"Nay, more, it seems to me that the most serious wrong has been committed as regards this part, in that He constituted this part of matter so as to be now affected by evil. For, if we were to examine carefully into things, we should find that the condition of matter is worse now than in its former state, before it was reduced to order. For, before it was separated into parts, it had no sense of evil; but now every one of its parts is afflicted with a sense of evil.
"Take an illustration from man. Before he was fashioned, and became a living being through the art of the Creator, he was by nature exempt from any contact whatever with evil; but, as soon as ever he was made by God a man, he became liable to the sense of even approaching evil: and thus that very thing which you say was brought about by God for the benefit of matter, [3753] is found to have turned out rather to its detriment.
"But, if you say that evil has not been put a stop to, because God was unable to do away with it, you will be making God powerless. But, if He is powerless, it will be either because He is weak by nature, or because He is overcome by fear, and reduced to subjection by a stronger. If, then, you go so far as to say that God is weak by nature, it seems to me that you imperil your salvation itself; but, if you say that He is weak through being overcome by fear of a greater, things evil will be greater than God, since they frustrate the carrying out of His purpose. But this, as it seems to me, it would be absurd to say of God. For why should not they' rather be considered gods, since according to your account they are able to overcome God: if, that is to say, we mean by God that which has a controlling power over all things?
"But I wish to ask you a few questions concerning matter itself. Pray tell me, therefore, whether matter was something simple or compound. I am induced to adopt this method of investigating the subject before us by considering the diversity that obtains in existing things. For, if perchance matter was something simple and uniform, how comes it that the world is compound, [3754] and consists of divers substances and combinations? For by compound' we denote a mixture of certain simple elements. But if, on the contrary, you prefer to call matter compound, you will, of course, be asserting that it is compounded of certain simple elements. And, if it was compounded of simple elements, these simple elements must have existed at some time or other separately by themselves, and when they were compounded together matter came into being: from which it of course follows that matter is created. For, if matter is compound, and compound things are constituted from simple, there was once a time when matter had no existence,--namely, before the simple elements came together. And, if there was once a time when matter was not, and there was never a time when the uncreated was not, matter cannot be uncreated. And hence there will be many uncreated substances. For, if God was uncreated, and the simple elements out of which matter was compounded were also uncreated, there will not be two uncreated things only,--not to discuss the question what it is which constitutes objects simple, whether matter or form.
"Is it, further, your opinion that nothing in existence is opposed to itself?"
"It is."
"Is water, then, opposed to fire?"
"So it appears to me."
"Similarly, is darkness opposed to light, and warm to cold, and moreover moist to dry?"
"It seems to me to be so."
"Well, then, if nothing in existence is opposed to itself, and these things are opposed to each other, they cannot be one and the same matter; no, nor yet be made out of one and the same matter.
"I wish further to ask your opinion on a matter kindred to that of which we have been speaking. Do you believe that the parts of a thing are not mutually destructive?"
"I do."
"And you believe that fire and water, and so on, are parts of matter?"
"Quite so."
"Do you not also believe that water is subversive of fire, and light of darkness, and so of all similar things?"
"Yes."
"Well, then, if the parts of a whole are not mutually destructive, and yet the parts of matter are mutually destructive, they cannot be parts of one matter. And, if they are not parts of one another, they cannot be composed of one and the same matter; nay, they cannot be matter at all, since nothing in existence is destructive of itself, as we learn from the doctrine of opposites: for nothing is opposed to itself--an opposite being by nature opposed to something else. White, for example, is not opposed to itself, but is said to be the opposite of black; and, similarly, light is shown not to be opposed to itself, but is considered an opposite in relation to darkness; and so of a very great number of things besides. If, then, matter were some one thing, it could not be opposed to itself. This, then, being the nature of opposites, it is proved that matter has no existence."'
------------------------
[3730] A fact which gave rise to a controversy, on which consult Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p. 78.
[3731] See vol. vi. p. 358, etc., this series, where I have spoken of Maximus as the original of the Dialogue ascribed to Methodius.
[3732] Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p. 85. See pp. 77-121, devoted to this author.
[3733] In Eusebius, Præp. Evang., vii. 22.
[3734] Choreton, the reading of onems., instead of choretikon.
[3735] For ei de meros autes, holon echoresen auton, Migne reads, ei ge (or ei de) meros autes holon, k.t.l.
[3736] Sustolen tina.
[3737] Ton ginomenon (en) auto, Migne.
[3738] This word, agenneton, is added from Migne's conjecture.
[3739] 'Ek ton hupostanton geneton.
[3740] 'Ek tou hulen auton hupotithenai.
[3741] 'Ex ouk onton. [Note this phrase. Comp. vol. vi. p. 292, n. 3.]
[3742] Upokeimenon.
[3743] For sullelogistai hos ouk adunaton einai doxazein, Migne reads, hos sullelogistai adunaton einai doxazein.
[3744] Lit. "in something." Whether the materials or the art is meant is not very clear. Possibly there is a play of words in the use of the two prepositions, ek and en.
[3745] Migne, instead of parastenai, conjectures parastesai, which, however, would not suit what appears to be the meaning.
[3746] Ousias tinas.
[3747] Somatiken tina sustasin.
[3748] Ten sustasin echei.
[3749] Migne reads ousias for aitias.
