Part I

FRAGMENTS OF THE BOOKS ON THE PROMISES

ST. DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA WHAT SURVIVES OF THE FRAGMENTS OF HIS WORKS AND EPISTLES PART I Containing various fragments of the works of the holy Father.

I.

FROM THE BOOKS II ON THE PROMISES

^A I. But since they bring forward a certain book of Nepos, upon which they rely heavily, as if it demonstrated beyond contradiction that the kingdom of Christ will be on earth; in many other respects I acknowledge and love Nepos, both for his faith and his industry and his study of the Scriptures, and for his many psalms, in which ^B many of the brethren until now take delight—

^A but truth is beloved and most preferred of all. We must praise and agree freely if anything is said correctly; but we must examine and amend it if anything does not appear to be written soundly. And if he were present himself, and were to proclaim his opinion by word of mouth, a simple conversation without writing would perhaps suffice, whereby through interrogations and responses the adversaries might be convinced and recalled to their former concord. But since the book has been published, and it seems to some to be most apt for persuasion; and since certain teachers make the Law and the Prophets of no account, neglect to follow the Gospels, and despise the Apostles' Epistles: while they sell the doctrine of this book as if it were some great and hidden mystery, and do not allow our simpler brethren to think anything sublime and magnificent, either concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord, or concerning our resurrection from the dead and our gathering together and assimilation unto Him; but rather compel them to hope for certain paltry and mortal things, such as men are now wont to expect, in the kingdom of God: it is necessary that I also, as if he were present, should hold a discussion against my brother Nepos.

II. Having interposed a few words, he proceeds to say: ^B When I was, he says, in the Arsinoite prefecture, where, as you know, this opinion has long since become prevalent, to such a degree that schisms and defections of entire Churches have occurred; having convoked the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages, and with those brethren present who wished to attend, I exhorted them that this doctrine should be examined openly in the assembly. And when they brought forward this book to me as if it were some shield and impregnable wall, I sat with them for three successive days from dawn until evening, and set myself to discuss whatever was written in it. ^C And there I was overjoyed at the constancy, and the most ardent truth-seeking, and the intelligence, and the tractability of the brethren, as, in order and with moderation, we conducted the questions and the difficulties and the agreements.

^A For we truly renounced the practice of clinging obstinately and contentiously to views once held, even if they appeared correct; neither did we brush aside contradictions, but we endeavored, as far as was possible, to approach and strengthen the subjects at hand. Nor, if reason dictated, were we ashamed to change our opinion and agree with others. But rather, with a good conscience and without any hypocrisy, and with hearts ^B opened to God, we accepted whatever was confirmed by the most certain arguments and the authority of the Holy Scriptures. Finally, Coracion, who had been the author and leader of this doctrine, in the hearing of all the brethren present, confessed and testified to us that he would no longer attend to this, nor discuss it, nor remember it, nor teach it, since he had been sufficiently convinced by the arguments brought against it. The other brethren who were present rejoiced at this common discourse and at the approach to all in agreement and mutual understanding.

^C III. Furthermore, descending next to the Apocalypse of John, he speaks as follows: "Some, then, of those who were before us, have rejected and altogether dismantled the book, refuting each of its chapters, and declaring it to be unintelligible and irrational; they maintain that the title is false. For they say that it is not John's; and indeed, that it is not a revelation, seeing that it is covered by the thick and opaque veil of ignorance; and [they affirm] that not only was no one of the apostles, but not even any one of the saints or of those from the Church, the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, who ^D established the sect named after him, [was the author], wishing by his own name to give credibility to his own fabrications. For this to be the dogma of his teaching, that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly; and that, being a lover of the body and altogether carnal, he would dream that it would consist in those things after which he himself particularly lusted—in the satisfyings of the belly and those parts beneath the belly, that is to say, in foods and drinks and marriages, and by means of which, more speciously..."

he imagined that these things could be prepared, namely, in the feasts and the sacrifices and the slaughter of sacrificial animals. ^A Yet I would not dare to reject the book, since many of the brethren hold it in high esteem; but, receiving a higher opinion regarding it than my own understanding, I suppose that the interpretation of each part is something hidden and more wonderful. For even if I do not grasp it, I suspect nonetheless that a deeper meaning lies within the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own reasoning, but attributing more to faith, I have thought them to be higher than what I can comprehend. And I do not condemn the things which I have not been able to understand; rather, I marvel at them the more, because I cannot grasp them.

