Acts 17:19–28

"And having taken him, they brought him," etc. The Athenians no longer enjoyed their own laws, but were become subject to the Romans. Then why did they hale him to the Areopagus? Meaning to overawe him - the place where they held the trials for bloodshed.

"And having taken him, they brought him to the Areopagus" - not to punish, but in order to learn - "to the Areopagus" where the trials for murder were held. Thus observe, in hope of learning they ask him, saying, "May we know what is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange matters to our ears": everywhere novelty is the charge: "we would fain know therefore, what these things may mean."

They brought him, he says, to the Areopagus, not so much to learn, but so that he might be punished, where the courts deal with homicide. The place was called the Areopagus because Ares, as they say, there administered justice concerning adultery. Pagos means a high place; for that tribunal was on some hill. Therefore the local or village rulers are by some called Pagarchs. [LETTER OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM, CHAPTER 45]

"Taking him, they brought him to the Areopagus." Not in order to learn from him, but in order to punish him, they led him to the place where murderers are tried. The place was called the Areopagus, or the Hill of Ares (Mars), because here Ares (or Mars) was punished for adultery. It was called a "pagus" [hill] because it was an elevated place, since this court was situated on a hill. It should be noted that these philosophers, although they spent all their time in conversations and listening to others, nevertheless considered what Paul communicated to be a novelty that they had not yet heard. If he had been preaching that a man was crucified, his word would not have been a novelty, but since he was saying that God was crucified and rose again, he was indeed saying something new.

"Be at leisure and know that I am God." To the extent that we take our leisure in matters apart from God, we cannot attain knowledge of God. For who, concerned over the things of the world and immersed in fleshly distractions, can pay attention to discourses concerning God and measure up to the rigid discipline of contemplations so long and great? Don't you see that the Word that falls among thorns is choked by the thorns? Now the thorns are fleshly pleasures and wealth and glory and cares of this life. The one who seeks knowledge of God must become separated from all these things, and, being at leisure apart from passions, thus receive the knowledge of God. For how can contemplation about God enter a mind crowded by thoughts that preoccupy it? Even Pharaoh knew that being at leisure is proper to the search for God, and for this reason he mocked the Israelites, "You are idling about, you men of leisure, and you say, 'We will pray to the Lord our God.' " While this leisure is good and profitable for the one in leisure as it brings peace for the reception of the Savior's teachings, the leisure of the Athenians was evil, since "they devoted their leisure to nothing more than saying or listening to something new."

It is coming in as something fresh and disturbing, whether as it came to the Greeks who were always seeking some new thing, or as it came to the shepherds who first heard the cry upon the hills of the good news that our language calls the Gospel. We can explain the fact of the Greeks in the time of St. Paul regarding it as a new thing, because it was a new thing. But who will explain why it is still as new to the last of the converts as it was to the first of the shepherds?

It was a city of talkers, that city of theirs. "For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing."

"May we know, what is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears; we would fain know therefore what these things mean. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing." Here the thing noted is, that though ever occupied only in this telling and hearing, yet they thought those things strange - things which they had never heard.

The apostle, so far back as his own time, foresaw, indeed, that philosophy would do violent injury to the truth. This admonition about false philosophy he was induced to offer after he had been at Athens, had become acquainted with that loquacious city, and had there had a taste of its huckstering wiseacres and talkers. In like manner is the treatment of the soul according to the sophistical doctrines of men which "mix their wine with water."

I can't say for certain which bits came into Christianity from earlier religions. An enormous amount did. I should find it hard to believe Christianity if that were not so. I couldn't believe that nine hundred and ninety-nine religions were completely false and the remaining one true. In reality, Christianity is primarily the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, but also the fulfillment of what was vaguely hinted in all the religions at their best. What was vaguely seen in them all comes into focus in Christianity—just as God Himself comes into focus by becoming a man.

We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about "parallels" and "pagan Christs": they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren't. We must not, in false spirituality, withhold our imaginative welcome. If God chooses to be mythopoeic—and is not the sky itself a myth—shall we refuse to be mythopathic? For this is the marriage of heaven and earth: perfect myth and perfect fact: claiming not only our love and our obedience, but also our wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the child, and the poet in each one of us no less than to the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher.

"But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said," etc. Paul, set in the midst of the Areopagus, poured out the honey of heavenly philosophy, starting his speech beautifully with the fact that among their various idols he had found an inscription that read "to the unknown god". He said that they should, therefore, seek the one whom they themselves declared to be unknown to them. He preached, in order, the Lord Christ, who with all his power made the heaven and the earth and all things in them, and he showed to them that even examples from their own authors made it clear that, being the "offspring of God," they should not worship things made with hands. When they heard, among other things, about the resurrection of the dead, many believed it, while others thought it was a lie. After these things, going down from Athens, he came to Corinth, where, preaching the Lord Savior to Jews and Greeks, he taught the dogmas of the Christian religion.

Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, is recorded to have said to the Areopagites, "I perceive that ye are more than ordinarily religious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with the inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. God, that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him; though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we also are His offspring." Whence it is evident that the apostle, by availing himself of poetical examples from the Phenomena of Aratus, approves of what had been well spoken by the Greeks; and intimates that, by the unknown God, God the Creator was in a roundabout way worshipped by the Greeks; but that it was necessary by positive knowledge to apprehend and learn Him by the Son.