[3750] 'Anarchos.
[3751] Reading, with Migne, ei ho ti for ei ti.
[3752] Or "indifferent:" adiaphoroi.
[3753] Migne reads ep' euergesia for estin euergesia.
[3754] The text has, sunthetos de ho kosmos; which Migne changes to, pos de sunthetos estin ho kosmos;
Claudius Apollinaris, [3755] Bishop of Hierapolis, and Apologist.
[a.d. 160-180.] This author, an early apologist, is chiefly interesting as a competent witness, who tells the story of the Thundering Legion [3756] in an artless manner, and gives it the simple character of an answer to prayer. This subject is treated by Lightfoot, in his recent work on the Apostolic Fathers, [3757] in an exhaustive manner; and the story, reduced to the simple narrative as Apollinaris gives it, receives from him a just and discriminating approval.
Apollinaris, as well as Rhodon, has been imagined the author of the work (ascribed to Asterius Urbanus) against Montanism, dedicated to Abiricius Marcellus. [3758] This is sufficiently refuted by Routh, [3759] whose Greek text, with notes, must be consulted by the studious.
Apollinaris was bishop of Hierapolis on the Mæander, and, Lightfoot thinks, was probably with Melito and Polycrates, known to Polycarp, and influenced by his example and doctrine. [3761] He addressed his Apology, which is honourably mentioned by Jerome, to M. Antoninus, the emperor. He also wrote Adversus Gentes and De Veritate; also against the Jews. Serapion calls him [3762] "most blessed."
From an Unknown Book. [3763]
"This narration (says Eusebius, Hist., v. 5) is given" (it relates to that storm of rain which was sent to the army of the Emperor M. Antoninus, to allay the thirst of the soldiers, whilst the enemy was discomfited by thunderbolts hurled upon them) "even by those historians who are at a wide remove from the doctrines that prevail among us, and who have been simply concerned to describe what related to the emperors who are the subjects of their history; and it has been recorded also by our own writers. But historians without the pale of the Church, as being unfriendly to the faith, while they have recorded the prodigy, have refrained from acknowledging that it was sent in answer to our prayers. On the other hand, our writers, as lovers of truth, have reported the matter in a simple and artless way. To this number Apollinaris must be considered as belonging. Thereupon,' he says, the legion which had by its prayer caused the prodigy received from the emperor a title suitable to the occurrence, and was called in the Roman language the Thunder-hurling Legion.'"
From the Book Concerning the Passover. [3764]
There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame--it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them. [3765]
From the Same Book.
The fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord; the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who was judged, though Judge of living and dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements, [3766] water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb.
------------------------
[3755] Westcott, Canon, p. 248.
[3756] See vol. i. p. 187, this series, and references in my note (II.) on same page. The incident occurred during the war against the Quadi, a.d. 174.
[3757] Part ii. vol. i. pp. 469-476.
[3758] See p. 766, note 3, supra; also vol. vii., this series, p. 338.
[3759] Rel. Sac., tom. ii. p. 196; and Ibid., tom. i. pp. 157-174.
[3760] Rel. Sac., tom. i. p. 173.
[3761] Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 428.
[3762] See p. 775, infra.
[3763] [See vol. i. p. 187, note 2.]
[3764] This extract and the following are taken from the preface to the Chronicon Paschale.
[3765] [Routh, R. S., vol. i. p. 160.]
[3766] Palin katharsia, qu. palinkatharsia ="re-purifiers."
Polycrates, [3767] Bishop of Ephesus.
[a.d. 130-196.] This author [3768] comes in as an appendix to the stories of Polycarp and Irenæus and good Anicetus, and his writings also bear upon the contrast presented by the less creditable history of Victor. If, as I suppose, the appearance of our Lord to St. John on "the Lord's day" was on the Paschal Sunday, it may at first seem surprising that this Apostle can be claimed by Polycrates in behalf of the Eastern custom to keep Easter, with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon. But to the Jews the Apostles became "as Jews" in all things tolerable, so long as the Temple stood, and while the bishops of Jerusalem were labouring to identify the Paschal Lamb with their Passover. The long survival of St. John among Jewish Christians led them to prolong this usage, no doubt, as sanctioned by his example. He foreknew it would quietly pass away. The wise and truly Christian spirit of Irenæus prepared the way for the ultimate unanimity of the Church in a matter which lies at the base of "the Christian Sabbath," and of our own observance of the first day of the week as a weekly Easter. Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side, [3769] and elucidate the tenacity of the Easterns in resisting the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance as to the Paschal, although they agreed to keep it "not with the old leaven."
Our author belonged to a family in which he was the eighth Christian bishop; and he presided over the church of Ephesus, in which the traditions of St. John were yet fresh in men's minds at the date of his birth. He had doubtless known Polycarp, and Irenæus also. He seems to have presided over a synod of Asiatic bishops (a.d. 196) which came together to consider this matter of the Paschal feast. It is surely noteworthy that nobody doubted that it was kept by a Christian and Apostolic ordinance. So St. Paul argues from its Christian observance, in his rebuke of the Corinthians. [3770] They were keeping it "unleavened" ceremonially, and he urges a spiritual unleavening as more important. The Christian hallowing of Pentecost connects with the Paschal argument. [3771] The Christian Sabbath hinges on these points.