10

he says, a writing. And how were they able to know divine things and emulate them, being soulish and not knowing how to compare “spiritual things with spiritual,” when the divine apostle declared that a soulish man does not receive “the things of the Spirit of God”? And when the same apostle said that the soulish man cannot know spiritual things, “because they are spiritually discerned,” this noble man, contradicting the apostle, claims that those who composed 1.3.13 the Greek proverbs wrote in the same manner as Solomon. For he says verbatim: since, having encountered the Proverbs of the most wise Solomon and having understood through them that it is not possible to learn anything clearly from what is said in them at a surface level, they themselves, wishing to emulate the prophetic writing, wrote in the same manner as he did. But consider also in another way from these very quotations how much he has missed the truth, by saying that those among the Greeks wrote in the same manner as Solomon. 1.3.14 For Solomon, moved by God-given wisdom, dedicated all his writing for the benefit and salvation of souls to the account of godliness; but for the sake of exercising the mind of his readers, he used obscure problems and turns of phrase and expressions uttered through riddles. And he testifies to this at the beginning of the book, saying, “For hearing these a wise man will be wiser, and the one with understanding will acquire guidance, to understand a proverb and 1.3.15 an obscure saying, the words of the wise and their riddles,” and again, “to receive the turns of phrases.” And it is easy to understand that these things are so from what is contained in the book, as they cannot be understood otherwise than by our passing from the surface meaning of the text to the sense contemplated from it; such as, “The leech had three daughters, loved with love; and these three did not satisfy her. And the 1.3.16 fourth was not content to say, ‘Enough’,” and “Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars; she has slaughtered her victims, she has mixed her wine in a bowl,” and as many other similar things, which cannot be understood otherwise, neither at a surface level nor from some history, except only by metaphor and inversion of the text. But the cited proverbs of the Greeks have taken their origins from certain histories. 1.3.17 For EITHER HE IS DEAD OR HE IS TEACHING LETTERS was said, he says, because of this history, and because of another such deed that occurred, THE GOAT HAS THE KNIFE was said; and ENOUGH OF THE OAK likewise, because of people who once ate acorns ceasing from such food. And if some Glaucus, who was knowledgeable in some art, was remembered differently by those who later disagreed in their account of him, what is this to the divinely inspired Proverbs? For these are not, like the Greek proverbs, capable of a solution from some history. Therefore ignorantly and inexperiencedly in the contemplation of the divine scriptures, not only that, but also contrary to the apostle, Marcellus declared that the wise men of the Greeks, having encountered the Proverbs of Solomon, learned and emulated the prophetic writing and wrote in the same manner as he. 1.3.18 Since we have said these things as proof that the man has not even encountered the divine scriptures in the proper way, the time now calls for us to also examine the unsound opinion of his faith, how holding opinions contrary to the ecclesiastical teaching he slandered both it and its leaders. 1.4.1 I shall first set forth the means by which he attempts to contradict what has been written rightly and ecclesiastically, slandering the authors, and all but organizing an all-out battle against everyone. For at one moment he directs his refutation against Asterius, at another against Eusebius the 1.4.2 Great. And then he turns to the man of God, the truly thrice-blessed Paulinus, a man honored with the presbytery of the church of the Antiochenes, who distinguishedly served as bishop of the Tyrians, and so shone in his episcopacy, as to the