Paul found an altar, on which the words "to an unknown god" were engraved: who was that unknown god but Christ? Do you see the wisdom in changing the name? Do you see the reason he released the inscription from captivity?… To save and benefit them. What else? Perhaps one might say that the Athenians wrote these words for Christ?… They certainly wrote that with a different meaning, but he was, nevertheless, able to change it.… Why did they write it? They had many gods, or rather many demons, "All the gods of the Gentiles are demons," and some of them were native, others were foreign.… They had received some of their gods from their fathers, others from the neighboring nations, such as the Scythians, the Thracians and the Egyptians.… What did they do then? They erected an altar and inscribed it with the words "to an unknown god" in order to signify through the inscription: If by any chance there is another god who is still unknown to us, we will worship him too. See their immoderate superstition! For this reason Paul said from the beginning, "I see how extremely religious you are in every way … you not only worship the gods who are known to you, but also those who are still unknown to you." Therefore they had written, "To an unknown god." … The unknown God is none other than Christ.

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I look upon you as being in all things" - he puts it by way of encomium: the word does not seem to mean anything offensive - "more religiously disposed." For the cities were full of gods: this is why he says "more religiously disposed." "For as I passed by and viewed the objects of your worship" - he does not say simply the demons or deities, but paves the way for his discourse.

It seems that the apostle is as if praising the Athenians, saying that "they are as if especially devout," instead of calling them pious.

I found an altar with the inscription: To the Unknown God. God is known in Judea but not received. God is unknown in Achaia, although earnestly sought through many means. Therefore, those who do not know will be ignored; those who transgress will be condemned. Neither is free from fault, but those who have not offered faith to Christ, whom they did not know, are more excusable than those who have laid hands on Christ, whom they knew.

This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. For how can that be expressed which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, nor individual, nor number; nay more, is neither an event, nor that to which an event happens? No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly, terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator or Lord. We speak not as supplying His name; but for want, we use good names, in order that the mind may have these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects. For each one by itself does not express God; but all together are indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. For predicates are expressed either from what belongs to things themselves, or from their mutual relation. But none of these are admissible in reference to God. Nor any more is He apprehended by the science of demonstration. For it depends on primary and better known principles. But there is nothing antecedent to the Unbegotten. It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you."

St. Paul said that the Greeks had one altar to an unknown god. But in truth all their gods were unknown gods. And the real break in history did come when St. Paul declared to them whom they had ignorantly worshipped.

I suspect an immense implication behind all polytheism and paganism. I suspect we have only a hint of it here and there in these savage creeds or Greek origins. It is not exactly what we mean by the presence of God; in a sense it might more truly be called the absence of God. But absence does not mean non-existence; and a man drinking the toast of absent friends does not mean that from his life all friendship is absent. It is a void but it is not a negation; it is something as positive as an empty chair. It would be an exaggeration to say that the pagan saw higher than Olympus an empty throne. It would be nearer the truth to take the gigantic imagery of the Old Testament, in which the prophet saw God from behind; it was as if some immeasurable presence had turned its back on the world. Yet the meaning will again be missed if it is supposed to be anything so conscious and vivid as the monotheism of Moses and his people. I do not mean that the pagan peoples were in the least overpowered by this idea merely because it is overpowering. On the contrary, it was so large that they all carried it lightly, as we all carry the load of the sky. Gazing at some detail like a bird or a cloud, we can all ignore its awful blue background; we can neglect the sky; and precisely because it bears down upon us with an annihilating force, it is felt as nothing. A thing of this kind can only be an impression and a rather subtle impression; but to me it is a very strong impression made by pagan literature and religion. I repeat that in our special sacramental sense there is, of course, the absence of the presence of God. But there is in a very real sense the presence of the absence of God. We feel it in the unfathomable sadness of pagan poetry; for I doubt if there was ever in all the marvellous manhood of antiquity a man who was happy as St. Francis was happy. We feel it in the legend of a Golden Age and again in the vague implication that the gods themselves are ultimately related to something else, even when that Unknown God has faded into a Fate. Above all we feel it in those immortal moments when the pagan literature seems to return to a more innocent antiquity and speak with a more direct voice, so that no word is worthy of it except our own monotheistic monosyllable. We cannot say anything but 'God' in a sentence like that of Socrates bidding farewell to his judges: 'I go to die and you remain to live; and God alone knows which of us goes the better way.' We can use no other word even for the best moments of Marcus Aurelius: 'Can they say dear city of Cecrops, and canst thou not say dear city of God?' We can use no other word in that mighty line in which Virgil spoke to all who suffer with the veritable cry of a Christian before Christ, in the untranslatable: 'O passi graviora dabit deus his quoque finem.'

But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

He did not find in the city a holy book but an altar to an idol with the inscription "To an unknown god." The holy Paul, who had the grace of the Spirit, did not pass by but turned the altar with its inscription on its head.… He did not omit what the idolatrous Athenians had written.… We see what great value that inscription produced.… Paul entered the town, found an altar on which the words "to an unknown god" were engraved. What did he have to do?… Did the words of the Gospels need to be declared? They would have mocked them. Or maybe the words from the books of the prophets or from the precepts of the law should have been talked about? But they would not have believed. What did he do then? He rushed to the altar and defeated them with the weapons of the enemies themselves. And that was what he said, "I became everything to everyone: to the Jews a Jew, to those outside the law as if I were outside the law."

