On the Witch of Endor 1 part 1/4

Struck with admiration in many ways at the proof of your piety, I have marveled not least at this point especially: that you wish to know clearly and precisely what opinion I hold concerning the woman with a familiar spirit (the ventriloquist) whose story is told in the First Book of Kingdoms.

For you say that you are not satisfied with what Origen published on this subject.

And indeed I myself well know that not a few others also blame him for the things he rashly laid down; rather, many are those who are stung in their souls and grieved beyond measure.

Yet there are times when some are led astray by the things that man wrote, more readily assenting to the reputation he had already won, attending rather to names than to the realities, as they ought.

So then, lest I should seem to be conducting a lawsuit on my own account, I think it not unfitting to join his whole exposition together with the dictation of this present writing, and through both to make the truth plain, so that neither may some suppose that we are slandering those who have somehow been led to hold an opinion, nor again that the opinions of either side remain in dispute.

For from the parallel comparison it is possible to examine side by side how each of the two parts stands as to opinion, and for lovers of learning to choose the better judgment out of the two.

A racehorse, at any rate, is not judged proven by running well-limbed by itself, not even if, being very light, it displays winged-like movements; nor again is any athlete proven, whether one able to run most swiftly in the stadium, or any other, or one who wrestles supplely, or who fights most fiercely in the pancratium or boxes, or who beats the air with empty shadow-strokes;

but it is fitting that the contending parties stand close and resist their opponents, so that from each of the two the superior may be discerned.

Hence the views of Origen must be set out first; then, in its own proper order, one must be zealous to examine the sense that runs counter to them.

Come then, let us consider the very text of the narrative itself, as far as is possible and attainable.

When Saul was governing the multitude of the people most excellently, he removed all those who had familiar spirits (ventriloquists), Scripture says, and those who were so called by the name of wizards, as being most hateful pests that lurked in hiding.

But when, turning to the worst, he was bitterly driven by the wicked demon, he went back again to the apparitions of their divination, building up what a little before he had pulled down, and through this convicting himself as a transgressor.

For when the surrounding foreigners with one accord and zeal proclaimed the outbreak of war, they assembled in the greatest numbers possible and drew up their phalanxes in array, and baring their weapons went out vigorously to battle.

But the wretched Saul was afraid, when with his own eyes he saw the very rampart of the camp fortified, and—to say it all—he was beside himself and dumbfounded, as the divine Scripture declares.

After this, it says, he inquired through the Lord, evidently longing to know what he should do;

but the Lord did not answer him at all, because of his excesses of wickedness, neither in dreams nor by manifest tokens nor by the prophets; nay, the Deity gave him no oracle whatsoever, since he had done unlawful deeds.

When his most base servants at once informed him of the deranged woman, Saul without delay disguised himself and changed the garments of his clothing, and went off at a run, abandoning the army.

And when he came to her by night together with two men, he then put requests to her, saying, "Divine for me by the familiar spirit, and bring up for me," he says, "whomever I shall name to you."

Now then, if indeed Saul asked to receive divination through the woman with the familiar spirit, someone might say that his words were true.

But is there anyone ignorant that he was driven by the demon into savage rages, having turned aside to incurable divinations and diabolical workings of fables? For what then? Is not God more worthy of belief—he who put the words into the mouth of Balaam, and permitted Moses to write expressly in Numbers:

"For there is no augury in Jacob, nor divination in Israel"? If, then, such things are forbidden, as being abominable filth and the causes of most hateful idolatry, how could a witness be trustworthy who has most impiously attempted to make use of them? But these matters we shall take up again a little later and treat more fully;

and we must return again to the narrative of the text.

So when the woman beheld the frenzied Saul, feigning not to know the ruler, she retorted that he himself would surely know better all that Saul had done to those skilled in such things—how he had utterly destroyed those who had familiar spirits, she said, and those who cry out from the earth. And on account of this she declared that a snare was being laid against her life unto death.

But when he gave assurance and confirmed by an oath that nothing harmful should befall her, the woman, again emboldened in her wickedness, answered more frankly:

"Whom shall I bring up for you?" she says. Of what sort, and what kind, and who was this ill-fated hag, that she should promise to bring up Samuel from the dead? And indeed, if one may pass over the matter of worth and speak plainly, she was by no means able to bring up a prophetic soul—nor even any chance soul at all, nor even an ant or a flea.

For the demons do not have authority over spirits and souls, but God who is Master of all together;

so that to the divine nature alone must it be granted to summon souls from Hades and to call them back again.

