George Pachymeres, Paraphrase of the Letters of Saint Dionysius

PARAPHRASE OF GEORGE PACHYMERES ON THE EPISTLES OF SAINT DIONYSIUS

ON LETTER I

^AI feel that I have arrived through no light conjectures (says one of the ancients) at the identity of this Gaius, to whom the most divine apostle and evangelist John, the great theologian, wrote his third epistle; a conclusion drawn from other things also, to which this divine man was joined in the company of the apostles. Now, the blessed Father taught in his work which he left behind, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, that the Therapeutae are the monks. He explained there in abundance how those are to be instituted who are not clerics, yet are superior to the people. It seems that Philo the Jew was amazed at these men in his work *On the Contemplative Life*, or *On the Suppliants* (3), calling them Therapeutae and describing their way of life; nor would it be amiss to set down the very words of Philo (4). He says, then, in that same work: "The race is indeed everywhere in the inhabited world; for it was necessary that both Greece and the barbarian lands partake of the perfect good. But it abounds in Egypt in each of the so-called nomes, and especially around Alexandria (5). Those who are best from everywhere, as if to a fatherland, send a colony § of the Therapeutae to a place most suitable, which is situated above Lake Mareotis on a low-lying hill, very conveniently, for the sake of both safety and the salubrity of the air." ^B And again, from the same discourse: "In each home there is a sacred room which is called a *semneion* and monastery, in which, remaining in solitude, they perform the mysteries of the holy life, bringing in nothing—neither food, nor drink, nor any other of the things that are necessary for the needs of the body; but laws and oracles delivered through the prophets, and hymns, and the other things by which knowledge and piety are increased and perfected." And again, from the same discourse: "The interval from daybreak until evening is for them entirely an exercise; for, spending their time entirely in the holy scriptures, they philosophize about the ancestral ^C

^A wisdom, allegorizing, because they consider the symbols of the literal interpretation to be indicative of a hidden nature in the form of conjectures. There are also writings of ancient men belonging to them, who became the leaders of their sect, leaving behind many monuments of the idea contained in those allegories, using them as it were as archetypes, and they imitate the manner of their purpose. And after a few words (6): 'So they do not only contemplate, but also compose songs and hymns to God, of every variety of meter and melody, necessarily transcribing them in more solemn rhythms.' And again: 'Having laid down temperance as a kind of foundation for the soul, they build up the other virtues.' No one brings them food or drink before the setting of the sun, since they judge that philosophizing is worthy of the light, but the needs of the body are ^B assigned to the darkness; hence they have allotted the day to the former, and a brief portion of the night to the latter. Some even remember food only after three days, those in whom a greater desire for knowledge is implanted; and some are so exhilarated and delight themselves, as if feasting upon wisdom, which provides her dogmas richly and abundantly, that they endure for double the time, and only with difficulty, having become accustomed, take necessary food after six days.' And again: 'There are also women Therapeutae, of whom most are aged, and remain virgins, preserving their chastity not by necessity, as do some of the priestesses among the Greeks, but rather by voluntary purpose, out of zeal and desire for wisdom; and, striving to live in its company, they have disregarded the sufferings of the body, not desiring mortal offspring, but those immortal ones ^C which the soul that loves God is able to bring forth of itself.' And again: 'The interpretations of the holy scriptures are made by them by means of underlying meanings in allegories; for the whole of the legislation seems to these men to resemble a living thing; and it has the literal ordinances as a body, but the soul is the invisible mind lying within the discourses, which it began to contemplate differently in its own proper way, as if seeing, through a mirror of words, extraordinary beauties manifesting themselves.'

But these are the words of Philo, and what he wrote concerning the Therapeutae, of whom Gaius—to whom the saint writes—is one, saying that: 'In our case, since darkness is a privation and light is a possession, light does not become invisible to darkness, but darkness to light; for darkness is the absence of light, but light is not the absence of darkness. Take this also in the case of knowledge; for knowledge is a possession, and ignorance ^D is a privation of knowledge. And since the absence of knowledge is present with it, it produces ignorance, just as darkness is the withdrawal of light; and certainly the presence of knowledge dissolves ignorance; and by as much as the light is greater, by so much is the darkness dispelled; and by as much as the knowledges are more numerous, by so much is ignorance dispelled. And see that he did not say "many lights," but "much light"; for the light is one, whether it is relaxed or extended. And again, he did not say "much knowledge," but "many knowledges"; for since knowledge is knowledge of things known, and the things known are many and infinite, therefore also the knowledges are many and infinite. But much knowledge he did not

^A call that which is a certain mediocrity, having on both sides as vices, remission and intension. And hence [we distinguish] on one side ignorance, and on the other, the curiosity of knowing, which can be called much knowledge. As, therefore, many knowledges, as certain mediocrities, constitute one prudence, so many ignorances produce one folly, and many curiosities produce craftiness. Take care, therefore, lest you understand the remark of the Father that is introduced in the present place according to common understanding. For just as darkness is dissolved by the infusion of light, and that most of all if a great deal of light has shone forth; or, as ignorance (which itself is also similar to darkness) ceases to be by the advent of knowledges, especially if they have gathered in abundance: in that same way, the ignorance that is according to God seems to be not unlike it—that is, the ignorance which is usually spoken of by reason of incompetence and crudity. But the more copiously anyone is illuminated by God, and the more abundant knowledge he procures for himself of those things that are—those things, namely, that subsist or are perceived by the intellect—the more sublimely he ascends to the knowledge of those things that lead to the knowledge of God, the more perspicaciously will he understand the majesty of God to be incomprehensible to any creature. He will also perceive again that that ignorance which is referred to the perfections spoken of concerning God is most truly light, and knowledge transcending other cognizable things. Finally, he considers this ineloquence of his own regarding the perfections of God to be ^B worthy of special honor in his silence. By no means, therefore, is such ignorance concerning God to be understood here as being said in the sense of privation of knowledge; but rather on account of the excellent and surpassing prerogative of the whole of science, by which someone has merited to know that which remains unknown and incomprehensible to all and to himself. And these things are indeed explained in the second chapter of the *Divine Names*.

These things, then—I mean the darkness and the ignorance—when you have understood them in an excelling manner, and not by way of privation, when you are understanding these things concerning God, deny them in a super-truthful sense. That is, speak clearly: ^C since, because these things are understood to have a higher reality there than they have here, even the discourse concerning them will not be simply true discourse, but [one that is] over and above this, the discourse [itself] imitating the excelling nature of things—for this is what is "super-truthful"—that is, state it clearly. For when these things, even more than they are here, are understood to possess themselves most truly there, and the discourse concerning them is not just any true discourse; nay, beyond this, the truth which...

the greatness of the subject itself surpasses even our imitative speech. For this is what he implies: ^A For the more one has attained to the knowledge of things, and to the light—that is, to the understanding of truth—the more unknown things one will see concerning God; for they are not made manifest by light or knowledge, but rather they escape those who possess them, and the progress and growth in these, I mean in light and knowledge, shows the divine to be unseeable and unknown. For such darkness does not become invisible in the great light of the truth concerning this; but it is covered over, and is known the more for being darkness, and it hides all knowledge. So that when the knowledges concerning intelligible things come together, ignorance does not flee, but remains, hiding itself and escaping all knowledge, not retreating, but being and remaining, and overcoming the knowledges, perceiving nothing else than that which is sought is supereminently unknown. Therefore, even he who has seen God and has understood what he saw, has not seen Him (for no one has ever seen God), but rather something of those things which are about Him and are capable of being apprehended, and this then to those who, through purification, become worthy. But He Himself, existing most eminently above every mind and every substance, is understood in His not being known at all to be above mind, because He is above all things; and in His not being at all, again: for being belongs to created things and to those which have come into existence. But God is even above being; therefore, He is, but superessentially, and this is the total ignorance according to the better sense. For by how much one is drawn up, to that extent one arrives at a better ignorance. This ignorance, then, is not a privation of knowledge, but a knowledge that excels and apprehends God, as far as is possible, because He is above all things that are known. ^B

ON THE SECOND EPISTLE

you will obtain the solution to the questions you have proposed. For he does not signify that the deity and goodness themselves are to be understood here according to the essence of the deity, even if in some place he may have seemed to wish to say this; but he insinuates the munificent grace that makes us at once good and gods—the grace, I say, of Him who is truly God and truly good. For this gift is both the beginning and the cause, by which we are made gods and good, and according to this reasoning he says that it is called ^A above the principle of divinity and above the principle of goodness, conceived in this specific way. If, then, this gift, promanating from God, is the beginning of our deification, the author of the whole principle—or rather, God Himself—is the beginning; and thus the aforementioned deity is asserted to transcend it. For God Himself does not claim that signal goodness for Himself according to a habit, as we do, but possesses it without habit or quality, and not by right of participation; we, on the contrary, possess it according to habit, inasmuch as we are changeable, while He is subject to no shift of change. He insinuates that the imitation of God, which is our own deification, is inestimable insofar as it is granted to us to attain it; for since we are not rightfully made gods except by imitating the divine, it is therefore called an imitation. But since we do not reach the archetype, not in any way whatsoever, it is called inimitable. Therefore, imitation and habit are the things themselves—that is, deity and goodness ^B; while the angels, and those men around whom such things are seen, are participants and imitators. The Divine, however, is inimitable and absolute; for by how much one progresses toward the imitation and habit of God, by so much does one grasp the unattainability of that imitation and habit. Therefore, the Divine, as it transcends these imitations and habits—that is to say, the deity and the goodness—excels also those very imitators and participants, that is, those who are gods and good by grace; and thus it is reasonably ^C above the deity and the goodness.

ON EPISTLE III

The Father wishes to teach in these words what the expression "suddenly" signifies in those of the prophet Malachi, saying: "Suddenly shall the Lord come to His temple, whom you seek; and the angel of the testament, whom you desire." Indeed, I judge that this opinion was first posed as a question by Gaius himself. The term "suddenly" therefore indicates a thing shining forth unexpectedly, and disclosing itself suddenly and unawares, as it were, from hiding places into open light: as is that which is said, "Suddenly there was a flashing." Finally, he declares that this term also signifies the human flesh assumed by God the Word, which the Father calls philanthropy. For what, I ask, is anywhere more hidden than God? Therefore, "from the hidden"—that is, ^D from the secret—indicates the mystery of the divinity. For "hidden," he is generally taken as a name for the Father, that is, God, and is wont to express the divinity itself; and therefore, the term "hidden" is set here for God, just as He is said to be "invisible." But that further point, from the hidden, that is, the divinity, as to how that supersubstantial God makes Himself visible

^A is even more wonderful, that in this very showing forth, and in the very fact of appearing, He retains what is hidden. For our Lord Jesus Christ, even in that showing forth to us, keeps the mystery of the dispensation unknown. For who has understood how God was mingled with flesh? Whence also, when spoken of, it remains ineffable; and when conceived of, remains unknown.

ON THE FOURTH EPISTLE

The saint had anticipated speaking of these things in certain other places. For a little before, in the work *On the Divine Names*, he spoke at greater length, that God is named from all things ^B and is present to all: in one respect, as the cause from the caused; and in another, by His providence, as the provider of all. Gaius, therefore, following along with such thoughts, since he finds the name "Jesus" ^C and "man" joined to that thearchical name—as where it says, "the Son of Man," and still more clearly: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?"—Gaius says therefore to the holy father (for from him the question was raised): "What indeed shall we say concerning Jesus, who is above all creation; who, while being seen as a man according to the assumed substance, is ranked with others by the communion of substance: is He likewise asserted to be a man, and numbered in the series of men as truly a man? Shall we say concerning this one also, that He is called man in that He is the author of men; just as, by way of example, the same is called both sun and light, because He created the sun itself and the light?" And again: "Shall we not say of Him that He is said to be with men as their provider, just as He is said to be with all other things?" For here, namely in the dispensation of the flesh assumed by the Word, we must seek some special reason; since, apart from the dispensation itself, He could be called man as the author and maker of men. Africanus confirms this in his *Chronographies* or books *On the Series of Time*, just as it has been handed down to memory by our ancestors. For God is called by the same name as the things created by Him: since He exists in all things. But in the dispensation of the assumed man, He is not described as man as the author of men, but as one having been clothed with human flesh according to His whole substance. To these things, therefore, the Father, replying—and although he could have stated his own proper argument here, that He is called man because He was truly clothed in human flesh, and not have corrupted the truth by so replying—wishing first, however, to explain this name also according to the definition of other names (namely, Christ according to cause and principles; for this is his purpose), he says: "We, however, do not circumscribe Jesus by human definition ^D."

