This man, then, in the work he entitled 'On the Philosophy to be Derived from Oracles,' compiled a collection of oracles of Apollo and of the other gods and good daimons, selecting especially those which he himself judged sufficient both for demonstrating the excellence of the beings spoken of in theology and for exhortation to what he was pleased to call theosophy.
From these oracles, then, which he has judged worthy of approval and remembrance, it is well for us to discern the oracle-givers, and to examine what kind of power they actually happen to be. But first let us observe how the aforementioned man, at the beginning of his treatise, swears to us that he is speaking truthfully, saying as follows.
Firm and steadfast, then, will he be who draws his hopes of salvation from this alone, to those to whom you will pass them on without withholding anything. For I call the good gods to witness that I have neither added to nor removed anything from the sense of the oracles delivered, except perhaps where I have corrected some faulty wording, or altered a phrase for the sake of greater clarity, or supplied a deficiency in the meter, or struck out something that did not bear upon the purpose — but I have preserved the meaning of what was said unadulterated, being more wary of the impiety that would arise from tampering than of the punishing justice that follows sacrilege.
This present collection will contain a record of many doctrines pertaining to philosophy, as the gods have declared the truth to hold; and we shall touch briefly also on the practical matter of oracular consultation, which will be of benefit both for contemplation and for the entire purification of life. But those will especially know what benefit this collection holds who, travailing in the birth-pangs of truth, have once prayed, upon obtaining an epiphany from the gods, to find rest from their perplexity through the trustworthy teaching of those who speak. Having used such introductory remarks, he then attests and gives prior warning that what is about to be said should not be disclosed to the many, speaking as follows.
But you, if indeed you must do anything with these things, try not to make them public, nor to cast them even before the profane for the sake of reputation or gain or some other unholy flattery. For there is danger not only for you, if you transgress these commands, but for me as well, who readily trusted a man unable to keep good deeds hidden within himself. These things are to be given only to those who have set their life toward the salvation of the soul.
And after other remarks he adds: 'Keep these things hidden by me as more unspeakable than the unspeakable; for not even the gods declared openly concerning themselves, but through riddles.'
Since, then, this account has held forth such things, come now, let us finally examine, by means of these divinely inspired and Pythian oracles, what sort of nature we ought to consider the invisible powers spoken of in theology to possess; for a man's own words and practices may indeed provide a refutation of the man himself.
The man mentioned above, then, in the very work he entitled 'On the Philosophy to be Derived from Oracles,' sets down oracles of Apollo, in which the god commands that sacrifices of animals be performed, and that animal sacrifice be offered not only to daimons, nor only to the powers around the earth, but also to the etherial and heavenly powers.
But in other places the same man, admitting that all those beings to whom the Greeks used to perform sacrifices through blood and the slaughter of irrational animals were daimons and not gods, says that it is neither necessary nor holy to offer animal sacrifice to the gods.
Listen, then, to his first words, in which, gathering together the teachings concerning the philosophy derived from oracles, he shows how Apollo teaches that the gods must be served. This he sets forth, writing as follows:
Following upon what has been said concerning piety, we might now set down what the oracles delivered concerning the manner of serving them, of which we have already, in part, cited some in our discussion of piety. This is the oracle of Apollo, which also contains a division of the order of the gods:
Labor, friend, having come onto this god-given path, and do not forget the blessed ones, as you perform sacrifices—now to the earthly gods, now to the heavenly, and sometimes to the very kings of the clear sky and of the moist-pathed air, and to the sea-gods, and to all the gods beneath the earth; for all things are bound together by the fullness of nature found in these. And I shall proclaim how it is right to complete the offerings of animals; inscribe my oracle upon tablets—some victims for the earthly gods, others for the heavenly gods: bright ones for the heavenly, but for the earthly ones matching them in hue. Divide the sacrifices of the earthly gods into three parts as you perform them; bury those belonging to the nether gods, and send the blood into a pit, and pour out honey, and the gifts of the Nymphs, and the gifts of Dionysus. And for all those who forever flit about the earth, having filled the fire-laden altar on every side with slaughter, cast into the fire the body of the winged victim you have sacrificed, and having kneaded honey with Demeter's barley-meal pour it in, and add the smoke of frankincense and the sacrificial barley-grains. And when you go along the shore, having poured the grey sea-water down over its head, sacrifice, and cast the whole animal into the deep wave of the sea. Having completed all these things, go to the broad chorus of the airy heaven-dwellers. Then, for the star-gods and, above all, for the aetherial ones, let the blood from the throats stream in gushing torrents and pool about the offerings, and let the limbs be prepared for the gods at the feast; give the extremities to Hephaestus, and taste of the rest, having filled all the flowing air with delicious savors; and thereupon send up your prayers to the gods.