But the clever Origen, wishing to wheel instruments of idolatry and inventions of necromancy into the choir of the Church, speaks falsely against the divine writing.

For though the Scripture itself openly cries out that the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"—this man, turning it to the very opposite, declared that the person of the Holy Spirit had said these things.

Then he was so far carried away, swept aside, that he is not ashamed to attach to the Holy Spirit the words of the epileptic woman;

and blaspheming in such fashion with too naked a tongue, he refers the whole thing to the Holy Spirit, attempting to overawe his hearers with a trustworthy name.

So the woman asked, as I said, and as though having authority to summon the dead, she cries out;

and when the one consulting her said that Samuel should be brought up, again she adds:

"And the woman saw Samuel," it says, "and cried out with a loud voice, and said to the ruler, Why have you deceived me? for you are Saul."

And when the king said to her, "Fear not," and added the question, "What have you seen?"—the pythoness, retorting again, said:

"I have seen gods coming up out of the earth."

And when finally the ruler asked, saying, "What did you perceive?"—at once again she retorted in reply: "A man standing upright, coming up out of the earth, and he is wrapped in a double mantle."

But she herself, in the first place, through the demon that drove her into frenzy, declares that he must be brought up;

then, boasting also that she beheld gods ascending, by deceit she gave the signs of the man as a trap; and the deranged Saul concluded, from what he had heard, that this very one was Samuel.

But if one must believe either the demon-possessed Saul, as having attained an accurate grasp of true knowledge, or a demon boasting and promising to summon the souls of the righteous from Hades, let us judge among ourselves how full of blasphemy it would be to think these and suchlike things, O most excellent of men, Eutropius;

for Origen, as it seems, fell far from the truth, although our Master Jesus said expressly concerning the devil: "That one was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it."

What then do you say, O Origen (for one must put the question to you)? Are these things true which the Savior spoke, or will you say the contrary in reply? If, then, the Lord's words are true, then according to custom the demon lied in his boasting;

but if you define the demon's words to be without falsehood, you undertake to declare the Lord a liar.

Do you see into what absurdity the definition you dogmatize has fallen? For sometimes the demons are compelled against their will to speak the truth, racked by torments; but they would never willingly speak anything whatsoever without falsehood.

And if anyone will straightway define that this one also brings up the righteous from Hades, how is it not plain that by deceit he introduces a lie in its place, wishing to throw someone headlong? "Yes," he says, "but it was not the demon who said these things, but the narrative voice of the writer;

and the writer of the words is believed to be the Holy Spirit, and not a man."

Then does he not perceive how he makes things contrary to the sense of the narrative? Better, indeed, do those know who have conversed more leisurely with all kinds of writings, that the narrative discourse of the writer set forth these things which the woman with the familiar spirit seemed to do or say to Saul who was consulting her;

in any case, narrating about that woman and setting forth her words verbatim, the writer said, "And the woman said:

Whom shall I bring up for you?" And who is so simple as to pretend not to perceive that these are not the words of the writer, but of the demon-possessed woman, whose very name he prefixed? Nowhere indeed does he confirm her words as true, nor could anyone at all be able to show this.

But indeed, if one must speak as a lover of truth, the narrative <voice> said only this: that the woman saw Samuel.

And he wrote these things in such a way as one speaking to those who know about a demon-possessed woman.

For it is not to be disputed that a demon does not bring up the soul of anyone—he who, when exorcised by godly men, is driven out, set on fire, scourged, and flees, leaving the dwelling behind.

But the deranged woman saw the shape of the phantom vision such as befitted her.

For the beast is wont to change himself into many-faced forms; and, that I may speak in the words of the saint-revealing Paul:

"For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light;

it is no great thing, then, if his ministers also are transformed as ministers of righteousness." But the dogmatist Origen, disputing with forensic cleverness as against opponents, set out also this passage, supposing thereby to confound those who introduce the truth instead; yet, with want of art rather than with art, while seeming to refute it, he added:

"And why," he says, "is it not said:

the woman saw a demon which pretended to be Samuel? But it is written, in addition to these, he said, that Saul knew that it was Samuel;"

then again he adds, proceeding:

"If it were not Samuel, it ought to have been written:

and Saul thought it was Samuel."

"Saul therefore knew that it was Samuel, and fell on his face to the ground, and did obeisance to him."

But, that I may not digress to other examples—from the very things which he wrote I will here make my inquiry, and then in this way I will proceed to the remaining examples.

