vinegar an d another said “ wine,they made no mis
take. And in the case o f the sponge an d the hysso pdo n o t think it s trange when you hear i t said , “ Havingbound a vessel o f vinegar to a hyssop they gave him to
drink an d again,
“ Having fi lled a spo nge with vinegarthey brough t i t to him .
”Fo r the reed an d the spon ge
an d the hyssop seem to point in o n e direc tion in thei rorigin
,fo r each o f them comes as a wild plant, an d
afterwards is cut down . Therefore when he had to say“ reed,
”he said hyssop o n account o f the similar co urse
o f their growth an d cutting . And most particularly d othey observe the rule o f th e record, an d d o n o t write a
single thing beyond what was spoken then amid the
seething confusion o f that deed o f madness .For His accusers were Jews, an d His judges wereRoman s
,both o f them a barbarian race, 1 which does
not lay c laim to the language o f freedom, an d has n o t
grasped the subtlety o f Hellenic education . M oreover,everyth ing was at that moment being driven abou t inco nfusion ; the earth was trembling from beneath as
tho ugh smit ten by a blow, an d the rocks were beingrent an d struck by the crash . Then suddenly there fel la darkness that could be fel t, an d the sun hid the raysthat belo ng to it . No o n e was then in his sober senses ,but was blinded by the confusion o f the elements, whilethe innermost recesses were shaken o f sky an d earthan d under the Tel l me, then , wh o was
so und in mind amid such a state o f things as this ?Who was stro ng in so ul ? Who had n o t been strickenin mind ? Wh o se understanding was n o t harassed ? Wh odid n o t throw out his words as if he were in liquor ?Wh o was n o t like a cheap-jack in the o bscuri ty o f hisutterances ? Who did not behold the th ings that werecoming to pass as a deep an d migh ty visio n o f theirdreams ? NO man , young o r o ld , n o woman, whetheraged o r virgin , no o n e o f tender age, was po ssessed o f
steady reaso ning, but all were senseless as though1 Th e Hel lenic po int o f view is remarkable, wh ich classes the
Romans W Ith the Jews as d Bapou tap as .
1 Reading buoy e’
rwv instead o f
42 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
o ne o f the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, an d
fo rthwith came there out blo od an d water.” Fo r onlyJohn has said this, an d none o f the o thers . Wherefore
he is desiro us o f bearing witness to himself when he saysAnd he that saw i t hath bo rne witness, an d his witnessis true (I) . iThis i s haply, as i t seems to me, the
statement o f a simpleton . Fo r how is the witness truewhen its objec t has n o existence ? Fo r a man witnessesto something real ; but h ow can witness be spoken ofco ncerning a thing which is not real ?
CHAPTER XVIII . Answer to the objection based onS . John x ix . 3 3
—35.
Pray do n o t let that passage trouble you either, in thati t i s o nly John wh o says : “ When they came to Jesus ,they brake not h is legs,” while the others d o n o t reco rdit. For when he alone said i t, he i s not deserving o f
rejection . Rather is he naturally to be praised , becausein his zeal he called this to mind .
And indeed through saying this he has spo ken something else greater st ill, which also preserves the mysteryo f the dispensation , an d introduces the word o f marvel .Fo r he says : “ On e o f the so ldiers with a spear piercedhis side.
” This was in o rder that th e Opened side migh tgrant an inlet to the c leansing, which had hitherto beenc lo sed, 1 so that when the blood an d water flowed like a
Spring, those who dwelt in the country o f th e captivitymigh t be delivered by the blo od , an d tho se who had thestripes o f their Sins migh t be wash ed in th e water . Thisthen has been do ne, n o t in a superfluous way, but o fi ntention , with the divine foretho ught as i t were underlyingit . For since [Pthe flow o f death came from His S id e] 1 thecause o f salvatio n must needs also flow from His SideFrom His side did the blow spring
,from His Side flowed
also th e spring o f l ife .
3 From His Side came the diseasean d also th e healing . From His side was the wandering
10 h» d r oxxew fiei
’
aav ( 70 0501! raw 1 1 6 11 13 15v Aci T iis Kd fiapa ews.2 Blo ndel h ere suspects th e omissio n o f a wh o le l ine in th e MS .
1 There Is a p lay o n th e wo rds «21 717 13, a blow , an d a sprin
BOOK II . XI II, XVII I, xrv 43
an d from his side was the returning. From His side wasthe pain , an d from His S ide was the painlessness .
Jo hn, the o n e witness o f this , which is itself the o n e
secret thing, testifies to that which is sec ret . John hasproc laimed that the smiting o f His side has been madegood by His side.
This i s true, even if he i s the only o n e who says it,an d the other three d o not . Fo r another is telling th etruth when he tells o f the beggar Lazarus an d the richfool
,tho ugh the o ther three do n o t mention them . This
is my answer so far.
CHAPTER XIV. Objection based on the Resurrection o f
Christ an d His manifestation o f Himself (Matt .xxviii . 6
,etc ) .
There is al so another argument whereby this corrup topinio n can be refuted . I mean the argument aboutthat Resurrectio n Of His which is such common talkeverywhere, as to why Jesus, after His suffering an d
rising again (according to your story) , did not appear’
t oP ilate who punished Him an d said He had do ne nothingwo rthy o f death , o r to Herod King of the Jews, o r toth e High-pries t o f th e Jewish race, or to man y men at
the same time an d to such as were worthy o f credit, an dmore particularly amo ng Romans both in the Senate an d
among the people . The purpose would be that, by theirwo nder at th e things concerning Him
,they might not
pass a vote o f death against Him by commo n consent,which implied the impiety o f tho se wh o were obedient toHim . But He appeared to Mary Magdalene, a coarsewoman who came from some wretched li ttle village, an dhad once been po ssessed by seven demons, an d with heranother utterly Obscure Mary, who was herself a peasantwoman , an d a few o ther people wh o were n o t at all wel lknown , And that, al though He said : Henceforth shallye see the Son o f man sit ting o n the right hand o f power,an d coming with the clouds .” Fo r if He had shownHimself to men o f note, all would b elieve through them,
an d no judge would punish them as fabricating monstrous
44 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
stories . 1 Fo r surely it i s neither pleasing to God n o r toan ysensible man that many sho uld be subj ected on HIS
account to punishments o f the gravest kind .
CHAPTER XIX . Answer to the objectio n based p n the
Resurrection o f Chr ist an d His mamfestatio n ofHimself (Matt . xxviii . 6,
Come n ow,an d let us examine carefully that other actio n
also which do es n o t seem to you to have been rightlydone . I mean why the Saviour, after having conqueredthe power o f death an d returned o n the third d ay afterHis Passion from the depths of the earth , did n o t appearto Pilate . I t was in order that tho se wh o have learnthow to do away with what i s go od, should n o t do awaywith the true fact. I t was to prevent an y base suspicionfrom basemen from creeping in an d stealing away the trutho f the Lo rd’s Pass ion . I t was to prevent th e un scrupu
lous from thinking that what took place was untrue, thatthe to ngues o f the Jews might n o t again hiss o ut the
poison o f the dragon, an d that the fac t might not becomethe universal scandal o f the world .
Fo r at o nce, if He had shown Himself to P ilate an d
the men o f no te who were abou t him ,at once, I say,
they would have Spread abroad a statement, through th edevice o f cheating
,namely
,that P ilate had nailed o n e
man to th e c ross in place o f ano ther, through some plano f screening him ; that he had do ne this as ei ther h imself deceived , o r as being al together put o ut o f coun te
nance with regard to Him,as i s o ften wont to happen
in such mat ters face to face ? Whence they would saythat He had appeared to him after rising as the resulto f an intrigue, desiring to pro c laim o n authority the
resurrec tion which had n o t taken place as if i t had done
1 These wo rds seem to suggest a time o f persecutio n as thenpresent. See Intro d . , p. xvii .1 Th is is a l iteral translatio n o f the puzzl ing wo rds Bu0w1rn0els
Amapé‘
ss 1 1p ar’
rrby bi1 e ¢ 1A61 1roAAdms 7 freo'0a 1 wap
’bcpflak p o
'
v
Tamar a .
BOOK II . xrx 45
so , an d to strengthen by the Roman power a lying statement . Thus the matter was contrived as a mockery the
earnestness shown was mere play-acting . He wh o had had
no passion was so lemnly parading within the Praetoriumas if He had had it an d conquered it ; some criminalhad been del ivered over to the cross In His s teada trick had taken '
place in a court o f law. He whomthey had seized had go t His freedom by a cunningdevice
,an d a fo rm o f jugglery Some o ther condemned
man had been bound without exciting suspicion . Andnow Pilate, who had just j udged Him acco rding toappearance, had no more appearance o f so do ing, butwas embracing Him who was s till answerable, as
‘
if He
were a friend . This action was a n ew o n e added to theevils already done against Judaea. Great i s the resultingridicule in the East . We Jews have an indelible Shamein having fought agains t o n e man an d not got the betterof Him . See h ow much knavery the deceiver wrough t,bo th while He l ived an d when He died in pretence.
[Macarius continues this lamen t o f the Jews at somelength, picturing P ilate as telling the Emperor
,
an d orders being issued to believe what theyknew to be a fraud, while they themselves wereheld up to o dium fo r murdering the Saviour ofth e race, an d felt mo st acutely o f all the extremepublic i ty an d o fficialism o f the whole thing ]
Because o f the l ikelihood o f such happenings,an d o f
such foo lish talking on the part of the Jews, He did notappear to P i late when He rose from the dead, lest thatwhich had been done rightly sho uld be j udged as a tricko f rascality an d deceit . No r did He appro ach men ofrepute o f the company o f the Romans, that there mightnot seem to be need o f human suppo rt an d co -operatio nfo r the confirmatio n of the story o f the Resurrect io n .
But He made Himself manifest to women who wereno t able to give help, nor to persuade an y o n e abou tthe Resurrectio n . Then He appeared to the discipleswho were also themselves with o ut power, an d largelyobscure because o f their poverty . This He did fittinglyan d well, that the story o f the Resurrec tion might n o t
46 APOCRITICUS O‘F MACARIUS MAGNES
be heralded by the help o f the po wer o f the,wo rld
’s
rulers, but that i t might be strengthened an d confirmedth ro ugh men wh o were inferior an d made n o Show intheir life according to the flesh , so that the proclamationm ight n o t be a human thing, but a divine .
CHAPTER XV. Objection based o n the words : “ Now
i s the judgment o f the world , now shal l the ruler o fthis world be cas t o utside (Jo hn x ii .
Any o n e will feel quite sure that the records are merefairy tales, if he reads ano ther piece o f clap- trap that i swritten in the Go spel, where Christ says :
“ Now i s thejudgment o f the wo rld, now the ruler o f this world shal lbe cast . outside ”
(John xii . For tel l me, in th e
name o f God, what is . this j udgment which then takesplace, an d who is the ruler o f the world wh o i s casto utside ? I f indeed you intend to say i t i s the Emperor,I answer that there i s no sole ruler (fo r many rule the
world nor was h e cast down ? But if you mean someo n e who i s abstract an d incorporeal, he cannot be casto utside. Fo r where should he be cast, to whom it fel l tobe the ruler o f the wo rld ? I f you are going to replythat there exists ano ther world somewhere, into whichthe ruler will be cast
,pray tell us th i s from a record
which can convince us . Bu t if there i s not another (an dI t i s impossible that two worlds should exis t) whereshould the ruler be cast
,if i t be n o t in that world in
which he happens to be already ? An d h ow i s a mancast “ down in that world in which h e i s ? Unless it i slike the case o f an earthenware vessel , which , if i t an dI ts contents are broken, a man causes to be cas t outside,not into the void , but in to another body o f air o r earth ,o r perhaps o f something else. I f then in l ike manner,
1 Th is statement i s o n e o f th e indicatio ns that these wo rds werewritten wh en D io cletian had subdivided th e Empire, an d there wasan Augustus an d a Caesar bo th o f East an d West .
2 The argument varies strangely acco rding as first o n e reading istaken , cast o utside an d then the alternat ive, cast down(Marco ) . Macarius in h is answer at o nce n o tices the variatio n 0 1
reading , and argues, l ike his opponent, from bo th .
BOOK II . xv,xx 47
when the world is bro ken (which is impossible), he thatis in i t will be cast outside, what sort o f place i s thereo utside into which he will be cas t ? And what is therepeculiar in that place in the way o f quantity an d quali ty,height an d depth , length o r breadth ? ~ Fo r if it is po ssessed o f these th ings, then it follows that i t i s a world .
And what is the cause o f the ruler o f the world beingcast out, as if he were a stranger to the world ? I f he
be a stranger, how did he rule i t ? And how is he castout ? By his own will, o r against it ? Clearly against i t .That is plain from the language, fo r that which is
“ castout,
” i s cast out unwillingly . But the wrong—doer i s n o th e that endures force, but he that uses i t.All this obscure no nsense in the Gospels ought to be
offered to silly women, n o t to men . Fo r if we wereprepared to investigate such points more closely, wesho uld discover thousands o f Obscure stories which d on o t contain a Single word worth fin d ing.
1
CHAPTER XX . Answer to the objectio n based onS . John xii . 3 1 .
[Note that there are two readings cast out, an d “ castdown, an d that the words which follow are :
“ I,i f I
be lifted up, will draw allmen unto myself.”World ” does not mean all creatio n (which is subject
to Go d ), but men ,who can subjec t themselves to some
o n e else. And “ ruler do es n o t mean the Creator, butan arch-demo n that by guile rules man (who may betermed “
the world within the world ”
The verse means that Christ came to free them fromhis tyranny, casting him out an d down from it . Hisrule was only recent, an d not universal . He i s said to
rule “th e wo rld ,
”although only “ man is meant, an d
there i s more in the world than man .
Fo r this identificat ion o f who le an d part, we may
compare the saying that a man i s il l when o n e limb isso
, o r that all a c loak is poor because a tassel i s lost. I f
1 l it . “a Single windfal l .
1 Man is termed 6 mimuos 7 017
48 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNE S
it means everyth ing that exists, we must remember thatthere are things invisible as wel l , thro nes an d powers,etc . Inspired language simi larly uses who le fo r part , aswhen S . Paul says, “ I am cruc ified to t he world .
” He
does n o t mean all the wo rld, but the evil an d flesh lypart o f i t . I f then 8 . Paul calls the fl eshly side, whichhe painfully c rucified ,
“the wo rld, i t was natural that
the Saviour, when His cross was set up, should speaksimilarly o f the weak an d wavering human race .
Such was Christ’s judgment in dividing men from thei rdeceiver . Their former ruler was cast down
,but th ey
themselves were to be drawn upwards, as i s suggested in71 . 3 2 . Fo r He to ok a human body as the cord withwhich to judge His kin , an d , binding it t o His Go dhead,He drew men up to heavenly abodes (fo r the race i sbo und to that bo dy o f His as by a ro pe, an d d rawnupward) .The “ casting down o f the world’s tyrant i s n o t
l i teral, but metaphorical . Supposing an earthly kingpasses judgment o n o n e in autho rity
,his fall i s not from
a hill o r a ho useto p,bu t from his own power . He may
s till remain in the palace, but his autho ri ty i s gone . So
is it w ith the stro ng man” wh om Ch rist , as the “ stronger
man,
”cast down from his earthly power.]
CHAPTER XVI . Objec tion based o n
S . John viii. 43 , 44 .
Come now, let us listen to that shadowy saying alsowhich was direc ted against the Jews, when He said ,“ Ye cannot hear my word, because ye are o f yourfather the devil (Slanderer), an d ye wish to d o th e lusts '
o f your father.” Explain to us then wh o the Slandereris, wh o is the father o f the Jews . Fo r those wh o dothe lusts o f their father, d o SO fittingly, as yieldin g to thedesire o f their father, an d out o f respect fo r him . Andif the father is evil, the charge o f evil must not befastened o n the ch ildren . Wh o then is that father, byd o Ing who se lusts they did n o t hearken to Christ ?For when the Jews said,
“ We h ave o n e father,even
50 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
father o f the Slanderer.” 1 So the slander does notoriginate in himself, but in his father
’s promptings . Infact, their relation may be compared with that o f the
divine So n an d Father. As those who believe the Sonare brought to the Father as His heirs , so tho se whobelieve th e Slanderer are dragged from their true Fatherby that Antichrist, an d brought to his father who is theopposite o f Go d ?
You want to know who the father of the Slanderer is,an d what the slander was . You have heard o f the fal lo f man from Paradise, an d th e slander o f the serpent,when sin an d death entered . I t was thence that theSlanderer an d his father go t their terribleness . The
serpent slandered men to God,an d God to men .
“His“ father ” was a spiritual force who took possessio n ofhim . This was he o f whom Job said
,
“ He waxed headstrong against the Almighty (Job xv . This an gelo f deceit found the serpent , an d by sowing in him the
seed o f slander, became the father o f the Slanderer.When therefo re the Jews rejected Christ’s words an d
turned from His Father,they turned by their rebellion
to the rebellio us father o f the serpent . That was whyChrist spoke these words ]L et th is much suffice . Ify ou approve, we will at this
place so lemnly conclude the argument,which has been
sufficiently discussed . At some other time,if any point
arises o f the things that perplex,we will meet you again
,
an d speak, as the divine gift grants us aid .
1 in 7 06 71 11 7 p 0 08 d 103 15
o Th is is ano ther ambi p ity, an d Macarius makes it fi t with his argument by a translatio nw Ich canno t n ow be accepted .
2 fiu'rtd e'
o s .
BOOK I I I
Proem (introduc ing the fi rst seven questions by the
Philosopher) .
THIS i s the third co ntest which our much-admiredopponent prepared fo r us, after bringin g a no tableassembly o f audito rs . This
, 0 Theo sthen es,1 we n ow
unfo ld to your incomparable wisdom,relating to the
best o f our power the proposit ions which were the resul tso f his reflec tion . When we had found a quiet spot, wespent a great deal o f the d ay in discussion . He beganto roll down upo n us the loftiness o f his Attic oratory,2 sothat the mighty throng o f onloo kers almost felt themselves joining in the contest, as they saw th e terro r o f hiswrath
,which was meant to scare us away . Then, as
tho ugh he were descending o n us at a run from somehill
,h e threw us into consternatio n by troubling us with
the fo rce o f his tongue. The beginning o f his speech tous was as follows
Introduc tion to the answers o f Macarius to the objectionso f Chapters I to VI I .
When the exponent o f Hel lenic cunning had u tteredthese wo rds against the divine teachings o f Chris t, h ebecame silent fo r a space , as though there were no o n e
to answer him . Bu t we had the same feel ings as the
1 Th is is th e friend to whom the bo ok is dedicated . In th e Pro emto Bo ok IV he is said to have h elped to win the victo ry fo r Macarius
by h is suppo rt .3 The style o f the questions is quite different from that o f the
answers . But wh ereas in the latter it is sometimes diffuse an d
somewhat turgid , the questio ns are in simpler an d mo re directlanguage. The dictio n is
,h owever , n o t witho ut a strength o f its
own . Harnack says that th is mixed style i s model led o n Plato ,P lutarch an d Dio d o rus (op. cit. p.
SI
52 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
man who attacked with sword- thrusts a many-headedhydra
,which , when o n e dragon-head was cut o ff,
immediately pro duced many heads instead of the o n e.
Feeling somewhat like this, we continued exhausted fo ra space. Fo r n o so oner did we with persuasivenessexplain three o r four o r five propo sitions o f his, thanhe
,in imitatio n o f the mythical hydra, when o n e was
explained,put forward countless further questions, thus
proposing endless study concerning the matters indispute. He therefore forthwith , after raising questionson so many po ints, dec lared that it was fo r us to makeanswer to each . And we, recalling to mind the thingshe had spoken, replied as follows , beginning with hisfirst inquiry .
CHAPTER I . How did Jesus allow Himself to bec rucified with insul t ?
Why did n o t Christ utter anyth ing worthy of o n e whowas wise an d divine
,when brough t either before the
high -priest o r before the governor ? He might havegiven instructio n to His judge an d those who stood byan d made them bet ter men . But He endured to besmitten with a reed an d spat o n an d c rowned withthorns, unlike Apo llonius, 1 who, after speaking boldly tothe Empero r Domitian
,disappeared from the ro yal c o urt,
an d after not man y ho urs was plainly seen in the c itythen called Dicaearchia, bu t n ow Puteo li . But even ifChrist had to suffer according to God’s commands , an dwas obliged to endure punishment
, yet at least He sho uld1 Apo llo nius o f Tyana is said by Eusebius to have been the h erowh om Hiero cles set up in o ppo sitio n to th e c laims o f Ch rist . Bo rnat the beginning o f the Ch ristian era, he became a ph i lo sopher o fthe Neo -Pythago rean Sch o o l . He was an ascetic , an d after travell ing tn th e East an d studying Oriental mysticism ,
he returned toEurope as a magic ian . He set up a sch o o l at Eph esus . H is l ife,written by Philo stratus, i s full o f fictitio us sto ries . He was ac cusedo f treaso n by bo th Nero an d Domitian , but is said to have escapedin each case by miraculous means . Furth er detai l s o f h is escapefrom Domitian are given in the answer o f Macarius in ch . viii .p . 66
,l . 1 9. See p . 55. That h is o ppo nen t regarded h im as a
hero ts plain from Bk . iv . 25. (See p .
BOOK III . 1 , VIII 53
have endured His Passio n with some bo ldness , an d utteredwo rds o f force an d wisdom to P ilate His judge, instead o fbeing mocked like an y gutter-snipe.
CHAPTER VI II . Answer to the objection based o n the
fact that Jesus al lowed Himself to be c ruc ified withinsult .
Why did Christ,when brought before the high -priest an d
P i late the governor, work no miraculo us sign, an d showno manifestation which seemed wo rthy o f Him ,
n o r an ymighty wo rd bego tten o f wisdom ? Why did He appearin humble fashion , with utterance restrained an d brief,an d with heavy look ?I t was in order that He migh t not make pro phecies
vo id o f meaning, nor convict the sacred tablets o f falsi ty,an d make o f none effec t the toil o f holy men , which theyendured in their godly preaching o f the message o f the
dispensation, as they wro te the mystery o f His comin gan d unveiled the manner o f His Passion long before.
As the great Isaiah with voice o f might says, We haveseen him , an d he had n o fo rm n o r comeliness, but hisfo rm was without ho nour ” (Isa . liii . an d again ,
“a man
smitten,an d knowing how to bear sickness,
”an d ,
“ He
was led as a sheep to the slaughter, an d as a lamb he wasdumb . And when speaking in the Perso n o f Christ hesays,
“ I gave my back to scourges, my cheeks to blowsmy face was not turned away from the shame o f spi ttin g ”
(I sa . l . And it is possibleto find tho usands o f o therthings spo ken by the holy prophets co ncerning Him . I fthen, as you suggest, He had uttered vio lent wo rds whenstanding befo re the high-pries t o r the governor, He mightindeed have smit ten them with divine signs, an d madethese men afraid by some novel sigh t He might havemade them suddenly fal l pro ne to the gro und by someact o f miracle bu t He would have flung away all
prophetic testimony,He wo uld have disregarded the
fo reknowledge o f the noble men o f o ld , an d stultified the
wo rds o f tho se far-famed pi llars ; He wo uld have madeof none effect the divine revelat ions of the Holy Spiri t,
54 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
an d He wo uld simply have thrust aside all the expectation concerning Him,
by fulfill ing the dispensation o f
death by means of a phantom of the air, enslaving
.
all
things to th e necessity o f their fears, an d constrainingthose who stood there by the fo rce of His terrible brow .
And if by virtue o f His Godhead He had made therock tremble at His word, o r shaken the house if by aword He had produced a thick atmosphere or made an
onslaught against the purpose of these savage brutes,then He would have done wro ng by forcing the go verno ran d the high-priests into subjectio n, He would haveerred in compelling that which was evil 1 to admit of thatwhich was just . And in this He would have come underthe suspic io n that He was working these marvellousno vel ties by means of magic . Accordingly, He wouldhave been judged o n e o f th ose who are regarded as
Gorgo ns . I f He had terrified P ilate With fateful po rtents ,if He had frigh tened the priests with signs o f a no velkind
, if He had reduced the Jewish natio n by the sighto f apparitions , it would have resulted in that which wasfalse combating the truth . Fo r the wonderful workswhich had been do ne by Him would have admitted o f a
base suspic io n among men , as though they had beenwrought, n o t in accordance with judgment
,
2 but merelyin phantom form an d lying semblance. Hence thatwhich had come to pass in a godly way long befo re,whether on land o r sea
,whether in town o r country,
wo uld have been maligned an d j udged as an i llusivedream an d n o t a reali ty . The other result wo uld havebeen the n o n -fulfilmen t o f the fo reknowledge o f the men
o f o ld t ime, fo r Jeremiah would have made a mi stake indescribing Him as a guileless lamb which was led as a
sacrifice (Jer. xi . But,in additio n to this
,there
wo uld have been n o truth whatever in God being enrolledamong men as the Wo rd . Fo r he who does th ingsforeign to the nature o f men do es not remain amongtheir number, but has a separate place o f vantage o f hisown . Again, i t would have been an utter lie when some
1 Reading k an iv instead o f KaAJV.2naraxpfaw.
BOOK III .’
VI I I 55
o n e else, speaking in the Person o f the Only Bego tten,says (Ps . lxviii . “ They gave me gal l for food, an d fo rmy thirs t they gave me vinegar to drink .
” For whowould have d ared , if s truck by the lightning o f Hisvisitatio n , to make ready vinegar an d o ffer Him gall ?Wh o would n o t have trembled when they saw Him steman d fearsome, an d combining with His wo rds a terrifyinglook
,first speaking an d then forthwith concealing Him
self,suddenly seen an d then again invisible ? Tell me,
who would not have hidden himself from a countenanceso full o f portents ? Wh o would have forged cross o r
tree, o r goad o r sharp nails ? Who would have venturedto master Him wh o could not be mastered, or to seize as
a man Him whose speech an d deed were more thanhuman ? But if the cross had n o t been set up in the
ground an d n o nai l had been sharpened as a ho rn, 1 thenthe Passion would n o t have atoned through the Cross,nor would He have won healing by being pierced withevil. Nor would Habakkuk have made any clearrevelation when he pro phesied that He had horns in Hishands
,that is
,the nails of the cross or i ts horn-lik e arms 3
(Hab . iii . And again, Moses would not be worthy o fc redit in declaring Him first an d fo remost as l ife that washanged (Deut . xxviii . All would have been false
,
with n o mo re than verbal truth , an d far from the deedso f godliness , an d so it would have been lawful to seekan d expect another Jesus . Fo r He who was heraldedin the books o f the Bible would not have come, fo r, asI have said, He would n o t have kept to such a fashion, butwo uld have become man in the guise o f a strange marvel.Fo r if He had ac ted like Apollo nius, 3 an d had made a
sport of His life by magic art, an d , when speaking to theEmperor solemnly in the midst o f his palace somewhere,He had been digging garden herbs at the same momentfor those who kept gardens, the world wo uld real ly havebeen justly deceived, an d all creation would have beenenvelo ped in the cloud o f His deceit
,since it would
1 MS . KeqxiAato s. Some wo rd l ike xepdr atos is what seems to hewanted.2Kepafas .
3 See no te o n i i i . I .
56 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
become the blind slave of a wizard philo sopher, who was
able by his knavery to snatch away his.body an d to
conceal by his phantoms the name o f godliness . I f He
had do ne this He wo uld have been judged to be neitherGo d n o r the So n o f Go d , but o n e o f those wizards whospend their lives in cheating .
