Each of the titles employed by me is indivisible
and inseparable from its neighbour. I spoke of the
Father, and before introducing the Son I implied
Him, too, in the Father. I introduced the Son:
even if I had not already mentioned the Father He
would, of course, have been presupposed in the Son.
I added the Holy Spirit: but at the same time I
intimated both from Whom and through Whom[257]
He came. But they are not aware that the Father
is not separated from the Son qua Father—for the
title (Father) is suggestive of such connexion (as Son
with Father)—nor is the Son cut off from the Father;
for the appellation “Father” denotes their common
bond. And the Spirit is the object of their dealings,[258]
being incapable of desertion by either Him that sends,
or Him that conveys. How then can I, who use
these titles, hold that They are wholly divided and
separated?[259]
[1]In one of Eusebius’s works (the
Præparatio Evangelica)
he is quoted side by side with great authors like Plato and
Aristotle.
[2]Most of those who read this will be aware that
παῖς
(Lat.
puer) can be used in various senses, like our
“boy” and French
garçon.
[3]Not
the Prefect of Egypt of that name mentioned by Dionysius on
p. 46,
though he did afterwards try to usurp the throne (see
p. 16).
[4]For
Dionysius’s share in this dispute see his letter on
p. 50.
[5]Dionysius’s
phrase about him on
p. 66
is “tutor and chief ruler of Egyptian magicians”;
see note 3
in loco.
[6]This
Æmilianus was one of several who afterwards
attempted to seize the throne; see above,
p. 14.
Macrianus was another of them in Egypt
(
p. 68, n.).
[7]The office indicated seems to be
the same as that of
Rationalis mentioned above on
p. 16.
[8]I
was much assisted in drawing up this summary of
περὶ Φύσεως
and also in writing the notes upon the extracts from the
text by Professor H. Jackson, of Cambridge fame.
[9]The particular passage,
however, adduced by Procopius above is
Gen. iii. 21.
[10]On this point C. H. Turner’s article in Hastings’s
Dictionary
of the Bible, Vol. V, pp. 496 f. (on Patristic Commentaries),
may be consulted.
[11]The passage on
Luke xxii,
quoted by Dr. Sanday (
Inspiration, p. 36), is of very
doubtful authenticity.
[12]“Martyr”
in this case need not necessarily be taken strictly as meaning
“one put to death for the Faith,” though no doubt
the mediæval tradition was in favour of his martyrdom
in that sense.
[13]It looks as if Dionysius was afraid to mention his name.
Perhaps it was Sabinus the Prefect. The word “poet” in
Greek means properly “maker,” and there is evidently a
double entendre in its use here.
[14]i. e. against Christ
(
1 Cor. xii. 3).
[15]The reference is to
Heb. x. 34.
It will be noticed that Dionysius attributes this Epistle to S. Paul,
either inadvertently or in accordance with the Alexandrine tradition,
which Origen also accepts
(Eus.,
H. E., vi. 25).
[16]Viz. the revolt of Decius in Oct. 249.
[17]i. e. Philip the Arabian, who was popularly supposed to
be half a Christian.
[18]The reference is obviously to
Matt. xxiv. 24 (
Mark xiii. 22)
though Dionysius has substituted “cause to stumble”
(
σκανδαλίσαι)
for “cause to go astray”
(
πλανῆσαι
or
ἀποπλανᾶν).
[19]The reference is very loosely to
Matt. xix. 23 and 25.
[20]Viz. those who held no prominent position; the ordinary
folk.
[22]Cp.
Acts xxviii. 23 and
Rev. i. 9.
[23]There is evidently an
allusion here to
Matt. v. 11 and
Luke vi. 22.
[24]Viz. the
ungulæ,
with which the flesh was torn from the
bones.
[25]Only three
are mentioned in the text.
[26]i. e. some time between 251, when persecution ended
with the death of Decius, and 257, when Valerian revived it.
[27]The first was a martial
offence, the second a civil.
[28]i. e. by being allowed
to follow Christ’s example.
[29]This was the
catasta, or platform,
which corresponded to our prisoner’s dock.
[30]Dionysius’s language recalls
2 Cor. ii. 14;
Col. ii. 15
is different.
[32]i. e.
they showed themselves worthy of being among the elect.
[33]A
range of hills to the east of the Nile seems to have been so
called.
[34]On the marriage of the clergy
at this time, see Bingham,
Antiq., IV, v. § 5.
[35]This is probably
the earliest extant mention of the Saracens—at least by
that name.
[36]The opinion that the
martyrs passed at once to heaven and shared His throne was general
among the early Fathers (see
Matt. xix. 28 and
1 Cor. vi. 2, 3).
[37]Cp.