What do you say, O Origen? Did the woman bring up Samuel to him in body, or some shape clothed in the appearance of a shadowy outline? If, then, she brought him up incorporeal, then she did not raise Samuel, but the form of a spirit;

for the one composed of soul and body, this is Samuel—the man having a proportioned mixture of both.

But if she brought up the man whole in body, how is it that Saul did not see him? For if he had beheld him with his own eyes, he would not, as though blind, have questioned the woman, saying word for word, "What have you seen?"

Therefore, if he was invisible, indisputably he was incorporeal;

but if he appeared in an incorporeal shape, why ever did the pythoness say the contrary—that she saw a man upright, coming up out of the earth, and wrapped in a double mantle according to his former custom? Do the very facts, then, fight against your words, O Origen?

Saul, on the one hand, having seen nothing at all, inquired as one speaking about an invisible phantom, saying, "What have you seen?"; but she, on the contrary, as having seen the man himself, cried out, "a man upright, coming up out of the earth," and in order to persuade him that it was a man himself, she gives him also a sign, adding, "and he is wrapped in a double mantle."

What then, O suggester of unlawful divination—if it really was a man, why did Saul not see him? unless perhaps you would say that his bodily eye too was blind, just as assuredly was also the intellectual eye of his understanding.

But perhaps, being easily caught, you will say:

the very organ of the soul was being shaped in human form at the time, so that, appearing, it might foretell the future by a prophetic announcement—just as in sleep sometimes spirits and souls stand by men, displaying in full detail human features, and moreover wearing diverse and varied garments and bearing marks of scars or prints or weals and blows or wounds.

If, then, you define that only a soul was brought up, and not a man in his very body (for the text does not grant it to you, even if you wish), you do not perceive that you prophesy things at war with yourself; and someone retorting this very point will say to you:

why ever did the woman not say:

"I saw a prophetic soul," but the contrary, "a man upright"? For in the manner in which you said:

and why is it not said:

the woman saw a demon which pretended to be Samuel?—to this argument I for my part would retort by replying:

for what reason, if a soul had been brought up, did she not say she had seen a soul, if it were so, but on the contrary a man, and that one upright—which is a mark of bodily vigor? For the madwoman did not say she beheld a stooped, bent-over old man, but one upright, taut, set in array for war, ever young in regard to the outbursts of wickedness;

and beguiling the frantic man by deceit, by a sign she persuaded him that the one coming up out of the earth was a man, and she declared that he was wrapped in a double mantle.

What then (someone might say)—if a man was actually emerging in his very body, did Saul then not see him, but wishes to learn from another what sort he is, as though stricken with blindness? Therefore the very facts cry out that it was not a man, but some shadow, as it seems, unseen;

and if you suppose, O Origen, that the soul of Samuel was there, why was the phantom seen wrapped in a double mantle? It is shown by a manifest token that all the garments and coverings of clothing befit bodies rather, but not souls;

for I do not suppose that you would say, jesting with hypocrisy, that the double mantle remained on the tomb for so many years up to this very day, so that the prophet's soul might wear it, lest perchance it should go about walking naked.

And yet one might say that no one, it seems, is ignorant that for the saints there are incorruptible garments from heaven, shining with radiant gleams, but not woven cloths of varied, easily-corruptible clothing.

But if you define that what was seen was the soul of Samuel, yet say that a priestly robe was seen conceptually, so that the manner of his priestly ministry might be evident (and both of these are properties of intelligible realities), it is established that the madwoman announced nothing sound nor true;

for she said things other than the realities, transferring the names of sensible things and pointing out intelligible realities.

At any rate, naming "a man upright" and a woven, hand-made garment of clothing, she on the contrary introduced an invisible, phantasmal spirit.

Tell me, then, O most excellent dogmatist, how did Saul know that this very one was Samuel, seeing that he saw not even a particle of a shadow, much less the appearance of a man? But are you not ashamed, having said:

"and Saul thought it was Samuel"?

Then, that the demon-possessed man knew it by hearing it from a demon-possessed woman, you say over and over;

but that he did not see it at all, you hide the text in silence.

And nowhere do you bring the refutation into the open, thinking to deceive simple men, while fortifying for all an invention of impious divination;

for the knowledge of the demon-possessed man was worthy of the proclamation of that woman who also supplied him his very words.

But you would say that it was by knowledge and understanding that he knew without beholding, and did not merely suppose;

yet every man, having received a matter by hearing rather than by sight, opines and supposes, not knowing the clear truth—all the more so if he should hear it from a demon-possessed person;

for the words of God alone are confirmed unto accurate apprehension and the firmness of faith.

