What Early Christians Said About Epicurus

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes Direct teaching

...osophy, I will now also say a few things about the philosophers. This is especially the teaching of Epicurus: that there is no providence. And at the same time, he does not deny that gods exist. In both respects he acts against reason. For if there are gods, it follows that there is a providence. Otherwise, we can form no intelligible idea of God, for it is His special office to foresee. But Epicurus says that He takes care of nothing. Therefore, He disregards not only human affairs but also heavenly things. How, then, or from what, do you claim that He exists? For when you have taken away divine providence and care, it would naturally follow that you should altogether deny the existence of God. But now you have left Him in name, while in reality you have taken Him away. From where, then, did the world derive its origin, if God takes care of nothing? There are, he says, tiny atoms, which can neither be seen nor touched, and from the chance meeting of these all things arose, and are continually arising. If they are neither seen nor perceived by any part of the body, how could you know that they exist? Next, if they do exist, by what mind do they come together to accomplish anythi

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Direct teaching

Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things, induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus it appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought that there was no providence.

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes Supporting witness

This is especially the doctrine of Epicurus, that there is no providence.

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus Supporting witness

What good did it do Epicurus to maintain that there is no providence;

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness

Epicurus, however, put forward a view almost opposite to everyone else. He supposed that the first principles of all things were atoms and empty space. He regarded empty space as the place that would hold the things that would exist, and atoms as the material from which all things could be made. He said that from the coming together of atoms, both the Deity came into existence, and all the elements, and everything in them, as well as animals and other creatures. So, according to him, nothing was generated or existed unless it came from atoms. He also said that these atoms were made of extremely small particles, in which there could exist neither a point nor a mark, nor any division. Therefore he called them atoms. While admitting that the Deity is eternal and incorruptible, he says that God cares providentially for nothing, and that there is no such thing as providence or fate at all, but that all things are made by chance. For he said that the Deity rested in the spaces between worlds, as he called them. For outside the world, he determined that there is a certain dwelling place of God, called the spaces between worlds, and that the Deity gave Himself over to pleasure and took His

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness

...iendship and Discord. However, the followers of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and of Democritus, and of Epicurus, and many others, have held the opinion that the coming-to-be of the universe proceeds from an infinite number of atoms. We have already mentioned these philosophers in part. But Anaxagoras derives the universe from things similar to the things being produced, whereas the followers of Democritus and Epicurus derived the universe from things both dissimilar to the things produced and without passion, that is, from atoms. But the followers of Heraclides of Pontus and of Asclepiades derived the universe from things dissimilar to the things produced and capable of passion, as if from unlike particles. But the disciples of Plato affirm that these things come from three principles: God, Matter, and Exemplar. However, he divides matter into four principles: fire, water, earth, and air. And he says that God is the Creator of this matter, and that Mind is its exemplar.

Dionysius of Alexandria, Miscellaneous Fragments Direct teaching

...ut origin, and that it is not under the rule of Providence. For there are some who give the name of atoms to certain imperishable and extremely small bodies, which they suppose are infinite in number. They also propose that there is a certain empty space of unlimited vastness. They say that these atoms are carried about by chance in the void, striking against each other completely by accident in a disorderly swirling motion, and mixing together in many forms. Then they join together with one another, and so little by little they form this world and everything in it. Yes, more than that, they say they form infinite worlds. This was the opinion of Epicurus and Democritus. They differed only on one point. Epicurus supposed that these atoms were all extremely small and therefore could not be perceived, while Democritus held that some of them were also very large. But both hold that such atoms do exist, and that they are called by that name because of their indissoluble solidity. There are others, again, who give the name of atoms to certain bodies that cannot be divided into parts, though they themselves are parts of the universe. Out of these, while they remain undivided, all thing

Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, Fragments Direct teaching

...osophers, say, some of them, like Plato, that the universe consists of matter and God; others, like Epicurus, that it is made of atoms and the void; others, like the Stoics, that it is composed of four elements—fire, water, air, and earth. It is enough to mention the most prevalent opinions. Plato says that God makes all things from matter following His design; however, Epicurus and his followers claim all things come from atoms and the void through a kind of self-regulating natural movement of the bodies; and the Stoics argue that everything comes from the four elements with God pervading them. Despite their differences, there are some doctrines all these philosophers commonly acknowledge, one of which is that nothing can be produced from what does not exist, nor can anything be destroyed into non-existence, and that the elements from which everything is generated are indestructible. Given this, the regeneration of the flesh would seem possible to all these philosophers. According to Plato, since both matter and God are indestructible, with God as the creator like a potter, and matter as the clay or wax, whatever is formed from matter, such as an image or a statue, is destructi

Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, Fragments Supporting witness

Again, according to Epicurus, the atoms and the void being indestructible, it is by a definite arrangement and adjustment of the atoms as they come together, that both all other formations are produced, and the body itself;

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Supporting witness

Epicurus, an Athenian, the son of Neocles, says that the first principles of the things that exist are bodies perceptible by reason, admitting no vacuity, unbegotten, indestructible, which can neither be broken, nor admit of any formation of their parts, nor alteration, and are therefore perceptible by reason.