And shortly after, he expounds the oracle, interpreting it thus: 'The sacrifices are ordained in this manner, in accordance with the aforementioned division of the gods. For since there are gods beneath the earth and gods upon the earth—the former called subterranean and nether gods, the latter called earthly and chthonic gods—it commands that black four-footed victims be sacrificed to both in common, but it varies the manner of the sacrifice: for it bids that the earthly gods be slain upon altars, but the subterranean gods over pits, and moreover that those who sacrifice to these latter should also bury the bodies.'
And that four-footed victims are indeed common to both classes, he himself, when questioned, added in these words: 'These alone are common to the chthonic and subterranean gods—four-footed creatures, the newly-formed limbs of lambs.' For the aerial gods he bids that winged creatures be offered as whole burnt offerings, with the blood carried around the altars; but for the sea-gods, that winged creatures—yet living ones, black in color—be released into the waves. For he says: 'To the gods, the birds; but to the sea-gods, the dark ones.'
saying that birds should be given to all the gods except the chthonic ones, and that only to the sea-gods should dark ones be given—and therefore to the rest, white ones. And to the heavenly and aetherial gods he bids that the extremities of the victims, these being white, be consecrated, and that the remaining parts be eaten; for it is only from these that one may eat, but not from the others. And those whom he called 'heavenly' in the earlier division, these he here calls 'star-gods.'
Will it, then, be necessary to explain the symbolism of these sacrifices, which is plain to the intelligent? Four-footed and land-dwelling creatures are given to the chthonic gods, for like rejoices in like. The sheep is an earthly creature, and for this reason dear to Demeter, and in heaven, together with the sun, it brings forth the manifestation of the earth's fruits. They are black, because the earth is by nature of such a dark sort. And they are three in number, for the number three is the symbol of what is bodily and earthy.
To the earthly gods, then, one must sacrifice above, upon altars, for they move about upon the earth; but to the subterranean gods, in a pit and in a grave, where they dwell. Winged creatures are given to the others, because everything there is in swift motion: for the water of the sea too is ever-moving, and dark; wherefore such victims are fitting for it. To the aerial gods, white ones, for the air too has been made luminous, being of a transparent nature. And to the heavenly and aetherial gods are given the lighter parts of the animals, which are the extremities, in which the sacrifice ought to share; for these are the givers of good things, while the others are the averters of evils. Such, then, are the things drawn from the oracular philosophy of that wondrous theosopher.
But come, let us now compare with these the contrary statements of the same man, which he set down in the work he entitled On Abstinence from Animate Beings. There, moved by right reasoning, he confesses, before all else, that one must offer no incense at all, nor sacrifice anything whatsoever, to the God who is over all, nor indeed to the divine and heavenly powers that come after him.
Then, proceeding further, he demolishes the opinions of the multitude, declaring that one ought not to suppose that those who delight in sacrifices of living creatures are gods. For he says that the sacrificing of animals is the most unjust of all things, unholy, abominable, and harmful, and for this reason not even pleasing to the gods. In saying this, he clearly stands convicted of refuting his own god; for he had just said that the oracle commands that living creatures be sacrificed not only to the subterranean and earthly gods, but also to the aerial, heavenly, and aetherial ones.
