Aspects of Patristic Cosmology

Vladimir de Beer

Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, Volume 18, Number 3,

Summer 2015, pp. 81-99 (Article)

Published by Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/log.2015.0026

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/584535

Access provided by Bibl. Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg (24 Jan 2017 09:54 GMT)
 Vladimir de Beer

Aspects of Patristic Cosmology

Given the wealth of cosmological and metaphysical insights ema-

nating from classical Hellenic philosophy, notably with the Pre-
Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists, it was inevitable
(and, one might add, providential) that the early Christian theolo-
gians (known generically in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions
as the Church Fathers), working to a large extent within the intel-
lectual ambit of Hellenism, would employ aspects of that philosophi-
cal legacy in their exposition of Christian doctrine. This conceptual
appropriation was further necessitated by the relative lack of cosmo-
logical content in the Christian scriptures, with the notable excep-
tion of the first chapter of Genesis.
The most fundamental distinction in Patristic cosmology is that
between the uncreated (Greek aktistou), which refers to God alone,
and the created (Greek ktistou). In its turn the created universe
consists of spiritual and material spheres, the former including the
heavenly beings usually called angels. A major implication of the dis-
tinction between the uncreated and the created is that the human
being, who is created, cannot by nature know God, the uncreated.1
In the patristic understanding, God is the only source of the entire
created order: visible and invisible, intelligible and sensible, rational

l o g o s 18 :3 s u m m e r 2015
82 logos
and irrational, and formed and formless. Thus all things to a greater
or lesser extent reflect an aspect of the Godhead.2 I will proceed to
sketch salient aspects of the patristic cosmology in both the Greek
and Latin traditions.

Creation from Nothing

An axiomatic concept in Christian theology is the doctrine of Gods
creation from nothing (Latin creatio ex nihilo), although this is not ex-
plicitly taught in the Judaic and Christian scriptures. Instead, in the
Genesis account God is depicted as commanding chaos to develop
into order.3 However, the Platonist teaching that God creates the
world out of formless matter (ex amorphou hyles) is echoed in the
apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon (11:17). The first scriptural
intimation concerning creation out of nothing is found in the apoc-
ryphal book Second Maccabees (7:28), as interpreted by Origen in
his Commentary on John. Referring to the heaven and the earth and
all things therein, the text affirms that God made them from non-
existent things(ex ouk onton).4 According to the Hebrew scrip-
tures, nothing can exist before creation or outside God, for time
and space are presupposed by the creation. This implies that before
creation or outside God there is only the nothingness out of which
he creates.5
The New Testament is relatively silent on cosmology, except to
declare that Christ is the Logos through whom God creates and sus-
tains the cosmos (e.g., John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:1617). Paul does
mention in his Letter to the Romans (4:17) that God calls into exis-
tence the things that do not exist (kalountos ta me onta os onta). Here
the Apostle to the Gentiles indicates that the cause of the world is
outside the world, with only the will of God making the worlds
being possible.6 Or, stated in ontological terms, creation entails a
movement from non-being to being.
Among the second-century Christian thinkers known as the
Apologists, the Platonist notion that God creates out of formless
 aspects of patristic cosmology 83
matter was held by Justin Martyr. He found scriptural support for
this in Genesis 1:12, in a reading that conforms to the Septuagint
text.7 Justins younger contemporary Theophilus of Antioch moved
closer to an affirmation of creatio ex nihilo. He taught that God made
all things out of nothing and rejected the notion of uncreated, pre-
existent matter as in Hellenic philosophy. Instead, God first created
(formless) matter and then fashioned the world from it.8 Similarly,
in the Latin tradition both Tatian and Augustine subscribed to the no-
tion of pre-existent matter, which was itself created by God.9
Towards the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria
argued that according to both Genesis and Platos dialogue Timaeus
God creates the world out of formless matter, which is initially in
a state of relative non-being (me on) until God grants being to it.10
A fully-fledged doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is first encountered with
Irenaeus of Lyons, who developed it to counter two Hellenic cos-
mogonies that were popular in his time, namely that uncreated mat-
ter forms the substance of the creative process, and that creation
comes to be through a process of emanations from the Divinity.11 In
contrast, Irenaeus asserted that God creates the substance of matter,
the process of which is not explained in Scripture.12 During the third
century Origen of Alexandria taught that God creates the world not
out of relative non-being, or me on, but out of absolute non-being, or
ouk on.13 Matter is therefore not uncreated or coeternal with God.14
The fourth-century Greek theologian Athanasius of Alexandria
rejected the Platonist teaching that God made all things out of pre-
existent matter. Athanasius argued that to deny God being the cause
of matter is to impute limitation to him, for God cannot be called
Maker and Artificer if his ability depends on another cause, name-
ly matter. The Alexandrian then asserts that God made the cosmos
not out of existing matter, but out of nothing through his Word.15
In his authoritative eighth-century compendium of Greek patristic
doctrine, John of Damascus affirmed the doctrine of creation from
nothing. He argued that since God is supremely good, he could not
find satisfaction in self-contemplation (as is the case with Aristotles
84 logos
Prime Mover), but wished things to exist so that they may share in
his goodness. Thus, He brought all things out of nothing into being
and created them, both what is invisible and what is visible.Yea, even
man, who is a compound of the visible and the invisible.16
Working at the Carolingian court in the ninth century, John Scot-
tus Eriugena provided an extended discussion of the nothing (nihil)
out of which God creates.17 The Irish thinker contends that the nihil
indicates the supra-essential nature of God, which transcends both
being and non-being. He agrees with Dionysius the Areopagite that
God is a personal pre-being (ante on), while he is also the source
of all being.18 Thus in the Patristic understanding the nihil signifies
the hyper-ontological beyond-ness (hyperousia), which is beyond
all categories and therefore no-thing, or nihil.19 In other words, the
nothingness out of which God creates is none other than the depths
of the Divinity itself, and not something outside God.
Ultimately the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo affirms that the cre-
ated order possesses no ontological integrity in its own right, but
exists solely by the grace of God.20 The nineteenth-century Russian
theologian Metropolitan Philaret poetically depicted the creaturely
nothingness relative to God: The creative word is like an adaman-
tine bridge upon which creatures are placed, and they stand under
the abyss of the Divine Infinitude, over the abyss of their own noth-
ingness.21 Or, stated in Greek patristic terms, creation exists due to
the uncreated energies of God.

