On the Witch of Endor 1

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.

For is it to be unknown that the flame-like dignities of the angels are always far fairer than those of men? Therefore from all the deeds together it is easy to see that Saul's ruling mind was blinded as he was driven by the demon, while the devil changed himself into different forms, contriving to be worshipped by the ruler, so that thereby he might unawares deceive as many as possible into bowing down before him.

And what strange thing is it to say, seeing that even when he looked upon the person of Christ—beholding within, in deed and act, God and by nature the true Son of God, while gazing on a pure man outwardly clothed, undefiled, unstained, and a most beautiful, consecrated, inviolable temple—he nonetheless without delay drew near to tempt Him, warring against God after his custom? And when, having provoked the first and second assaults against himself, he was defeated and wretchedly shattered, then changing to another guise, he tried to show Him all the compass of this world and its kingdoms, and boasting in folly and false speech he vaunted, "All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Such, then, were the utterances the impious one here burst forth with, thinking to call forth into wrath the disposition of long-suffering, and supposing through such means to gain a hold.

But the Lord, in a manner worthy of God, silenced the avenging fiend by His long-suffering;

for it would be proper to God to bear all things with long-suffering.

If, then, he reckoned as nothing the offering of such words to the Lord Himself, how is it not plain that, wishing to be worshipped on a par with God, he wrought these things? This, I think, is manifest to all the right-minded—that through a frenzied woman he deceived the deranged ruler into bowing down before him contrary to what was right.

And we must still further examine in order the very things that underlie these matters.

So when Saul bowed down to the phantom in obeisance, the guileful one again feigns to have suffered violence, having changed himself into the shape of Samuel;

then with irony he answers more sullenly, saying, "Why have you disturbed me by making me come up?"

And in fashioning these things he wished indefinitely to signify that the demon was able to summon the prophet even against his will, and to have such authority over him.

Then are some so dim-sighted as to be unable to perceive that all who genuinely hold the mind of Christ put the demons to flight by the divine name—and not, on the contrary, that, as being subject to them, they ascend unwillingly out of Hades, summoned by them? But if anyone supposes that the demon of the woman with the familiar spirit is never put to flight, being superior to all the rest together, let him run back to the Acts of the Apostles, and entering upon the very passages, let him see how Paul the itinerant herald arrived at Philippi;

and when he had enlightened the woman called Lydia with the knowledge of godliness, then he was going off to offer his prayers, and it came about, he says, that a certain slave-girl met him, having a spirit of divination (a python), who provided much gain to her masters by divining.

Accordingly, this girl, following after Paul and those with him, cried out loudly:

"These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation";

and this she did for many days.

But the demon, racked by an invisible scourge, was unwillingly compelled to send forth such words; and Paul, having most rightly considered that that one's testimony was not trustworthy, being grieved said to the spirit, "I charge you," saying, "in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

Then, narrating the matter, the writer adds, "And it came out that very hour."

So when the masters of the maidservant saw that the hope of their gain was gone, laying hold of Paul and Silas they dragged them into the marketplace to the magistrates; and by insults and blows they became the cause of trouble, stirring up factions by false accusation.

If, then, Paul, having rebuked the spirit, drove out the diviner all at once in that very instant, and the spirit fled by the authority of his word, unable to withstand the sound of his tongue—let him who supports such a definition come forward into the open and say: by what excellence of power did the demon bring up from Hades, against his will, Samuel, who is of the same belief as Paul, summoning him?

But he would not be able to show anything of these things to be true;

so that through these things too one can very easily see that, having transformed himself, the guileful one addressed Saul, saying, "Why have you disturbed me?"

For he hinted that he was coming up unwillingly, against his will—not wishing it, but by necessity and force—as though commanded to be summoned by the Mightier Himself.

And the ruler, retorting, said:

"I am sorely distressed, and the Philistines make war against me, and God," he says, "has departed from me and no longer answers me, neither by the hand of the prophets nor in dreams;

and now I have called you to make known to me what I shall do."

If Samuel were the far-famed prophet, would he not have brought the man to his senses by admonishing him? Would he not have said to him first:

"Tell me, O most wretched of all men—if the foreigners have surrounded you, drawn up in close array for war; if God has departed from you and has not at all hearkened to you; if neither prophets interceding on your behalf have made anything plain, nor by dream or waking vision has been revealed to you what you ought to do—ought you not rather, by this very means, to have humbled yourself before God in propitiation and to have washed away the causes of your guilt by almsgivings to the poor, far rather than to flee for refuge to a diviner with a familiar spirit, and to barter the tokens of godliness for frenzied divination, and to increase your calamity against yourself doubly? For is it not to be considered that such pollutions God expressly forbade, saying in Leviticus through Moses:

"You shall not follow after those who have familiar spirits, and to the enchanters you shall not cleave, to be defiled by them;

I am the Lord your God"? But do you not reckon these abominations as impious, undertaking to act out a drama contrary to God? Hear also, after other things, God uttering an oracle concerning such an outrage:

"...follows after those who have familiar spirits or enchanters, so as to go a-whoring after them;

"what sort and what things he shall suffer," He added, declaring as He went on:

"I will set my face," He said, "against that soul, and will destroy it from among its people."

If, then, God, having from the beginning legislated, dispatched with stern ordinances those who wallow in such enchantments or divinations, and threatens grim and dreadful punishments fearfully against those caught at the judgment, ought not he who from tender nails was devoted to God Himself, and was a firm guardian of the law, to have first laid an accusation concerning these things? But the man learned in the law from boyhood, who was able most exactly to master the lines of the law, would he not have inquired into the fault, lest perchance through this some be dragged off into frenzied divinations, miserably despoiled by deceit? But of these things he neither said nor inquired anything (for it was not Samuel, but the one who from of old concocts such dramas); and upon these things he answers, having slipped into the person of the prophet: "Why do you ask me, saying that the Lord has departed from you and has come to be with your neighbor? And the Lord has done to you as He spoke by my hand."

These things, then, he reads out as an enemy and at the same time sketching out vengeance, introducing the memoranda of accusation.

But we must observe how, passing over the very essential charges, he feigns to speak more demonstratively by hypocrisy, and, having said nothing worthy of foreknowledge, he repeats artfully those things which Samuel, while yet alive, had foretold would befall Saul—which he proclaimed beforehand as already accomplished, prophesying.

But indeed, the one who said to him, "Why do you ask me?" expressly confesses that he had said these things before as well;

and he is in fact tautologous, confirming the former things by the later ones under a pretext, in wailing fashion.

But Origen, on the contrary, taking the very words that were proclaimed of old to the prophet, defines them verbatim as fresh and new utterances of prophecy; for this very reason he wishes Samuel to have been brought up, although the Scripture convicts him face to face, as indeed he himself in part locally concedes.

But what did the phantom add again after these things, when it conversed with the ruler? "The Lord will rend the kingdom out of your hand and will give it to your neighbor, to David.

"Because you did not hearken to the voice of the Lord and did not execute the fierceness of His wrath upon Amalek—on account of this thing the Lord has done this to you this day; and the Lord will deliver Israel with you into the hands of the foreigners."

But if anyone should wish to ascertain the clear truth, let him go back to the history of the text, running back a little before, and unfolding the very passage where, having defeated Amalek, Saul appropriated the choicest of the spoils and supposed that he ought to offer up burnt offerings from these as first-fruits.

And searching with more discerning exactness, he would knowledgeably find that all these words Samuel had foretold verbatim at that time:

for he said that the Lord had rent the kingdom out of his hand, when the ruler, having laid hold of the skirt of the little double mantle, tore it in two;

and moreover he foretold to him that the kingdom was to be given to his neighbor who was better than he;

and he prophesied also in what manner Israel was, on account of this, to be torn asunder and to turn back no more.

And having said these things, he confirmed his words at the same time by deeds;

for not long after, having been sent by divine decree, he anointed David king.

Did, then, the one said to have been brought up through the woman with the familiar spirit announce anything strange, but rather fashioned by deceit, as though his own, the things spoken before by Samuel, impersonating, and by a plausible artifice repeating them, feigned indeed to converse prophetically?

...they astound their hearers, and leading them into a foolish credulity concerning things to come, they fashion whatever they please; so indeed also the phantom of the woman with the familiar spirit, transforming itself, uttered the very prophetic sayings of Samuel, yet in seeming supposed itself to prophesy, while knowing nothing; rather, it set forth the things of another as its own and astounded the avenging fiend['s dupe], and through these easily plundered and stole away that man's mind.

What else, then, did it add after these things? "And you," it says, "tomorrow, and your son Jonathan, with me; and the camp of Israel the Lord will give into the hands of the foreigners."

But these things the demon seemed to say as his own.

And we must inquire whether it foretold true things, as it supposed, and whether it was announcing from guesswork and coincidence, and in addition to these, whether it could have had any foreknowledge of these things.

First, then, Saul does not appear to have perished on the following day, as the phantom said in its utterance.

For if, having heard the words, out of exceeding despondency he ate no bread that whole day and that whole night, as the divine Scripture declares, and after this the woman, again exhorting, urged him to take food, since a journey lay ahead—it is plain that on the second day, doubtless, after that night-long and day-long fasting, she persuaded him, cast feebly upon the ground, to rise and to be seated more becomingly upon the seat; and taking without delay the suckling calf which she had, she slaughters it, and, cooking and baking the unleavened bread, prepared the food.

And when she had set it before him and those with him, having diligently prepared the meal, he then, being urged, partook of the food on the spot;

and it must be concluded that he came into other, nocturnal hours, if indeed he set out from there by night.

So that on this point the demon is self-evidently convicted of having lied;

for it did not come about as it said ("tomorrow you shall be with me"), since the next day he spent there fasting, and then on the second day, having partaken of food, he marched to the camp.

And not only is it caught having spoken contrary to what came to pass in this, but it also said that Jonathan alone, together with his father, would end up beside him;

but on the contrary, the narrative voice of the text declares that Saul was slain together with three sons, and not with one only, as that one said.

Therefore, from want of foreknowledge, the demon spoke nothing true (for otherwise it would not have announced things contrary to what came to pass), but, having stolen away the things spoken before by Samuel, as I said, it added a few small things to these, weaving in things of like character from probability.

So indeed it also threatened death to the ruler, making use of that one's words.

But further it even promised to deliver up the camp of Israel, on the ground that the prophet had weightily said the people would be torn asunder.

Seeing, then, the engines of war set up against them and the leader of the people in terror, and moreover that he had been abandoned by God Himself (whereby the ruler conjecturally confessed that the prophet's proclamation was being carried through even here), it feigned to cry out concerning the present movements.

Yet whatever it added of its own, on its own account, it was plainly caught having lied;

for it was able to foretell neither the day of the death, nor the slayings of Saul's sons, whom the Scripture mentioned by name.

And from these things it would not be hard to perceive that the spirit announced nothing of its own nor anything true, but whatever words of Samuel it filched, these, appropriating them, it supposed itself to prophesy.

But above all it is not possible to say that it prophesied this without falsehood;

...suddenly, unproclaimed? Did it not, transforming itself now here now there in different ways, become at once its own messenger and witness and war-leader, having slipped into the inward parts of men? But such a guise has been considered obscure by the many;

so we must go on consistently to the traces of the Third Book of Kingdoms.

It appears, then, how the prophet Micaiah is questioned by Ahab;

but since he was compelled to speak the truth without concealment, he said that he had seen the Lord sitting on a throne, and then heavenly hosts standing about Him, both on the right hand and on the left;

and together with the account of the vision he said that he had also heard a voice of this sort:

"Who will deceive Ahab, that he may go up to Ramoth Gilead and fall there?" and then he says (that, passing over the things in between, I may say the matter in question), "a spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said:

and when the Lord, retorting, said, "In what way?" it answers again:

"I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets."

To this, then, the Mightier said:

"You shall deceive, and indeed you shall prevail;

and now, behold," He says, "go forth and do so." And the prophet, narrating these very things to the king, immediately adds:

"God has given a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and the Lord has spoken evil against you." Accordingly, if it is necessary to think that this spirit, the cause of false speaking, was not good but wicked, it is consistent to suppose that this very thing is a diabolical instrument.

And if it is properly demonstrated to be this, then it foreheard how the polluted Ahab was to die, going forth to war;

for it deemed worthy to cast in the lie in place of the truth, so that it might itself bring about the outbreak of war and most shamefully destroy the unrighteous man.

So that through these deeds too it is demonstrated that the devil has learned beforehand the evils brought upon the unrighteous, since he himself is the contriver of all the most hateful things.

In the case of Saul, however, whatever he added of his own and joined to the sayings of Samuel, he not only lied plausibly, but also blasphemed impiously.

From here somewhere the first blasphemy is convicted:

first, that in imitation—just as the Lord said to the robber who confessed the power of His kingdom, "Today you shall be with me," saying, "in paradise"—this very same thing the guileful one said also to Saul, who had fulfilled his frenzied divinations:

"Tomorrow you shall be with me, and Jonathan your son." And second, it wishes through these things to show that the righteous man differs in no way from the unrighteous, contriving to cut off the eager zeal of the godly.

But no one, it seems, is ignorant that there exists no fellowship in common for a believer with an unbeliever; or again, how the man who luxuriated in insatiable wealth was separated far from the abode of Lazarus, although he had done nothing like that man.

For this one never imparted anything at all to the poor man—nothing whatsoever, neither of leftovers nor of crumbs thrown to the ground—but neither did he maltreat the man with blows, nor, scourging him with whips, drive him further off the land somewhere.

But nonetheless, when both departed, removing hence, the one came to rest in the bosom of the forefather Abraham, while the other was given to the unsleeping flames of the fire.

So when, being tormented in Hades, he was burning, he sees the forefather afar off, and beholds also Lazarus in his bosom;

and being set on fire by the flame, he fervently besought Abraham to send the poor man to him;

for he begged that Lazarus, having come, might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue, having drawn upon it a drop of moisture;

so, pained by fiery agonies, the wretch made such entreaties with supplication.

And when the forefather, answering point by point, showed that each in his own portion had received the worthy recompenses for the sake of his reward, then he added and uttered:

"that those wishing to cross over from here to you may not be able, neither those from thence pass over to us." If, then, there is a form of chasm dividing between the righteous and the unrighteous, so that neither can those on this side ferry over thither, nor those from thence arrive here, it is established that Saul, being unrighteous, is not with the prophet Samuel;

for if the rich man cannot be with the poor man—and that though he did him no wrong nor persecuted him, but merely failed readily to share with him out of what he had—how much more is the wretched man unworthy to enjoy the fellowship of the saints? But it is not to be supposed how, for the sake of shameful gain, he sets aside the divine command, and, smitten incurably by a demon, is driven by envy, persecutes the saintly David in a manner befitting no decency (although by prophetic psalmody he tamed the savagery of the demon that raged within him), slaughters the priests of the Lord, three hundred and fifty in number, and apostatizes from God by divining impiously. And if he wrought these things and things akin to these, how is it possible to think that he came to rest with the wonder-working Samuel, who in the season of summer asked for rain to come, and at that very moment an immeasurable abundance of waters was poured down? But if it is not possible to say that Saul is with Samuel, then he who said to him lied:

accordingly, if the one who said these things is a liar, it is plain that this is not Samuel;

for the prophet of the Lord would not have lied so senselessly, so that such words, split in twain when unfolded, lay bare the many-faced beast hidden deep within.

For it is he himself who dragged the raging Saul down into the chasm of Tartarus;

whence, having mastered him, he addressed him in a manner befitting himself;

and trying in a twofold way to establish that the righteous in no way differs from the unrighteous, he conceded that Jonathan, together with his father, carried off the same lot as that man, although he had had no share in that man's cruelty.

And who among existing men pretends not to perceive that he who lived most excellently, the lover of the prophet David, and who did not undertake to persecute a righteous man unrighteously, does not carry off the same wages as the persecutor? For a son shall not die, to say all in sum, on behalf of an unrighteous father.

But indeed, the false-fabricator is convicted also through this disclosure.

And with an unbroken sequence of order the writer added and said that "Saul made haste and fell, standing full length upon the ground, and was greatly afraid, speaking from the words of Samuel."

For he knows those to be the words of Samuel, which Samuel foretold to him while present in his very body and tongue; but the phantom gleaned up these words and brought them forth as its own;

reminded of which, and beholding the tokens of war set up before his very eyes, the ruler became greatly afraid, pondering their outcome.

But Origen, fashioning dogmas for himself, knowing that very many are those who hold these opinions, yet disputing with those who contradicted him, was not zealous to ascertain what was needful with the due reverence;

but rather, while proclaiming beforehand that the drama of the woman with the familiar spirit touches everyone and invoking the truth as necessary for the examination, he manifestly fights against the truth itself.

Then, going through the encomia of Samuel—all that the divine Scriptures relate concerning him—he at that point again, declaring him to be under the authority of the demon, in those very words and very syllables added:

"Is it then, <if> so great a one was beneath the earth and the woman with the familiar spirit brought him up, that a demon has authority over a prophetic soul?" But these things he is suspected of sometimes saying among certain people, as though raising a difficulty, or perhaps inquiring:

"Are they true, or are they not true?" Now to say that they are not true urges one toward unbelief ("it will come upon the heads," he says, "of those who say so"), while to say that they are true affords us inquiry and perplexity.