But does not this expression, "He said it himself," express it in the same way, though in different letters and words, as our "believe," at which you do not cease to mock and swear? For our saying means that it is not permissible not to believe the words of God-bearing men, and the very fact that they are worthy of probability, serves as such a proof of what they said, which is stronger than any logical argument and refutation. But let's assume for a moment that this answer is irrefutable. How can you prove that the verbal sciences belong to you? And if they are yours, then why can't we participate in them, as your laws and your senselessness require? What kind of Greek education is this, to which the verbal sciences belong, and how can this word be used and understood? I am ready to examine with you, lover of mutual expressions, its force and meaning, knowing that often one and the same word signifies different concepts, and sometimes different words mean the same thing, and finally, different names mean different objects. You may say that Greek learning refers either to the pagan belief or to the people and to the first inventors of the power of the Greek language. If this refers to pagan belief, then indicate where and among which priests Greek education is prescribed, just as it is prescribed what and to what demons are to be sacrificed? For not all are commanded to offer the same thing, and not all to one, equally, and not in the only way, as it pleased your hierophants and founders of sacrifices to determine. For example, among the Lydians it is considered a pious deed to curse Bufinus, and by cursing him, thereby honouring the deity; among the inhabitants of Tauris, to kill strangers, among the Lacedaemonians, to scourge themselves before the altar; among the Phrygians, to castrate themselves to the sweet sounds of pipes and after a tiring dance; in others, to sodomy; in others, to commit fornication; and there are so many other obscenities committed during your sacraments, of which I do not consider it necessary to speak separately! But to which of the gods or demons is Greek education dedicated? And even if this were so, it does not appear from this that it should belong only to the heathen, or that the common property is the exclusive property of any of your gods or demons; likewise, like many other things, do not cease to be common because it is established among you to sacrifice them to the gods. But if you do not say this, but call the Greek language your property, and therefore deprive us of it as a paternal inheritance, which does not belong to us in the least, then, in the first place, I do not see what reason there can be for this, or how you can connect it with the worship of demons. For from the fact that the language and the belief of the same people are Greek, it does not follow that the language belongs to the belief, and therefore it is just to deprive us of the use of this language. Your logic teachers will also find this conclusion wrong. For if two predicates correspond to the same subject, it does not follow that they are themselves one and the same. Otherwise, if we assume that one and the same person is both a goldsmith and a painter, then the art of painting will have to be considered as one with the art of a jeweler, and vice versa, the art of a jeweler will be recognized as one with the art of a painter, which is completely absurd. Then I will ask you, lover of Greek education and literature: will you completely forbid us to speak Greek, even in ordinary, vulgar, commonly used words, or will you not allow us to use only selected and pompous words, which are accessible only to the well-educated? If these are the latter, what a strange division it is! As if the words: σμερδαλεον (terrible), κοαβιζειν (to ring, to sound), μων (whether or), δηπωθεν (so), αττα (some), αμωσγεπως (partly, several) belong to the same dialect, and the rest must be thrown into the Cynosarga, as the illegitimate were thrown there before? And if the simple, inelegant expressions belong equally to the Greek language, why do you not deprive us of them also, and of any Greek word in general, whatever it may be? This would be most humane and fully worthy of your ignorance.

But I want to reveal to you a higher and more perfect speculation on this subject. It is not my business to speculate whether there are any special words of the gods (I do not speak of the words μωλυ, ξανθον, χαλκις I laugh at them), words which are more excellent and significant than ours, and yet are formed by means of the organs of the voice, and through the air reach the ear, whereas it would be more akin for the gods to converse with each other only by means of thoughts and images. And our reasoning is this: Language, and every art or useful institution, whatever you may conceive, do not belong to the inventors alone, but to all who use them; and just as in a skilful musical harmony one string produces this sound, the other another, high or low, but everything is subordinate to one skilful choir leader and makes up one beautiful harmony; so also here is the supreme Artist and Creator, the Word, although He has chosen various inventors of various useful institutions and arts, He has offered everything to all who will, in order to unite us in bonds of mutual communion and love for mankind and to adorn our lives with meekness.

