From the time when he appeared and the other fishermen with him, from that time the teaching of Plato and Pythagoras, which was formerly considered to be dominant, fell silent, so that (now) many do not even know their names, although Plato, as they say, conversed with kings at their invitation, had many like-minded people, and sailed to Sicily. And Pythagoras, upon his arrival in great Greece, showed here many different kinds of sorcery. After all, talking to oxen (they say that he did this too) was nothing but a matter of magic. And this is especially evident from the fact that, in conversing in this way with the foolish, he not only did no good to mankind, but did very much harm to it.

Human nature is certainly more capable of studying philosophy; but, as they say, he conversed with eagles and oxen with the help of sorcery, he did not make nature irrational (this is impossible for man), but only deceived the unreasonable by sorcery. Leaving people to teach anything useful, he impressed upon them that it was all the same whether they ate beans or the heads of their parents, and assured his followers that the soul of their teacher was sometimes a tree, sometimes a maiden, sometimes a fish. Is it not justly that all these things have been destroyed and completely disappeared? In fairness, quite reasonably. But this is not the teaching of this simple and unlettered man. On the contrary, the Syrians, and the Egyptians, and the Indians, and the Persians, and the Ethiopians, and many other nations, being ignorant people, learned to be inquisitive when they translated into their own language the teaching taught to them.

3. It was not in vain, then, that I said that for him the whole universe was a place of spectacle. He did not abandon those who were like himself by nature, and did not labor in vain over the nature of the dumb, which was a matter of excessive ambition and extreme madness. He, being pure and from this passion, as well as from others, tried only for this one thing, so that the whole universe would learn something useful, which could lead it from earth to heaven. That is why he did not cover his teaching with some kind of darkness and darkness, as those philosophers did, covering the vagueness of the teaching, as if with a certain veil, the evil contained in its essence.

Its dogmas are clearer than the sun's rays, and therefore accessible to all people throughout the universe. Those who came to him he did not command, like that (Pythagoras), to be silent for five years; He did not teach as if senseless stones were sitting before him, he did not fabulously describe everything, defining everything by numbers. But, having rejected all this satanic abomination and destruction, he made his words so intelligible that everything he said was clear not only to men and men of understanding, but also to women and young men. He was sure that his teaching was true and useful for all who would listen, and all subsequent times testify to this. He drew the whole universe to Himself, freed our life from all alien fiction, after we had heard His preaching.

Wherefore we who hear him would rather lose our lives than the dogmas which he has taught us. And from here, as elsewhere, it is evident that there is nothing human in his teaching, but that there is instruction; those who have come down to us through this divine soul are divine and heavenly. We do not find in him either a noise of words, or pomp in speech, or an excessive and useless decoration and combination of names and words (and this is alien to all wisdom); but we will see the invincible, divine power, the invincible strength of the right dogmas, the combination of innumerable blessings.

Artificiality would be superfluous in the preaching of the Gospel; it is peculiar to sophists, or rather, not to sophists, but to foolish children, so that their philosopher (Plato) himself represents his teacher as being very ashamed of this art, and telling his judges that they will hear from him speeches pronounced simply and as it happens, not adorned with words and not speckled with names and expressions, because, he said, it would be unseemly for me, Venerable men, at such an age to compose children's speeches, and come to you with them. But look at the laughter! Which, according to the description of this philosopher, his teacher avoided as a child's business, he himself most of all coveted. So in all cases they were led by ambition!

And there is nothing surprising in Plato, except for this one thing. Just as when you open the tombs, which are painted from without, you will see that they are filled with decay and stench and rotten bones, so in the opinions of this philosopher, if you expose them from the embellishment in the expression, you will see much abomination, especially when he philosophizes about the soul, without measure, and exalting and humiliating it. The devil's cunning is not to observe moderation in anything, but, leading to opposite extremes, to mislead. Sometimes he says that the soul participates in the divine being; and sometimes, having exalted it so immoderately and so impiously, he insults it in the other extreme, introducing it into pigs and asses, and into other animals, even worse.