Such, then, are Apollo's words. But he, calling Theophrastus to witness, says that sacrifice by means of animals is fitting not for gods, but for daemons alone. So that, according to his own reasoning and that of Theophrastus, Apollo must be a daemon, not a god—and not Apollo alone, but also all those regarded as gods among all the nations, to whom, throughout the whole world, all rulers and ruled alike, in city and country, perform sacrifices of animals; for according to what has been said, we must consider these to be nothing other than daemons.
But if they say that these are good, how, indeed, if the sacrifice through blood was unholy, abominable, and harmful, could those who delight in such things be good? And if, moreover, they should be shown to delight not only in such sacrifices, but—in the extremity of cruelty and inhumanity—even in the slaughter of men and human sacrifices, how could they not be manifestly murderous, and akin to every cruelty and inhumanity, and nothing else but wicked daemons?
Now that we have received this demonstration, I think the reasonableness of our own withdrawal from the practices in question has been established. For it would be neither holy nor pious—I will not say to bestow the reverend title of God and the highest honor upon evil spirits—but not even to bestow the dignity of one clothed with kingly rank among men upon robbers and housebreakers.
Wherefore we, having been taught to worship only the God who is over all, and to honor as is fitting the divine, God-beloved, and blessed powers that surround him, bring to bear nothing earthly and dead, no gore or blood, nor anything of corruptible and material substance; but with a mind purified of all vice, and a body clothed in the adornment of purity and self-control—an adornment more radiant than any garment—with right and God-befitting doctrines, and, above all these, with a sincere disposition, we pray to keep, even unto death, the piety handed down to us by our Savior.
But now that these things have been set forth beforehand by us, it is time to proceed also to the proofs of what has been said. First of all, it is reasonable to go through what the aforementioned writer says in the work he entitled On Abstinence from Animate Beings—namely, that one ought neither to burn incense nor to sacrifice anything earthly, either to the God who is over all or to the divine powers that come after him; for such things are foreign to fitting piety.
To the God who is over all—as a certain wise man has said—we should neither burn incense nor invoke him by name using any sensible thing; for nothing material fails to be at once impure to that which is immaterial. For this reason, no word expressed by voice is proper to him, nor even the inward word, whenever it is defiled by passion of soul; rather, it is through pure silence and pure conceptions concerning him that we worship him. It is necessary, therefore, that we, being joined to him and made like him, offer our own upward ascent as a sacred sacrifice to God—this same offering being also a hymn, and our salvation. This sacrifice, then, is accomplished in the passionlessness of the soul, and in the contemplation of God.
But to his offspring—the intelligible gods—we must now add also the hymn that comes from reason. For sacrifice is, for each, a first-fruit of what he has given, and by means of which he nourishes us and sustains our substance in being. Just as the farmer offers first-fruits of his handfuls of grain and of tree-fruits, so let us offer to them, as first-fruits, our good thoughts concerning them, giving thanks for the contemplation they have given us, and because through the vision of them they truly nourish us, being present with us, appearing to us, and shining forth for our salvation. Such, then, is what this man says. And things kindred and akin to these, concerning the first and great God, that same Apollonius of Tyana, celebrated among the many, is said to have written in his work On Sacrifices, as follows:
In this way, then, above all, I think, a person would render the fitting care to the divine, and would obtain from that very act its favor and goodwill more than any other man, if—toward the God whom we called first, being one and set apart from all things, after whom the rest must necessarily be known—he should not sacrifice anything at all in the first instance, nor kindle fire, nor name any sensible thing whatsoever concerning him (for he needs nothing, not even from beings superior to us, nor is there anything which the earth from the beginning puts forth as a plant, or which the air nourishes as a living creature, that does not have some pollution attaching to it); but should always employ toward him alone that better word—I mean the one that does not proceed through the mouth—and should ask for good things from the most beautiful of beings by means of the most beautiful thing within us: and this is the mind, which needs no instrument. Therefore, according to this reasoning, one must in no way sacrifice to the great God who is over all. Now that these matters stand thus, let us next observe what sort of things the former writer relates concerning the sacrificing of animals, calling Theophrastus to witness his argument:
As lawlessness in men advanced far beyond the first-fruits offered in sacrifices, the adoption of the most dreadful victims was introduced, full of savagery, so that the curses formerly pronounced against us seem now to have reached their fulfillment—men slaughtering and staining the altars with blood, from the time when, having experienced famines and wars, they laid hands upon blood. Therefore the divine power, as Theophrastus says, being wrathful at both of these things, seems to have imposed the fitting punishment: whereby some men became atheists, and others might justly be called 'evil-minded' rather than 'evil-godded,' because they consider that the nature of the gods is base and no better than our own. Thus some appear to have become non-sacrificers, and others evil-sacrificers who have taken up unlawful victims.