10

φησιν, γράμμα. καὶ πῶς οἷοί τ' ἦσαν γνῶναι τὰ θεῖα καὶ ζηλῶσαι οἱ ψυχικοὶ καὶ οὐκ εἰδότες «πνευματικὰ πνευματικοῖς» συγκρίνειν, τοῦ θείου ἀποστόλου ἀποφηναμένου ψυχικὸν ἄνθρωπον μὴ δέχεσθαι «τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ»; τοῦ δ' αὐτοῦ φήσαντος μὴ δύνασθαι γνῶναι τὸν ψυχικὸν τὰ πνευματικά, «ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται», ἀντιδοξάζων ὁ γενναῖος τῷ ἀποστόλῳ φάσκει τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τῷ Σολομῶνι γεγραφέναι τοὺς 1.3.13 τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς παροιμίας πεποιημένους. λέγει δ' οὖν ἐπὶ λέξεως ἐπειδὴ ταῖς τοῦ σοφωτάτου Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαις ἐντυ χόντες καὶ γνόντες δι' αὐτῶν ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ προχείρου σαφῶς τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς εἰρημένων μαθεῖν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ζηλῶσαι τὸ προ φητικὸν βουληθέντες γράμμα τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ γεγράφασι τρόπον. σκέψαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν παραθέσεων ὅσον τῆς ἀληθείας διήμαρτεν, εἰπὼν τοὺς παρ' Ἕλλησιν τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ Σολομῶνι γεγρα1.3.14 φέναι τρόπον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Σολομὼν θεοδωρήτῳ σοφίᾳ κινούμενος πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν γραφὴν ἐπ' ὠφελείᾳ καὶ σωτηρίᾳ ψυχῶν τῷ τῆς θεοσεβείας ἀνετίθει λόγῳ, γυμνασίου δ' ἕνεκεν τῆς τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων διανοίας σκοτεινοῖς ἐχρῆτο προβλήμασιν καὶ λόγων στροφαῖς καὶ φωναῖς δι' αἰνιγμάτων προενηνεγμέναις. καὶ τοῦτο δ' ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου μαρτύρεται λέγων «τῶνδε γὰρ ἀκούσας σοφὸς σοφώτερος ἔσται, ὁ δὲ νοήμων κυβέρνησιν κτήσεται, νοήσει τε παραβολὴν 1.3.15 σκοτεινῶν λόγων, ῥήσεις τε σοφῶν καὶ αἰνίγματα», καὶ πάλιν «δέξασθαι στροφὰς λόγων». ἃ δὴ καὶ οὕτως ἔχοντα ἐκ τῶν ἐμφερομένων τῇ βίβλῳ καταμαθεῖν ῥᾴδιον, ἄλλως οὐ δυναμένων νοηθῆναι ἢ διιόντων ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς προχείρου λέξεως ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς θεωρούμενον νοῦν· οἷόν ἐστιν τὸ «τῇ βδέλλῃ τρεῖς θυγατέρες ἦσαν ἀγαπήσει ἀγαπώμεναι, καὶ αἱ τρεῖς αὗται οὐκ ἐνεπίπλασαν αὐτήν. καὶ ἡ 1.3.16 τετάρτη οὐκ ἠρκέσθη εἰπεῖν ἱκανόν», καὶ «ἡ σοφία ᾠκοδόμησεν ἑαυτῇ οἶκον, καὶ ὑπήρεισεν στύλους ἑπτά· ἔσφαξεν τὰ ἑαυτῆς θύματα, ἐκέρασεν εἰς κρατῆρα τὸν ἑαυτῆς οἶνον», καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τούτοις παραπλήσια, οὐχ ἑτέρως δυνατὰ νοεῖσθαι, οὔτε προχείρως οὔτε ἔκ τινος ἱστορίας, εἰ μὴ κατὰ μόνην μεταφορὰν καὶ ἀναστροφὴν τῆς λέξεως. αἱ δ' ἐκτεθεῖσαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων παροιμίαι ἀπό τινων ἱστοριῶν τὰς 1.3.17 ἀρχὰς εἰλήφασιν. τὸ γὰρ Η ΤΕΘΝΗΚΕΝ Η ∆Ι∆ΑΣΚΕΙ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ διὰ τήνδε, φησίν, ἐλέχθη τὴν ἱστορίαν, καὶ δι' ἑτέραν πάλιν γενομένην τοιανδὶ πρᾶξιν τὸ ΑΙΞ ΤΗΝ ΜΑΧΑΙΡΑΝ εἴρηται· καὶ τὸ ΑΛΙΣ ∆ΡΥΟΣ ὡσαύτως, διὰ τὸ βαλανηφαγοῦντάς ποτε παύσασθαι τῆς τοιαύτης τροφῆς. εἰ δὲ καὶ Γλαῦκός τις ἐπιστήμων τέχνης τινὸς γεγονὼς διαφόρως ἐμνημονεύθη παρὰ τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα διαφωνήσασιν ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, τί τοῦτο πρὸς τὰς θεοπνεύστους Παροιμίας; οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ταῖς Ἑλληνικαῖς παροιμίαις καὶ αὗται ἔκ τινος ἱστορίας τὴν λύσιν ἐπιδέχονται. ἀμαθῶς ἄρα καὶ ἀπείρως τῆς τῶν θείων γραφῶν θεωρίας οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐναντίως τῷ ἀποστόλῳ Μάρκελλος τοὺς Ἑλλήνων σοφοὺς ἐντυχόντας ταῖς Παροιμίαις Σολομῶνος μαθεῖν καὶ ζηλῶσαι τὸ προφητικὸν γράμμα καὶ 1.3.18 τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ γράψαι τρόπον ἀπεφήνατο. τούτων ἡμῖν εἰρημένων εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μηδὲ ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ὃν χρὴ τρόπον ἐντετυχηκέναι τὸν ἄνδρα, καλεῖ δὴ καιρὸς καὶ τὴν οὐχ ὑγιῆ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐπισκέψασθαι, ὡς ἐναντία δοξάζων τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ διδασκαλίᾳ αὐτήν τε καὶ τοὺς προεστῶτας αὐτῆς διέβαλλεν. 1.4.1 Θήσω δὲ πρῶτα δι' ὧν τοῖς ὀρθῶς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῶς γραφεῖσιν ἀντιλέγειν πειρᾶται, διαβάλλων τοὺς γράψαντας, καὶ μονονουχὶ πάμμαχον συνιστάμενος ἀγῶνα πρὸς πάντας. ἄρτι μὲν γὰρ πρὸς Ἀστέριον τὴν ἀντίρρησιν ποιεῖται, ἄρτι δὲ πρὸς Εὐσέβιον τὸν 1.4.2 μέγαν. καὶ ἔπειτα ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπον, τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς τρισμακάριον τρέπεται Παυλῖνον, ἄνδρα τιμηθέντα μὲν τῆς Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας πρεσβείῳ, διαπρεπῶς δ' ἐπισκοπεύσαντα τῆς Τυρίων οὕτω τε ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ διαλάμψαντα, ὡς τὴν