Intelligible and SensibleWorlds

Some of the patristic theologians were so convinced regarding the
truth of the Platonist differentiation between the eternal realm of
ideas (or forms) and the ephemeral world of phenomena, that they
ascribed it to divine revelation. Thus the early Church historian Eu-
sebius suggested that Plato followed the Hebrew prophets regarding
incorporeal things seen only by the mind, whether it was that he
learned from hearsay which had reached him, or whether of him-
 aspects of patristic cosmology 85
self he hit upon the true nature of things, or, in whatever way, was
deemed worthy of this knowledge of God.22 The interaction be-
tween the spiritual and the material has been well depicted by Ori-
gen: All the things in the visible category can be related to the invis-
ible, the corporeal to the incorporeal, the manifest to those that are
hidden; so that the creation of the world itself, fashioned in this wise
as it is, can be understood through the divine wisdom, which from
actual things and copies teaches us things unseen by means of those
that are seen, and carries us over from earthly things to heavenly.23
The biblical and patristic notion of the sensible pointing to the
intelligible was similarly evoked by Gregory of Nazianzus: Through
what is accessible and known, God attracts us; while through what is
inaccessible and unknown, God is marvelled by us and desired still
more ardently.24 According to Augustine of Hippo, God creates the
visible world through invisible seminal reasons (rationales seminales),
a notion that is partly derived from the Stoic concept of rational
seeds, or spermatikoi logoi.25 For Augustine the seminal reasons have a
two-fold nature: they are invisible in the elements of nature, and as
Platonist ideas they give form to physical existence. In addition, the
Latin theologian compared the seminal reasons as invisible causes of
things to the idea of numbers, and it could therefore be stated that
seminal reasons and mathematical ideas are equally real.26 Augus-
tines assimilation of Pythagorean and Platonist doctrines is clearly
discernible in this regard.
In his writings Maximus the Confessor continued the Platonist
doctrine that the sensible world is the realm of becoming, whereas
the intelligible world is the realm of being. Maximus held further-
more that the eternity of the intelligible world is a created eternity
(aeon), which is immutable. It is precisely through the immutability
of the intelligible world that coherence and intelligibility are estab-
lished in the sensible world.27 In the cosmological system of Eriuge-
na the invisible primordial causes (causae primordiales) are the first
created principles through which the diversity of the visible world
arises. This notion represents Eriugenas synthesis of the Platonist
86 logos
ideas and the Greek Patristic energies of God, although the latter
are conceived as uncreated while the primordial causes are said to
be created.28
The distinction between the intelligible and sensible realms
also pertains to the notion of beauty (Greek kalos), since beautiful
things obtain their beauty through participation in the eternal form
of beautyas Plato had taught, notably in his dialogue Symposium.
However, some of the Greek theologians cautioned that an apprecia-
tion of material beauty should lead to worship of the creator thereof,
lest one slide into pantheism. Thus Gregory of Nyssa argues that a
man with a less developed mind will think that an object is beautiful
in its essence and not penetrate deeper. On the other hand, a more
developed mind will view outward beauty as a ladder by means of
which he can ascend to that intellectual beauty from which all other
objects of beauty derive their existence.29
It should be kept in mind that the Patristic acceptance of the in-
telligible/sensible distinction does not imply any kind of dualism.
Rather, every created being is viewed as a unity of matter and spirit,
in which the one dimension does not exist without the other. The ac-
ceptance of the spirit and matter duality accordingly entails a rejec-
tion of both a monistic single principle of explanation and a dualistic
two principles.30

