Treatment of Hellenic ailments. Word IV. About matter and space

The apologetic work “Treatment of Hellenic Illnesses” (full title “Treatment of Hellenic Illnesses, or knowledge of the Gospel truth from Hellenic philosophy”) was written by Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus either until 423, or in 434-437. The reason for its writing was the ridicule of pagans at the Christian religion. The work consists of 12 Words, in which the blj. Theodoret compares Christian doctrine with the worldview of Greek philosophers, writers and poets. He proves the superiority of the Gospel over Greek philosophy, as well as the futility of idol worship, contrasting them with the veneration of martyrs and holy saints of God. The 1st Word contains criticism of the Hellenic philosophical tradition and speaks of faith as a source of religious knowledge. The 2nd Word discusses the doctrine of God and the origin of the world. The 3rd Word criticizes polytheism and compares it with Christian angelology. The 4th Word contrasts Christian and pagan cosmologies. The 5th Word sets out Christian anthropology: it talks about human nature and the relationship between soul and body, free will and moral responsibility. The 6th Word speaks of Divine Providence. The 7th Word is dedicated to pagan and Jewish sacraments. The doctrine of true worship of God is presented. Sacrifice to idols is contrasted with the sacrifice of Moses. The 8th Word deals with Christian veneration of martyrs. The 9th Word compares Christian morality with the laws of the Greeks, Romans and other peoples. Word 10 talks about pagan oracles and Bible prophecies. The 11th Word compares pagan and Christian eschatologies. The 12th Word contains the life of the apostles and their followers with the life of the Greek philosophers and their disciples. This publication presents a translation from ancient Greek of Word IV “On Matter and Cosmos” (73 chapters), in which pagan ideas about the world and its origin are criticized. Blzh. Theodoret shows their contradictory nature and contrasts them with the biblical teaching about the One God the Creator, who created the world out of nothing. *The title of the essay in Latin is Graecarum affectionum curatio. See also: Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus and his Homily IV “On Matter and Cosmos” from the treatise “Treatment of Hellenic Ailments” 1. Democritus of Abdera, son of Damasippus, is reported to have said that the best teaching is close to nature, for it transforms and rebuilds the soul for the better and renews the ancient features that nature originally depicted 1 . 2. This idea seems very fair to me. And as Porphyry reports 2, Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, while he was young, deviated into debauchery, but through diligence and education he destroyed these imprints in himself, and imprinted those from philosophy. And the Divine Sayings have taught us many similar things. For our Savior, with advice and admonition, pulled out of the pit of depravity the publicans who chose a covetous and unjust life, and the most lustful harlot, and the most lawless thief, and many others who lived in evil, and showed them to be zealots of the most perfect virtue (see: Matt. 9:10; Luke 7:36-50, 23:39-43). 3. And what am I talking about three, four, ten or fifteen? But He attracted the entire universe, which was in such a state, through these few, whom, having transformed at once, He Himself changed, and the one that was similar to the crazy and insane He revealed to be chaste. Since we clearly understood this, we offer you this saving teaching; however, seeing that you resist, contradict [p. 204] and reject healing, we do not despair, but wash away the passion of unbelief with the sponge of the word. 4. We have already done three things: we have shown the medicine of faith to be necessary and beneficial; then they showed how one should think about the Divine essence and what one should think about invisible but created natures and, exposing the shame of poetic myths, exposed the monstrosity of the allegories of philosophers 3. Since they did not think about the visible creation truly and not in accordance with each other, but were divided, as if during a night battle, into numerous rumors, treating each other as enemies, I believe it would be useful to put this opinion of theirs on display and compare it with the dogmas of Divine Scripture, directly showing how “the thoughts of people are fearful, and their plans are fragile” (Wis. 9:14), according to the words of one of ours wise men. 5. Thus, Xenophanes of Colophon, son of Ortomen, head of the Eleatic school, said that the world is one, spherical and limited, that it did not arise, but is eternal and completely motionless. And then, forgetting his words, he said that everything arose from the earth. This verse belongs to him: From the earth is everything, and into the earth everything is resolved 4. 6. But these thoughts are completely inconsistent with each other. For if the world is eternal, then it is without beginning, and if it is without beginning, then it is without cause, and if it is without cause, then it does not have earth as its mother. And if the cause is the earth, then [p. 205] is not without cause, and if it is not without cause, then it is not without beginning, and if it is not without beginning, then it is not eternal. 