On Nature
“Is the universe one connected whole, as it seems to us and to the wisest of the Greeks, Plato and Pythagoras and the Stoics and Heraclitus, or two, as perhaps someone supposed, or even many and infinite, as some others have thought, who, with many derangements of thought and varied coinages of words, have tried to fragment the substance of the universe, and suppose it infinite and ungenerated and without providence? For some, calling them atoms, some imperishable and very small bodies, countless in number, and positing a certain empty space of unlimited size, say that these atoms, carried at random in the void and colliding with one another spontaneously through a disorderly rush, and becoming entangled because, having many shapes, they take hold of one another, so produce the world and the things in it, or rather infinite worlds. Epicurus and Democritus held this opinion; they differed only so far as the one supposed all atoms to be very small and therefore imperceptible, while Democritus supposed that some atoms are even very large. Both say that they are atoms, and so called because of their indissoluble solidity. Others, renaming the atoms, say they are partless bodies, parts of the universe, from which, being indivisible, all things are composed and into which they are dissolved. And they say that Diodorus was the coiner of the name of these partless bodies; but Heraclides, they say, gave them another name and called them ‘masses,’ from whom Asclepiades the physician also inherited the name.” “How can we bear them saying that wise and therefore beautiful works are chance coincidences? Each of these, as it came into being by itself, was seen by him who commanded it to come into being to be good, and likewise all of them together. For ‘God saw,’ it says, ‘all things that he had made, and they were very good.’ But they are not admonished even by small, familiar, and everyday examples, from which they could learn that no work that is useful and beneficial is produced without design or by chance, but is fitted by handiwork for its proper service; and when it falls into uselessness and unprofitableness, then it breaks up without order and is scattered as it may happen, since the wisdom that cared for its holding together no longer handles and arranges it. For a cloak is not woven without a weaver, the warp threads standing by themselves and the woof weaving itself in spontaneously; and if it is worn out, the torn rags are thrown away. And a house is built, and a city, not by receiving some stones that desert of their own accord into the foundations and others that leap up into the courses, but the builder brings the well-fitted stones into place; and when it is thrown down, each stone falls and is dislodged as it happens. And when a ship is being built, the keel did not lay itself down, nor did the mast set itself upright in the middle, and each of the other timbers take whatever position it happened to of itself; nor were the so-called hundred timbers of a wagon each fixed in whatever empty place it found, but the carpenter brought each together at the right time. But if a ship breaks up at sea, or a wagon on its way on land, the timbers are scattered wherever it happens, some by the waves, others by the violent rush. So it would suit them to say that the atoms too, remaining idle and unformed and useless, are carried at random. Let them see the invisible atoms and think of the unthinkable ones, not like him who confesses to God what was revealed to him by God: ‘Your eyes saw my unformed substance.’” And when they say that the well-woven fabrics they claim come from atoms are worked by them without wisdom and without perception, who will bear hearing of atoms as weavers, when even the spider, working with its own hands from itself, is wiser than they? Or that this great house, composed of heaven and earth, and called kosmos, “order,” because of the greatness and abundance of the wisdom shown in it, was ordered by atoms moving without any order, and that disorder became order? And how are orderly motions and courses produced from a disorderly rush? And how does the all-harmonious dance of the heavenly bodies sing in concert from unmusical and unharmonious instruments?” “And in what way, since the substance of all is one and the same, and the same imperishable nature, except for sizes, as they say, and shapes, are some bodies divine and pure and eternal, as they themselves would say, or at least long-lived, according to him who so named them, both visible and invisible: visible, the sun and moon and stars and earth and water; invisible, gods and daimones and souls? For these they cannot deny exist, even if they wished. And the longest-lived living things and plants: of living things among birds, as they say, eagles and ravens and phoenixes; among land animals, deer and elephants and snakes; among water creatures, whales; of trees, palms and oaks and persea trees; and of trees some are evergreen, which someone counted and said were fourteen; others flower and shed their leaves in season; but most of the things that grow and are born are short-lived and soon ended, of which man too is one, as a holy Scripture said about him: ‘Man, born of woman, is short-lived.’ But they will say that differing bonds of the atoms are the cause of the difference in duration. For some, they say, are packed close and squeezed together by them, so that they have become felts altogether hard to separate; others have a looser and slacker connection of atoms, to a lesser or greater degree, so that they part from their cohesion either quickly or not long after; and some are compounded of atoms of such a kind and shaped in such a way, others of other atoms differently disposed. “Who, then, is the one who sorts them by kinds, gathers and pours them out, and arranges these thus into the sun, and those so, that the moon may come to be, and brings each together according to its affinity for the light of each star? For neither would the solar atoms, so many and such and united in such a way, have come down to the making of the moon, nor have the coils of lunar atoms ever become a sun; nor would Arcturus, bright as he is, ever boast of having the atoms of the morning star, nor the Pleiades those of Orion. For Paul distinguished well when he said, ‘There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.’ And if their compacting happened without perception, as being soulless, they needed a knowing craftsman; and if their coming together was without choice and by necessity, as being irrational, some wise herdsman driving them together presided over them; and if they have been shut in together to work willingly, some wonderful master builder assigning their work led them; or, like a well-ordered general, he did not leave the army confused and all mixed together, but arranged the cavalry in one part, the heavy infantry by themselves, the javelin men by themselves, the archers apart, and the slingers where they were needed, so that those equipped alike might fight together. But if they think this example a joke because I make a comparison of large bodies with the smallest, we shall pass over to the smallest.” “But if neither word, nor choice, nor order of a ruler were laid upon them, but they themselves of their own accord directed themselves out of the great turmoil in their flow, and passed through the great uproar of collisions, and like were led to like not by God, as the poet says, but ran together and herded together recognizing their kin, wonderful indeed is the democracy of the atoms, friends greeting and embracing one another and hastening to settle in one dwelling together; some of their own accord turned into the sun, a great light, to make the day; others perhaps blazed up into many pyramids of stars, to crown the whole heaven; others ranged round to make the ether firm and vault it at random as a base for the lights; and the confederacies of the common atoms chose dwellings for themselves and divided heaven by lot into houses and stations for themselves.” “But these men do not see even what is visible, much less perceive what is invisible. For they seem not to observe the ordered risings and settings either of the others or the most conspicuous ones of the sun, nor to use the help given through them to men, the day kindled for work and the night overshadowing for rest. For ‘man shall go out,’ it says, ‘to his work and to his labor until evening.’ Nor do they observe its other revolution, by which it brings about fixed seasons and appropriate times and unswerving turnings, guided by the atoms of which it consists. But even if the wretches do not wish it, as the righteous believe, ‘great is the Lord who made it, and at his words it hastened its course.’ Do the atoms, you blind men, bring you rains too, that the earth may send up food for you and for all living things upon it? And do they bring summer, that you may take the fruits from the trees for enjoyment? And why do you not worship the atoms and sacrifice to the fruit-bearing ones? Ungrateful, not dedicating to them even a few first fruits of the many gifts you have from them!” “And the vast and varied community of stars, whom the much-wandering and ever-scattered atoms put together, divided territories among themselves by agreement, as if taking up a colony or settlement, with no founder or master of the house presiding; and they keep their neighborly relations with those next to them under oath and in peace, not overstepping the boundaries they took at the beginning, as if governed by atoms with royal authority. But those do not rule; how could those that do not even exist? But listen to the divine oracles: ‘By the judgment of the Lord are his works. From the beginning and from their making he distinguished their portions; he ordered his works forever, and their beginnings to their generations.’ “Or what phalanx so well ordered ever marched across a level plain, with none running ahead, none turning aside, none blocking the way, none falling behind those ranged with him, as the continuous and unbroken, untroubled and unhindered army of the stars advances always in even ranks with locked shields? But by inclinations and deviations to the side some unseen turnings of them occur. And yet they always keep their times and foresee the places from which each comes, those who have attended to these things say. Let the cutters of the atoms, then, and the dividers of the partless, and the compounders of the uncompounded, and the comprehenders of the infinite tell us where the circular motion and revolution of the heavenly bodies comes from, not of one compact of atoms flung irrationally like this, but of so great a circular dance stepping in measure and whirling round together; where such a countless crowd of fellow travelers, unordered, without choice, and unknown to one another, came to turn together. Well did the prophet put among things impossible and incapable of proof that even two strangers should run together: ‘Will two walk together,’ he says, ‘unless they know one another?’” “And they see neither themselves nor what concerns themselves. For if any of the founders of this impious doctrine had considered who he himself is and where he came from, he would have thought as one aware of himself, and would have said not to the atoms but to his Father and Maker, ‘Your hands formed me and made me’; and he would have gone on to describe the wonderful manner of his making: ‘Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews; you granted me life and mercy, and your care has preserved my spirit.’ For how many atoms, and of what kind, did Epicurus’ father pour out of himself when he begot Epicurus? And how, cast into his mother’s womb, were they compacted, shaped, formed, moved, increased? And how many atoms of Epicurus did the little drop call to itself, clothing some with skin and flesh, being set upright by others that became bone, and being bound together by others, stitched with sinews? And it fitted the many other members and internal parts, intestines, and sense organs, some within, others without, by which the body was brought to life? Of these nothing idle or useless was added, not even the smallest, neither hair nor nails; but all contribute, some to the benefit of the structure, others to the beauty of its appearance. For providence takes care not only of need but also of beauty. The hair is a defense and covering of the head for all, and the beard an adornment for the philosopher. And it fitted together the nature of the whole human body from all necessary parts, and threw round all the members their fellowship with one another, and measured out the supply from the whole. Of these, the general functions are plain from experience even to ordinary people, what power each has: the sovereignty of the head, and around the brain, as round a ruler in a citadel, the bodyguard of the senses: the eyes coming forward, the ears reporting, taste like a tax gatherer, smell like one tracking and searching out, and touch arranging all that is subject. (For