Arnobius, Against the Heathen Supporting witness

He who is always fashioning worlds from atoms, and destroying them, to Epicurus, Democritus, Metrodorus?

Dionysius of Alexandria, Miscellaneous Fragments Supporting witness

... that these atoms alone are the muses, with skill and wisdom in every subject. For this theogony of Epicurus, built out of atoms, really belongs outside the infinite worlds of order and takes refuge in infinite disorder.

Dionysius of Alexandria, Miscellaneous Fragments Supporting witness

...as preserved my spirit.” For of what quantity and of what origin were the atoms which the father of Epicurus gave forth from himself when he begot Epicurus? And how, when they were received within his mother’s womb, did they come together, and take form and figure? And how were they set in motion and made to increase? And how did that little seed of generation draw together the many atoms that were to make up Epicurus, and change some of them into skin and flesh for a covering, and make bone of others for uprightness and strength, and form sinews of others for firm structure? And how did it frame and adapt the many other members and parts—heart and bowels, and organs of sense, some within and some without—by which the body is made a living thing? For of all these things there is not one either idle or useless. Not even the least of them—the hair, or the nails, or things like them—is so. But all have their service to do, and all have their contribution to make, some of them to the soundness of bodily constitution, and others of them to beauty of appearance. For Providence cares not only for the useful, but also for the fitting and beautiful. Thus the hair is a kind of protection

Dionysius of Alexandria, Miscellaneous Fragments Supporting witness

For of what quantity and of what origin were the atoms which the father of Epicurus gave forth from himself when he begot Epicurus?

Lactantius, On the Anger of God Background

Let us, however, grant them this: that earthly things are made from atoms. But are heavenly things made from atoms too? They say that the gods are free from corruption, eternal, and blessed. And they allow this exception only for them, so that the gods will not seem to be made from atoms coming together. For if the gods also had been made from these atoms, they too would be able to break apart, once those seeds were dissolved and returned to their own nature. Therefore, if there is something that atoms could not produce, why should we not judge the same way about other things as well? But I ask, why did the gods not build a dwelling place for themselves before those first elements produced the world? It is clear that unless the atoms had come together and made the heaven, the gods would still be hanging in the middle of empty space. Then by what counsel, and by what plan, did the atoms gather themselves out of a confused mass? How did some of them form the earth below into a globe, while the heaven was stretched out above and decorated with such a great variety of constellations that nothing more beautiful can be imagined? Can anyone who sees such things, so great and so many, imag

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness

wherefore also he called them atoms. Acknowledging the Deity to be eternal and incorruptible, he says that God has providential care for nothing, and that there is no such thing at all as providence or fate, but that all things are made by chance.

Origen, Against Celsus Direct teaching

...cause of the soul's immediate and complete destruction after death. Unless, perhaps, Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that it is a vain hope which they entertain regarding their end, pleasure, which, according to them, is the highest good, and which consists in the body's lasting health, and the hope regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus.

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Supporting witness

and it induced Epicurus to lay down pleasure as the aim of the philosopher.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

Epicurus deems that the chief good consists in pleasure of mind, Aristippus in pleasure of the body.

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes Supporting witness

Epicurus maintained that it was pleasure of the soul.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness

These men, while they boast of Jesus as being their Master, do in fact emulate the philosophy of Epicurus and the indifference of the Cynics, [calling Jesus their Master,] who not only turned His disciples away from evil deeds, but even from [wicked] words and thoughts, as I have already shown.