ἁγίων αἱμάτων συστῆναι καὶ χρόνον ἐννεάμηνον ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ ὡς ἄρτος πλήρης οὐράνιος ἐν ἁγίᾳ τραπέζῃ διαβιβάσαι, καὶ διὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἅπερ ᾠκονόμησε κατ' ἀνθρώπους· ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπους δὲ διὰ τὸ ἀσπόρως συλληφθῆναι, καὶ ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι, καὶ ἀνωδίνως ἀποτεχθῆναι. ^A Ἄνθρωπος τοιγαροῦν ὁ φιλάνθρωπος· ἀλλ' οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ ὑπερπλήρης ὑπερουσιότητος, δηλονότι θεότητος, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· Ἐν ᾧ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς. Τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε διὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως, ἀμέλει ἐν τῇ τῆς θεότητος περιουσίᾳ, καὶ ἀληθῶς γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, οὐσιώθη μὲν, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ οὐσίαν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐκ γυναικός, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ παρθένου· καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἐνήργει τὰ ἀνθρώπου. Καὶ δῆλον, ἐξ ὧν ἐπὶ ὕδατος, ὡς ἐπί τινος στεγανοῦ, ἐπορεύετο· τί ἄν τις λέγῃ τὰ λοιπὰ πάμπολλα ὄντα, ^B δι' ὧν ὁ θεοπρεπῶς ἐξετάζων ὑπὲρ νοῦν γνώσεται καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τοῦ Σωτῆρος καταφασκόμενα, δύναμιν ἔχοντα ὑπεροχικῆς ἀποφάσεως; Τί δέ ἐστι κατάφασις, καὶ τί ἀπόφασις, εἴπομεν ἄνω ἐν τῷ περὶ μυστικῆς θεολογίας τρίτῳ κεφαλαίῳ. Πῶς δὲ αἱ καταφάσεις ἐνταῦθα δύναμιν ἔχουσιν ὑπεροχικῆς ἀποφάσεως; οὕτως· Εἰ γὰρ καὶ καταφάσκομεν λέγοντες ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, καὶ ἐκ παρθένου μητρὸς κατ' οὐσίαν ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ κεκρυμμένην ἔχει καὶ ὑπὲρ νοῦν τὴν τῆς ἀποφάσεως δύναμιν· ἐρεῖ γὰρ ὁ ἀκούων· Οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ παρθένου, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον, εἰ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄνθρωπος. Ὑπεροχικῆς δὲ εἶπε πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῶν κατὰ στέρησιν λαμβανομένων ἀποφάσεων· καὶ γὰρ, ἵνα συνελόντες εἴπωμεν, οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἦν, φησί. Συντόμως δὲ ἑαυτὸν σαφηνίζων ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐπιφέρει· Οὐχ ὡς μὴ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ' ὡς ἀνθρώπων ἐπέκεινα, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπος γεγονώς. ^C Σημείωσαι δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν κατὰ Νεστοριανῶν· σημείωσαι δὲ καὶ τὴν ὑπερφυῆ καὶ ἄφραστον τοῦ Κυρίου ἕνωσιν, ὅτι οὐ κατὰ Θεὸν τὰ θεῖα ἔδρασεν· ἦν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος· οὔτε κατ' ἄνθρωπον τὰ ἀνθρώπινα· ἦν γὰρ Θεός. Ὅθεν θαυμαστῶς ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος φησι· Κιρναμένων ὥσπερ τῶν φύσεων, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τῶν κλήσεων καὶ περιχωρουσῶν εἰς ἀλλήλας τῷ λόγῳ τῆς συμφυΐας. Πῶς δὲ καὶ κατὰ Θεὸν τὰ Θεοῦ ἔργα ἐποίησεν; ἐννόησον ὅτι σωματικοῖς ποσὶν ἐπὶ θαλάττης ἐβάδισε· Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ τὸ συμπιλῆσαι ὕδωρ· πάλιν δὲ, σὰρξ καὶ ὀστᾶ, καὶ πόδες οὐ θεότητος. Θεοῦ πάλιν, παρθένον ποιῆσαι κύειν· τὸ δὲ διαμεμορφώσθαι ὄψει καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς μέλεσιν οὐ θεότητος. Οὕτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τὰ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ κατ' ἄνθρωπον τὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν· ἄνθρωπος μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου· ἀλλ' οὐ κατ' ἄνθρωπον τοῦτο· ποῖος γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ παρθένου; Πάλιν, τὸ ποσὶ βαδίζειν ἀνθρώπου· ἐπὶ δὲ ὕδατος οὐκ ἀνθρώπου· ποῖος γὰρ ἄνθρωπος, καθὸ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ εἰ μὴ τινὶ θείᾳ δυνάμει, ἐπὶ ὑδάτων ἐβάδισε; Τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος—τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἀνδρωθέντος—ἀνὴρ γὰρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἰδίως λέγεται· ^D ὁ ἐκ τῶν δύο φύσεων φανεὶς Ἰησοῦς τὰ τῆς θεανδρικῆς ἐνεργείας ἡμῖν ἐπεδείξατο.

as if he were not a man, but rather as one who transcends the common nature of man, and is truly a man born above man. I would also have you note that this solid epistle is intended against the Nestorians. Note, moreover, the ineffable union of the Lord Jesus, which no one can explain, because He did not perform divine acts only as God: for He was man. Again, He did not perform human acts only as man; for He was God. Hence, Gregory the Theologian says admirably that, as the natures are, as it were, combined, so the titles also refer to one another by reason of the conjunction of the natures. But furthermore, how did He act as God in what were properly divine matters? Recall that He walked upon the sea with bodily feet. Yet it is a mark of the divine operation to make solid the fluid element of water; whereas flesh, bones, and feet are not to be attributed to this divine nature. Again, who would doubt attributing to the divine operation the fact that the Virgin conceived while remaining intact? Conversely, that He was formed with a face and the rest of the harmony of the members is by no means known to belong to the Divinity. In the same way, and by the same works, conversely; for He did not perform what is human according to the powers of human nature; He was indeed a man, and that from a virgin, but by no means of human condition; for whom can you give me who is a man born of a virgin? Again, it is clear that walking on feet is of man: walking on water is no longer of man. For who, among men, could ever walk on the waters to the extent that he was man, unless he were supported by some divine power? For such is an operation of God, but of One who has put on human nature for Himself. This is clearly indicated by the expression ^A *androus*—for it is specifically said that He is man and at the same time God; as the Lord Jesus, appearing in the composition of two natures, has brought forth for us a manifold specimen of those things which were theandric, that is, of divine-virile operation. Note, moreover, that the saint judged that this miscellaneous operation of Christ should be called ^A *theandric*, that is, divine-virile. For He acted as if God alone, when, while absent, He healed the centurion's son. Conversely, He acted as man alone—being otherwise the same God—when He wished to eat and to be overcome by grief. Furthermore, when this saint said ^A *theandric*, that is, divine-virile, he meant that operation of God through which He displayed awesome signs: for example, the way in which He restored the eyes of the blind by anointing, and likewise cured the woman with an issue of blood by the mere touch of His hem, clearly expressing by this name that there were two operations in Christ. From all these things it is gathered in summary that Christ could also be asserted to be man in so far as He was the author and creator of men; just as has been abundantly stated by us in the explanation of other names. Nor would the truth have been corrupted in any way: since He perfected the things that were of men by a power superior to human.

ON EPISTLE V

or toward the sun at midday, ^A which causes an intent gaze. In this consists the status of everyone who is deemed worthy to know and see God according to Moses. And what are this knowledge and vision regarding God? It is for one to become above sight and knowledge, and neither to see nor to know, but to know only this: that God is beyond all things perceptible and intelligible. Now, he said "above all things," instead of "after all things," declaring the passing beyond all sensible and all intelligible things alike, the expression having been uttered for the sake of our own knowledge. For thus does knowledge also traverse all things, is led up to God, and seeks what is above all things. When, therefore, one is deemed worthy of this, he will say with the Prophet: "Thy knowledge is become wonderful from me; it is strengthened, I shall not be able to attain to it." The divine Paul also knew God, in that he is beyond all knowledge and intellection, that he is unsearchable, that his judgments are past finding out, that his gifts are ^B unspeakable, that his peace surpasses all mind. For this is what he knew to be beyond intellection: that he is beyond all things, as being the cause of all things. Let no one, therefore, say: How is it above intellection for one to know that God, as being beyond all things, is unsearchable to common reasoning, as if this were the case and everyone knew without demonstration that God is incomprehensible? But let him know that, that God is incomprehensible, is something that even many of the common people know to be above [their] knowledge. But why he is such, and how, is for those alone to know who have been deemed worthy of divine knowledge and [that which is] above man; such as was David, such as was Paul. And that [the people] know the sun, or the moon, or anything else of the things that happen in the world to be eclipsed, no one doubts; for sense perception itself teaches this. But why ^C these things happen, others do not know, except those who are precise experts in such matters.

ON EPISTLE VI

^D He calls the presbyter a priest, just as he also says in the *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, and [as] the custom has prevailed. This Sopater, as it seems, had as his [sole] endeavor to disparage and revile the things belonging to those of other opinions. And from this it was often likely that, being confident in such an intention and in such an endeavor—as if it were being done by God—he neglected and grew sluggish regarding his own progress, deeming this enough for salvation. The holy man, therefore, wishing to excise this from Sopater—as it seemed to be more of an opinionated conceit than zeal, and to bring error to right reasoning, and furthermore, the words...

^A with judgment and knowledge, he knew that such acrimony of speech usually provokes enmities among those against whom it is directed, while producing not the slightest gain. On the contrary, a pious affection of benevolence towards such people, love, and a prompt performance of duty—even if they have fallen into the greatest errors—often leads them back to the line of rectitude and converts any wanderer, so that he himself is convinced that those words do not proceed from malice, but rather from love and providential care on the part of the speaker. For this reason, he writes this present epistle, by which Sopater, being filled with fear, might provide against being one day convicted by God of that impudent arrogance, and might come to believe that he himself has fallen into the very things for which he censures others, and is thinking ill of God. Therefore the holy man says that one ought not to traduce the opinion of others, while allowing his own to be fortified by arguments; nor, however, should the pen be drawn against the opinion or religion of anyone, even if it does not appear good at all, but only for the sake of truth. But, you will ask, in what way is this to be done? The next part of the epistle makes it clear. Anyone (says the Father) can, among so many things, while refuting some splendid lie, also wander from the truth: for truth is otherwise one, yet hidden. For there is one truth, but it is hidden on account of the mystical nature of the dogmas, and requires much search together with the grace of God. Witness Nestorius, while refuting the tenets of Arius and Apollinarius; Eutyches and Dioscorus, while they were attacking the tenets of Nestorius, or others like them, they themselves fell into other equally confused heresies. But let no one be driven by these things into the error of believing that the holy one counsels that the labors painstakingly undertaken by the Fathers against opinions alien to the faith should be discarded. The excellent Father does not advise this, namely, that you should not refute or demolish the fictitious propositions of the impious. Otherwise, I ask, with what face would he have so assailed the dogmas of Elymas the magus in the work on Divine Names? Rather, according to the reason previously introduced to the Father, we are taught that we ought not to apply ourselves to this ambitiously, so that we may seem to have spoken contrary to others, but only then to speak if some necessity should perchance arise to state those things which might be hoped to be profitable to others. For when falsehood grows strong, when the faithful are miserably dashed and agitated, then indeed, above all, the reason of truth must be set forth with all diligence, and then truly or secondarily, one must also employ refutation against the onslaught of the impious, yet in such a way that we may seem to have sought the correction of our brethren, not a competitive victory. This, indeed, is what that admirable theologian Gregory says: "Do not seek the palm of victory everywhere. For there is a place where you ought to endure being defeated." Therefore, he who disputes against adversaries to a certain extent must reflect that, when victory occurs, he does not conquer by his own virtue, but by the power of the truth which he holds. For above all things (the Scripture says) does truth conquer. Thus at last, he lets it be so that he may not fall into any other- ^B -wise while he is making a judgment, and knowing ^C that such a thing produces aversion toward those against whom the words are said, and produces no small gain; but to be well-disposed toward such people, and to love and accept them, often accomplishes the greatest things, and turns the wanderer back, convinced that the words are spoken not out of malice, but rather out of love and care. For this reason he puts forward this letter, causing him to fear lest, because of such conceit, he might be abandoned by God, and that he himself might suffer ^D what he complains of in others, and from the things by which he refutes them, he himself falls into and blasphemes. He says, therefore, that one ought not to slander the opinions of others, but to strengthen one's own; nor should one write against a reputation or religion that seems not good, but in favor of the truth. But how this is so, he says, the following epistle clarifies. For it is possible, he says, for someone, while refuting a falsehood that is manifest to many, to fail himself of the truth, which is one and hidden. For there is one truth; it is hidden because of the mystical nature of the dogmas, and requires much research with divine grace—just as Nestorius disturbed the dogmas of Arius and Apollinarius, and Eutyches and Dioscorus those of Nestorius, and other such people fell into other absurd heresies. Let no one be led astray by these things into thinking that the holy one suggests the rejection of the works of the Fathers against the heterodox; for the Father does not say this—that one should not refute and overturn the dogmas of the impious (for how then would he himself in the book *On Divine Names* have shaken those of Elymas?); but that one should not, as a primary purpose, be occupied with speaking against others; but to speak only when there is, perhaps, a need of profit for others, when falsehood prevails, when the faithful are being shaken. At such a time, therefore, it is necessary first to set forth the argument of truth precisely, and afterwards to use also the counter-argument against the uprising of the impious, not seeking victory, but the correction of brethren. This is what the great theologian Gregory also says: "Do not seek to conquer in all things, but there is also a time to bear being defeated." He wishes, therefore, for him who speaks against those who are in any way opposed to consider that, when he does indeed conquer, the victory is not his own, but comes from the force of the truth which he possesses. For everything, he says, the truth conquers. And in this way he will never fall into pride, nor will he be abandoned by God so as to fall, while he is refuting others, into another shipwreck of blasphemy.

when the elation of the mind; but neither will he be deprived of divine aid to such an extent that, while he reproaches others, he himself falls headlong into any other kind of blasphemy to which a fall is easy.