"On which was inscribed, To an Unknown God." The Athenians, namely, as on many occasions they had received gods from foreign parts also - for instance, the temple of Minerva, Pan, and others from different countries - being afraid that there might be some other god not yet known to them, but worshipped elsewhere, for more assurance, forsooth, erected an altar to that god also: and as the god was not known, it was inscribed, "To an Unknown God." This God then, he tells them, is Christ; or rather, the God of all. "Him declare I unto you," Observe how he shows that they had already received Him, and "it is nothing strange," says he, "nothing new that I introduce to you." All along, this was what they had been saying: "What is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange matters to our ears." Immediately therefore he removes this surmise of theirs.

"I beheld an altar," etc. This is why he says, "I look upon you as being more religiously disposed," viz. because of the altar. For say, of whom would it be properly said, "To an Unknown God?" Of the Creator, or of the demon? Manifestly of the Creator: because Him they knew not, but the other they knew. Again, that all things are filled with the presence - of God? or of Jupiter - a wretch of a man, a detestable impostor! But Paul said it not in the same sense as he, God forbid! but with quite a different meaning. For he says we are God's offspring, i.e. God's own, His nearest neighbors as it were.

Two reasons are given for the inscription on the altar in Athens, "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD." For some say that when the Athenians sent Philippides to the Lacedaemonians about an alliance, at the time the Persians marched on Greece, a phantom of Pan appeared to him on Mount Parthenion and blamed the Athenians for neglecting him and worshiping other gods, and promised to help. Having therefore prevailed, they erected a temple to him and built that altar. And, so that they might be on guard for fear that the same thing happen again at another time, having presented some god unknown to them, they set up that altar inscribed "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD," saying that if perhaps some other were unknown to them, let this one be raised among them in his honor, so that he might be favorable to them, in case he would not be worshiped when unknown. Others say that a plague once fell upon the Athenians and consumed them to such an extent that they could not even bear their finest garments. Therefore those who were believed to be their gods were of no help. Realizing then that perhaps there was a god whom they themselves had left unhonored, the sender of the plague, they, fearing a new altar, and inscribing it, "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD," and having sacrificed, were immediately healed. Paul therefore says that this Christ Jesus is the God of all, although he also declared it to them. And the entire inscription of the altar is this: To the gods of Asia and Europe and Libya, to a god unknown and foreign. [LETTER OF ISIDORUS OF PELUSIUM, CHAPTER 45]

What absurdity! What need had they of uncertain gods, when they possessed certain ones? Unless, forsooth, they wished to commit themselves to such folly as the Athenians did; for at Athens there was an altar with this inscription: "To The Unknown Gods." Does, then, a man worship that which he knows nothing of? Then, again, as they had certain gods, they ought to have been contented with them, without requiring select ones.

It seems that the apostle is as if praising the Athenians, saying that "they are as if especially devout," instead of calling them pious. And he called them so on account of the altar set up by them for the following reason. Once a war broke out between the Athenians and an enemy; having suffered defeat, they withdrew. And since it was their custom to celebrate games in honor of demons, one of the demons appeared to them and said that he had not yet seen any honor from them to himself, and therefore he was angered at them and was the cause of their defeat. To this demon they built a temple, and as if out of fear that the same thing might happen to them again sometime if they overlooked some God unknown to them, they set up an altar with the inscription "to the unknown God," saying by this that if there is yet some other God Whom they do not know, then let this altar be dedicated to Him; perhaps He will be merciful to us, even though we do not worship Him, since we do not know Him. The full inscription on the altar was as follows: "To the Gods of Asia and Europe and Libya; to the unknown and foreign God." "Passing through and examining your sacred objects, I found also an altar." He found in the city not a Divine book, but an altar; and, making use of the inscription on the altar, he overthrew it. And what else was he to do? The Greeks were all unbelievers. If he had conversed with them on the basis of the Gospel teaching, they would have laughed at him; if on the basis of the prophets, they would have had no trust in him. He conquered the enemy's weapon with the enemy's own weapon — and this is precisely what he means when he says: to "those without the law I became as one without the law" (1 Cor. 9:21). He saw the altar and turned the inscription on it to his own advantage, and what is even more important is that he changed the opinion of the Athenians. On the altar, it says, "was written: 'To the unknown God.'" Who then was this unknown God, if not Christ? Did the Athenians really write this in the name of Christ? If they had written this in the name of Christ, then Paul's success in converting them would have been nothing remarkable. No, they wrote it with a different purpose, but Paul was able to give the inscription an entirely new meaning. But it should be said for the sake of which God they wrote "to the unknown God." They had many gods, both their own and foreign. About some of them they received information from their mothers, and about others from neighboring peoples. And so, since at first not all the gods were accepted by them at once, but were introduced little by little — some by their fathers, others by their grandfathers, and still others already in their own time — they gathered together and said: "Just as we did not know these gods before, but later came to know them, so perhaps there is yet another God whom we do not know, and since we do not know Him, although He is God, we are making a mistake by neglecting Him and not honoring Him." Therefore they set up an altar and made an inscription on it "to the unknown God," saying by this inscription that if there is yet another God whom they do not know, they would honor Him too. Notice the excess of demon-fearing. Therefore Paul says: "In every way I see that you are, as it were, especially devout," because you honor not only those demons known to you, but also those whom you have not come to know, and having captivated their minds, he directed their mental gaze toward Christ. "This One, Whom you worship without knowing, I proclaim to you." The Athenians intended to accuse Paul, saying: "You are introducing a new teaching, you are introducing a God Whom we do not know." Therefore, wishing to free himself from suspicion and to show that he was preaching not a new God, but the One Whom they had already honored with worship before him, he says: "You have anticipated me, your worship of Him has preceded my preaching, because I am proclaiming to you the God Whom you venerate without knowing."