And again the same man adds this: 'Since these matters stand in this way, Theophrastus reasonably forbids those who truly wish to be pious from sacrificing living creatures,' making use also of other such reasons as these:
And he adds: 'Moreover, one ought to sacrifice only those things which, in sacrificing, harm no one; for nothing ought to be so harmless to all as the sacrificial victim.' But if someone should say that God has given us animals for our use no less than the fruits of the earth—nevertheless, when animals are sacrificed, this brings a certain harm upon them, inasmuch as their soul is taken away. Therefore these ought not to be sacrificed; for sacrifice, according to its very name, is a kind of holy act; yet no one repays a favor out of what belongs to another, even if he merely takes fruits, and even against the will of the one unwilling to give them. For how could it be holy, when those from whom the things are taken are wronged? And if not even one who lays hold of another's fruits sacrifices piously, then to take away and sacrifice things far more precious than these is altogether unholy; for in this way the wrong becomes even greater—and the soul is far more precious than the things that grow from the earth, and it is not fitting to take it away by sacrificing animals.
And he adds: 'One must therefore abstain from animals in sacrifices.' And again he says: 'That which is unholy must not be sacrificed, whether it be costly or not.' And next he says:
So that, if one must indeed offer even animals as first-fruits, these must be sacrificed to the gods for the sake of some purpose; for indeed the things we sacrifice, we sacrifice for the sake of something. Would anyone, then, suppose that God receives honor from us, when through the offering we show ourselves acting unjustly toward the victims—or would he rather judge such an act to be dishonor? In this very act, by killing in sacrifice animals that do us no wrong, we confess that we shall be doing wrong. So that none of the other animals ought to be sacrificed for the sake of honor; nor indeed for repaying benefits received from them. For one who renders a just recompense for a benefaction, and gives back what is proportionate to the good deed, ought not to provide this by wronging others. For it will seem no more a repayment than if someone, having plundered his neighbor's goods, should crown certain persons with them, as though thereby rendering thanks and honor.
Nor indeed ought animals to be sacrificed for the sake of any good thing hoped for. For one who, by an unjust act, hunts after receiving benefit is suspected even of not being grateful when he has received it well. So that not even in hope of a future benefaction ought animals to be sacrificed to the gods. And indeed, while one might perhaps escape the notice of men in doing this, it is impossible to escape the notice of God. If, then, one must sacrifice for the sake of one of these purposes, but it is proper to do it for none of them, it is clear that animals ought not to be sacrificed to the gods at all.
And again he adds: 'For with these ancient practices both nature and the whole perception of men's souls were well pleased with what was done; and the altar was not wetted with the unmixed slaughter of bulls, but this was reckoned the greatest abomination among men—to tear out the life and devour the goodly limbs.' And after other matters he says:
Whenever, indeed, a young man learns that the gods delight in lavish expenditures, and, as they say, in feasts of oxen and other animals, when would he ever willingly practice self-control? And how, believing that he is offering pleasing sacrifices to the gods, will he not think it permissible for him to do wrong, since he intends to buy off his sin by means of sacrifices? But if he is persuaded that the gods have no need of these things, and that they look instead to the character of those who approach them, esteeming as the greatest sacrifice a right understanding concerning themselves and concerning human affairs, how will he not be self-controlled, just, and holy?
The best first-fruit for the gods is a pure mind and a soul free from passion; and it is fitting also to offer, as first-fruits, a modest amount of other things—not carelessly, but with all eagerness. For the honors paid to the gods ought to resemble the seats of precedence given to good men, and the rising up before them, and the reclining beside them at table—marks of honor, not payments of assessed dues.
Clearly, then, it has been agreed, on the testimony of the Greeks and their own philosophers, that no living creature could reasonably be sacrificed to the gods; for the practice is unholy, unjust, and harmful, and by no means alien to pollution. Therefore that oracle-giver who, a little before, was demanding libations of blood and the savor of burnt fat, was no god, nor any truthful and good daemon—nor were all those to whom the oracle bade animals to be sacrificed. One must therefore call the one who lied thus, and proclaimed as gods those who do not exist, and commanded that living creatures be sacrificed not only to the chthonic and subterranean gods, but also to the heavenly, aetherial, and astral ones, a deceiver, an impostor, and an outright wicked daemon. Who, then, if not gods, it would be fitting to suppose all those aforementioned beings to be, the writer himself will again relate through the following:
He who is concerned for piety knows that no living creature is sacrificed to the gods, but to daemons—either good ones, or indeed base ones; and he knows to which of these it belongs to sacrifice, namely to those who to some degree stand in need of such things.
And again, further on, he says: 'That it was not to gods, but to daemons, that those who had come to understand the powers at work in the universe offered the sacrifices by means of blood—this too has been confirmed by the theologians themselves; and indeed, that of these some are evildoers and others good—this too will not trouble us.'
Such, then, are the words of the aforementioned man. But since he said that, of the daemons alone, some are good and some are base, come, let us see how it may be shown that even those of them who are reputed to be gods are all, without exception, found to be, not good daemons, but base ones. One may obtain a demonstration of this in the following way:
The good benefits, while its opposite harms. But if those who are proclaimed as gods or daemons in every place—those very ones renowned among all peoples and worshiped by all the nations, Cronus and Zeus, Hera and Athena, and their like, together with the invisible powers and the daemons who work through cult-images—are shown to delight not only in the slaughter and sacrifice of irrational animals, but even in the killing of men and human sacrifices, and thereby to corrupt the souls of wretched men, what greater harm than this could you imagine?
For if the sacrifice performed through irrational animals was declared by the philosophers to be accursed and an evil sacrifice, abominable, unjust, unholy, and not harmless to those who offer it, and for these reasons unworthy of any god whatsoever, what must we think of that performed through the slaughter of men? Would this not, more than anything, prove to be the most impious and most unholy of all? How, then, could it reasonably be said to be pleasing to good daemons, and not rather to utterly polluted and utterly destructive spirits?
Come, then, let us prove and demonstrate how great was the corruption which the error of polytheism worked upon the life of men before the evangelical teaching of our Savior—a corruption which was dissolved and abolished at no other time than in the days of Hadrian, when the teaching of Christ was already shining like light into every place.
And to this it is not we, but again the very voices of those who do not share our views, that will bear explicit witness—voices which accuse the times before this of such great depravity that the superstitious had already gone beyond even the bounds of nature, being goaded to frenzy by destructive spirits and altogether possessed by demons, so much so that they thought to propitiate those murderous powers with the very blood of their dearest kin, and with countless other human sacrifices.
And some father sacrificed his only-begotten son, and a mother her beloved daughter, to a daemon; and their nearest kin slaughtered their own relatives as though they were some irrational and alien livestock; and, city by city and land by land, they sacrificed to their gods their fellow-citizens and neighbors, having sharpened their humane and compassionate nature into pitilessness and inhumanity, and displaying, in truth, a manner of behavior that was frenzied and demonic.