we shall now run over in summary a few of the works of the all-wise providence, and shortly, God granting, work them out more precisely, when we address the one who is thought more learned.) The service of the hands, by which work of every kind and arts of many devices are accomplished, their particular powers jointed into one cooperation; the burden-bearing of the shoulders, the grip of the fingers, the bending of the elbows, turning inward to the body and outward away from it, so that they can draw toward and push away; the service of the feet, by which the whole creation on earth lies subject to us, the earth walkable, the sea navigable, the rivers passable, and communication among everyone; the belly, a storehouse of food, distributing from itself in measure their ration to all the members arranged with it and putting out the excess; and the other things by which the management of man’s continuance has been clearly devised, of which the wise have the use like the foolish but do not have the knowledge. For some refer the management that is most knowing about all things and most beneficent toward themselves to whatever deity they suppose, trusting it to be the work of a higher and truly divine wisdom and power; others attribute the most wonderful craftsmanship aimlessly to the chance meeting and collision of atoms. The still more effective examination of these, and the arrangement of the internal parts, physicians, having searched out precisely and been astonished, have deified nature; we shall later, as far as we are able, look at them even if only superficially. In general and in sum, who built this whole tent, such as it is, tall, upright, well proportioned, keen of sense, nimble, active, able to do all things? The irrational multitude of atoms, they say. But those, coming together, could not mold even a clay image, nor carve a stone statue, nor cast and bring forth an idol of silver or gold; but the arts and handicrafts for these, which shape the likeness of bodies, have been found by men. And if likenesses and sketches of these could not come about without wisdom, how did their true originals happen of themselves? And from where did soul and mind and reason come to be in the philosopher? Did he collect them from soulless and mindless and unreasoning atoms, and did each of them breathe into him some thought and doctrine? And as Hesiod’s myth says Pandora was completed by the gods, so was the man’s wisdom completed by the atoms? And will the Greeks no longer say that all poetry and all music, astronomy and geometry and the other sciences, are discoveries and teachings of the gods, but that the atom-Muses alone have become skilled and wise in all things? For the theogony of Epicurus out of the atoms is banished from the infinite worlds and exiled into the infinite disorder.” “Working and governing and doing good and taking forethought and such things are perhaps burdensome to the idle and foolish and weak and wicked, among whom Epicurus enrolled himself by thinking such things of the gods; but to the earnest and able and intelligent and temperate, such as philosophers must be (how much more the gods?), these things are not only not unpleasant and irksome, but most delightful and most welcome of all; to them neglect and delay in doing any good thing is a reproach, as the poet admonishes them, advising, ‘Do not put off till tomorrow’; and threatening besides, ‘The man who puts off work always wrestles with ruin.’ And a prophet teaches us more solemnly, saying that the works of virtue are truly worthy of God, and that he who neglects them is accursed: ‘For cursed,’ he says, ‘is he who does the works of the Lord carelessly.’ And to those ignorant of any art, and less perfect, through their lack of familiarity with the experience and unpracticed work, weariness comes in their attempts; but those advancing, and still more the perfect, rejoice in easily accomplishing what they pursue, and would rather choose to complete and perfect their accustomed tasks than have all human goods. Democritus himself, at any rate, as they say, used to say that he would rather find a single causal explanation than become king of the Persians; and that while giving causes vainly and without cause, starting from an empty principle and a wandering hypothesis, not seeing the root and the common necessity of the nature of things, but thinking the understanding of things happening without wisdom and foolishly to be the greatest wisdom, and setting chance as mistress and queen over things universal and divine, and declaring that all things come about according to it, while banishing it from the life of men and refuting those who honor it as foolish. Beginning his Precepts, at least, he says: “Men fashioned an image of chance as an excuse for their own folly. For by nature judgment fights against chance; and this very thing, most hostile to wisdom, they said rules it; or rather, doing away with wisdom altogether and abolishing it, they set chance up in its place. For they do not praise wisdom as fortunate, but chance as most wise.” Those in charge of works useful to life take pride in their help to their fellow men, and long for praise and glory for the things in which they toil for them, some by feeding, others by piloting, others by healing, others by governing; and philosophers are especially proud of attempting to educate men. Or will Epicurus or Democritus dare to say that they are distressed when they philosophize? They would set no other delight above this. For even if they think the good is pleasure, they will be ashamed not to say that philosophizing is pleasanter to them. But the gods, whom their poets sing as ‘givers of good things,’ these philosophers praise with mockery as ‘gods neither givers of any good things nor sharers in them.’ And in what way do they prove that there are gods, when they neither see them present and doing something (as those who admired the sun and moon and stars said they were called gods from their running, theein), nor assign them any creation or construction, so as to make them gods from tithenai, that is, ‘to make’ (for in this sense in truth the Maker and Creator of all is alone God), nor set forth any government or judgment or favor of theirs toward men, so that, owing them fear or honor, we might worship them? “Or did Epicurus, peeping out of the world and passing beyond the heavenly enclosure, or going out through some secret gates which he alone knows, see the gods in the void and bless their great luxury; and from there, becoming desirous of pleasure and an imitator of life in the void, does he so invite all to share in this blessedness, to be made like those gods, getting up for them a blessed banquet, not in heaven or Olympus, as the poets do, but in the void, setting before them ambrosia from the atoms and drinking to them nectar from them? And indeed, by those gods who are nothing to us he writes countless oaths and adjurations in his books, continually swearing ‘No, by Zeus’ and ‘Yes, by Zeus,’ and adjuring his readers and those he talked with ‘by the gods,’ not at all fearing perjury himself or for them, but adding this as an empty, false, idle, and meaningless appendage to his words, as if he cleared his throat and spat, or turned his face or moved his hand. Such a thoughtless and vain pretense was his naming of the gods. But this is plain, that after the death of Socrates, cowering before the Athenians for fear of seeming to be what he was, an atheist, he painted for them empty shadows of nonexistent gods, telling marvels. For he did not look up to heaven with the eyes of the mind to hear the clear voice from above, which the attentive observer heard and bore witness that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands’; nor did he look down in thought to the ground; for he would have learned that ‘the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord,’ and that ‘the earth is the Lord’s and its fullness.’ For after this it says, ‘The Lord looked upon the earth and filled it with his good things; with the soul of every living thing he covered its face.’ If they are not blind, let them consider the many-colored multitude of living things, those on land, those that fly, those in the water, and understand that the testimony of the Master at the judgment of all things was true, and that all things appeared good according to his command.”
On the Promises
“But since they bring forward a certain treatise of Nepos, on which they rely greatly as proving beyond dispute that the kingdom of Christ will be on earth, I accept and love Nepos in many other respects, for his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures and his abundant psalmody, by which many of the brothers are cheered to this day; and I hold the man in great respect, all the more because he has gone to his rest before us. But truth is dear and to be honored above all things; and one must praise and approve ungrudgingly whatever is said rightly, but examine and correct whatever does not appear to have been written soundly. If he were present and setting forth his opinions by word only, unwritten discussion would have sufficed, persuading and reconciling the opponents by question and answer. But since a writing has been published, very persuasive as it seems to some, and some teachers regard the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, and belittle the letters of the apostles, while proclaiming the teaching of this treatise as some great and hidden mystery, and do not allow our simpler brothers to think anything lofty and great either about the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord, or about our resurrection from the dead and our gathering together to him and our being made like him, but persuade them to hope in the kingdom of God for small and mortal things like those of the present — it is necessary for us too to discuss with our brother Nepos as though he were present.” “When I was in the district of Arsinoe, where, as you know, this doctrine had long been prevalent, so that there were even schisms and apostasies of whole churches, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brothers in the villages, the brothers who wished being present too, and urged them to make the examination of the teaching publicly. And when they brought me this book as a kind of weapon and impregnable wall, I sat with them for three days in succession from morning till evening and tried to correct what was written. There I greatly admired the steadiness, love of truth, readiness to follow, and intelligence of the brothers, as we put the questions, difficulties, and agreements in order and with forbearance. We refused to cling contentiously at all costs to opinions once held, if they did not appear correct; we did not evade objections, but as far as possible tried to go into and establish the matters in hand; nor were we ashamed, if reason convinced us, to change our minds and agree, but conscientiously and without pretence, with hearts spread open to God, we accepted what was established by the proofs and teachings of the holy Scriptures. And finally the leader and introducer of this teaching, named Coracion, in the hearing of all the brothers present, confessed and testified to us that he would no longer hold to it, nor discuss it, nor mention it, nor teach it, being sufficiently convinced by the arguments against it. And of the other brothers, those present rejoiced at the conference and at the conciliation and agreement reached with all.” “Some of those before us rejected the book and entirely demolished it, criticizing it chapter by chapter and declaring it unintelligible and illogical, and the title false. For they say that it is not John's, nor even a revelation, being covered with the heavy and thick veil of ignorance; and that the author of this writing was not only none of the apostles, but none of the saints or members of the church at all, but Cerinthus, who founded the heresy called Cerinthian after him, and wished to attach a trustworthy name to his own fiction. For this, they say, was the doctrine of his teaching: that the kingdom of Christ would be on earth; and in the things he himself desired, being a lover of the body and altogether carnal, he dreamed it would consist: in the satisfaction of the belly and what is below the belly, that is, in food and drink and marriages, and, to procure these things under more respectable names, in festivals and sacrifices and slaughterings of victims. But I would not dare to reject the book, since many brothers hold it in esteem; but, taking my opinion of it to be beyond my own understanding, I suppose the interpretation of each part to be hidden and more wonderful. For even if I do not understand it, I suspect that some deeper meaning lies in the words. Not measuring and judging these things by my own reasoning, but assigning more to faith, I have considered them too lofty to be grasped by me; and I do not reject what I have not understood, but rather wonder that I have not also seen it.” “Having completed, so to speak, the whole prophecy, the prophet calls blessed those who keep it, and indeed himself: ‘Blessed,’ he says, ‘is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I John, who saw and heard these things.’ That he was called John, and that this writing is John's, I will not deny. For I agree that it is the work of some holy and inspired man. But I would not readily agree that this was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose are the Gospel entitled According to John and the catholic letter. For I judge from the character of each, and the form of the language, and the arrangement of the book, as it is called, that they are not the same. For the evangelist nowhere adds his name, nor proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or in the letter.” “John nowhere speaks as of himself or as of another; but the one who wrote the Apocalypse puts himself forward immediately at the beginning: ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show to his servants quickly; and he signified it, sending it by his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to his testimony, to all that he saw.’ Then he also writes a letter: ‘John to the seven churches in Asia, grace to you and peace.’ But the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the catholic letter, but began without superfluity from the very mystery of the divine revelation: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.’ For on account of this revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, ‘Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my heavenly Father.’ But not even in the reputed second and third letters of John, though they are short, is John put forward by name, but ‘the elder’ is written anonymously. But this writer did not even think it sufficient, having named himself once, to relate what follows, but takes it up again: ‘I, John, your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance of Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.’ And indeed at the end he said this: ‘Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I John, who saw and heard these things.’ That it is John who writes these things we must believe, since he says so; but which John is not clear. For he did not say that he was, as often in the Gospel, the disciple loved by the Lord, nor the one who leaned on his breast, nor the brother of James, nor the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. For he would have said one of these things already mentioned, if he wished to reveal himself clearly. But he says none of these, but calls himself our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed for the sight and hearing of the revelations. I think there were many of the same name as John the apostle, who, out of love for him, and admiring and emulating him, and wishing to be loved by the Lord as he was, embraced the same name too, just as many of the children of the faithful are named Paul and indeed Peter. There is indeed also another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul took with them, of whom again it says, ‘And they had John as their assistant.’ But whether this is the one who wrote it, I would not say. For it is not written that he came with them to Asia; but, it says, ‘Paul and his company set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem.’ But I think it was some other of those who lived in Asia, since they say there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of which is said to be John's. And from the thoughts, the words, and their arrangement, this one will reasonably be judged different from that one. For the Gospel and the letter agree with each other and begin alike. The one says, ‘In the beginning was the Word’; the other, ‘That which was from the beginning.’ The one says, ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father’; the other says the same with a slight change: ‘That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have seen, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested.’ For he makes these preliminary statements, contending, as he showed in what follows, against those who say that the Lord has not come in the flesh. Therefore he carefully added: ‘And we have seen and bear witness, and declare to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us; that which we have seen and heard we declare to you also.’ He holds to himself and does not depart from his themes, but goes through everything with the same headings and terms, some of which we shall briefly mention. The attentive reader will find in each much ‘life,’ much ‘light,’ the turning from ‘darkness,’ constantly ‘truth,’ ‘grace,’ ‘joy,’ the ‘flesh and blood’ of the Lord, ‘judgment,’ ‘forgiveness of sins,’ God's ‘love’ toward us, the ‘commandment’ of ‘love’ toward one another, that we must keep all the ‘commandments’; the conviction of the ‘world,’ of the ‘devil,’ of the ‘antichrist’; the promise of the ‘Holy Spirit,’ the adoption of God, the ‘faith’ required of us throughout, the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ everywhere. In short, it is possible to see one and the same complexion in the Gospel and the letter, characterizing them throughout. But the Apocalypse is quite different from these and foreign to them, neither touching nor bordering on any of them, having, one might almost say, not even a syllable in common with them. Nor does the letter (I leave aside the Gospel) contain any mention or thought of the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse of the letter; whereas Paul in his letters gave some indication even about his revelations, which he did not write down separately. Moreover, one can also judge from the style the difference between the Gospel and the letter on the one hand and the Apocalypse on the other. For the former are written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also most elegantly in their diction, reasoning, and arrangement of expression. Far from any barbarous word or solecism or vulgarism at all being found in them. For he had, it seems, both kinds of word, the Lord having granted him both: that of knowledge and that of expression. That this other one saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy I will not deny; but I see that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, and that he uses barbarous idioms and in some places commits solecisms. It is not necessary to pick these out now; for let no one think that I said these things in mockery, but only to set out the dissimilarity of the writings.”