God, who made the world and everything in it, being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, and so on. The order of the apostolic discourse is to be carefully observed, in which he formed a way of dealing with the Gentiles: first teaching that there is one God, the author of the world and of all things, in whom we live and move and have our being, of whom we are the offspring. This shows that he ought to be loved not only for the gifts of light and life but also because of a certain kinship of race. Then he refuted that opinion about idols by clear reasoning, that the creator and lord of the whole world cannot be confined in stone temples, that the giver of all benefits does not need the blood of sacrifices, and that the creator and governor of all men cannot be created by the hand of man. Finally, that God, in whose image man was made, should not be thought to resemble metals, teaching that the remedy of error is the endeavor to repent. For if he had first sought to destroy the ceremonies of idols, the ears of the Gentiles would have rejected him. Therefore, when he persuaded them that there is one God, he then affirmed by His judgment that salvation had been given to us through Christ. He called Him more man than God, starting from the things He did in the body and describing them as divine, so that He seemed more than a man. He had conquered death by His power, and, rising from the dead, He (for faith grows gradually), as He was seen to be more than a man, was believed to be God. For what does it matter in what order one believes? Perfection is not sought in beginnings, but one progresses from beginnings to what is perfect.

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: "The God that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped by men's hands, as if He needed anything; seeing that it is He Himself that giveth to all breath, and life, and all things."

For is it not the case that rightly and truly we do not circumscribe in any place that which cannot be circumscribed; nor do we shut up in temples made with hands that which contains all things? What work of builders, and stonecutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God? It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves say, for man, the plaything of God, to make God, and for God to be the plaything of art; since what is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane; and if you perfect the art, they partake of mechanical coarseness. Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine. ... But how can He, to whom the things that are belong, need anything? But were God possessed of a human form, He would need, equally with man, food, and shelter, and house, and the attendant incidents. Those who are like in form and affections will require similar sustenance. And if sacred has a twofold application, designating both God Himself and the structure raised to His honour, how shall we not with propriety call the Church holy, through knowledge, made for the honour of God, sacred to God, of great value, and not constructed by mechanical art, nor embellished by the hand of an impostor, but by the will of God fashioned into a temple? For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.

This is the mystery which he says was made known to him by revelation, that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God, and Judge, receiving power from Him who is the God of all, because He became "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." And inasmuch as this is true, when [preaching to the Athenians on the Areopagus-where, no Jews being present, he had it in his power to preach God with freedom of speech-he said to them: "God, who made the world, and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is He touched by men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; who hath made from one blood the whole race of men to dwell upon the face of the whole earth, predetermining the times according to the boundary of their habitation, to seek the Deity, if by any means they might be able to track Him out, or find Him, although He be not far from each of us. For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, as certain men of your own have said, For we are also His offspring. Inasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Deity is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man's device. Therefore God, winking at the times of ignorance, does now command all men everywhere to turn to Him with repentance; because He hath appointed a day, on which the world shall be judged in righteousness by the man Jesus; whereof He hath given assurance by raising, Him from the dead." Now in this passage he does not only declare to them God as the Creator of the world, no Jews being present, but that He did also make one race of men to dwell upon all the earth; as also Moses declared: "When the Most High divided the nations, as He scattered the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations after the number of the angels of God;" but that people which believes in God is not now under the power of angels, but under the Lord's [rule]. "For His people Jacob was made the portion of the Lord, Israel the cord of His inheritance."

"God that made the world and all things therein, He being Lord of heaven and earth" - for, that they may not imagine Him to be one of many, he presently sets them right on this point; adding, "dwelleth not in temples made with hands" - do you observe how, little by little, he brings in the philosophy? how he ridicules the heathen error?

"God," he says, "that made the world." He uttered one word, by which he has subverted all the doctrines of the philosophers. For the Epicureans affirm all to be fortuitously formed and by concourse of atoms, the Stoics held it to be body and fire. "The world and all that is therein." Do you mark the conciseness, and in conciseness, clearness? Mark what were the things that were strange to them: that God made the world! Things which now any of the most ordinary persons know, these the Athenians and the wise men of the Athenians knew not. "Seeing He is Lord of heaven and earth": for if He made them, it is clear that He is Lord. Observe what he affirms to be the note of Deity - creation. Which attribute the Son also hath.

For the Prophets everywhere affirm this, that to create is God's prerogative. Not as those affirm that another is Maker but not Lord, assuming that matter is uncreated. Here now he covertly affirms and establishes his own, while he overthrows their doctrine. "Dwelleth not in temples made with hands." For He does indeed dwell in temples, yet not in such, but in man's soul. He overthrows the corporeal worship. What then? Did He not dwell in the temple at Jerusalem? No indeed: but He wrought therein.

For fear that they should think that God proclaimed by him was one of the common gods, he adds in correction: "He does not dwell in hand-made temples." For indeed he dwells in temples, but not in these, rather in the human soul. For he is not said to dwell in the temple of Jerusalem, but to operate there. Nor was he worshiped among the Jews by the hands of men, but with the mind: for he did not so desire those things as if he were in need. For he says, "Shall I eat the flesh of bulls? Or shall I drink the blood of goats?" (Ps. 50:13) and the following.