How then do you say that Greek education is yours? Did not the Phoenicians own the writings, or, as others think, the Egyptians, or the Jews, who surpass them in wisdom and who believe that God Himself has inscribed the law on the God-written tablets? Does Attic eloquence belong to you? And the game of checkers, the science of numbers, the art of counting on the fingers, measures, scales, the art of building regiments and fighting - whose is it? Is it not a Euboean? For in Euboea was born Palamides, who invented many things, and thus aroused envy, was punished for his wisdom, that is, he was condemned to death by those who fought against Ilion. So, what then? If the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, if the Jews, from whom we also borrow much for our education, if, finally, the inhabitants of the island of Euboea, in your opinion, appropriate all this to themselves as property, what shall we do? How will we defend ourselves against them, falling under our own laws? Shall we not be deprived of all these things, and, like a raven in other people's feathers, that they shall be torn from us, and we shall be left naked and ugly? Or are poems your property? But what if the right to them should be disputed by the old woman who, when pushed on the shoulder by a young man who was running swiftly to meet her, began to scold him, and in the heat of anger, as they say, expressed her abuse in a verse which pleased the young man very much, and which he brought to the right measure, serving as the beginning of the poem so much respected by you? What can be said about the rest? If you are proud of your weapons, then from whom, bravest warrior, do you have weapons? Is it not from the Cyclopes, from whom the art of forging originates? If it seems important to you, and even more important than all, the scarlet robe, which made you both a sage and a precipitator of such laws, then should you not give it to the Tyrians, among whom the shepherd's dog, having eaten a snail and stained his lips with its crimson juice, showed the shepherd the purple dye, and handed it to you, kings, through the Tyrians, this magnificent rag, deplorable to the wicked? What more can be said of agriculture and shipbuilding, which the Athenians may deprive us of, who speak of Demetpax, Triptolemus, dragons, Celeiae, and Icarii, and tell you of them many fables, on which are based your shameless mysteries, which are truly worthy of the darkness of the night? Does it please you that I, leaving the rest, should turn to the main object of your madness, or rather wickedness? That very thing to be initiated and initiate into the sacraments and to serve the gods, whence did it come to you? Is it not from the Thracians? The very word θρησκευειν (to serve the gods) can convince you of this. And are the sacrifices not from the Chaldeans or from the Cypriots? Does not astronomy belong to the Babylonians? Isn't geometry for the Egyptians? Isn't it magic for the Persians? Fortune-telling by dreams – from whom, if not from the Telmisians? Bird-divination from whom, if not from the Phrygians, who were the first to notice the flight and movements of birds? But in order not to verbosely, whence do you get all the private appurtenances of the worship of God? Is not each from one separate people? And from the union of all of them together was composed one mystery of superstition! So, what then? After everything has gone to the first inventors, should it not be allowed that you will have nothing of your own left but malice and your apostasy, which is truly new? In fact, you were the first of the Christians to think of rebelling against the Lord, as the Scythians once had slaves against masters. It is true that it would be very important for you if, according to your definitions and laws, this evil conglomeration were destroyed, so that you could be freed from anxiety and see the Roman empire again in its ancient prosperity, free from all internal strife, which is much more intolerable and terrible than war with external enemies, just as it is more terrible to tear one's own flesh than someone else's.

But if in these actions of his you see a cunning villainy, covered with a mask of meekness and in no way consistent with the greatness of the king, then I will present to you experiments of even greater cunning. He saw that our teaching was majestic both in its dogmas and in the testimonies given from above; that it is both ancient and new, ancient in prophecies and in the thoughts of the Divinity that shine through in it, new in the last Theophany and in the miracles that took place as a result of it and during it; I saw that this teaching was even more majestic and glorious according to the rules of church order handed down and still preserved. And so, in order that this also may not escape his wickedness, what does he plot, what does he do? He imitates Rapsacus the Assyrian, the military commander of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Rapsacus, having carried the war within the borders of Judea, besieged Jerusalem with a great force and a large army, and encamped himself near the city itself, but when he could neither take the city by force, nor wait for the deserters who would tell him something about what was happening in the cities, he thought of inducing the inhabitants to submit by gentle persuasions, offering them in their own language. Yet the besieged, as is known from history, perceiving his intention, and fearing lest by the pleasantness of his speeches they should be caught in the snare of slavery, demanded first of all that he should speak to them, not in Hebrew, but in Assyrian. He had a similar plan. For he was preparing in all the cities to establish schools, pulpits, higher and lower places for the inmates, the reading and interpretation of pagan teachings relating to the formation of morals and to the sacraments, as well as models of prayers, alternately pronounced by one or the other, penances for sinners, in accordance with the crime, the rite of preparation for initiation, and the initiation itself.