Against Sabellius: On Matter
"Nor are they pious who make matter, as unbegotten, subject to God for the ordering of the world, saying that, being passive and changeable, it yields to the alterations made by God. For let them explain how both likeness and unlikeness belong to God and to matter. For one must conceive something superior to both, which it is not lawful even to think of concerning God. For unbegottenness, said alike of both and yet conceived as other besides each, where did it come from in them? For if God is the unbegotten itself, and unbegottenness is, so to speak, his being, matter could not be unbegotten; for matter and God are not the same. But if each is what it is, matter and God, and unbegottenness belongs to both, clearly it is something other than each, and older and higher than both. And the difference of their opposite states utterly overturns their coexisting, or rather the matter's existing by itself as something other than them. For let them say the reason why, when both are unbegotten, God is incapable of suffering, unchangeable, unmoved, active, while matter is the opposite, passive, changeable, unstable, transformed. And how did they fit and come together? Did God, adapting himself to the nature of matter, work it as a craftsman? But it is absurd that God, like humans, should work gold and stone and labor with his hands at all the other crafts by which materials can be shaped and molded. But if he gave matter such quality as he himself wished according to his own wisdom, stamping on it the many-formed and all-various shape and imprint of his own creation, this account is both reverent and true, and moreover it confirms that God is the unbegotten foundation of all things. For to being unbegotten he attached also the manner of being. There is much to say against these people too, but it is not our present purpose; compared with the most godless polytheists, these are more reverent."
Refutation and Defense
There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father. God did not beget the Son afterward, as though He had not already brought these things into being, but because the Son has existence not from Himself, but from the Father. Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. For since light is always in existence, it is clear that its brightness also exists, because light is perceived to exist from the fact that it shines, and it is impossible that light should not shine. And let us return to examples. If the sun exists, there is also day; if none of this is visible, it is impossible that the sun should be there. If then the sun were eternal, the day would never end; but now, since that is not actually the case, the day begins with the beginning of the sun, and ends with its ending. But God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, and will never cease. Therefore the eternal brightness shines before Him, and coexists with Him, since, existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him; and He is that Wisdom which says, “I was the one in whom He delighted, and I was daily His delight before His face at all times.” Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. For where there is the begetter, there is also the offspring. And if there is no offspring, how and of what can He be the begetter? But both are, and always are. Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness. And since He is a Spirit—for He says, “God is a Spirit” —Christ is again fittingly called Breath; for “He,” He says, “is the breath of God’s power.” Moreover, the Son alone, always coexisting with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father. But when I spoke of things created, and certain works to be considered, I hastily put forward illustrations of such things, which were, so to speak, not very appropriate, when I said neither is the plant the same as the farmer, nor the boat the same as the boatbuilder. But then I spent more time on things suitable and more adapted to the nature of the thing, and I unfolded in many words, by various carefully considered arguments, what things were more true; which things, moreover, I have set out to you in another letter. And in these things I have also proved the falsehood of the charge which they bring against me—namely, that I do not maintain that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have never either found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, yet other reasonings, which I immediately added, are in no way inconsistent from this view, because I brought forward as an illustration human offspring, which certainly is of the same kind as the begetter; and I said that parents are absolutely distinguished from their children by the fact alone that they themselves are not their children, or that it would certainly be a matter of necessity that there would neither be parents nor children. But, as I said before, I do not have the letter in my possession, on account of the present condition of affairs; otherwise I would have sent you the very words that I then wrote, indeed, along with a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it if at any time I shall have the opportunity. I remember, further, that I added many comparisons from things related to one another. For I said that the plant, whether it grows up from seed or from a root, is different from that from which it sprouted, although it is absolutely of the same nature; and similarly, that a river flowing from a spring takes another form and name: for that neither is the spring called the river, nor the river the spring, but that these are two things, and that the spring indeed is, as it were, the father, while the river is the water from the spring. But they pretend that they do not see these things and similar things which are written, as if they were blind; but they try to attack me from a distance with expressions too carelessly used, as if they were stones, not observing that on things of which they are ignorant, and which require interpretation to be understood, illustrations that are not only remote, but even contrary, will often throw light. It was said above that God is the spring of all good things, but the Son was called the river flowing from Him; because the word is an emanation of the mind, and—to use human terms—is emitted from the heart by the mouth. But the mind which comes out by the tongue is different from the word which exists in