Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| From the Books Against Sabellius. On the Notion that Matter is Ungenerated.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
III.—From the Books Against Sabellius.718
| 718
In Eusebius, Præpar. Evangel., book vii. ch.
19. | On the Notion that Matter is
Ungenerated.719
| 719
Eusebius introduces this extract thus: “And I shall
adduce the words of those who have most thoroughly examined the dogma
before us, and first of all Dionysius indeed, who, in the first book of
his Exercitations against Sabellius, writes in these terms on
the subject in hand.” [Note the primary position of
our author in the refutation of Sabellianism, and see (vol. v.) the
story of Callistus.] |
————————————
These certainly are not to be deemed pious who
hold that matter is ungenerated, while they allow, indeed, that it is
brought under the hand of God so far as its arrangement and regulation
are concerned; for they do admit that, being naturally passive720
and pliable, it yields readily to the
alterations impressed upon it by God. It is for them, however, to
show us plainly how it can possibly be that the like and the unlike
should be predicated as subsisting together in God and matter.
For it becomes necessary thus to think of one as a superior to either,
and that is a thought which cannot legitimately be entertained with
regard to God. For if there is this defect of generation which is
said to be the thing like in both, and if there is this point of
difference which is conceived of besides in the two, whence has this
arisen in them? If, indeed, God is the ungenerated, and if this
defect of generation is, as we may say, His very essence, then matter
cannot be ungenerated; for God and matter are not one and the
same. But if each subsists properly and
independently—namely, God and matter—and if the defect of
generation also belongs to both, then it is evident that there is
something different from each, and older and higher than both.
But the difference of their contrasted constitutions is completely
subversive of the idea that these can subsist on an equality together,
and more, that this one of the two—namely, matter—can
subsist of itself. For then they will have to furnish an
explanation of the fact that, though both are supposed to be
ungenerated, God is nevertheless impassible, immutable, imperturbable,
energetic; while matter is the opposite, impressible, mutable,
variable, alterable. And now, how can these properties
harmoniously co-exist and unite? Is it that God has adapted
Himself to the nature of the matter, and thus has skilfully wrought
it? But it would be absurd to suppose that God works in gold, as
men are wont to do, or hews or polishes stone, or puts His hand to any
of the other arts by which different kinds of matter are made capable
of receiving form and figure. But if, on the other hand, He has
fashioned matter according to His own will, and after the dictates of
His own wisdom, impressing upon it the rich and manifold forms produced
by His own operation, then is this account of ours one both good and
true, and still further one that establishes the position that
the ungenerated God is the hypostasis (the life and foundation) of all
things in the universe. For with this fact of the defect of
generation it conjoins the proper mode of His being. Much,
indeed, might be said in confutation of these teachers, but that is not
what is before us at present. And if they are put alongside the
most impious polytheists,721
| 721
πρὸς
τοὺς
ἀθεωτάτους
πολυθέους. |
these will seem the more pious in their speech.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