I t was in order that no stumbling-block o f this kindshould turn His saving Passion into mockery, an d thatn o suspicion o f the laws o f magic sho uld tamper withthe mystery o f the dispensatio n , that He bore as man
the experiences o f insult . And yet no shame reallytouched Him ,
fo r He had the indwell ing o f On e who wasnot subjec t to human affec t ions, 1 an d He did n o t admitthe princ iple o f shame . For just as a vessel when filledwith fire within do es n o t receive an y impression o f coldness that is brought to it from without, but thrusts i t awayby virtue o f i t s inward warmth , so Jesus , having the ihdwelling o f Go d , who is a divine Fire which cannot bedestro yed nor spent, recko ned as no thing the coldnesso f the insults, an d when He saw the revilings He
was n o t influenced thereby . Just as a child, thoughhe sees the laughter o f his comrades being turned uponhim in abundance, feels no shame, so Christ turned Hisface from the taunts o f the Jews, as though they camenot from men but from babes . Even as a ro ck whichreceives the trail o f countless reptiles, feel s nei ther tracen o r track n o r mark, fo r i t carries moving things uponits natural hardness, an d yet i s n o t scratched by them at
all; so Jesus, when the band o f the Jews rushed uponHim like reptiles, remained firm an d unharmed like a
rock, receiving n o shame by their impress .And there i s another reason fo r what He did . I t was
fittin g that befo re the Passion He should have kept Hisdivine power in check
,in order that after i t, an d while
i t was in progress, an d when He had burst the bands o fHades an d c left the earth an d raised again a band o f men
with souls an d bodies, an d revealed th e company o f thosewho have passed from hence— He sh ould sh ow wh o He
was that endured the Passion, an d who it was that dwelt1 am ass . Cp. I I . xvi . p . 27 .
58 . APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Jesus to His disc iples . He said,“ Fear not them that
kill the body,”an d yet He Himself beIng in an ago ny
an d keepin g watch in the expec tatio n o f terrlble things ,beso ught in prayer that His passion sho uld pass fromHim
,an d said to His intimate friends,
“ Watch an d
pray, that the temptatio n may n o t pass by you .
” 1 Fo r
these sayings are not worthy o f God’s Son, nor even o f
a wise man who despises death .
CHAPTER IX . Answer to the objec tion based o n the
saying : “ I f i t be possible, let this cup pass from me”
(Matt . xxvi . 36 seq . ,
(l is an swer son na’
s strange an d unsatisfactory to
mod ern ears, out t/ze latter part is given in full, for itraises the importan t question of its relation to tlze
similar explan ations of ti n Passion given in otlzer
Fat/zers of flu: period . )
[Evidently it i s Christ’s inconsistency that i s complained
o f. This is a saying where we must look below the
surface, like doc tors, who do n o t judge a herb by itsbeing disagreeable, bu t look within i t fo r some hiddenuse.
Ch rist’s ac tio n in Gethsemane must be explained as
fo llows : The devil had seen His mighty works, an d wasso convinced o f His Godhead
,that he was afraid to
brin g his forces against Him,an d was slow in bringing
o n the predic ted Passion . Had he altogether failed tod o so , Chris t
’s coming to take away sin would havebeen in vain , an d the last state o f th e world would havebeen worse than the first . To prevent this misfortune,He lays bare His manhood, an d preten d s to be afraid o f
death , as a man might stir up a wild beast by making anorse .
1 Reading Yvonur1j 1rape'7t9y {was (MS . ijpa s) 6 wetpao‘
p ds . Po ssibly6 b l dwapeA p 15 to e trans ate o vercome you, but It lo oks as If the
sentence had been co nfused with the wapeAOei‘
v in the previous o n e.
Macarius In h is answer o nly faces th e general issue, an d so do es n o tmentio n th is strangely inco rrec t quo tat io n
,wh ich should o f course
have been Tm eia'éAOn're s is r etpaopév,
BOOK III . I I, Ix 59
Now man had met his fal l through two things, a tree,an d the fo od from that tree. In the case of the latter,Christ had already won back the victory by fasting fromfood ; but i t was o nly when He pretended to be hungrythat the devil at tacked Him as he had the first Adam ,
an d was beaten . Just in the same way Christ n ow
pro vokes him to a seco nd confl ic t, by pretending to beafraid, so that by means o f a tree He may counteract thedecei t o nce caused through a tree, an d when His tree isplanted, He may slay from it him wh o himself shows hisenmity in a tree .
So He really wants the cup to come quickly, not topass away . Note that He calls i t a
“cup an d not
suffering an d rightly so , as being assoc iated withgood cheer . And
,indeed, He sipped nectar which was
to bring life to the faithful . Thus was the devil to befinally ensnared , l ike a dragon with a ho ok .
1]
This i s what an experienced angler often does whenhe wishes to draw a weighty fish from the deep . Byplacing a smal l worm o n the hook, he deceives himthrough the greediness o f his bel ly an d draws him up .
Thus, when Christ wished to draw up by his throatthe cunning an d deceitful dragon who is hidden in thesea o f l ife, an d i s the source
‘
o f all mischief, He pu tthe body like a worm round the hook o f the Godhead,an d , speaking through i t, he deceived the metaphoricalserpent o f the spiri t world . Wherefo re speaking as man
in a psalm o f long befo re, He revealed this, saying, I ama worm an d no man ”
(Ps . xxi . I 7) . This worm,which
was bro ugh t to gether with God the Word an d thenheld fast in the sea o f mortal l ife, pro voked the moutho f the dragon against i tself, an d seized it at the momentthat i t seemed to be seized itself; This w orm devouredin a hidden manner the tree o f death ; this wormc reeping imperceptibly over the mo unt o f impossibilities,aroused the vo iceless bodies o f the dead . This worm
1 The same sim ile is fo und in Grego ry o f Nyssa,but it is n o t
pecul iar to him, fo r it is also in Rufinus an d Amphilo ch ius. See
Intro d ., p. xix
,fo r a discussio n o f the bearing o f th is on the date o f
Macarius.
6o APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
by coiling round an d encircling Hades stran gled the
commanders that watched over i ts garrisons, an d seizedthe mighty ones there an d bound th em together . Thiswo rm,
descending to the archives o f the despotism,cu t
thro ugh the leaves with their record o f sins, wherein hadbeen written the transgressions o f men , an d destroyedthem utterly . This wo rm made the devil’s ark d isappear, which he planned an d made from the tree o f
transgression, wherein he had put away an d hidden th erobe o f man’s glory . This worm came into beingwithout parentage an d unio n ; i t i s mystic, only bego tten ,
1 in efi"able. Thro ugh this wo rm the mystic hook
drew up the primeval 2 dragon, concerning whom o n e o f
the cho sen ho ly ones prophesied,“ Thou shal t draw a
dragon with a bo o k .
”
The po ints o f our answer to you are suffic ient,an d
the fac t is quite plain that Christ deprecated HisPassion fo r the sake o f th e dispensation o f the world .
CHAPTER II I .
_
Objectio n based o n the saying : “ I f ye
believed Mo ses, ye wo uld have bel ieved me (Johnv. 46, 4 7l
Again the fo llowing saying appears to be full o f stupidityI f ye believed Mo ses, ye wo uld have believed me, fo r
he wro te concerning me.
” He said i t,but all the same
no th ing which M o ses wrote has been preserved . Fo rall his writings are said to have been burnt along withthe temple . All that bears the name o f Moses waswritten 1 1 80 years afterwards
,by E zra an d those o f his
time . And even if o n e were to co ncede that the writing15 that o f Mo ses, i t cannot be shown that Chris t wasanywhere called God, o r Go d the Word , o r Creato r .And pray wh o has spoken o f Christ as cruc ified ?
1novoy eur
’
zs , th e alternative t itle o f the Apoer itieus . In th issame answer Ch rist has already been referred to as 6 MOVO'yGV
‘hS italjam/as
3 Or , Ogygian .
3Job X11 . I Canst thou draw out leviathan with a ho ok ?
BOOK III . I I I, x 6 1
CHAPTER X . Answer to the objection based onS . John v. 46, 4 7 .
I must now answer you on a third point, as to whyChrist said to the Jews,
“ I f ye believed Moses, yewo uld have believed me, fo r he wrote co ncerning me.
”
That Moses did write concerning Christ the who le worldo penly recognised, when he said a prophet should riseup in his stead, an d spoke o f Him as forming manalo ng with the Father, an d related His Passion in a
mystical way in the bush , an d wrote o f His cross an d
revealed it by his rod, an d o f the golden po t (even Hispure body which h ad the heavenly Word within as the
fo od which cannot moulder) , an d thousands o f thingswhich are akin to these an d follow from them .
But when you say that Moses’ writings perished in
th e Captivity an d were written again incorrec tly by Ezra,you will find that they were written a second time withall accuracy . For i t was n o t o n e who spoke to Ezraan d another to Mo ses, bu t the same Spirit taught thembo th , an d clearly revealed the same things to each o f
them. The Mosaic law was l ike a ho use that i s pulleddown by enemies, fo r the same Build er brought togethereach part an d fi t ted them harmoniously together by therule o f His wisdom .
[So far from th e Crucified n o t being called Go d inthe Old Testament, prophecy is full o f i t . Look
,for
example, at such words as“ The Lo rd’s Christ ” (Ps .
xix. “ The Lord’s Word shall go out from Jerusalem ”
(I sa . ii . an d “ Therefore the Lord hathano inted thee ”
(Ps . xliv.
Christ spo ke the words of the text in question , because, tho ugh Moses had written so much about Him ,
the Jews would not accept the fact .]1 It is curious that Macarius o ffers examples from th e prophets
an d Psalms, but n o t from the law .
62 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
CHAPTER IV . Objection based on the incident of theswine an d the demons (Matt . viii . 3 1 , 3 2 Mark v . 1 ,
And if we would speak o f this record likewise, i t willappear to be really a piece o f knavish nonsense, sinceMatthew says that two demons 1 from the tombs met
with Christ, an d then that in fear o f Him they went into
the swine, an d many were killed . But Mark did not shrinkfrom making up an eno rmous number o f swine, fo r heputs it thus : He said unto h im,
Go fo rth , thou uncleanspirit
,from the man . And he asked him , What i s thy
name ? And he answered, Many .
2 And he besoughthim that he would n o t cast h im o ut o f the country . Andthere was there a herd o f swine feeding . And the
demo ns besought him that he would suffer them to
depart into the swine . And when they had departedinto the swine, they rushed down the steep into the sea,
about two thousand , an d were choked ; an d they thatfed them fled !
”
(Mark v . 8 , What a myth ! Whathumbug ! What flat mo ckery ! A herd o f two tho usandswine ran into the sea, an d were choked an d perished !And when o n e hears h ow the demons besought Himthat they migh t n o t be sent into the abyss, an d howChrist was prevailed o n an d did n o t d o so
,but sent them
into the swine, will not o n e say : Alas,what igno rance !
Alas , what foolish knavery , that He sh o uld take accountof murderous spirits, which were working much harm inthe world , an d that He should grant them what theywished .
” What the demons wished was to dance throughlife, an d make the world a perpetual plaything . Theywanted to stir up the sea, an d fi l l the world’s wholetheatre with sorrow . They wanted to trouble the ele
ments by their disturbance, an d to crush th e wholecreation by their hurtfulness . So at all events it was not
.
1 The Synoptic criticism is interesting , but,he sho uld o fcourse havesaid two d emo niacs . ”Such passages are quo ted freely, an d n o t much stress can be
made o n the omissio n o f the wo rd L egio n . ”
BOOK III . IV 63
right that, instead o f casting 1 these originators of evil,who had treated mankind so ill, into that regio n o f the
abyss which they prayed to be delivered from, He shouldbe softened by their entreaty an d suffer them to workano ther ca lamity .
I f the incident is really true, an d not a fictio n (as weexplain it) , Christ
’s saying convicts Him o f much baseness
,that He should drive the demons from o ne man
,
an d send them into helpless swine al so that He shouldterrify with panic tho se who kept them , making them flybreathless an d exc ited, an d agitate the city with the disturban ce which resulted. Fo r was i t n o t just to healthe harm not merely of o n e man o r two o r three orthirteen, bu t o f everybody, especial ly as i t was fo r thispurpo se that He was testified to have come into thislife ? 2 But to merely lo o se o n e man from bo nds whichwere invisible
, an d to infl ic t similar bonds upon othersto free certain men happily from their fears, but to sur
round others with fears without reason— th i s sho uldrightfully be called not right actio n bu t rascality.
And again,in taking account; o f enemies an d allowing
them to take up their abode in another place an d dwel lthere, He is acting like a king who ruins the regio n thatis subjec t to him . Fo r the latter, being unable to drivethe barbarians out o f every country, sends them fromo n e place to another to abide
, d el ivering o n e countryfrom the evil an d handing another over to it . I f therefore Chris t in like manner, unable to d rive the demo nfrom His bo rders
,
3 sent him into the herd o f swine, hedoes indeed work something marvellous which can catchthe ear
, but it is also full of the suspicion o f baseness .Fo r when a right-thinking man hears this, he passes a
j udgment at once, forms his Opinion o n the narrative,an d gives his vote in accordance with the matter . This
1 There is n o negative in the MS. A pi) seems to be required ,unless o f) yap is omitted befo re éxpnu, as Harnack do es . (0p . eit. ,
P 363 I t seems best to read th is sentence as a questio n .3 Blondel suggests r ijs éuopfov s
’
Ad o a t T2W,
Safy o y a instead o f MS.
r ip! évopfav ék d o a t 7 06 Bat/t ow s.
64 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
is the way he will speak : I f he does not free from hurteverything beneath the sun , but pursues tho se that d othe harm into different co untries , an d if h e takes care ofsome, but has n o heed o f others, it i s not safe to flee tothis man an d be saved . Fo r h e who is saved spoils theco ndition o f h im wh o i s n o t, while he who is n o t savedbecomes the accuser o f him who is . Wherefore, according to my judgment, the record contained in this narrative is a fictio n.
”
Once mo re, if you regard it as n o t fiction , but bearingsome relat io n to truth , there i s really plenty to laugh at
fo r tho se wh o like to o pen thei r mouth s . For come n ow,
here is a point we must carefully inquire in to : h ow was
i t that so large a herd o f swine was being kep t at thatt ime in the land o f Judaea
,seeing that they were to th e
Jews from the beginning the mo st unclean an d hatedfo rm o f beast ? And , again, h ow were all those swinechoked, when it was a lake an d not a deep sea ? I t maybe left to babes to make a decision abou t all this .
CHAPTER XI . The answer to the objection based on theinc ident o f the swine an d the demons (Matt . viii . 3 1 ,3 2 ; Mark v. 1
,
So , n ow that th i s saying 1 3 made quite plain,let us
examine the po int at issue in another subjec t, namelythe question o f the man possessed with the demons
, an dthe swine choked in the sea, an d the swineherds who fledfrom the place.
Do n o t let i t disturb you that Matthew speaks o f twomen po ssessed with demo n s, but Mark o f only o n e . ForMatthew speaks o f two demo ns
,but does n o t say that
two men were po ssessed by them ;1 while Mark saysthere was o n e man , but man y demo ns in him . Fo r theremust have been two ch ief demons
,to which Mat thew
refers, o f a specially evil kind,but other demo ns were
assaulting the man alo ng with them ,or perhaps Matthew
1 I t is interesting to find that Macarius fal ls into the same mistakeas h is o ppo nent , W ith o ut seeming to disco ver it.
66 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
they were by its warm th , strove t o run to the waters an dassuage the burning which o ppressed them . And since,as having an inco rporeal nature, they were unable to
enter naked into the bathing-place o f the waters, theylooked to the herd o f swine as a kind o f ladder, so thatthey might enter it by their means an d get rid o f theirburning heat . 1 And the demo ns, in their malice, do n o tseek the support o f o ther beasts, but o f those forbiddenby the Mo saic law . They d o this under the pretence o f
ho no uring the letter o f the ordinance wh ich was beingignored by tho se who inhabited Palest ine at that time.
But d o n o t jump to the conclusio n that the herd o f
swine belonged to the Jews . They were th o se o f the
Roman soldiers who had taken the c ities o f the Eastunder the Emperor, fo r what the Romans cal l a settlement .” 2 For as the Jews were under treaty with the
Romans , coho rts an d companies o f the Roman Powercertainly dwel t in their provinces . Fo r since the days o fAugustus who caused all the wo rld to be enrolled, an d
o f Tiberius, an d still earlier times, the Jews were Romansubjec ts, an d all their co untry was tributary . Indeed,the Empero r simply appointed as king o f Judaea Herodthe so n o f Antipater, the lat ter being the man wh o suppo rted th e temple o f Apollo at
,
Askelon . He also sento ut Pilate as governor an d j udge, who was himself aGreek, an d the Romans had taken o ver all the o fficesamong th e Jews . Fo r a lo ng time the yoke o f slaveryhung ro und th eir necks, o n acco unt o f their misdo ings .Whence at that time there were herds o f beasts belonging to Roman owners
,an d Roman managers answerable
to their masters lo oked after their po ssessions . But allthe same, the demons led the swine into the water,showing bo th their hostility an d their guardianship o f thelaw
, an d being inflamed acco rdingly .
As fo r Mark’s record that Christ asked what the
1 However far-fetched such a suggest io n may so und, recent research es mtoth e spirit wo rld make it impo ss ible to dogmatise o n
th e Impo ssibil ity o f such happenings .2
geaezov. MS. 0 68!0pov, evid ently fo rmed from the Latin
Se 60 .
BOOK III . x1 67
demon’s name was, as though He were ignorant o f i t,i t was not in ignorance o f th e loathsome c reature that He
inquires what he i s cal led, but in order that He mightconvic t him from his own words
,as a deserter from the
heavenly kingdom . So He asks “ What i s thy name ? ”
an d he answers “ Legio n .
” He did not exi st as suchthen
,but he once was a legion
,wielding the migh t o f the
kingdom above, even as i t i s written , “ Can I not nowpray to my Father, an d he will give me twelve legio nsof angels ? (Mat t. xxvi . But that legion ran
away, an d was involved in the evil of desertio n, findingthe man a ready hiding-place ; a sorry legion, indeed ,which threw away its shield ; n o t really a legio n, but abandit, stripping the earthly sphere an d plundering i t,an d casting into incurable sorrows those who are takencaptive. I t was therefore in order that He might teachHis hearers from what a m inistry the legion had fallen,that He said What i s thy name ? His object was notto learn it Himself, fo r He knew, but that the bystandersmigh t do so . Fo r the demo ns, being greatly troubled,resorted to the former naming o f their rank, in orderthat they might remind their great an d kindly king,so to speak, o f the goodwill o f their fo rmer warfare,prac tically saying
,We were once a legio n we were the
soldiers o f thine impartial might . Remember that position which we once held, an d have pity, an d do not sendus into the abyss . We were thy legion, but now are
wicked bandits . Once we served, but n ow we plunder.Once we l ived near thy palace now we have come nearto the parts beneath the earth . For then we dwelt in a
pure abode ; now we are befouled by mire an d dirt .We claim to receive a worthy abode
,in order that we
may n o t be troublesome to those who belong to the
Wo rd . For as we have incurred the penal ty o f an evilsmell, we seek that which may gladden us 1 as a vehic lefor our evil smell . We entreat to depart into a herd o f
swine,since we have j ustly been cast o ut o f t he lan d of
eternity . We do n o t yearn to seize herds o f sheep o r
17 2> xa
‘
t'
pou. Th is can scarcely be righ t . Probably the righ treading is r bv xo
‘
ipov, i. e. we seek the swine.
68 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
horses (fo r those beasts are clean an d wi thou tbut rather a throng o f smelling an d disorderly swine, ino rder that we may give a lesso n to the inhabitants bywhat is done, an d lay bare their own conditio n o f foulness . Fo r every o n e who is s trong in mind an d strongin thought
,will be afraid to imitate a way o f living which
is foul an d like the swine, perceiving that th e demonsdrag such a o n e into the gulf o f destruction . Fo r fromour evil case he will learn by some means o r other o f thero ut we have suffered, an d he will have n o desire too btain a like ch o ice . Therefore, in order that we maybe a living memorial , a great example, an d a generalwarning, grant us the swine that they may guide us as
strangers to the sea,in order that all may learn that we
have not the power to control even small things, unlesswe are commanded an d receive o rders from the divineSpirit . The result will be that hencefo rth the who le worldwill lo ok down o n us , o n the gro und that we had n o t
even autho ri ty o ver swine, an d n o t even the herds in theco untry which were remo ved from i t fel l under our sway .
”
I think it was fo r the sake o f wise actio n such as thisthat the Savio ur did n o t send the demons into theabyss, but into a herd o f swine, an d through them intothe sea . He was do ing goo d in each th ing
, an d givingright instruc tion, making manifest to men both themeans o f punish ing the demons
,an d the warning n o t to
desire the life o f an y unc lean beasts . Fo r if He had
sent them into the abyss,as yo u suggest , it wo uld n o t
have been plain to them all,because it would not have
been observed it would have been left in doubt as notbeing perceptible, an d a mat ter o f suspic io n as n o t beingIn ‘
bodily fo rm . Fo r an y o ne migh t have suspec ted thatth ey refused to obey Christ an d did n o t depart into theabyss, but went to men wh o lived over the borders notfar away, an d wrought m isch ief that was wo rse stillthrough running away. But as i t too k place, th is wasnot so ; but i t became quite plain an d o bvious to all
,
thro ugh th e destruc tion o f th e swine, that the demonsleft their human abode an d went into the sea. Takethis as a sufficien t answer with regard to th i s sto ry .
BOOK III . x1,v 69
CHAPTER V . Objectio n based o n the saying abo ut thecamel going through the eye o f a needle (Matt . xix .24 ,
Let us examine ano ther saying even more baffling thanthese, when He says,
“ I t is easier fo r a camel to gothrough a needle, 1 than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom o f heaven .
I f i t be indeed the case that any o n e wh o is rich isn o t bro ught into the so -called kingdom o f heaven thoughhe have kept himself from the s ins o f l ife, such as
murder, theft, adultery, cheating, impious o aths,body
snatching, an d the wickedness o f sacrilege, o f what usei s just dealing to righteous men , if they happen to be
rich ? And what harm is there fo r poor men in doingevery unholy deed o f baseness . Fo r it is not virtue thattakes a man up to heaven, bu t lack o f possessio ns .Fo r if his weal th shuts out the rich man from heaven ,by way o f contrast his po verty brings a po o r man intoit . And so i t becomes lawful, when a man has learntthis lesson
,to pay no regard to virtue, bu t without let
o r hindrance to cling to po verty alo ne, an d the thingsthat are most base . This fo l lows from po verty beingable to save the po o r man , while riches shut out the richman from the un d efiled abode .
Wherefo re it seems to me that these cannot be the
wo rds o f Christ, if indeed He handed down the rule o f
truth,bu t o f some po or men who wished, as a result o r
such vain talking, to deprive the rich o f their substance.
At any rate, n o longer ago than yesterday, reading thesewords to women o f noble birth , “ Sel l what thou hast
,
an d give to the poor, an d thou shal t have treasure inheaven,
” they persuaded them to distribute t o po o r men
all the substance an d po ssession which they had , an d ,themselves entering into a s tate o f want, to gather bybegging , turning from a po sition o f freedom to unseemlyasking
,an d from prosperity to a pitiable character
,an d
in the en d , being compelled to go to the houses o f the
1 He omits the wo rd fo r “eye.
70 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
rich (which is the first thing, or rather the last thin g, indisgrace an d misfortune) , an d thus to lose their ownbelongings under the pretext of godliness, an d to covetthose o f others under the force o f want .Accordingly
,i t seems to me that these are the words
o f some woman in distress .
CHAPTER XI I . Answer to the objection based on thesaying abo ut the camel go ing through the eye
'
o f a
needle (Matt . xix . 24 ,
[First study the narrative o f the rich man coming withhis depraved ideas . Chris t wished to lead him upthrough his riches to what was higher.]I t was not the case, as you dec lare, that his riches
shut him out from the kingdom ; o n the contrary, theywo uld bring him in, if he were sober an d managed themwell . For as a soldier, when he uses his armour skilfullyan d well, becomes famous through i t, an d noble an d
conspicuous,an d through it has an honoured entry to
the king an d makes a show within his palace an d againthrough i t he becomes notable fo r an archer
’s powers, an dhas a peaceful time in the c i ties ; but if he puts i t o nbadly, an d does not wear i t as he ough t, he becomessubjec t through it to capture by every fo e, an d throughit he i s cast out of the precincts as a traitor, an d the
spoil is taken o ff by the enemy ; while thro ugh i t he i sseen to be unpurified , an d so i s set aside, an d i s punishedby being cut o ff from life. And no o n e in all this blamesthe armour, but the man who did not use it rightly.
No o n e, when he sees a man glittering in a suit o f
armour, says that i t is this that causes his glory, but thezeal o f him that uses the weapo ns.[And it i s just so with the man of letters
, the statuary,etc .] And when a man has wealth an d manages i t wel l,he becomes a partaker o f the heavenly kingdom
,but
when he abuses it , he is shut o ut from it , an d does n o tsuffer this experience as a result o f the wealth , but as areaso nable result of his own baseness . Nor indeed isa man who improperly persists in his poverty praise
BOOK III , XI I 7 1
worthy on account o f it . For many are poor, an d theyare n o t all praiseworthy, but each is properly so o n
account o f his own experience. I t i s not his weal th thatharms the rich man , but his unseemly course o f l ifeshows the wealth to be useless an d unben eficial; nei therdoes his poverty lead the poor man up to heaven, buthis bent o f mind co nduces to make his poverty pro fitableto his so ul . For in rich an d po or alike it i s the natureof upright conduct an d the disposition towards i t thatgive lustre to his right action .
[Just as the same medicine wil l affec t various peopledifferently, so both riches an d poverty may make a man
either good or bad .] But in an y case no o n e is put toshame in the life eternal who has lo st his wealth thro ughlove o f the kingdom o f heaven , n o r has he missed the
mark thro ugh fall ing from his own po ssessio ns. Fo r bygiving what he has, he has received what he had n o t.
By setting aside the earthly burdens which are grievo usto be borne, h e has received a fame which is light an dunburdensome.
[Let me give you o n e instance out o f many o f the waythat earthly riches may lead a man up to the heavenly .
Job, as a rich man , fed the hungry an d clothed the
naked , an d when the time came, he welcomed po vertyaright, an d looked o n wo rms
,
as good ly pearls . Hisriches always included virtue, an d his po verty the love o f
his Maker .]You must n o t therefore think that the Lord was
making an absolute pronouncement when He said : I t
i s easier fo r a camel to go through a needle 1 than fo ra rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven .
”Fo r
many are found within the kingdom who have becomerich . And yet with go od cause He cas ts 2 the rich man
outside heaven, saying :“ Hardly shal l they that have
1 Macarius fo l lows his Oppo nent in omittin g the wo rd “eye .
But he do es n o t fo l low h im in using S . Mark’s an d S . Matthew’swo rd fo r needle (paupis ) , but quo tes S . L uke’s
1 There is a gap in the MS . an d a later hand suggests theinsertio n o f “
abundant weal th (a o 'ro s 6 min is), wh ich wo uldtherefo re be the subject o f the verb “
casts .”
72 APOCR ITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
riches enter into the kingdom o f heaven . Tho se wh ohave them an d do n o t impart them,
an d give n o share
to those who have none, but confine their wealth to
th eir so le an d personal enjoyment o f life, an d never havefriendly intercourse with poor men , neither giving comfortto pitiable poverty nor al leviating the wants o f those whoare in tro uble those wh o turn their converse away fromthem that deserve mercy, an d avo id th e griefs of thedespised as if they were a pollutio n— these men are
strangers to the kingdom of heaven .
No o n e comes within sight o f a court o f law withoutan advo cate, 1 n o o n e ascends the judgment-seat whobears the suspic io n o f an accusation, no o n e appearsbefo re a king wh o i s implicated in any fo rm o f com
plaint ;2 no o n e departs to a feast who is soiled an d
stained, no o n e introduces feastin g alo ng with burdens,n o o n e enters a palace wh o bears indicat ions o f a tyrant’sinstincts . I t is as advocates o f the rich that the po o rexist ; wi thout themwealth is unprofitable in the sighto f Go d . Marks o f wickedn ess exist, an d a man mustcast these away an d show himself free . Their existencebetokens the suspic ion o f accusations, an d the betterway is to pu t this out o f the way by one
’s own management, an d openly serve the Divine . The accompan i
ments o f abundance manifest themselves as spots an d
blemishes in men , an d it is right thus to disperse theseby better reasoning, an d to press in to the blessed feast . 3Th e guarding o f possessio ns is a heavy burden , an d iti s righteous to shake o ff the burden an d to march un
encumbered to the assembly abo ve .