Divine Essence and Divine Energies

Another pivotal notion in patristic cosmology is the distinction be-
tween the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeiai) of God. The
Greek patristic teaching deviates in this respect from that of Aris-
totle, who introduced the term energeia into Hellenic thought. For
Aristotle the highest being was the prime mover, whose essence is
identical with its actuality, or energy.31 Justin Martyr took issue with
the Aristotelian philosophers who held that God must have been the
creator potentially, becoming the creator actually at creation. There-
fore, they argued, God was imperfect and became perfect through
 aspects of patristic cosmology 87
creation. Justin countered by insisting that God did not create the
world from his essence, but by his energy.32
Basil of Caesarea wrote that we know God by his energies that
descend to us, but his essence remains inaccessible. Similarly, Greg-
ory of Nyssa argued that God is knowable only through his ener-
gies, and that all our speech concerning God denotes not his essence
but his energies.33 These Cappadocian theologians drew a distinction
between God as he exists within himself and God as he manifests
himself to othersreferring to the divine essence and the divine
energies, respectively.34 In other words, The essence is Gods inher-
ent self-existence; and the energy is His relations towards the other
(pros heteron).35 God is therefore one in nature, three in hypostases,
and multiple in the uncreated energies that proceed from the divine
nature.36
Dionysius the Areopagite referred to the divine energies as pro-
cessions, principles, determinations, and divine volitions,37 while
John of Damascus wrote in this regard of the divine radiance and
activity.38 The most authoritative patristic exposition of the distinc-
tion between the essence and energies of God was provided in the
fourteenth century by Gregory Palamas, who declared that God is
one in supra-essentiality and multiple in energies. Furthermore, ev-
ery created nature is completely foreign to the divine nature, and all
things exist through participation (metousia) in the divine energies.
Gregory distinguished between creative energy that brings forth all
beings from nothing, and deifying energy. The latter is also known as
divine grace, and is given to those who aspire after the divine light.39
In this way Gregory distinguishes between the divine essence and
grace, the latter signifying the divine energies.40 Moreover, since the
world is the result of the uncreated energies of God and not of his
essence, the relations between God and the world are not according
to essence, but according to energy.41
It should be noted that the patristic notion of the divine energies
is not a philosophical one, but based on the biblical revelation. This
pertains especially to Mosess encounter with God, as depicted in
88 logos
Exodus 33.42 In fact, the divine energies should be identified with
the divine glory (kabod) of the Hebrew scriptures.43 Nevertheless,
although the scriptures testify to the energies of God, the essence/
energies distinction is not explicitly taught therein. It has been sug-
gested that Gregory Palamas was motivated by the logical necessity
of building a bridge between the transcendent God and the world of
phenomena.The distinction between the divine essence and energies
is therefore equivalent to that between Beyond-Being and Being, that
is to say, between God as essence and God as creator.44
Remarkably, the essence/energies distinction has remained for-
eign to Western Christian theology, in large part due to Augustines
rejection thereof.45 The notion of the divine energies is in fact related
to Gods creation from nothingness. As Gregory Palamas reasoned,
God creates from absolute nothingness, since he possesses energy
that is all-powerful and makes him manifest. Created things are not
Gods energy, but are brought into being by it. Therefore all created
beings are testimony of Gods creative energy.46 The grounding of
the cosmos in the divine energies has been stated as follows by Philip
Sherrard: Underlying the whole cosmos and its minutest particles,
God is active in nature and nature in God. . . . The cosmos is the
other self of the Absolute.47