TO EPISTLE VII

^A This holy Polycarp, a man of exceptional holiness, was bishop of Smyrna in Asia, having been a hearer of the holy apostle and evangelist John the theologian, just as Irenaeus asserts in the third book of those he wrote *Against the knowledge falsely so-called*, as the ancients say, and he was perfected ^B by martyrdom through fire. The same divine Polycarp also has an epistle to the Philippians. Now, the divine Dionysius, in writing to him, discusses the matters concerning Apollophanes, who, being a Greek and an Asian philosopher, repeatedly attacked the saint, lamenting that he had come to the Christian faith, even though, together with the blessed Dionysius, he had surveyed many of those wonderful things that happened at the solar eclipse at the time of the Lord’s cross. He says, therefore, to the divine Polycarp: I am not conscious of ever having spoken against the professors of another sect, or of having ever criticized their ceremony and worship with my pen, believing it sufficient for one who proceeds ^C to be good, if he is able both to know and to set forth that which is true, just as it is in itself. For just as the truth does not need to be established by the refutation of falsehood, but is of itself sufficient in all things to display its own splendor, whether it be compared with falsehood or not—nay, it will rather risk losing not the least portion of its own power, if it should seem to some that it does not possess its strength in itself, but that it depends on the demonstration of what is weak in every part, that is, the falsehood; as if, forsooth, it did not possess an absolute and efficacious power of its own. In the same way, it is in no ^D way fitting for men to proclaim themselves good by the commendation of their own religion, as if they were of the right faith for this reason, that they know how to cast aspersions upon or reproach the sects of others; but rather they should come to be weighed and examined in themselves, to see if they are truly worthy of admiration on account of their right judgment. For when the truth—whatever it may be—is demonstrated according to the very law of truth (and the law of truth is to weigh such a thing according to truth itself) and stands sincerely, whatever is otherwise and feigns truth will be convicted of falseness; and it will be unmasked at last as dissimilar and other than what it is in reality, alien, that is, from the truth (even if it appears to be more than it is). It would be superfluous for him who is prepared to speak about all things, and at the same time takes upon himself the task of making the variety manifest, to fight with skirmishing words against these or those. For everyone, however much he may be held in error, believes that the truth is with him, just as if it were a royal coin. And perhaps he possesses some small portion of the truth,

^A but it holds a counterfeit image of the truth (not at all the universal truth). It is a marvelous thing, or rather an image, of a portion of the truth, because of which they are called idolaters, inasmuch as they pay worship to idols which hold out a faked and deceptive portion of the truth, and they assert that those are gods which are nothing less than gods; moreover, they confer and divide the holy ceremony due to God alone upon such beings under the feigned name of gods. Understand, therefore, that he who possesses the truth is spoken of here as if one who held a royal coin. But if this person attempts to refute by arguments those who do not attain the truth itself but think otherwise that they have attained it, whether he refutes this one, or the other contentiously claims victory for himself; or if he reproves that one, the other will again struggle; and finally, if he accuses another, even he will resist against the one accusing him. Yet, with the truth remaining irreprehensible, whatever that may be which does not hold itself in this way is cast down from itself and collapses; for where it strikes the truth itself, it will soon fall in its headlong course, repulsed by the invincible constancy of the truth. For when falsehood obtains nothing against the truth (for this always opposes it as a contrary), falsehood itself will strike and satisfy its own collapse. For what comparison is there between a pot and a cauldron? The pot indeed will strike the cauldron, but it will be shattered itself. Therefore, as I believe, holding this correctly, I have not labored in this direction so as to seem to have wished to contend against anyone. I shall consider it enough for me, if God grants it: that I may first know what things befit the truth; then, that I may discourse about those things which I have discovered concerning it, for the sake of the decorum of the truth. ^B Moreover, you assert that that Apollophanes has proceeded to such malice against me that he does not even hesitate to call me a parricide; for, clearly, I am said to be of ill will toward the ancestral gods on account of the old injury. He stings me again for this, that I have abused the dogmas of the Greeks against the Greeks. Yet, the very name by which he summons me to judgment would have been more fittingly applied by me to him. For the Greeks most especially, perversely—nay, profanely—abused divine wisdom. For when they received knowledge from God Himself so that they might glorify God, they did not glorify Him to such a degree that, having lapsed into various errors, they turned aside to the worship of those who are not gods. And I do not mean the opinion of the multitude, of those who remain dwelling in matter and passions, clinging to the poets; for they, having loved matter and the passions, have also loved the things of the poets, and remained in their writings, saying that the divine is subject to passion; I am not speaking of these, who worship the creation instead of the Creator; but even Apollophanes himself does not use the divine, I mean the philosophic, arguments well. For it was necessary for him, if indeed he were a true philosopher—and philosophy is the knowledge of beings as they are ^C—to be led toward God, the cause of beings, using the knowledge of beings, which he himself calls philosophy, while the divine Paul called it the wisdom of God, writing in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "For since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom," that is, through the harmony and order of the creation. And so that I might not refute these things contrary to my original intent, and to the purpose for which I wrote neither against Greeks nor against others, a wise man—which Apollophanes is—should have understood that it would not have been possible for any of the individual order of nature to be perverted unless the Cause and Sustainer of it had moved it to this, as happened in the case of Joshua the son of Nun, and of Hezekiah, regarding the sun and the moon. For the moment, it should be known that he draws the order of the Cause of all things from those things admitted by the Greeks; for he says that it is worthy from this to recognize God, the Lawgiver of all, because ^D the sun and the moon, ordered to run the bounds of the day and to run around with the whole circuit of the heaven, convict him who, from these, has not known nor worshipped the Creator. How then does he not marvel, and even he himself speak of God as the cause of all and of the unspeakable power? He reminds, therefore, the holy Polycarp of the history regarding Joshua the son of Nun, so that he may set this against Apollophanes. He says, therefore: Say to him: "Learn how God, when the sun and the moon were then directly across from one another, with the sun already setting, brought the luminaries to a standstill in that place, a certain standing according to the unspeakable power of their Cause, God; and the whole stood motionless with the two luminaries; for neither the heaven, nor the rest of the stars, revolved…

but stood firm with the two luminaries. This is what is meant by: "Together with the whole, they were appointed towards that which is altogether immovable," so that it became a measure of a whole day, that is to say, a twelve-hour interval, in which both the luminaries and the whole stood still at the same points. ^B That the day was then doubled, Jesus, the son of Sirach, clearly states in the hymn of the fathers; for that day in the time of Joshua, the son of Nun, consisted of twenty-four hours, as he himself revealed. But if Apollophanes were to say: "It is impossible for the heaven ever to stand still (for it is perpetually in motion)," answer him that this is the more wonderful thing, and that on this account he ought to have returned to the true God, and to the knowledge of Him; since the pole that contains the luminaries was being turned around. For he revealed this by saying: "The whole and the superior and containing—but the sun and the moon, which are contained, stood motionless, and were not moved with the same rotation as the whole, with which they were ever being carried around." Again, in the case of Hezekiah, when another day is almost tripled in succession—the "almost" is added because that day did not become triple in its fullness—it occurred in thirty-two hours: ten from the sunrise to the place where the sun was found—then the sign was given—and ten from there again toward the sunrise, and from there again twelve until the complete sunset. By the same form of reasoning he employed here, [he implies] that the pole itself, together with the sun, performed that supernatural counter-rotation within the interval of twenty hours; or [perhaps] the sun alone [did so]. For this is what he says: "Either the whole, for such a length of time, that is to say, twenty hours, turns back its contrary rotations; or the sun performed such a motion in its own course." ^C But understand the "five-fold" motion of the sun in this way: The annual motion of the sun performs five turnings: an ascent to the north, that is, from the vernal equinox to the summer solstice; a descent to the north—from that point, obviously, to the autumnal equinox; a descent to the south—from such an equinox to the winter solstice; and an ascent to the south—from the winter solstice to the vernal equinox; and a fifth, which is contrary to the motion of the whole. Having, therefore, stated its five-fold motion, by the addition of the article he hinted at the familiar and customary one. But let us understand what is said in these [matters] by the Father thus: Let us assume the sun was, on that day, at the hour of sunrise, in the first degree of Aries. To return to that same degree, it was not possible unless it performed the aforementioned five-fold motion, that is, through 365 and a quarter days. Therefore, in the ten hours, those from the place where the sign occurred until it was again in the first degree of Aries at the sunrise, it performed the complete restoration. ^D And according to this, since it was not possible otherwise to touch the point of the first degree of Aries, the sun [restored itself]. For this is what is meant by "Together with the whole, they were appointed toward that which is altogether immovable; and the dimension of its whole day increased by the space of twelve hours; in the meantime, the luminaries, and the heaven itself besides, stood still in their respective signs." That this day increased by a double proportion to the rest, Jesus, the son of Sirach, clearly indicates in the hymn of the Fathers. For that day under Joshua is mentioned as lasting for four and twenty hours, as he expressed. But if Apollophanes should object, saying that it is impossible for the course of the heaven to have stood still (for it is performed with perpetual motion), see that you answer him that even on this account such a [notion]

which should have converted you to embrace the faith of the true God himself, and led you to the knowledge of those things which are proclaimed concerning him: for the pole, which contains the luminaries, was revolved. For he expressed even this, saying: "On the contrary, the sun and the moon, otherwise contained by the pole itself, remained immovable, and were no longer moved according to the customary rotation together with the pole, with which they had always been accustomed to be revolved." Again, in the time of Hezekiah, when another day was continually greater than the rest in a proportion of almost triple. The expression "nearly" ^B is added because that day was not completely full in triple dimension: for it was of thirty-two hours. For from the east to that very place in which the sun was then found, when such a sign was given, ten hours of that day had passed. Again, another ten, by which lapse of time the sun turned back its path from there to the east. And likewise from there, it was carried from the east to the western limit in twelve hours. This formula of speech is indeed used here, because the pole itself, together with the sun, during that whole interval of twenty hours, performed that contrary and circular rotation above the custom of nature, or because the sun itself performed it alone. This he clearly points out, saying: "But as to what he says, that is, the quinquiform motion of the sun, take the ^C saying thus: The annual motion of the sun is completed by five changes or conversions. The first, which we call the northern ascent, he completes from the vernal equinox to the summer solstice; the second, which they call the northern descent, he runs through from this solstice to the autumnal equinox; the third, which is called the southern or meridional descent, extends from the next equinox to the winter solstice; the fourth, which is called the southern ascent, leads from the winter tropic to the vernal equinox. Furthermore, the fifth conversion of the sun is entirely contrary to the pole itself." When, therefore, he said "that quinquiform motion of the sun," by the apposition of the article he indicated that that motion of the sun is manifest to everyone and known by custom. ^D Therefore, let us examine in this way what was said by the Father through these words. Let us suppose the sun on that day, at the hour of its rising, was in the first part of Aries. Therefore, no one would say that it is possible for the sun itself to have returned into this first part of Aries except that the quinquiform motion (which we have prescribed) was completed, namely, in three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter. But indeed in ten hours, from the place in which it happened...

the wonderful sign was brought to pass, and the sun was restored entirely to the first part of Aries in the east, to its original degree. According to this supposition, when the sun could not have reached that first part of the sign of Aries again except by the completion of the interval of time just for that purpose—during which whole time that quintuple solar motion is performed—ten hours are meanwhile calculated, not indeed those first ones which were attributed to the time in which the sun had been drawn from the east and brought to that place in which the sign occurred under Hezekiah; but other [hours], by which the sun returns in a retrograde course from the place of the sign and is carried back into the east. These ten hours, therefore, by which the sun became closer to the first part of Aries according to our hypothesis, are counted and fulfill the role of one full year. Since, in that summary of hours, it contracted by its return that whole period of the annual time, restoring itself to the sign of Aries in the east, from which it had surely first risen on that same day. Then, with the sun again moved from the east, when it could in no way have returned to that sign in which it had been when the celebrated prodigy occurred at the prayers of Hezekiah, unless by the traversal of the whole annual time together with that quintuple motion, it withdrew itself into that place in ten hours again; wherefore it took other ten hours for its return from the east up to the place of the sign for the annual and quintuple motion. For it could not have left the sign of Aries in the east once and repeated it without the annual period having first elapsed; nor could it otherwise have happened that one who had once departed from that sign in which he then was, when the sign occurred under Hezekiah, could reinstate himself in the same as if by a right of postliminy, unless by the intervention of another annual progression. Therefore he says: That annual motion, which it contracted within ten hours by its return from the place in which the sign was granted to Hezekiah, the sun having moved to the east, the sun completed that very same path of a full year from the rising to the place in which the sign was exhibited in ten other hours. And truly this was what filled the Babylonians then with wonder and stupor, who were addicted to the single contemplation of celestial signs and were accustomed to comment much upon the stars. This prodigy subdued them to Hezekiah, the king of Jerusalem, without any preceding clash of battle: as though he were equal to some god, and endowed with a certain more august power, he surpassed the rest of mortals. And I do not even bring forward those signs, though many are full of wonder, wrought in Egypt long ago, or whatever others displayed in other places: but I recall those which it is heard have happened in this sky visible to all, and that especially through the sun. For if anything new happens to the sun, there is no one (provided he is watching the sun itself) who does not clearly recognize it. But if Apollophanes will not grant credence even to these things, the Persians themselves will be able to be a witness, who call Mithras the sun himself; and the truly wonderful extension of that day they signify by the rites which they observe for his memory in triple fashion. But even if I should grant this for the mean time to his infidelity, what do you hope he will say about that celebrated eclipse of the sun which is known to have occurred while the Lord was hanging upon the salutary cross? Both of us, myself indeed and he, were present at Heliopolis in Egypt (for that custom had become established among the Greeks, that they should set out on a journey into Egypt from wherever they were for the sake of learning mathematics), and we both watched this solar eclipse with attention, and we marveled exceedingly because it was happening with a certain stupendous novelty and contrary to mathematical reason. For the moon was at the fourteenth day and was brought to the sun according to the ratio of the diameter; at which time a solar eclipse never happens otherwise. For a solar eclipse does not occur unless the moon falls upon the sun, and the intercalary [moon] performs its course exactly under the sun. At that time, however, the timing of the interlunary conjunction was inopportune and unseasonable. But this is also most worthy of admiration. For the eclipse happened from the sixth hour to the ninth, and from the ninth to the evening the moon was opposite the sun according to the diameter. Therefore renew for him 261 the memory of another thing which necessarily follows from astronomical canons. For in a solar eclipse, which happens in its own time in order, the incidence must occur from that same part of the solar disk, namely the effusion of shadows, and the clearing away from the side, that is, the illumination. For while the sun ^A is passing above its own circle, ^B and the moon is running under it on its own, it is necessary that the moon, as it is lesser and traversing a circle by much, should take precedence. Therefore, if both the luminaries run in the opposite direction to the whole, the moon will nonetheless take precedence. It is likely, then, that the part which it eclipses by meeting it, it also leaves behind, so that that [part] also is illuminated. But on the day of the saving cross, since the moon came to the sun from the east in a moment and caused the eclipse; and it had to return to its own place that its order might be kept; and for this reason, having left this, it returned: it happened ^C that the eclipse occurred, with the eastern part of the solar disk having been darkened first; afterwards, with this running under the whole sun, and having already begun to return, it was likely that, leaving the western part of the disk first, so that it might reach the eastern part, that [part] also was the first to be illuminated. Such things were then accomplished by the sole Cause of all, God, being ordered and governed. ^D