‘1 Po ssessions turninto accusat ions o f coveto usness, an d i t is pro fitable to
cast them away quickly, an d to ride into . th e kin gdomo f heaven apart from them,
if indeed a man truly believes
1 These were cal led in by the parties in a suit to suppo rt theircase, an d gave their services without fee.
1 Th e wo rd is a technical o ne , co nnected with legal pro cedure.
3 The wo rd éarrt’a signifies h earth o r a ltar , but th e a l lusio n seemsto be to the publ ic table (n ew ); éorrfa) at wh ich ambassado rs an do th ers were entertained .
The wo rd used in Hebrews xi1 . 23 .
74 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS“
MAGNES
CHAPTER X I I I . Answer to the objection based o n thesaying .
“ And in the fourth watch o f the night hecometh to them walking on the sea
”
(Matt . xiv. 25Mark vi. 48,
With regard to the “ fourth watch ,” perhaps it i s to
e reckoned so as to mean the fourth “ hour ” of th enight . 1 With regard to the use of th e wo rd sea,
’ n’ otethree things . First, the lake was certainly very like a
sea if there were iishing boats on i t. Seco ndly, an ygathering o f waters may receive the generic name o f“sea.
” Thirdly,apart from grammatical considerations,
i t i s enough for us that the inspired autho r o f Genesistells ‘ us co ncerning the Creator Himself that “
the
gathering together o f the waters He called seas .The inner meaning of the incident must not be o ver
looked. Having j ust performed a mirac le which showedHis dominion over bread an d the wilderness, Christ n o wproves to men by ano ther miracle His dominion overwater an d the sea. The very elements join in th e pro of.The unwonted force o f the sto rm reflects what naturefeels at the fact that men should fail to reco gnise the
creat ive Word . And the prophecy was thus fulfilledconcerning Him wh o “ walketh upon the sea as upo na foundation .
”
He prays to God, an d then, after terrifying themthrough His Godhead , He pities them thro ugh Hismanhood .
“ I t is I ” brings them light after c loud,fo r
He means “ I who called you to be fishers o f men , an d
fed the five thousand.
” Peter’s faith wavers when hesays
,
“
If thou art such , bid me come to thee .
” WhenChrist says “ Come,
” He me'
ans “ Come to faith, fo r if
Peter had actual ly been able to walk o n the sea it wo uldhave falsified the above pro phecy by making it applyto more people than o n e . Add to this his presumptio nan d want o f faith in saying “ if
,
”an d his fai lure i s ex
plained. Christ saved h im j ust as his t on gue was makin g
1 Th is wo uld mean 1 0 p . In . instead o f after 3 a .m . Th is is asomewhat unfo rtunate co ncession to the objecto r .
BOOK III . XII I 75
him sink (like a ship through its broken rudder) , an d
taught him not to imitate the devil in the wildernessby saying If thou art.
” So Chr ist says, “ Come an d
learn . Thou needest this fourth watch even more thanthe ship . The darkness, the winds an d the waves areall in thy lack o f faith an d thy presumption . The fourconstituents which should be blended in thy body are
belied by thy doubting speech .
” Great, indeed, was thefal l o f this leading Apostle . Two shipwrecks were hisOf the body an d o f the soul .I t was rightly “ in the fourth watch that Christ came
to his help, fo r there were four elements that ragedagainst them, namely, impenetrable atmosphere, rushingwind, moonless night, an d roaring sea.
But there is a yet deeper allegory underlying the story .
The sea denotes the brine an d bitterness o f existence;the night is human life ; the boat i s the wo rld ; thosewho sailed all night are the human race ; the contrarywind i s the devil’s Opposition ; the fourth watch is theSavio ur’s coming . Note concerning th is last poin t, that,as there are four watches in the l iteral night, so there are
in human life. In the firs t watch the patriarchs helpedlife by their light ; in the seco nd , the law
‘ guid ed the
boat o f the world ; in the third, the prophet s contendedfo r those human sailors ; an d in the fourth , Christchecked their fear an d their foes, an d ended the nightby the light Of His lo ve fo r men . So when S . Paulsays,
“ The night is far spent,” etc . , he refers to thisdawn o f the knowledge o f Go d through Christianity.
Such an interpretation is supported by the passageabout E lijah . His translation in a chariot of fire was
foretold to him in the vis ion that he had in Horeb(1 Kings xix . where the wind signifies the mightyword o f the patriarchs, the earthquake is the Mosaiclaw, the fire is the prophets, an d either the voice o f thinair 1 is Gabriel’s message, o r perhaps the thin air i s thebo dy o f Christ, an d the voice i s the Word speakingwithin it.]
1 He h ere fo l lows the Septuagint.
76 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
CHAPTER VI I . Objection based on the sayings : “ The
poor ye have always, but me ye have n o t always ”
(Matt . xxvi . 1 1,
an d “ I will be wi th you untilthe en d o f the world ”
(Matt . xxviii .Moreover, as we have found another inconsequent li ttleutterance Spoken by Christ to His disciples, we havedecided n o t to remain silent about this ei ther . I t iswhere He says,
“ The poo r ye have always,but me ye
have n o t always . The reaso n fo r this statement is asfollows : A certain woman brough t an alabaster box o f
ointment an d poured it on His head . And when they sawi t,an d complained o f th e unseasonableness o f the ac tion ,
He said,“ Why d o ye tro uble the woman ? She hath
wrought a go o d wo rk o n me. The po or ye have always ,but me ye have not always . Fo r they raised no smallmurmuring, that the ointment was not rather so ld fo r agreat price, an d given to the po or fo r expenditure o n
their hunger . Apparently as the result o f this in o ppo rtune conversat io n , He uttered th is nonsensical saying,declaring that He
‘
was n o t always with them , altho ughelsewhere He confidently affirmed an d said to them;“ I shal l be with you until the en d o f the world ” 1
(Matt . xxviii . But when He was disturbed abo utthe ointment, He denied that He was always with them .
CHAPTER XIV. Answer to th e Objection based o n the
sayings : “ Me ye have n o t always ” (Mat t . xxvi . 1 1 ,
an d “ I will be with yo u always unti l the en d
o f the world ”
(Matt . xxviii .
[The differen ce may be explained by the fac t that thesestatements were made at different times
, an d betweenthem a change took place in the speaker Himself. I twas befo re the Passio n that He said th ey wo uld n o t
have Him always, seeing He was about to d ie . But
after the Passio n, He had overcome death an d the lawso f the body, an d made man to be Go d .
2 So,speaking
1 The quo tat io n is abbreviated , an d “always is omitted.
MacarIus gIves it co rrectly in h is answer .2 dwafimrk éis Tb!! é
'
I I/Opw'
lrou Oebv
BOOK III . VII, XIV 7 7
as Go d , He tells them His power is not circumscribedby time an d space, but i s present always an d everywhere.
After the Passion He passed through everything an d .
sealed it as His own, heaven an d earth an d things underthe earth .
This was true in the Passion also, as wel l as after i t,as the following co nsiderations will showDuring the Passion itself, o f course i t was as God
that He took the thief to His own Paradise, an d thusshowed that He was not circumscribed . How al together vile are those 1 who twis t His words into a merepromi se fo r th e future, by punctuating, “ Verily I sayunto thee to-d ay, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.
For this is to circumscribe Him at the time o f His death .
But if i t was He wh o rent the earth , darkened the sun ,
an d brought up the dead, why could He n o t take the
thief to Parad ise ?Again , if. the earthly sun shines everywhere, why not the
Heavenly ? So,when o n the cross He was also every
where, in Paradise, an d in the Father . Even man
passes the limits o f space when h e is in his dreams ;can we suppose less o f Chris t when o n the cro ss ?O therwise what were the use o f the c ross ? The fai thful go t their requests an d were healed during the
ministry. Was there no guarantee to th e fai thful thiefat the moment wh ich was the very climax an d sum o f
all Redemption ?Th e explanation of those scoundrels is quite untenable .
They say He had power as Go d , but n o t yet as man ,to take the thief to Paradise . I s such a distinc tio npossible ? Can you ask whether the faithful thief believed o n Him as Divine o r as o nly human ? Suchdivision is impossible
, even in a man’s fai th . He i s thesame Lord, under many names it mat ters n o t by whichHe i s invoked , as Ch rist, o r Jesus, o r the Only begotten 2o f Go d ; the effec t o f them all is identical .
1 He compares them to Christomachi,fo r whom see I ntro d .
p. XVIII .2 Mouo 'yevij s, the alternative tItle o f the Apoer itieus , o ccurs fo urtimes in a few senten ces .
78 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Just as the smell of some herbal medicine would fil la whole ho use when placed in o n e part of it, so , as thehealing medic ine of Christ’s body hung upon the cross,the odour o f His Godhead spread through the wholehouse o f the wide wo rld .
Returning to the words of the objection, we concludethat after the Resurrection Jesus i s circumscribed bynothing . In whatever part o f the world the faithfulmay cry, He i s
‘ there before they cal l Him . Noseparation o f His Body i s possible ; it .
cannot be “un
loosed,” like the “ latchet the Baptist spo ke of. Hence
we assert that Christ both led the thief to Paradise, waspresent with the Apo stles, an d i s not separated from the
faithful unti l the en d of the world .
But before the Passion, He could truthfully say,Me ye have n o t always , because o f the bo dilyseparation which was about to come through Hisdeath .
1
On the occasio n when Chris t spoke as above aboutthe poor, the desire that the ointment should be fo rthe poo r
,an d not fo r the anointing of Him who fo r
us became poor, originated with Judas, who valued theearth ly ointment at three hundred pieces o f silver, bu tin his madness sold the heavenly Ointment, which wasemptied o n the earth
, at only thirty. But Judas mustn o t occupy the stage ; he must give way to mattersmo re important. Pray produce another objection , as
th Is argument 18 mos t useful to us.]
CHAPTER XV . Objectio n based on the saying : Exceptye eat the flesh o f the So n o f man an d drink hisblood, ye have no life in yourselves
”
(John Vi .
Tbe Greek .
2
But he, with a smile on his face, made reply in a
fresh at tack on us,saying : You are l ike th e more
1 Macarius speaks o f His death as 6 pvo'
f utbs Gait/ar c so ixouoy las.
_
‘The fo l lowing paragraph introduces th e next seven questionswi nch are gIven In sequence.
BOOK III . x1V ,xv 79
audac ious among those who run in a race, an d proclaimtheir vic to ry unti l the contest c omes , challenging manyto run in the course ; fo r you have taken up the sameatti tude, in your desire to bring In another Inquiry fromthe starting point, as o n e migh t say. Speak to us therefore, my friend, beginning from the following pointThat saying o f the
W
l eacher I s a far-famed o n e, whichsays
,Except ye eat my flesh an d drink my blood , ye
have no life in yourselves .” Truly this saying is n o t
merely beast lIk e an d absurd, but is more absurd thanany absurdity, an d more beast like than an y fashiono f a beast, that a man should taste human flesh , an d
drink the blood of members o f the same tribe an d race,an d that by doing th is he should have eternal life. For,tel l me, if you do this, what excess o f savagery do youintroduce into life ? Rumour does n o t record— I do notsay, this action, but even the mention o f this strange an d
no vel deed o f impiety . The phantoms o f the Furiesnever revealed this to those who lived in strange ways,n o r would the Po tid aean s have accepted i t unless theyhad been reduced by a savage hunger. Once the
banquet o f Thyestes became such , owing to a sister’sgrief
,an d the Thrac ian Tereus to o k his fi l l of such
fo od unwillingly . Harpagus was deceived by Astyageswhen he feasted on the flesh o f his dearest , an d i t wasagainst their desire that all these underwen t such a
po llutio n . But no o n e living in a s tate o f peace prepared such a table in his life ; n o o n e learnt from a
teacher any knowledge so foul . I f you look up Scythia inthe reco rds, an d go through the Macrobian E thio pians
,
1
an d if you career through the ocean girdle ro und about,yo u will find men who eat, live, an d devour roots ; youwill hear o f men who eat reptiles an d feed on mice, butthey refrain al together from human flesh .
What then do es this saying mean ? [Even if thereis a mystical meaning hidden in it , yet that does n o t
pardon the o utward significance,which places men lower
than the beasts . Men have made up strange tales, butnothing so pernicious as this, with which to gull thesimple ]
1 See no te on p. 1 25
80 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Wherefo re i t seems to me that neither Mark nor Luken o r evenMatthew recorded this, because they regarded thesaying as not a comely o ne, but strange an d discordant,an d far remo ved from c ivilised life . Even you yo urselfcould scarcely be pleased at reading it , an d far less an yman who has had the advantage o f a l iberal education .
CHAPTER XXI I I . Answer to the objection based o n
th e saying “ Except ye eat the flesh o f the Son o f
man an d drink his blood , ye have no life in yo urselves ” (John Vi.
Tlie C/iristian .
1
When the d o c trine o f godliness had thus been battered,an d the fo undatio n o f the Chris tian bulwarks was almostshaken , we sought fo r the support o f abundant arguments . Then we set up a fo rtified tower, so to speak,against the enemy, an d trusting in this, we remained unwo unded, al tho ugh we had to face many wordy arrows ,an d we boremany an emptied quiver o fcunning so phistry.
And indeed when he who possessed h is full armour atlen gth began to grow weary from direc ting hi s bow agains tus with its sharpened dart s an d their rushing noise, wequietly directed our array against h im an d sharpened our
weapons . We made our first letting-go , so to Speak, byspeaking to h im an d those with him abou t the flesh o f
Chris t, sh owing that it was n o t strange o r horrible whenthe Saviour said Except ye eat my flesh an d drink myblo od , ye have no life.
”
Consider, I pray you, an d let us speak o f the n ew-bornchild, an d the babe that is brought fo rth o n leaving it sd ark an d humid abode . Except i t eats the flesh an d
drinks th e blood o f its mother, i t has no life, n o r takesI ts place amo ng men , but departs into the darkness o fd eath . But if it receives a share o f tho se n atural springsan d has abundant enjoyment o f that kindred flesh , i t i sbrough t subsequently to full growth an d becomes worthy
1 Th e fo l lowing paragraph intro duces th e answers to a sequenceo f seven questio ns. I t sh o uld be no ticed that the introductio nshades o ff Into th e actual answer; c f. iv . 1 9.
82 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
as i t were from two breasts . I t i s indeed she whono urishes her recent offspring with her own flesh an d
blood,makes them comrades an d renders them disc iples
o f the heavenly kingdom ,an d then enrols them in
.
theassembly of the Angel s on high, bringing them Intotheir pure counc i l chamber, an d , filling them with Im
mortality an d all blessedness , makes them like unto theFather, giving to them eternal l ife.
Now the flesh an d bloo d o f Christ, o r o f Wisdom
(fo r Christ an d Wi sdom are the same), are the wo rds o fthe Old an d New Testaments spoken with allegoricalmeaning, which men must devour with care an d digestby calling them to mind with the understanding, an d
win from them n o t temporal bu t eternal l ife . Thus didJeremiah eat when he received thewords from the hando f Wisdom
,an d by eating h e had l ife ; thus did Ezekiel
feel sweetness when he ate the roll o f the words (Ezek .
i ii . an d the bitterness o f this present life was castaway . Thus did the saints o n e by o n e
,once long ago ,
an d again an d again,by eating th e flesh an d drinking
the blo od o f Wisdom, that is, by receiving in themselvesthe knowledge an d revelat io n o f her, live fo r aye witha life that will never cease. I t was n o t only to the
disc iples that He gave His own flesh to eat an d likewise His own blood to drink (fo r He would not havedone righ t in thus o fferin g the life eternal to some at a
certain season, bu t n o t supplying i t to others) ; but i t wasto all men alike in whom was holiness an d the spiri t o fprophecy , that He gave allegorically this supply o f food .
But at the en d o f the times He gave to the Apostlesbread an d a cup, an d said,
“ This is my body an d myblood .
” And in order that I may unfo ld the tale morec learly, an d make plain the questio n o f the passage, Iwill reveal to yo u the physiological side o f eating (ifindeed you are ready to put aside your preco nceivedviews), fo r you may apprehend the mystery by thatmeans . How then do we state the case ? I t is from the
earth that we men have all come into being in o ur bo dies,an d it is by eating, in a certain sense, n o t the earth bu ti ts flesh, an d drinking its blood, that we are prevented
BOOK III . XXI I I 83
from perishing . For the dry an d wet products o f the
earth are its flesh an d blo od. We live by eating an d
drinking o f these to our full sat isfaction, bu t do ing noharm to the earth when w e use up its flesh an d blood .
Fo r as we gladly gather the corn an d the wine from it, weenjo y ourselves by living o n it. And now, fo r the rest,lend me your ear with regard to the dispensat ion o f th e
mystery,an d turn your understanding to the hearing o f
it . How shall we express it then ? In th e beginningthe Only Bego tten Son c reated th e earth, an d from the
earth He took man an d wrought him, an d from man
He took His bo dy an d became incarnate. I f thereforethe body signifies the earth when simply stated, 1 an d theearth is Christ’s c reatio n through His Operative word, asbeing truly the resul t o f His own making, an d from thisearth were given in later t ime bo th co rn an d 2 wine an d
also the body o f man,an d mo reover it was this bo dy
that Chris t took upo n Him,i t was n atural that when He
took the bread an d the cup,He said,
“ This is my bodyan d my bloo d .
” I t i s no mere symbo l o f body norsymbol of blood
,as some have pro tested in the hardness
o f their mind,but in very truth the body an d blood o f
Christ, since the body is from the earth , an d the breadan d wine are from the earth l ikewise . How is i t thenthat n o o n e else dared to say,
“ My flesh is fo od an d myblo od is drink ”
(John‘ Vi . I t i s because n o o n e
else has been made manifest as the maker an d creato r o fthe earth, n o r i s i t th e individual creation an d handiworko f any o n e else
,but it i s the peculiar work o f the Son o f
God alone . I t i s fo r this reason that He likewise said,“ this is .Min e, fo r the creation o f the earth belongs toMe an d none other . a Fo r all men have come into beingby receiving their body from Me after the earth , but I ,before the earth was, wrough t it, receiving i t from n o
o n e . And I became incarnate by taking a body from it ,or from what was My creation ; fo r certainly it i s from1 A61 4» rfis apxa tdmm . Th is can mean “ in the language o f
simpl ic ity,” for it i s d ifficult to see th e reference to “the language o f
antiquity. ” Is it “ by H is anc ient wo rd , ” as paral lel to “ H iscreative wo rd in the c lause th at fo llows , viz . A67 4: Smutovp'
yfas ?2 The MS om its the wo rds fo r co rn an d .
"
84 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Myself that I offer you My bounty ; for i t i s from the
earth that the bread is ordained as a fo od fo r you, an dth e earth is o f My manufac ture. I t is from the earthlikewise that the body comes, an d so i t i s My mingling .
Therefore I give the bread an d the cup, having sealed itas a result o f the union wherein I the Holy One was
linked with that which is earthly, declaring that thisis my flesh an d blood .
I f it were Abraham, o r an y other righteous man , whohad said,
“ My flesh is meat an d my blo od is dr ink,” i t
would have been a great an d impudent lie, fo r h e wouldhave been o ffering what was another’s as if i t were hisown , an d he would have been punished greatly fo rrecklessly giving the bread an d the cup to an y an d
saying,“ Th i s i s my body
,an d this is my blo od .
”Fo r it
i s n o t his,but belongs to the On e who supplied it.
Neither would the things eaten impart l ife to them wh o
ate, as n o t having the living Word’
in combination withthem . But the earth ly body which is named the bodyo f Go d led those who ate into l ife eternal , an d Christgave indeed His own bo dy an d bloo d to those whobelieve, by inserting the life-giving medic ine o f HisGodhead . Therefore when He spoke o f the flesh as
bread an d the bloo d as wine, He taught us plainly thatthe body is from the earth an d the blood likewise, an dthat bo th possess the same essence.
But the common bread wh ich is tilled o n the earth,even though it be the flesh o f th e earth , has no promisethat i t con tains eternal life, but it only grants tho se whoeat i t a temporary satisfac tion , an d so on vanishes, as
being without share o f divine spiri t . But the bread thatIs tilled in th e blessed land o f Ch ris t
,being joined with
the power o f the Holy Spirit, at o n e taste gives a man .
Immortality . Fo r the mystic bread that hath inseparablyacquired the Savio ur’s Name
,
1 bestowed upo n His bodyan d His bloo d, j oins him who eat s i t to the body o f
Christ, an d makes him a member o f the Saviour .1ak w
’
jmv,.
which o n e wo uld l ike to translate invo cation , ” butthe ph rase In the previo us paragraph , wh ich is named the bodyo f Go d
”
(6606 Gaga suggests the translatio n given inthe text. 0
BOOK III . XXII I,XVI 85
For j ust as the let ter del ta in the alphabet takes thefo rce o f the teacher an d co nveys it to him wh o is taught,an d by its means leads him up to the teacher by put tinghim in touch with him, even so th e body
,that i s to say,
the bread, an d the blood , which is the same as the wine,drawing th e immortali ty of th e immaculate Godhead,gives thereof to him that shares it, an d by its meansleads him up to the Creator’s pure abode i tself.We conc lude then that the Saviour’s flesh i s n o t
wasted, neither is His blo od used up by being drunk,but while he that eats it arrives at an increase o f heavenlypowers, that which i s eaten is n o t exhausted , since i t i sakin to the nature which is inexhaustible, an d cannotbe divided from it .Accept then, if you please, this mighty exposition o f a
mighty question .
CHAPTER XVI . Objection based o n the saying : “ I fthey shall drink an y deadly thing, it shal l n o t hurtthem ”
(Mark xvi .
Again , consider in detai l that other passage, where He
says,
“ Such signs shall follow them that believe : theyshal l lay hands upon sick folk, an d they shall recover,an d if they drink an y deadly drug, 1 i t shall in no wisehurt them.
” So the right thing wo uld be fo r tho seselected fo r the priestho od, an d particularly tho se wh o
lay c laim to the episcopate o r presidency, to make useo f this form o f test . The deadly drug sho uld be set
befo re them in o rder - that the man who received n o
harm from the drinking o f i t might be given precedenceo f the rest . And if they are n o t bold enough to acceptthis so rt o f test, they ought to co nfess that they d o n o t
believe in the things Jesus said . Fo r if i t i s a peculiari tyo f the faith to overcome the evil o f a poiso n an d to
remove th e pain o f a sick man,th e believer who does
n o t do these things ei ther has not become a genuine1 He inserts the wo rd odpaaxov into the text
,wh ich Macarius
accepts W I th o ut comment. Th e wh o le quo tation is a lo o se o ne,
an d the c lauses are In their wrong o rder.
86 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
bel iever, o r else, though his belief i s genuine, the thingthat he bel ieves in is not potent bu t feeble.
CHAPTER XXIV. An swer to the objection based onthe saying : “ If they shal l drink an y deadly thing, itshal l not hurt them ”
(Mark xvi .
[We must not take the words about the “ sicknessan d the “ deadly drug ” in too literal a sense. Otherwisewe shal l find them co ntradicted by two facts . First,those who are unbelievers may likewise recover fromdeadly drugs, so th at the recovery need not consis t inwhether men are believers or not, but in the powero f the drug . Secondly, many unbelievers run away at
the first sign o f sickness, but we must n o t therefo reargue that those who stay to tend the sick are believersin co nsequence. Such literal an d manward tests willn o t d o , o r we shall have people boasting o f their faithsimply because they have some skill in nursing .
So the “ deadly drug ” must be taken in a less literalsense
,an d this “ death i s like that wherein S . Paul
says ,“ We are buried with Him in baptism . Here
there is a“ deadly drug ” which actual ly saves men
from the tyranny o f sin . Fo r to drink th is in faithmeans the death o f the savage nature within, with o u tany harm being received . SO that which harms un
believers do es not harm the faithful . We may illustratethis by a stepping-sto ne, which may be ei ther a helpor a stumbling-blo ck o r by the blessing o n the worldwhich came from the fal l o f th e Jews (Romanso r by the Cro ss, which causes both light an d darkness .Laying hands o n the sick must have a s imilar
spiritual explanation . Their “ hands are their practicalenergies, an d the “ sick ”
are changes in the seasons,which are o ften sick through such things as storms, orwant o f rain .]Certainly Po lycarp 1 i s an example o f this
,fo r while
1 Macarius,as belo nging to the East h imself, o nly gives deta il s
o f Po lycarp In the l ist o f fath ers h e mentions , as the o thers wereo f the Western Church . The facts here recorded are to be foundIn the Vita Fob/carpi.
BOOK III . XXIV 8 7
he exerc i sed the office of bishop at Smyrna, the seasono f standing c1 0ps was greatly sick, when the heavenwas n o t concealed by
'
the smallest cloud, an d poureddown from the sky a burning heat, sco rching to a greatdegree the vast tracts o f land that lay beneath i t ; an dit dried up the moisture o f the foliage, an d the troublecaused n o li ttle difficul ty to men . Th en that great man
o f God came, an d when he saw the inhabitants thusafflic ted , he in a sense laid his hands by means o f
prayer upon the burnt-up seaso n, an d suddenly madeall things to be well. And later, when the land was
drowned with unlimited rain, an d the dwellers in itwere in a pit iable state of distress, this same Polycarpstretched his hands to the air an d dispelled the calamity ,by healing that which was hateful to them . And indeed,befo re he became bishop, when he was managing a
widow’s house, 1 wheresoever he laid o n his hands infaith , all things were well . And why sho uld I stay tospeak o f the blessings conferred o n men by Irenaeus o fLugd unum,
o r Fabian o f Rome, o r Cyprian o f Carthage ?Passing them by, I will say something about men o f
to day . How many,by stretching forth their hands in
prayer to the heavenly Ruler, fo r the invisible diseaseso f suffering which press grievo usly upon the souls o f
men ,have healed the affl icted invisibly in ways we
know n o t ? How many by the laying o n o f thei r handshave caused to be wel l those catechumens who were inthei r former fever o f transgressio n o r disease, raisingthem to the n ew blessing o f health through the divinean d mystical leaven ? 1 For the responsibility that is laidupon the faithful is n o t so much zeal in driving awaythe sufferings o f the body (fo r h e knows 3 that thesethings train a man , rather than overthrow the govern
1 There is l ittle doubt that th is is th e righ t read ing, fo r it acco rdswith what is related in the Vita Fob/carpi. The MS . reading isn o t x
'hpas but xe’
ipas , befo re wh ich are must be inserted if it is tobe translated , i . e. suppo rting h is l ife by means o f h is hands .”
1 i . e. Baptism .
1 The use o f the singular suggests that the subject is “ God
rather than “th e faith ful .”
88 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
ment of his soul), as in driving away, by counsel an daction profitable to the soul, those things which are
wo nt to harm the understanding by enslaving the
judgment o f the reason .
Wherefo re, as at least i t seems to me, the answer onthis po int i s such as to persuade those who hear i t.
CHAPTER XVII . Objection based o n the saying abou tfaith removing mountains (Matt . xvii .
Look at a similar saying, which is naturally suggested byit,
“ I f ye have faith as a grain o f mustard seed, verilyI say unto you, ye shall say to this mountain , Be thouremo ved an d be thou cast into the sea, an d i t shall notbe impossible for you.
” 1
I t i s obvious therefo re that an y o ne who is unable to
remove a mountain in accordance with this bidding, i snot wo rthy to be reckoned o n e o f the family o f thefaithful . So you are plainly refuted, fo r not o nly are therest o f Christians n o t reckoned among the faithful
, but
not even ”
are any of your bishops or priests worthy ofthis saying.
CHAPTER XXV. Answer to the o bjection based o n the
saying abou t faith removing mountains (Mat t.xvii.
[It is the custom o f teachers only to enjoin o n theirpupils what they do themselves . But Christ neverremoved an y mountain in Palestine, nor would there beany po int in remo ving th e hills He had founded fo r ever .Even if the bel iever had the po wer to d o so
,h e would be
prevented by the words o f Scripture (Ps . xcii . “ He
made fast the world,which shal l not be shaken . So
there must be some other meaning in the words .
1 Th is is ano ther case o f a text apparently quo ted from memo ry,wh ich Macarius in his answer accepts as it stands
,th o ugh he sti l l
further alters its last wo rds . The truth i s that two passages arecombined . a'
ApGrrrI ita l BM’
IGn'I-t s is Od k ao o av is from Matt.
XXI . 2 1 , wh ich is substituted for d snot e’w efieev e
’
xei‘
, ital aer a
fir’
wem t o f Matt . xix. 20 .