The Being of Creation

The Greek patristic theologians held an all-embracing view of being
(ousia) and nature (physis), entailing the whole of the created order.
Thus Dionysius the Areopagite wrote in the Divine Names that the
Good (i.e., God) is the source of all that exists: the archetypes, the
heavenly beings, rational souls, irrational animals, plants, and inani-
mate matter.48 Accordingly, the Pre-existent is the cause and source
of all eternity, all time, and every kind of being. Everything partici-
pates in this Being that precedes all entities. Souls also receive their
being and well-being from the Pre-existent Being.49 Just as every
number participates in unity, Dionysius argues, so everything par-
 aspects of patristic cosmology 89
ticipates in the One. The One precedes both oneness and multiplic-
ity, and the latter only exists through participation in the One.50 In a
similar vein Gregory Palamas reasoned that since nothing can exist
without a cause, the nature of things demonstrate the existence of a
first principle that is self-existent. Furthermore, that the world will
also have a consummation is shown by the fact that everything in it is
contingent and partially coming to an end all the time.51
Although the cosmos comes to be through divine creation, it is by
nature infinitely distant from God. As stated by John of Damascus,
creation out of nothing produces a subject infinitely removed from
God, not according to place but according to nature (ou topo, alla
physei). Creation is therefore not coeternal with God, but represents
a movement from non-being to being. This implies that the creature
has no ontological ground either in itself or in the divine essence.52
In this conception, Existence has its cause in Gods creative act and
is maintained by Gods providence.53
It was asserted by Eriugena that God first creates formless mat-
ter from nothing and then creates the world from formless matter.
However, it would be erroneous to see the world as a kind of filling
up between God on the one side and unformed matter on the other,
since matter is folded up in the primordial causes through which
God creates the sensible world.54 The patristic appreciation of the
material world reached its zenith in the work of John of Damascus,
who argued in On the Divine Images that since our salvation has been
effected by God through matter (i.e., the human form of Christ),
we should hold material things in appropriate honor. This led John
to exclaim, Because of the Incarnation, I salute all remaining matter
with reverence.55
According to Basil of Caesarea, creation preexisted in the mind
of God, like the example of an artist who knows the beauty of each
part before uniting them according to his creative purpose.56 This
notion was echoed by Basils close friend Gregory of Nazianzus: The
world-creating Mind in His vast thoughts also mused upon the pat-
terns of the world which he made up, upon the cosmos which was
90 logos
produced only afterwards, but which for God even then was pres-
ent.57 In his turn Dionysius the Areopagite wrote that the exemplars
of everything preexist as a transcendent unity within the Cause and
produce the essences of things.58 Maximus the Confessor affirmed
that these creative paradigms are none other than the eternal, perfect
thoughts of God. Therefore created beings are images and similes of
the divine ideas, in which they participate.59 According to John of
Damascus, God creates by thought, and the thought becomes deed.
Thus God contemplated everything before its creation, and hence
each thing receives its being at a determinate time according to His
timeless and decisive thought, which is predestination (proorismos),
and image (eikon), and pattern (paradeigma).60 Gregory Palamas sim-
ilarly declared that God foreknows, creates, and sustains all beings
according to his will and knowledge.61
The triadic Neoplatonist cosmology of an eternally remain-
ing first principle (mone), a procession (proodos) thereof through
the forms into their effects, and a return (epistrophe) of the effects
through the forms to the first principle would be adopted by Dio-
nysius the Areopagite throughout his theology, while expressing it in
Christian terms. Thus, in terms of motion the Areopagite preserved
the basic triad of mone, proodos, and epistrophe. In terms of participa-
tion the cosmos displays the structure of unparticipatible (amethek-
tos), participatable (methektos), and participating (metechon). Finally,
in terms of activity the structure is classified by Dionysius as being
(ousia), power (dynamis), and act (energeia). With this latter triadic
formulation the Greek theologian allows for Gods creation from
free will instead of the timeless emanation taught in Neoplatonism.62
Building on the Christian Neoplatonism of Dionysius, Eriugena rea-
soned that the link between the procession (exitus) of all things out
of God and the return (reditus) of all things to God is in fact Christ,
the cosmic Logos.63
Maximus the Confessor applied the Dionysian triad of being,
power, and act to God as well as beings: existing by nature (ousia),
the ability to act (dynamis), and the accomplished action (energeia).
 aspects of patristic cosmology 91
Out of the divine power the intelligible world is created as the triad
of being (to einai), well-being (to eu einai), and eternal well-being
(to aei eu einai). Finally, the sensible world arises as the triad of be-
coming (genesis), motion (kinesis), and rest (stasis). Thus for Maximus
the mode of existence of the intelligible world is being, while that
of the sensible world is becoming.64 This distinction should not be
understood in an absolute sense, since in the patristic view creation
is neither self-existent being nor transitory becoming, but is utterly
dependent upon a higher, extraneous principle for its existence.65
Maximus taught further that all created being is limited and in the