If I speak what is less than the truth, O Apollophanes, ^A you shall have the opportunity in the future to refute me. Meanwhile, I shall refresh your memory of another event. For you, as if inspired at that time by some divinity (though I know not which), were bringing forth certain first-fruits of divination when, having turned to me, you said: "These, O excellent Dionysius, are the vicarious mutations of divine things." What, then, is that vicarious change of things which led us away from error to truth, transferred us from darkness to the most brilliant light, brought us back from death to life, and finally raised us from most impure idols to the worship [latria] of God? These things I have written according to the logic of the Epistle, not extending the discourse. If anything is lacking, it will be your task, O excellent Polycarp, to supply what is wanting, by which you may be able to reconcile this man, who is wise in all things, to the most wise truth of the Christian religion.

ON THE EIGHTH EPISTLE

That this Demophilus was a monk is indicated by that word, "therapeutes." He had exercised a kind of tyranny against his own presbyter. For he had conceived a grievance against him, heavier than was just, because he had clemently received one among the penitents. For he whom he [the presbyter] had received, being penitent for his sins, was unworthily beaten by him [Demophilus] and cast out of the temple, and he pushed the presbyter from his office, and he himself, which was by no means lawful, impudently laid his hand upon the sacred function. And he calls such a man "Father" with a tacit irony, reproaching him for his magnanimity, but meanwhile rendering no testimony to his piety. Therefore, he sets before his eyes first of all the extraordinary gentleness of Moses, for the sake of which alone he was held worthy of the vision of God. And so the Sacred Scriptures, when they intimate that he fell into the indignation of God, and that it came about that he was in the aversion of the Divine countenance, the same [holy Father] says that they indicate that he had first alienated himself from the virtue of gentleness, and thus finally it happened that he became a stranger to the sight of God. But when they proclaim him for that which is preeminent and extraordinary in the imitation of God, they celebrate his gentleness; nor is it without merit that he deserved to be called the servant of God. But even when certain rash and impudently bold men conspired against him regarding the primacy of the nation and against Aaron regarding the priesthood, and were already rising up, he used freedom with great placidity and willingly conceded the magistracy of the people to him to whom it was decreed by the judgment of God. To these things he rendered his innocence most testified: regarding

^Asts that the author was by no means the cause of all those evils which happened to his subjects. He says, "Beginning," insinuating those whom Moses had under his power, namely, the people. For he was not ignorant that he who associates familiarly with the supremely good God ought, to the best of his ability, to express the image of that divine goodness. Furthermore, what else so remarkable rendered David, the father of God, so lovable and pleasing to God himself if not the virtue of meekness? He calls him the father of God on account of Christ. For the admirable Paul says: *Separated unto the Gospel which He had promised in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh* (x). Furthermore, because he was so clement and benign toward his enemies, he was declared by divine testimony to be a man *according to God's heart* (y).

Although it should not have seemed wonderful that one person could be found who would exhibit himself as benevolent and gentle toward his enemy, when the sacrosanct Law had been established regarding the care of an enemy's beast. For it is written in the Law: *That if even the beast of an enemy should happen to fall, any other person might kindly help it up* (z). But also Jacob, Joseph, and Abel (the latter, indeed, as one who was entirely guileless and free from malice; the former, when he had his brothers under his power—as he who administered and managed all Egypt—not taking revenge, but saying to them: *Do not fear; for I am of God* (a); the third, setting out with his brother Cain suspecting no evil) are proclaimed as benign.

For he who contends to be good ought neither to preconceive nor simulate evils, nor even to fall away from good into wickedness because of the wickedness of others, but rather to abound ^B more and more in goodness at that time, so that he might summon them to a similar emulation. Now, since we have made mention of men, it behooves us to touch upon higher things; let us look upward and consider—I do not say the benignity of the angels toward us, who pour out prayers to God for the common salvation of the nations and more sternly rebuke the apostate powers on behalf of men, namely the demons, whom he also calls "multitudes," not because they are a multitude in number, but because they have stood far off from the obedience of the one God; for a multitude dwells far away from unity—I do not, therefore, speak of these, but let us look upon the benignity of our Lord Jesus Christ and our true God, receiving the rays of His goodness in silence. For divine things rejoice in silence, just as their opposites rejoice in a crowd.

For it is not an ineffable goodness to make those things that were not to be, that is, to hold them fast for their preservation, so that He himself is both creator and sustainer (80), and wishes to summon all things, according to the capacity of each, to an imitation of Himself. ^C And what more? That He also loves those who depart from Him, and exhorts them not to fall away from Him entirely. For this reason, He is called the Paraclete (Comforter); for He beseeches them not to be disdained by those who are enervated and puffed up (81). The word is used of lovers who, deferring a meeting with their beloved, employ such a bodily—that is, a languid—disposition; hence it is taken also for other things of similar nature; and although they complain in vain and to no purpose, He himself gently makes excuse and promises to heal (82).

Take for me, moreover, the parable of the prodigal son in addition to these: how, while the prodigal is still at a distance, nevertheless, because he approaches, He runs to meet him, embraces and kisses him, forgets his previous deeds, and celebrates with his present deeds together with the friendly powers, so that the dwelling of all who rejoice might be such that all, clearly, might rejoice together at the same time; for thus the saint understands the text in the present context. And he says "the whole" by embracing "the wholes" in a wonderful way, putting to shame the heretics of that time, who maintained that ^D only the soul is saved by God, and not...

the body. "The whole, therefore," he says, "is the Lord, who, having taken a soul and a body, has saved us entirely, who consist of soul and body." ^B There were indeed at that time followers of Simon, and up to that Cerinthus, as the ancients, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, indicate. But Demophilus, and whoever else is like him, is rebuked, he says, by God—by God, evidently, who wills even sinners to be saved—and is taught by Him: "And how was it not fitting," He says, "to rejoice at salvation attained through repentance? For I am He who lifted the lost upon My shoulders, the kind One toward the ungrateful. For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," says the divine Apostle, "who makes His sun rise on the evil and the good," as the holy Gospels say; "who lays down His life for those who are fleeing." But you, O Demophilus, as your letter indicates (for he himself had sent letters beforehand to the saint, boasting as if over an accomplished deed), you say, then, that even when an impious and sinful man—and this he speaks consistent with that man’s own language, and not according to how his soul actually is; for the one who repents from sin is not in such a state ^C as to be called impious—had fallen before the presbyter, you were present and kicked him away. And he uses "impious and sinful" in the genitive case, according to the Attic dialect. Then, while he was begging and seeking healing, you did not shudder, but even insulted the priest, who had judged the one whom you call impious as worthy of mercy as a sinner who is repenting; and in the end, you said, "Go out," and you yourself rushed into the holy of holies, and gathered up the immaculate mysteries, as if you had carried them off, having taken them from the altar; for it seems Demophilus stood over the priest while he was still ministering. You have done this, then, unworthily; for it belongs to deacons and presbyters to do such things, as the Law says: "And the priests shall cover the holy things," as he says in the following. And you write that you saved the holy things which were about to be defiled? Now, therefore, hear also our side. It is not lawful for a presbyter, even if he should sin, to be corrected by a deacon higher than you, or even by a monk. For order holds everything together; how much more in our own affairs must order be maintained? For if there is disorder, then God is divided against Himself; and every kingdom which is divided will not stand. And if the judgment is of God, then the priests are the angels of God after the hierarchs. But you, not even taking your stand with the ministers, that is, the deacons, but after them, learn through them from the priests, ^D by whom you were also deemed worthy to be a healer (for the syntax is in hyperbaton), learn from them, evidently from the priests, by whom also the monastic habit was given to you. Or do not the very symbols of the sacred order bear witness to my word? For in the altar stand first the archpriests, then the priests, then at the gates the deacons; and outside the gates the servers stand at those gates, not for the guarding of those very gates (for this belongs to the ministers stationed inside, that is, the deacons and subdeacons), but for order and recognition

of their own selves, so that they may know of what rank and merit they are, and may not exalt themselves above their betters; for they draw nearer to the people than to the priestly ranks. ^A And he says this not without reason, but because those in holy orders have as their own place the divine altar, whereas the monks stand outside with the people, even if the monks take precedence over the people. For this reason, the sacred legislation, in the distribution of the sacraments, entrusts the distribution to those who are more interior; for those within behold and hear the divine matters through symbols without a veil, and to those standing outside the curtains—monks, laymen, and even the ranks being purified, the catechumens, and those doing penance—he reveals the sacred things, always well-guarded and kept undefiled from your gaze, until you, having leaped upon them like a tyrant, forced the unviewable things to be paraded before you. And you say that you possess and guard the holy things, not knowing that you do not possess these; since they belong in no way to you, but relate to the priests.

And the phrase "As not even the truth," and what follows, he says, attacking him, and because of another disorder and shamelessness, ^B according to which, wrangling every day, not for the building up but for the destruction of those who hear, he used to read the Scriptures. For he restricts Demophilus' sin and disorder to two points: the attempting of the holy things, and the insulting of the presbyter—for we must leave aside the kicking out and thrusting away of the penitent; for he took two examples from the lesser case: as regards the first sin, saying: "If someone on his own authority attempted an ethnarchy, without the king granting it, would he not be punished?" and as regards the second, saying, "And if someone, standing by a magistrate who is acquitting or condemning someone, were to question him, let alone insult him." Again, from the common subject, "he would be punished." But you are so bold, even taking upon yourself the priesthood, and questioning the presbyter. And these things one should have said to that man who, while acting beyond his merit, nevertheless did what was fitting and proper. But what defense will you have, when you acted both beyond your merit and not at all fittingly? ^C And he immediately introduces the examples, and shows that Demophilus did even more. Uzziah was doing a good thing by burning incense, even if it was beyond his merit; the demons truly spoke, speaking divinely of Jesus, even if it was not permitted for them to speak such things; you have both acted beyond your merit, and did not perform what is fitting, having insulted the presbyter who receives those who are doing penance. Observe also from the old law: "And each one shall be in the rank of his own service," and the rest, and again defining; and again, God was angered in his wrath because Uzziah was rash in wishing to set upright the ark; and, the sister of Moses, Miriam, is struck with leprosy; and concerning the sons of Sceva, as it is reported in the Acts, that because they neither believed in Christ, nor were ordained, they exorcised the demons, which was permitted only to the exorcists. And again, ^D "The ungodly man, sacrificing a calf" (as one who slays a lawless man and sinner, by hyperbaton), 265 he held him for an impious man, whom he clearly knew to be repenting of the misdeed, he stood against him, and kicked him and cast him out.