IV. After this, having examined the entire book of the Revelation, ^B and having shown that it is impossible to understand it according to the obvious sense of the words, he adds, saying: Having at length completed the whole prophecy, so to speak, the prophet declares blessed both those who observe it and himself as well. "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 is called John, therefore, and that the book was written by John, I do not deny. For I confess that it is the work of some holy and divinely inspired man. But that he is the same person as the apostle, ^C the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose is the Gospel inscribed "according to John" and the Catholic Epistle, I would not easily concede. For from the character of both, and from the style of their speech, and from the whole arrangement [(20)] and disposition of the book, I conjecture that they are not one and the same writer. For the evangelist nowhere writes his name; nor does he proclaim himself, either in the Gospel or in the Epistle. A little further on, he adds: John, however, nowhere [proclaims himself], neither as speaking of himself nor of another. But he who wrote the Revelation, at the very beginning of the opening ^D sets forth his name, when he says: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave to him, to show to his servants quickly, and he signified it, sending by his angel to his servant John; who testified to the word of God, and his testimony, whatsoever he saw." Then he also writes an epistle: "John to the seven Churches which are in Asia, grace to you and peace." But the evangelist did not even prefix his name to the Catholic Epistle; but without any wordiness or indirection, he started from the very mystery of the divine revelation: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes."

^A For upon this revelation the Lord also declared Peter blessed, saying: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." But not even in the second and third Epistles, which are commonly ascribed to John, although they are very brief, does the name of John appear; but strictly without a name, he is inscribed as "the Elder." Moreover, that other one did not think it sufficient to have mentioned his own name once to proceed thereafter with the narrative, but he repeats it again: "I, John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and in the patience of Jesus, was on the island which is called Patmos, on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." And at the end of the book he adds these things again: "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, therefore, who writes these things, must be believed because he says it himself.

^B V. But who this man might be is uncertain. For he did not speak of himself—as he is often described in the Gospel—as "the disciple whom the Lord loved," nor as "the one who reclined upon His breast," nor as "the brother of James," nor, finally, as "the one who saw and heard the Lord." For he would surely have said one of these things mentioned, if he had wished to reveal himself clearly. But he stated none of these things; rather, he called himself only our brother and fellow-partaker, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed on account of the revelation he both saw and heard. ^C I believe, indeed, that there have been many who shared the name of John with the Apostle, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and revered the man, and desired to be loved by the Lord just as he was, embraced this same name, ^D just as we see in the children of the faithful that many are called by the names of Paul and Peter. There is also another John in the Acts of the Apostles, named Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul took along with them, concerning whom it is said again: "They had also John as a helper." Whether this person is the one who wrote the Revelation, it is not clear to me. For he is not reported to have come into Asia with them: "But when they had sailed from Paphos," it says, "Paul indeed went on to Perga in Pamphylia; but John, withdrawing from them, returned to Jerusalem." Therefore, I believe it is some other one of those who were in Asia; since they say that there are two monuments at Ephesus, and each is said to be of John.

VI. From the thoughts and words and...

the composition ^A of them, it is reasonable to expect that this one is different from that one. For the Gospel and the Epistle harmonize with one another, and they begin in the same way. 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 beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father*. The other has the same things, but slightly changed: *That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested*. For he puts these forth as a kind of prelude, asserting himself, as he made clear in what follows, against those who claimed that the Lord had not come in the flesh; wherefore he also carefully joined: *And that which we have seen we bear witness, and we announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us; that which we have seen ^B and heard, we announce to you*. He adheres to it, and does not depart from his propositions; but pursues everything through the same themes and words. From which we ourselves will suggest a few things briefly. But whoever reads it attentively will find in both, very often, the life, the light, the turning away of darkness; frequently, truth, grace, joy, the flesh and blood of the Lord, judgment, the forgiveness of sins, the love of God toward us, the commandment of love for one another; as he must keep all the commandments: the condemnation of the world ^C, of the devil, of the Antichrist; the promise of the holy Spirit, the adoption of the children of God, the faith in all things to be practiced by us; the Father and the Son are everywhere named, and occur commonly in both. Finally, in all things, if you examine rightly, one and the same kind of writing, that of the Gospel and the Epistle, is evidently apparent. But the Apocalypse is wholly alien and extraneous to these; not touching, nor approaching any of them in almost anything, so to speak; nor having even one syllable in common with them. But neither does the Epistle (for of the Gospel I say nothing) make any mention or indication of the Apocalypse; nor the Apocalypse ^D of the Epistle; while, however, Paul in his Epistles has indicated something concerning his own revelations, which he did not record in a volume of their own.