Origen, Against Celsus Supporting witness

...rinciples are false. For one and the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing adultery. The followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others who do so on no philosophical principles. But notice what different reasons determine the conduct of these different groups. The first consider the interests of society, and hold that by nature it is forbidden for a man, who is a reasonable being, to corrupt a woman whom the laws have already given to another, and so break up another man's household. The Epicureans do not reason in this way. But if they abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the chief end of man, they see that one who gives himself up to adultery encounters, for the sake of this one pleasure, a multitude of obstacles to pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself. Indeed, they often run considerable risk at the outset, while watching for the departure from the house of the master and those in his interest. So, if it were possible for a man to commit adultery and escape the knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others whose esteem he would forfe

Arnobius, Against the Heathen Supporting witness

But again, if souls draw near to the gates of death, as is laid down in the doctrine of Epicurus, in this case, too, there is no sufficient reason why philosophy should be sought out, even if it is true that by it souls are cleansed and made pure from all uncleanness.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

What could be said that is more contradictory? If the teachings of philosophy ought to be known, they ought to be known for this reason: so that we may live well and wisely. But if we must live as members of a community, then philosophy is not wisdom, if it is better to live according to society than according to philosophy. For if what is called philosophy is wisdom, then the man who does not live according to philosophy certainly lives foolishly. But if the man who lives according to society does not live foolishly, it follows that the man who lives according to philosophy lives foolishly. Therefore, by your own judgment, philosophy is condemned as foolish and empty. And you also, in your Consolation, that is, not in a work of lightness and amusement, expressed this view about philosophy: "But I do not know what error has taken hold of us, or what miserable ignorance of the truth." Where, then, is the guidance of philosophy? Or what has that parent of life taught you, if you are miserably ignorant of the truth? But if this confession of error and ignorance has been forced from your inmost heart, almost against your will, why do you not finally admit to yourself the truth: that ph

Tertullian, Apology Supporting witness

The Epicureans were allowed by you to decide for themselves one true source of pleasure — I mean equanimity;

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Supporting witness

and those who in the Hellenic philosophy preach the impiety and voluptuousness of Epicurus, and whatever other tenets are disseminated contrary to right reason, exist among the Greeks as spurious fruits of the divinely bestowed husbandry.

Arnobius, Against the Heathen Background

...e victims not killed as sacrifices to the gods and thrown on their burning altars to give them some pleasure and delight? And can anyone persuade himself that the gods become gentle as they are cheered by pleasures, that they long for sensual enjoyment, and, like low creatures, are affected by pleasing sensations, charmed and tickled for the moment by a pleasure that soon passes away? For whatever is overcome by pleasure must also be troubled by its opposite, sorrow. Nor can that be free from the anxiety of grief which trembles with joy and is foolishly lifted up by gladness. But the gods should be free from both passions, if we are to regard them as everlasting and free from the weakness of mortals. Moreover, every pleasure is, so to speak, a kind of flattery of the body, and it is directed to the five well-known senses. But if the gods above feel it, they must also share in those bodies through which there is a path to the senses, and a door by which pleasures are received. Finally, what pleasure is there in taking delight in the killing of harmless living things, in having the ears often ring with their pitiful bellowing, in seeing rivers of blood, life flowing away with the

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Paedagogus) Background

...y and pursuit of every pleasure. Over all these, desire rules like a tyrant. And countless passions related to these increase, by which uncontrolled habits are carried to the highest degree. And Scripture says, "Whips are prepared for the intemperate, and punishments for the shoulders of fools," Proverbs 19:29, calling the powers of intemperance, and the steady endurance of it, "the shoulders of fools." Therefore, "Remove vain hopes from your servants," it says, "and turn away shameful desires from me. Let not appetite for food and intercourse take hold of me."

Tertullian, Against Marcion Background

...ody in which death was possible through the flesh. Therefore he adds, not through the Church, but clearly for the sake of the Church, exchanging one body for another, one of flesh for a spiritual one. Again, when he warns them to beware of subtle words and philosophy as empty deceit, such as is according to the rudiments of the world, and by this he does not mean the structure of heaven and earth, but worldly learning and the tradition of men, subtle in their speech and their philosophy, Colossians 2:8, it would take too long, and would really belong in a separate work, to show how in this sentence all heresies are condemned, because they consist of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But once for all, let Marcion know that the main term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, meaning that the Lord is stupid and indifferent. Therefore Marcion refuses to say that He is one to be feared. Also, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter and sets it alongside the Divine Creator. He also denies the resurrection of the flesh, a truth on which none of the schools of philosophy agreed. But how far our Catholic truth is from the artifices of this he