Accordingly, he took the accusative for the genitive by Attic phrasing. But meanwhile, he, as a suppliant, was entreating most earnestly, seeking a remedy: you, on the contrary, were so far from being horrified that you further bespattered the priest with intolerable contumely; because he, who in your judgment was impious and a sinner, had nevertheless pronounced him penitent, just, and worthy of mercy; finally, you ordered him to depart, and not content with these things, you yourself impudently leaped into the sanctuary and confused things which should not be rashly handled by any, and dragged them out, almost with your own hand thrown from the altar itself. For, as it appears in the matter itself, Demophilus also caused alarm to the priest still operating the holy rites. This, therefore, was done unworthily by you. For these offices belong to the deacons and presbyters, as the law says: "And the priests shall cover the holy things," just as the Father teaches in what immediately follows. And behold, you write that you kept the holy things undefiled when already the danger of defilement was casting its shadow? Now, therefore, receive our judgment regarding these matters. We judge that it is on no account right that a presbyter, even if it happens that he deviates from rectitude, should be summoned to an inquiry by his own deacon, who is otherwise your superior, or indeed by any other person who has professed the monastic life. For it is order that makes all things cohere, and contains them. How much more is it fitting that order be preserved in us, that is to say, among the sacred? But if order is stirred up among these, it remains that God himself is believed to be divided. For every kingdom, whatever it may be, if it is divided, it will no longer stand. And if the judgment is of God, and the angels are God's, the priests likewise are according to their pontiffs. You truly are not to be compared even to their ministers, namely, the deacons, as you are inferior to them in degree. Wherefore, be instructed by these same priests, by whose office you have earned that you are a monk. For the construction of the words is according to transposition, that is, [you are to be] instructed by the priests themselves, through whom the schema of this monastic profession has been handed to you. Do these symbols not support and corroborate my word by their own testimony of this sacred order? For the pontiffs themselves stand closest to the altar first, then the priests, and then the deacons at the gates: from the external side of the gates, though close by, the monks stand, not indeed for the guarding of these same (for that duty concerns those who stand at the doors), but further within, namely [to support] the deacons or subdeacons, but for the sake of order and the recognition of themselves, that, I say, they may distinguish of what rank and dignity they are, so that they may not insolently exalt themselves before those who are more excellent. For they approach closer to the people than to the sacred orders. And he says this not without purpose, because, although they are initiated into the sacred,

^A they claim for themselves a place by a special prerogative, nearest to the altar: the monks, however, stand outside together with the people, even if they occupy a place somewhat superior to the people. For this reason, the sacred legislation, so that they might be partakers of divine things, has entrusted the duty of ministering to those who penetrate the inner parts of the sanctuary. For those who are within, without any obscuring veil, both see and hear divine things, though through significant signs: yet these same persons also recount and interpret the sacred mysteries to those who stand outside the veils—I mean the monks, the laity, and even those who are careful about their own purification, and I might add, the catechumens and those who are addicted to penance. Rite, the things that are always kept immaculate from your eyes, you have driven yourself to publish, impelled by a tyrannical impulse, things that should not even have been seen by you. And yet you boast that these sacred things exist and are kept only in your control, not knowing that none of these things pertain to you; for it is not your business, but the priests', to perform this sacred function. But the word he adds, "As in truth not even the truth," and the rest which follows; he is rebuking him also because of another transgression of order and impudence, since every day, having fixated himself on the strife of words, he would not read the Scriptures for confirmation or edification, but for the subversion of his hearers. In truth, however, he defines Demophilus' sin by two chapters, as it were, and at the same time, the fact that the order was not kept: first, because he invaded the holy things indecorously; and second, because he assailed the presbyter with intolerable insults. He thought it better to omit for now that he also cruelly kicked and removed a penitent from the entrance of the temple. Furthermore, he took up for discussion those two operations starting with the lesser. He acts against the former error of his, which is said to the Father: "Now, if someone invades the leadership of some people by private authority, and not commanded by the king: such a one would deservedly be punished." But as for the latter, he says: "If any of those standing by revokes the prince who is condemning, or absolving one of the subjects, for a more exact discussion of the case—I say nothing here—he has done injury to the prince." Again, this also must be understood: "He certainly would be punished." But you, having advanced to such a degree of temerity ^B that, having laid hands on the priesthood of your own authority, you have dared in addition to inquire against the presbyter. These things, indeed, ought to have been said against him who attempts anything beyond the dignity of his own order; but certainly, it is not at all contrary to reason nor indecorous. But what shade of excuse do you hope to be able to cloak yourself with, when, beyond the merit of your order, you have presumed to act with no pretext whatsoever? By these things, he continuously introduces examples, by the collation of which he clearly teaches that Demophilus had designated things far more grievous than those. King Ozias performed a deed in itself worthy of praise while he burned incense, yet it was beyond the dignity of his order. The demons really spoke, saying that Jesus was God: even though it was not lawful for them to say any such thing. You, beyond the condition of your dignity, have performed a deed that is exceedingly absurd: you have designated a matter that is altogether indecorous, while you loaded the presbyter, who was mercifully receiving the penitent, with insults; finally, see that my opinion is confirmed by the testimony of the ancient law: "And each one shall remain in the order of his ministry." And he defines the remaining things also. Again he says: "The Lord was angry with the temerity of Ozias who presumed to raise up the ark." But also Mary, the sister of Moses, is sprinkled with leprosy. Also concerning the sons of Sceva, as it is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, that because they had not believed in Christ, nor had they been called to that function, they nevertheless adjured the demons: for which task belonged peculiarly to exorcists, and to them alone. That item also: "He who, being wicked, immolates an ox, considers him as one who has killed a man." It is said, therefore, that God does not approve of any victim, however generous and splendid, because of the indignity of the person offering it. Again: "Then weigh for me that extraordinary justice of God, because to those saying, 'Did we not do this and that in your name?' He answers, 'I do not know you.'" From all these testimonies introduced, therefore, it is gathered that it is by no means permitted to perform things that are just in themselves, unless the dignity of the order is also preserved. For that lawgiver Moses teaches this primarily in Deuteronomy: "That which is just, you shall perform justly." By the same, that admirable Sirach exhorts you, saying: "Seek not things higher than you, nor search into things deeper than you." The Father introduces an antithesis or opposition, ^B as if making Demophilus speak, because, furthermore, no mediocre contagion of impiety will coalesce among the priests: if indeed it will not be permitted to raise a question about the morals of the priests, nor will it be lawful for anyone...

^A to demand an account of their lives and call them back to rectitude. But from this arises the danger, lest those who sell themselves under the name of the law should bring about a shameful insult to God through transgression of the law. Indeed, I will answer thee, Demophilus, providently and with foresight concerning this matter; since Demophilus is not considered so much an enemy that he should be allowed to be oppressed by Satan in such great error. Know, therefore, that each of the holy distinctions, the closer it is joined to God, represents the likeness of divine beauty more expressively than the order that is further removed: and this is observed in the heavenly and our own hierarchy. I would not have thee take this proximity according to spatial dimension; but rather according to the disposition and suitable aptitude of each. For God is not in a place, so that from this it should be expressed that this is nearer to God, and that more remote. ^B If, therefore, the order of priests is established for this purpose, that it may transfuse the abundance of its light into others; whoever illuminates no one to such a degree that he is not even himself bathed in any light, such a one should not be called a priest. For hence, according to my judgment, he is reckless beyond measure and shameless, as one who thinks that God is ignorant of those things of which he himself is ill-conscious; and considers that he can deceive Him whose patronage he implores, feigning the false nomenclature of father, when he says: "Father, who art in heaven." And he meanwhile dares to attach his blasphemies (for I would not call them prayers) to the divine symbols. Such a one, therefore, is by no means to be called a priest, when in all ways he departs from this profession. But in the meantime, to grant this, it is not immediately permitted to Demophilus to inquire into such great matters. For we ought to pursue what is just, ^C according to the commandment of Scripture (n). For justice is that which distributes to all according to merit, since even to the angels justice is allotted; for in all things that are, things are distributed by lot to the second by the first, according to divinity and merit. Therefore, those who are appointed in this, to preside over others: these should share out the functions to be discharged to their inferiors according to the merit of each. But let Demophilus also, with weighed judgment, cut off [and distinguish] single things, and separate to each its own offices according to dignity, attributing some to reason, some to anger, and again others to concupiscence. Which, indeed, cannot come to pass in any other way, so that each thing may be decently separated from the other, unless reason itself in the first place prescribes the measure to its inferiors, namely, to anger and concupiscence. ^D At the same time, he introduces the example: for reason holds the place and turn of a master, a presbyter, a father: but anger and concupiscence [hold the place of] a servant, a junior, a son. Should we not seem to have omitted the rights of piety, if indeed it happens that the more excellent are badly affected in the forum by a violent impression of the inferiors; and we meanwhile do not offer assistance to the more excellent who are so indignantly received? To these things, with an acute enthymeme

^A one should reply in turn; nor shall the order be subverted. There is so much from us for your awareness of yourself and your own order. But regarding the inhumanity toward the sinner, I do not know how I shall weep, in the prophetic manner, for the breach of the beloved Christian. For why were you appointed as a healer by us, if you are alien to our healing? And since you are such, it is time for you to seek another God and other priests, so that you might be brutalized by them or initiated by them, ^B neither knowing in what you stumble, and thinking that you see, when in truth you see not. "The heaven was astonished at this," according to Jeremiah, and I shuddered. And if I had not received your letters, I would not have believed another saying such things about you; that Demophilus believes God to be unmerciful toward us, while he himself needs no mercy from God, and he deposes the priests. But the Lord Christ, even ^C though separated from sinners (for "He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth"), makes the shepherding of His sheep a demonstration of the love toward Himself; and one who does not forgive his fellow servant even a little, when many things have been forgiven him, He calls wicked, and deems him worthy to enjoy that which is his own, that is to say, darkness and punishment; for these things are proper to the wicked. He Himself is the one who even prayed for those who were crucifying Him. And He rebuked the disciples when they spoke against the Samaritans, as it is written in the holy Gospel according to Luke. For the Lord also says to them: "You do not know of what manner of spirit you are," that is to say, by what grace you minister. You, however, ^D clamor up and down that you have avenged God, through wickedness, against the good man; away with such thoughts. Our High Priest, Christ, is guileless, mild, and is the propitiation for our sins. Therefore, we will not accept your misguided impulses, even if you often bring forward Elijah and Phinehas, saying that you acted according to them; for the Lord was not pleased when the disciples, still lacking in the Spirit, said such inhuman things. This the Father said, looking toward the perfection of the gift which they received after the resurrection; for it is written: "The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." But one must be taught, and not punish those who are ignorant, just as we lead the blind and do not punish them. Some say that *korrhēn* refers to the temple, others to the cheek. It is better to say the temple. Let us not, therefore, I beseech you, do harm; for this is what is said proverbially: to thrust the sword against oneself. After these things he says what follows for those desiring to treat others unjustly or to do them good, even if they did not bring to pass what they had planned; for those—namely, whom they intended to treat unjustly or to treat well—they did not altogether, he says, affect as they had intended; but it is evident that this happened, the one on account of the unwillingness of those treated well, the other on account of the feebleness of those doing injustice. Having intended to speak concerning the two, those who intended to treat unjustly and those who intended to do well, he directs his account only to those who are acting unjustly, that those who are treated unjustly shall inherit the kingdom of God; but they themselves, those who act unjustly, both in this life and in the

^A future, are punished, being condemned to be with demons. After this, he discourses also concerning the much-famed divine vision. This is the Carpus whom the divine Apostle mentions in the second epistle to Timothy, who would not even attempt the celebrations of the holy mysteries unless he had first been deemed worthy of a vision at the preparatory prayers. Now the Athenians used to call the prayers with sacrifices concerning marriages *protelia* (preliminary rites); for they called marriage the *telos* (end or perfection), as it perfected a person for life. Hence, they considered marriage also a mystery (5). And they said that people were "pre-initiated" and "pre-perfected," and as it were "pre-purified," in preparation for the mystery (6). Accordingly, the Father transferred what was spoken of impiously among the Greeks into the mystery of the truth. And he called *protelious* (preliminary) prayers the petitions before the mystery for purification and for the blameless reception of the most perfect and perfection-bestowing gift of the mysteries. And what are the *Ilaria* (joyous) prayers? There were certain days among the idolaters which they called *Ilaria*. And some were private *Ilaria*, such as when someone married or acquired a son; but others were common and public, as when a king, on being proclaimed, provided public *Ilaria*. And it was not permitted to wear mourning clothes on these days; rather, public shows and sacrifices were performed each day, and the mourning people ceased their mourning, and watched, and spent these *Ilaria* days in festivities. There was also a private festival of the Romans called *Ilaria* in honor of the mother of their gods (7).

Since, however, it is always "today," the discourse signifies that one must always admonish the one who is not good. Some, therefore, ignorantly say the opposite, using the apostolic injunction that says: "A man who is a heretic, after a first and second admonition, reject" (Tit. III, 10). They do not understand the power of what has been said, which is especially elucidated by the following words. For then the rejection after a first and second admonition is reasonable, when the teacher comes to the point of rejection knowing that such a person has been "subverted," and is unaware that he is "self-condemned" (Tit. III, 11); for it is clear that the condition of those who approach is revealed to the holy teachers. Others have understood the phrase "after a first and second" to mean: "after the teaching from the Old and New Testament." ^C For instance, he says that Carpus was grieved on account of the one who had been led astray by another, it being necessary to be concerned for both, and to lead them by constant admonition to the divine knowledge, since the controversies for which, perchance, the one had led astray and the other had been led astray had already been judged; but it was not through this very controversy that the one led astray and the other was led astray. Rather, the cause for both entering into the misleading of the one, and for the other receiving the things of the error, was a certain controversy, which the one later led astray held with someone; and since he could not overcome that man's insolence, he gave way to the error. For this is what is indicated by what follows. — *Korē*, temple, cheek; to thrust the sword against oneself, ^D acting in imitation of a proverbial figure, he says. The Father explains after this what rewards accompany those who eagerly strive to treat others with either some injury or some benefit, even if they do not advance to the deed which they were intent on accomplishing by deliberate plan. For those whom they had presumed to treat with injury or with benefit, he says they did not treat in every way as they had intended. It is clear, however, that this happens in the first place through the thoughtlessness of those on whom the benefit is conferred; but the other depends on the weakness of those who prepare to injure others. And when he has set out to weave a discourse on both classes of men—those who by a certain and deliberate plan prepare to be either injurious or beneficial to their neighbors—he offers a reasoning concerning those who prefer to be injurious to others. For those who bear injury with fortitude inherit the kingdom of God; on the other hand, those who are authors of injury will receive, in this life and in the future, punishments that are the avengers of a deliberate malice, being condemned to the perpetual company of demons. Having decided these things, he proceeds to a commentary on the celebrated and di