VII. Furthermore, it is possible to judge from the very style how much the Gospel and the Epistle differ from the Apocalypse. For the former are written not only correctly in regard to the Greek language, but also with the greatest elegance in their vocabulary, their arguments, and the entire composition of their discourse; so far is one from finding any barbarism, solecism, or indeed any vulgarism in them. For the Evangelist was endowed with both—discourse, that is, and knowledge—since the Lord had granted him both of these things, knowledge at the same time as eloquence. I do not deny that the latter saw a revelation and received knowledge and the gift of prophecy; however, I note that his language and speech do not strictly follow Greek, but that he makes use of barbaric idioms and sometimes even solecisms. I do not consider it necessary to excerpt these at the present moment, nor should anyone think that I have spoken these things with the intention of mocking him, but rather with the design of weighing the dissimilarity between both writings.

II. FROM THE BOOKS ON NATURE. Against the Epicureans.

^A I. Against the Epicureans, who both did away with Providence and attributed the universe to individual bodies [atoms].

Is the universe one and coherent, as it seems to us and to the wisest of the Greeks, Plato and Pythagoras, and those of the Stoa, and Heraclitus? Or is it two, as perhaps someone might have supposed? Or many, and indeed infinite, as it has pleased certain others who, through many deviations of the mind and various modes of terminology, have attempted to tear asunder and lacerate the nature of the universe, positing it to be infinite, unborn, and without providence? For some, naming atoms—certain incorruptible and minute bodies, infinite in number—and proposing a certain empty space, unlimited in magnitude, claim that these atoms, as they happen to move about in the void, and—by chance—collide...

with one another through the impulse of a disordered movement, and, becoming entangled due to their multifaceted shapes, lay hold of one another, and thus create the world and the things in it, or rather, create infinite worlds. Epicurus and Democritus held this opinion; yet they differed to the extent that the former supposed all atoms to be of minimal size, and for that reason imperceptible, while Democritus held that some were even of great size. Both, however, teach that they are indivisible, and are so named on account of their indissoluble firmness. There are others, however, who by the term "atoms" understand certain bodies which, while indeed lacking parts, are nonetheless parts of the universe; from these, as they are indivisible, all things are first composed, and into them they are again dissolved. They make Diodorus the originator of this name for these partless bodies; but Heraclides called them by another name, namely *ogkoi* (that is, masses, or weights), a name which the physician Asclepiades subsequently adopted. ^B

The Epicurean dogma is refuted by examples of common things among men.

How long shall we tolerate these men, who claim that works full of wisdom, and for that very reason good, were made by chance? Both individually and as a whole, they appeared good to Him by whose command all things came into existence. For God, it says, saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. ^C Although they do not even consider those trivial and common examples of things, by whose instruction they themselves could be taught that whatever is created in such a way as to bring forth some fruit and utility is not brought about rashly or without purpose, but rather is fashioned for its own proper use by the skillful work of hands; and, at the same time that it ceases to be fruitful and advantageous, it is immediately dissolved and scattered in an exceedingly confused and disordered manner, since it is no longer governed or directed by that wisdom whose care had previously preserved it. For a garment is not woven without the weaver’s hand, with the warp consisting of itself, nor does the woof spontaneously entangle itself with it; yet, when it is torn, you see the ragged shreds scattered here and there. Thus, when a house or a city is built, it does not receive stones that subside spontaneously into the foundations, nor others that fly up of their own accord into the upper structures; but the architect arranges each stone, brought to its proper place, fitly and precisely. ^D But after it has been demolished, the individual stones lie scattered here and there, wherever chance has carried them. Thus, while a ship is being put together, the keel does not lay itself down, nor does the mast rise up straight in the middle, nor do the rest of the timbers fall into their own position of their own accord. And do the things called [the pieces of a carriage] not—wait... if one were to remove such things, what if they were further added to by those who philosophize about examples? What if, which is more pleasing, it were changed into what is taught by the teachers?