Ezek. xviii. 23,
xxxiii. 11,
2 Pet. iii. 9.
[38]These
expressions are not to be pressed as if they assumed
episcopal authority.
[40]i. e. in October 249.
[41]The Prefect of Egypt.
[42]This was a kind of soldier employed
on secret service
by the emperors and their provincial governors.
[43]Probably his sons, though
they might be his pupils or his servants.
[45]Whether Timotheus was making off to join Dionysius or
was fleeing in another direction is not clear.
[47]Dionysius’s language here recalls
2 Cor. xi. 1, 17, 21 and
xii. 6, 11.
[48]Viz.
Tobit xii. 7, where the
best attested reading is “to reveal gloriously,”
instead of “(it is) glorious to reveal.”
[49]The Prefect of Egypt at that time.
[50]Though
Dionysius was Bishop, it is noticeable that he still associates
himself with the presbyterate here and elsewhere; cp.
1 Pet. v. 1, etc.
[52]Marcellus
seems to be the “brother from Rome” mentioned
above, and Eusebius is not now mentioned.
[53]The word
“also” either refers to the imperial edict or
suggests that some written communication had been sent.
[54]Viz.
Valerian and his son Gallienus.
[55]Cp.
1 Tim. ii. 2;
this laudable custom is often referred
to in early Christian writings.
[56]This
restriction was constantly enforced by persecuting
emperors, because the graves of martyrs were a favourite
resort for prayer and worship. The word cemetery (=sleeping-place)
was introduced by Christians for graveyards.
[57]This
is an indignant protest against Germanus’s charges.
[61]The brethren who lived on the outskirts of a city
like Alexandria were not bound to attend the mother church,
but had as it were chapels of ease in their own vicinities.
[62]Or perhaps “carried on” (to act as
thou didst).
[63]Strictly speaking, Novatian’s withdrawal
was not very likely to involve actual martyrdom.
[64]The word is
κατόρθωμα
(success); perhaps “recovery” would bring out
the antithesis to “fall”
(
σφάλμα)
better.
[66]Another reading gives “blessed”
(
μακάριος),
which, though less well supported by the MSS., makes the phrase
μακαρίως ἀνεπαύσατο
more pointed.
[67]This expression probably means to
include the Churches of Mesopotamia and Osroene, besides those
which he proceeds to mention below.
[68]Eusebius is mistaken in identifying this peace with the
cessation of persecution: the reference is to the subsiding
of the Novatianist schism in 254 which restored peace to
Christendom. The surprise and joy were due to the violence
of the language and other measures which the chief combatants
(Stephen and Cyprian) had employed.
[69]Hadrian’s colony in Mount Sion was so named
(
A.D. 132). Later on the older and more glorious name
of Jerusalem was restored to the see.
[70]Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia
(†
A.D. 260), and one
of Origen’s distinguished pupils. On the baptismal controversy
he sided with Cyprian of Carthage.
[71]The adroit reference to the wonted liberality of the
Roman Church is to be noted: other instances are given by
Salmon,
Infallibility, p. 375.
[72]Here again
Dionysius shows his adroitness, if Benson (
Cyprian, p. 357)
is right in thinking that the list of churches
he gives suggests a repetition of the Pentecostal outpouring
of the Holy Ghost (
Acts ii. 9 f.).
[75]The word here used represents
μυστήριον,
denoting the
Christian revelation as
μυστήριον
often does.
[76]Cf.
1 Cor. xvi. 22 and
Gal. i. 8, 9.
[77]The former are converts
from heathenism, or perhaps from heresy; the latter Christians
who have lapsed.
[78]The word here is the Greek
χειροτονία
in Syriac letters, and so might also be rendered
“ordination.”
[79]The
MSS. from which this extract comes state that it is
from a letter to Dionysius and Stephanus of Rome. No such
letter is otherwise known, and it is not likely that Stephen’s
name would come second, as he was then bishop and Dionysius
only a presbyter, though later on he became bishop. Possibly
it is from the letter which our Dionysius tells us he wrote
to his Roman namesake and Philemon when they were of
the same opinion as Stephen:
see
p. 55.
As far as the contents of the extract go, it is not at all incredible
that Dionysius was willing to admit the validity of such baptisms
as are specified: it was only heresies of a very fundamental
kind which he considered to invalidate baptism.
[80]The successor to Stephanus in 257 as Bishop of Rome: he was martyred after one year’s reign.
[81]This was, according to Benson
(
Cyprian, p. 354), a threat
which he did not actually carry into effect, and was only
meant to restrain them from adopting Cyprian’s attitude on
the matter.