90 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
men by His word alone, He ought to have shown forthwith that He was capable o f delivering others fromdanger by hurling Himself down from the height, an dnot receiving any bodily harm thereby . And th e mo reso , because there is a passage of Scripture somewherewhich says with regard to Him ,
“ In their hands theyshall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy fo ot against a s tone .
So the really fair thing to do, was to demonstrate to
those who were present in the temple that He was God’sSon
,an d was able to deliver from danger both Himself
an d those who were His .
CHAPTER XXVI . Answer to the objection based o n
the saying : Cast thyself down ”
(Matt . iv. 6
[Why did n o t Christ cast Himself down ? Because itwas the devil who told Him to, an d thus to make peacewith the adversary at the outset by taking his advice,i s to give up the struggle. The advantage of castingHimself down was mo re than counterbalanced by this .Even to fulfil the words o f pro phecy, if i t were at the
immediate prompting o f the devil, would be to act inconcert an d therefore in friendliness with him .
The question whether He should fulfil prophecy an do bey the devil o r n o t, i s certainly a dilemma. But evenif i t were good in itself to do so
,what fo llows makes it
plain that i t wo uld have led to evil . Fo r the devil wasleading up to his final request, Fal l down an d wo rsh ipme.
”The o ther two requests were apparently harmless,
but, had Christ yielded twice to his persuasion, it wouldhave inc lined Him to yield in the third case also . He
sees the trick, an d parries Belial’
s darts .Certainly the prophecy referred to the Saviour, bu t i t
was a weapon which the devil had put in his own quIver,an d th
]erefore a piece o f armour which
'
Christ refusedto use.
BOOK III . XVIII,XXVI, XIX 91
CHAPTER XIX.
1 Objection based on Christ’s sayingto Peter : Get thee behind me, Satan ” (Matt . xvi.2
I t i s only natural that there i s much that i s unseemly inall this long-winded talk thus po ured ou t. The words,o n e migh t say, provoke a bat tle o f inconsistency agains teach other. How 1 would some man in the s treet beinc lined to explain that Gospel saying, which Jesus addresses to Peter when He says,
“ Get thee behind me,
Satan, thou art an offence unto me, fo r thou mindest n o tthe things that be o f God
,but the things that be o fmen ”
(Matt. xvi . 2 an d then in another place, “ Thou art
Peter, an d upon this ro ck I will build my Church, an d Iwill give to thee the keys o f the kingdom of heaven ”
?
For if He so condemned Peter as to call him Satan, an dthought o f him as cast behind Him ,
an d an offence,an d o ne who had received no thought o f what wasdivine in‘ his mind an d i f He so rejected him as havingcommitted mortal sin , that He was n ot prepared to havehim in His sight any more, but thrust him behind Himinto the throng o f the outcast an d vanished ; how isi t righ t to find this sentence o f exc lusion against theleader an d chief o f the disciples ? At any rate, if an yo n e who is in h is sober senses ruminates o ver this, an dth en hears Chris t say (as though He had forgotten thewo rds He had uttered 3 against Peter), Thou art Peter,an d upon this rock I will build my Church,
”an d “ To
thee I will give the keys o f the kingdom of heaven,will he n o t laugh aloud till he nearly bursts his mouth ?Will he not open it wide as he might from his seat 4 1n
the theatre ? Will he not speak with a sneer an d hissloudly ? Will he n o t cry aloud to those wh o are near1 A series o f fo ur attacks o n S . Peter begins h ere.
1 Reading Ti yap In place o f th e MS . ei ‘
yap. I t may be no tedthat the next sentence begins with ei yap, an d th ere may h ave beensome co nfusio n .1 As a matter o f fact, the blessing upo n Peter comes a few versesbefo re the re .buke
Guae'
A-n is properly th e platfo rm wh ere th e leader Of the ch o russto o d , but here it is evidently a spectato r’5 seat .
92 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
him ? E ither when He called Peter Satan He was drunkan d overcome with wine, an d He spoke as though in afit o r else, when He gave this same disciple the keys ofthe kingdom o f h eaven, He was painting dreams, in theimaginat ion o f His sleep . Fo r pray how was Peter ableto support the foundation of the Church, seeing thatthousands o f times he was readily shaken from his judgment ? What sort o f firm reasoning can be detected inh im,
o r where did he show an y unshaken mental power,seeing that, though he heard what Jesus h ad said to
him,he was terribly frightened because o f a sorry maid
servant, an d three t imes foreswo re himself, altho ugh n o
great necessity was laid upon him ? We co nclude thenthat, if He was right in taking him up an d calling himSatan, as having failed o f the very essence Of godliness,He was inco nsistent
,as though n o t knowing what He
had done, in giving him the au thority o f leadership .
CHAPTER XX,
1 Objection based o n Christ’s words toS . Peter about forgiving seventy times seven (Matt.XviiI .
It i s also plain that Peter is condemned o f many falls,
from the statement in that passage where Jesus said to
h im,
“ I say not unto thee until seven times , but untilseventy times seven shalt thou fo rgive the sin o f himthat does wrong .
” But though he received th i s commandment an d injunction, he cut Off the ear o f the
high-priest’s servant who had done no wrong, an d did
h Im harm although he had not sinned at all: Fo r howdid he sin
,if
.
he went at the command o f his master tothe at tack t ch was then made o n Christ ?
1 Con trary to his custom elsewhere, Macarius do es n o t dealseparately with th is Objectio n , but answers it along with th e precedIng o n e, by a very brief paragraph at the en d o f chapter xxvii . Thefact that h is Oppo nent again al ludes to the saying about “ seventytImes seven ” in the next o bjectio n (chapter may have madeMacarIus po stpo ne mentio n o f it unt il h e dealt with that o bjectio n .But If so , he fo rgo t it when the time came. I t i s o n e o f the few
instances in h is bo ok o f his passing o ver o n e o f h is opponent’s
pomts.
BOOK III . XIX, XX, XXV I I 93
CHAPTER XXVII . Answer to the objec tion based o n
Christ’s saying to S . Peter : “ Get thee behind me,
Satan ”
(Matt. xvi . 2
Now we must examine the objections about Peter . Fortruly they need testing an d much explanation . Verilythe foundation o f th e Apostles has been shaken by so
great a clamour the very apex of the gospel story hasbeen obscured by such a c loud o f unseemliness . 1 I fPeter has been called by Christ an offence, an d Satan ,an d a cause o f stumbling ; if Peter is convicted o fhavingsinned in ways that cannot be fo rgiven, the whole bando f the Apostles is attacked, an d the roo t s o f the faith areall but plucked up. I t i s righ t therefore to see the t imean d the place o f this saying, in order that we may j udgethe matter an d take hold o f what it means .[The blessing o n Peter was an answer to his words at
Caesarea Philippi : Thou art the Chris t, the So n o f the
living God .
” Chris t sees that he has n o t received thistruth from “ flesh an d blo od,
”n o r even from angels, bu t
as a direct revelation from the Father Himself.]“ Wherefore,
”he says
,
“ receive a surname worthy o fthis grace, an d be thou Peter (Rock-man ) ,
2 showing toall the world a rock which is invincible an d unshakeable,since the knowledge an d the reaso ning which thou possessest cannot be moved, in that tho u has t borne witnessthis d ay to the fact that the blessed Essence cannot beshaken .
I t was likely that the evil beas t of decei t (the devil),hearing these words, an d the witness which Peter gaveto the Savio ur, cunningly worked with all manner o f zealso as to strip Peter o f his merit
,an d to overthrow th e
witness o f Christ by the trickery o f guile,an d to al ter
the dispensation o f the Passion . Fo r he knew, he clearly1 Macarius ech o es the wo rd wh ich h is oppo nent had used at the
beginning o f his o bjection .1 I n th us laying stress o n the difference between r e
’
r po s an d
we'
r pa , Macarius suppo rts th e V iew that Peter is n o t h ere identifiedwith the ro ck o f the Church . I t appears yet mo re plainly at th een d o f th is chapter that th e “ ro ck ” was the truth
'
o f Ch rist’sdivinity, o n wh ich the Church is fo unded .
94 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
knew that the Passion of Christ was a release from the
tyranny o f his wickedness, an d so h e was desirous o f
being a hindrance to the c ross . So he prompts Peterto say :
“ Be i t far from thee, Lord, this shal l not beunto thee (Mat t . xvi .Chris t recognises the real speaker, an d addresses the
devil an d not Peter when He says : “ Get thee behindme,Satan .
” Then He turns to Peter an d rebukes himfo r obeying the prompting o f Belial; with the words ,Tho u art an offence unto me,
”etc . Peter’s sudden fal l
from the highest to the lowest deserved such a rebuke,an d at the same time i t taugh t the disc iples n o t to applytheir petty talk to the eternal dispensat ion . What mighthave been the persuasion o f the others, if they saw Christo n earth as Peter did
,an d then heard Peter persuading
Him to po stpone His glo rio us redemptive Passion an d
stay among the things o f earth ? His great fai th had to
have a great rebuke, an d his great fall led to his great grief.For note the height o f his faith in the words, “ Thou
art the Christ,
”etc . , wherein he was led up to the very
court o f heaven . He n ow knew the King upon Histhro ne, an d had it in his power to Open his knowledgeto tho se who came to him
,bu t to keep it clo sed from
those who were not fit fo r the beatific Vision.
1 Hencehe was said to have the keys o f heaven , the power toopen an d shut i t, an d to lead men into it o r o ut o f it .No te also the d efin iten ess o f Peter’s words . He uses
the art icle all thro ugh ; it i s not simply, “ Thou art an
anointed o n e, a son o f a living Go d . Fo r there are
many anointed, many so ns (the angels are called sonso f many who are living, an d
“ gods many an d lordsmany. But the use of the artic le reveals the impregnablet ruth, an d the unique nature o f each . Speaking by theHo ly Spirit, Peter thus reveal s the impregnable rock, an dgets his name o f Peter (Rock-man ) in consequence .
1 But
.
1 Such is the sane an d reasonable explanat io n wh ich Macariusgives o f th Is h igh ly co ntro versial questio n.
-See no te o n the earl ier part o f the chapter. The interpretatio no f the who le paragraph by Macarius is a valuable contributio n tothe l iterature o f the subject.
BOOK III . XXVII, XXI 95
the devil tries to throw him from this rock on which '
he
was so firmly set, by making him say what was unworthyo f the promise, an d express an unseemly sympathy . SoChrist pierced him with a sharp rebuke.
Such was the rebuke implied in His heal ing the highpriest’s servant, 1 whose ear Peter had cu t o ff. Chris tdid n o t j udge him by his s tammering tongue, bu t by theinward desire of his soul .]
CHAPTER XXI . 2 Objection based on S . Peter’s treatment Of Ananias an d Sapphira (Acts V. 1
This Peter is convicted o f doing wrong in other casesalso . Fo r in th e case o f a certain man called Ananias
,
an d h is wife Sapphira, because they did n o t deposit thewhole price o f their land, but kept back a l ittle for thei rown necessary use, Peter pu t them to death , althoughthey had done no wrong . For how did they do wrong
,
if they did n o t wish to make a present o f all that wastheir own But even if he did consider their act to beo n e o f wrongdoing
,he ought to have remembered th e
commands o f Jesus, who had taught him to endure asmany as fo ur hundred an d ninety sins against him he
wo uld then at least have pardoned one,if indeed what
had occurred could real ly in an y sense be called a sin .
And there i s another thing which he ought to have bo rnein mind in dealing with others— namely, h ow he himself,by swearing that he did not know Jesus , had not only
1 Thus briefly does h e answer ano ther objection o f his oppo nent,as co ntained in chapter xx.
1 I t is at th is po int that the attack o n S . Peter begins . Harnack(op. cit. p. 1 03 et seq . ) co nsiders that th e o pponent
’s wo rk was hered ivided into two , a divisio n wh ich Macarius h as quite obscured .He do es n o t sh ow why a bo ok o f excerpts from the fifteen bo ok s o fPo rphyry sh o uld have been thus divided , but he affo rds valuableth ough unintentio nal suppo rt to the theo ry th at the wo rk is the twobo oks o f th e P/iilaletnes o f Hiero cles. In th is case th i s m igh t wel lmark the beginnin g o f the Seco nd Bo ok. As th e beginning an d en dare lo st, Harnack reco nstructs the two parts as fo l lows the first partas co ntaining x 1 0 1 3 questions, an d the second part 9 1 6
x (p . 1 05 n .
96 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
to ld a lie, but had foresworn himself, in contempt of th ej udgment an d resurrection to come.
CHAPTER XXVII I . Answer to the objection based onS . Peter’s treatment o f Ananias an d Sapphira (Acts v .
1
[I f you understand the circumstances, you will see thatAnanias did wro n g, an d was punished fo r the generalo o d .gThe preaching o f the Gospel an d i ts wonders uplifted
the first Christians to heaven, an d men came from all
directions to drink o f the fountain o f grace . They gaveup individual possessions an d j oined all together, so thatwealth ceased to exist in this spiritual society . Amo ngothers, Ananias an d his wife offered their property to thecommon stock . When once given to Christ, i t was nolonger their own . I t was therefore wrong to keep someback
,though merely in itself such a deed does not
appear so.
Peter at once cut out this evil , in order that thedisease might n o t spread to th e whole body o f believers .The deed was n o t a wrong do ne to Peter, an d thereforeit did not receive his forgiveness ;1 but i t was done tothe Deity
,an d was an o utrage o n the fai th . Besides, i f
no notice had been taken,they would have thought their
hidden deed escaped Christ’s notice,an d so wo ul d have
proceeded unrebuked to worse sins , an d have infectedo thers, like a pestilence
,with the same ideas . To
prevent this, Peter checks the disease, an d drags up theweeds befo re they can Spread over the field .
The above is proved by Peter’s question : “ Why didye resolve 2 to tempt the Holy Spirit ? ” Then theywere slain, by a blow
,not (as you say) o f a sword, but
1 Thus briefly an d i n parenthesis do es h e answer what h is oppo
nent had said abo ut th e injunctio n o f “ seventy t imes seven . ” Seeno te o n the heading o f chapter xx. Th is answer is excel lent asfar as It go es, but scarcely co vers all the objectio n .
1 Th e quo tatio n , as o ften , seems to be from memo ry, as thereading is r t 37 ; ffiogev {will instead o f aux/etpwvfj fln.
98 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, butwhen they came he separated himself, fearing those o f
the circumc is ion ; an d many Jews joined with him inhis hypocrisy ” 1 (Gal. i i. In this likewise thereis abundant an d important condemnat io n , that a manwho had become interpreter o f the divine mouth shouldlive in hypocrisy, an d behave himself with a view to
pleasing men . Moreover, the same i s true o f his takingabout a wife, for this is what Paul says “ Have we notpower to take abo u t a sister, a wife, as al so the rest o fthe apo stles, an d Peter ?
”
(I Cor. ix . And then 1 headds (2 Co r. xi . “ Fo r such are false apostles , d eceitful workers .” I f then Peter is related to have beeninvo lved in so many base things, is it n o t enough tomake o n e shudder to imagine that he ho lds the keys o fheaven, an d lo oses an d binds, al though he i s fast bound,so to speak, in countless inconsistencies .
CHAPTER XXIX . Answer to the objection based o n
S . Peter’s escape from prison (Acts x ii . 5 I I ) an dother inconsistencies .
[After killing James, in hi s hostility to Christ, Herodwan ted to wreak public vengeance o n Peter. I t wasn o t that Peter fled in fear ; rather he was waiting topreach Christ in Rome an d then welcome the glorio usc ross . I t was n o t fit that Herod’s malice should thush inder the kindling o f that Gospel torch which was tobe lighted among the Gentiles .As fo r the death o f the soldiers , Peter was no more
responsible fo r it than the stag would be, if the shepherdkilled his do gs because i t escaped from them . Heroddid not owe his savagery to Peter, i t was his own .
The o bjec t Peter co ntinual ly had in View was to do1 Th is was a favo urite subject o f attack , an d it wil l be remembered th at the theo ry o f a permanent cleavage between Peter an dPaul has been built upon it .1 I t is strangely unfair thus to imply that o ne passage fo l lows
after th e o ther . Th e objecto r scarcely ever reso rts to suchsubterfuges .
BOOK III . XXI I,XXIX, XXX 99
an d say what was most pro fitable . I t i s this which mustexplain that conduc t o f which Paul speaks . His in co n
sistency was not fo r his own sake, bu t fo r the sake ofsaving both Jews an d Gentiles alike . Fo r the only wayproperly to influence the Jews was by showing reverencefo r the Mosaic law . Had h e rejec ted it in favour o f theGo spel, they would naturally have turned away fromhim . So he skilfully avoids the Genti les’ table whilethere is the chance o f the Jews being scandalised, hopingin time to persuade the lat ter to walk acco rdin g to theevangelic ins tead o f the Mosaic rule. On the otherhand, in order to attract the Gentiles , he ate with themwhen the Jews were not there. The result was profitableto both parties . 1When Paul speaks o f “ false apostles
,
” 1 he does notrefer to Peter, but to those wh o were sent about theworld by the Jews with encyc l ical letters . 3]The list o f charges against Peter is a lon g o n e, bu t
what I have said should suflice fo r you an d those whosit with you . But if there lurks anywhere some otherpassage o f the New Testament that i s in dispute,announce it without delay .
CHAPTER XXX. Objection based o n the inconsistencyo f S . Paul, in his circumcising o f Timothy (Acts xvi.
He remained a little while‘in deep an d solemn thought ,
an d then said : “ You seem to me very much like inexperienced captains, who, while stil l afloat o n the
vo yage that lies before them , loo k o n themselves as
afloat on another sea. Even thus are you seeking fo ro ther passages to be laid down by us
,although you have
1 In his anxiety to wh itewash S . Peterlfrom all charges, Macariush ere may be said to o verstate h is case, fo r h e fai ls to co nsider S .
Paul’s po int o f V iew .
1 He misses the chance o f sco ring a po int, fo r he migh t havepo inted out the unfairness o f the o bject ion .
1 The text adds th e curio us suggestio n th at they were couse uentlycal led a r dAo r (expeditio ns) o ils e
’
Ean o o 're'
Ao -res ar dk ovs in o v.
1 00 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
n o t completed the vital points in the questions whichyou st ill have on hand .
” 1
I f you are really fi lled with bo ldness about the
questio ns, an d the points o f difficulty have become c learto you, tell us how it was that Paul said ,
“ Being free, Imade myself the slave o f all, in o rder that I migh t gainall
”
(I Co r. ix . an d h ow,al though he called cir
cumcisio n co ncisio n,” 1 he himself circumc ised a certain
Timo thy,as we are taught in the Acts o f the Apostles
(Ac ts xvi . Oh,the downright stupidity o f i t all ! I t
is such a stage as this that the scenes in th e theatreportray
,as a means o f raising laugh ter . Such indeed is
the exh ibition wh ich jugglers give .
3 Fo r h ow could theman be free who is a slave o f all? And h ow can the
man gain all who apes all? 4 For if h e is without lawto those wh o are without law
,
5as h e himself says, an d
he went with the Jews as a Jew an d with o th ers in likemanner, truly he was th e slave o f manifold baseness
,an d
a stranger to freedom an d an alien from it ; truly be i sa servant an d minister o f o ther peo ple’s wro ng do ings
,
an d a notable zealo t fo r unseemly things , if he spendsh is time o n each occasio n in th e baseness o f thosewitho ut law, an d appropriates their doings to himself.These things canno t be the teachings o f a so und
mind, nor the setting forth o f reasoning that i s free.
1 Befo re the next senten ce th e MS . has”Emmy in the margin
, as
a n ew h eading, in o rder to mark th e place where the actual o bjectIo n beg ins . Fo r the suppo rt thus c laimed fo r th e theo ry thatMacarius is merely bo rrowing from a bo ok , an d h imself turning itinto a discussio n, see I ntrod . , p . xvi i .
1 Ph il . i ii . 2,i. e. a mere meaningless cutting .
3 Gk . 1 rapa1roi
7t7twv.
1 The MS . gives m onas ti cismwh ich must be co rrupt . The wo rd,
o ddly enough , has j ust o ccurred in the previo us answer o fMacarius
(ch . xxix . p . I 2 2 , l . 2,k afvrep xaflnfcet
i
wu T ois’
I ov8afo ts iroMtoi
.
Fo ucart suggested m enaeéwv in bo th places , as equivalent to
manages (to p lay the ape), A rist. Vesp . But th is requiresthe further emendatio n o f we
i
r/r ats to wan t in th e present instance .
mix/Tats h as j ust o ccurred in th e same l ine, wh ich may have causedth e m istake
5 The speaker takes th is in the mo ral sense, as mean Ing“ law
less, as 15 c lear from what fo l lows .
1 02 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
the general, so ftening men’s prejudices by his strategy .
So he went out to meet both tho se without law an d the
Jews, tho ugh he did n o t himself really feel as they.Therefo re he o nly adopted circumcision in order to
enrich the law with the Gospel by giving way on o n e
point.A good doctor may fo rbid a certain drug as
being harmful, an d yet in a bad case he may combinei t with other drugs in o rder to overcome the disease.
Just so , Paul rejected c ircumcisio n, an d yet at a c risisbe combined it with the doctrines o f the Gospel . 1]
CHAPTER XXXI . Objection based on S . Paul’s in co nsistency in claiming at different times to be a Jew
(Ac ts xxii . 3 ) an d a Roman (Acts xxi i .
This same Paul, who often when he speaks seems toforget his own words, tells the chief captain that he isnot a Jew but a Roman, although he had previo uslysaid
,I am a Jew,
born in Tarsus o f Cilicia,an d bro ugh t
up1at the feet o f Gamal iel, instructed acco rding to the
exact teaching o f the law o f my fathers .” But he who
said,
“ I am a Jew,
”an d “ I am a Roman
,i s neither
thing, alth o ugh he attaches himself to both . Fo r h e
wh o plays the hypocrite an d speaks o f what he i s not,lays the foundation o f his deeds in guile
,an d by putting
round him a mask o f deceit,h e cheats the clear issue
an d steals the truth , laying siege in different ways to the
so ul’s understanding,an d enslaving by the j uggler’s art
those wh o are easily influenced . Th e man wh o welcomesin his life such a princ iple as this, differs n o t at all froman implacable an d bitter fo e, wh o enslaving by hishypo crisy the minds o f tho se beyond his own bo rders ,takes them all captive in inhuman fashion . So if Paulis in pretence at o n e t ime a Jew,
at another a Roman ,at o n e time witho ut law
,an d at another a Greek,3 an d
whenever he wishes is a stranger an d an enemy to each
1 I t will be no ticed that Macarius makes n o attempt to arguefrom the specIal case o f Timo thy .
1 He omits the wo rds, In th is c ity .”
1 Surely th is is a sl ip fo r “a Jew .
”
BOOK III . XXXI,XXXVIII
,XXXI I 1 03
thing,by steal ing into each, he has made each useless,
robbing each o f it s scope by his flattery .
We conclude then that he i s a liar, an d manifestlybrough t up in an atmo sphere of lying .
1 And it i s besidethe point fo r h im to say :
“ I speak the truth in Christ,I lie n o t
”
(Rom . ix . Fo r the man who has jus tn ow confo rmed to the law, an d to -d ay to the Gospel, i srightly regarded aS
‘ knavish an d ho llow 1 both in privatean d in public life .
CHAPTER XXXVI II . Answer to the objection basedo n S . Paul’s claim to be bo th a Jew an d a Roman .
[Here again Paul showed the strategic powers of a general .I f a general is driven out by his own co untrymen, he n o
lo nger considers himself o n e o f them , an d overcomesthem by joining some o n e else. Just so Paul was d rivenby the Jews into the hands o f the Romans, an d sohe could say he was n o t a Jew but a Roman .
He was n o t wrong in calling himself a Roman , for bythe Rome might) o f the Spirit he was to teachamong the Roman nat ion .
Jus t as o n e o f the Galatian race i s called an Asian byliving in Asia
, so might Paul become a Roman , an d yetremain a Jew . When he call s himself a Jew,
he honourshis countrymen when he call s himself a Roman
, he
proclaims his nobility .
3]
CHAPTER XXXI I . Objection based on S . Paul’s use o f
the law fo r his own advantage (as in I Cor . ix . 7,
That he dissembles the Gospel for the sake o f vainglo ry,an d the law fo r the sake o f covetousness
,i s plain from
his wo rds ,“ Who ever goeth to war at his own charges ?
Who shepherd eth the flock an d do th n o t eat o f the milk1 Or, mo re l iterally , a fo ster-bro ther o f that wh ich is fal se.
1 l it . Festering beneath the surface.
”
3 Such is th e strangely inadequate th ree-fo ld answer given to theo bjectio n The play upo n the wo rd Tom; is quite characteristic o f
patristic Interpretatio n . Macarius do es n o t seem to have graspedthat a Jew co uld be a Roman c itizen .
1 04 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
o f the flo ck ? ” (I Co r. ix . And, in his desire to geth o ld o f these things, he cal ls in the law as a suppo rter o fh is co vetousness, sayin g,
“ Or doth n o t the law say theseth ings ? Fo r in the law o f Mo ses i t is writ ten, Tho ushal t n o t muzzle an ox that i s treading o ut the co rn ”
Th en he adds a statement which is Obscure an d
full o f no nsense, by way o f cutting o ff the divine fo rethough t from the brute beasts, saying, Doth Go d takecare o f the oxen, o r doth he say i t o n our account ?On our acco unt i t was written (z'. I o ) .
1 I t seems to methat in sayin g this h e is mocking the wisdom o f the
Creato r, as if it contained no fo retho ught fo r the th ingsthat had lo ng ago been brought into being. Fo r if Go d
do es n o t take care o f o xen , pray, why is i t written ,“ He
hath subjec ted all things, sheep an d oxen an d beasts an dbirds an d th e fish es (Ps. viii . 8— 9) I f He takes acco unto f fishes, much more o f oxen which plough an d labour.Wherefore I am amazed at such an impo stor
,wh o pays
such so lemn respect to the law because he i s insatiable,fo r the sake o f getting a sufficient contribution from thosewho are subject to him .
CHAPTER XXX IX . Answer to the objec tion based o n
S . Paul’s use o f the law for h is own advantage (1 Co r.
ix . 7 ,
[I t is n o t in o rder to get something fo r himself thatPaul introduces the compariso n o f the so ldier an d the
shepherd, but in o rder to make th e Co rinth ian s thankful .Fo r a so ldier do es his work fai th fully o nly as long as theState pays him ; an d j ust so a herald o f th e Go spel willgive h is best wo rk when h is h earers respo nd to i t .Similarly, the spiritual shepherd
’s encouragement is tosee h is sheep with fair fleeces an d abundant m ilk .
Again, th e labo urer sows th e seed o f the knowledge o f
1 The quo tatio n s are abbreviated . wo’
wr ws is om itted after 64’was , an d th e middle c lause o f 7 i s wanting. Macarius, however,makes use o f the latter In h Is answer.
1 06 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Then, completely confusing the nature o f the ques tio n,he co nfo unds the whole matter an d makes it obscure,so that he who listens to him almost grows dizzy, an ddashes against the two things as tho ugh in the darknesso f the night, stumbling over the law,
an d kno ckingagainst the Gospel in confusion , owing to the ignoranceo f the man who leads him by the hand.
CHAPTER XL. Answer to the objection based o n hisinco nsistent attitude towards the law.
[When he says that to do o n e thing in the law o bliges aman to d o all
,he is n o t abusing the law, but pointing to
i ts minuteness, an d to that difficulty in carrying i t outwhich Christ has freed us from,
by coming to fulfil i tHimself.Fo r a man wh o at tempts to fulfil an y part o f it n ow
may j ustly be accused o f igno ring the complete fulfilmento f i t by the Only Begotten . He loses the effec t o f theSaviour’s fulfilment
,an d yet cannot complete it himself,
but is like o n e wh o has a hundred parasangs 1 to ride toreach a c ity, an d o nly rides ninety-five in which case heis no mo re in the city than when he started . I f a man
keeps co untless commandments, an d yet leaves o n e
undo ne, it is as bad as leaving o n e gate o f a cityundefended out o f th irty-five .