^A And the timbers of a wagon do not, simply because they have each found a vacant space, assemble themselves together; but the carpenter gathered them in due order. But if a ship were to be broken up while sailing, or a wagon were to be carried along the land, the timbers would be scattered, some by the waves and others by the sheer violence of the force. So it would be fitting to say to them, that the atoms also, remaining idle, unworked, and useless, are borne along at random. For let them behold things that are unseen 32, and let them understand those that are mindless, not in the way of him who confesses that this was made manifest to him by God: *My imperfect [parts] did your eyes see.* If they say that the fabrics are woven from atoms—those things which are easily-spun—and that these things are fashioned by them unwisely and insensibly, who will endure hearing of atoms as rhythm-less, when even the spider is wiser than they, being a craftsman of its own accord? ^B

III. The same proven from the construction of the universe.

Who, with balanced ears, would hear that this great house, consisting of heaven and earth, and called "world" on account of the very great and manifold wisdom that resides in it, was adorned by atoms borne along without any order, and that the world was created from disorder? And how can ordered movements and paths be brought forth from an unordered motion? And how can the all-harmonious choir of the heavens sing together from untuned and discordant instruments? And in what way, since there is one and the same substance of all—and the same incorruptible nature—except for the magnitudes, as they say, and the shapes, are some things divine, and unblemished, and eternal, as they themselves might say, or bodies, or at least long-lived, according to him who so named them—both visible and invisible? ^C Visible, that is, the sun and moon and stars, the earth and water; but invisible, gods, and demons, and souls; [and] those ^D that are, as it were, more long-lived; and these are partly perceived by sight.

[index: entries preserved]

^A For these things, they cannot deny exist, even if they wish to. But as for the most long-lived living creatures and plants: living creatures, among birds, as they say, are eagles, ravens, and phoenixes; among land animals, deer, elephants, and dragons; among water animals, whales. And among plants, palms, oaks, and persea. And of these trees, some are evergreen, which someone having counted said were fourteen; others bloom for a season and shed their leaves; but the majority of those that grow and are born are short-lived and of brief duration, among which is also man, as some holy Scripture said concerning him: "Man born of woman is short-lived." But they will say that it is the differing bonds of the atoms that are the cause of the corruption regarding their persistence. For some are said to have been compacted and tightened by them, so that these have become totally inseparable masses; while others have held the connection of the atoms more loosely and with more slack, so that they depart from their arrangement either quickly or after a long time. And some have been mixed from such atoms and those fashioned in such a way; but others, from different ones differently disposed. ^B Who then is the judge who discriminates, gathers together, and pours out, and arranges these in this way into the sun, and those in that way, so that the moon might come to be, and assigns each according to the affinity toward the nature of each star? For neither would the solar [atoms], being so many, and of such a kind, and compounded in such a way, have descended for the working of the moon, nor would those of the lunar atoms have ever become a sun; but not even Arcturus, even if it is bright, would have been proud to have the atoms of the Morning Star, nor the Pleiades those of Orion. For well did Paul distinguish, saying: "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 composition was imperceptible as of lifeless things, they had need of a knowledgeable creator; but if the joining was devoid of choice and by necessity, as of irrational things, then some wise shepherd superintended them, gathering them together; but if they came together voluntarily and of their own accord, a marvelous architect and president of the works led the way for them, or, just as a general who loves order did not leave the army in confusion, nor allowed all things to be mixed together, but in order arranged the cavalry, and separately the infantry, and the javelin-throwers by themselves, and separately the archers and the slingers, where it was necessary, so that the like-minded might fight together. ^C But if they think this example is a mockery, because of the comparison of great bodies to the smallest ones, we shall move to the smallest. Then he adds to these directly: "But if neither speech, nor choice, nor the arrangement of a commander were added to them, but they themselves directed themselves from the great confusion according to nature, and passed through the great tumult of collisions, would not the like to the like... [D] [alt-version omitted]