7. And Parmenides, son of Piret, an Eleatic and companion of Xenophanes, wrote that he agreed with the first part of his teacher’s teaching. Rumor attributes the following verse to him: Immaterial, one, motionless and unborn 5. The beginning of all this was called not only the earth, as he did, but also fire. 8. Melissus of Miletus, the son of Itagenes, was his companion 6 , but he did not keep the transmitted teaching in purity and called the cosmos unlimited, while they said that it was limited 7 . 9 . Democritus of Abdera, son of Damasippus, was the first to introduce the opinion of emptiness and fullness 8. Metropolitan of Chios called them indivisible and void, and Epicurus of Athens, son of Neocleus, being in the fifth generation after Democritus, called what they called complete and indivisible atoms. 10. Some called it indivisible, atom and completeness because of its inability to be affected, while others because of its very small size, as not being able to allow dissection and division. This is what they call the smallest and finest bodies [of dust particles]; when [r. 206] the sun's rays burst into the windows, you can see them flying up and down. 11. Those named above were followed by the Pythagorean Ecphantus of Syracuse 9 . Plato, the son of Ariston, calls God, matter and ideas the beginnings of everything; Aristotle Stagirite, son of Nicomachus, is species, matter and privation. And he has not four elements, but five, for he said that the ether is something else - unchangeable and not subject to transformation 10. 12. Xenocrates of Chalcedon 11 called the matter from which everything came eternal. Zeno of Citium, son of Mnesaeus, student of Crates and founder of the teachings of the Stoics, called God and matter principles; Hippasus of Metapontia and Heraclitus of Ephesus, son of Bloson, said that the universe is one, which is motionless and limited, and has fire as its beginning. Diogenes of Apollonia said that everything was made up of air. 13. As for matter, Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus and the crowd of Stoics called it capable of transformation, changeable and fluid, while Democritus, Metrodorus and Epicurus said that there are atoms and emptiness that are not subject to action. Plato called matter corporeal, ugly, without outlines and completely unshaped, without quality. For all this, he said, matter subsequently received from the Creator. Aristotle called it bodily [p. 207], and the Stoics - with the body. 14. As for the void, the followers of Democritus call it the place of atoms, and everyone else simply laughs at this teaching. For example, Empedocles says this: No part of the Whole [Universe] is either empty or redundant 12. 15. The Stoics did not allow any emptiness inside the universe, but outside it they allowed a perfect and boundless emptiness. And vice versa, Strato said that there is no emptiness outside, but inside it is possible 13. However, not only in these issues great disagreement appeared, but also in others. For Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Melissus, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle and Zeno agreed that the world is one, and Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaus, Xenophanes, Diogenes, Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus taught about the plurality and innumerability of worlds. 16. And some considered it spherical, while others considered it to be of a different type; some thought that it was like a millstone, others that it rotated like a wheel; and some believed it to be animate and alive, others - completely soulless, others - that it arose in mental and not temporal sequence, fourth - that it had no origin or cause at all; and some claimed that it was perishable, and others that it was imperishable. 17. Thales called the luminaries earthly and fiery, but Anaxagoras believed that due to the rotation of the universe [p. 208] some stones came off, caught fire, fixed themselves at the top and were called luminaries. And Democritus was of the same opinion, and Diogenes considered them porous and similar to pumice. Anaxagoras said that these were certain air formations, condensed in a disk shape, full of fire, and emitting flames from certain holes. 18. Diogenes says that some of the luminaries fall to the earth burning and, when extinguished, reveal in themselves the nature of stones. At the same time, he refers to evidence that once one of them fell in a fiery form on Aegos Potamos. Plato argues that, on the one hand, they consist mostly of fire, but, on the other hand, they also include other elements. Aristotle says that they are akin to the fifth body 14. 19. Xenophanes believed that the luminaries consisted of fiery clouds that went out during the day and rekindled at night, like coals. 20. Heraclides and some other Pythagoreans argued that each luminary has its own cosmos, consisting of earth and air; and some call them spherical, and the Stoic Cleanthes calls them cone-shaped 15. 21. Xenophanes considers both the sun and the moon to be fiery clouds; Anaxagoras, Democritus and Metrodorus - with red-hot blocks of metal or stone; Thales - consisting of earth, Diogenes - similar to pumice, Aristotle - a ball composed of the fifth body, Plato - mostly consisting of fire, but including other bodies, Philotheus the Pythagorean - glassy, ​​containing the reflection of cosmic fire and transmitting light to us [p. 209] and warmth, like external display. And others thought differently about this, which, I believe, is unnecessary to talk about, so as not to get entangled in these intricacies. 