You would find, then, if you examined the whole of Greek and barbarian history, how some consecrated their sons, others their daughters, and others even themselves, as sacrificial victims to the demons. But I present to you as witness of these things too the same one as before, in the very passages where he condemned the sacrifice of irrational animals as unholy and most unjust, speaking word for word as follows:
And that we say these things not idly, but because the record is full of such instances, it suffices to set forth the following as well. For also in Rhodes, on the sixth day of the month Thynios, a man used to be sacrificed to Cronus. This custom, which had prevailed for a long time, was later changed: for they used to keep one of those publicly condemned to death in custody until the festival of the Cronia; and when the feast arrived, they led the man outside the gates, opposite the shrine of Aristoboule, and having given him wine to drink, they slaughtered him.
In the city now called Salamis, but formerly named Coroneia, in the month the Cyprians call Aphrodisios, a man used to be sacrificed to Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops, and to the nymph Agraulis. And the custom continued until the time of Diomedes; then it changed, so that the man was instead sacrificed to Diomedes. Under a single precinct stood both the temple of Athena and that of Agraulos and Diomedes. The victim, led about by the young men, ran three times around the altar; then the priest struck him with a spear in the belly, and thus they burned him whole upon the pyre that had been heaped up.
This institution Diphilus, king of Cyprus, abolished, having lived in the times of Seleucus the theologian, changing the custom into an ox-sacrifice. And the demon accepted the ox in place of the man.
So equivalent is the deed thus performed. Amosis also abolished, in Heliopolis of Egypt, the law of manslaughter, as Manetho testifies in his work On Antiquity and Piety. They used to sacrifice to Hera, and the victims were examined and sealed just like the pure calves that are sought out for sacrifice. Three were sacrificed each day; instead of which Amosis ordered that an equal number of wax images be offered.
They also used to sacrifice in Chios to Dionysus Omadios, tearing a man apart, and likewise in Tenedos, as Euelpis of Carystus says; since Apollodorus also says that the Lacedaemonians used to sacrifice a man to Ares.
The Phoenicians, in great calamities—whether of wars, plagues, or droughts—used to sacrifice to Cronus one of their most beloved, chosen by vote. And indeed the Phoenician history is full of those who offered such sacrifices—the history which Sanchuniathon composed in the Phoenician tongue, and which Philo of Byblos translated into the Greek language in eight books.
Istros, in his Collection of Cretan Sacrifices, says that the Curetes of old used to sacrifice children to Cronus. And Pallas, who best compiled an account of the mysteries of Mithras, in the time of the emperor Hadrian, says that human sacrifices were abolished among almost all peoples. For also in Laodicea in Syria a virgin used to be sacrificed to Athena every year, but now a deer is offered instead.
And indeed the Carthaginians in Libya also used to perform this sacrifice, which Iphicrates put a stop to. And the Dumatheni of Arabia used to sacrifice a child every year, whom they buried beneath the altar, which they use as a cult-image.
Phylarchus records that all the Greeks in common, before marching out against enemies, used to commit manslaughter. And I pass over the Thracians and Scythians, and how the Athenians slew the daughter of Erechtheus and Praxithea. But even now, who does not know that in the great city a man is slaughtered at the festival of Zeus Latiaris?
And again he says: 'From that time until now, not only in Arcadia at the Lycaea, nor in Carthage do all people alike sacrifice men to Cronus, but periodically, for the sake of preserving the memory of the custom, they continually sprinkle kindred blood upon the altars.'
Let these things, then, stand as recorded from the aforementioned writing. And from the first book of Philo's Phoenician History I will set forth the following: 'It was a custom among the ancients that, in the great calamities of danger, instead of the destruction of all, the rulers of a city or nation would give up to slaughter the most beloved of their children, as a ransom to the avenging demons; and those who were given up were slaughtered by secret rites. Cronus, then, whom the Phoenicians call El, reigning over the land, and afterward, after the end of his life, consecrated into the star of Cronus, having by a native nymph called Anobret an only-begotten son—whom for this reason they called Ieoud, only-begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians even now—when the greatest dangers of war had overtaken the land, adorned his son in royal attire, and having built an altar, sacrificed him.'