^B have also contended together as mature soldiers? Now, if those who say this should perhaps deem this kind of example ridiculous, because I institute a comparison between the greatest bodies and the smallest, let us descend to the smallest [things]. He says this. To which he then adds the following: But if, he says, neither leader, nor selection, nor arrangement has entered into their moderation, but they themselves of their own will, gathering themselves from a great crowd of continuous flow, and having declined the great tumult of various collisions, have so converged, like with like, that they have not, however, followed the guidance of a divine Power, as the poet imagines; but rather, since they recognized themselves as mutually akin and related, they have flowed together into one, as it were, flock; truly, this democracy of atoms is a wonderful thing; where friend receives friend and embraces her, and thus all fly together into one dwelling. Then certain of them, of their own accord, are rounded by a sort of lathe into the sun, that great star, that they might make the day; others, perhaps, are fashioned into very many pyramids of burning stars, that they might crown the whole heaven; others, arranged in a circle, contribute some stability to the ether, and by that means, fashioned in the manner of a vault, as the lights of heaven go under it, they prepare a kind of stage; and so the factions of common atoms select dwellings for themselves, and distribute the heaven itself among themselves into private houses and stations. Again, with others inserted: No, he says, improvident men do not even see what is obvious, so far are they from foreseeing what is hidden. And they appear not even to concern themselves with the fixed and constant risings and settings of the stars, not only of those of others, but even of the sun itself, the most noble of all, nor ^C to see them even by surmise: nor to make use of those advantages which they provide for the human race, whether by the day shining to perform work, or by night shading the earth for the sake of taking rest. For man will go forth, he says, to his work, and to his labor until evening. And indeed, they do not observe its other revolution, by which it effects distinct seasonal weather and opportune times, and nowhere distorted turnings, following, forsooth, the guidance of the atoms of which it itself consists. But in truth, willy-nilly, wretched men that they are, how do they yet persuade themselves, who are most fair: that great Lord who created the sun, has also stimulated its course by the power of His own words. For do atoms bring winter to you, O blind ones, and rains, so that the earth may produce food for you and for all the animals upon it? Is summer also their benefit, so that you may gather the fruits of trees for your delight? And why do you not worship and sacrifice to the atoms as the guardians of the fruits? Ungrateful men, who of so many gifts which you receive from them, do not even consecrate a few first-fruits! And after a few words he says: But that manifold and miscellaneous nation of stars, which the erratic and always scattered-about atoms have established, have distributed places to themselves according to compacts, having undertaken it like a colony and a dwelling, with no founder or master standing over them; and they keep peaceful and sworn neighborly relations with those of the surrounding lands, not overstepping the boundaries which they received from the beginning, as if legislated by the royal atoms. But those do not rule; for how can they, which do not even exist? But listen to divine ^D oracles: In the judgment of the Lord are His works. From the beginning and from their creation, He divided their portions; He adorned His works for eternity, and their beginnings unto their generations. And after a few words he says: Or who is [it] that has thus orderly marched through the plain of earth as a phalanx, with no one running ahead, no one turning aside, no one impeding, no one lagging behind those drawn up with them; as those who are in equal file and shielding together always advance, the one who...

is ^A unswerving and unobstructed and unhindered is the army of the stars? Yet by inclinations and sideway movements, some unclear changes of them occur. And indeed, those who have attended to these things always watch the seasons and foresee the regions from which each one rises. Let the dissectors of atoms, therefore, tell us—those dividers of the indivisible, those assemblers of elements that cannot be synthesized, and those who contemplate the infinite—whence comes the circular movement and revolution of the heavenly company, not by some mindless clumping of atoms flung like a sling, but by such a great circular chorus advancing in rhythm, pacing equally, and rotating together? Whence did these countless myriads, without order, without purpose, and unknown to one another, become fellow travelers? ^B The prophet rightly placed among the impossible and indemonstrable things that even two strangers should meet: "Will two," he says, "go together to the same inn, unless they know each other?"

IV. The same is concluded from human nature.

^C And they do not see themselves, nor the things that are proper to their own nature. For if any of the leaders of this impious doctrine were to ponder within himself who he is and whence he comes, he would surely, as if brought to his own senses, grow wise immediately, and with this voice, not calling upon atoms, but upon the Father and Creator himself, he would say: "Thy hands have fashioned me and made me." And he would further recount the marvelous manner of his own making: "Hast thou not milked me like milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast knit me together with bones and nerves; thou hast given life and mercy to me, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit." For how many atoms, I ask, and of what kind, did the father of Epicurus pour forth from himself when he sowed the seed of Epicurus? And how, when enclosed ^D in his mother’s womb, did they coalesce, receive figure and form, move, and grow? And how did that tiny dew, having called up the many atoms of Epicurus, clothe some of them with skin and flesh as they became—