process of becoming, which is the sphere of space and time. Only
God, being immovable, is outside space and time.66
Each created thing has its own essential reason (logos), Gregory of
Nazianzus held, and nothing can exist if it is not grounded in the di-
vine Logos. The latter grants ontological reality to the created order,
and thus each created thing has a divine idea or reason.67 Although
the Augustinian concept of seminal reasons (rationales seminales) is
similar to the Greek patristic concept of the logoi, they differ in the
sense that the logoi are uncreated and originate in the Logos.Yet both
seminal reasons and logoi can be discovered due to the intelligibility
of the created world.68 The same reasoning applies to the primordial
causes of Eriugena.
The concept of logoi as creative principles indwelling the whole
of the created order was extensively developed by Maximus the
Confessor.69 God conceals himself mysteriously in the interior lo-
goi of created beings, the Confessor wrote in the Difficulties (Latin
title: Ambigua). Thus in diversity is concealed that which is one; in
composite things, that which is without parts; in those which have a
beginning, that which has no beginning; in the visible, that which is
invisible; and in the tangible, that which is intangible.70 Accordingly,
the point of contact between a created thing and the Godhead is the
logos thereof, which is also the end or goal (telos) toward which it in-
clines.71 For Maximus these logoi of created beings are not part of the
divine nature, but rather divine volitions, or energies. They can be
92 logos
viewed as one or many according to perspective.72 As stated by the
Confessor, the one is multiple in relation to its creating and sustain-
ing progress toward created things, whereas the multiple are one in
relation to the return of created things to their principle.73
Since creation entails a transition from non-being to being, its
very nature is characterised by mutability, in contrast to the uncre-
ated, which is immutable. As Gregory of Nyssa wrote, The very
subsistence of creation owed its beginning to change,74 and also the
created nature cannot exist without change; for its very passage from
non-existence to existence is a certain motion and change of the
non-existent transmuted by the divine purpose into being.75 This no-
tion was affirmed by John of Damascus, arguing, For all that is creat-
ed is changeable, and only that which is un-created is unchangeable,
and All things, then, which are brought into existence are subject
to corruption according to the law of their nature, and so even the
heavens themselves are corruptible.76
Due to the mutability of created nature, a dynamic conception of
matter is encountered in Greek patristic thought. For instance, both
Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor saw matter as a fact
of energy. The world and everything in it is an effected word (logos)
of God. Therefore, in nature the human reason meets another rea-
son, so that our knowledge of nature is dialogical.77 This recognition
implies that the natural world is a mode of discourse, in which God
reveals to humankind the mystery of the unity in the variety of all
things.78 We thus encounter an indictment of the wanton disregard
for the earth and its biosphere that humankind has been displaying
since the dawn of history.
The material reality of the world and the endless number of lo-
goi forming it are viewed by the Greek theologians as the result of
a free, creative act of God. Thus created beings have the cause and
purpose (telos) of their existence outside themselves. However, the
movement of the world toward its purpose is by no means an auto-
matic process, but only attainable through freedom.79 This is possible
because the substantial reality of created nature is manifested above
 aspects of patristic cosmology 93
all in creaturely freedom, namely the possibilities of moving toward
God or away from God. This radical freedom of created beings in-
cludes choosing the way of destruction and death, thereby commit-
ting metaphysical suicide.80
In the patristic understanding, the cosmos functions in accor-
dance with laws of nature that were established in the beginning by
God. For Origen these divinely ordained laws of nature account for
physiological changes in the human body, as well as the movements
of animals, plants, fire, and water.81 The lawfulness of the created
order was also commented on by Basil of Caesarea, who wrote that
the divine command to the earth to bring forth vegetation became
a permanent law of nature, and ever since nature has been following
it. This natural law applies not only to living beings, but equally to
inanimate objects, for example the effect of gravity.82 As argued by
Maximus the Confessor, the natural law pertains to being, just as the
scriptural law pertains to well-being and the law of grace to eternal
well-being.83
Building on the cosmological insights of Gregory of Nyssa, Au-
gustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Maximus the Confessor, the
Irish-Carolingian scholar John Scottus Eriugena constructed a wide-
ranging, theistic cosmology in his Periphyseon (subtitled On the Divi-
sion of Nature). Therein he postulated a fourfold division of nature
that encompasses all that is and that is not: that nature that is uncre-
ated and creates (God as beginning of all things), that nature that is
created and creates (the invisible primordial causes), that nature that
is created and does not create (the visible effects of the causes), and
finally that nature that is uncreated and does not create (God as end
of all things).84 Accordingly, all of created nature (i.e., the primor-
dial causes and their effects) is a theophany, or God-appearance.85 In
other words, the cosmos is a manifestation of God, without being
itself God.
94 logos