This is what this new dogmatist and sophist was up to. And that his undertaking was not carried out and put into operation, I do not know whether it should be considered a benefit for us, who were soon freed from him and his designs, or a greater advantage for himself, because he had to stop at dreams alone. Otherwise, it would be revealed how far from the movements of human imitation of apes are. It is said that monkeys also imitate such movements as man makes before their eyes in order to deceive them; but by this very means they are caught, since their imitation cannot reach our intelligence. According to the oracle, the horse of Thessalian, the Lacedaemonian wife, and the men who drink the water of Arethusa, that is, the Sicilians, are more excellent than all those who are of the same kind with them, but it is much more true that Christian customs and laws are peculiar to Christians alone, so that it is impossible for anyone else who would imitate us to adopt them, and this is because they were not established by human considerations, but by the power of God and by lasting constancy.

Now it is most appropriate to examine, as it were, this wondrous or, better, absurd construction, and to find out what form of teaching they might have and what the purpose of the meetings might be, in order, as Plato says of his city, built on words, to see their thought in motion. All wisdom is divided into two parts, speculative and active, of which the first is higher, but more difficult to understand, and the other, lower, but more useful. In our country, both of them contribute to each other. Speculation serves us as a companion to the things above, and activity as an ascent to speculation, for it is impossible to attain wisdom without living wisely. And with them, who do not draw from the Divine inspiration of the power that binds them, both these parts are like roots, not established in the soil and rushing about on the waters; and I don't know which of them is funnier and weaker. Let us look at their blessedness and allow ourselves, as happens in many spectacular performances, to have a little fun with the amusing storytellers of fables, and to the saying: "to rejoice with those who rejoice and to weep" (Romans 12:15) to add this: "to talk about empty things with empty words." With tears, there is also laughter, as the poets have noticed. Let us, then, imagine a magnificent spectacle, or, I do not know how else they command them to call their house. Let the heralds call the hearers, let the people gather, let the first places be occupied either by those who are distinguished by gray old age and excellent way of life, or by people famous by birth, by glory and by the cunning wisdom of the earth, in which there is more charm than true piety. We will give them that advantage; What will they do after that? Let them write down their chairmen themselves. Let them be adorned with purple garments, ribbons, and beautiful wreaths of many colors. For I have often noticed that they are carefully concerned about their majestic appearance, about how to become higher than the commoners; as if everything common and ordinary was contemptible, and that which showed arrogance and could not belong to many, should inspire confidence. Or will they condescend to us in this too, and think, like us, that it is more proper for them to be superior to others in morals, and not in appearance? For we care little about the appearance and the pictorial appearance, but more about the inner world of man and about drawing the attention of the spectator to what is contemplated by the mind, by which we teach more people. Now, let it be as it is said.

What next? Of course, you will present to them the interpreters of the forebodings that you call divine, you will open theological and moral books. What and whose, tell me, please! It is good for them to sing the Theogony of Hesiod and talk about the battles and conspiracies described therein, about the Titans and giants, terrible in name and in deeds. Cottus, Briareus, Gyges, Enceladus, represented by you with dragon legs, lightning-fast gods and islands thrown on giants, arrows and together coffins for the rebels; the abominable fiends and premature offspring of giants, hydras, chimeras, Cerberus, Gorgons, in short, a multitude of all evils — these are the beauties that can be offered to the hearers of Hesiod! Now let Orpheus appear with his zither and all-captivating song; let those great and wonderful words and thoughts be heard in honor of Zeus, in which his theology is expressed.