^A fixed, and joined them together by the interlacing of nerves? And as for the many other limbs, the viscera, the entrails, and the sensory organs, which He fitted on the inside and the outside, by which the body was brought to life—of these, nothing was added that is idle or useless; for not even the most insignificant things, neither hairs nor nails, are without purpose; but all contribute, some to the benefit of the body's structure, others to the beauty of its appearance. For Providence is concerned not only with utility, but also with grace. For the hair is a fortification and a covering for the whole head, while the beard is an ornament to the philosopher. ^B He assembled the nature of the whole human body from all the necessary parts, and bestowed upon all the limbs both a mutual communion with each other and a distribution of resources measured out by the whole. Now, the functions of these, which are obvious even to the unlearned from experience, are evident: the governance of the head, and around the brain, as if it were a ruler in an acropolis, the guardianship of the senses—the eyes advancing, the ears bringing messages, the sense of taste, as it were, collecting tribute, the sense of smell tracking and investigating, and the sense of touch putting everything subordinate in order. (For now we shall briefly run through a few of the works of all-wise Providence, and a little later, God willing, we shall treat them more accurately and ^C fully when we dispute against him who has a greater reputation for learning.) Next is the ministry of the hands, through which tasks of all kinds and ingenious arts are performed, being formed out of parts that share their power for a single operation; the shoulders serve for carrying burdens, the fingers for grasping, and the bendings of the elbows, turning inward toward the body and outward away from it, allow things to be drawn toward us or pushed away; the service of the feet, through which all the earthly creation is accessible to us—the land is walkable, the sea navigable, the rivers are crossable, and the commerce of all things with all things is entered into. The stomach is a treasure-house of food, which, from itself, distributes nourishment in measure to all the coordinated limbs and casts out what is superfluous. ^D And there are the other things through which the administration of the human distribution is manifestly contrived. Those who, like the foolish, hold the judgment concerning these matters, do not possess the true knowledge. For they refer the most scientific and most beneficial economy regarding all things—both of the universe and of themselves—to what they imagine to be godlessness, being confident that it is the work of a superior and truly divine wisdom and power; but others attribute this most wonderful cultivation to the chance and collision of atoms, without any purpose. Regarding the more active examination of these matters, and the arrangement of the internal organs, physicians, after having investigated them accurately and having been struck with wonder, have deified nature; but we, later, as we are able, even if only on the surface, will reconsider them.

^A Now, to speak of this whole tabernacle universally and in summary: who, I pray, has fashioned this whole structure—sublime, tall, upright, well-proportioned, sensitive, nimble, effective, and capable of all things? Was it, as they say, the irrational multitude of atoms? But those atoms, even if they were to come together, could not fashion a clay image, nor polish a stone statue, nor smelt and bring forth an idol of silver or gold; rather, the arts and crafts for these things have been discovered by the industry of human hands ^B (44). Since, then, the likenesses and depictions of these things could not exist without wisdom, how can the true and original things themselves have come about automatically? And as for the soul, and mind, and reason—whence have they come to the philosopher? Did he borrow these from inanimate, senseless, and irrational atoms, and did each of them instill in him some notion and principle? And as in Hesiod's myth, Pandora is said to be created by the gods, was the man's wisdom thus ^C completed by the atoms? And as for all poetry, all music, astronomy, and geometry, and the other sciences, the Greeks will no longer claim them to be the inventions and teachings of the gods; rather, the atoms alone have become the experienced and wise Muses of all. For that Theogony of Epicurus, born of atoms, has been banished from the infinite worlds and cast into the infinite waste of perturbation.

V. That working is not laborious or burdensome to God.

To work, to govern, to do good, to provide, and such like, might perhaps be burdensome to the idle, the foolish, the weak, and the wicked—to whose number Epicurus joins himself while holding such opinions about the gods. ^D But to the studious, the capable, the industrious, and the skillful—such as philosophers ought to be (how much more, then, the gods!)—these things are not only not unpleasant and harsh, but are most delightful and above all things most pleasing. To them, negligence and the procrastination of good deeds is a disgrace, and to them the advice of the poet applies: *Do not wait until tomorrow:* To which he soon adds this threat: *The procrastinator always struggles with bitter losses.* But the prophet teaches us more gravely, while stating that actions conjoined with virtue are worthy of the true God, and declaring him who neglects them to be wicked. For, *Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord negligently* (48). Then, as to those who are unskilled and...