The Unity of Creation

Some of the Greek theologians viewed the world as containing a
seminal force through which God calls the immense variety of life-
forms to unfold, from the elements through plants and animals to
humans. In the words of Basil of Caesarea, the divine command Let
the earth bring forth became an elaborate system imposed on the
earth, displaying the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds,
and trees. Basil continues, Thus nature, receiving the impulse of this
first command, follows without interruption the course of ages, until
the consummation of all things.86 His brother Gregory of Nyssa ar-
gued that from the single divine creative volition outside time sprang
instantaneously the seminal (spermatikai) potentialities of all things,
which develop without further divine intervention successively into
all the phenomena that constitute the world.87 Gregory Palamas rea-
soned similarly that God created out of nothing the heavens and the
earth as a kind of all-embracing material substance with the potenti-
ality of giving birth to all things. Therefore the earth and the water
were pregnant with the various species of plants and animals.88
A number of patristic theologians also taught that the universe
and time unfold together from their joint creation by God. In this
respect they again built on the teaching of Plato, who wrote in the
Timaeus that the Demiurge created time as a moving image of eter-
nity.89 Therefore, the Athenian philosopher continues, Time, then,
came to be together with the universe so that just as they were be-
gotten together, they might also be undone together, should there
ever be an undoing of them.90 Basil of Caesarea affirmed that the
succession of time was created with a nature analogous to that of the
cosmos and the life in it. The fleeting nature of time is strikingly de-
picted by the Greek theologian: Is this not the nature of time, where
the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes
before being recognised? And such also is the nature of the creature
which lives in time.91
Similarly, for Augustine time began with creation, both coming
 aspects of patristic cosmology 95
from God. And ever since, Time brings about the development of
these creatures according to the laws of their numbers.92 Dionysius
the Areopagite remarked that time is related to the process of change,
for instance birth, death, and variety. Thus in the scriptures eternity
is the abode of being, whereas time is the abode of becoming.93 Here
the Areopagite evokes the Platonist distinction between being and
becoming, which coincides with the intelligible and sensible realms.
A significant aspect of patristic cosmology is that creation is seen
as an organic whole, because the cosmos arose through the will of
God. Origen employs anthropological imagery in this regard, rea-
soning that just as the human body is provided with many members,
which are held together by one soul, so the whole world should be
regarded as some huge and immense animal, which is kept together
by the power and reason of God as by one soul.94 Therefore, Nem-
esius of Emesa argued, a continuity runs through the whole, linking
everything from the inanimate mineral to the rational human.95