"O Zeus, the most glorious, the greatest of the gods, hiding under the dung of sheep, horses, and hinnies!" And could it be expressed in any other way? But he is not stingy with other equally lofty speeches. For example: "Having said this, the goddess δοιως ανεσυρατο μυρως" in order to lead her favorites into her obscene secrets, which is still depicted even now by external bodily movements. Let Phanes, Ericapeia, and he who devoured all the other gods, and then vomited them out of himself, and thus became the father of men and gods, join in all this. Let all this be offered to the wonderful hearers of theology, then let them invent allegories and monstrous interpretations for this, and the teaching, departing from its subject, will rush into the abyss or rapids of speculation, which has no support. But where will you place Homer, that great tragicomic singer of the gods? In his amazing poems you will find both, that is, both grief and laughter. Indeed, is it possible to watch and wait without great care whether, through the intermediary of Hera, dressed like a harlot, the Ocean will be reconciled with Tethys? Otherwise, the misfortune of the whole Universe if they spend some more time chaste! I do not know whether you will explain this in such a way that dryness and humidity must be reconciled, so that by an excess of one of them everything will not be thrown into disorder; or come up with something even more ridiculous. Then, what a wonderful copulation between the cloud-gatherer and the venerable Hera, when she convinces him with shamelessness in the middle of the day! And the poets in their measured speeches flatter him, laying the dewy lotus and returning saffron and hyacinth from the ground. What is this based on and how can it be explained? How can we understand that one and the same Hera, the sister and wife of the great Zeus, white-bodied and rosy-feathered, appears to be hanged in the ether and in the clouds, with iron anvils dragging her down, and with golden (of course, out of respect for her) fetters on her hands, so that even for the gods, who wanted to intercede for her, their compassion was not uncomfortable; then he puts on the belt of love and, magnificently dressed, so captivates Zeus that all his former desires, as he himself confesses, were much weaker than the love that was then aroused in him? Or how terrible is it that the gods should be stirred for the Lacedaemonian harlot, that the heavens should thunder, and that the foundations of the earth should be torn asunder, the sea should be moved, the kingdom of hell should be revealed, and that which had so long remained hidden should be revealed? Or, how menacing is this wave of black eyebrows and the wavering of immortal hair, from which the whole of Olympus shook? Then, is it not wonderful to see how Ares is wounded, or how this ugly lover of the golden Aphrodite, an imprudent adulterer, is imprisoned in copper, and bound by Hephaestus, lame on both legs, gathers around him for a spectacle the gods who look at his lewdness, and then is released for little money?

Why should they resort to myths, to this cover of shame? The myth is the protection of those who retreat, not those who boldly advance. If this is a lie, then, first, let them point out the theologians who are not hiding, and we will talk to them; then let them say, is it not foolish, as something solid, to boast of what they themselves are ashamed of, as fabulous? Isn't it strange to flaunt in images and in various forms what might remain unknown to the people (because not everyone learns)

In the first place, why do they praise these offenders of the gods they worship, and almost bestow divine honors? It would be a great gain for such people not to suffer punishment for their wickedness.

And it seems to me that it is truly necessary that both the outward signs of the Divine and the expressions about it should not be indecent and unworthy of what is signified, should not be such that people would be grieved if they heard something similar about themselves; on the contrary, they must be either in the highest degree beautiful, or at least not vile, so that they may both please the wise and not harm the people. And with you, what needs to be understood with the mind is incredible, and what is offered to the eyes is pernicious. What kind of prudence is this, to lead through the mud to the city, or over rocks and pitfalls to the wharf? What will come of it? What will be the consequences of such a teaching? You will talk idly and cover up your calamities or other fictions with allegories, but no one will believe you. Rather, they are convinced by what they see. Thus, you will not benefit the listener, and you will lead the spectator who dwells on the visible to destruction. Such is the speculative part of their wisdom! So far is it from their intended ends, that it is more likely that all the rest can be connected with each other, that what is separated by the greatest space is more likely to be united, than to combine and harmonize their fictions, or to think that both the meaning of the fables and their shell are the work of one and the same teacher.