divine vision. This is that Carpus of whom the admirable Paul makes mention in his latter epistle to Timothy. He would not lay his hand upon the most sacred confection of the mysteries until he was declared worthy of it through a vision during the prayers which precede the consecration. Furthermore, the Athenians called those prayers ^A *proteleiai* which preceded nuptials, along with sacrifices; for they called a wedding *telos*, that is to say, a completion, as these rites initiate and perfect a man for the preservation of this life. Therefore, they even held nuptials to be a sacrament. They spoke of *proteleisthai* and *promyeisthai*, as if to say that before the sacred rite they are purified and rendered clean for the preparation of the mystery. What, therefore, was referred by the Gentiles to impiety, the Father has derived toward the mystery of our most true religion. But he also mentions the *proteleious* prayers, namely, those invocations which precede the initiation of the sacrament, for the purpose of seeking expiation, and for the sake of the transmutation of the most perfect and perfecting grace of the sacraments, which prejudices no one. ^B But what are those prayers meanwhile called *Hilaria*? Indeed, there were certain days among those addicted to idolatry which they called by this name. These were considered private, as when anyone first married a wife or had received a child from his wife; they were public and general, as when anyone was inaugurated into a kingdom and, having recently been declared king, proclaimed public *Hilaria*. It was permitted to no one during those days to wear anything mournful, but spectacles and sacrifices were celebrated every day. Those who were in mourning at that time tempered their grief for their own sakes, and took part in the spectacles and passed these *Hilarian* days in public banquets. In addition to this, there was a day holy to the Roman city, the *Hilaria* in honor of the mother of their gods. Now, since it is always "today," by this word he suggests that he who is not good while he lives must always be admonished. However, some very ineptly defend a different opinion, induced by the oracle of apostolic doctrine: "A heretical man, after the first and second admonition, avoid" ^C (Tit. III, 10); they certainly do not understand the force of those words, which otherwise is opened up by the following context in the clearest light. For such an avoidance after the first and second admonition ought to seem just and consonant with reason when he who possesses the authority to teach has first avoided the one so admonished by his own example, as one who knows that such a one is subverted, even if he lies hidden, since he is condemned by his own judgment. For it is manifest that the state and condition of the present are revealed to the holy doctors. Others, indeed, have understood this saying, "After the first and second admonition," in this sense, as if it were said: "After doctrine drawn from the Old and New Testament." But now, he teaches what was the cause of such great sorrow for Carpus: namely, on account of one person being led away from the faith into error by another certain person. It was fitting that Carpus should providently take counsel for the salvation of both, and thus by constantly admonishing them, lead them forward from error to the knowledge of God, so that at last, having abjured and cut off the impediments of their disputes—on account of which perhaps the one seduced the other into error, while the other suffered himself to be cast down by it—they might be reconciled. Nor yet was it on account of this very controversy that the one did deceive and the other allowed himself to be imposed upon. But the cause of that transgression, which the one admitted by seducing, while he seduced, and the other, having been seduced, by receiving the suggestions of that impostor, is this: A certain controversy had arisen which he who was finally led into error, when he had [a case] against the other before a judge and could not shatter his ferocity against himself nor prevail, finally turned aside from the integrity of the faith into the error of the Gentiles. That this is true is manifest by what is brought in: "And from those things which, beyond reason, are audaciously admitted—"

rant, resipicere ^A congerentur: to wit, that he was miserably accepted by those who injured him, by whom, having been seduced, he gave himself over to error. It was fitting, therefore, that these things should happen for their sake. Carpus, meanwhile, until he had—I know not how—discharged this bitterness from his soul, fell asleep. About the middle of the night, having been roused from sleep according to his custom, and awakened to divine praises—for otherwise, on account of the tumultuous intemperance pressing heavily upon his soul, he had rested uncomfortably—he was deeply grieved and vexed: he prayed further to God that He might destroy both with celestial flame and, as it were, with some lightning. *Preteres* is indeed a thunderbolt, from *pretho*: that is, I burn, I set on fire, I scorch. And while he said these things, he seemed to see that formidable vision which he recounts with a very subtle narration. We, therefore, as it is confessed by all and stands in need of no exposition, have omitted it, only submitting this: concerning those who soothe and by every means strive to cast the wretched into that gaping abyss. Note, and gather from these things, how miserably the devil precipitates men into those outer darknesses, which he calls *achanes* (that is, a chasm, meaning a desolation and an abyss). Men, I say, he thrusts thither, whether he be that deceiver and impostor, or he who impels those persuaded and enticed by him into error. There is a time when the same one sometimes takes to himself wicked and impure co-workers, whose operations prepare many others, like that idolater, for his seduction, of which the present discourse treats. Wherefore Carpus in this vision beholds men even now standing in the midst of serpents, that is, demons: who, by the instigator, the devil, were dragging those conquered toward Tartarus, from which may the goodness of the Lord deliver us. But that which he added: *involuntarily and violently carried away*, does not by this statement impose any force of necessity—that is, so that you might not understand the devil as the Manichaeans, Messalians, or Euchites, feel (but *messala* in the language of the Phoenicians is called prayer); but because, having been persuaded to work some evil, we of our own accord cede place to the impostor: hence he attacks us unexpectedly and as if from ambush, gathering strength against us from ourselves. For he would not be able to do anything against us if we were not persuaded; since in time, and close at hand, there is present to us the auxiliary goodness of God, aiding and supporting us, as the matters immediately following indicate. That point also, *While other men do not sin*: it must be supplied, "that they might crucify," as if he were saying: I am prepared to suffer again, only not through men, so that men might not sin again. It is to be noted meanwhile, while these things are being said, that in this vision the Lord Himself calls His holy angels, who are good and lovers of the human race.

TO THE NINTH EPISTLE

^A Verbum effusum: "My heart hath uttered a good word." Spiritum item: "And with the spirit of his mouth." Jam sinus inducit Dei genitoris; ut: "Who is in the bosom of the Father." Et arbores quasdam, ut est: "The tree of life." Et virgulta, ut illud est: "From the virgult, my son, thou hast ascended." Et illud: "Jacob shall flourish and bud," accepted for Christ, whose fruit of salvation hath filled the earth. Et radices, ut illud: "Thy root." Fontes item aquarum: "For with thee is the fountain of life," et: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." Et quæcunque alia formæ consimilis. Rursus lucigenas ^B infert splendorum generationes; ut: "Who being the brightness of his glory," et: "Lord, in the light of thy countenance they shall walk," et his similia, sive etiam plerasque alias sacras descriptiones declarativas sensus mystici, desumptas in multiplici Dei providentia, ut illud: "The eagle shall protect its nest." In donis item; ut illud: "Thou openest thy hand." De apparitionibus, propterea quod se exhibuerit in forma hominis conspicuum Veteris Testamenti sanctis. In virtutibus, ut: "A spirit shaking the mountains." In proprietatibus quoque, ut cum adamas dicitur: quod nulli sit Numen obnoxium passioni. Hoc enim peculiariter competit divinæ illi naturæ. Proinde termini atque mansiones, quod et divinæ istius naturæ immutabilis status ^C tacite insinuetur per ejusmodi lapides, qui substernuntur jaciendis fundamentis: in processionibus item, quoniam per hanc suaveolentem lilii fragrantiam exprimitur distributio bonorum ipsius naturalium, cujus causa dicitur: "The lily of the valleys." Occurrunt et conjunctiones per stanneum lapidem, sed et per ignem discretiones sive dijudicationes. Est quoque ubi illi tribuitur virilis forma, ut apud Danielem: "And the Ancient of days did sit." Rursus ubi per feras significatur: "When he had lain down, he slept as a lion." Itemque: "As a leopard raging for its lost whelps by the way of the Assyrians." Est ubi describitur aliorum quoque animalium specie, ut illud est: ^D "But I am a worm, and no man." Est ubi plantæ nomine depingitur, sicut apud Davidem, vitis: sicut apud alterum item prophetam, oliva. Ubi vero lapidum variegationes, ut illud: "Sapphire." Et apud Amos, "Adamant." Et ornamenta muliebria, ut illud: "In golden raiment." Ubi barbarica armorum manufactura, forsitan ut illud: "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one"; for a sword is a barbaric weapon, as Phylarchus relates. When again we hear concerning God and divine vessels, as that: "As clay of the potter I will refine them." And a crucible: "Thou hast fired them, as silver is fired"; and: "Thy horses troubling many waters"; and chariots: "The chariot of God is ten thousandfold"; and thrones: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever"; and banquets, as in the Gospel when the fatted calf and the rest are made upon the finding of the prodigal son. And again when we hear that God has been "awakened as if from wine," and "drunken," and "sleeping" ("Why sleepest thou, O Lord?"). What, then, could one say concerning those phrases: "And the Lord was angry," and "Why wast thou angry with us?" and "The Lord was grieved," and "The Lord swore," and "He repented," and "He cursed," and "He was indignant"? What, then, concerning those manifold

^B and oblique arguments regarding the frustration of promises? He calls them "frustrations of promises" because it is easy to see that the promises have by no means received an outcome corresponding to the promise. For example, to bring forth a few from many: that which was said to Jacob, "Be lord over thy brother," and those things concerning the permanence of the succession to the kingdom of the seed of David, things which in their apparent outcome seem to have failed. But according to more precise contemplation, they have not failed at all. For what was said to Jacob has been fulfilled through the sovereignty of those descended from him, and ^C through the upward leading to Christ; just as also the promises to Abraham concerning the possession of the land and the blessing of the nations. And those to David are referred only as to Christ; likewise those concerning Solomon, which seem to have been said in the Psalms, were fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, he called the explanatory accounts in these, which possess much variety, "manifold sophistries"—not as if the truth were being artfully handled by false reasoning, but as wisely unfolding the question at issue. Again, the battle of the giants and the building of the tower, as it is related in Genesis, and the counsel against Ahab, as it is found in the third book of Kings, in which the divine Scripture sets forth how Jehoshaphat, ^D king of Judah, came to Ahab, the king of Israel. And the king of Israel said to the king of Judah, "Will you go with us to war to Ramoth-Gilead?" And Jehoshaphat said, "As I am, so are you; as my people, so are your people; as my horses, so are your horses." And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, "Inquire, I pray you, of the Lord today." And the king of Israel gathered all the prophets, about four hundred men. And the king of Israel said to the prophets, "Shall I go to Ramoth-Gilead to war, or shall I refrain?" And they said, "Go up, and the Lord will surely give it into the hands of the king." And Jehoshaphat said to Ahab, "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord through him?" And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom to inquire of the Lord. But I have hated him, for he does not speak good of me, but evil, Micaiah, the son of Imlah." And Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, said, "Let not the king say so." And the king of Israel called a eunuch and said, "Bring Micaiah, the son of Imlah, quickly." And Ahab and Jehoshaphat, kings, were sitting on their thrones, armed at the gates of Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them. And Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made for himself iron horns, and said, "Thus says the Lord: With these you shall gore Syria until it is finished." And all the prophets were prophesying in this way, saying, "Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and you shall prosper, and the Lord will give the king of Syria into your hands." And the messenger who went to call the prophet Micaiah spoke to him, saying, "Behold now, all the prophets with one mouth speak good concerning

^A the king; let your words also correspond to the words of one of them, and speak what is good." And Micaiah said, "The Lord lives, that whatever the Lord says to me, that I will speak." And Micaiah came to the king. And the king said to him, "Micaiah, shall I go up to Ramoth-Gilead into battle, or shall I refrain?" And he said, "Go up, and the Lord will deliver it into the hands of the king." And the king said to him, "How many times must I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?" And Micaiah said, "Not so. I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains as a sheepfold which has no shepherd. And the Lord said, 'Has the Lord not a God for these? Let each man return to his house in peace.'" And Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, "Did I not say to you, 'He does not prophesy good to me, but only bad'?" And Micaiah said, "It is not so, not I. Hear the word of the Lord. It is not so. I saw the Lord God of Israel sitting upon His throne, and all the host of heaven standing around Him on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, 'Who shall deceive Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. And a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said, 'I will deceive him.' And the Lord said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And He said, 'You shall deceive him, and you shall also succeed; go forth and do so.' And now, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets. And the Lord has spoken evil concerning you." And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah approached and struck Micaiah upon the ^B cheek, and said, "Which spirit is this that has spoken in you?" And Micaiah said, "Behold, you shall see on that day when you shall enter into the innermost chamber of your house to hide yourself." And Ahab said, "Take Micaiah and turn him back to Amon the governor of the city, to put this man in prison, and let him eat the bread of affliction and the water of affliction, until I return in peace." And Micaiah said to the king, "If you return at all in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me." And the two kings, Ahab and Jehoshaphat, went up to Ramoth-Gilead. And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, "Disguise yourself, and I will enter into the battle, and you shall put on my garments." And the king of Israel disguised himself and entered into the battle. And the king of Syria had commanded his thirty-two commanders of chariots, saying, "Do not fight with small or great, but only with the king of Israel." And it came to pass when the commanders of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, they also said, "This is the king of Israel," and they surrounded him to fight, and Jehoshaphat cried out. And it came to pass when the commanders of the chariots saw that this was not the king of Israel, they turned back from him. And he drew his bow with precision, and struck ^{C D}

the king of Israel between the lungs and the chest, and said to his charioteer: Turn your hands, and lead me out of the battle, for I am wounded. And the battle was turned in that day. And the king stood in his chariot against Syria from morning until evening. And the blood was poured from the wound into the bosom of the chariot, and he died in the evening. And the military herald stood in the camp, as the sun was setting, saying: Let each one return to his own city and to his own land, for the king is dead. And they buried the king in Samaria, and washed the blood at the fountain of Samaria; and the swine and the dogs licked the blood; and the harlots washed themselves in the blood, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke. And these are the matters concerning the deception of ^A Ahab.

Note also concerning the Song of Songs, whose amorous affections—those, to be sure, of enticement, the sweetness of kisses, and the other things of that kind—invited Theodore, surnamed of Mopsuestia, to disparage the book itself; as well as all other signs, things which are, as it were, symbols multiplied of the intelligible and singular, and divided of the undivided. ^B He asserts that these multiplied symbols are ordered toward that true and singular (for that, whatever it may be, is singular). Now, the symbols that signify that reality are multiplied: partly because they signify the truth through one thing and then another; and partly because, however much one might say, they fall far short of the singular. And while the forms and the reasons are divided into many things, that for which these are done and said is singular and undivided. For let us not suppose that these phenomena—the symbols, as it were, of those things which occur symbolically—have been invented for their own sake, that is, for the sake of their being understood ^C as the phenomenon presents itself and as the letter simply dictates; rather, these things are set forth and reveal themselves to be of a divine knowledge that is secret to the many. For they are veils and types of deeper thoughts and conceptions; for this, he says, is the knowledge which the Word signifies, as there is a knowledge higher than these, which he who contemplates spiritually and compares spiritual things with spiritual knows—not by demonstrative arguments, but by spiritual ones. And they were ^D written down as such for the sake of the unworthy, so that they might not appear contemptible; and so that they might be revealed only to those who are perfect, and who have cast off every improper fantasy concerning these things, and who have the power to cross over to the truth, while looking past at once the diversity of the symbols, and grasping the singular—not in proof and intellectual science, but in simple intuition of the mind. Furthermore, he says that the tradition of the theologians is twofold: the one through symbols, and the other through the contemplation of creation, in the understanding of the Maker from it. And having called the first secret and mystical, he explains it further, calling it symbolic, as being imparted through symbols. But he also calls it initiatory, as the rites of the mysteries in

^A their sacerdotal tradition. He says that this secret, or symbolic, ^B theology has the expressible—that is, that which is permitted to be spoken by a symbol—interwoven with the inexpressible, or mystical. For the truth is shaded within the symbol and is not made public, just as in the legal rite the true Passover was, as it was said: *Our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us.* The second part of theology is manifest and well-known. He calls this theology philosophical and demonstrative, as it is composed through the understanding of created things, and of certain divine dispensations, and of the theoretical interpretation of what is said about God in the Divine Scriptures. And this more manifest [theology] possesses a certain persuasion and truth bound to the things being said; for according to this it is also demonstrative, persuading and binding, and as it were placing a bond and seal upon the things said, ^C making the truth firm; and it gives assurance to the hearers, suggesting that great things must be understood greatly, and in accordance with their majesty, and not simply in a common way, as the many incline to learn. For who, seeing the sun shining, and then having heard of its cause and producer, would not understand that [the producer] is luminous, and indeed, by much, light beyond such [created] light? For if he were like this, he would not be the maker of such a thing. Again, who, seeing living, active, and moving things, does not reckon their maker to be living beyond these and incomparably so, and moving beyond these very movements—evidently by his own contemplation, following the great and divine Gregory—and active more potently and to an immeasurable degree beyond his products? Such, then, is the more manifest [theology], demonstrating the maker from the nature of the products; for this reason it is also called philosophical, as it dwells in the nature of creation, and from there theorizes about things beyond nature. But the symbolic [theology] does not have this power of persuasion, but rather a certain divine, invisible, and active power, which establishes and, as it were, founds the mystical and contemplative souls into God, through mystical, or symbolic, enigmas—not through mysteries taught by words, but by silence and the revelation of divine illuminations; and it enlightens the mind toward the understanding of inexpressible mysteries. For through the things being performed (for these are the things done by it, which is why it is also called initiatory) it appropriates [the soul] to God by a practical habit and formation (which he also called unlearned initiations). ^D For he who has attained to the participation, let us say, of the immaculate gifts, is initiated without being taught, and attains the sanctification truly. For this reason, this mystical theology acts, whereas that [other theology] persuades and leads toward the truth through the understanding of faith. And indeed, not only the legal tradition, but also the rite of the mysteries among us required holy symbols. And nothing is wonderful, since even the angels lead the divine mysteries through enigmas. And even the...

Lord manifests this in parables as in symbols; and he also hands down the theurgic mysteries at supper, or those which render those who partake of them gods, or those accomplished by our Master Christ and our God through the typical table. By "table-setting" ^A he means, then, the reclining at the table, but now the mysteries celebrated at the divine table through the holy bread and the cup of blessing. For these things are accomplished in this way for two reasons: one, that the holy things may be distinguished from the many, who do not have the capacity to reach the intelligible things, for the sake of which the symbols become; the second, since our life is from soul and body, and is at once indivisible and divisible—the former because of the indivisible and incorporeal nature of the soul, the latter because of the varied and manifold nature of the body—the divine dispensation also becomes twofold, illuminating us proportionately. And that which is impassible in the soul, that is, the intellectual part, is not as if it were entirely devoid of passion, but as having no causes from without for suffering, just as the body is subject to many evils, which the soul does not endure without its own volitional consent. This impassible part, then, has been assigned to the intelligible visions, which he also calls simple and most inward, as if most hidden; but its pathetic part, ^B that is, the part that is receptive of things from without through the senses, receives these related veils. This is clear from what even some of the prophets, having heard a theology that is clear—that is, bare of coverings—such as, "The Lord appeared to Abraham, or to Moses, and said this and that," and, "The word of the Lord came to the prophet," construct within themselves a certain type, that is to say, a pious contemplation, and one suitable to the divine nature. For how else could one be led by the hand toward the apprehension of the theology mentioned? And even the creatures themselves have been put forward, as if they lie before us, for the sake of the invisible and intelligible things. And not only does the divine apostle Paul say this—"That his invisible things are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"—but also the true Word himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, when he says, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Therefore, the prophets also, on one hand, oversee things politically and lawfully, ^C as when Isaiah says: "And come, let us argue together, says the Lord; for this is the nature of the *politeia* and the laws"; on the other hand, they oversee purgatively, when they exhort: "You who thirst, go to the water, and wash yourselves, become clean," and, "Come to him, and be enlightened." For these are the things of teaching and purification. Those political and lawful things, then, hold the rank of symbols; for they are coarser and clear to us; but these, the purgative and undefiled ones, hold the rank of a theology bare of symbols. Therefore, those are handled humanly, or in some way higher—for this is the middle way—but these are handled more highly and theurgically. But those are from the visible laws; these are from the invisible ordinances; for the things of the old law are proclaimed visibly, but are understood invisibly. Since, how are the fasts and...

the new moons ordered, he later says through Isaiah: "For who has required these from your hands?" If they are not spoken of openly, but understood invisibly? And what is appropriate or hidden in the matters, are thus made manifest, so that they may not be profaned by the multitude, or by our own minds and souls, clearly according to the capacity of those who receive them; for the Jews are given law in one way, and we who are according to Christ in another, although it is the same law-giving: they in the letter, but we in the spirit; for the discourse of the prophets does not contain mere history, but a life-giving perfection; for the goal for the saints, through the table of the Scriptures, is to be perfected for eternal life by those who are taught. And these things he says, showing necessarily that the anagogical ascent must occur in the divine words. We must, therefore, also peer inside the symbols and contemplate them as offshoots of divine and intelligible characters; ^B for it is not only the worshipful hypostases of the holy Trinity that are diversified by symbols—God, too, is called fire, as in "A consuming fire," and His oracles are called "kindled"—but even the angels are described symbolically; for it is said of them: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." But nonetheless, even with these underlying realities, the types are understood, even if they are the same; for the image of fire is taken in relation to God either according to that which is beyond understanding, because He is called fire, but is beyond this. For the time being, He is called fire as the cause of fire. And since the Divine is beyond understanding, He is understood from the caused things as the Cause, or according to His providence, as in the Gospels: "I came to cast fire upon the earth"; for His providential, all-active, and distinguishing power is called fire; or according to the word, as in Jeremiah: "Are not my words like fire, says the Lord?" because of its being utterly pure and unmixed; just as also in David: "The words of the Lord are pure words, tried by fire." But thus it is with regard to God; yet fire is also spoken of with regard to the angels, as things caused by God through participation, just as they are also called light, and gods, and other things appropriate to God.

^C ...but also that which is properly our own, the sacred institution of the Christians, had need of those holy symbolic signs. Nor is this to be wondered at, since the angels themselves lead and conduct us to the knowledge of divine mysteries through enigmas. And the Lord Himself, while treating of divine things, seems to have followed this same method in parables, which are as it were certain signs. He clearly expressed this kind of theology while delivering the mysteries at the Supper, endowed with the power of divine operation, or such as would make their participants in some measure divine; or those things which were done by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God through the apparatus of that typical table. Hence, he calls those who were then with the disciples at that holy table to recline together, as well as the mysteries now celebrated in the divine, sacrosanct table through the blessing of the holy bread and cup. ^D These sacraments are indeed celebrated for a twofold reason. The first is so that these holy things may be distinguished and separated from common men who cannot reach up to the things proposed for consideration, for whose sake—that is, for the sake of the common people—such figurative signs exist. The second reason is that this life of ours depends upon both soul and body: on the one hand, upon the indivisible and incorporeal nature of the soul; but on the other hand, upon the body, which is of a distinct and multi-membered nature; and hence it came to pass that the celebration of this divine sacrament was dispensed under a twofold matter, according to the proportion of our powers, the Lord meanwhile instructing us by His secret inspiration. Now, the impassibility of the soul—that is, the power of its intellect—does not mean it is entirely devoid of suffering, but because no causes of external passions present themselves, as this body is subject to innumerable discomforts, none of which the soul is forced to endure, unless it turns aside to them by its own voluntary will. This inflexibility of the soul regarding passions, therefore, is separated and distinct from looking upon those species which are grasped by the intellect alone; these visions, indeed, he asserts to be simple and intimate, as being most secret and lurking within. But the passive part, which comes from outside itself, admits these envelopes of figures akin to it. This is clear from the fact that some of the prophets are reported to have been auditors of a clear—that is, naked, not shadowed by any coverings—theology: as when the Lord showed Himself to Abraham to be seen, or also to Moses. And He said this and that. And the word of the Lord came to this prophet. And these indeed fashion in themselves some one image for such a vision, such as a contemplation congruent with piety, which, with the temper maintained in both cases, befits the divine nature. For by what other means could one be led by the hand to the intelligence of the prescribed theology? Even creatures themselves are placed before, and as it were lie before, the invisible and intelligible things. And this is asserted not only by that admirable apostle Paul, saying: "For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"; but also by the Truth Itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, when He says: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Therefore, those excellent prophets contemplate their oracles partly in the manner of a civil life instituted by laws, as when Isaiah says: "Come, and let us reason together, says the Lord." For this also pertains to the order of civil life and laws. Elsewhere they are purgative, as when they admonish: "You who thirst, come to the water"; and: "Wash yourselves, be clean"; and: "Draw near to Him, and be enlightened." For these things concern doctrine and expiation at the same time. Those things, therefore, which are political and prefer the form of laws obtain the reason of signs; for they are coarser and manifest to us all. But those which are purgative contain the reason of that naked sign...

^A of theology. And for this reason, those seem to have been introduced in a human manner, or even somewhat more sublimely. For the expression "mean," that is, middle, indicates this. But those others are introduced more sublimely and effectively toward perfection. And the former are by conspicuous laws; the latter, however, are by those which are in themselves secret and divine. Again, the former are the decrees of the ancient law, which are indeed proclaimed openly, but are understood obscurely. Otherwise, he who by law sanctioned fasts, Sabbaths, and new moons, afterward speaks thus through Isaiah: "For who has required these from your hands?"—unless it is because they are indeed spoken clearly, but are understood more obscurely? It was certainly fitting for things of this kind, which by their nature are more abstruse, to be published in this way, lest they might be profaned by the multitude; or else it was also suited to our senses and minds, according to the capacity of the recipients, of course. For the Jews interpret the decrees of our law in one way, and we who have given our names to Christ in another. For they place the power of their law in the letter; we, in the spirit. For the prophetic message does not merely contain history, but also has within itself a hidden, life-giving perfection. For this was the one goal for the saints, that through those Scriptures, which they had once taught, they might perfect and lead [people] to eternal life. And he says these things, meanwhile graphically declaring that a more sublime understanding is to be sought in the divine Scriptures. It will therefore be worth the effort for us to look into signs of this kind, and at the same time to contemplate them as the seeds of divine and intelligible figures. For it is not only those all-adorable Persons of the all-holy Trinity that are distinguished by figurative signs. For God is called fire, as in that phrase: "Fire is a consuming fire"; and "His oracles are ignited." But the angels also themselves are described figuratively; for it is said of them: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire." However, as far as these subjects are concerned, the figures are sufficiently understood, even if they are what they are: whether the very image of fire is taken for God, or according to that which exceeds understanding, because He is also called "fire." But this again surpasses [that]: for first He is called "fire," as if He were the author of fire. And when the Godhead transcends all understanding, from here He is understood from created things as their author, whether on account of His providence, as in the Gospels: "I came to cast fire upon the earth." For this providence of His, His ready and eager care for all things, and His discretive power in providing, is expressed by the name of "fire." Or, furthermore, by the efficacy of the word, just as in Jeremiah: "Are not my words like fire?" says the Lord; and this on account of His all-encompassing purity and integrity, just as in David: "The oracles of the Lord are tried by fire, pure oracles." And these things have been said about God. Consequently, "fire" is also declared concerning the angels, insofar as they are created by God, and this according to participation: just as they are called light, and gods, and by other such appellations which are known to pertain not unfittingly to God Himself.