[82]i. e.
those of Iconium and Synnada (
circ. 230): Dionysius
may also be referring to the three much more recent councils
which Cyprian had held at Carthage between 254 and 256
(
i. e. since his letter to Stephen above). By this time he had
by patient inquiry found out much more than he had known
at first of what was necessary to be known before coming to
a decision.
[83]Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11
and
v. 7, 8.
[84]See
note on p. 54.
Dionysius became afterwards Bishop
of Rome in 259: a fragment of a letter from our Dionysius
to him is printed on
p. 58.
His famous letter to our Dionysius
on the Sabellian controversy is not included in this volume.
Part of a letter to Philemon is given on
p. 56.
He was a Roman Presbyter.
[85]On the north-west coast of Cyrenaica, one of
the five chief cities which gave its name to the Libyan Pentapolis.
Sabellius denied the three Persons in the Trinity, and held
that the Person of the Father who is One with the Son was
incarnate in Christ: see further
p. 19.
[86]There seems no doubt that
this is the right reading here,
though most of the MSS. read “God the Father and our
Lord Jesus Christ”; but clearly Dionysius is only speaking
of God the Father in this clause and of Jesus Christ in the
next. See
2 Cor. i. 2,
Eph. i. 3, etc.
[87]It was Dionysius’s treatment of this subject which
afterwards gave Arius the heresiarch of Alexandria an opening
for claiming his teaching in support of his own tenets,
though there is no Arian suggestion, of course, in this phrase:
see
p. 20.
[89]Eus.,
H. E. vii. 26,
mentions letters to Ammonius, Bishop
of Bernice, Telesphorus Euphranor and Euporus in this
connexion. Athanasius appears only to have known one
joint letter to Ammonius and Euphranor.
[90]Dionysius seems to distinguish here two kinds
of writings: (1) those that were based on systematic research and
criticism, and (2) those that handed on the more traditional and less
critical views and statements of the past.
[91]Divine interposition is more vaguely suggested above on
p. 44.
S. Augustine’s statement should also be compared,
that at a critical moment of his conversion he heard a voice
saying, “Take and read”
(
Conf. vii. 12, § 29);
S. Polycarp
likewise heard a voice from heaven saying, “Be strong and
play the man,” as he was led into the arena.
[93]This
is one of the more common apocryphal sayings usually attributed
to our Lord: hence the epithet “apostolic”
is somewhat strange.
[94]The word for “Father” here is
πὰπας
(pope), a colloquial form of
πατήρ
applied to any bishop (or even to one of the
inferior clergy sometimes) in the first ages. For Heraclas
see
p. 11.
It is to be noticed, however, that this canon of
his dealt not with heretical baptism (such as Dionysius is
dealing with), but with actual or reputed perverts, and
stated the terms on which they were to be restored to the
Church of their baptism.
[95]i. e. the Church in Africa Proconsularis,
of which Carthage was the metropolis and Cyprian
the metropolitan.
[96]Iconium was the
chief city of Lycaonia (see
Acts xiii.
and
xiv.), and Synnada was an important town in Phrygia
Salutaris. These synods had been held some twenty-five
years before (in
A.D. 230).
[99]A confession of faith has always been
required before baptism: this Novatian virtually ignored by his
action.
[100]Here as elsewhere Dionysius shows his breadth of view
about God in recognizing that the Holy Spirit might in
some measure remain even with the lapsed.
[101]It is
strange that so old a believer should never have
noticed the difference before, but baptism was almost entirely
confined at that time to Easter and Whitsuntide, and he may
have always been absent.
[102]Cp.
1 Cor. xiv. 16. The Amen is either that after the
Consecration of the Elements or at the Reception of them.
[103]“Standing” was, and is still, the posture
in the East: Scudamore,
Not. Euch., p. 637.
[104]A somewhat rare word for “Altar” without some
descriptive epithet like “holy” or “mystic.”
[105]The
Consistentes were the last
order of penitents, who were allowed to remain after the dismissal
of the catechumens and other penitents, but did not join in the
oblation or communion itself: cf. Canons of Nicæa, No. xi.
[106]The letter from which this is supposed to be an extract is said by Eusebius (
H. E. vi. 46, 2) to have been on the subject of Repentance, and may possibly be “the instruction” which Dionysius says he had given on
p. 42 above.
[107]Viz. under the
impression that they were going to die.
[108]i. e. after
thus pledging ourselves to them.
[109]Cf.
1 Pet. ii. 3, where
Ps.
xxxiii. (xxxiv.) 9 is quoted.
[110]Cf.
1 Tim. iii. 7, etc.
[111]The reference
is to
Luke xv. 4 ff. and
Ezek. xxxiv. 6, etc.