22. And they have a great dispute about the type of stars. For some say that the sun is spherical, others that it is like a ship, others that it is like a chariot wheel. Anaximander claims that it is twenty-seven times larger than the earth, Empedocles - that it is equal to the earth, Anaxagoras - that it is larger than the Peloponnese, Heraclitus - that it is the size of a foot. 23. And they also talk nonsense about the moon. Thales called it earthly, Anaximenes, Parmenides and Heraclitus - consisting of one fire, Anaxagoras and Democritus - a fiery firmament, containing plains, mountains and gorges; Pythagoras - a stone body, Heraclides - earth surrounded by clouds; and some declared that the Moon was greater than the Earth, others that it was equal to the Earth, and still others that it was smaller; others considered it to be 16 inches in size. 24. What is to be said about the fabulous things they talk about phases, diminutions, and distances? For they chatter not only about how far the Moon and the Sun are from each other, but also how far they are from the Earth, and they count from the Earth to the Moon four hundred or more thousand times ten thousand stadia, and from the Moon to the Sun. At the same time, they do not even know the depth of the sea, where they can at least lower a lot or a rope, but they are not ashamed to present themselves as clearly knowing the measure of air and ether [p. 210], without thinking about the futility of this matter and without listening to the advice of Aeschylus: Do not seek in vain for that which is of no use 17. 25. Moreover, even if each of these could be known, it would still be completely useless. And since it is impossible for people to know this, it is very similar to writing on water with a pitchfork or scooping water with a sieve 18 . And both some and others work in vain and waste time. 26. Seeing this, Socrates, saying goodbye to astrologers and experts on nature, turned to moral teaching. And Xenophon clearly showed this in his Memoirs of Socrates, saying this: “In general, he did not advise studying celestial phenomena and how God produces each of them; This, he thought, is not given to people to comprehend, and it does not give pleasure to the gods if someone explores what they did not want to discover. Moreover, those engaged in such research run the risk of going crazy in the same way as Anaxagoras, who was very proud of his explanation of the actions of the gods, went crazy.” 19 27. And here is what the same author wrote on the same topic: “Nevertheless, no one has ever seen or heard from Socrates a single wicked word or deed that is contrary to religion [p. 211]. Yes, he did not discuss topics about the “nature of everything” or other things, as the majority argue; did not touch upon the question of how the sophists call “cosmos” is structured and according to what immutable laws every celestial phenomenon occurs. On the contrary, he even pointed out the stupidity of those who deal with such problems. 28. The first question regarding them that he considered was this: Do they consider themselves already sufficiently knowledgeable about human affairs and therefore begin to study such subjects, or do they, by leaving aside all human things and occupying themselves with those things that concern the deity, think that they are acting properly? He wondered how they did not understand that this was impossible for man to comprehend, because even those of them who were most proud of their ability to reason on these topics did not agree with each other and treated each other as crazy. 29. After all, some crazy people are not afraid even of terrible things, while others are afraid of even harmless things; some do not consider it indecent to say or do anything even among a crowd, others find that one should not even show oneself to people; some do not revere either the church, or the altar, or anything divine at all, others revere the first stones, pieces of wood, or animals they come across. So are those who ask questions about the nature of the world: it seems to some that existence is one, to others that it is limitless in its multiplicity; It seems to some that everything is forever moving, to others that nothing can ever move; It seems to some that everything is born and perishes, to others that nothing can ever be born or perish” 20 [p. 212]. 30. And he sets out many other similar things, denouncing their great idle talk. Not one of our people wrote about their pompous chatter, but Xenophon and Socrates are the best of the Hellenes. And for those who are busy with business, it is not difficult to read the “Memoirs” of Xenophon and clearly find out what he wrote about the notorious philosophers. 31. If anyone thinks that I am slandering these men, exposing their complete disagreement, let him read Aetius’s “Placita,” Plutarch’s “On the Opinions of the Philosophers,” and Porphyry’s “History of Philosophy,” which reports a lot of similar things. 