What, again, if He was One who was "crowned with glory and honour," and He Another by whom He was so crowned, -the Son, in fact, by the Father? Moreover, how comes it to pass, that the Almighty Invisible God, "whom no man hath seen nor can see; He who dwelleth in light unapproachable; " "He who dwelleth not in temples made with hands; " "from before whose sight the earth trembles, and the mountains melt like wax; " who holdeth the whole world in His hand "like a nest; " "whose throne is heaven, and earth His footstool; " in whom is every place, but Himself is in no place; who is the utmost bound of the universe;-how happens it, I say, that He (who, though) the Most High, should yet have walked in paradise towards the cool of the evening, in quest of Adam; and should have shut up the ark after Noah had entered it; and at Abraham's tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the burning bush; and have appeared as "the fourth" in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch (although He is there called the Son of man),-unless all these events had happened as an image, as a mirror, as an enigma (of the future incarnation)? Surely even these things could not have been believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been given us in the Scriptures; possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring Him down into Mary's womb, and set Him before Pilate's judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph.

"God, who made the world and everything in it." He said one word and undermined all the positions of the philosophers. The Epicureans assert that everything came about by itself and from atoms, but he says that the world and everything in it is the work of God. "He does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is He served by human hands." So that they would not think that one of their many gods was being preached, Paul adds to what was said: "He does not dwell in temples made with hands," but in the human soul. So then what? Did He not dwell in the temple in Jerusalem? No, He did not dwell there, but He acted there. How then did the Jews worship Him through the service of hands? Not through the service of hands, but with the mind, because He did not require anything material, having no need of it: "Do I eat the flesh of bulls and drink the blood of goats?" (Ps. 49:13)

"Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything" - do you observe how, little by little, he brings in the philosophy? how he ridicules the heathen error? "seeing it is He that giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

"Neither is worshipped by men's hands." How then was He worshipped by men's hands among the Jews? Not by hands, but by the understanding. "As though He needed anything:" since even those acts of worship He did not in this sort seek, "as having need. Shall I eat," saith He, "the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" Neither is this enough - the having need of naught - which he has affirmed: for though this is Divine, yet a further attribute must be added. "Seeing it is He that giveth unto all, life and breath and all things." Two proofs of Godhead: Himself to have need of naught, and to supply all things to all men. Produce here Plato and all that he has philosophized about God, all that Epicurus has: and all is but trifling to this! "Giveth," he says, "life and breath." Lo, he makes Him the Creator of the soul also, not its begetter. See again how he overthrows the doctrine about matter.

"He does not require… He Himself giving to all life and breath and all things." Two proofs of Divinity, namely: that God needs nothing and grants all things to all. But here Paul also shows that God is not a father, but the Creator of the soul.

And he made from one every kind of human being. What he says from one is clear, because he means from one human being. But it is fuller in Greek: He made from one blood, which no one doubts means the same. For by the name of blood, he indicates the propagation of the flesh; and by the flesh, according to the usual manner of Scripture, he wants a human being to be understood according to that of the Psalmist: All flesh will come to you (Psalm 64).

The saints, the most exalted of human figures, were also the most local. It was exactly the men whom we most easily connected with heaven whom we also most easily connected with earth.

We make our friends; we make our enemies; but God makes our next-door neighbour. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain. He is Man, the most terrible of the beasts. That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one's duty towards humanity, but one's duty towards one's neighbour. The duty towards humanity may often take the form of some choice which is personal or even pleasurable. That duty may be a hobby; it may even be a dissipation. We may work in the East End because we are peculiarly fitted to work in the East End, or because we think we are; we may fight for the cause of international peace because we are very fond of fighting. The most monstrous martyrdom, the most repulsive experience, may be the result of choice or a kind of taste. We may be so made as to be particularly fond of lunatics or specially interested in leprosy. We may love negroes because they are black or German Socialists because they are pedantic. But we have to love our neighbour because he is there—a much more alarming reason for a much more serious operation. He is the sample of humanity which is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody. He is a symbol because he is an accident.

Now a Catholic, especially a born Catholic, can never understand that attitude, because from the first his whole religion is rooted in the unity of the race of Adam, the one and only Chosen Race. He is loyal to his own country; indeed he is generally ardently loyal to it, such local affections being in other ways very natural to his religious life, with its shrines and relics. But just as the relic follows upon the religion, so the local loyalty follows on the universal brotherhood of all men. The Catholic says, "Of course we must love all men; but what do all men love? They love their lands, their lawful boundaries, the memories of their fathers. That is the justification of being national, that it is normal." But the Protestant patriot really never thought of any patriotism except his own. In that sense Protestantism is patriotism. But unfortunately it is only patriotism. It starts with it and never gets beyond it. We start with mankind and go beyond it to all the varied loves and traditions of mankind. There never was a more illuminating flash than that which lit up the last moment of one of the most glorious of English Protestants; one of the most Protestant and one of the most English. For that is the meaning of that phrase of Nurse Cavell, herself the noblest martyr of our modern religion of nationality, when the very shaft of the white sun of death shone deep into her mind and she cried aloud, like one who had just discovered something, "I see now that patriotism is not enough."

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." This is peculiar to God. Look, then, whether these things may not be predicated of the Son also. "Being Lord," he saith, "of heaven and earth" - which they accounted to be God's. Both the creation he declares to be His work, and mankind also. "Having determined," he says, "the times assigned to them, and the bounds of their habitation."

"And made," he says, "of one blood every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth." These things are better than the former: and what an impeachment both of the atoms and of matter, that creation is not partial work, nor the soul of man either. If God, He made all: but if He made not, He is not God. Gods that made not heaven and earth, let them perish. He introduces much greater doctrines, though as yet he does not mention the great doctrines; but he discoursed to them as unto children. And these were much greater than those. Creation, Lordship, the having need of naught, authorship of all good - these he has declared. But how is He worshipped? say. It is not yet the proper time. What equal to this sublimity? Marvellous is this also - of one, to have made so many: but also, having made, Himself sustains them in being, giving life and breath and all things.