[112]Dionysius
is thinking perhaps of the story in
Tobit v. 6,
where Raphael becomes the companion of Tobit’s son Tobias
on his journey.
[113]On the principle that
“charity thinketh no evil ... but hopeth all things”
(
1 Cor. xiii.): similar but not identical
phrases (in words or sense) are found
1 Cor. xvi. 17,
2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9,
Phil. ii. 30, and
Col. i. 24.
[114]The difficulties of soldiers becoming
and remaining Christians were peculiarly great under the early
Emperors.
[115]That is, some had not yet been called
upon to be actual martyrs, Dionysius among them who was still
in exile.
[117]These were the same civil officials as those mentioned in
Acts vi. 20 at Philippi, with their servants,
there called lictors
(
ῥαβδοῦχοι):
the soldiers belonged to the centurion, of course.
[119]Including Timotheus who had been the means of his
escape.
[120]A
town on the coast 150 miles west of Alexandria.
[121]He and
the three deacons have already been mentioned on
p. 46.
They must have left Dionysius when he went into exile and returned
to Alexandria.
[122]“In the island,” according to
Rufinus’s version, but it
is not clear what island he means: the pestilence is probably
one of those frequent epidemics which devastated North
Africa and other districts of the empire.
[123]The epithet “perfect,” though applied to
believers generally in the New Testament
(
Matt. v. 28, etc.), was later
specially used of martyrs.
[124]Gallus succeeded to the empire
on the death of Decius
and his sons in 251, and reigned till 253, when it was wrested
from him by Æmilian, who was in turn ousted by Valerian
after four months’ rule. Dionysius makes no mention of
this episode, though he does of Macrian’s attempt later.
[125]The quotation is
from
Rev. xiii. 5, but the last words
follow a reading which has no support in the MSS. It
should also be noticed that Dionysius does not think it at
all certain that the author of the Revelation is the Evangelist:
see
p. 86.
[126]Valerian reigned from 253 till his disappearance
in 260. The duration of the persecution was forty-two months, from
before midsummer 257 till late in 260.
[127]Here the
expression means Christians generally, not
prophets or clergy as often.
[128]Alexander
Severus and Philip the Arabian are no doubt meant.
[129]Compare such expressions in
S. Paul’s letters as
Rom. xvi. 5,
1 Cor. xvi. 11, etc.
[130]No doubt Macrianus is meant, who is
mentioned further
on, but it is difficult to account for the exact epithets which
Dionysius here applies to him. Apparently he had been
Valerian’s tutor in some kind of magic, and had allied himself
somehow with the Jewish colony in Alexandria (hence
ἀρχισυνάγωγος),
who would, of course, be hostile to the Christians.
[131]Christian
exorcists must be meant, though the claim to
supernatural powers which Dionysius makes for them is
sufficiently remarkable.
[132]This
was a frequent charge against the Christians themselves.
Here Dionysius turns it against their persecutors in Egypt.
[133]It is very difficult, without a knowledge of Latin
and Greek, to understand Dionysius’s play on words throughout
this section. The office which Macrianus held was that of,
in Latin,
Rationalis or Procurator summæ rei, in Greek
ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λόγων
(something like our Chancellor of the
Exchequer): hence Dionysius says he was not
rational (or
reasonable) in his treatment of the Christians and showed
no
catholic spirit towards them.
[134]Ezek. xiii. 3. Dionysius
takes the last phrase
(
τὸ καθόλου),
as if it was the object of the verb, not an adverb,
in order to suit his argument.
[135]This may perhaps mean that besides his other faults
Macrianus was tainted with the atheistic views of the
Epicureans, while Dionysius also alludes in this sentence to
the accounts which Macrianus would have to present to the
Emperor of his own administration.
[136]Cf.
Eph. iv. 6 and
Col. i. 17.
[137]Another play on words, as if
Macrianus was derived from the Greek
μακρός
(far off), which is somewhat doubtful.
[138]Is. lxvi. 3, 4 (LXX).
Here the reference is to Valerian
falling into the hands of Sapor, the Persian King, who inflicted
grievous insults upon him, and kept him in captivity
till his death.
[139]Macrianus
was lame of one leg. After Valerian’s defeat
and disappearance (in 260), for which he was himself largely
responsible, Macrianus and his two sons, Macrianus junior
and Quietus, made an abortive attempt to seize the throne,
which was soon defeated.
[141]The two Macriani were defeated and
slain by Aureolus, another usurper, in Illyricum, and Quietus
was put to death in the East.
[142]Dionysius is still
speaking of Macrianus, who had incited Valerian to attack the
Persians, and then had himself attacked Gallienus and tried to
usurp the throne.