And indeed, if the psalmist said concerning men:

"I said in my ecstasy:

every man is a liar"—how much more, if one were to relate things about a frenzied woman? Then you say that no one knew that which has no being, plainly conversing as with mere lads.

Tell me, then, how did he know that which has being, if he himself did not behold it—inquiring neither about the man upright, nor about the ephod which surrounded it, nor about the high-priestly robe? But he who saw nothing from any quarter was fanned up by empty words, just as assuredly you too, by frivolous speech, set the unstable aflutter.

But the historian, having first prefixed the name "woman with a familiar spirit," thereby first revealed what sort of person it is—a frenzied one;

then in this way he described that she had seen the vision, as it is fitting for the right-minded to think concerning one deranged;

for no one would suppose that a person damaged in mind beholds the things that ought to be.

And in like manner he said also that the frenzied Saul knew while consulting—as it would be worthy to think concerning that man who for so many cycles of years was bitterly driven by the demon.

But indeed, that these things are of this character, the very facts send forth clear cries.

And, that I may from another example establish like things, come, let us bring forward the history concerning Elijah the prophet.

So when Elijah, with God-inspired zeal, was convicting the false prophets, who were eight hundred and fifty in number, he asked that the order of each side be tested side by side in a sacrifice, and that no one should apply fire, but that the bringing of fire be brought on by prayers, so that from the lofty boast of the heavens above, He who is able to answer might be evident to all—God, by the dispatch of flaming fire—and that from this might be discerned whose is the power of the Mightier, and to all the better might be made manifest.

So when he commanded those men to perform first, they chose a young bullock and cut it in pieces as usual, and invoking the four-formed object of devotion of him called Baal, they nonetheless accomplished nothing—nothing whatsoever.

"With their swords," it says, "and lances, until the shedding of blood."

Then upon these things the narrative cry of the writer adds:

"And they prophesied until the time of the evening offering passed."

Since, then, the text did not distinguish whether they prophesied truly or falsely, would anyone on that account say that those men were true prophets? For, according to Origen's assertion, it ought to have said:

"they prophesied as they imagined, in seeming, saying nothing true (since it is not even lawful <to say> that foreknowledge dwelt in them), but not" to proclaim in plain and pure diction, "and they prophesied until the time of the evening offering passed."

Is it not, then, consistent that from the very same history of the text one can see that these things fit those men?

For if the writer of both is the same, he brings up a like sense from both.

But just as here, having prefixed the name of the idolaters, he revealed conceptually that one must judge concerning such men that they are false prophets, lacking foreknowledge—so also there, having prefixed demon-possessed persons and the deeds of unlawful divination, by way of reticence he intimated what the sensible ought to think concerning the deranged.

But if I should adduce such testimonies, perhaps time would fail us in the telling;

so, adding one further illustrative image of an example, I will be content.

Accordingly, in the writing of Exodus it is recorded how the Lord Himself commanded Moses and Aaron and those with them to cast the rod to the ground before Pharaoh, so that, changing its shape into a serpent, it might overawe the Egyptians by a fearful sign.

And when this came about marvelously, the ruler, deceived by senseless folly, called together the sophists and sorcerers of Egypt;

"and the enchanters of the Egyptians also did," it says, "in like manner with their sorceries; and each cast down his own rod, and they became serpents;

and the rod of Aaron swallowed up their rods."

And still further it is recorded that the enchanters of the Egyptians made blood and frogs in like manner.

Since, then, the narrative voice does not even here distinguish the orders of the two sides, but said that the enchanters too did in like manner, would anyone on that account say that the things done by the sorcerers are like those done through Moses?

By no means, someone would say; nor would it even be lawful to say that the meddlesome and wailing arts are made like to the heavenly representations.

For whatever was done through Moses revealed the truth from the deeds themselves; but whatever was cobbled up through the enchanters made a show to the eyes in seeming;

for the lie brought upon itself a self-complete refutation from its own impotence, since how did the one rod suddenly swallow up those many? Nor indeed is it lawful to think that those men were able all at once to make living serpents out of lifeless rods;

for they would perhaps have been better than we, who are able to animate dead pieces of wood.

And perhaps Moses too would have done nothing marvelous, if he had wrought things similar to these.