As an example o f the difficulty in fulfilling th e wholelaw
, take two enactments,concerning the sabbath an d
circumc ision . What is to be done with the babe bo rnon a sabbath , upo n the eighth d ay after i ts birth ? 1
Here o n e rule contradic ts the other. I f two points areso hard, what o f the whole ? Indeed there are mo re rulesthan can be remembered co ncerning sacrifices, clean sings,etc . Such a burden pro ved to o much fo r the Jews .
1 Th is spo ntaneo us intro ductio n o f a Persian measure o f distanceIs a pro o f that the e ter was near that part o f the wo rld . H issubsequent suggestio n o f a c ity with so many gates ind icates thatthere were large clues in h is district .
1 He cho o ses the example given by Ch rist H imself in Jo hn VI I .22—23 , but can scarcely h ave that passage in m ind , fo r it dec ides thedifficulty.
BOOK III . XL, XXXIV 1 0 7
Only Christ co uld fulfil i t, an d so cancel i t that noneneed be subject to it an y mo re .
As a cubi t-rule measures dimensio ns, bu t can itselfonly be measured by the man wh o made it, so the law,
which is the measure of life, could only be measured byChrist
,who made i t, an d finally sealed it up by plac ing
the better measure o f the Go spel beside it .To try an d fulfil what Christ has thus fulfilled, i s to
act in opposition to Him . Thus do es Paul warn the
Galatians . As fo r his cal ling the law “ holy,”etc . ,
it washoly because the Holy On e fulfilled it .Again
,when he brings in the witness o f the law an d
quotes from it,
“ Tho u shalt n o t muzzle the ox thattreadeth out the corn ,
” 1 he i s thinking o f the apostolicband as the unmuzzled ox, which threshes that harvestwhich Christ has sowed . Hence he says,
“ Not co ncerning oxen were these things written, but concerning us ”I Cor. ix .
CHAPTER XXXIV. Objectio n based o n another inco nsistency, in saying “ The law entered that theoffence might abo und (Rom . v.
Fo r see here, look at this clever fellow’s record . Afterco untless utterances which he to ok from the law in orderto get suppo rt from i t, he made vo id the judgment o fhis own words by saying,
“ For the law entered thatthe offence might abound an d befo re these wo rds, 1“ The goad 3 o f death is sin , an d the strength o f sin i sthe law
”
(I Co r. xv. He prac tically sharpens hisown tongue like a swo rd, an d cuts the law to pieceswitho ut mercy limb by limb . And this i s the man whoin many ways inclines to obey th e law,
an d says it is1 Macarius had igno red th is part o f the previo us o bjectio n , an d
h ere h is reference to th e quo tatio n can scarcely be called an answerto th e difficulty raised , wh ich seems to have pro ved to o much fo rh im .
1 Th is is evidently a sl ip, as it is unl ikely that he placed the
Co rinth ian befo re the Roman Epistle.
1 Th is c o rrect translatio n must be given , rather than sting , as
Macarius develops the idea o f a go ad in h is answer.
1 08 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
praiseworthy to live according to it . And by taking ho ldo f th is ignorant opinion, which he does as though byhabit, h e has overthrown his own judgments on all otheroccasions .
CHAPTER XLI . Answer to the objection based o n S .
Paul’s saying that “ The law entered that the offencemay abound (Rom . V.
[There was naturally much wickedness in life, an d thisco uld n o t be co rrec ted unless the law came to reveal it .Good an d bad could not be distinguished t ill s tandardso f right an d wrong were set up . From such a life o f
igno rance an d sin the law guided men to the life o f l ight .But i ts enac tments naturally revealed as sin what wasn o t before understo od as such , an d in this sense it“ made the offence to abo und .
Sin was a go ad o f death to drive men from true life,an d to ok it s strength ”
from the law,because the law
punished sinners (see I Co r. xv. A goad requiressome o n e to wield i t in order to make it deadly
,an d i t
was thus that the law wielded sin . Paul bids men
fl ee from i t,
n o t to th e law,but to Ch ris t wh o i s
Master o f the law. He does n o t destro y the law, buti t s work as
“ scho o lmaster ” (n a IBaywyés) i s do ne wheni t has brought men to Christ (Gal. i i i . 2 The law i slike the moon , an d the pro phets like the stars
,which
fade away at dawn before the Sun an d His twelvefo ldc rown o f Apostles, an d yet remain, though witho utpower. 1]
CHAPTER XXXV. Objec tion based o n S . Paul’s wordsabout their n o t having “ fellowship with demo ns in1 Co r. x . 2 0
,an d also what h e says in I Co r. viii . 4
an d 8 an d x . 2 5— 2 6 .
When he speaks again o f the eating o f things sacrificed1 The abo ve summary is in a very abbreviated fo rm
,but it wil l
be seen that , unl ike some o f h is d efence o f S . Paul,his l ine o f
argument is excel lent , an d is a sound interpretatio n o f S . Paul’sown attItud e towards the law .
1 1 0 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
known that it was Greeks who did most o f the slaughtering at that time.
1 So you may perceive in this theaccuracy an d wisdom o f Paul, h ow he protects theirdaily life an d forbids the godly to touch things sacrificedto demons, but he permitted his friends to eat what wasso ld in the shambles witho ut asking questions . Fo r the
sacrifice o fanimals was at that time manifold, an d differentin various part s o f the world . There was o n e kind to
the spirits o f the air,another to tho se on the earth,
while there were other sacrifices again to tho se underthe earth . For error, taking th e deceitful serpent as itsminister, whistled many a strain, charming an d subduingwith its deadly spells 1 earth , sea, air
,an d the things
beneath the earth . So invisible spirits which fl ew in theair, which Isaiah sang o f as flying serpents (I sa. xxvii .demanded white an d transparent sacrifices o f birds,seeing that the air chances to be bright
,an d filled with
light fo r the manifestation o f the things that are below.
But there are certain o f the demo ns o f the earth,which
demanded herds o f beasts for sacrifices which were blackskinned an d dusky, seeing that the earth is by natureblack an d gloomy ; an d they ordered their sac rifices tobe slain o n lofty altars . Other demons of the regionsbeneath them enjoined that black offerings should besacrificed to them in trenches
, an d that they shouldbe buried alo ngside the remains o f the things that hadbeen slaughtered .
3 Other deceitful phantoms o f thingsin the seas demanded sacrifices o f black things that werewinged an d living, an d o rdered them to be sent downinto the sea, since the sea is black an d in constantmotion .
Seeing then that wickedness thus destroys the thingst out reason through tho se that possess i t , by feeding inthis pitiable way o n a multitude o f beasts an d birds,t
li? Apostle naturally forbade the fai thful to touch sucht Ings .You can verify these things from the book Concerning1
0
Th is is an attempt to render Kaf1rep‘
EAAfjvwv tbs an abwh a mmy 7 6 V paxek k evdw wv 7 61-6 v ptgop e
'
vwv.
1 toast o f the M S. must be fo r Ivygt.3«(pagans-
{
Vow i s th e additio n o f a later hand in the margin, an dscarcely seems to supply the sense required .
BOOK III . XLI I 1 1 1
the philosophy of orac les,” 1an d learn accurately the record
o f the things sacrificed, as you read the oracle o f Apolloconcerning sacrifices, 1 which Porphyry, puffed up withco nceit, handed down to his intimates in a mystery,charging them with a terrible o ath , as he himself reckoned,that they should n o t freely tel l these things to many . The
tragedy o f this novel calamity will be well known to you,h ow the plotting of destroying spirits ruth lessly mangledthe human race in vario us ways , as a flo ck witho ut aShepherd, coming like an at tack o f wild wolves from the
desert . I t was impossible fo r an y o n e to breathe freely, orto be quiet, but everything was forced together, from o n e
en d o f heaven to the other, as though by a staff or athunderbolt . I f a man was cro ssing the sea, he let slip asacrifice ifhe was jo urneyin g by land, he sacrificed fourfo o ted beasts . I f he were hollowing a cave o r digginga piece o f land
,h e threw down a sacrifice to th e
powers below, an d many, by way o f buying o ff their owndeath, buried some o f their own stock wh i le still alive .
At an y rate, Amistra, the wife o f King Xerxes, sent fourteen boys down to Hades al ive every year o n her own
behalf, by covering them wi th a mound,by way o f
appeasing the demo ns o f the earth . Stakes an d goadsan d snares had filled the wo rld everywhere ; neither airn o r land, island n o r sea were inoppo rtune fo r theirplottings but a girdle o f guile had enc irc led the inhabitedwo rld , a dark vei l o f ignorance had envelo ped it
,an d i t
was n o t possible fo r a man to live witho ut trouble an d
fear. Life was full o f suspic ion, conditio ns were unreal,the very fact o f chance was affec ted .
Since therefo re the world 'was full o f disorder,an d the greater part o f life was devoted to demons
,he
proclaims to those who wish fo r a brighter 3 l i fe, thatthey must loathe the table o fdemons, lest perchance they
1 Th is was a bo o k by Po rphyry , cal led wept rns 6x Aoy fwv out c om(plus. I t is lo st, but is mentio ned by Fabricius
,V . p . 744 . See
Introd . , p xiv . , fo r the argument wh ich the reference to th is bo o ka
o
fi‘
Ol d S, as against Harnack’s bel ief that the writer o f these objectio ns is Po rphyry h imself.
1 Fo r th i s see Euseb., .Praepar E vang . iv. 8
, 9.
1eba'
ye’
o 'repow-
perh aps purex.
1 1 2 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
sho uld at all corrupt the habit o f the soul by their fel lowship . And again, perceiving h ow impo ssible it was fo r an yo n e wh o was c lo thed with flesh to renounce the dailylife o f the bo dy, h e gives permissio n by way o f dispensation
,an d so lemn lyicoun sels them to respec t the common
market o f the shambles an d to get their vic tuals from i t .Fo r the matter did n o t cal l fo r tro uble, an d invo lved n o
blame fo r meddling with such things, seeing that th o sewho underto o k th e business o f the shambles were the
ministers o f a general an d public means o f diet . Butthere were certain servants o f temples, picked out an d
separated from th e rest, who in some kind o f mysterypoured out l ibatio ns to images an d sacrificed with a kindo f mystic witchcraft . From these he bids them keepaway, an d n o t to to uch them at all.
But he destroys th e igno rant bounds o f Greek belief,cuts their do c trine in pieces, an d makes their judgmentvo id
,when he says,
“ An ido l i s noth ing in the wo rld .
”
Fo r the Greeks found o ut the naming o f ido ls, as the
serpent fo und out th e naming o f gods ; but the j udgment o f truth does n o t lay down such an opinion at all.
Therefore i t i s impo ssible that the theory o r stand ard o fido ls should be preserved in the wo rld . Fo r the makin go f images is reaso nably spoken o f as images, n o t as ido l s .These figures , fashio n ed from go ld, silver, bronze, an diron, are Si lver an d gold, but n o t ido l s . And th e deadbodies o f living c reatures exist as dead bodies, not asidols . So uls that are loosed from bodies are rightlyso uls, but n o t ido ls . But th e representatio ns in statuaryo f tho se who are called heroes are images, not ido ls .And the things that are skilfully painted in c o lours o ntablets, are the delineatio n o f bo dies
,but certainly n o t
idols . And the thin gs that are called appearances o f
visio ns are phantoms an d shadows o f dreams,but they
are n o t ido l s . So the great Apo stle speaks truth whenhe says,
“ An ido l i s no thing in the wo rld .
” Unlessperchance some o n e i s mad enough to wish to call th eelements ido ls, but he i s refuted as he says i t ; fo r fire,water, air
, an d earth are n o t idols,but properly fire,
water, air, an d earth .
1 1 4 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
did not mean, as when he says, “ On whom he will h ehath mercy, an d whom he will he hardeneth,
”a statement
which must be taken in co njunction with his wo rdsabo u t Him “ that willeth that all men should be saved .
”
In'
this passage (from I Corinthians) about virgins, i t isn o t clear at once why he should say,
“ I have n o commandment o f the Lo rd, yet I give my judgment as o n ethat hath obtained mercy, seeing that he had Christspeaking within him . The explanation i s as fo l lowsVirginity is a difficult an d unnatural s tate, an d so i t i s
left to the individual to choose i t . I f Chris t forced i t o npeople by a command , they might say that the fault wasHis if i t led to a fall. In simpler matters Christ doesgive a command through Paul, such as theft, adultery,slander, etc . The wisdom o f all this i s obvious, an d to
make virginity a free choice only exalts its position .
There is praise fo r the man who do es as he i s comman d ed , but fo r this act o f free-will beyond what i so bligatory there i s a higher glo ry .
1 Note that Paul’swo rds show a humble reverence fo r what he speaks o f
,
fo r he gives his Opinion “as o ne that hath obtained
mercy, not as an Apostle, nor as“ j udging angels
(but here the virgins are angel s in his judgment) .When he says that “ There shal l arise certain havingtheir conscience seared with a ho t iron
,
” 1 i t i s becausehe knew that such heretics would attrac t men by guileIn recommending so excellent a thing as virginity, 1 an dthus using a branding-iron o f godliness fo r their owndeceitful purposes . These “ seared heresiarchs are likemakers o f counterfeit coin
,washing over their worthless
creed with the fine gold o f virginity .
1 They are
1 Macarius reflects the attitude o f h is age i n regarding virginityas a cause o f “ merit. ”
11 Tim. iv. 2 . Th is is the passage quo ted in th e objectio n , but
2 was then omitted , an d o nly no . I an d 3 given . (avatar /worm :
Is n o t S . Paul’s wo rd , but i s inco rrectly bo rrowed from thedwoa'
r'fwov'
rat o f the previo us verse. ) These are th e men wh o
sh o uld “ fo rbid to marry ” an d therefo re commend virginity .1 Our apo lo gist is o n the wro ng track, but it leads to manyth ings o f interest to us.0
4 Th is sentence represents the previo us paragraph , but best fitsInto the argument here.
BOOK III . XLI I I 1 1 5
seared because they know neither the d ew o f the
Spiri t n o r the water o f baptism , but are scorched at
the Chaldean furn ace.
1 They in sult creation an d abusethe creatures o f Go d which He meant to be receivedwi th thanksgiving .
1]
Representatives o f these have spread abroad in the
children o f the Manichaeans . 3 Such heresies do es th ecountry o f the Pisid ian s contain, an d o f th e IsauriansCilicia also, an d Lycaonia an d allGalatia. Their namesit i s irksome to repeat ; fo r they are called Encrati tesan d Apo tactites, an d E remites,41 n o t Christians . Theyare n o t seekers o f protection -from the grace o f heaven ,but rebel s an d wanderers from th e faith o f the Gospel ,though
,by their abstention from meats, they say that
they raise the c i tadel Of go dliness . At the head o f theircho rus do ubtless stands Do sith eus,5 a Cilician byl race,
wh o co nfirms their teaching in the course o f eigh twhole books, an d magnifies h is case by the splendouro f his language, saying again an d again that marriagei s an i llegal act, an d quite contrary to law . Here are
his words,
“ Thro ugh union the world had its beginningthro ugh abstention from i t, 6 . i t would fain have its com
pletio n .
” He says that the tast in g o f wine an d the partaking o f flesh is disgusting an d loathsome altogether, thus1 Th is seems to refer to th e fiery furnace o f Nebuchadnezzar .1 He Is referring to the furth er wo rds o f 1 Tim . iv. 3 , abstaining
from meats ,” as wel l as “ fo rbidding to marry.
”
1 Th e fo l lowers o f Manes are first fo und in Asia M ino r , as h erestated ; their system being founded o n the th eo ry o f a go d o f go o dan d a go d o f evil , wh ich was to be fo und in the rel igio n o f Persia.
Fo r a further mentio n o f Manes see Bk . IV . ch . xv.1 The En CI atites (as the n ame implies) were th e Gno st ics wh o se
co ntempt fo r matter showed itself In th eir strict ascetic ism ,wh i le
the name Apo tactites suggests th e l icentio us tendenc ies o f theAntinomian Gno stics, wh o sh owed th eir co ntempt in the oppo sitewav. The E remites were ascet ics o f th e deserts .
Do sitheus canno t be the h ead o f the Samaritan sect mentio nedby Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. , H .E . iv. 2 2 ) an d represented In th eC lement ine writings as the d isc iple o f Joh n the Baptist . Macarius
is alo ne in mentio ning him (see also iv. 1 5, pp . 1 28 , l . wh ichSh ows that th is l ist 15 n o t a copy o f that o f Epiphan ius, as Salmo nsuggested , D . art.
“ Macarius .
“ éy npar eta, the wo rd from wh ich Encratite Is derived .
1 1 6 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
indeed ruthlessly lift ing up a cruel branding-iron for thosethat delight 1 in him . By such reaso ning all c reation isaccursed acco rding to him,
all life i s under suspicio nan d hurtful to everybo dy . Wherefo re such men havecome into confl ic t with the Divine, by insulting the
beauty o f the things that have been created ; an d
nowhere have they benefited the common weal inanything , even tho ugh they d o teach men to observevirginity
,an d set self control as the highest point in
life.
The Apostle therefo re, knowing all this, protected theChurch’s doctrine befo re the time came, to prevent it sadmitting the attempts o f heretical branding- irons .Here you will please c o nclude the discussio n o f all thesequestio ns . If there is anything which perplexes youagain, we will meet an d have another discussion, at theco nvenience o f our leisure, with readiness on the parto f h im who comes o ff best . 1
1 'rep1rone'
vo ts is th e read ing suggested by Blo ndel fo r MS .
wpone’
vo rs o r woflone’
uo ts .
1 I f favv GUfl GPG a r an KpGlT'TOl/OS
‘
IS to be so rendered .
1 1 8 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
said ,“ Lord
,save us
,we perish . Enc ircled by so great
a storm o f cunning devices , but encouraged by someunseen assistance, we sto o d fac in g the hurricane whichcame down upon us, makin g the Holy Spirit our allyagainst the face o f it . Then, l ike men rowing in a
bo at, we began to ply the o ars o f our tongue an d
hastened to smite the first o f the waves .
CHAPTER I . Objec tion based on S . Pau l’s saying that“the fashio n o f this wo rld passeth away ”
(1 Co r.
vii .
What do es Paul mean by saying that the fashion o f
the wo rld 1 passes away ? And h ow is i t po ssible fo rth em that have to be as tho ugh they had not,
1an d they
that rejo ice as though they rej oiced n o t,an d h ow can the
o ther o ld -wives’ talk be credible Fo r h ow i s i t po ssiblefo r h im that has to become as though he had not ? Andh ow is it c redible that he wh o rej oices sho uld be as
though he rejo iced n o t ? Or ho w can the fashio n o f
th is wo rld pass away ? What i s i t that passes away,an d why do es it d o so ? Fo r if the Creato r 3 were to
make i t pass away He wo uld incur the charge o f movingan d altering th at which was securely fo unded . Evenif He were to change th e fashio n into something better,in th i s again He stands condemned
,as not having real
ised at th e t ime o f creat io n a fi t ting an d suitable fashio nfo r the world, but having created it incomplete, an d
lacking the better arrangement . In an y case, h ow i so n e to know that i t is into what is goo d that the wo rldwo uld change if it came to an en d late in time ? Andwhat benefit is th ere in the order
,Of phenomena being
changed ? And if the condition o f the visible wo rldis glo omy an d a cause fo r grief, in this, to o , th e Creato r
He leaves out th e wo rd “ th is, in wh ich M acarius fo llows1m .
1 He is quo ting the verses wh ich precede th e wo rds abo ut thewo rld passing away , but he om its the wo rd “ wives ” after “ th emthat have, ” an d is led th ereby to make the strange suggestio n thatGo d is the subject, an d what He h as is th e wo rld .
3 anatovpy d s, a familiar name as the wo rld-maker o f the Gno sticsystems.
BOOK IV. I , XI 1 1 9
hears the sound o f pro test, 1 being reduced to silenceby the sound o f reasonable charges 1 against Him, in thatHe contrived the parts o f the earth in grievous fashion ,an d in violatio n o f the reasonableness o f nature, an d
afterwards repented, an d decided to change the whole.
Perchance Paul by this saying teaches him that has,to be minded as though he had n o t, in the sense thatthe Creator
,having the wo rld, makes the fashion o f it
pass away,as though He had i t not . And he says that
he that rejoices does n o t rejo ice, in the sense that theCreator is n o t pleased when He lo oks upon the fairan d beautiful thing He has created, but, as being muchgrieved o ver i t, He formed the plan o f transferring an d
altering it . So then let us pass over this trivial sayingwith mild laughter.
CHAPTER XI . Answer to the objection based o n S . Paul’ssayin g that “ the fashion o f this world passeth away ”
(I Co r. vii .
[Truly there i s a passing away fo r the cloud o f yourcunning im
'
aginatio n as wel l as fo r the fashion o f the
wo rld “ The fashion o f the world ”may be understo o d
in many ways . Fo r example, i t may mean our transito rylife, o r the bodily variation in the differen t ages o f men .
Or,again
,as
“ fashion means “appearance,
” it may beused o f a man’s shadow
,which disappears as soon as the
sun go es in . .Even so is “the fashion o f the world a
passing appearance.
“ The fashion o f the world ” also refers to the deceitfulness o f things human , be they ho no urs o r kingdomso r what you will . In a d ay a man may pass from a
palace to a dungeon, an d in this sense he that bath , an dthat rejoiceth, must be as he that doth not . (Of c o ursethere are also changes of the Opposite kind, such as
from the dun ghill to luxury . ) We may find instanceso f such “ passing away in Croesus
,dethroned by Cyrus ,
1 I t is impo ssible to repro duce h is meta h o r. Bo th wo rds suggest that musical instruments are playe so lo udly as to makespeaking impo ssible, viz . k ar atd erat an d KGTGUAOépfl ’OS.
1 20 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
an d in Cyrus, conquered by Tomyris . .
Or look onBabylo n, the capital o f Assyria, once so fan an d o f such
enormous proportions, 1 then desolated by the PersIan s,an d n ow n o t preserving a trace o f Its former greatness .Or the once all-powerful Macedo nian nation , n ow ab
so rbed in the Roman Empire. And it is superfluous torecord h ow many lo cal rulers have evaporated likesmoke, o r h ow many women wh o were queens haveperished, 1 o r o f how many famous men the glory hasdeparted .
The change in “the fashion o f the world 18 clearly
seen in the seasons . The spring with all its beautyyields to scorching summer . Soon the time o f
.
ripefruit hastens o n to autumn , an d then comes the Winter,in which we are now, 1 to take away our joy . Yes, all
things change, even as the sea never maintains a perpetualcalm.
If you wish to make out that things d o n ot change,you must also Show that they are uncreated, fo r i t i sonly that wh ich has no beginning that can be withoutan en d . And if you think human things do n o t
“ passaway,
”
you necessarily make them everlasting ! Why,even an uncivilised Scythian would tell you the differencebetween what is uncreated an d lasting, an d what i s createdan d passing away .
Paul therefo re rightly added : “ Let n o t him thatrejo iceth rejo ice,” fo r the objec t o f his
.
rejo icing so o n
passes . Even d ay an d night are uncertain ; th e d aymay be bright o r sto rmy, an d there i s n o fixed hour atwhich the night begins, but sometimes it is ten hourslo ng, sometimes twelve .
1 Details o f th e measurements o f the c ity are given , wh ichsuggest that the writer was famil iar with that part o f the wo rld .
1 The obvious reference seems to be to Zenobia, ! ueen o f Pal
myra, an d her defeat byAurel ius . Th is wo uld be a matter o f recenth isto ry to the opponent o fMacarius, if h e dates from th e beginningo f the fo urth century. Does it suggest that the answer was o f th esame date ?
.
1 Th i s is a very natural to uch , an d it is mo re easy to co nnect itw1th an actual d Isputation than merely with the writing o f a bo ok .
1 22 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
water an d force it to live o n the dry land, i t i s readilydestroyed an d dies. Again
,if you throw a land animal
o f a dry kind into the water, i t wil l be drowned . Andif you cut o ff a bird from the air, it will not endure i t,an d if you remo ve a heavenly body from the upperatmosphere, it will not stand it . Nei ther has the divinean d ac tive Wo rd o f Go d done this, nor ever will do i t,al tho ugh He i s able to change the lot o f th e things thatcome into being . Fo r He do es not do an d purpo seanything according to His own abil ity
,bu t acc o rding
to i ts suitability He preserves things, an d keeps the lawo f good o rder. So
,even if He i s able to d o so , He
do es not make the earth to be sailed o ver, nor againdo es He make the sea to be ploughed or tilled ; n o r doesHe use His power in making virtue into wickedness n o rwickedness into virtue, nor do es He adapt a man tobecome a winged creature, n o r does He place the s tarsbelow an d the earth abo ve.
Wherefo re we may reaso nably dec lare that i t i s full o ftwaddle to say that men will ever be caugh t up into theam
And Paul’s lie becomes very plain when he says, We
which are alive .
”Fo r it i s three hundred years since
h e said this, 1 an d no body has anywhere been caught up,ei ther Paul’s o r an y o ne else’s . So i t i s time this sayin go f Paul became silent, fo r it is driven away in confusion .
CHAPTER XI I . Answer to the o bjec tio n based on S .
Paul’s wo rds that “we which are alive shal l be
caught up in the c lo uds (1 Thess . iv . 1 5
[We must act as reasoning beings,an d look fo r a mystic
mean Ing in the words . He means that at Christ’s seco nd
coming the godly will be caught up from the corruptio no f this life. Just as the water in the sea i s heavy, an dyet I S drawn up into the air in c lo uds
,so shall man be
drawn.
up by angelic migh t . For the “ cloud,
” wh ich issometImes high an d sometimes near the earth
,signifies
the angels, who both rise to heaven an d descend to
earth in the course o f their service. Fo r this we may1 See Introd . , p . xvn .
BOOK IV. 1 1,XI I 1 23
refer to Abbakum,
1 drawn up by a cloud from Judaea,an d carried an d set down o ver the Babylon ian pit , orto the an gels which Jacob saw ascending an d d e
scending. The prophets also show angels to be c louds,as when Isaiah says (xv .
“ I wil l command the cloudsn o t to rain upon the vine, i. e. the angel s are not torain visions upon Israel . Again Daniel says (vii. I 3 )that Christ will come with the c louds o f heaven ,
”
whileCh rist said He wo uld come an d all the angel s withHim (Matt . xxv.
Also the Psalms speak o f Clouds an d darkness roundabout him (PS. xcvii . where His judgment- seat i s theseverity o f the law
,wh ich will be combined with the
grace o f the Gospel (cf. Ps . civ. Also the Go‘
spel says,“ He shal l send fo rth h is angels an d gather the elec tfrom the four winds o f heaven (Mark xiii . 26
,
That i t was the Apostle’s habit to allego rise thus, maybe seen from such pasages as
“ The night is far spent ,the d ay i s at hand .
At the en d o f the world , it i s the trumpet of angel icvoices which will so und, an d give man the power to rise,just as the horses o f fire, which were really angels, tookup E lijah .
With regard to your argument that everything mustremain in its own elemen t , mark that i t i s n o t byremaining in themselves, but in something different,that c reated things are preserved . You canno t keepfire in fire, bu t in the air. What is wet i s kept in whati s dry, as water in a vessel, etc . The same applies tothings light an d heavy, an d to soul an d body .
And mark further that thin gs are only what they are,relat ively to something else. Fo r example, there wouldbe n o test o f an unrighteo us man if there were n o
righteousness . So i t i s n o t strange that angels shoulddraw men up just as clouds draw water. (For theid en tificatio n o f men with water
,see Isaiah xvii . 1 3 ,
Behold many nations asThere i s no falsehood in Paul declaring that We
1 The sto ry is taken from the Apo cryph al part o f Daniel , viz.xiv. 34— 36 (Bel an d the Drago n ). The LXX gives th e name as
ApBaxoén, in A.V . Habbacuc .
1 24 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
shal l be caugh t up, although the resurrection d id n o t
take place in his d ay, fo r he is very fo nd o f Id en tI
fyinghis own humanity with that o f the whole race.
CHAPTER I I I . Objection based on S . Matthew’
s wordsthat th e Go spel should be preached in all the world
(Matt . xxiv. I 4) .1
We must mentio n also that saying which Matthew gaveus, in th e Spirit o f a slave who is made to bend himselfin a mill-house, when he said ,
“ And the gospel o f thekingdom shall be preached in all the world, an d thenshal l the en d come.
” 1 Fo r 10, every quarter o f theinhabited world has experience o f the Gospel, an d all
th e bounds an d ends o f the earth possess it complete,1
an d nowhere i s there an en d , n o r will i t ever come.
So let th is saying only be spoken in a corner
CHAPTER XI I I . Answer to the o bjec tion based on S .
Matthew’s wo rds that the Gospel should be preachedin all the wo rld (Matt . xxiv.
[The word“en d
”may be used in more senses than
o n e ; fo r example, th e en d o f war is peace, an d the en d
o f ignorance is knowledge. And so the en d o f wickedness is godliness . This is exactly the en d which has
come abo ut th rough the preaching o f the Gospel . Sothat they wh o once in their ignorance served idols’
temples, n ow in the ligh t o f knowledge serve Go d as
temples o f th e Ho ly Spirit . And therefore, in this1 The abbreviated fo rm o f th e quo tat io n is tac itly accepted by
Macarius in his answer.1 I t is very remarkable that
,wherever it is po ssible, th e attack
Is made o n Ch rist’s fo l lowers, an d n o t o n H imself. Here it is o nlyth e E vangel ist wh o is blamed fo r wo rds wh ich are attributed to
Ch rist . See Introd . , p . xv.3 Th e previo us objectio n h as stated th at o nly 300 years have
passed , so that th is canno t have been written later than the earlypart o f the fo urth century. To speak th us is th erefo re an exaggera
tio n, as Macarius sh ows in h is answer. But it is very significantthat a heathen sho uld regard Ch ristianity as universal ly spread ,even befo re It became a lawful rel igion .
1 26 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
difficulty in th i s length ening o f the t ime . I t i s for usan d fo r our benefit that the en d has n o t yet come.]
CHAPTER IV. Objection based o n the divine assurancegiven to both S . Paul an d 8 . Peter, an d their martyrd om in spite o f i t .
Let us lo o k at what was said to Paul , “ The Lord spo keto Paul in the night by a visio n, Be not afraid, bu t speak,fo r I am with thee, an d no man shall set o n thee to hurtthee ”
(Acts xviii . 9 And yet n o soo ner was h eseized in Rome than this fine fellow, who said that weshould judge angel s, had his head cut o ff. 1 And Peteragain, who received autho rity to feed the lambs , wasnailed to a c ross an d impaled o n it. 1 And countlessothers, wh o held opinions like theirs, were either burnt,o r put to death by receiving some kind o f punishment o rmaltreatment . This is n o t worthy o f the will o f Go d ,n o r even o f a godly man , that a multitude o fmen shouldbe c ruelly punished through their relation to His owrigrace an d faith, while the expected resurrection an d
coming remains unknown .
CHAPTER XIV. Answer to the o bjection based o n thedivine assurance given to both S . Paul an d S . Peter,an d their martyrdom in spite o f it .
[In each case the martyrdom came after the s truggleo f l ife was over, an d the great work o f bringing soulsto Christ in many lands had been fulfilled .
Such an en d to their life meant a higher fame. The
highes t ho nour is fo r soldiers who defend their countryagainst the enemy to the death . So
, after havingmarshalled the faithful all over the world into Chris t’sarmy, an d stayed the fiercen ess o f the enemy from the
1 He thus ech o es the Ch ristian traditio n that S . Paul was beheadedat Rome, but he sh ows the same desire to put h is martyrdom at an
impo ssibly early moment as in the case o f S . Peter .1 In i ii . 2 2 he uses Similar language abo ut S . Peter’s cruc ifixio n ,wh ich he stran gely places with in a few mo nth s o f h is being chargedto feed the lambs .
BOOK IV. IV,XIV
,V 1 2 7
rest, they wo n an unfading crown, an d encouraged manyto win it likewise . A vio lent death was a seal upo n theirl ife, an d proved the greatness o f their zeal . 1During their work both Peter an d Paul were many
times protected by their Lord from the plots o f the Jews,but when th e seeds o f their fai th had taken root, He
granted th em the final glory o f martyrdom . In th ustreatin g His soldiers, Go d ac ted as a wise general
,fo r
many were hostile, an d migh t have ascribed thei r wo rksto magic had they died an o rdinary death , o r vanishedfrombefo re tribunals . 1 To conquer torments by enduring to the en d was their best answer to these.
Some paltry critic s are prepared to find fault with thesaints in either case. I f they are protected from death ,these would assert that they would never have enduredto the en d . I f they face it to th e en d , they would saythat i t proved they were n o t really righteo us men . Andso Go d , in His love fo r His saints , sometimes rescuesthem from death , as in the case o f Daniel an d the threechildren, an d sometimes lets them witness by thei r deaththat they are neither cowards nor hypocrites, as in thecase o f Peter an d Paul .]
CHAPTER V. Objection based on Christ’s words thatmany should come in His name, saying, I am Christ(Matt. xxiv . 4 ,
And there is another dubious little saying which o n emaymanifestly take hold o f, when Christ says : “ Take heedthat no man deceive you ; fo r man y shall come in myname, saying, I am Christ, an d shall deceive many .
And behold ! three hundred years have passed by, an deven more
,an d no o n e o f th e kind has anywhere
appeared . Unless indeed you are going to adduce1 He adds that they also beat thereby the seed o f th e dragon , fo rby being beheaded Paul lured the serpent to greediness fo r blo o dan d mi lk , wh i le Peter beat h im with h is c ro ss . Fo r the legend o fmilk flowing from S .
P aul’s wound , see Intro d . , p . xxvi .1 Apo l lo nius o f Tyana is h ere intended . He was mentio ned byname, an d th is same incident referred to , in i ii . 8. See al so below,in the next o bject ion .
1 28 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
Apo llo nius o f Tyana, 1 a man who was ado rned wi th \all philo sophy . But you wo uld n o t find another . Yet
i t i s n o t concernin g o n e but concerning many that He
says that such shall arise .
CHAPTER XV. Answer to th e o bjec tion based o n
Christ’s wo rds that many Sho uld come in His name,sayin g, I am Ch rist (Matt . xxiv . 4 ,
[You o nly speak thus from ignorance. I can tel l you o fmany men wh o in Christ’s name deceived many, an d
finally deceived themselves to their ruin .]At once then I can tel l you o f Manes in Persia, who
imitated the name o f Christ, an d corrupted by his errormany a satrapy an d many a country in the East, an d upto th is d ay pollutes the world by creepin g over i t withhis injurio us seed .
1 And another i s Montanus in Phrygia,wh o , bearing this name, underwent in the name o f the
Lo rd an ascetic an d unnatural co urse o f l ife, revealingh imself as the abode o f a baneful demon , an d feeding onhis error through all the land o f Mysia as far as that o fAsia. And so great was the power o f the hidden demonwh ich lurked within him
,that he very nearly tainted the
whole world with the poiso n o f his error . And whysho uld I tell you o f Cerin thus an d Simon, o r Marcio no r Bard esan es
,
1o r Dro serius 4 o r Do sitheus the Cilic ian, 5
o r countless o thers whose number I shrink from reckonmg. All these an d tho se who affected them ,
appropriat ing to themselves the name o f Chris tianity, wroughtunspeakable erro r in the world
,an d have taken number
less spoils an d captives . Moreover, as these are Anti1 See no te o n i ii . 1 . p . 52 .
1 Harnack has used th is as an argument fo r the late date o f the
.
Apoer itieus . But as early as A.D . 290 th e Manichaeans had so spreadIn AfrIca that the P ro co nsul o f Africa was o rdered to burn thelead ers with th eir bo oks.
1 Th e Syrian Gno stic , wh o was bo rn at Edessa in A.D . 1 55.
1 Dro serius appears in the dialogue cal led Adamantins (PseudoOrigen ) . I n Bk . I V . Dro serius is made to suggest th e Valentiniano rigin o f evrl, an d is an swered
'
by Adamantins .Do sitheus appears again in a similar l ist in i i i . 43, p . I 1 5, l . 1 6,
where Interesting details are given . He is n o t o therwise known to us.
1 30 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
that heaven is deserving o f judgment,as having allowed
the judge to speak any portents against it which are sowondro us an d so great . 1
CHAPTER VII . Objection based on the similar wordsin Isaiah abou t the heaven being rolled up as a
scroll (Isa. xxxiv.
And it 1 makes this statement again , which i s full ofimpiety, saying :
“ And all the might o f heaven shal l bedissolved, an d the heaven shal l be rolled together as a
scroll, an d allthe stars Shal l fal l as leaves from a vine, an das leaves fall from a fig tree .
” And ano ther bo ast ismade in po rtentous falsehood an d mo nstrous quackeryHeaven an d earth shal l pas s away, bu t my words shall
n o t pass away (Mat t . xxiv . 3 For,pray
,h ow could any
o ne say that the wo rds o f Jesus wo uld stand , if heavenan d earth n o longer existed ? Mo reo ver, if Christ were todo this an d bring heaven down, He wo uld be imi tatingthe mo st impious o f men , even those wh o destro y theirown ch ildren . For it is acknowled ged by the So n thatGo d is Father o f heaven an d earth when He saysFather, Lo rd o f heaven an d earth (Matt . xi . 2
And John the Bapti s t magnifies heaven an d d eclaresthat the divine gifts o f grace are sent from it
,when he
says : “ A man can d o 1 no thing, except i t be given h im
from heaven ”
(John iii . And the pro phets ‘1say
that heaven is the holy habitatio n o f Go d , in the words“ Lo o k down from thy holy habitatio n
,
5an d bless thy
peo ple Israel (Deut . xxvi .I f heaven, wh ich is so great an d o f such importance1 Th is is an attempt to translate o i
’
zpaubv tbs r hy xpi'riw
d vaaxdy evov nar'
a i’
rroii Twa Tepa'reiieafla t o i
’
z’
rw Oavp aa'rov
,ob
’
r w
(reading flavjua tr'rd ).1 He seems to th ink h e is again quo t ing from the Apo calypse o f
Peter, tho ugh the wo rd used is neuter. He gives n o h int that heis quo ting the O ld Testament, but Macarius passes o ver th e reference to an Apo c ryphal bo ok in the previo us questio n , as o f do ubtfulauth o rity , an d pro ceeds to quo te th is as from Isaiah .
1 Th is is a mi squo tatio n fo r receive .
”
1 The quo tatio n is really from the law .
1 He strangely omits the very wo rd mo st needed, i. e. heaven .
BOOK IV . VII,XVI
in the wi tness borne to it, shall pass away, what shall bethe seat thereafter o f Him wh o rules over it ? And ifthe element o f earth perish es, what shall be the fo otstoo lo f Him who sit s there, fo r He
1 says : “ The heaven ismy throne, an d the earth i s the foo tstool o f my feet .”
So much fo r the passing away o f heaven an d earth .
CHAPTER XVI . Answer to the two objections basedo n th e words o f th e Apocalypse o f Peter an d o f
Isaiah co ncerning the passing away o f heaven an d
earth .
[I t Is plain that th e passing away o f heaven an d earth isthro ugh no fault o f theirs, an d equally plain that it mustbe accepted as a scrip tural fact . For even if we passover the Apo calypse o f Peter, 1 we are brought to the
same thing by the o ther two passages— by I saiah xxxiv. 4“ The h eavens shal l be ro lled together as a scroll, an dall the stars shall fall, as leaves fal l from a vine, an d as
leaves fal l from a fig tree ”
; an d by Mat thew xxiv. 35Heaven an d earth shall pass away, bu t my wo rds shal l
n o t pass away .
”
All the rest o f c reation was c reated , n o t fo r its ownsake, but fo r man’s sake. Man alone was created fo rhis own sake, that h e migh t glo rify the wisdom o f Himwho made h im . No t that such glorifying adds to God’sglory
, an y more than fo r a man to warm h imself adds tothe warmth o f the fire . So man gives God nothin g n ew,
but makes himself part o f Go d by his union with th e
Godhead .
1 So the wo rld was like a great house madefo r man to l ive in . But so o n he failed to be what theCreator made him ,
an d in utter fo lly fel l an d was co r
rupted with regard to divine things . God therefore
1 As h e has made n o previo us reference to I saiah , it wo uld seemthat the wo rds are attributed to Go d .
1 With th is curso ry mentio n Macarius passes o n from th e wo rdso f that Apo cryph al bo ok , as quo ted in th e fi rst objectio n he i sanswering (chapter an d pro ceeds to I saiah ’s simi lar wo rds,adduced with o ut acknowled gmen t in chapter vii. I t is evidentthat h e regarded th is Apo calypse as quite o utside the can o n .
1 éaw bv awofleo? irowwvéiy 7 556667 177 1 .
1 32 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
reso lved to send him to ano ther place through death, ino rder that, after a separat io n from the flesh wh ich coveredhim
,he might again bring it to inco rruptibili ty . So ,
when the master was removed from the house, thath o use was obliged to undergo what had n o t been intendedfo r i t . Just as it is right fo r the keeper o f a vineyardonly to let his tent remain until the fruit i s plucked, an dthen he says farewell to h is tent, an d also to the beautyo f the Vineyard
, so must the beauty o f h eaven an d earthbe lo st
,as so on as the reaso ning essence 1 o fman
,which
abides in the world as in a tent , departs to i t s o wn
appo inted place, when the fruit o f righteousness haseverywhere been plucked .
1
Thus the world’s splendo ur will be o f no mo re use
when man is gone . And yet as man will pass thro ughdeath into a bet ter an d in co rruptible state, so will i t bewith all the wo rld . I t Will be like a damaged silvervessel, which the artificer melt s down
,an d then makes
a n ew an d bet ter o n e o f it . I t passes away, bu t the“ Lo gos ” 1 o f i t remains with the artificer. Just so
Christ says His “ Logo s ” 4 will remain when heaven an d
earth have passed away . Therefo re all created thingswill in this way have a seco nd an d a bet ter beginning .
5
There is a deep meaning in the pro phet’s words as
leaves fall from a vine o r a fig tree. Fo r th e‘
fall o f theleaves looks like the en d o f th e life o f the tree, but it i sreally the advance to somethin g better . His purpose inch o o smg out these two particular trees may be eith erbecause, owing to careful husbandry, they only cast theirleaves
‘
o n ee (a type o f Go d’s care fo r His universe) , o r
because, In speaking o f the wo rld passing away because
1 Ao '
yuri; obafa .
I
excel lent passage wel l carries o n the sim ile suggested bysaia1 Th is is in acco rdance with the Plato nic th eo ry o f ideas . A67 0 :Is perhaps best rendered “ rationale , ” but th e o rigina l wo rd must
be kept fo r the sake o f the play o n the wo rds in th is sentence .
1 Th is.
is a strangely fo rced interpretatio n o f th e passage inMatt. XXIV. 35.
1 In th is statement h e passes in his ph ilo soph ising from Plato nismto Origen ism.
1 34 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
o f mustard seed an d again , The kingdom o f heavenis like unto leaven an d o nce more,
“ I t is like unto a
merchant seeking goo dly pearls .” These imaginings d on o t come from (real) men ,
n o r even from women wh o pu ttheir trust in dreams . Fo r when an y o n e has a messageto give co ncerning great an d divine mat ters, he i sobliged to make use o f common things which pertain to
men , in o rder to make his meaning c lear, but n o t such d egraded an d unintelligible th ings as these . These sayings
,
besides being base an d unsuitable to such matters,have
in themselves no intelligent meaning o r clearness . And
yet i t was fit ting that th ey sho uld be very c lear indeed,
because they were n o t writ ten fo r the wise or understanding, but fo r babes .
CHAPTER IX . Objec tion based o n Christ’s words abou treveal ing these things unto babes (Mat t . x i . 2
If indeed i t was necessary to express that o ther utterance,as Jesus says , “ I thank thee, Father, Lord o f heavenan d earth, because thou hast h id these th ings from the
wise an d prudent , an d hast revealed them unto babes ,”
an d as i t i s wri tten in Deuteronomy (xxix . The
hidden things fo r the Lo rd our Go d , an d the manifestth ings fo r us,
” 1 therefo re th e things that are writ ten fo rthe babes an d the igno rant o ught to be c learer an d n o t
wrapped in riddles . Fo r if the mysteries have beenh idden from the wise, an d unreasonably po ured o ut to
babes an d th o se that give suck,i t is better to be desirous
o f senselessness an d igno rance , an d this - i s the greatach ievement o f the wisdom o f Him wh o came to earth,to h ide the rays o f knowledge from the wise
,an d to
reveal them to fools an d babes .
.
1 All.
the answer wh ich Macarius gives to th is o bjectio n is co ntamed In the last paragraph o f chapter xvii . , wh ich is h is answerto the previo us o bj ectio n o f chapter Vi i i .
1 Eng. Vers . “The secret th ings belo ng unto the L o rd our Go d
but tho se th ings wh ich are revealed belo ng unto us . ”
BOOK IV. vm ,1 x
,xvu 1 35
CHAPTER XVII . Answer to the two objections (Chaps .VI I I an d IX) based o n the comparisons o f the
grain o f mustard seed, etc . (Matt . xii i. 3 1 , an d
Christ’s words abou t reveal ing these things untobabes (Matt . xi . 2
[Great things are rightly compared with the smal l thingsof everyday life . This is jus t what philoso phers do, fo rto get a co nception of our eno rmous earth in its relationto heaven , they compare it to a mere point, a grain o f
millet . And even heaven itself was embraced by Aratuso f Cilicia 1 in so feeble a thing as a small circle.
Why then sho uld not Chris t similarly compare the
kingdom o f heaven to “ leaven ”? For it i s the small
leaven that fi ts large quantities o f meal fo r man’s food,an d this i s the way the kingdom affec ts human society .
The woman wh o took the meal i s obviously creation , an dthe
“ three measures of i t are either present, past, o r
future ; man’s body, soul, an d spirit or the threedimensions .So again with the “ grain o f mustard seed it is hot
an d pungent, useful both fo r c leansing an d fo r seaso ningfood, an d also o f surprising growth . The kingdom has
i ts co unterpart in all this, fo r i t cleanses from evil , warmsthe understanding, an d when sown in the world it uplift smen to ho liness . Therefore Christ chose, not a sacredbean like the Greeks ,2 bu t a mustard seed , to show the
c leansing power o f the kingdomThe “ pearl ” likewise is cho sen to show its precious
ness. The pearl has a watery dwelling at first,which
suggests the lowly dwelling o f the Godhead in flesh .
Then afterwards the heavenly pearl brings i ts heavenlybrightness to all who obtain it through their goodwo rks .
The sayings were thus quite clear, an d were fo r thosewho were babes only in wickedness, an d not in know
1 Aratus was a C il ic ian astro nomer. See Intro d . , p. xxi .2 A reference to the Pythago reans .
1 36 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
ledge o f the mysteries . I t is against the wisdom o f th isworld that Christ closed His heavenly doctrines .1]
CHAPTER X . Objection based on the saying about thesick needing a physic ian, an d n o t the righteous(Matt . ix . 1 2 ; Luke v.
It is right to examine another matter o f a much morereasonable kind (I say this by way o f contrast) ,
“ Theythat are who le need not a physician, but they that aresick.
” Christ unravels these things to the multitudeabo ut His own coming to earth . I f then it was o n
account o f tho se who are weak, as He Himself says, thatHe faced sins, were not o ur fo refathers weak, an d werenot our ancesto rs diseased with sin ? And if indeedtho se who are who le need n o t a physic ian, an d He camenot to cal l the righteous but sinners to repentance, so thatPaul speaks thus : “ Jesus Christ came in to th e world tosave sinners, o f whom I am chief ” (1 Tim . i . r5) i fthen this is so
,an d he that has gone astray is called, an d
he that is diseased is healed, an d the unrigh teo us iscalled, but the righteous is n o t, it fo llows that he wh owas nei ther called n o r in need of the healing o f the
Christians would be a righteous man who had n o t go neastray. Fo r he who has n o need o f healing is the man
who turns away from the wo rd which is among the faithful, an d the more he turns away from it
,the more
righteous an d whole he i s, an d the less he goes astray .
CHAPTER XVI II . Answer to the objec tion based o n the
saying about the sick needing a physic ian,an d not
the righteous (Matt . ix. 1 2 Luke v.
[I t is quite plain that in dividing sick an d whole, righteous an d sinners, Ch rist is referring to the two kinds o freaso nable beings . The “ whole ”
an d the righ teousare the angels, whose pure an d uncorruptible nature
1 In th i s last brief paragraph Macarius a n swers a further objection , th us curtai l ing h is own chapters fo r the second time inBo ok IV .
1 38 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
CHAPTER XIX . Objec tio n based on the saying : “ Butye were washed, but ye were sanctified Cor.vi. I I ) .TimPlzz
'
losop/zcr .
1
He, as tho ugh roused from some condition of detachment from the earth, directed against us a saying fromHomer, speaking thus with no little laugh ter : Rightlydid Homer o rder the manly Greeks to be silent , as
they had been trained : h e published abro ad the
wavering sentiment o f Hec tor, addressing the Greeks inmeasured language, saying, Stay, ye Argives smite n o t,
ye Achaean yo uth s ; fo r Hector o f the waving plume isreso lved to speak a wo rd .
’Even so we n ow all sit in
quietness here ; fo r the interpreter o f the Christian d o ctrines promises us an d surely affirms that he will unravelthe dark passages o f the Scriptures .Tell therefore, my good sir
,t o us who are following
what you have to say, what the Apostle means when hesays,
“ But such were some o f you ”
(plainly somethingbase) ,
“ but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, butye were justified in the name o f the Lord Jesus Ch rist ,an d in the Spirit o f our God ”
(I Cor. vi. I I ) . Fo r we
are surprised an d truly perplexed in mind at such th ings,If a man
, when once h e i s washed from so many d ehlements an d po llutions
,shows himself to be pure ; if by
Wiping o ff the stains o f so much weakness in his life,fo rnication, adultery, drunkenness , theft, unnatural vice,poiso ning, an d co untless base an d disgusting things, an dSimply by being baptised an d calling o n the name o f
Christ, he is quite easily freed from them, an d puts o ffthe whole o f his guilt j ust as a snake puts o ff h is o ld
slough . Who i s there who wo uld not, on th e strengtho f these, venture o n evil deeds, some mentionable an do thers n o t
, an d d o such things as are neither to be
uttered in speech nor endured in deeds, in the knowledgethat he will receive remission from so many criminalactions only by bel ieving an d being baptised, an d in th e
1 The fo llowing paragraph intro duces the next six questio ns .
BOOK IV. xrx,xxv 1 39
hope that he will after this receive pardo n from Him wh o
is about to j udge the quick an d the dead ? These thingsincline the man who h ears them to commit sin
,an d in
each particular he is thus taught to prac tise what i s unlawful . These things have the power to set aside the
training o f the law, an d cause righ teousness itself tobe o f n o avai l against the unrigh teous . They intro duceinto the wo rld a form o f so c iety which is witho ut law ,
an d teach men to have n o fear o f ungo dliness when a
man sets as ide a pile o f countless wro ngdo ings simply bybeing baptised . Such then is the boastful fiction o f thesaying .
CHAPTER XXV . Answer to the o bjectio n based o n the
saying : But ye were washed , but ye were sanctified(I Co r. vi. I I ) .
Tfie C/zr z'
stian .
1
The Greek, by importing such terrible language into his
questio nings, seemed to be mocking us an d casting usinto the confusio n o f perplexi ty . But we, earnestly im
plo ring in o ur heart the aid o f Him who reveals thedeep things o f darkness, an d makes clear th e knowledgeo f man by His teaching, faced in d ue seaso n each of thearguments he had spoken . We addressed the bando f them thus : “ What great themes an d h ow mightilyobscure are they in th e way you have set them befo re usBut accept the plain answer to them , since i t i s Christ thatbrings you this interpretatio n thro ugh o ur means .Hearken then first to the first point
, an d to the seco ndexpressed in the seco nd discourse, then to the th ird likewise, an d the fo urth an d fifth , an d again to the sixthquestion at issue, along with th e seventh .
” 2
We must therefo re speak first o f the saying uttered by1 The fo l lowing paragraph is an introductio n to th e next six
answers .2 I t is o nly here that Macarius pla inly refers to h is meth o d o f
arrangement, taking a number o f o bjectio ns to answer at the samet ime. Th e average number is seven ,
but th is is n o t always strictlyadhered to . The o d d th ing is that in th is case the number o fquestio ns answered co nsecutively is o nly six .
1 40 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
the Apostle “ And such were some o f you but ye werewashed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were j ustified inthe name o f our Lord Jesus Chris t an d in the spirit o four God .
”
[I f the sinful creature is sometimes pitied an d freelyforgiven by his Creator, it i s only what we see in thingshuman . The law may decide that a wrongdoer is to bepunished , but the king who se law i t i s may overrule it byh is pardoning grace, even though the man does n o t
deserve i t . A reprieve from death has often been giventhus . Such grace does n o t conform to the letter o f the
law,fo r
,if i t did, i t would not be grace. There are
already many things that God’s grace gives us which wehave n o t deserved, such as th e ligh t o f the sun . Rightlythen does he give sinners freedom from their sin
,as a
father pitying his children . But His deed is made toshine fo rth as a gift o f grace
,that i t may n o t be ascribed
to their own do ing . The law does not jo in in its Master’sgift o f grace, but punishes the sin ; an d the Lord do esn o t st00p to the level o f the law,
but simply forgives it .A true i llustratio n o f all this has j us t o ccurred . I t
i s n o t a sto ry o f long ago , fo r it happened o nly yesterd ay . Certain obvious criminal s
,by supplicating the king
during his ro yal progress, o btained a reversal o f theirsentence, an d were let o ff without an y punishment, whilecertain others , who did n o t appro ach him , were condemmed, in spite o f their obvio us inno cence o f a share inthe c rimes committed .
1 Why then should the Apo stle beblamed in what he says to those who have been “ washed ”
fin
dreed from the penalty that was theirs under the
aw
.No te that to the words “ Ye were washed he addsIn the name o f the Lord . Just as a signature carriesweight either in th e army o r the law-court if it i s in theking
’
s hand , an d n o t if it is in men’s own ,j ust so the
1 Macarius refers el sewhere to th e Empero r as Baa'
txeés. Apparently there had j us t been a royal progress ” in th e East in h isl o cality. It may be o nly a bit o f sham real ism , o r an event wh icho ccurred when Macarius was writing his bo o k but o n th e face o fIt, It seems to give some suppo rt to th e theo ry o f a rea l d ialogue.
1 42 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
thus names th e Go dhead o f the Th ree, by saying, not“ in the names ” but “ in the name. Fo r there i s o n ename o f God bo th upo n the Father an d the Son an d
the Ho ly Spirit , an d Go d i s o ne in three Persons , an di s so named . The Father does not receive the believerwithout the Son , n o r does the Son bring an y o n e tothe Father apart from the Spirit. For behold the mysticsense in which he said,
“ Bu t ye were washed, bu t yewere sanctified, but ye were justified .
” For the man
whom Jesus has washed, is sanc tified by the Spirit.And the Father justifies him whom the Spirit hassanctified . This is n o t because Christ in washing himcannot sanctify, n o r that the Spirit in sanctifying has
n o t power to justify, n o r that the Father in justifyingis too weak to wash or sanctify whomsoever He wills .For the Father is suffic ient both to wash an d to sanctifyan d to justify all things, an d the So n an d the HolySpirit likewise . But i t is fi t ting that the So n
,as So n ,
sho uld ado pt men as sons, an d that the Holy Spirit, asSpiri t, should sanc tify them , an d that the Father shouldjustify him that receives san ctificatio n , in order that th ename o f the three Persons may be known in o ne essence .
1
The Apo stle was instructed in this Opinion by the Go spel ,where i t says, Go an d make disc iples of all the nat ions,baptising them in the name o f the Father an d o f the
So n an d o f the Holy Ghost ” (Matt . xxviii . an d sohe
.
welcomes at the laver o f baptism the name o f the
Trinity, saying, “ But ye were washed, bu t ye weresan etified , but ye were justified in the n ame o f o ur
Lord Jesus Christ an d in the Spiri t o f our God.
”
[I f men ever use the gift as an o ppo rtuni ty fo r sinning,It I s not the fault o f Him who gives the grace, an ymo re than it is the fault o f o n e who gives a d inner, ifthe guests get drunk at i t . You speak o f men afterwardsgomg o n still in their evil ways but if they do, they cutthemselves o ff from the blessings which th eir baptism
1 Th is is the seemingly Po st-Nicene ph rase wh ich h as inc l ined somany critic s to assign a late date to Macarius. But see Intro d .