[143]Is. xlii. 9, but Dionysius
has substituted, for the last phrase, a phrase from
xliii. 19. The original prophecy
applies to the triumph of Cyrus and the conversion of the world to
the worship of Jehovah. Its application in the text strikes
us to-day as too fanciful.
[144]Whether Gallienus himself
was really a Christian is very
doubtful, but his wife, Cornelia Salonina, seems to have
been.
[145]This is a very obscure calculation, but the upshot of
it may be as follows: Gallienus was associated with his father
Valerian as Emperor seven years (253-60), then Macrianus
usurped the power (in Egypt) for one year, or rather more;
thus Gallienus regained the power in his ninth year (
i. e. after
midsummer 261). Gallienus’s original Edict of Peace was
issued in Oct. 260, but the Rescript applying it to Egypt
was delayed for some time. The Easter festival for which
this letter was written, therefore, must have been that of 262.
[148]I
have translated the Berlin editor’s reading here, as
being the least unsatisfactory of those proposed. Others
give a text which may be rendered: “I would this were all:
for the things that befell us before drove us into many
grievous troubles.” But the exact meaning is doubtful,
however we take it.
[149]This epithet for martyrs has already occurred on
p. 64.
[150]This
is none other than a quotation from Pericles’s speech
about the plague at Athens in Thucyd. ii. 64, though in
Dionysius’s original phrase it sounds as if he meant some
local minor historian.
[151]The word Dionysius
uses here is the same as S. Paul, uses
(
1 Cor. iv. 13:
περίψημα,
offscouring). It is said to
have been used at Athens of the human scapegoats thrown
into the river in time of famine: “Be thou my expiation
(
περίψημα).”
Elsewhere it seems to have degenerated into a
sort of extravagant compliment: “I am your humble servant
(
περίψημα).”
Dionysius suggests it might regain its
more serious meaning in the present case.
[152]Here
again Dionysius uses an expression suggested by
S. Paul in
Phil. iii. 8.
[153]It is
not clear whether Dionysius actually alludes here
to the well-protected harbours of Alexandria or (more loosely)
to the Lake Mareotis: probably to the former, because the canal
he refers to in the next sentence (though he calls it a river)
was cut from the Nile into one of the harbours and passed at the
back of the city between it and the Lake Mareotis.
[154]Cf. Ps. lxxvii. 13,
cxxxvi. 4, and
Wisd. xi. 4. The
whole passage, of course, refers to
Exod. xiv.
and
xvii.
[155]Cf.
Exod. vii. 20, 21.
[156]i. e. if the biggest
river and the ocean itself, as he proceeds
exaggeratedly to claim, cannot do so, what other
cleansing can there be?
[157]Cf. Gen. ii. 10 ff.
Dionysius evidently adopts the later
Jewish view that the Gihon was the Nile, Æthiopia (or Cush)
being identified with Egypt.
[158]The meaning of the phrase employed by Dionysius
here (“hale old men”) comes from Homer,
Il. xxiii. 791 (cf. Virg.,
Æn. vi. 304);
but elsewhere a very similar phrase seems to suggest “a cruel,
untimely old age.”
[159]Evidently at Alexandria (the
capital of that country which was the chief granary of Rome) either
the necessitous citizens or perhaps all between forty and seventy
were entitled to receive doles of corn; but now the relief was
extended to all ages between fourteen and eighty.
[160]Either the
heathen are meant, who ought to tremble and
be convinced, or the Christians, who were too courageous
through trust in God to tremble.
[161]The last sentence
is involved and obscure. I am not sure that my paraphrase
rightly expresses the thought.
[162]I have
adopted our modern mode of expression, but in
the early Church Pascha was often used for the fast which
receded Easter as well as for the feast itself, and that is
how Dionysius uses it here.
[163]i. e. at
3 a.m. on Easter Day, the traditional hour of our Lord’s
Resurrection, especially in the West.
[164]i. e. at 6 p.m. on Easter Eve.
[165]“All,”
i. e. “who came,”
or perhaps “all the four evangelists.” The
“difference” is not really confined to
the time, but to the parties which came, the other devout
women coming later than the two Marys.
[166]The four
references are to
Matt. xxviii. 1,
John xx. 1,
Luke xxiv. 1, and
Mark xvi. 2.
[167]Cf.
John ix. 5, etc.
[168]The Council
in Trullo
(
A.D. 680) accepted this second
meaning and consented to Dionysius’s ruling on the point
raised without reserve.
