Chapter IV.--Providence Seen in the Events of the Life of Faustus and His Family.
"But I maintain, from what has happened to you, [1224] that all things are managed by the providence of God, and that your separation from your family for so many years was providential; [1225] for since, if they had been with you, they perhaps would not have listened to the doctrines of the true religion, it was arranged that your children should travel with their mother, should be shipwrecked, should be supposed to have perished, and should be sold; [1226] moreover, that they should be educated in the learning of the Greeks, especially in the atheistic doctrines, in order that, as being acquainted with them, they might be the better able to refute them; and in addition to this, that they should become attached to the true religion, and be enabled to be united with me, so as to help me in my preaching; furthermore, that their brother Clement should meet in the same place, and that thus his mother should be recognised, and through her cure [1227] should be fully convinced of the right worship of God; [1228] that after no long interval the twins should recognise and be recognised, and the other day should fall in with you, and that you should receive back your own. I do not think, then, that such a speedy filling in of circumstances, coming as it were from all quarters, so as to accomplish one design, could have happened without the direction of Providence."
[1224] [The recapitulation of Peter in Recognitions, ix. 26, is in explanation to the sons, and not for a doctrinal purpose.--R.]
[1225] We have adopted a reading suggested by the second Epitome.
[1226] The word aprasiai is corrupt. We have adopted the emendation prasis. The word is not given in the ms. O, nor in the Epitomes.
[1227] hupo therapeias, which Cotelerius translates recuperata sanitate.
[1228] Lit., "convinced of the Godhead." "Godhead" is omitted in the Epitomes.
Chapter V.--Difference Between the True Religion and Philosophy.
And our father began to say: "Do not suppose, my dearest Peter, that I am not thinking of the doctrines preached by you. I was thinking of them. But during the past night, when Clement urged me earnestly to give in my adhesion to the truth preached by you, I at last answered, Why should I? for what new commandment can any one give more than what the ancients urged us to obey?' And he, with a gentle smile, said, There is a great difference, father, between the doctrines of the true religion and those of philosophy; [1229] for the true religion receives its proof from prophecy, while philosophy, furnishing us with beautiful sentences, seems to present its proofs from conjecture.' On saying this, he took an instance, and set before us the doctrine of philanthropy, [1230] which you had explained to him, [1231] which rather appeared to me to be very unjust, and I shall tell you how. He alleged that it was right to present to him who strikes you on the one cheek the other [1232] also, and to give to him who takes away your cloak your tunic also, and to go two miles with him who compels you to go one, and such like." [1233]
[1229] [Compare the fuller statement in Recognitions, viii. 61; also Recognitions, x. 48-51.--R.]
[1230] Or "love of man" in all its phases--kindliness, gentleness, humanity, etc.
[1231] Hom. XII. 25 ff.
[1232] Matt. v. 39-41; Luke vi. 29. The writer of the Homilies changes the word chitona, "tunic," of the New Testament into maphorion, which Suicer describes "a covering for the head, neck, and shoulders, used by women." Wieseler is in doubt whether the writer of the Homilies uses maphorion as equivalent to chitona, or whether he intentionally changed the word, for the person who lost both cloak and tunic would be naked altogether; and this, the writer may have imagined, Christ would not have commanded.
[1233] [The larger part of the discussion in chaps. 5-11 is peculiar to the Homilies. There is little matter in it found in the longer arguments of Recognitions.--R.]
Chapter VI.--The Love of Man.
And Peter answered: "You have deemed unjust what is most just. If you are inclined, will you listen to me?" And my father said: "With all my heart." And Peter said: "What is your opinion? Suppose that there were two kings, enemies to each other, and having their countries cut off from each other; and suppose that some one of the subjects of one of them were to be caught in the country of the other, and to incur the penalty of death on this account: now if he were let off from the punishment by receiving a blow instead of death, is it not plain that he who let him off is a lover of man?" And our father said: "Most certainly." And Peter said: "Now suppose that this same person were to steal from some one something belonging to him or to another; and if when caught he were to pay double, instead of suffering the punishment that was due to him, namely, paying four times the amount, and being also put to death, as having been caught in the territories of the enemy; is it not your opinion that he who accepts double, and lets him off from the penalty of death, is a lover of man?" And our father said: "He certainly seems so." And Peter said: "Why then? Is it not the duty of him who is in the kingdom of another, and that, too, a hostile and wicked monarch, to be pleasing to all [1234] for the sake of life, and when force is applied to him, to yield still more, to accost those who do not accost him, to reconcile enemies, not to quarrel with those who are angry, to give his own property freely to all who ask, and such like?" And our father said: "He should with reason endure all things rather, if he prefers life to them."
[1234] Lit., "to flatter."