the heart. For this latter, after it has emitted the former, remains and is what it was before; but the mind sent out flies away, and is carried everywhere around, and thus each is in each although one is from the other, and they are one although they are two. And this is how that the Father and the Son are said to be one, and to be in one another. The individual names that I spoke can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. I spoke of the Father, and before I mentioned the Son I already signified Him in the Father. I added the Son; and the Father, even though I had not previously named Him, had already been absolutely included in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit; but, at the same time, I conveyed under the name from where and through whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither the Father, as Father , can be separated from the Son, for that name is the clear basis of their connection and union; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is also clearly a Spirit who can neither be separated from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other? Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity. But if anyone who argues over words, from the fact that I said that God is the Maker and Creator of all things, thinks that I said that He is also Creator of Christ, let him observe that I first called Him Father, in which word the Son also is at the same time expressed. For after I called the Father the Creator, I added, Neither is He the Father of those things of which He is Creator, if He who begot is properly understood to be a Father (for we will consider the range of meanings of the word Father in what follows). Nor is a maker a father, if it is only someone who constructs things who is called a maker. For among the Greeks, those who are wise are said to be makers of their books. The apostle also says, “a doer ( scil . maker) of the law.” Moreover, of matters of the heart, of which kind are virtue and vice, men are called doers ( scil . makers); in this way God said, “I expected that it would produce justice, but it produced injustice.” That this statement must not be criticized in this way either; for he says that he used the name of Maker on account of the flesh which the Word had assumed, and which certainly was made. But if anyone should suspect that that had been said of the Word, even this also should have been heard without contentiousness. For as I do not think that the Word was a thing made, so I do not say that God was its Maker, but its Father. Even so, if at any time, speaking about the Son, I may have casually said that God was His Maker, even this way of speaking would not be without defense. For the wise men among the Greeks call themselves the makers of their books, although they are also fathers of their books. Moreover, divine Scripture calls us makers of those movements that come from the heart, when it calls us doers of the law of judgment and of justice. In the beginning was the Word . But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “in whom He delighted.” Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth.” Life is begotten of life in the same way as the river has flowed from the spring, and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light. Just as our mind emits from itself a word, —as the prophet says, “My heart has spoken a good word,” —and each of the two is distinct the one from the other, and occupying its own place, and one that is distinguished from the other; since the former indeed remains and is stirred in the heart, while the latter has its place in the tongue and in the mouth. And yet they are not apart from one another, nor deprived of one another; neither is the mind without the word, nor is the word without the mind; but the mind makes the word and appears in the word, and the word exhibits the mind in which it was made. And the mind indeed is, as it were, the word immanent, while the word is the mind breaking forth. The mind passes into the word, and the word transmits the mind to the surrounding listeners; and thus the mind by means of the word takes its place in the souls of the listeners, entering at the same time as the word. And indeed the mind is, as it were, the father of the word, existing in itself; but the word is as the son of the mind, and cannot be made before it nor without it, but exists with it, from which it has taken its seed and origin. In the same way, also, the Almighty Father and Universal Mind has before all things the Son, the Word, and the discourse, as the interpreter and messenger of Himself. If, from the fact that there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or not, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. For on this account after the Unity there is also the most divine Trinity. In accordance with all these things, having received the pattern and rule from the elders who lived before us, we too, speaking in agreement with them, will conclude both our thanks to you and the letter we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Letter to Basilides
Dionysius to Basilides, my beloved son and brother, a fellow minister obedient to God: greeting in the Lord. You wrote to me, my most faithful and learned son, asking at what hour one ought to end the fast at the close of the Pascha. For you say that some of the brothers say it should be done at cockcrow, and others in the evening. The brothers in Rome, as they say, wait for the cock; but of those here you said that they end it sooner. You seek to fix an exact limit and a precisely measured hour, which is both difficult and hazardous. That one must begin the feast and the gladness after the time of our Lord's resurrection, humbling our souls with fasting until then, all will agree alike. But by what you wrote to me you have shown very soundly, and with a good grasp of the divine Gospels, that nothing exact appears in them about the hour at which he rose. For the evangelists described those who came to the tomb differently, at varying times, and all said that they found the Lord already risen: "late on the sabbath," as Matthew says; "early, while it was still dark," as John writes; "at deep dawn," as Luke; and "very early, when the sun had risen," as Mark. When he rose, none of them declared clearly; but it is agreed that those who came to the tomb late on the sabbath, as it was dawning toward the first