[169]Dionysius thinks that
S. Matthew’s account, with which S. John’s tallies,
speaks of the two Marys coming to look at
the tomb about midnight on Easter eve or morning, while
S. Luke and S. Mark mentioned certain women who arrived
at the tomb somewhat later, when the sun had just risen,
but one at least of the Marys mentioned by S. Matthew is
identical with one of those mentioned by S. Mark and
apparently by S. Luke. Possibly, however, Dionysius means
that the two Marys took part in both visits to the tomb.
Dr. Swete on S. Mark and Dr. Westcott on S. John should
be consulted by any one who wishes to pursue the question
further.
[170]i. e. as on the former occasion mentioned by S.
Matthew and S. Mark.
[171]The
author of this saying (which is equivalent to our proverb,
“A miss is as good as a mile”) is not known. Basil
(
de Baptism. ii. i) quotes something like it, but with a
different turn, and he, too, attributes it to “one of our
wise men,” but perhaps he is only referring to Dionysius in
this passage.
[173]He means the six days of what we call Holy Week,
but he gives no indication whether the Lenten fast was then
confined to those days in Alexandria and the Pentapolis or
lasted longer. By “equally” he proceeds to explain is
meant the length of the fasting (six days or two, and so on),
and by “similarly” the manner or degree of it (till
cockcrow or till evening).
[174]The verb used
(
ὑπερτιθέναι,
Lat.
superponere, to exceed) is the technical one for this
prolonged fast: the ordinary fast ended at 6 p.m. and that of the
station days (Wednesday and Friday) at 3 p.m.
[175]Cf.
1 Pet. iii. 8 and
Phil. ii. 20.
[176]The expression comes from
Acts xiii. 2, where, however,
it describes a special act of worship rather than
“ministering” in general.
[177]Nepos had apparently been Bishop of Arsenoe in Egypt,
and was the author of a work
(
Ἔλεγχος Ἀλληγοριστῶν)
putting forward grossly material views of the Millennium. Dionysius
refuted it in a carefully prepared treatise in two books.
This extract is from the second book, and deals chiefly with
the authorship of the Revelation of St. John the Divine in
a way very characteristic of his large-hearted and broad-minded
spirit.
[178]Or Dionysius may mean that
he had encouraged the singing of the Psalms in service.
[179]Cf.
Tit. ii. 13,
2 Thess. ii. 8,
etc.
[180]The reference is to
2 Thess. ii. 1 and
1 John iii. 2.
[181]It does not appear to whom Dionysius addressed this
treatise, but he usually did address what he wrote to some
particular person.
[182]Here the two
offices are conjoined as in
1 Tim. v. 17.
The “teacher” as an officer of the Church is mentioned in
several of the early Church Orders.
[183]Nothing more is known of him: either he
had succeeded to the leadership since the death of Nepos, or on
this particular occasion took the lead.
[184]The allusion is probably to Gaius of Rome
and his school rather than to the Alogi, as they were called, of
the East; but both these bodies were strongly opposed to Millenarian
views.
[185]If this refers to a formal division into chapters,
it disappeared afterwards, for a new division was devised in the
sixth century, on which our present system is partly based.
[186]Dionysius plays here on the meaning
of the Greek word for Revelation,
ἀποκάλυψις,
“unveiling.” He is fond of such a device.
[187]If that is the meaning of the words employed, then
“saints”
(
ἅγιοι)
is not used in its New Testament sense for the
“faithful” generally, but a distinction is made more
like the later use of the word for those who attained higher
saintliness than the rest; but perhaps the phrase for
“churchmen” implies “clerical or ecclesiastical
persons,” and “saints” has its earlier sense.
[188]Cerinthus was the earliest exponent of Gnostic
views, and as such much abhorred by St. John the Apostle.
[189]i. e. reckoning that it is a matter where
faith rather than reason should act; or perhaps the translation
should be “giving more weight to (the author’s)
trustworthiness.”
[190]This title is to be noticed, as the author himself
never actually describes himself by it. Dionysius is much more
cautious as to the authorship than Origen, his former master,
who attributed the book to St. John the Evangelist without
hesitation, according to Eusebius,
H. E. vi. 25, 9.
[191]Rev. xxii. 7, 8:
but Dionysius has no authority for
joining the latter clause on to the former, its construction
being “it is I John who saw and heard.”
[192]i. e. the
First Epistle of St. John; the second and third
were not so described at first and rightly so.
[193]Rev. i. 1, 2.
One might almost think Dionysius was quoting from memory, for he
follows no extant text in omitting “God” before
“gave” (thus making Jesus Christ the subject and
“him” = “to John”) and “the things
which must come to pass” before “speedily”: also he
substitutes “his testimony” for “the testimony of
Jesus Christ,” though “his” still = “Jesus
Christ.”