...being scourged, to bring upon himself other blows, importunately beseeching that he be released from these by pure remission and intercession and entreaty;

and not, in place of sprinkling on the extinguishing implements of those things sold at home, on the contrary pouring on oil or pitch, raises the flame to an immeasurable height; and as it burns, it increases the calamity the more, and waters fire upon fire most tastelessly.

So then, through the very things which the sorcerers ambitiously sought to do, through these they brought forth clear refutations, that they imagined they must beguile themselves with phantasmal self-conceit.

At any rate, it is not hard to see straightway that even now the conjurers in the theaters habitually do far more and greater things than these.

But nonetheless, by an improvised power, these very men were caught outright...

It ought then, as the dogmatist Origen legislated, to have said:

"And the enchanters of the Egyptians did the like in seeming"—but not to say "in like manner," lest anyone should suppose that it proceeds from a like power.

For if they were able to do things like those wrought by Moses and his company, then they could likewise have repelled their opponents with equal means, so that the contests on both sides would be evenly matched;

but if by the things they fashioned they harmed no one, then he has used the word loosely, while the moldings of lifeless phantasm are evident.

So indeed here too, having prefixed the name of the enchanters and the practices of sorcery, the writer made clear that there would be no need at all to dispute that each thing is wrought by the magicians with wailing meddlesomeness.

Such also are the dramatic scenes recorded by this present history;

for he himself, having named a woman with a familiar spirit, then also convicting the inventions of divination as impious, and having shown that the one consulted was the person of a demon-possessed woman, declared self-evidently that each thing was wrought by counterfeit phantasm-mongering.

But these things must be understood by us in this way.

Let us go on again, unrolling the traces of the words.

What then? When Saul asked the woman with the familiar spirit, saying, "What have you seen?"—first the deranged woman, retorting, cries out:

"And I have seen gods coming up out of the earth."

For since the devil, having snatched up the man, wished by every means to throw him down headlong, he tried to show clearly that the demon had it in his power to bring up not one soul of a righteous man only, but all the souls of the holy men together.

And he, on the contrary, having armed the host of demons at the same point and assembled a synod in one instant's moment, boasted, wishing through this also to persuade everyone that he himself was the god, the gatherer of the rest.

And that, using his own madness, he is wont to make a god of himself—Isaiah, convicting him face to face, proclaims with prophetic and sacred utterance:

"But you said in your heart:

I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars, I will sit on a lofty mountain, upon the high mountains toward the north, I will ascend above the clouds, I will be like the Most High."

And the Lord Himself, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, bears witness to like things face to face:

"Because your heart was lifted up, and you said:

I am a god, I will dwell in the heart of the sea—yet you are a man and not a god."

In return for this, how many punishments He threatens against him, it is easy to see from what follows;

and that he relies on such phantasms, boasting on every occasion, has been made plain by divine decree.

Accordingly, if the demon was able to bring up those called gods by name, is it not necessary to think that the one who brings up is greater than those brought up? And if this one is superior to the holy ones, it is consistent to suppose that this arch-demon himself again [is able] to summon the righteous from Hades.

...to summon the righteous from Hades.

But none of those of sound mind will ever define these things at all, lest he should cast a vote contrary to the holy testimonies.

And when the deranged man asked the second time, and joining the words said to the woman, "What did you perceive?"—at once again, retorting to the question, she said:

"I saw a man upright, coming up out of the earth, and he is wrapped in a double mantle." And having seen nothing at all, when he became a mere hearer of the words, he knew according to his own notion that this was Samuel, inasmuch as he was besieged from within by the demon;

and when he was carried away by the naming of the signs, then bowing his face to the ground he did obeisance to him.

First, then, one might most rightly say:

if that one was Samuel, and not the many-wiled serpent transformed, he would have retorted and declared, with godly reasoning:

"You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve."

Second, again I would say:

when Samuel was ruling over the whole people and was a chosen prophet, Saul, while still a private man and seeking his father's donkeys, went off to him as if to consult a prophet concerning the lost beasts of burden, yet nowhere does he appear to have done obeisance to him, although he had need of him and was plainly subject to him as to a leader of the people.

How then does he who at that time, as a private man, did not do obeisance to the ruler, now on the contrary, being king, do obeisance to a private man? Third, in addition to these things, I have to say:

why ever, hearing of gods ascending, did he do obeisance to none of these, but when he heard of the man upright having come up, then he did obeisance and bowed down? And indeed, as Origen boldly declared, if some of these were angels or choirs of prophets, he ought to have fallen first before the greater and the more numerous, and not to have honored the one while abandoning the many through the folly of contempt.