Epilogue
The patristic theologians never saw the study of nature as an end in
itself, but always as a means to a higher end. Origen, for instance,
wrote in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, The human mind should
mount to spiritual understanding, and seek the ground of things in
heaven.96 As summarized by D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, The Greek fa-
thers, for all their intense appreciation of nature, for all their interest
in the structures and processes of nature and their insistence upon
nature as a means by which God reveals his nature, nevertheless hold
that God and nature are not identical, and that the mind must pen-
etrate nature to find God.97
The patristic theologians thus continued the tension that was al-
ready evident in the New Testament between appreciation of nature
on one hand and a refusal to be seduced by its beauty on the other.98
In this way the living duality of God and creation is recognized.99
This duality of uncreated and created natures should not be con-
96 logos
fused with any kind of ontological or metaphysical dualism, since the
whole of the created order (both sensible and intelligible) receives
its existence from the Creator, and thus forms a unified cosmos, al-
beit entailing various ontological levels. That is to say, the cosmos is
a differentiated unity, and it should therefore not be conceived in
either monistic or dualistic terms.
I have attempted to sketch a broad patristic consensus on vari-
ous aspects of Christian cosmology, without wishing to ignore the
existence of differences between the Greek and Latin traditions.
For instance, there is no uncreated supernatural in the Christian
East; the Western Christian realm of the supernatural is none other
than the uncreated divine energies. Furthermore, God is the cause
of grace in the Christian West; in the Eastern Christian view, God is
the cause of creation, while grace refers to his self-manifesting ener-
gies.100 However, not too much reliance should be placed on termi-
nology, since different terms are often used to depict the same real-
ity. One may think in this regard of the Latin conception of God as
one substance in three persons, contrasted with the Greek doctrine
of one divine essence in three hypostases. Moreover, if one reads the
mystical literature on both sides, the theological differences often
become obscure in the face of similar personal experiences of the
divine energies.