32. However, Xenophon, as we recently mentioned, is enough to testify to the truth of what was said, for he especially ridiculed their great ignorance and fierce disputes. I, leaving everyone else, on the one hand, will praise Plato, and on the other hand, I will denounce what he is wrong about - for example, what he wrote in Timaeus: 33. “Let us consider for what reason the one who created them arranged the emergence and this Universe” 21 . And then he gives the best and most amazing answer: “He was good, and he who is good never experiences envy in any matter. Being alien to envy, he wished that all things should become as similar to himself as possible” 22 [p. 213]. He said: similar in being, but not in nature. For just as He Himself exists, so He willed that the non-existent would receive existence, but He Himself did not receive existence from anyone, but He Himself grants existence to that which has arisen. 34. The following is close to what was said: “It was not out of necessity that God created the world in order to glorify himself before man or before other gods or demons; not seeking to obtain some kind of profit from the creation, neither from us - the sacrificial smoke, nor from the gods, nor from the demons the services characteristic of them" 23. 35. And again Plato repeats that God does not need anything and created everything for the sake of His goodness alone and called those whom we call Angels gods and demons, and gave them the name of servants of God of all kinds. 36. Plato also wrote commendably in the Republic: the Good gives the things that have arisen “both being and existence, although the Good itself is not existence, it is beyond existence, exceeding it in dignity and power” 24. For He not only put into them, as it is said, a general form, just as a coppersmith or a goldsmith does, but He also created their essence and endowed them with it, while He Himself does not have the same nature with the things that came into being, for He is beyond essence and beyond essence, surpassing creation not only in eternity, but also in power. 37. And Plato clearly said that God created everything not from existing matter, but from non-existence - he created everything as he wanted. Plato also has such an amazing and wonderful question about the sky: “Was it always there, without having a beginning of its origin, or did it arise from a certain beginning?” And he himself answers: “It arose, because it is visible, tangible, bodily, and all things of this kind are perceptible and, perceived as a result of sensation by opinion, turn out to be arising and generated. But we say that everything that has arisen needs a certain cause for its emergence” 25. 38. Having said this about those who came into being, Plato then taught about the Creator, and, as one should think, very wisely. For he says: “Of course, the creator and parent of this Universe is not easy to find [p. 215], and even if we find it, it will be impossible to tell everyone about it 26, for this teaching is completely ineffable, unlike other teachings.” 39. Plato shows us the Word of God, who created everything. For, having learned about this from the Hebrew Scriptures, he says this in a full voice: “So that time was born from the mind and thought of God, the Sun, the Moon and five other luminaries, called planets, arose in order to determine and maintain the numbers of time. Having created their bodies one after another, God placed them, seven in number, on seven circles in which the other revolved.” 27 40. By this he taught us that not only with the Word did God create creation, but that the sun, the moon, and the stars are created bodies that received existence from God. And none of this, according to Plato, is God, since they were created for the needs of people. And Euripides clearly speaks about this [mentioning the goddess Equality] in “The Phoenicians”: She gives and forms numbers; And the sad companion of the nights, And bright days the burning luminary From year to year and turn and step, Submit to that goddess, do not change, And there is no envy between them, and you, You, mortal, will offend your brother in the division?! 28 41. So, Euripides says that the sun and moon serve mortals, and you admit that you serve your slaves and give them Divine veneration. I will again turn to Plato and praise him for the fact that what is close to us speaks about the end of everything. 42. And he says this: “If the cosmos is beautiful, and its demiurge is good, then it is clear that he looked at the eternal” 29. And he added about the sky [p. 216]: “After all, the cosmos is the most beautiful of things that have arisen, and its demiurge is the best of reasons,” and further: the demiurge built “the visible and tangible sky” 30; and added a little lower: “So, time arose together with the sky, so that, having been born at the same time, they would disintegrate at the same time if disintegration came for them” 31. 43. And in “Politics” Plato says something similar: “To remain eternally unchanged and identical with themselves is appropriate only to the most divine beings, but the nature of the body does not belong to this category. What we call heaven and space received many happy properties from its parent, but at the same time it turned out to be involved in the body: therefore, it could not help but receive change as its lot” 32 . 44. Again, the following belongs to him: “the helmsman of the Universe, as if letting go of the helm, retreated to his observation post, while the cosmos continued to rotate under the influence of fate and his innate lust. All the local gods, co-rulers of the greatest deity, having learned about what had happened, deprived part of the cosmos of their care. The cosmos, turning back and coming into collision with itself, carried away by the opposing aspirations of the beginning and end and shaken by a powerful internal concussion [p. 217], brought new death to all kinds of animals” 33. 