[195]Dionysius seems to contrast the
“Divine revelation” of
the Epistle which we can trust with that of the Book so-called
about which he felt less sure.
[197]Matt. xvi. 17. Dionysius
substitutes the adjective “heavenly” for “which
is in heaven.”
[198]Rev. i. 9.
Here again the text is somewhat inaccurate “in the patience
of Jesus” having no support elsewhere.
[200]It would seem likely, but by no means
certain, that Dionysius is speaking of strictly baptismal names
here. We have very slight grounds for being sure that the custom of
connecting the giving of a name at baptism was universal as
early as this.
[201]See
Acts xii. 25 and
xiii. 5.
[203]This assertion is taken
almost verbatim from
Eus.,
H. E. iii. 39,
where a passage is also quoted from Papias in which
John the Elder is mentioned as well as John the Apostle
among the Lord’s disciples.
[204]This is the second argument which Dionysius adduces,
but he seems as if he now includes the third with it. See above.
[205]John i. 1,
and
1 John i. 1, 2.
[208]It
looks as if this phrase may be a marginal gloss on
the Light, which has crept into the text, as it occurs nowhere
in the writings of St. John nor elsewhere in the New Testament;
but the same might be said of the “adoption” below,
and one or two others of the other phrases are quite rare in St.
John’s writings, so that they may be all instances of the
thoughts, not the words being identical in the two books.
[209]The reference is to such passages as
2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.,
Gal. i. 12,
ii. 2, etc.
[210]This is the third
argument.
[211]A rather forced and fanciful statement.
Dionysius appears loosely to refer to
1 Cor. xii. 8, somewhat boldly
substituting “of speech”
(
τῆς φράσεως)
for St. Paul’s “of wisdom.”
[212]Cf.
1 Cor. xiv. 6 and 8.
[213]i. e. the results not of design but of
the fortuitous intersection of lines of causation.
[215]The argument appears to be
that, as on a small scale design is “evident in the
construction or repairing of a thing but is absent in its
decay,” so the orderly creation and maintenance of the
Universe on the large scale implies intelligent direction.
[216]Hesiod (
Works and Days, 554) is meant, but of course
100 stands here, as elsewhere, for an indefinitely large number.
[217]The point is that movement which is useful suggests
design: but as the movement of the atoms is without
design, it cannot be useful.
[218]Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) 16. Dionysius quotes the best text
here of LXX, but his application is rather obscure. Apparently
he means that the Epicureans claimed to know without
either revelation or research what the Psalmist knew only
by revelation from God.
[219]Dionysius says that even the spider has more
notion of design than the atoms, but the sarcasm is not quite to the
point.
[221]“God ever brings
like to like.”—Homer,
Od. xvii. 218,
a proverb quoted both by Plato and Aristotle.
[222]Dionysius is
probably thinking of Plato’s
Timæus 56B,
where the pyramid is said to be the geometrical shape of fire
which is the principal constituent of the bodies of the stars
(Professor H. Jackson).
[223]Dionysius is here referring to such a passage as
Gen. i. 6 ff. No doubt the ancients thought the
vault of heaven was solid, enclosing the atmosphere which covers the
earth, and that the stars were either fixed upon it or moved in
their courses on its surface.
[225]i. e. the
sun’s yearly (as opposed to its daily) course.
[226]“The righteous” here is a
very unusual equivalent for “the Christians”: it is
possible, however, that the translation
is: “however much these men disagree, being but poor creatures,
though righteous enough in their own estimate.”
[228]The idea is
of some stars being solitary, like a Greek or Roman colony
(
ἀποικία)
with a constitution of its own, and
of others grouping themselves into constellations or communities
(
συνοικία).
The colony had a founder
(
οἰκιστής),
the community or household would have some sort of controller
(
οἰκοδεσπότης).
[230]The natural motion of atoms
was downwards, but there was also a slight sideward motion, and when
they impinged a motion upwards by blows and tossings, and this
produced the shape of things. But Dionysius here says, how is that
theory consistent with the orderly march of the stars?
[231]Dionysius here plays on the derivation of
ἄτομοι,
from
τέμνειν
(= to cut).
[232]Amos iii. 3 (LXX).
The A.V. and R.V. give the more exact meaning “agreed” to
the last word.
[233]Hesiod,
Works and Days, iv. 408 and 411.
[234]Viz. the heathen, to whom the poets were to some
extent what the prophets are to us Christians.
[236]The happiness of the King of Persia was
proverbial: see Hor.,
Od. ii. 12, 21, iii. 9, 4.
[237]By
“Necessity” here Dionysius means not “Fate” in
the fatalist’s sense, but that supreme Will and Purpose of
God, which is opposed to the Epicurean doctrine of chance.