What can be said about the moral part of their wisdom? Whence and where shall they begin, and what motives shall they use to teach their hearers virtue, and by means of their exhortations to make them better? It is a beautiful thing to be of one mind, that cities, nations, families, and all men should live in harmony with each other, following the law and order of nature, which has divided and united all things, and has made this collection of various things one world. But by what examples will they teach unanimity? Is it that they will tell of the battles of the gods, of their internecine strife, of their rebellions, and of the multitude of misfortunes which they themselves endure and inflict on each other, each separately and all together, and with which almost all their history and all their poetry are filled? But by pointing out such examples, you are more likely to make people from peaceful lovers of abuse, from wise to ecstasy, than from impudent and foolish to humble and sensible. If, even then, since there is no lure to evil, it is difficult to turn people away from vice, and to convert them from a bad state to a good one, then who will persuade them to be meek and temperate, when their gods are the guides and protectors of the passions, and to be vicious is even a praiseworthy deed, rewarded with altars and sacrifices, and enjoying legal freedom (since every vice is under the protection of some god? to which it is attributed)? Indeed, it is the greatest absurdity that people revere the very thing for which the law prescribes punishment as something divine. Such is your abundance of unrighteousness. Secondly, let the teachers of the Gentiles suggest that they reverently respect their parents and honor in them the first guilt of their existence after the Original Guilt. Let them bring proofs to this point and present convictions from theology. How could Cronus, who castrated Uranus so that he could not beget gods, and give the waves an opportunity to complete the birth of the goddess from foam, would not persuade him to do so? How can Zeus, that sweet stone and bitter murderer of the tyrant, who, imitating his father Cronus, rebel against him, not convince? I do not point out other similar motives for honoring parents contained in their books. Thirdly, let the teachers of the Gentiles try to teach them to despise money, not to try to profit from everything, and not to seek unrighteous acquisitions, which are the pledge of calamity. But how then to put Kerdoi in front? How to show his bag? How to honor the agility of this god in stealing? What good then are the sayings: "Phoebus does not prophesy without brass" or "Nothing is more honorable than an obolus?"

Do we still need examples of curbing the passions? Let anger be tamed by Ares, drunkenness by Dionysus, hatred of strangers by Artemis, passion for deception by their cunning soothsayer, immoderate laughter by that god who limps in the assembly of gods who pity him, who can hardly stand on thin legs, gluttony by Zeus, who runs with other demons to a fat feast with the immaculate Ethiopians, and also Vuin, so called because he offended a farmer and ate his ox, pulling the plow, as well as the other gods, who all run so hastily to the smell of fat and libations!

Is this close to our teaching, according to which everyone should measure love for others by love for himself, and desire for his neighbors the same as for himself, according to which desire is blamed not only for doing evil, but also for plotting, and for punishing the deed itself, according to which chastity should be so carefully cared for, as to abstain from the eye, and not only from the hand, to kill? but to pacify the anger itself, according to which – to break an oath or to swear falsely – is so terrible and intolerable, that the oath itself is forbidden to us alone? Many of us had no money at all, and others, although they had a lot of it, but only in order to neglect much, loving non-acquisitiveness instead of all wealth. To serve the belly, that intolerable and disgusting worthy lord and source of all evil, is left to us by the rabble; It will not be much if I say that Christian ascetics try to be as it were bodiless, exhausting the mortal with the immortal; for them, one law of virtue is not to be conquered even by the smallest, even by what everyone ignores. While others punish according to their laws for committing a deed, we cut off the very sources of sin, stopping it in advance, as a kind of evil and unstoppable stream. What could be more excellent? Or, tell me, where and from what kind of people you will find, so that when they speak evil of them, they bless, when they blaspheme, they are comforted (for it is not the accusation that causes harm, but the truth), when they persecute, they yield (1 Cor. 4:12-13), when one garment is taken from them, they give another, when they swear, they pray for those who swear (Matt. 5:40-44), in a word, that they may overcome insolence with mercy, and, Patiently enduring offenses, did you make the offenders themselves the best? Let them also restrain vice by exhortations that are outwardly plausible; let us yield to them, but how can they attain our virtue and our teaching, when even these are considered evil among us, if we do not succeed in good, if we do not continually become new from the old, but remain in the same position, like the kubars, which only whirl and do not roll forward, and although they move from the blows of the whip, they are all in the same place? We have so many good deeds ahead of us, that we must complete one thing, approach another, ardently desire a third, until we reach the end and God's grace, for this we have received existence, and to this we unswervingly strive, if only we ascend the mountain with our minds and hope for good things worthy of the greatness of God.