45. In this Plato agrees with us when he speaks of the change of the world and that when God leaves the rudders, then he commands that those of the invisible forces who were ordered to govern part of creation should also be left in charge, and then everything visible becomes subject to change. Otherwise, Plato succumbed to the prevailing delusion that the lust allegedly inherent in matter overthrows the world in accordance with the fate originally assigned to it. 46. This is the side of Plato’s doctrine of creation for which we criticize this philosopher, for he also claims that matter pre-exists together with God, as did Pythagoras, Aristotle and [the philosophers] who bear the name of the Painted Portico [i.e. Stoics]. And he sometimes calls matter evil. Let's listen to what he says about the world: “From his creator he received everything beautiful as his inheritance; As for his previous state, no matter how painful and unfair there was in the sky, he absorbed all this into himself and gave it to living beings” 34. 47. He also adds the following: “The reason for this was the physicality inherent in him from ancient times by nature, for before coming to the present order, he was involved in great confusion” 35. I believe that every person with a sound mind will be indignant at this. For Plato directly slanderes the nature of matter [p. 218] and calls it so strong and invincibly evil that even the Creator Himself cannot change it for the better: it remains internally evil, even having received form from God, and does not cast out its original evil from itself. That is why, not only on earth, but also in heaven, she produces terrible and unjust things that affect living beings. 48. This is unworthy of what was said before and alien to sublime theology, but is an offspring of low thoughts creeping across the earth. For the talk about the fact that disorder remains in the sky makes us see here those rude, impudent and unfair assumptions that matter is the strongest, and the Creator is weakest in relation to it. And this despite the fact that, according to Plato, God created the sky according to an intelligible model. 49. In fact, he says this in Timaeus: “Are we right in speaking of one heaven, or would it be more correct to speak of many and even innumerably many? No, it is one, since it was created in accordance with the prototype” 36. The prototype, I believe, he calls either God Himself as one, or an idea, that is, the thought of God, or the mental heaven, which is called above this in the Divine Scripture. But no matter what he calls the prototype, the desire for difficult and unjust things does not correspond well with heaven. 50. But what a battle the so-called philosophers wage among themselves over their teachings! Therefore, the time has come to show the superiority of the Divine Scripture and the truth about the origin of the world. On the one hand, Scripture cast down myths about matter into Hesiod's Chaos [p. 219], and on the other hand, declared that God created everything. Moreover, he did not create it in the same way as builders of houses and ships, coppersmiths and goldsmiths, weavers, tanners and other artisans take ready-made materials and give them shape and form, and borrow tools from others; but in such a way that, just as He wanted, He brought into existence simultaneously with His desire that which did not exist at all. 51. Indeed, God of all things does not need anything, but human crafts need one another. For the helmsman needs a shipbuilder, and the shipbuilder needs a woodcutter, a blacksmith, a tar-maker and a caulker. The lumberjack needs a forester, and the forester needs, in turn, soil, watering, plants and seeds, a pick and hoe made by a blacksmith. Somehow, the blacksmith also needs a builder who would build him a room and attach an anvil to his tree and an ax to his axe, and in the same way everyone needs a weaver, a tanner and a farmer to feed and cover his body, just as they, in turn, depend on these arts in order to provide each profession with the necessary tools, respectively. 52. The Creator of the world did not need either matter or tools, but what other artisans have materials, tools, as well as time, labor, knowledge and diligence, is His will for the God of all. For everything that the Lord wanted, He created in heaven and on earth, in the sea and in all the deeps (Ps. 134:6), as the Holy Scripture says. 53. But He wanted not what He could, but what He considered necessary. For it is equally easy for Him to create ten thousand and twenty thousand worlds, since it is easier to will than to create everything. For even with us it is easiest to want, but our desire is not accompanied by force. And God has all kinds [p. 220] what is desired is possible, for with desire comes power. However, He did not limit creation by force, but as He willed, so He created. 54. And since some of the creatures are sensory and others are intelligible, some are earthly and others are heavenly, it is logical that He created living beings, both sensory and intelligible, and gave the ether and the sky to the intelligible, and gave the earth and the sea as their abode to the sensible. 