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

...s and Plato, this was held as an accepted and unquestioned fact, until many ages later when the mad Epicurus appeared. He alone dared to deny what is most clear, no doubt because he wanted to discover new ideas so that he might establish a sect under his own name. And because he could find nothing new, he wanted at least to seem different from the others, and so he tried to overthrow old opinions. But in this, all the philosophers who snarled around him refuted him. Therefore, it is more certain that the world was arranged by providence than that matter was gathered together by providence. Therefore he ought not to have supposed that the world was not made by divine providence because its matter was not made by divine providence. Rather, because the world was made by divine providence, he ought to have concluded that matter also was made by God. For it is more believable that matter was made by God, because He is almighty, than that the world was not made by God, because nothing can be made without mind, intelligence, and design. But this is not Cicero’s fault, but the fault of the sect. For when he had undertaken an argument by which he might take away the nature of the gods, a

Tertullian, Apology Background

...have answered well enough the charges of the many crimes on which these fierce demands are made for Christian blood. We have fully presented our case. We have shown how we can prove that what we say is true, from the trustworthiness and antiquity of our sacred writings, and also from the confession of the powers of spiritual wickedness themselves. Who will dare to refute us, not with skill in words, but, as we have made our demonstration, on the basis of reality? But while the truth we hold is made clear to all, unbelief meanwhile, even at the very time when it is convinced of the worth of Christianity, now well known both for its benefits and from the intercourse of life, takes up the idea that it is not really something divine, but rather a kind of philosophy. "These are the very things," it says, "that the philosophers advise and profess: innocence, justice, patience, sobriety, and chastity." Why then are we not allowed the same freedom and immunity for our teachings that they have, when we are compared with them in what we teach? Or why are they not also forced to the same acts, by refusing which our lives are put in danger, if they are so much like us? For who forces a phil

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Supporting witness

as Epicurus (does) out of atoms, since even atoms by their coherence form corporeal masses;

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness

Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all philosophers.

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus Supporting witness

and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set forth at large.

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Background

... bad, I would call him bad, because of his wishing to sin. For I will say anything rather than call Providence evil.” Then, continuing, he speaks plainly concerning the Lord, as concerning man: “If then, passing from all these observations, you should go on to put me to shame by saying, perhaps speaking in the person of certain people, ‘This man then has sinned, for this man has suffered’—if you permit, I will say, ‘He has not sinned, but was like a child suffering.’ If you press me more urgently, I would say, ‘The man you name is man, but God is righteous. For no one is pure,’ as one said, ‘from pollution.’” Job 14:4 But the view of Basilides says that the soul, having sinned before in another life, suffers punishment in this one—the elect soul with honor by martyrdom, and the other purified by fitting punishment. How can this be true, when confessing and suffering punishment, or not suffering it, depends on ourselves? For in the case of the man who will deny, Providence, according to Basilides, is done away with. I will ask him, then, in the case of a confessor who has been arrested, whether he will confess and be punished by Providence or not. For if he denies, he will not be

Minucius Felix, Octavius Supporting witness

I have set forth the opinions of almost all the philosophers whose more illustrious glory is that they pointed out that there is one God, although with many names. So that anyone might think either that Christians are now philosophers, or that philosophers were already Christians then. But if the world is governed by providence, and directed by the will of one God, the antiquity of unskilled people ought not, however delighted and charmed with its own fables, to carry us away into the mistake of mutual agreement, when it is rebutted by the opinions of its own philosophers, who are supported by the authority both of reason and of antiquity. For our ancestors had such an easy faith in falsehoods that they rashly believed even other monstrosities as marvelous wonders: a manifold Scylla, a Chimera of many forms, and a Hydra rising again from its auspicious wounds, and Centaurs, horses entwined with their riders. And whatever Report was allowed to feign, they were entirely willing to listen to. Why should I mention those old wives' fables, that men were changed from men into birds and beasts, and from men into trees and flowers? If these things had happened at all, they would happen aga

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Background

... by using arguments that both sides admit are valid, and that sometimes even fit with our system of belief. In this way, the truth has almost been shut out by the philosophers through the poisons with which they have infected it. Therefore, if we consider both kinds of mixing that I have just mentioned, and both are equally hostile to the truth, we see the urgent need to do two things. First, we must free the ideas that we hold in common with them from the philosophers' arguments. Second, we must separate the arguments that both sides use from the philosophers' own opinions. And we can do this by bringing every question back to God's inspired standard, except in simple cases that are free from the confusion of preconceived notions, where one may fairly accept mere human testimony. For sometimes we must borrow plain evidence of that kind even from opponents, when our opponents have nothing to gain from it. Now I am not unaware of how great a mass of writing the philosophers have gathered on this subject in their own commentaries. I know how many schools of thought there are, how many conflicts of opinion, how many rich sources of questions, and how many confusing methods of solvi