As, then, God is not circumscribed by place, neither is ever represented by the form of a living creature; so neither has He similar passions, nor has He wants like the creatures, so as to desire sacrifice, from hunger, by way of food. Those creatures which are affected by passion are all mortal. And it is useless to bring food to one who is not nourished.

And that comic poet Pherecrates, in The Fugitives, facetiously represents the gods themselves as finding fault with men on the score of their sacred rites:—

And Eubulus, also a comic poet, thus writes respecting sacrifices:—

And introducing Dionysus in Semele, he represents him disputing:—

And Menander writes:—

For is not the savour of the holocausts avoided by the beasts? And if in reality the savour is the guerdon of the gods of the Greeks, should they not first deify the cooks, who are dignified with equal happiness, and worship the chimney itself, which is closer still to the much-prized savour?

And Hesiod says that Zeus, cheated in a division of flesh by Prometheus, received the white bones of an ox, concealed with cunning art, in shining fat:—

But they will by no means say that the Deity, enfeebled through the desire that springs from want, is nourished. Accordingly, they will represent Him as nourished without desire like a plant, and like beasts that burrow. They say that these grow innoxiously, nourished either by the density in the air, or from the exhalations proceeding from their own body. Though if the Deity, though needing nothing, is according to them nourished, what necessity has He for food, wanting nothing? But if, by nature needing nothing, He delights to be honoured, it is not without reason that we honour God in prayer; and thus the best and holiest sacrifice with righteousness we bring, presenting it as an offering to the most righteous Word, by whom we receive knowledge, giving glory by Him for what³⁵⁵¹

3551 ἐφ᾽ οἷς, is substituted by Lowth for ἅ in the text.

The altar, then, that is with us here, the terrestrial one, is the congregation of those who devote themselves to prayers, having as it were one common voice and one mind.

Now, if nourishing substances taken in by the nostrils are diviner than those taken in by the mouth, yet they infer respiration. What, then, do they say of God? Whether does He exhale like the tribe of oaks?³⁵⁵²

3552 δρυῶν, a probable conjecture of Gataker for the reading of the text, δαιμόνων.

And the creatures that breathe by the expansion of the lung towards the thorax draw in the air. Then if they assign to God viscera, and arteries, and veins, and nerves, and parts, they will make Him in nothing different from man.

Now breathing together (σύμπνοια)³⁵⁵³

3553 ἀνθρώπου supplied by Lowth.

3554 [Again the spiritualizing of incense.]

3555 [This is extraordinary language in Clement, whose views of Gentilism are so charitable. Possibly it is mere pleasantry, though he speaks of idolatry only. He recognises the divine institution of sacrifice, elsewhere.]

For the sacrifices of the Law express figuratively the piety which we practice, as the turtle-dove and the pigeon offered for sins point out that the cleansing of the irrational part of the soul is acceptable to God. But if any one of the righteous does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational reason, not as Pythagoras and his followers dream of the transmigration of the soul.

Now Xenocrates, treating by himself of “the food derived from animals,” and Polemon in his work On Life according to Nature, seem clearly to say that animal food is unwholesome, inasmuch as it has already been elaborated and assimilated to the souls of the irrational creatures.

So also, in particular, the Jews abstain from swine’s flesh on the ground of this animal being unclean; since more than the other animals it roots up, and destroys the productions of the ground. But if they say that the animals were assigned to men—and we agree with them—yet it was not entirely for food. Nor was it all animals, but such as do not work. Wherefore the comic poet Plato says not badly in the drama of The Feasts: —

Whence Æsop said not badly, that “swine squeaked out very loudly, because, when they were dragged, they knew that they were good for nothing but for sacrifice.”

Wherefore also Cleanthes says, “that they have soul³⁵⁵⁶

3556 ψυχή, animal life.

So, then, the law sacrifices not the goat, except in the sole case of the banishment of sins;³⁵⁵⁷

3557 i.e., in the institution of the scape-goat.

Wherefore also the Egyptians, in the purifications practiced among them, do not allow the priests to feed on flesh; but they use chickens, as lightest; and they do not touch fish, on account of certain fables, but especially on account of such food making the flesh flabby. But now terrestrial animals and birds breathe the same air as our vital spirits, being possessed of a vital principle cognate with the air. But it is said that fishes do not breathe this air, but that which was mixed with the water at the instant of its first creation, as well as with the rest of the elements, which is also a sign of the permanence of matter.³⁵⁵⁸

3558 Or, of water. For instead of ὑλικῆς in the text, it is proposed to read ὑδατικῆς.

Wherefore we ought to offer to God sacrifices not costly, but such as He loves. And that compounded incense which is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and voices in prayer,³⁵⁵⁹

3559 [Again, for the Gospel-day, he spiritualizes the incense of the Law.]

though they happen to be tyrants and robbers?

But we say that the fire sanctifies³⁵⁶⁰

3560 Consult Matt. iii. 11; Luke iii. 16; Heb. iv. 12. [See what is said of the philosophic ἐκπύρωσις (book v. cap. i. p. 446, supra, this volume) by our author. These passages bear on another theological matter, of which see Kaye, p. 466.]

3561 [See useful note of Kaye, p. 309.]

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH