[224] Why then do we invest ourselves with the gauds of political importance, as with some costly garment, and bear ourselves proudly in it, deceived by the fairness of what meets the eye, and not perceiving its insidious and dangerous ugliness which is out of sight and hidden from observation?
[225] Come, let us cast off this showy tunic, and put on the sacred one inwoven with the varied embroidery of virtues. So shall we escape also the ambushments, which unskilfulness, ignorance and indiscipline set for our ruin, to which company Laban belongs.
[226] For when the holy word had cleansed us with the water of sprinkling made ready for our sanctification, and bringing us to the test had decked us with the varied richness of the secrets of true philosophy, and had made us clear and distinct and bright, it censures the evil-designing character stirred up to spoil the effects of the said treatment.
[227] For he says, “I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee” (Gen. 31:12), the reverse, that is, of all that I bestowed upon thee, even sore foulness and spuriousness and darkness in every part.
Yet there can be no cowering fear for the man who relies on the hope of the divine comradeship, to whom are addressed the words “I am the God who appeared to thee in the place of God” (Gen. 31:13).
[228] Surely a right noble cause of vaunting it is for a soul, that God deigns to shew Himself to and converse with it. And do not fail to mark the language used, but carefully inquire whether there are two Gods; for we read “I am the God that appeared to thee,” not “in my place” but “in the place of God,” as though it were another’s.
[229] What, then, are we to say? He that is truly God is One, but those that are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated Him Who is truly God by means of the articles saying “I am the God,” while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying “Who appeared to thee in the place” not “of the God,” but simply “of God.”
[230] Here it gives the title of “God” to His chief Word, not from any superstitious nicety in applying names, but with one aim before him, to use words to express facts. Thus in another place, when he had inquired whether He that IS has any name, he came to know full well that He has no proper name, and that whatever name anyone may use of Him he will use by licence of language; for it is not the nature of Him that IS to be spoken of, but simply to be.