, p .
xvut. n . 3 , an d p . 1 55 n . I . Th e theo ry that the passage is a laterinterpo latio n.i s suppo rted by th e subject o f the next o bjectio n .
Co uld Macarius h ave ch o sen anyth ing mo re unfo rtunate than theTh ree Perso ns to lead o n to a defence o f th e Monarch y o f G o d
BOOK IV . xxv, xx, xxvr 1 43
has brough t, an d receive n o pity, but cause harm to
themselves by their very treatment o f the gift .]CHAPTER XX . Objection based on the Monarchy of
God .
1
But let us make a tho rough inves tigation co ncerningthe single rule 2 o f th e o nly Go d an d the manifold ruleo f those who are worshipped as go ds . You do n o t
know h ow to expound the doctrine even o f the singlerule. Fo r a monarch is not o n e wh o is alone in hisexistence, but who i s alo ne in his rule . Clearly herules o ver those who are his fellow- tribesmen , men l ikehimself, jus t as the Empero r Hadrian was a mo narch ,not because he existed alone, n o r because h e ruled overoxen an d sheep (over which herdsmen o r shepherdsrule) , but because be ruled over men wh o shared hisrace an d possessed the same nature. Likewise Go d
would not properly be cal led a mo narch,unless He
ruled over other go ds ; fo r this would befit His divinegreatness an d His heavenly an d abundant ho nour.
CHAPTER XXVI . Answer to o bjection based on the
Mo narchy o f God .
[As you have taken,an image to express the rule o f o n e
Go d over many, the first po int in my answer must bethe mat ter o f similarity in name .
3 I t i s quite wrong tosuppose that because things bear the same name theymust be identical in reality. Fo r example
,the name
1 Th is objectio n an d the next , an d al so the answers co nta ined inchapters xxvi . , xxvii . , an d xxviii . are quo ted by Niceph o rus, in h isAn tz
'
rrbetz'
ca,an d are
'
to be fo und in D . Pitra’s s
'
cz'
l. Salem .
t . I . p . 309 et seq . See Intro d . , pp. x,xi
,xxvii .
One interest o f Niceph o rus l ies in the d ifi'
eren ce o f h is text fromthe Athens MS . The mo st no table in th i s chapter o ccu rs in the
first sentence, where he omits the wo rd s 7 06 mix/av 06 06 m l rfisr oAvap as.
9 The wo rd Monarch ia (,uouap a ) seems to require tran slatingthus, in o rder to bring it into contrast with the Po lyarch ia (wok vapxla )wh ich fo llows .
3 £5 sixth/as Thy Mi'yoy k pa'rriuew 30 r 066aaa s . Th e
mentio n o f an “ image at th e beginning o f th is answer may po ssibly have attracted the attentio n o f Niceph o rus to the passage.
Fo r it is o n th e questio n o f image wo rsh ip that he introduces itas suppo rtin g h is own attitude.
1 44 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
o f“ warm is given both to the fire an d to
,the man who
is warmed by it, but it i s only the fire that i s so byn ature . He who has warmed himself is also warm , buto nly relat ively .
1 So Go d alone i s a go d abso lutely ;the o th ers are o nly such relatively ,2 altho ugh the nameo f
“ Go d”may be given to
“ go ds many an d lo rdsmany .
”Go d rules n o t as having the same name as
o ther go ds an d therefo re as o n e o f th em, but as supreme,an d with o ut being o n e o f them. He i s unc reate, an dthey are c reatures, whom He has made
,an d i t i s thus
that He rules o ver them . He does n o t grudge themthe name o f go d i f th ey simply draw their divinity fromnearness to Him ; i t i s when they turn away from Him
that they fall into darkness .The case o f Hadrian is n o t a parallel, for as man he
canno t be master o f his fellow-men (who are like h imself), but o nly as h aving th e added power o f tyran t .But Go d’s is n o t a tyrannica l rule over tho se wh o are
like Himself, bu t a loving rule o ver His inferio rs .We may l iken Him to the sun ,
which gives thingslight an d beauty till they themselves are bright, an d yetreceives no thing back from them . Just so Go d makesthe angels shine with a reflected Godhead
,though they
have n o part in His ac tual deity .
And so the right thing to d o i s to worship Him who
5 Go d absolutely . To worship o n e who is merely suchrelat ively i s as great a mistake as to h o pe to get heatan d light from a red —ho t iro n instead o f from the fire
it self, fo r the metal will soo n resume i ts own nature.
Such is the case o f the man who wo rships an angel o rany other Spiritual being except th e o n e t rue Go d .
As the sun gives ligh t to all,an d yet lo ses no ne, an d
as the teacher imparts h is teaching an d yet retains hiswisdom, so do es Go d give all things an d yet lack no ne,an d so did power go out from Christ to heal the sick,an d yet I t remained within Him .]
1 The same i l lustratio n is used in ii . 9.
2 in co ntrast with (pil
o'
et, ph il o so ph ic terms by wh ich he
expresses his argument. L iterally,by po sitio n an d by nature.
”
See ii . 9.l
1 46 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
observe a Special time an d purify themselves.
generally, 1
they may make use o f prayers an d supplications, ask ingfrom them the thin gs o f which each has need . For ifa man makes an image o f a friend , o f course he doesn o t think that the friend is in it, or that the limbs o f hisbody are inc luded in the vario us parts o f the representatio n but honour is shown towards the friend by meanso f the image. But in the case o f the sacrifices that arebrought to the gods, these are not so much a bringingo f ho no ur to them as a proof of the inclination o f the
worshippers,to sh ow that they are not without a sense
o f gratitude. I t is reasonable that the fo rm o f the
statues should be the fashio n o f a man , since man i srecko ned to be the faires t o f l iving c reatures an d an
image o f Go d . I t i s po ssible to get ho ld o f this doctrinefrom ano ther saying, which asserts positively that Godhas fingers, with wh ich He writes, saying,
“ And he gaveto Mo ses the two tables which were written by the
finger o f Go d ”
(Exod . xxxi . Moreo ver, the Chris
tians also , imitating the erectio n o f the temples,build
very large houses, 2 into which they go to gether an d
pray, although there is nothing to preven t them fromdo ing this in their own houses, since the Lord 3 certainlyhears from every place.
1 There may be someth ing wro ng about 7 2> Aombu n aeapeéow as .
Nicepho rus reads 7 65V Aom d mTh is statement has been taken as pro o f that the autho r wro te
after the beginning o f the n ew enco uragement o f Ch ristianitysh own by Co nstantine. Fo r during the perio d th at it was an
unlawful rel igio n (ti l l A .D . there were n o t the larger churches ,wh ich began to be built immediately afterwards . 'But the fo rceo f the argument is weakened by the many reaso ns there are fo rbel ieving that the ph i lo soph er’s date is earl ier .
37 08 frupfov is an additio n by Niceph o rus. I t scarcely so unds
like the language o f the obj ecto r, but a subject o f some so rt iswanted .
BOOK IV . XXI , XXVII 1 47
CHAPTER XXVII . Answer to th e o bjectio n based o n
the immortal angels (Matt . xxii . 2 9 an d the
finger o f Go d , with which He wrote o n the tableso f sto ne (Exod . xxxi .
Further, we will state the proposition in d ue measureconcerning the angels an d their immo rtali ty, an d howin the kingdom o f heaven “ they nei ther marry n o r are
given in marriage,but are as angels in heaven .
” Christ ,wishing to show the blessedness o f tho se wh o have beengranted to dwell in the heavenly place, an d the mis
fo rtune o f those who dwel l amid the co rruptio n o f the
earth , an d have received thei r condition through the
unc lean growth o f the flesh , being begotten an d begett ing an d departing quickly like leaves , co nveys the
fo llowing meaning : “ Tho se wh o have been thoughtworthy to enter into a life which knows no destruc tio n ,embark o n a course which is wo rthy o f kings, an d i ssuch as the angels have. They are rid o f physicalunio n , they no longer experience death , nor even birth ,an d are shu t o ff from earthly embraces an d bo nds .”
He said this in order that any man wh o was welldispo sed, o n hearing o f a ratio nal existence in heaven ,which is associated with the Word o f immortality,might adapt his l ife to the imitatio n o f them ,
1an d in
his deeds would zealously affec t their meri t, refrainingfrom marriage an d fleeing from the symbols o f corruption . And in the en d he would pass through th e doo ro f d eath , an d rise
,with earthly weights remo ved, to
the hall o f the blessed,that is, o f the angels . He do es
n o t however represent them by fashioning images o f
them,
2as you yo urself declare, n o r does he speak to
1 Blondel’s editio n fo l lows Niceph o rus in reading a t’
rrav, an d
prints A61 9: earl ier in th e sentence, an d n o t A67 4». Th e MS . readswh ich wo uld refer to “
th e Wo rd . As here translated ,a il-ray , an d al so éxe’wwv in the fo l lowing c lause, o f co urse refer tothe angels .
2 Niceph o rus is answering th e Ico no clastic party , who wereutterly o ppo sed to the use o f Ch ristian images . They had garbledthe wo rds o f Macarius to suit th eir purpo se, taking the wo rdso f;uhv chair/a s e
’
xefvwv r vr téaa s 7 43 ax'lj/Aa
'rt an d referring them
1 48 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
what i s a shadow an d rejoice in that which his imaginatio n has created, assoc iating with things so ulless an d
material as if they were possessed o f life, delighting indead visions o f fo rms, bringing his supplication to a
dumb thing which he has mo ulded , dec iding that thedivine lurks in sto ne an d wood , imagining that suchmat ter as cannot be held at all, i s held by bronze an d
iron,an d pic turing in a dead vision an d without an y
sense that he is catching that which canno t be caught. 1And again, if i t be true that angels have somet imes
appeared in human fo rm, yet they were not really thatwh ich appeared , but that wh ich they were was invisible.
And if any o n e fashio ns a picture or a representat io nin bro nze, he does n o t make that which i t really is,nor does he enclo se its nature therein .
[As fo r God being so material as to'
have “ fingers,etc .
,Scripture does not mean that He can be divided
into limbs an d parts o f a body . This is n o t meantto refer to His nature, but He i s thus spoken o f ino rder that men may understand . To suppo se that Godhas material fingers an d other parts because man mustconceive o f Him thus
,i s n o more true than that i t i s
a real lion that a man has seen when he has beheldo n e in a dream . Similarly the angel s wh o appearedto Abraham were not really o f the human fo rm an d
behavio ur they appeared to be,as i s suffic iently proved
by the way they co nsumed the foo d offered them . SoAbraham made n o image o f them , except in the
mindful tablets o f his mind ]
to Christian images, an d omitting the wo rds just befo re them .
N iceph o rus (op . cit . p. 322 ) shows that Macarius i s o nly speakingfrom th e Greek po int o f view, as the wo rds (for cpijs afrrd s pro ve,an d that h e wo uld n o t be answering his o ppo nent if they referredto Ch ristian images .
1 onpé‘
w 7 b éflfipar ov. Th is is mo re l ikely than th e d ee'a 'ro y o f
the text o f Nicepho rus, showing that th e latter is o nly o ccasio nallya guide to th e true reading.
I 50 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
misfo rtunes, He set i t in a divine blessedness that wasallo tted to it, giving it warmth when i t was wasting away,an d holding i t together when i t was being disso lved byits sins . The result was to make it irresistible an d
invincible an d able to co nquer the assaults o f its defects ,so that the flesh might retain its nature an d yet disownthe accusation which that nature involves , preserving it slimits an d yet rejec ting th e co nfusio n which those l imi tscause . This is the reason that He wo rked out the fulfil
ment o f the dispensation, n o t in an y other thing, but inthe flesh . Nor did He do this in flesh o f an y uniquekind
,but in human flesh, an d moreo ver in that o f a
virgin . This was in order that He might show that i twas from the virgin earth that He took the flesh an d
made it in the beginning, as th e dwelling-place o f mindan d reason an d soul, an d in like manner He now prepareda temple fo r Himself from a maid an d virgin, witho utneeding the hand an d art o f man . Pray
,wh ich i s the
more prec ious o f the two— so il,or a virgin ? Man o r
mud ? Surely man i s superior to mud, an d a virginmo re prec io us than so il . I f
,therefore, Go d is n o t
ashamed to take so il from the earth, but works in muddymaterial an d fash io ns man from it
,h ow will He delay to
take man from man,or h ow will He hesitate to wear
flesh from a virgin ? Will He n o t set aside all l ingeringan d delay, an d take ho ld o f that compo und which ismore prec ious than the earth
,an d make from i t an image
that bears His Godhead,in the birth o f the Only
bego tten ? 1 I t is as dwelling in this image that He
shakes the wo rld by the beauty o f His virtue, an d flashesligh t upon all by the grace o f His gift .Prometheus , whose s tory is wel l known amon g yo ur
selves, fashions man, an d there i s n o shame at all abo ut
i t. And Zeus makes in Athena a woman who came to
l ife, an d you appro ve o f the myth an d magnify the fac t ,witho ut seeing anything shameful in it o r recko ning it a
1 Geo cpdpov dr
yak jua. ,uovo
‘
yevé’
as ep'
yd ote'r a t . I f p ox/07 0 553 is n o t to
be co nnected With th e name wh ich th e auth o r uses as the sub -titleo f his bo ok , it may o nly mean “ by an unique birth .
”Co uld it
mean by a birth that is s ingle
BOOK IV. XXVIII , XXI II 1 51
mi sfo rtune, an d n o t enquiring into the questio n o f
hidden parts . And yet, if there is really an y shameabo ut i t at all
,i t is much mo re shameful to fashio n
parts an d co nceal them with certain coverings, than to
pass th ro ugh them fo r the sake o f the dispensatio n an d
the wo rd that brings profit. 1 Fo r he who makes a
building an d then turns round an d refuses to l ive in i t ,stands self-accused , an d is an implacable judge o f him
self, because be did n o t recko n that there was an yquestio n o f shame when he was making it but after i tscompletio n, h e slanders the result o f h is own labo urs, byjudging the work on which h e has lavished h is care tobe unfit to dwel l in . So the Deity, in making man
,
incurs the charge o f injustice, if He is ashamed to dwel lin h im
,an d refuses to take His portion from h im . Fo r
by so do ing He has made the workmanship o f His own
exertion to be o f n o value at all, an d has slandered all
His own wisdom by igno ring i t,because He made a
representat io n o f His own glory, an d then d ec ided thatit was shameful to dwell in it.
CHAPTER XXI I I . Objec t io n based on the saying“ Tho u shal t n o t revile go ds (Exod . xxii .
I c o uld also give proo f to you o f that insidious nameo f “ gods ” from th e law, when it c ries out an d admonishes the bearer with much reverence,
“ Thou shalt n o trevile go ds
,an d tho u shal t n o t speak evil o f the ruler
o f thy peo ple.
”Fo r it does n o t speak to us o f other
go ds than those already with in our reckoning , fromwhat we know in the wo rds,
“ Tho u shal t not go aftergo ds ” (Jer. vii. an d again,
“ I f ye go an d wo rshipo ther gods ” (Deut . xii . I t is n o t men ,
but thego ds wh o are held in honour by us , that are meant,n o t o nly by M o ses, but by his successo r Joshua. Fo r
he says to the people,“ And n ow fear him an d serve
him alo ne,an d put away the go ds wh om your fathers
served ”
(Jo sh . xxiv . And it is n o t concerning men ,
1 The passage beginning with the mentio n o f Prometheus an dending h ere, is quo ted by Nicepho rus, Ami/7 12512, loc. cit.
1 52 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
but i ncorporeal beings that Paul says, “ For thoughthere be that are called gods, whether o n earth o r Inheaven, yet to us there is but o n e Go d an d Fath er, o fwhom are all things (I Co r. viii. Therefore you make
a great mistake in thinking that Go d i s angry if an y
o ther is called a go d , an d obtains the same ti tle as
Himself. For even rulers do not o bject to the t i tlefrom their subjects, 1 nor masters from slaves . And itis n o t right to think that God is more petty-mindedthan men . Enough then about the fact that gods exist,an d ought to receive honour .
CHAPTER XXIX . Answer to the objec tion based on thesaying : “ Thou shal t not revile gods (Exod . xxii .
[So we must be afraid to ho ld such an opinio n , butwe must co nfess that Go d took o ur flesh, an d notthink o f Him as dwell ing in statues . 2 Nor mus t wecall the four elements gods, n o r deify the stars , eventhough the name o f their motion may suggest it.
3 I tis the chario teer an d not the ho rses that receives thec rown o f victory, an d the hono ur must be all fo r Go d
wh o guides the stars . Even though statues were ac tually to talk , we must n o t give them ho no ur . The
wo rds o f M oses, “ Thou shalt n o t revile go ds, are
spoke o fmen ,n o t gods . What he means is that those
may be called “ go ds ” to whom the word o f God hasc ome, just as those are called warm whom the fire
has warmed .
4 I t is only men’s fo lly that has imaginedGo d to be in images . Mo ses do es n o t mean supernatural gods in this sense
,fo r n o o n e would uselessly
revile such a god , which had no consciousness wherebyto perceive his abuse . Th e Deity is no more interfered
1 He means that even men sometimes have th e title. He migh thave quo ted, as our Lo rd did , I sa id
, ye are go ds ” (John x .
I f it can be used by men co ncerning each o ther , it can be usedo f h igher beings .
He here continues th e th oughts o f h is last chapter.1’ There is a play o n wo rds h ere : the stars run (Béwaw ) but are
n o t 060! in co nsequence (7 0 151 011 3 pi, Getd crwjuev) .See chapter xxvi . im
’
t.
1 54 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
mullets devoured his body, next these were caugh t an deaten by some fishermen, who were killed an d devo uredby do gs when the do gs died ravens an d vultures feastedo n them an d entirely consumed them . How then wil lthe bo dy of th e shipwrecked man be brought to gether,seeing that it was abso rbed by so many creatures ?Again , suppose ano ther body to have been consumedby fire, an d ano ther to have come in the en d to the
wo rms, how is it po ssible fo r i t to return to the essence 1
which was there from the beginning ?You will tell me that this is possible with Go d , butthis is not true . Fo r all things are n o t po ssible withHim ; He simply cannot bring i t abo ut that Homersho uld n o t have become a poet, o r that Troy should n o tbetaken . Nor indeed can He make twice two
,which make
the number four, to be recko ned as a hundred, eventho ugh this may seem go od to Him . No r can Go d everbecome evil, even though He wishes ; nor wo uld He be
able to sin,as being goo d by nature. I f then He i s
unable to sin or to become evil, this does n o t befal l Himthrough His weakness . In the case o f those wh o havea dispo sition an d fi tness fo r a certain thing
,an d then are
prevented from doing it, it i s c lear that i t i s by th ei rweakness that they are prevented . But God is bynature good, an d is n o t prevented from bein g evil nevertheless, even though He i s not prevented, he cannotbecome bad .
And pray co nsider a further point . How unreasonablei t is if the Creator shall stand by an d see the heavenmelting, though n o o n e ever co nceived anything morewonderful than its beauty, an d th e stars falling
,an d the
earth perishing an d yet He will raise up the rotten an dco rrupt bodies o f men , some o f them,
i t i s true, belongingto admirable men , but others without charm o r sym
metry before they died , an d affo rding a mest unpleasantsigh t . Again , even if He could easily make them risein a comely fo rm, i t wo uld be impo ssible fo r the earthto ho ld all those who had died from the beginning o f
the wo rld,if they were to rise again .
1t'
n rdrr'
rams .
BOOK IV. XX IV, XXX 1 55
CHAPTER XXX . Answer to th e o bjection based o n the
resurrec tion o f the flesh .
[Do n o t raise an uproar against me, fo r there i s n o doub tthat th e resurrec tion i s a difficulty . I will speak simply,an d not wi th an y flowery lan guage which migh t deceive,like a base coin washed o ver with gold .]First of all we may fitly consider th e following point
has that which is created come into being from what existedalready o r not ? I f i t was from what had an exis tence,there was n o sense in attaching a beginning to it . But
if such a beginning has to,be attached, the reason is
quite plain (i.e. that i t was made from nothing) . But if,from being nothing, Go d has given it an existence, whatkind o f essence 1 did He grant to that which had nonejust before ? Fo r He who brough t into being thatwhich was n o t, will be all the more l ikely to preservethat which came into existence, even when i t is disso lved,an d to think it deserving o f a better conc lusion to beadded . Fo r it is the property o f a nature that i sunbego tten to change for the better the existence o f the
things that are begotten, an d to lead to a renewal thethings which He has created in time, an d to wipe o fl
with grace the things which were stained with the poisono f wickedness, an d to consider the things which wereexhausted as worthy of a second beginning an d a kind o f
remaking. For the world, after again receiving a betterfo rm an d co vering, do es n o t dissolve i ts being, but onthe co ntrary, i t rejo ices in being c lothed with a fairerbeauty than that which it received before. I t befits theDivine alo ne to remain in a state o f sameness, bu t fo rc reation it i s suitable that it sho uld suffer change an d
alteratio n . Therefore the present l ife an d o rder i s ourguide, leading us like children to the future assembly o fimmortality, an d preparing us to face the glo ry that willlead us upward. Fo r o ur present life is like a womb co n
1 Reading r iver fo r T fs (fir d d 'rao w éxapfcra'ro Th is passage is
an example o f th e fact that Macarius do es n o t o rd inari ly use th iswo rd as meaning perso n .
”See Introd .
, p . xviii , an d p . 1 42 n . I .
1 56 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
taining a babe, fo r it ho lds down the whole being o f thingsin o bscurity, in the fo rgetfulness o f ignorance,
.where thelight do es n o t penetrate . The whole o f what 15 growingmust rise from the present age as from the membranewhich ho lds it in the womb , an d must receive a seco ndmo de o f l ife in the light o f the abiding place which isinvio lable .
Yo u wo uld like to think that corruption go es o n without en d , that i t is born in foulness an d dies in fi lth , thatit begets an d is bego tten an d i s covered in fo rgetfulnes s,that evil flo urishes an d calamity increases, that i t melt sthro ugh want an d grows thin through poverty , suffering il lby d ay an d sleeping by night , eating in luxury an d thenagain in bitterness weighed down wi th satiety, an d
suflering in scarc ity a state alike o f slavery an d mastership
,the rich man standin g up an d the poo r man lying
down , the o ld man falling an d the young man rising, thebreast s o f women growing an d the babe receiving suck,so rrow being bro ught by care an d disease by to il, thelife o f the country hated an d the life o f the c i ty welcomed ,equality being shunned an d that which is unequal beingsought after, the nature o f things tro ubled by muchanomaly, cast down in winter an d burning in summer,brightened by th e flowers o f spring in th eir seaso n, an dno urished by the fruits o fautumn
,digging the earth an d
wo rking its c lo ds making a tragedy o f existencean d a comedy o f life An d that the hateful coveringo f these th ings sho uld never pass away , even late in time,n o r their dark ro be disappear that th e soul sho uld neverbe free from the inhuman earth that lamentatio n shouldnever be silen t ; that the vio lence o f tyrants sho uldnever d ie ; that th e to il o f those that gro an sh o uldnever be lightened, n o r the tears o f the mourners c omfo rted that the virtues o f those who have masteredthemselves should never shine fo rth, n o r the boasting o fthe proud be quenched that the deeds o f the unrighteon s should never be punished, n o r the success o f therighteous be seen ; that there sho uld be n o j udgmento f the cunning o f quackery an d n o ho no ur fo r the
guilelessness o f th e sincere ; that th e earth should
1 58 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
fo r his skill . Just in the same way God became the
maker o f reasoning beings like an architect makin g a
house,an d c reated man in the beginning, an d built h im
as the sacred abode o f divine power, composed o f manykindred races like sto nes . And after he has been madefor many ages an d seasons, an d has fallen by manyexperiences o f sins, an d in the en d is altogether undonean d destroyed , He will raise h im up again, an d will bringnature together with skilful understanding an d wiseauthority
,an d will gather to gether the things that have
been scattered, allowing no ne o f the things that havefallen to perish ; an d , even though He place the firstamo ng the last in His arrangement , an d bring those at
the en d into the first rank o f meri t, He will n o t at all
disturb what He has done, but will grant that set ting fo rtho f the resurrec tion which is suitable to each .
And even if it i s as yo u say, an d Priam o r Nestordied a th ousand years ago , while some other man mayd ie three days before the resurrectio n , none o f themwhen he rises again will feel either measureless grief o r
abundance o f jo y therefrom ,bu t each o f them will
receive what is suitable to him in accordance with hisown deeds, an d he wil l n o t have ei ther blame o r praisefo r the arrangement o f the resurrectio n, nei ther fo r i tsspeediness nor again fo r its tardiness , but i t will be hisown manner o f life that he will either delight in o r findfaul t with . For with Go d a period o f a tho usand yearsis reckoned as o n e brief d ay (cf. 2 Peter iii . an dagain the brief space, if He th inks fi t
,becomes the
stretching out o f co untless ages . Therefo re these are
the wo rds o f petty fo lk, when they say,“ I f He i s going
to raise up the man wh o died three days before in likemanner as the man o f a thousand years befo re
,He does
a very great injust ice .
[For in ancient t imes men l ived to be five hundred ormore, an d the man wh o died just befo re the resurrec tio nmay have had a sorry life an d n o t l ived to be thirty . I tIs do ubtless in accordance with a divine plan that the
1 See p . 1 25, n . 3 .
BOOK IV . XXX 1 59
former sho uld sleep the lo ngest , an d the latter shouldreceive speedier consolation .
As fo r your childish o bjectio n based o n the shipwrecked man who was eaten by fishes an d they by men ,
the men by dogs, an d the dogs by vul tures, making itimpossible fo r h is resurrec tio n to take place, your wo rdsare like those o f a man dreaming in a drunken sleep ]Fo r you suggest that He who makes the fire wo uld n o t
have the power to work in th e way that fire do es, inbringing about the resurrec t ion . Fo r when there i ssilver an d go ld lying in the soil , o r lead an d tin, bronzean d iro n
,as i t were hidden away somewhere, fire, by
burning the soil an d heating the material, brings out
the silver an d gold, etc .,so as to separate them , allowing
no ne o f their essence to perish , unless there is something earthy in them anywhere which admits o f d estructi on . I f th en th e power o f fire i s so strong an d has
such a drastic effect that it brings o ut pure materialfrom some other material, an d preserves the essenceo f each undestroyed, even tho ugh the gold has falleninto co untless cavities, an d is dissolved into endlessfragments an d scattered into mire o r c lay
,in heaps o f
earth o r o f dung ; an d if the fire, when applied to all,
preserves the gold an d expels the substance o f the partsthat are destructible, what are we to say abou t Himwho o rdained the nature o f the fire ? Pray would He
not have the power without even an effort to changeman
, His rational treasure more precious than go ld ,who is c o ntained in matter of various kinds, an d to set
before Him safe an d sound those who have peri shed byland o r sea, in rivers o r in lakes, those who have beeneaten by wild beasts or birds, those who have beendissolved into fin e dust that cannot be measured ? WillHe he found to be less effec t ive than the fire ? Andwill He be impotent by the argumen ts you haveadduced ?As fo r that strange phantasy which has come into
your head, that Go d cannot do all things, you
think to shape it into plausibili ty by means o f yourarguments, bu t it i s real ly like a prop without foun d a
1 60 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
tion, an d do es n o t stand . How shall we make it clear
to you that Go d has power to do all things ? Shall i tbe from the divine essence itself, or from the sense o f
fi tness ? Or shal l we test the question from both o f the
two , an d expound to you first,if that i s what you like, the
meaning o f the po in t at issue as j udged from the in vio l
able nature itself? Fo r instance,if God is able to make
that which has been made to be not made, that which iscreated necessarily changes into that which is uncreated .