55. Since among the intelligible some turned into evil, He naturally expelled them from heavenly places and gave them a place to dwell in the air and on earth - not so that they could carry out attempts of evil intent against people, for they are kept from this by the Angelic guard; but so that through migration they would learn what troubles wickedness leads to. 56. And since God divided sensible beings into kinds and created them both rational and irrational, He subjected the nature of the irrational to the rational being. However, some of them rebel, and rebel against their superiors, and try to plot evil. And since their leaders do the same and in the same way, and, respected by reason, rage against the Creator of them, these foolish ones also rebel, so that, having endured suffering, they learn how terrible and in every sense it is unfitting to transgress their rank and shamelessly step over the prescribed limits. 57. One can see how these limits are respected even by the soulless elements. For when the sea, seething and disturbed by a storm, beats against the land, it is ashamed of the sand and does not allow itself to cross the limits set for it; but just as a rushing horse is restrained by a bridle, so it is restrained by God’s unwritten law [p. 221], embedded in the banks, and returns back, as if held back by some reins. 58. So the rivers flow as they were originally ordered, and the springs gush out, and the wells bring useful things to people, and the seasons follow each other in a reasonable manner and, honoring equality, do not encroach on more. 59. Days and nights follow this law unfailingly and, as they lengthen, they do not exalt themselves, and as they shorten, they do not grieve, but borrowing time from each other, undeniably repay the debt, not quarreling with each other, but giving and receiving without any discord. 60. These are the examples that show us the wisdom and power of the Creator. For no land for so many thousands of years, being plowed, sown, planted, nourishing fruit, trampled, torn, watered by rain, covered with snow or warmed, does not undergo any decrease and does not give less fruit to those who cultivate it; neither the sea - despite the fact that the clouds constantly raise the watery nature from it and generate rain, and give it to the earth - is never seen diminished, or deserted, or leaving the shores that were previously covered by water, nor increased again because rivers flow into it from all sides. 61. I am not at all talking about where the river flows come from, because for me this question is completely incomprehensible; but how the sun, as usual, destroys the moist essence is very easy for anyone who wants to know. For the sun dries up the swamp and destroys the gatherings of waters, and dries up our bodies; and you can see the rivers becoming shallow when it left the southern countries [r. 222], hurries to the north and produces heat. 62. Therefore, as they say, the Nile River is not replenished with water at the same time as other rivers, but in the middle of summer it floods Egypt, when the sun moves to a more northern zone and, annoying other rivers, for the most part stays away from this one. If, as some say, there are other reasons for this phenomenon, it is not appropriate for me to discuss this issue now. For I myself advise others not to be curious about the reasons for Divine government, but rather to be amazed at what happens and glorify the Creator. 63. Therefore, I myself am surprised at the nature of air, which is not destroyed, despite the fact that so many people and so many irrational animals constantly breathe it, despite also the fact that so many rays and so much heat pass through it, and not only the Sun, but also the Moon and the stars. 64. But this miracle is more than a miracle, and I would risk saying that this miracle is not even a miracle. When God creates, it is appropriate to be surprised at it to the least degree, and to sing it to the greatest extent, for for Him it is easy to create everything - whatever He pleases. He put into what He created a power that is quite sufficient to exist as long as He wishes. Therefore, the earth remains as it was created from the beginning, and the sea does not decrease or increase, nor the air has lost its original nature, remaining untouched, nor the sun can melt or destroy the firmament through which it runs, nor the firmament, being wet, does not extinguish the hot sun, since each of them, to whom what destiny fell initially, preserves it. For the Creator united the opposite natures of wet and dry, cold and hot into friendship. 65. And when we see each of them: the Sun is now in the north, now in the south, now in the middle of the sky [p. 223]; The moon is either waxing or waning; stars - in time, sometimes rising, sometimes setting and indicating the time of harvest and sowing, and foreshadowing a storm or calm for those traveling on the sea, then we, friends, will not idolize them, but we will glorify their Creator, Creator and Manager, and through the visible we will approach the invisible. 