Bede : Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. The Epicureans, following the slowness of their teacher, placed human happiness solely in bodily pleasure, while the Stoics placed it solely in the virtue of the soul. Although they disagreed among themselves, they unanimously attacked the Apostle because he taught that man consisted of both soul and body and therefore should be happy in both; but this would be achieved neither in the present time nor by human virtue, but by the grace of God through Jesus Christ in the glory of the resurrection. — Commentary on Acts Bede : What does this idle babbler want to say? Rightly is he called an idle babbler, that is, σπερμόλογος, because the word of God is a seed. And Paul the Apostle himself says: "If we have sown spiritual things among you," etc. (1 Cor. 9). — Commentary on Acts Bede : And some were saying: What does this word-seedling want to say? Concerning this name, Saint Augustine said: "We read," he said, "that the apostle Paul was called a seed-sower of words. It was indeed said by those mocking, but it should not be rejected by those who believe. For he was truly a seed-sower of words, but a reaper of conduct. And although we are so small, and by no means comparable to his excellence, in the field of God, which is your heart, we sow the word of God and expect an abundant harvest of your conduct." — Retractions on Acts Clement of Alexandria : "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ;" branding not all philosophy, but the Epicurean, which Paul mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, which abolishes providence and deifies pleasure, and whatever other philosophy honours the elements, but places not over them the efficient cause, nor apprehends the Creator. — The Stromata Book 1 John Chrysostom : By the term resurrection the Athenians understood a god, for they were accustomed even to worship females.… They called their gods daimones, for their cities were full of daimones. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 17.18 John Chrysostom : It is a wonder the philosophers did not laugh him to scorn, speaking in the way he did. "And some said, What does this babbler mean to say?" insolently, on the instant: this is far from philosophy. "Other some said, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods," from the preaching, because he had no arrogance. They did not understand, nor comprehend the subjects he was speaking of - how should they? affirming as they did, some of them, that God is a body; others, that pleasure is the true happiness. "Of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the Resurrection": for in fact they supposed "Anastasis" (the Resurrection) to be some deity, being accustomed to worship female divinities also. — Homily on Acts 38 John Chrysostom : "And certain philosophers," etc. How came they to be willing to confer with him? They did it when they saw others reasoning, and the man having repute in the encounter. And observe straightway with overbearing insolence, "some said, What would this babbler say? For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit." Other some, He seemeth to be a setter-forth of strange deities: for so they called their gods. — Homily on Acts 38 Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius : If any master has in his household a good and a bad servant, it is evident that he does not hate them both, or confer upon both benefits and honours; for if he does this, he is both unjust and foolish. But he addresses the one who is good with friendly words, and honours him and sets him over his house and household, and all his affairs; but punishes the bad one with reproaches, with stripes, with nakedness, with hunger, with thirst, with fetters: so that the latter may be an example to others to keep them from sinning, and the former to conciliate them; so that fear may restrain some, and honour may excite others. He, therefore, who loves also hates, and he who hates also loves; for there are those who ought to be loved, and there are those who ought to be hated. And as he who loves confers good things on those whom he loves, so he who hates inflicts evils upon those whom he hates; which argument, because it is true, can in no way be refuted. Therefore the opinion of those is vain and false, who, when they attribute the one to God, take away the other, not less than the opinion of those who take away both. But the latter, as we have shown, in part do not err, but retain that which is the better of the two; whereas the former, led on by the accurate method of their reasoning, fall into the greatest error, because they have assumed premises which are altogether false. — A Treatise on the Anger of God, Chapter V Oecumenius : The Epicureans held that the universe is spontaneous and composed of atoms; the Stoics, that it is a body undergoing fire. Some of these, extremely conceited about their knowledge, senselessly mocking the divine Paul with the taunt, "What does this seed-picker want to say?" (for they called the seed-picker a little and lowly bird, fit neither for food nor for pleasure, accustomed to pick up seeds cast down in the crossroads, and therefore named the lowly and unworthy); and they said he was a proclaimer of foreign divinities, since he preached Jesus and the resurrection. For they even supposed the resurrection to be some kind of god, as they were accustomed to worship female deities; for they called their gods demons. — Commentary on Acts