But if we grant th is, i t follows that we may argue thatthere are two uncreated things ; o r rather, nothing i sc reated, but the whole is uncreated . From such reasoning much that is fabulo us results, fo r in this way eventhat which i s uncreated will be c reated . But when thatwhich is uncreated comes under the head o f the created,the argument about the created does not stand . Forwh o will be the maker o f the created , i f the uncreateddo es n o t exist ?Akin to this is the question whether Go d , who
is uncreated, can make Himself created . As somesay that i t i s impossible fo r the uncreated to become created, He cannot do so . And since He i srighteo us, He will grant justice by avenging the downtro dden. Fo r if He were n o t to d o th i s
,His power
wo uld manifestly be no thing bu t slackness an d folly, thatHe sho uld make all things an d penetrate them by a lawo f
.creation , an d then that He should despise them,
givmg no honour to that which welcomed virtue in thisl ife, an d n o j udgment to that which gave heed to
wickedness during the course o f existence ; but thatHe sho uld allow that which is good an d its
.
o pposite tobe plunged al ike in forgetfulness
,nei ther crowning the
virtue as virtue n o r laying bare the wickedness,
butsimply al lowing human nature to be tossed about insilence, as tho ugh i t had no existence
,an d making n o
Investigation o f either the wickedness in i t o r the virtue .
Such a bel ief as this do es not suit wi th the divinepro vidence, n o r does this idea acco rd with th e immortalnature . On the co ntrary
,it i s alto gether different
,an d
quite strange an d fo reign to the attitude o f Him who
1 62 APOCRITICUS OF MACAR IUS MAGNES
that which is called inviolable,” 1
an d does n o t burnthe sword but brightens an d tempers it, so those whoare dipped in the inviolable Name will never be affectedby fire or by judgment, which will flee before the Namewhich is named upon them .
I f a man has an eye that i s able to see, the sun fills itwith abundant light when it i s opened, but when the eye
is shut it commits it to darkness . The sun i tself doesnothing wrong
,an d does not harm his vision ; but the
man who is possessed of sight has brought his ownpenalty . He is not wronged by the sun’s rays, bu t hemade darkness for himself ou t of those things in whichhe might have shown himself to be co -operating wi ththe ligh t, by receiving a proof o f light in his seeing thesun
,an d by having a proof o f darkness in his not
seeing it, he himself being in both cases his own arbiteran d j udge. Even thus a man who believes in God an dtrusts in Him
,who may be termed the divine light of
the mind,i s found to be a partner o f Go d in whom he
believes, shunning the darkness o f igno rance an d wanto f knowledge, an d nourished by the brightness o f
heavenly doctrines, being himself aware o f salvationbefo rehand thro ugh beholding the divine, an d havingin his own po ssession, as a great an d sufficient preservation o f his fai th
, the remedy o f salvation . Bu t the manwho is disabled by the blindness of wilful unbel ief, an d ,turning away from the brightness o f the ligh t in whichall may share, moves in the darkness like some creatureswimming in the depths o f the sea, showing no fulfilmento f the good deeds o f virtue, receives no p raise eventhough he be wise apart from the light . And eventho ugh he co -Operate with tho se who are near him, he
receives n o dignity ; an d even if he does what i srighteo us but does not take the light as test an d j udge,h is labours are subject to blame, an d he does n o t escapefrom accusation . And even though his so ul be trainedin natural righteousness, hating plunder an d refrainingfrom theft, not breaking through the righ ts o f othermen’s marriages, n o t despising o r insulting his neigh1 getaw ay. I t canno t be translated asbesto s , as it i s repeated in
the ajufawroy 6'
q o f the next clause.
BOOK IV. xxx 1 63
bour, bu t fighting fo r his fatherland , enduring ills o n
behalf o f his kindred,an d showing all kinds o f excel
lences in h is deeds , he is witho ut san ctificatio n an d
do es everything to n o purpose, since he do es not acceptthe mastership o f Him who perishes not, as the judgeo f all that i s do ne by him .
Fo r as beauty has no praise apart from the beauty o fthe light, an d a reckoning does n o t receive i ts completio napart from the measuring rule o f the things that aremeasured
,even so right action an d all the virtue an d
ordering o f men’s deeds, when i t does n o t accept as testan d judge the unsleeping eye o f that gaz e which beholdsall things, i s like a pearl hidden 1n the mud , the beautyo f which Is n o t seen in the light but i s co ncealed In a
rubbish heap .
1 Fo r tel l me, who will crown or rewardthe restraint o f the man who has self-control ? Wh o willhono ur the so ldier with pay after his deed o f valo ur ?Wh o will deem worthy o f rewards the man who hascontended in the games ? I S not his running, merelyco nsidered in itself, a matter o f blame ? I S not th esuccess o f the man who has do ne his soldiering to nopurpose apart from his general ? I s n o t the contes t o fh im wh o has the mas tery o f himself a pitiable thingwithou t o n e to crown him I s not the tribute o f subjec tso f n o benefit without a king ? Even thus the issue o f
every kind o f righteo usness is stripped o f the reward ofthe good, if i t be n o t do ne in the name an d to the
honour o f the Creator. And,on the other band, an y
man who believes that there i s On e wh o is potent tobeho ld an d judge his deeds an d activities, even thoughhe be full o f guil t
,an d the servant o f unholy prac tices,
an d tho ugh he have set himself to be a fo l lower o f
abominable deeds, by bringing the examinatio n o f hisown deeds before the eyes o f the Creator (just as th eS ick man disc loses the affec tions o f his body to a sympathetic physic ian) , he 15 freed from all grief an d tro uble,an d I s rid o f the countless s tripes o f his transgressions.Fo r the Saviour I s able to sa
(Here th e Ath ens MS . ends. )1 There appears to be an intent io nal a ll iteratio n in or’uc éy (pawl ,
(1M?
év
BOOK V
[Fragment quo ted in Greek by F . Turrianus (De la To rre) ,D ogmaticus a
’e j ustfifcalion c, aa
’ German os aa’vcrsus L uteran os,
Romae , 1 557 , p .
1
Tlze subj ect is Fail/z an d Works, an d Turriam/s
say s t/zat M ago o/es w rites as follows con cern ing t/ze
fail!: of Abraham
Fo r having believed through good works , he was well
pleasing to Go d , an d therefo re was considered worthy o fthe friendship o f Him who is higher. By doing th eseth ings he caused his faith to shine brighter than the sun .
And togeth er with his faith he works what is righ t, wherefo re he is beloved o f Go d an d h onoured . Fo r, knowingthat faith i s the fo undatio n o f success , he roo ts i t deep,building upon it the multitude o f merc ies . Fo r, j oiningeach o f the two th ings with a kindred bond, h e raises o neach a lo fty rampart
,by acquiring a faith which receives
the testimo ny o f works . Nor. again does he allow the
wo rks to be base,o r sundered from th e faith , but know
ing that faith is a seed which produces abundant fruit, hebrings togeth er all things that are brought in co ntactwith the seed, earth , ploughman , , wallet , yoke, plough ,an d as many thin gs as the husbandman’s skill has devised .
Fo r as the seed is n o t sown apart from these,'
an d reaso ncompletes no ne o f the things mentioned abo ve apartfrom the seed, so fai th wh ich in some sense stands fo rmystical seed, is unfruitful if i t abides alo ne, unless i tgrow by means o f go od wo rks . And in like manner thelinking together o f good deeds is a useless th ing an d
altogether incomplete,unless it have faith wo ven in with
it. Wherefore, in order that it may reveal Abraham as
1 Th is quo tat io n al so appears in Latin fo rm in h is Aa’
o ersus
Magd aourgcn ses , l ib . iv. ch . 7
1 66 APOCRITICUS OF MACARIUS MAGNES
showing how faith is like the lump, while good an d
Spiritual works are like leaven . Fo r bread is unpleasantwithout leaven, an d difficult fo r digestion an d nutrit ionan d again
,leaven alone without th e lump is altogether
useless,but when it i s added to the lump it makes i t
pleasant an d firm, wholesome an d easy o f digestion .
Even so lo ve, when we walk according to God’s commands, i s like leaven in binding an d permeating the
who le lump o f faith,that is to say, by making i t firm an d
fermenting it, i t renders i t who lesome an d useful . Thusth e lump o f faith witho ut the leaven o f love an d goodwo rks is neither useful nor a who lesome food for th eso ul, nor is i t pleasing to Go d ; nor again is love fit ting,however wide it be, without the lump o f faith . But i t i sthe combinat io n an d mingling o f the two that i s wholesome. Th is n ew mixture o f faith an d good wo rks i spleasing to Go d , witho ut the o ld leaven , that i s to say ,
witho ut the corruption of concupiscence which is in th ewo rld .
1
1 I t is uncertain what fo rm o f attack Macarius is here answering .I t does n o t seem likely th at he is simply deal ing with the quo tatio nfrom Genesis abo ut Abraham’s faith . An d if the argument centresin th e difference between the teach in g o f S . Paul an d S . James 0 11faith an d wo rks , it wo uld be a return to the earl ier o bjectio ns o f adetailed kind , wh ereas the latter part o f Bo ok IV . leads us to expectobj ectio ns o f a mo re genera l an d do ctrinal character. I t wo uldseem therefo re as ifHiero cles had go ne o n to attack th e inner teachIngs o f Christianity , an d such d ifficulties with in the faith as thereco
lgcfl iatio n o f j ust ificatio n by faith with the stress laid upo n go o d
wo r S.
I f th is co nclusio n is co rrect,it sh ows us that the scope o f th e
Apocriticus was wider than is suppo sed o r its title wo uld suggest,an d th e dialogue i s seen to h ave had a much bro ader do ctrinal rangethan the discussio n o f passages in the New Testament.Internal evidence suppo rts the genuineness o f the fragment . The
al lego rica l an d Origenistic style o f explanatio n is quite Macarian ,an d so is the lan guage . H is favo urite wo rd eu—rdpflwua o ccurs n oless than th ree t imes .
INDEX
al lego ry, xxu , 33 , 48, 59, 67 , Con tra Galsum, xxvi75, 8 1 , 86 , 89, 1 07 , 1 08, 1 22 , com (o f Eucharist ) , 831 32 , 1 35, 1 36 c reatio n (th e purpo se o f) , 1 3 1
Amph ilo ch ius x ix Cyprian , 87angel s , 1 45
1 48
anth ro pomo rph ism ,1 48
Antich rists , 1 29Antio ch , XV ,
xx i,XX I I , 33
Apo calypse o f Peter , xxv , 1 29,1 3 1
Apocriticus , xx i vApo c ryph al references , xxv i ,1 23 n . 1
, 1 27Apo l lo nius o f Tyana, xv i, xx i ,52 1 551 1 27
Apo tactites, 1 1 5Arat us
,xxi , 1 35
Athens MS x,Xi
,X I I
,xiv
,
Xx iv,xxv 1 1 , xxviii
Babylon , 1 20bapti sm ,
86, 87 , 1 1 5barbarian s, 40Bard esan es
,1 28
Bel an d th e D ragon , Fabian , 87Beren ice, x i , 3 1 faith
,1 64
— 1 66
bishops , 85— 88 fo rgiveness , 1 40Blo ndel , x i i Foucart xii
catech umen , 87 , 97 Go dhead (o f Christ ), 76, 7 7, 84cel ibacy , 32 , 1 1 3— 1 1 5 go ds , 1 51 1 52
Cerin thus, 1 28 Grego ry o f Nyssa , xix, xxvnCh ristomach i, xv iiich urches, 1 46 Hadrian , 1 43 , 1 44C il ic ian , xx i , 1 1 5, 1 28 Harnack , x i i i— xv , XX I I, xx i ii ,c lo uds (as meaning angel s) , 1 22 51 , 95, 1 1 1 , 1 28
Bezae, xxv i, 38 heaven, 1 30— 1 331 67
demo ns, 36 , 62—68, 89, 109— 1 1 3devil ,
deceptio n o f the,x ix ,
xx v ii, 58 , 59
father o f th e, 49, 50as Slanderer,
Do cetism,xx ix
, 56Do sith eus, xx i , 1 1 5, 1 28Dro serius , 1 28
Duchesne, x i i , xiv ,xv
,xxvn
Edessa,x i
,x1 1l , xv , xx i , 3 1 ,
1 28
Enc rat ites , 1 1 5E remites , 1 1 5E thio pia, xxi , 79, 1 25Eu charist
,xxv i i i
,xxix
, 80 - 85Eusebius
,x v i i
, 3 1
Ezra, 60 , 6 1
1 68
heretics, 1 1 4— 1 1 6 , 1 28Hero do tus , 4 1Hiero cles, x i i i, xv—xvu
,xxu,
xx ivh isto ry (writing o f) , 4 1Ho ly Spi rit, 96, 1 1 3 , 1 1 8 , 1 24,1 4 1 , 142
fiypostasir xv ii i , 34,64
Icono clasts, 147ido ls, 1 1 2images , 1 1 2 , 1 43- 1 48immo rtal ity, 1 57Incarnation , 83 , 1 1 3, 1 49
Jews. 40. 44. 45. 48. 49. 54. 66.791 1 03
j udgment, 1 6 1 , 1 63
keys o f heaven, 94
-
98
Lactan tius, xv i, xvnlake. 64. 74law o f Mo ses
,103
- 1 08, 1 40 ,1 52leaven , 1 35, 1 66legio n
,67
L o go s , 1 32
Macarius, name and auth o rsh ip,x ix , xxHomil ies o n Genesis,xiv
Macrobian s, 79, 1 25
Magnus Crusius, x i iManes , 1 28Manichaeans, 1 1 5, 1 29Marc io n
,1 28
martyrd om, 1 27Mary Magdalene, 43Maurusian s, 1 25mo narchy (o f Go d ) , xv iii , 1 28mo nasticism, 33M onogenes, xiv , x ix, xx iv, 33,551 60 1 77 1 1 06
Mo ntanus,xx i
, 1 28mountains (in al lego rical sense),89
INDEX
Neumann , xx ivNiceph o rus, x , xi, xx , xx1x, 3 1 ,I 43 1 1 47
Orac les,1 1 0 , I I IOrigen , xiII, xiv , x 1x , xx1 1 , xxv 1 ,
xx1xousia (obo fa) , xv iii , 34, 64, 1 32oxen (God’s care fo r) , 1 04 , 1 0 7
resurrection,1 53— 1 63
rock (o fCh rist’s fo undat io n) , 94Romans
, 40 , 43, 66 , 1 02 , 1 03Rome(play o n wo rd ) , 1 03Rufinus, x 1v
Palmyra, 1 20parasang, xx i , 1 06P3 551o n ’ 53 , 56 : 58, 76 : 7 7 : 93Paul
, 99—1 1 6
(martyrdom o f), xxv i, 1 26 ,1 27 n . 1
Paul an d Tlzccla , Acts of;xx iv ,32Peter , 91 —98(as Ro ck -man ) , 93 , 94(his c ruc ifixio n ) , 1 26 , 1 27
72. ISeco nd Epistle, xxv, 1 25
n . 3 , 1 58
Apo calypse o f, xxv , 1 29,1 3 1
Pfiilaletbcs, xui, xv , xvi, xxn ,xx iv
physio logical explanatio n o f
Sac raments , 82P i late, 44 , 54 , 66Po lycarp , xxi , xq , 86 , 87Po rphyry , x i i— x iv , xv i, xx1 1,PrOPhecy. 53. 90. 1 29
sacrifices (heathen) , 1 1 0 , 1 46satrapy, 1 28Schalkhausser
,xiv
,xxv i
,xxv m
Sea o f Gal i lee, 64 , 73 , 74Simo n Magus 1 28
spiritual heal ing , 87Syno d o f the Oak , xru, xx
PR INTED lN GREATR
‘
IC I IARD CLAYuuuuswrcx ST. , srAuro n I) sr .
, 1 ,
AND BUNGAY,
Tra n sla tio n s o f Ea rly Do c umen ts
FlRST SERIES— Palestinian =Jewish and
Cognate Texts (Pre=Rabbinic)
J ew ish Do cumen ts in th e Time o f E z raTranslated from the Aramaic by A . E . COWLEY , L itt.D . ,
Sub-Librarian o f the Bodleian Library,Oxford .
4s. 6a’
. n et.
2. The Wisdom o f Ben -Sira (Ec c lesiasticus)By th e Rev . W . O . E . OESTERLEY, D .D . ,
Vicar o f
St . Alban’s , Bedfo rd Park, W . Examining Chaplain tothe Bish o p o f Lo ndo n . 2 5 . 6d . n et.
Th e Bo o k o f En o chBy the Rev. R . H . CHARLES, D .D . ,
Cano n o f Westminster . 2 s . 6a
’
. n et.
4. Th e Bo ok o f J ubileesBy the Rev. Cano n CHARLES . 4s . n et.
5. The Testamen ts o f the Tw e lve PatriarchsBy the Rev. Can on CHARLES . as . 6a’. n et.
6. Th e Odes an d Psalm s o f So lomo n
By the Rev. G . H . Bo x, M .A. ,Recto r o f Sutton
,
Beds ,Ho n . Cano n o f St . Albans .
7 . Th e Ascen sio n o f I saiahBy the Rev. Cano n CHARLES . To gether with No . 1 0
in o n e volume. 43 . 6a’
. n et.
8. The Apo calypse o f E z ra (1 1 . E sdras)By the Rev. Canon Bo x. 2s. 6d . n et.
9. Th e Apo calypse o f BaruchBy the Rev. Cano n CHARLES . Together with No . 1 2
in o n e vo lume. as . 6d . n et.
10. Th e Apo calypse o f AbrahamBy the Rev. Cano n Bo x. To gether with No . 7 ino n e vo lume . 4s . 6a
’
. n et.
2.
The Testamen ts o f Abraham , Isaacan d J aco bBy the Rev. Canon Box an d S . GAZELEE .
The Assumptio n o f M o sesBy Rev.
.
W . J . FERRAR , M .A. ,Vicar o f Ho ly Trini ty
,
Eas t Finchley . With No . 9 in o n e vo lume . 2s . 6o’
. n et.
Th e Biblical An tiquities o f PhiloBy M . R . JAMES , L itt.D . ,
Hon . L itt.D . ,
Dublin, Ho n . LL .D . , St . Andrews, Provo st o f King’sCo llege, Cambrid ge . 85 . 6a’. n et.
L o st Apo crypha o f th e Old Te stamen t
By M . R . JAMES ,
SECOND SERIES— Hellenistic=Jewish Texts
Th e Wisdom o f So lomo n
By the Rev. Dr . OESTERLEY. 25 . 6a’. n et.
Th e Sibyllin e Orac les (Bo oks iii-v)By the Rev. H . N . BATE , M .A. , Vicar o f ChristChurch
,Lancaster Gate
,W . Examining Chaplain to
the Bisho p o f London . 3s . 6a'. n et.
The L etter o f AristeasBy H . ST . JOHN THACKERAY, M .A.
,King’s Co llege,
Cambridge . 2s . 6a’. n et.
Se lec tio n s from . Ph iloBy J . H . A. HART
,M .A.
Se lec tio n s from J o sephusBy H . ST . J . THACKERAY, M .A.
Th e Third an d Fo urth Bo okso f M ac cabeesBy the Rev. C . W . EMMET, B .D . , Vicar o f Wes tHendred, Berks . 3s . 6d . n et.
Th e Bo o k o f J o seph an d Asen athTranslated from the Greek text (fo r the first t ime inEnglish) by E . W . BROOKS . 2s . 6a
’
. n et.
THIRD SERIES— Palestinian =Jewish and
Cognate Texts (Rabbinic)*I . Pirqe Abo th . By the Rev. Dr. OESTER LEY.
*2. Berak h o th . By the Rev. A . LUKYN WI LL IAM S, DD .
*3 . Yoma . By the Rev. Canon Box .
*4.Shabbath . By the Rev. Dr . OESTERLEY.
*5.San hedrin . By the Rev. H . DANBY . 6s . n et.
*6. Kimh i’
s C ommen tary o n th e Psalms(Bo o k I , Selec tio n s) .
By the Rev. R . G . F INCH .
B .D . 7s. 6d . n et.
7 . Tamid 1 1 . M egilla8 . Abo da Zara 12. Sukka9. M id d o th 13 . Taan ith
10. So pherim 1 4. M egillath Taan ith
I t is propo sed to publish th ese texts first by way o f experiment . If
the Series sh ould so far pro ve successful the o thers wil l fo l low .
J ew ish L iterature an d Christian Origin sV o l. I . The Apo caly p tic L iterature .
II . A Sh o rt Survey o f th e L iterature o f
Rabbin ical J ud aism .
By th e Revs . Dr . OESTERLEY an d Canon BOX .
J ew ish Un can o n ical Writin gs : A Po pular In trod uc tio n . By the Rev. W . J . FERRAR . 3s . n et.
Ha n d bo o k s o f Chris tia n Litera ture'
The Early Christian Bo o ks . By the Rev. W . J .
FERRAR,M .A. 3s . 6d . n et.
Th e Eucharistic Office o f th e , Bo o k o fC ommo n Pray er . By the Rev . LESL IE WR IGHT ,M .A.
,B .D . 3s . 6a
’
. n et.
.The In spiratio n an d Autho rity o f Ho ly
Scrip ture . By the Rev. G . D . BARRY, B .D .
4s . 6a'
. n et.
The L etters o f St . Augustin e . By the Rev. W . J .
SPARROW-S IMPSON , D .D .
SERIES l. — GREEK TEXTS (con tin ued ) .
Th e Epis tles o f St . Ig n atius . By the Ven . J . H .
SRAWLEY, D .D. 3s . 6a’. n et.
*S t . lren aeus : Aga in st th e Heres ies . By F . R . M .
H ITCHCOCK, D .D . 2 vols . 2s . each n et.
Palla d ius : Th e L aus iac His tory . By W . K . LOWTHERCLARKE, B .D . 5s . n et.
*St . Poly carp . By B . JACKSON . 1 s . 3d . n et.
SERIES ll. — LATIN TEXTS .
Tertullia n’s Treatises c on cern in g Pray er , c on cern in g
Baptism . By A . SOUTER , L itt.D . 3s . n et.
Tertullian aga in st Praxeas . By A . SOUTER , L itt.D .
No vatian o n th e Trin ity . By H . MOORE .
*St . Augus tin e : Th e City o f G o d . By F . R . M . H ITCHCOCK
,D .D . 1 s . 6d . n et .
*St . Cy prian : Th e L ord ’s Pray er . By T . H . B INDLEY,
D .D . I s . 6a’
. n et .
M in uc ius Felix : Th e Oc tavius . By J . H . FREESE .
3s . 6d . n et.
*Tertullian : On th e Testimon y o f th e Soul a n d On
th e Pres c ription o f Heretics . By T . H . B INDLEY,D .D . 2s . n et.
*St . Vin cen t o f Lo rin s : Th e Comm o n ito ry . By T . H .
B INDLEY,D .D . as . n et.
SERIES Ill. —L lTURG lCAL TEXTS .
ED ITED BY C . L . FE LTOE ,D .D .
St . Ambrose : On th e My s teries a n d o n th e S ac ra
ments . By T . THOMPSON,B .D .
,an d
‘
J . H . SRAWL EY,D .D . 4s . 6a
’. n et.
*Th e Apostolic Con stitution an d Cogn ate Documen ts ,
w ith s pec ial referen ce to th eir Liturg ic al elemen ts .
By DE LACY O ’LEARY, D .D . 1 s . 3d . n et.
*Th e Liturgy o f th e Eigh th B o o k o f th e Apos tolicCo n stitution , c ommon ly called th e Clemen tin e
L iturgy . By R . H . CRESSWELL . I s . 6a’
. n et.
Th e Pilg rimage o f Eth eria . By M . L . M cCLURE . 65 . n et.
*B ish o p Sarapio n’s Pray er B ook . By the Rt . Rev . J .
WORDSWORTH, D .D . 1 s . 6a’. n et.
(Other series in con templation )
Help s fo r Stud en ts o f Histo ryEd ited by
C . JOHNSON, M .A . , and J . P.WHITNEY, D.D D.C .L .
Th e Americ an Hi s to r ica l Rev iew sa ys : “ A mo s t u seful l ittle serie so f pamph le ts .
Th e Times Educatio nal Supp lemen t sa ys :“ The se little vo l ume s
by w e ll -kno wn spe c ia l i s ts sh o uld be in the hand s o f se rio us s tuden tso f h i sto ry .
I . Episc opal Reg is ters o f En glan d an d W ales . ByR . C . FOWLER, B .A.
,P .S.A. 6d . n et.
2 . Mun icipal Rec ord s . By F . J . C . HEARNSHAW ,M .A.
6d . n et.
3 . Med ie val Reck on in gs o f Time . By REG INALD L .
POOLE,LL .D .
,L itt.D . 6d . n et.
4 . Th e Public Record Office . By C . JOHNSON , M .A. 6d . n et.
5. Th e Ca re o f Documen ts . By C . JOHNSON , M .A. 6d . n et.
6 . Th e Log ic o f History . By C . G . CRUMP . 8d . n et .
7 . Documen ts in th e Public Rec ord Office, Dublin .
By R . H . MURRAY, L itt .D . 8d . n et.
8 . Th e Fren ch W a rs o f Relig ion . By ARTHUR A . T I LLEY,M .A. 6d . n et.
By Sir A . W. WARD, Litt.D. , FB A .
Th e Period o f Con gres ses— I. In trod uc tory . 8d . n et.
. Th e Perio d o f Con g res ses — ll. Vien n a a n d th e
S ec on d Peace o f Pa ris . 1 5 . n et.
Th e Period o f Con g res ses — I II . Aix-la = Ch apelle
to Veron a . 1 5 . n et.
No s . 9, 1 0,an d I I in o n e
'
vo lume,c lo th , 3s . 6d . n et.
S ecurities o f Peace : A Retros pect (1 848Paper, 25 . n et ; c lo th , 35 . n et.
Th e Fren ch Ren ais san ce . By A . A . T ILLEY, M .A.
8d . n et.
Hin ts o n th e S tud y o f En glish Econ om ic His to ry .
By Archdeacon W . CUNN INGHAM,D .D . ,
F .S.A.
8o’
. n et.
Paris h History an d Rec ord s . By A . HAM ILTONTHOMPSON
,M .A. ,
F.S.A. n et.
A S h o rt In trod uc tio n to th e S tud y o f Colon ialHis tory . By A . P . NEWTON, M .A ., D .Lit. 6d . n et.
Texts fo r Stud en ts
General Ed ito rs : CAROLINE A. J . SKEEL, D.Lit . ; H. J . WHITE, DD
J . P. WHITNEY, D.D
Th e English Histo rica l Review sa ys A n ew serie s w h ic h de serve smen tio n every numbe r is the w o rk o f a s ch o lar o f a c kno wledgedc o mpe tence .
”
C ath o l ic Bo o k N o te s sa ys : “ The ha s rendered a servic eto Educa tio n It is to be h o pe d th a t th e se texts w ill find the irw a y i nto o ur c o l lege s : th e y w ill g ive a n ew meaning to La tin a n d
h is to ry .
I . Selec t Passages from J oseph us , Tac itus , Sueto n ius ,Dio Ca ssius , i llustrative o f Christianity in the FirstCentury . Arranged by H . J . WH ITE, D .D . Papercover , 3d . n et.
2 . S election s from Matth ew Paris . By C . A . J . SKEEL,D .L it. Paper cover, 9d . n et.
Selec tion s from G irald us Cambren s is . By C . A . J .
SKEEL,D .L it. Paper co ver, oi . n et.
L ibri S a n cti Patricu . The Latin Writings o f St .Patrick
, etc . Edited by NEWPORT J . D . WH ITE, D .D .
Paper co ver, 641 . n et.
A Tran slation o f th e Latin W ritin g s o f S t . Pa tric k .
By NEWPORT J . D . WH ITE,D .D . Paper co ver, 6o
’
. n et.
6 . S election s from th e Vulgate . Paper co ver, 9d . n et.
7 . Th e Epis tle o f S t . Clemen t o f Rome . Paper co ver,6d . n et.
8 . Select Extrac ts from Ch ron ic les an d Rec ord s re =
latin g to En g lish Tow n s in th e M id d le Ages .
E d i ted , with Intro duc tio n , No tes, an d Glo ssary , byF . J . C . HEARNSHAW
,M .A.
,LL .D . Paper cover, 9d . n et.
Th e In s c ription o n th e S tele o f Mesa . Commo nlycalled the M o abite Sto ne . The text in M o abite an d
Hebrew, with translatio n by the Rev . H . F . B . COMPSTON ,M .A. Paper co ver, 6d . n et .
SOC IETY FOR PROMOT ING CHR IST IAN KNOWL EDGELONDON : 6 ST . MARTIN’S PLACE
,W .C . 2
NEW YORK : THE MACM ILLAN COMPANY5-7-I 9~ ]