But enough about this, or better to say - and even then in moderation. If it were possible to learn something useful from them, it would be necessary to study them more. And since it was only necessary to discover their shameful and ridiculous sides, we have said this more than is proper. So, leaving their fables, let us proceed to our dogmas, brought to us from above in the mouth of this fisherman; and having nothing human. Let us consider his sayings, and what we urged you to do at the beginning, that is, that you should pay careful attention to our words, we remind you of the same thing now.

So, how does the Evangelist begin his story? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." (John 1:1). (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God.) Do you see in this saying all his boldness and power? How does he speak without hesitation, without conjecture, but saying everything positively? The quality of the teacher is not to hesitate in what he himself says. And if a man, desiring to instruct others, were in need of a man who could support himself, he should justly take the place not of a teacher, but of a pupil.

But if someone says: Why did the Evangelist, leaving the first Cause, immediately begin to talk to us about the second? then we refuse to talk about the first and the second. The Godhead is above the number and sequence of times: therefore we refuse to say so, but confess the Self-existent Father, and the Son begotten of the Father.

4. So, you will say; but why does (the Evangelist), having left the Father, speak of the Son? Because the Father was recognized by all, though not as Father, but as God; but they did not know the Only-begotten. That is why the Evangelist hastened immediately, at the very beginning, to offer the knowledge of Him to those who did not know Him. However, he did not keep silent about the Father in these same words. Pay attention to their spiritual meaning. He knew that people from time immemorial and first of all recognized and revered God. Therefore it is necessary to speak first (of the existence of the Son): in the beginning, and then further, he calls Him God, but not in the same way as Plato, who called the one the intellect and the other the soul. This is alien to the divine and immortal nature. It has nothing to do with us, but it is very far from communion with the creature - I mean in essence, and not in actions. That is why the evangelist called Him the Word.

Having the intention (of men) that this Word is the Only-begotten Son of God, the Evangelist, lest anyone here suppose a passionate birth, by first calling the Son the Word, he destroys all evil suspicion, showing both that He is the Son of the Father, and that He is (begotten) passionlessly. Do you see how I said that in his words about the Son he was not silent about the Father? If these explanations are not enough for a perfect understanding of this subject, do not be surprised: we are now talking about God, about Whom it is impossible to speak or think in a worthy way. That is why the Evangelist nowhere uses the expression "being" - since it is impossible to say what God is in His essence - but everywhere shows us Him only from His actions. Thus we see that this Word is called light a little later, and again this light is called life.

However, it was not for this reason alone that he called Him so; but, firstly, for this reason, and secondly, because the Word had to tell us about the Father. "… He has told you all that He has heard from My Father.' And He calls Him both light and life, because He has given us the light of knowledge, and hence life. In general, there is not a single such name, nor two, nor three or more names, which would be sufficient to express what concerns the Godhead. At the very least, it is desirable that, though by many (names), though not quite clearly, it be possible to depict His attributes. The Evangelist did not simply call Him the Word, but with the addition of a member (o), distinguishing Him from all other (beings). Do you see how it was not in vain that I said that this evangelist speaks to us from heaven? See where he immediately, at the very beginning, soaring, raised the soul and mind of his listeners. Placing her above all sensual things, above the earth, above the sea, above the sky, he raises her above the angels themselves, the cherubim and seraphim on high, above thrones, principalities, powers, and in general persuades her to ascend above all created things.

What then? Having erected on. such a height, could he stop us here? Nohow. But just as if a man standing on the seashore, and surveying the cities, shores, and harbors, were led by someone to the very middle of the sea, and thereby, of course, removed him from his former objects, yet he could not stop his gaze on anything, but only led him into the immeasurable space of vision, so the Evangelist, having raised us above all creatures, directing us to the eternity that preceded it, it leaves our gaze to linger, not allowing it to reach any end in height, since there is no end there: Reason, ascending to the beginning, examines what this beginning is. Then, when he encounters the "was" thought that always precedes him, he does not find where to stop his thought, but, straining his gaze and not being able to limit it in any way, he labors and returns to the valley again. The expression: "In the beginning was..." means nothing else but eternal and infinite being. Do you see true wisdom and divine dogmas, not such as those of the Hellenes, who presuppose times and recognize some gods as elder and others as junior?