"Having appointed the times." He says, "Having appointed to seek God"; but he did not appoint this for all time, rather for appointed times, showing that they did not find him when they did not seek him now. For since when they sought, they did not find, he shows that he was revealed in such a way, as if toward something to be grasped in the middle; for the heaven was not here, but elsewhere. Nor was he in this time, but in another; so that it is possible to find him at every season and at every fixed point; for therefore he arranged it, so that he might be hindered neither by place nor by time. For this indeed contributed most of all to their belief, that the heaven is everywhere, that it stands in every time. [CHRYSOSTOM]

"Having appointed predetermined times." He appointed so that they "would seek God," but not forever, rather for "predetermined times." Paul shows that, even without having found the Lord, they obtained Him. And since, in seeking Him, they did not find Him, he also shows that the Lord is as evident as some object examined in a conspicuous place, because it is impossible for heaven to be here but not be in another place; it is also impossible for it to exist at this time but not at another. Thus, at every time and in every place one can find the Lord. God so arranged things that we encounter no obstacle in this either from the side of place or from the side of time. The fact that heaven is everywhere and is established (predetermined) for all times had an especially strong effect on the listeners. The Lord is so close to us, says the apostle, that without Him it is impossible to live.

"He is not far from every one of us," as the apostle says, who adds, "For in Him we live, and are moved, and have our being." And if this were said in respect to the body, it might be understood even of this corporeal world; for in it too in respect to the body, we live, and are moved, and have our being. And therefore it ought to be taken in a more excellent way, and one that is spiritual, not visible, in respect to the mind, which is made after His image. For what is there that is not in Him, of whom it is divinely written, "For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things"? If, then, all things are in Him, in whom can any possibly live that do live, or be moved that are moved, except in Him in whom they are? Yet all are not with Him in that way in which it is said to Him, "I am continually with Thee." Nor is He with all in that way in which we say, The Lord be with you. And so it is the especial wretchedness of man not to be with Him, without whom he cannot be. For, beyond a doubt, he is not without Him in whom he is; and yet if he does not remember, and understand, and love Him, he is not with Him.

Few indeed are those who know that they attain those reasons: indeed, what is more, few are those who are willing to believe this, because it seems difficult to an intellect not yet elevated to contemplate eternal things that it should have God so present and so near, even though Paul says in Acts, chapter seventeen, *that He is not far from each one of us.*

[Reflecting on how, as a committed atheist during World War I, he first encountered Chesterton's essays in a military hospital and found himself drawn in despite every intellectual predisposition against him]

In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere—"Bibles laid open, millions of surprises," as Herbert says, "fine nets and stratagems." God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.

If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?

Mythology is a search; it is something that combines a recurrent desire with a recurrent doubt, mixing a most hungry sincerity in the idea of seeking for a place with a most dark and deep and mysterious levity about all the places found. So far could the lonely imagination lead, and we must turn later to the lonely reason. Nowhere along this road did the two ever travel together.

"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being." This is said by Aratus the poet. Observe how he draws his arguments from things done by themselves, and from sayings of their own.

"And hath determined the times appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him." It means either this, that He did not compel them to go about and seek God, but according to the bounds of their habitation: or this, that He determined their seeking God, yet not determined this to be done continually, but determined certain appointed times when they should do so: showing now, that not having sought they had found: for since, having sought, they had not found, he shows that God was now as manifest as though He were in the midst of them palpably. "Though He be not far," he saith, "from every one of us," but is near to all. See again the power of God. What saith he? Not only He gave "life and breath and all things," but, as the sum and substance of all, He brought us to the knowledge of Himself, by giving us these things by which we are able to find and to apprehend Him. But we did not wish to find Him, albeit close at hand. "Though He be not far from every one of us." Why look now, He is near to all, to every one all the world over! What can be greater than this? See how he makes clear riddance of the parcel deities!

And this is what he says, "though he is not far from each one of us." For he is near to all as being everywhere in the inhabited world; and he is so near that without him one cannot live. [CHRYSOSTOM]

"You are near, Lord, and all your commandments are truth." God says elsewhere, "I am a God who is near and not a God who is far away, says the Lord." For the power of God is everywhere according to the word of creation and providence. Knowing this, Paul, addressing the Greeks as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, says, "We do not seek God far from us, for in him we live and move and are," and "the Spirit of the Lord has filled the earth." He is thus, for his part, close, but if we ourselves make no effort, though he be close, to draw near to him, we will not enjoy his nearness. For this reason, sinners are far from God: "Behold, those who distance themselves from you perish." But the just ones strive to approach God, for he is not present to them just as a creator, but he even shares himself with them: "And Moses alone draws near to God, but the rest do not draw near." According to the degree of will and perfection, the one who approaches God is that one about whom Paul says, "The one joined to the Lord is one spirit."

Paul shows that, even without having found the Lord, they obtained Him. And since, in seeking Him, they did not find Him, he also shows that the Lord is as evident as some object examined in a conspicuous place, because it is impossible for heaven to be here but not be in another place; it is also impossible for it to exist at this time but not at another. Thus, at every time and in every place one can find the Lord. God so arranged things that we encounter no obstacle in this either from the side of place or from the side of time. The fact that heaven is everywhere and is established (predetermined) for all times had an especially strong effect on the listeners. The Lord is so close to us, says the apostle, that without Him it is impossible to live.