Notes
1. John Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, ed. and trans. George Dra-
gas (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2004), 5, 9.
2. Philip Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition (Lim-
ni, Greece: Denise Harvey, 2002), 32.
3. The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha, ed. M. Jack Suggs, Kath-
arine Doob Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller (New York: Oxford University Press,
1992), 11.
4. Graham Castleman, Cosmogony and Salvation: The Christian Rejection of Uncre-
ated Matter, Sophia:The Journal of Traditional Studies 9, no. 2 (2004): 11718.
5. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, trans. Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-
Watson (Crestwood, NY: St .Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1978), 5154.
 aspects of patristic cosmology 97
6. Georges Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, The Collected Works of Georges
Florovsky,Volume III: Creation and Redemption (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976), 46.
7. Justin Martyr, First Apology X & LIX; Castleman, Cosmogony and Salvation, 117.
8. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book II.10, II.13, The Patristic Understanding of
Creation: An Anthology of Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design, ed. Wil-
liam Dembski, Wayne Downs, and Fr. Justin Frederick (Riesel, TX: Erasmus Press,
2008).
9. Castleman, Cosmogony and Salvation, 123.
10. Henry Chadwick, Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought, The Cambridge
History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), 171.
11. Castleman, Cosmogony and Salvation, 115.
12. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book II.XXVIII, in Patristic Understanding.
13. Chadwick, Philo, 189.
14. Origen, On First Principles, Book II.1.4, in Patristic Understanding.
15. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word II.3, 4 & III.1, in Patristic Understanding.
16. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II.2, in Patris-
tic Understanding.
17. John Scottus Eriugena, Periphyseon (On the Division of Nature), Book III, 63481, trans.
I. P. Sheldon-Williams (Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1968, 1972, 1981).
18. Dermot Moran, The Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena: A Study of Idealism in the Middle
Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 230.
19. Castleman, Cosmogony and Salvation, 120.
20. Ibid., 125, 127.
21. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 45.
22. Paul Ciholas, Plato: the Attic Moses? Some Patristic Reactions to Platonic Philoso-
phy, The Classical World 72, no. 4 (1978): 22425.
23. Commentary on Canticles iii.2; D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, The Greek Patristic View of Nature
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968), 12021.
24. Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 38; John Chryssavgis, Beyond the Shattered Image (Min-
neapolis: Light & Life, 1999), 133.
25. Alexei Nesteruk, Light from the East:Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 34.
26. Ibid., 3436.
27. Lossky, Orthodox Theology, 62.
28. Deirdre Carabine, John Scottus Eriugena (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),
29.
29. Wallace-Hadrill, Greek Patristic View, 12829.
30. Philip Sherrard, Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1998), 24041.
31. Aristotle, Metaphysics Book XII, 1071b, The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard
McKeon, trans. W. D. Ross (New York: Modern Library, 2001).
98 logos
32. Romanides, Outline, 5, 7.
33. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 6465.
34. David Bradshaw, The Concept of the Divine Energies (2006), 10. http://www.uky
.edu/~dbradsh/papers/Concept%20of%20the20Divine20Energies.doc
35. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 68.
36. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. anonymous (Cam-
bridge: James Clarke, 1991), 74.
37. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science, 8587, The Philokalia,
Vol. 4, trans. and ed. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London:
Faber & Faber, 1995).
38. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 65.
39. Palamas, Topics, 68, 78, 92, 93.
40. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 67.
41. Romanides, Outline, 11.
42. Bradshaw, Divine Energies, 11.
43. Chryssavgis, Beyond, 86.
44. Frithjof Schuon, From the Divine to the Human: Survey of Metaphysics and Epistemology,
trans. Gustavo Polit and Deborah Lambert (Bloomington: World Wisdom Books,
1982), 2526, 47.
45. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 66.
46. Palamas, Topics, 133, 140, 150.
47. Sherrard, Lineaments, 241.
48. Dionysius the Areopagite, Divine Names 4:1 & 4:2, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete
Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987).
49. Ibid., 5:5, 8.
50. Ibid., 13:2.
51. Palamas, Topics, 1, 2.
52. Lossky, Mystical Theology, 9293.
53. Wallace-Hadrill, Greek Patristic View, 108.
54. Eriugena, Periphyseon Book III, 63637.
55. Chryssavgis, Beyond, 123.
56. Basil of Caesarea, Homilies on the Hexaemeron III.10, in Patristic Understanding.
57. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 59.
58. Dionysius, Divine Names, 5: 8.
59. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 61.
60. Ibid., 60.
61. Palamas, Topics, 137.
62. I. P. Sheldon-Williams, The Greek Christian Platonist Tradition from the Cappado-
cians to Maximus and Eriugena, The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medi-
eval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967),
43031, 459.
63. Carabine, Eriugena, 53.
 aspects of patristic cosmology 99
64. Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian Platonist Tradition, 49296.
65. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 51.
66. Lossky, Mystical Theology, 98.
67. Lossky, Orthodox Theology, 56.
68. Nesteruk, Light from the East, 36.
69. Ibid., 251.
70. Chryssavgis, Beyond, 57.
71. Lossky, Mystical Theology, 98.
72. Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian Platonist Tradition, 49798.
73. Chryssavgis, Beyond, 58.
74. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 43.
75. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man XVI.12, in Patristic Understanding.
76. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II.3 & II.6, in
Patristic Understanding.
77. Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith
Schramm (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 4041.
78. Sherrard, Lineaments, 240.
79. Yannaras, Elements of Faith, 4648.
80. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 4849.
81. Wallace-Hadrill, Greek Patristic View, 10405.
82. Basil, Hexaemeron V.1, V.10, IX.2, in Patristic Understanding.
83. Maximus the Confessor, To Thalassius 64, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected
writings from St Maximus the Confessor, trans. Paul Blowers and Robert Wilken (Crest-
wood: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003).
84. Eriugena, Periphyseon Book I, 44142.
85. Ibid., Book I, 449.
86. Basil, Hexaemeron V.10, in Patristic Understanding.
87. Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian Platonist Tradition, 447.
88. Palamas, Topics, 21.
89. Plato, Timaeus 37d, Collected Works, ed. John M. Cooper, trans. Donald J. Zeyl (In-
dianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997).
90. Ibid., 38b.
91. Basil, Hexaemeron I.6, in Patristic Understanding.
92. Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis IV.52, V.12, in Patristic Understanding.
93. Dionysius, Divine Names, 10:3.
94. Origen, On First Principles, Book II.3.
95. Nemesius of Emesa, On human nature V.25; Wallace-Hadrill, Greek Patristic View, 103.
96. Chryssavgis, Beyond, 75.
97. Wallace-Hadrill, Greek Patristic View, 129.
98. Ibid., 130.
99. Florovsky, Creation and Creaturehood, 47.
100. Lossky, Mystical Theology, 88.