day of the week, up to the rising of the sun on the first day of the week, no longer found him lying in it. Let us not suppose that the evangelists disagree or contradict one another. Even if there seems to be some small difference on the question, since they all agree that the light of the world, our Lord, rose in that night, though they differ about the hour, let us be eager to harmonize what they said with goodwill and faith. What Matthew says runs thus: "Late on the sabbath, as it was dawning toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, came and rolled away the stone, and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. And the angel answered and said to the women: Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said." Now this "late" some will think, by the common use of the word, means the evening of the sabbath; but those who understand it more wisely will say it is not this but deep night, since the word "late" indicates slowness and a long time. And to show that he means night and not evening, he added, "as it was dawning toward the first day of the week"; and they came, not yet bringing the spices, as the others say, but to see the tomb; and they found that the earthquake had happened and the angel sitting on the stone, and heard from him: "He is not here; he has been raised." Likewise John says: "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early, while it was still dark, to the tomb, and sees the stone taken away from the tomb." So, by this account, while it was still dark, but near dawn, she had come to the tomb. And Luke says: "On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment; but on the first day of the week, at deep dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices they had prepared, and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb." The "deep dawn" perhaps shows the first light of morning appearing on the first day of the week. So when the sabbath had wholly passed, together with the whole night after it, and another day was beginning, they came bringing the spices and ointments; so it is clear that he had risen long before. Mark follows this, saying: "They bought spices, so that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they come to the tomb, when the sun had risen." He too said "very early," which is the same as "at deep dawn"; and he added, "when the sun had risen." For their setting out and their journey clearly began at deep dawn and very early; but they took time, both on the way and lingering at the tomb, until the rising of the sun. And then the young man in white says to them: "He has been raised; he is not here." This being so, we make this declaration to those who seek precision about the hour, or the half-hour, or the quarter of an hour, at which it is fitting to begin the rejoicing over our Lord's resurrection from the dead. Those who are too hasty and give up the fast even before midnight we blame as careless and lacking self-control, breaking off the race just short of the end; for a wise man says, "Not small in life is what falls short by a little." Those who hold out longest and persevere until the fourth watch, at which our Savior also appeared to those sailing, walking on the sea, we accept as noble and diligent. Those in between, who rested as they were moved or as they were able, let us not trouble very much; for not all continue through the six days of the fasts equally or alike: some pass all of them without food, others two, others three, others four, others none. And for those who have labored hard in prolonging the fast and then grow weary and almost faint, there is pardon for tasting food sooner. But if some, not only not prolonging the fast but not even fasting, or even living luxuriously through the four days before, then come to the last two days alone, the Preparation and the sabbath, and pass these without food, and think they do something great and splendid if they hold out until dawn, I do not think they have made an equal contest with those who have trained through more days. This, then, is my counsel on these matters, as I think. [Unnumbered paragraph:] As for those who were released from excommunication in expectation of death, it is unreasonable, if they survive, to bind them again, since they have done nothing wrong in the meantime. If, however, after recovering, someone appears to need further conversion, and when admonished to humble, chastise, and restrain himself does not obey but contradicts, this to him … Concerning women in their period of separation, whether it is right for them in that state to enter the house of God, I think it superfluous even to ask. For I do not think that they, being faithful and devout, would dare in that state either to approach the holy table or to touch the body and blood of Christ. For not even the woman with the flow of twelve years, eager for healing, touched him, but only the fringe of his garment. To pray, in whatever condition one is and however one is disposed, to remember the Master, and to ask to obtain help, is blameless; but whoever is not wholly pure in both soul and body shall be prevented from approaching the holy things and the holy of holies. Married people ought to be sufficient judges of themselves. For they have heard Paul writing that it is fitting to abstain from one another by agreement for a time, so that they may devote themselves to prayer, and to come together again. Those who have had an involuntary emission in the night, let them also follow their own conscience and consider whether they have doubts about this or not. As in the matter of foods, "he who doubts," he says, "is condemned if he eats." In these matters too, let everyone who comes to God be of good conscience and good confidence according to his own judgment. You have brought these questions to us, beloved, out of respect for us (for it is not that you do not know), making us of one mind and one soul with yourself, as indeed we are. And I have set out my thoughts openly, not as a teacher, but as it is fitting for us to converse with one another in all simplicity. When you have examined them, my most understanding son, write back to me about them what seems to you right and better, and whether you judge that it is so. I pray that you may be well, my beloved son, ministering to the Lord in peace.
Connections in Miscellaneous Writings
1 connection
Part 1 1 connections
No connections match.