For in Him we live and move and have our being. This verse, because it is difficult to understand, should be explained by the words of blessed Augustine. "The Apostle shows," he says, "that God works unceasingly in the things He has created. For indeed we do not exist in Him as in His substance, as it is said that He has life in Himself; but certainly, since we are something other than Him, we exist in Him only because He works this. And this is His work by which He contains all things, and which His wisdom extends from end to end mightily and orders all things sweetly. Through this arrangement, we live, move, and exist in Him. From this it is inferred that if He withdrew this work from things, we would neither live, nor move, nor exist." And a little later: "For neither heaven nor earth, and all things in them, namely the whole of spiritual and bodily creation, remain in themselves, but surely in Him of whom it is said: For in Him we live and move and have our being. For although each part can exist in the whole, which it is a part of, the whole itself does not exist except in Him by whom it was made." The same blessed Augustine elsewhere says: "This, if the Apostle were speaking according to the body, could also be understood of this corporeal world. For in it according to the body we live, move, and exist." Hence, according to the mind which is made in His image, this should be taken in a certain more excellent and not visible but intelligible mode. For what is not in Him, of whom it is divinely written: For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. XI)?

As some of your poets have said. This is what he says elsewhere: I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. For to those who did not accept the faith of the prophets, not Moses, not Isaiah, or any of the prophets, but he speaks by the testimonies of their own authors, citing the verse of Aratus, confirming his truth from their falsities, which they could not contradict. Indeed, it is of great knowledge to give food to fellow servants at the right time, and to consider the persons of the hearers.

For we are indeed his offspring. We are most rightly called the offspring of God, not born of His nature, but voluntarily created through His spirit, and recreated by adoption.

"In him we live and move and have our being." Augustine says that the Apostle does not speak there of corporeal life, but of intellectual life. Whence he speaks there of God, according as he is for all things "the cause of being, the reason of understanding, and the order of living." He is the cause of being, immediately producing all perpetual things, and mediately temporal things, yet immediately through elemental powers. He is the reason of understanding, because through him intelligences are made certain beyond the mutability of nature. If all creatures were to assail, God is nonetheless to be loved: nor can God bring it about that he is not to be loved. Though all things be corrupted, the certitude of truth remains. God is also the order of living: unless the gift of the Holy Spirit dwells in a man, he will not be governed according to the rule of upright life. Insofar as God is the cause of being, he enters the soul as its principle; but insofar as he is the order of living, he enters the soul as an infused gift: insofar as he is the reason of understanding, he enters the soul as the sun of intelligence.

The laws of physics, I understand, decree that when one billiard ball (A) sets another billiard ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a law. That is, this is the pattern to which the movement of the two billiard balls must conform. Provided, of course, that something sets ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won't set it in motion. It is usually a man with a cue who does that. But a man with a cue would send us back to free will, so let us assume that it was lying on a table in a liner and that what set it in motion was a lurch of the ship. In that case it was not the law which produced the movement; it was a wave. And that wave, though it certainly moved according to the laws of physics, was not moved by them. It was shoved by other waves, and by winds, and so forth. And however far you traced the story back you would never find Laws of Nature causing anything.

The dazzlingly obvious conclusion now arose in my mind: in the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to do that? How do you get a move on? The Laws of Nature can give you no help there... The laws are the pattern to which events conform: the source of events must be sought elsewhere.

Neither Will nor Reason is the product of Nature. Therefore either I am self-existent (a belief which no one can accept) or I am a colony of some Thought and Will that are self-existent. Such reason and goodness as we can attain must be derived from a self-existent Reason and Goodness outside ourselves, in fact, a Supernatural.

And what, you ask, is the advantage of all this? Well, for me—I am not talking about anyone else—it plants the prayer right in the present reality. For, whatever else is or is not real, this momentary confrontation of subject and object is certainly occurring: always occurring except when I am asleep. Here is the actual meeting of God's activity and man's—not some imaginary meeting that might occur if I were an angel or if God incarnate entered the room. There is here no question of a God "up there" or "out there"; rather, the present operation of God "in here", as the ground of my own being, and God "in there", as the ground of the matter that surrounds me, and God embracing and uniting both in the daily miracle of finite consciousness.

The two façades—the "I" as I perceive myself and the room as I perceive it—were obstacles as long as I mistook them for ultimate realities. But the moment I recognised them as façades, as mere surfaces, they became conductors.

You remember the two maxims Owen [Barfield] lays down in _Saving the Appearances_? On the one hand, the man who does not regard God as other than himself cannot be said to have a religion at all. On the other hand, if I think God other than myself in the same way in which my fellow-men, and objects in general, are other than myself, I am beginning to make Him an idol. I am daring to treat His existence as somehow _parallel_ to my own. But He is the ground of our being. He is always both within us and over against us. Our reality is so much from His reality as He, moment by moment, projects into us. The deeper the level within ourselves from which our prayer, or any other act, wells up, the more it is His, but not at all the less ours. Rather, most ours when most His. Arnold speaks of us as "enisled" from one another in "the sea of life". But we can't be similarly "en-isled" from God. To be discontinuous from God as I am discontinuous from you would be annihilation.

Meanwhile, I stick to Owen's view. All creatures, from the angel to the atom, are other than God; with an otherness to which there is no parallel: incommensurable. The very word "to be" cannot be applied to Him and to them in exactly the same sense. But also, no creature is other than He in the same way in which it is other than all the rest. He is in it as they can never be in one another. In each of them as the ground and root and continual supply of its reality. And also in good rational creatures as light; in bad ones as fire, as at first the smouldering unease, and later the flaming anguish, of an unwelcome and vainly resisted presence.