[238]The title here given
(
ὑποθῆκαι)
is not given in the list of Democritus’s works, but the
ὑπομνήματα ἠθικά
may be meant.
[239]It
is impossible to reproduce the play upon words here,
εὐτυχῆ τὴν φρόνησιν, ἐμφρονεστάτην τὴν τύχην.
The reference seems to be to such poetical passages as Soph.,
O. T. 977 ff., and Eur.,
Alc. 785 ff., where the practical wisdom
of leaving the future to take care of itself is extolled.
[240]Epicurus himself contended that by
ἡδονή
(pleasure) he meant not sensual enjoyments so much as freedom
from pain of body and from disturbance of soul
(
ἀταραξία),
the source of which was largely in the exercise of the mind and will:
see Zeller,
Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 473 ff.
[241]The words quoted
(
δωτῆρας ἐάων)
are a Homeric phrase, e. g.
Od. viii. 325 and 335.
[242]The derivation from
θέειν
is proposed by Plato,
Cratyl. 397 C: that from
θεῖναι
by Herod, ii. 52, and of the two
the latter is the more likely
(√
θε)
though Curtius suggests a root
θες
= to pray: see Peile,
Introd. to Philology, p. 37
(3rd ed., 1875).
[243]These are probably some sort of Gnostics who took over
Manichean views of God and Matter, but not of the worst
kind, for they recognized that God had the control and
disposition of matter.
[244]Some one,
i. e. who could give them the property of
being without beginning.
[245]“Different from both,”
because the being without beginning is not of the very essence of
both. See further on.
[246]A curious expression, for which one
would have expected
the opposite statement, viz. that the handicrafts can shape
and form the materials they deal with rather than that the
materials give the necessary methods and designs to the
handicrafts which deal with them. Up to this point Dionysius
has been combating the view with which the extract begins.
The rest of the extract proceeds to show what amount of
truth there is in it.
[247]The reference here
is to Manichean views of the worst
kind,
i. e. that matter is not only without beginning, but
the source of evil and altogether independent of God.
[248]i. e. Dionysius of Rome,
to whom this treatise was addressed. This particular “other
letter” does not seem to have been known to Eusebius, and when
Athanasius quotes this extract in another of his treatises he omits
the words “to thee.”
[249]Athanasius himself was sparing in his use of the term,
and the Synod of Antioch (
A.D. 264) refused to accept it,
as liable to misconstruction.
[250]i. e. in the letter to
Euphranor (about Sabellianism in Libya) which had given rise to the
Bishop of Rome’s intervention.
[251]It looks as if Dionysius was in exile when
he wrote this.
See above,
p. 19.
[252]i. e.
each of the two is itself and not the other, as was
said above in the case of parents and children.
[253]i. e. they had gone or sent to Rome, in order
to attack him.
[254]Viz. about the plant and the ship, which he
has already apologized for as not quite appropriate.
[255]i. e. in Scripture,
e. g.
in such passage as
Wisd. vii. 25,
to which he refers in the next sentence.
[256]Sc.
in Dionysius’s letter to Euphranor: cf.
John x. 30,
xvii. 11, 21, 22.
The extract on
p. 106
below deals with the same thought more fully. In both places
Dionysius’s language is based on Philo’s discussion of the
λόγος ἐνδιάθετος
and the
λόγος προφορικός
(the conceived and the expressed word),
de vita Mosis,
p. 230, Cohn.
[257]i. e.
from
the Father and
through the Son: Dionysius seems to
have derived this view of the Holy Spirit’s Procession
from his master, Origen, though he is thinking here
rather of the Mission of the Spirit into the Church and its
members than of the eternal and necessary relations of the
three Persons in the Holy Trinity to one another, as the
sentences that follow indicate.
[258]Lit. in their hands: a striking expression which Athanasius
borrows from Dionysius in his
Exposition of the Faith.
[259]This is what Dionysius of Rome had imputed to our
Dionysius, though without the word “wholly” he would not
have altogether discarded the position.
[260]Λόγος
is translated throughout this passage by “speech”
(
i. e. uttered words), except in the last clause, where
it refers to the Son Himself and where it must be rendered by
“Word” as usual: but obviously “speech”
is only part of the full meaning of
λόγος.
The whole passage should be compared with the preceding extract.
[261]Ps. xliv. (xlv.) 1:
here R.V. translates
λόγον ἀγαθόν,
“a goodly matter,” in accordance with A.V.
[262]The word used
(
ἐγκυκλεῖν)
suggests the scenic device of the
ἐγκύκλημα,
by which some kind of change of scene was brought on to the stage
in the Greek theatre: see
Classical Dict., s.v.