^A Nay rather, to sum it all up, this "fire" spoken of in relation to God is declared according to cause. For He is called [fire] as the cause of fire. But concerning the providences and words of God, [it is declared] according to substance. The Father says this, not because the providences of God exist in themselves as self-subsistent, but because they are from God and exist, not as subsisting, but as effectively operating. Now, however, it is predicated concerning the angels according to participation, since they are called godlike and are to some extent partakers of the divine nature. Surely God Himself is called fire; but the angels also are called fire, by right of participation. But this divinity, which is called according to participation, differs immensely from that which is predicated in the present place according to substance: because that which is assumed participatively declares a substance existing by itself, but one that has obtained that acquired likeness of Divinity from elsewhere. That one, however, which is according to existence, is an inspiration and a divine oracle; that is, it is produced and spoken by God. For thus the reasons of symbolic names are by no means confusedly mixed; but rather they are understood according to the propriety of each subject of the argument, just as it is permissible to pronounce also concerning light. God Himself is called Light, but in ^B so much as He is the author of light. But the commands of God are light, yet according to [His] substance. But we have said above how He takes [the term] existence; since God is called Light, and the command exists, produced from Him, [it] also might be called light; yet not according to participation; for the command, being nothing else, did not partake of the divine light; but rather it was thus produced from God, and it is divine.

^A Light too is the angel, yet according to participation in divine light; for the exalted orders of angels are light ^B according to their order and worth, because they draw near to the primordial light, and because they possess the power of illuminating and of leading up those that are beneath them; and thus the names of symbols are properly expanded toward the underlying realities. But that we may not speak beyond the measure of the epistle, let us come to the question and the problem of the Proverbs. And since the question is, What are the foods and what the drinks, we say concerning food: Food is fulfilling for the needy, and restorative for the weak, and protective of life, and causes one to bloom and to be renewed, and bestows vital well-being; and simply, it drives away what causes sorrow and grants happiness. Well, therefore, does the all-wise Wisdom set out a mixing-bowl and pour out the drink; for this is what "provides" ^C signifies. Nay rather, before the mixing-bowl, she sets forth solid foods, inviting all to a feast, she herself being mastered by a seemly love for those in need of her; and she does not wait to be invited, but rather invites because of her extreme goodness. She nourishes, therefore, in a twofold manner, both by eating and by drinking. And the pouring out of the mixing-bowl represents her providential kindnesses. The mixing-bowl, therefore, being circular and spread out, signifies the unfolding of the divine providence toward all, which also encompasses all creatures in a circle. And he says that the providence of God is without beginning, not that it provides for existing things as being co-eternal with them ^D (for not one of existing things is co-eternal with the holy and creative and blessed Trinity), but because even before things were brought forth, the reasons of the creatures were in God; and in the divine intellects, the things about to be produced were pre-modeled. For this reason, the providence of God is said to pre-exist without beginning before the whole of creation; for it was the providence of God—that is, his providential care—and the will to produce a creation that would partake of his providential goodness. In this way, therefore, providence is also said to be endless for the immortal angels, and for us who are to be made immortal, and for the good things that are to be for our sake; yet since providence also proceeds, and yet remains immovably founded in its identity—for it is not dissipated nor extinguished—for this reason the mixing-bowl is said to stand. Wisdom builds a house for herself, so that it is both outside of it and in it. And in it she prepares what she said, that the divine providence is in the whole, and contains all things, and in the whole, nothing is in nothing—this is by way of transcendence—for it is not by privation, nor by non-existence, but as being and existing beyond these, as has been said in the *Mystical Theology*; for it is set apart from all, not being one thing of this and another of that; nor otherwise of this and otherwise of that; nor always of this and sometimes of that; but it is the same and eternally and in the same ways and likewise existing, and in no way departing from its own [D-cont] hearth—clearly, it is not becoming outside of itself; for "hearth" is said, that is, the permanent abode as it is.

^A And always moving according to providence, neither standing according to providence, nor moving according to nature; rather, since it has received "standing" in respect of the permanence of what is unchangeable, and "moving" in respect of the providence regarding existent things, we must understand and apply the "in general" to each of these, so that what is said is such that it is neither "standing" in general in such a way as not to move providentialy, nor "moving" in general in such a way as to depart from its own permanence. For this reason he says that, even if it moves for the sake of providence, it nevertheless possesses permanence; and if it remains in that which is unchangeable, it nevertheless moves by means of providences. From this he proceeds to distinguish which is solid food and which is liquid. The solid food, then, is a symbol; for this is the token ^B of intellectual and permanent perfection. And what is the intellectual and permanent perfection? It is entirely that in accordance with which those who are worthy and partakers of divine things (for intellection is called participation) are perfected; but it is in accordance with knowledge that is standing, since the food is solid, and is unified and indivisible. He says this, implying that in matters concerning God, the mind must not be divided toward material concepts, but must contemplate the supernatural and unsearchable character of the divine nature uniformly, and these are for one who has the senses of the inner man practiced; in which the divine Paul draws from the divine wisdom; for of this is the word: "When I was a child, I thought as a child." He imparts the solid food to the perfect, having first given milk when they presumably had the intellectual senses ^C unpracticed; for as a child, having the bodily senses unpracticed, sees or hears everything, but does not see or hear as it is; for he thinks there is no frightful specter, and often receives a mild word as threatening: so too he who is childish in soul has the senses of the soul unpracticed, and cannot behold or hear a higher contemplation, which the Word calls solid food. And I think liquid food is also a token and symbol. For this is the drawing from a common source, of the diffusive influence, that is to say, of the instruction through many and partitioned things; for it does not happen that those being instructed are led to the perfection of the knowledge of God in one simple way, but in a manifold and varied way. Therefore the divine words are likened to dew, and water, and milk, and wine, and honey; ^D for they are all, as it were, watery; but water is life-giving; because of such power they are so called. Yet they do not merely have the watery quality, but each also brings a certain peculiar quality. As for instance, they are like milk in being growth-producing; for milk is nourishing and growth-producing; like wine in being revitalizing; for wine is revitalizing, stirring up the innate heat; as they are cleansing and protective like honey; for honey cleanses even the ulcerous parts, and preserves the fruits that are cast into it. These then, the divine wisdom overflows to refresh the soul, and according to these God also feasts the worthy, and he himself...

is described as drunk, since he is represented as full of these, and very full. Meanwhile, however, it must be noted in the present place that the blessed Father derives the etymology of this word from — that is, "well," "conveniently," and as the expression — well-being. Therefore, just as among us drunkenness is spoken of in the worse sense, so by the better sense it is used regarding God; whence also for us immoderation is worse, but in God, it is better. Further, "to be beside oneself" is also said of God according to excellence, as is the case for both knowing and being known; for He does not know beings as they are, but according to a knowledge that is separate and beyond man. ^A Nor indeed is He known by those worthy of Him as He is; since He is even beyond being itself, and simply all things that are good, and as being overly full of these, He is said to be drunk, and again, as being outside and beyond such goods, He is said to be beside Himself; for he who is beside himself becomes outside of all things, and knows nothing either of beings or of things to be perfected. To be outside of all things, then, in a certain pre-eminently removed state, if I may so speak, is proper to God, in which He does not know beings as they are, but, moving from these in an excelling and separate manner, we shall allegorize the feasts in the kingdom of heaven, which signify a certain common and harmonizing communion of the saints, which the divine Apostle also calls the "Church of the first-born," and we consider the reclining to be the rest from many labors. Our Savior and Lord gladdens these, and makes them recline, because He is the cause of all the good things stored up for the saints. You will also ask that sleep and waking be allegorized in God. When we speak of sleep, we signify the divine power of yielding; when we speak of waking, we mean the attention directed toward providence. You, however, will also ask other things. Wherefore, thinking it superfluous to repeat the same things and seem to be saying different ones, we shall stop the discourse of the letter here, having returned, as I suppose, even more than you sought in your letters. But being persuaded that you wish to learn about everything, we send the entire ^B Symbolic Theology itself, in which you will find everything—both about the wisdom, and about the house, and about the solid food divided into bread and offerings, and about all other things; for such a book is a discovery of all the symbolic theologies, and is in agreement with the holy traditions which we received from our holy Apostle and teacher. ^{C D}

departed: hence he is said to have departed, a likeness being drawn from the fact that he who is once seized by ecstasy becomes outside of all things. For he knows nothing at all of those things which are, or which have already been done. For it was fitting for God Himself that that great majesty should be established as being outside of all things according to a certain habit separated in a way more eminent than all (if I may so speak): through which He does not know beings as beings; but more excellently, and much more eminently. Finally, stirred and rendered more eager by these things, we shall draw to an allegory those things also which are mentioned in the kingdom of the heavens, the celebrated banquets, as many as, in the place of a mirror, delineate for us the common and concordant fellowship of the saints: that which the excellent Apostle calls the Church of the firstborn. But we also judge that reclining to be that rest which succeeds the saints; indeed, many labors having been endured first. But our assertor and Lord of salvation wonderfully exhilarates them, and orders them to recline: because He is the author of all the goods which are stored up for the saints. Then you will inquire what sleep, and what on the contrary waking, said allegorically about God, might insinuate. Therefore, when we say sleep, we clearly declare that most secret withdrawal of God: on the other hand, by the name of waking we indicate His attentive and vigilant care, by which He provides for created things by the zeal of His providence. But you could also ask other things in succession. However, since we have deemed it superfluous in this matter to seem to want to say new things by reweaving the same things, or by inculcating them so often, we shall impose a limit on the present letter here: as we have discussed far more than your letters to us seem to have desired in my judgment. Therefore, complying with your desire to be taught more fully about all these things, we transcribe the Symbolic Theology, but also the solid one, in which you will find clearly explained all things which were handed down more obscurely concerning wisdom, concerning the house, concerning the solid food distributed into loaves and victims, and concerning other things of that kind in general. For this little book is such that in it you can find the reasons of the whole symbolic theology: which even now wonderfully agrees with the words of Scripture according to the sacred traditions, which we have received as if by hand from the holy Apostle, and my admirable teacher.

IN LETTER X

^A This epistle is worthy of that sacred antiquity and of the disciple whom Jesus loved, declaring as it does grace. Now it is possible to infer from this epistle, and from the seventh, which is to saint Polycarp, that the great Dionysius was about ninety years of age when he wrote these things. For in the epistle to the saint Polycarp he states that, while living in Heliopolis in Egypt, he witnessed the eclipse of the sun that occurred during the saving passion, which happened in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius; for in the fifteenth year our Lord ^B Jesus Christ began His preaching, as is declared in the divine Gospel according to Luke. And after having preached for three years and a few months, the Lord Christ, our God, willingly suffers, so that this was the eighteenth year of Tiberius. Tiberius reigned for about twenty-three years, so that from the saving passion until the end of Tiberius there are six years. Now the holy Apostle and Evangelist John was exiled to the island of Patmos, which is one of the Cyclades islands, toward the ^C last year of the reign of Domitian; and this man reigned for fifteen years and five months. The time from the eighteenth year of Tiberius, when the eclipse occurred, to the end of Domitian amounts to about sixty-four years and six months. Let us also suppose that the divine Dionysius, when he beheld the events on the cross of our Lord, was twenty-five years of age, as I believe, and still reading, so that the total is about eighty-nine years (48). Mention of the exile of the most holy John the Theologian ^D under Domitian is also made by Irenaeus in the third and fifth books of *Against Heresies*, and by Clement of Alexandria in his discourse *Who is the Rich Man Who is Saved?*, in which he also speaks of the pirate chief who had appeared. Thus are filled in the remaining years of Tiberius, of Gaius, of Claudius,

of Nero, of Vespasian, of Titus, of Domitian. ^A The Father therefore says to the holy Evangelist John the Theologian, after having greeted him by letter: "What is there to wonder at, if Christ speaks that which is true, and the wicked persecute the saints, doing this worthily both to themselves and to the saints? To themselves, because they are not worthy of their fellowship; to the saints, because they cause the holy things to be kept undefiled from their communion." These visible things are images of the invisible; and if in the divine Gospel we hear, *And he shall separate them one from another* (d), we ought not immediately to believe that God is the author of this separation from the sinners, who are to be set on the left hand; but rather these sinners are the authors of this evil for themselves, inasmuch as they have utterly and voluntarily separated themselves from the fellowship of God; just as we see that others, who are lovers of good things, become joined with God, and even from this present life begin to pluck the first-fruits of the life to come, living in an angelic manner in the midst of other men with all divine naming and holiness. ^B By "divine naming" he means either their always doing all things in the name of God, or that, being named from God—that is, from Christ—they conduct their lives in a manner worthy of Him. I would never say, then, that you suffer, but if you do suffer anything bodily, I say you suffer only insofar as you distinguish and perceive it, lest you remain un-crowned. I justly blame, however, those who think they can limit you, the sun of the Gospel. I pray, nevertheless, that they may recover their senses and run to you, that, being enlightened, they may be saved; for just as he is mad who thinks he can enclose this sun in a place, so also are those mad who think they can limit the light of the Gospel with you on the island of Patmos. Nor shall the opposite, that is, your being even further ^C distant (49), deprive us of your light; but while you are away, we shall read your Gospel, which aptly names the remembrance of his true theology. After a short time, however, when you are recalled, we shall meet face to face; and I also prophesy, as one having received revelation from God, that in a very short time you will be recalled from exile. For near the last year of the reign of Domitian he was banished to Patmos, after Domitian had stirred up persecution. Then, around the death of that emperor, he sees the divine revelation. And after these things Nerva reigns; and he immediately recalls all those who had been exiled, at which time also the holy John the Theologian returned to Ephesus. And one must know that for the Romans, exile to an island was equivalent to a capital sentence; and it is called *deportatio*. And no magistrate can name the island, except the emperor alone. ^D Therefore, the most holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian was deported, that is, exiled to an island.