^A less advanced, because of the novelty of experience and the untried nature of their tasks, a certain labor attends their endeavors. But those who are making progress, and still more those who are perfect, easily rejoice in accomplishing what they undertake, and would much rather choose to pursue and complete their customary tasks than have all the goods of men accrue to them. Democritus himself, as they say, used to claim he would rather find one single causal explanation than gain the empire of the Persians; and this, even though he was framing explanations in vain and without cause, as one starting from an empty principle and being misled by an unsound hypothesis, and, while blind to the root and common necessity of the nature of things, considered the knowledge of things occurring imprudently and foolishly to be the highest kind of wisdom. ^B He established Fortune as the mistress and queen of universal and divine things, and declared that all things come to pass according to her; yet he banished her from the commerce of human life, and convinced those who honored her that they were senseless. And so, at the start of his precepts, he says: "Men fashioned the image of Fortune as a pretext for their own folly. For by nature, wisdom fights against Fortune; and this very thing, which they themselves said was the enemy of discernment, they claimed held sway; or rather, by utterly doing away with it and destroying it, they set it in its place. For they do not praise discernment as fortunate, but rather praise Fortune as being most discerning." Those, therefore, who preside over the works that benefit life—those who groom, those who govern, those who heal, those who conduct public affairs—rejoice in the aid they render to their fellows, and crave praise and glory for the labors they undertake for the common safety; and the philosophers themselves, in their own effort and zeal to educate men, are in a high degree puffed up. ^C Will Epicurus or Democritus, then, dare to say that the duty of philosophizing is burdensome and hateful to them? No, they would surely prefer no other pleasure of the mind to this; for even if they maintain that the good is entirely pleasure, they will fear to say that philosophizing is not more pleasant to them than vulgar pleasure. Furthermore, the gods, whom the poets at least proclaim to be givers of good things, these philosophers, on the contrary, mockingly declare to be neither the givers nor the possessors of any good at all. And by what arguments, I ask, are they led to believe that these are gods, whom they neither see present and doing anything—as those who marveled at the sun and the moon and the stars, and said they were called gods because of their running ^D (which is to say, their motion)—nor attribute to them any creation or construction, so that they might divinize them from the word *to set*, that is, to make (for it is for this reason that the maker and creator of all things is truly and alone God); nor do they set forth any governance, or judgment, or grace of theirs toward men, so that, having incurred their fear or honor, we might worship them? Or if Epicurus, having looked out from the world and crossed the heavenly vault, or through some secret things which only he...

saw, going out through the gates, found these gods in the void, and having become desirous of their luxury and a zealot of this life in the void, he thus invites all to participate in this beatitude, to become like those gods, preparing for them a blessed banquet—not as the poets do, the heaven or Olympus, but constructing the void, and setting before them ambrosia from atoms, and serving them the nectar derived from those same things? And yet, he stuffs his own books with a thousand oaths and sacred protestations about those things which refer to nothing regarding us, by Jove perpetually denying or affirming something; and he binds his readers, and those with whom he himself argues, to the religion of the gods—not because he fears them himself, or feels any dread of perjury, but because he utters this empty and lying, vain and utterly meaningless appendage to his arguments, no differently than if he were to hawks and spit, or turn his face, or move his hand. ^B For such, devoid of understanding and vain, was his pretense of the very name of the gods. Yet this much is clear, that after the death of Socrates, fearing the Athenians, lest he appear to be what he actually was—an atheist—he conjured up for them empty shadows of non-existent gods. For he did not look up into heaven with spiritual eyes, so that he might hear that most clear voice from on high, which that attentive observer, having heard, testified: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament announces the work of his hands. Nor did he discern the earth with his mind; 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 the fullness thereof; and, For after this, he says, the Lord looked upon the earth and filled it with his good things. The soul of every living thing covered its face. If they are not suffering from extreme blindness, let them consider that most manifold and varied multitude of living things, the terrestrial, the winged, the aquatic; and finally let them understand how true this testimony was in the creation of all things: And all things by his command turned out to be good.

^D These things, adds Eusebius, have been extracted by me from many passages which Dionysius, the bishop of our time, argued against Epicurus.

From the Sacred Parallels of St. John Damascene of the Rupefucaldine Collection. Vol. II, p. 752 C. Paris edition, 1712.

Of St. Dionysius of Alexandria: On Nature.

III. FROM THE BOOKS AGAINST SABELLIUS

(Euseb., Preparation for the Gospel, book VII, chapter 19.)

That matter is not unbegotten.

I shall put forward the words of those who have discussed the doctrine before us, and first of all Dionysius, who, in the first of the books he wrote against Sabellius, writes thus concerning the matter at hand.