66. However, here the need is not for relocation, but for faith, for only through faith can we see the Creator. When we see the successive seasons of the year, and the rain sent to the earth, and on the earth, covered with growing vegetation, we see waving fields, flowering meadows and lush groves laden with fruits, then let our tongue sing the praise of the One who gave us this, and we will not idolize either the mountain nymphs, spring or river, or the daughters of Nerea, or sing songs of praise to Demeter on the occasion of the harvest, neither a dithyramb to Dionysius, nor a paean to the Pythian Apollo the Fortuneteller, nor a hymn to Artemis Upis, but to the Creator of all, following the example of David, let us lift up a song and exclaim with him: How majestic are Thy works, O Lord! You have created all things by wisdom (Ps. 103:24). 67. When we hear songbirds singing many different songs and hear chirping cicadas, then we will say goodbye to the Sirens and Muses and worship the All-Wise and Almighty God - the One who rewarded such small birds with musical euphony and who in every possible way nourishes, delights and comforts the human race. 68. So, compare this, friends, with the opinions of philosophers and consider using the correct and fair criterion [p. 224], which of this befits God and is in accordance with Him: so that the universe never arose or was formed by itself, formed from atoms and emptiness, or nevertheless arose, on the one hand, from God, and on the other hand, from matter? And is it wicked to attribute each of the above to God, or is one thing just and true: that the Creator of all things is God, who created everything not from matter, as artisans do, but who Himself created everything that did not exist before, desiring to give existence to non-existents? 69. It is easy for him to create from both existing and non-existing; and just as He did this from ancient times, so He continues to do it, as they say, all the time and every day. For from what was previously created He creates the bodies of living beings, and creates souls from non-existent things - but not for all living beings, but only for people; and from birds he creates birds, from waterfowl - waterfowl, and each of the other genera creates from similar ones. 70. Likewise, He offers the fruits of the earth to people from what is sown and planted. Even in ancient times the earth, being uncultivated and uninhabited, produced every kind of plant and seed, and genera of reptiles and quadrupeds, and gave birth to the nature of waters, as it was commanded; and animals that live in water, and the air gave birth to those that tend to fly through the air (Gen. 1). 71. So, God did not command earth and sky, air and the nature of water, fire and light to be generated by matter, but He Himself created something that did not previously exist, becoming both the planter and the builder of the greatest ark of creation, and He Himself controls it; and this ark is guided by the One who wisely created it. 72. And this is taught to us not only by the evangelists and apostles, but also by the prophets, and the highest of them, Moses, who described the creation of the world; a [r. 225] even before - Abraham, Melchizedek and the whole host of patriarchs. And each of them theologized not about many, but about one Creator of the world. And you will know about this if you read the Divine Scripture. 73. And having learned from this comparison how far the lines of Divine Scripture surpass human thoughts, avoid, O my friends, error, but welcome the truth, which is brighter than the sun. For, led by its light, may you see the meaning of the Divine Sayings and be amazed at their teachers, so that, falling on your face and worshiping God, you would say after the Apostles: (cf. 1 Cor. 14:25) [p. 226] “Truly God is with you.” Democritus. Fr. 33 // Diels H. Die Fragments der Vorsokratiker. Bd. 2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1903. S. 417. – Notes to the text Words indicating sources of citation and other explanations belong to the author of the translation, Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Ph.D. Theology, Assoc. Moscow Theological Academy to P.K. Dobrotsvetov. Porfiry. History of philosophy. Fr. 12 // Porfiry. Proceedings. St. Petersburg: SP6GU Publishing House, 2011. We are talking about the themes of the three previous Words of this treatise. Xenophanes. Fr. 27 // Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1. From epic theocosmogonies to the emergence of atomism. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 173. Parmenides. Fr. 8, 4 // Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1. From epic theocosmogonies to the emergence of atomism. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 290. According to the Eleatic school of philosophy. Aetios see: Diels H. Doxographi Graeci. [S.I.]: Berolini, 1879. P. 328. Mullach F.W. Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum. Paris, Didot, 1860. P. 538–542; Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1. P. 461. Compare: Aristotle. On the Soul, I, 2; Plato. Post-Law, 981c–984bc. Disciple of Plato, head of the Platonic Academy in 339–314. after Speusippus. Empedok L. About nature. Fr. 13 // Fragments of early Greek philosophers. Part 1. From epic theocosmogonies to the emergence of atomism. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 345. Aetios see: Diels H. Doxographi Graeci. P. 316. Compare: Plato. State, II, 363 d. Xenophon. Memoirs of Socrates, IV, 7, 6. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata, V, 11, 75. Plato. State, VI, 509 b. Euripides. Phoenician women, 546–547. Plato. Politician, 269 d–e.