Therefore of each creature we can say, "This also is Thou: neither is this Thou."

If you could see humanity spread out in time, as God sees it, it would not look like a lot of separate things dotted about. It would look like one single growing thing—rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear connected with every other. And not only that. Individuals are not really separate from God any more than from one another. Every man, woman, and child all over the world is feeling and breathing at this moment only because God, so to speak, is 'keeping him going'.

It is much wiser, I believe, to think of that presence in particular objects than just of "omnipresence". The latter gives very naïf people the idea of something spatially extended, like a gas. It also blurs the distinctions, the truth that God is present in each thing but not necessarily in the same mode; not in a man as in the consecrated bread and wine, nor in a bad man as in a good one, nor in a beast as in a man, nor in a tree as in a beast, nor in inanimate matter as in a tree. I take it there is a paradox here. The higher the creature, the more and also the less God is in it; the more present by grace, and the less present (by a sort of abdication) as mere power. By grace He gives the higher creatures power to will His will ("and wield their little tridents"): the lower ones simply execute it automatically.

It is clear that by using poetic examples from the Phaenomena of Aratus [Paul] approves the best statements of the Greeks. Besides, he refers to the fact that in the person of the unknown god the Greeks are indirectly honoring God the Creator and need to receive him and learn about him with full knowledge through the Son. "I sent you to the gentiles for this purpose," says Scripture, "to open their eyes, for them to turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, for them to receive release from sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me." So these are the "opened eyes of the blind," which means the clear knowledge of the Father through the Son, the direct grasp of the thing to which the Greeks indirectly allude.

He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence; and not only for this reason, but also because He is Of Him. ...And He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as Word to Mind; not only on account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union, and of His declaratory function. ...For every thing that is begotten is a silent word of him that begat it. And if any one should say that this Name was given Him because He exists in all things that are, he would not be wrong. For what is there that consists but by the word? ...And He is called Life, because He is Light, and is the constituting and creating Power of every reasonable soul. For in Him we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that Breathing into us; for we were all inspired by Him with breath, and as many of us as were capable of it, and in so far as we open the mouth of our mind, with God the Holy Ghost.

"As certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring." This is said by Aratus the poet. Observe how he draws his arguments from things done by themselves, and from sayings of their own.

"In him;" to put it by way of corporeal similitude, even as it is impossible to be ignorant of the air which is diffused on every side around us, and is "not far from every one of us," nay rather, which is in us. For it was not so that there was a heaven in one place, in another none, nor yet a heaven at one time, at another none. So that both at every "time" and at every "bound" it was possible to find Him. He so ordered things, that neither by place nor by time were men hindered. For of course even this, if nothing else, of itself was a help to them - that the heaven is in every place, that it stands in all time. See how he declares His Providence, and His upholding power; the existence of all things from Him, from Him their working, from Him their preservation that they perish not. And he does not say, "Through Him," but, what was nearer than this, "In him."

That poet said nothing equal to this, "For we are His offspring." He, however, spake it of Jupiter, but Paul takes it of the Creator, not meaning the same being as he, God forbid! but meaning what is properly predicated of God: just as he spoke of the altar with reference to Him, not to the being whom they worshipped. As much as to say, "For certain things are said and done with reference to this true God, but ye know not that they are with reference to Him." For say, of whom would it be properly said, "To an Unknown God?" Of the Creator, or of the demon? Manifestly of the Creator: because Him they knew not, but the other they knew. Again, that all things are filled with the presence - of God? or of Jupiter - a wretch of a man, a detestable impostor! But Paul said it not in the same sense as he, God forbid! but with quite a different meaning. For he says we are God's offspring, i.e. God's own, His nearest neighbors as it were.

"For in him we live and move and have our being." Just as, in a bodily example, it is impossible to be unaware of the air poured everywhere, and of its not being far from any one of us, indeed even being within us, so likewise is the creator God of all. For from him is our being, our activity, our not perishing. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Then he even brings in a use for them from Aratus, one of their poets, in the construction of his own discourse. "For we too are his offspring," he says. And this passage he takes about the Creator himself, although some say that this was said about Zeus, not meaning the same as that Zeus, but saying that this expression most properly fits him. For something has been said and is directed to him, but the Greeks do not know this, for they have conceived these things of another, just as also the phrase "To the Unknown God," and something different. But Paul says that we are of the race of God, not as those say, but in another sense of mind, that is, relatives, nearest, as one might say, dwellers nearby or neighbors. [CHRYSOSTOM]

"Being as one outside the law to those outside the law." He came to Athens, he found philosophers, and he did not use the words of the prophets or from the law, but as one perhaps recalling this pagan teaching from a school of rhetoric he spoke to the men of Athens. For [Paul] said, "Just as some of your poets have said, 'For we are his offspring too.' " In this place, he was as one outside the law to those outside the law, in order to gain the lawless. It is as if he were to say "I was doing nothing contrary to the law in making this concession to them, but I was keeping myself bound by the law of Christ, in order to gain the lawless."

"In Him we live and move and have our being." He proves the nearness of the Lord by means of a sensory example: it is impossible, he says, not to know that air is diffused everywhere and is not only near each one of us, but also within us ourselves. The fact that we have received life from God, that we act and do not perish — all of this he calls the providence and care of God for us.