“Refutation and Defence” (Eus., Præp. Evang. Vii. 19)
(1) They are not pious, who hand over matter to God as a thing without beginning for His orderly disposition,243 maintaining that, being subject to treatment and change, it yields to the modifications imposed by God. For they should explain how both the like and the unlike belong both to God and to matter. For some one must be imagined superior to either,244 and that may not be entertained about God. For whence came it that there is in them both the being without beginning, which is what is said to be “like” in both and which is also conceived of as different from both?245 For if God is of Himself without beginning and the being without beginning is, as some would say, His very essence, matter will not be without beginning, too: for matter and God are not identical. But, if each is what it is independently, and to both belongs in addition the property of being without beginning, it is clear that the being without beginning is different from either and older and higher than both. And thus the difference between their opposing states is entirely subversive of their co-existence, or rather of the one, viz. matter existing of itself. Otherwise let them state the reason why, both being without beginning, God is not subject to treatment, unchangeable, immovable, productive, and matter is the opposite, subject to treatment, changeable, mobile, varying.
Again, how is it that God and matter came in contact and combined? Was it that God adapted Himself to match the nature of matter and exercised His craft upon it? Nay, that is absurd that God, like men, should work in gold and stone and busy Himself in the other handicrafts which the various materials can give shape and form to.246
But if God endowed matter with the qualities which He in His own wisdom determined, impressing on it as with a seal the multiform and diverse shape and fashion of His own workmanship, this account of it is both proper and true, and yet further proves that God, who is the fundamental principle on which the universe exists, is without beginning. For to its being (according to them) without beginning God add its bearing certain qualities. So, then, there is still much to be said in answer to these views, but we do not propose to say it now. Nevertheless they are expressed with more propriety than those who are absolutely atheistical polytheists.247
(2) (Athan., de sent. Dion., 18). However, when I spoke of certain things that had an origin (γενητά) and certain things that were made (ποιητά), I did indeed casually mention examples of such things, recognizing that they were not altogether useful for my purpose: for instance, I said that neither was the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the boat as the shipwright. But afterwards I dwelt at length on those which were more to the point and cognate to the subject, and went more into detail about these truer examples, seeking out various additional evidences which I set out for you248 also in another letter: and in them I refuted as false the accusation also which they bring against me, as not stating that Christ is of one substance (ὁμοούσιος)249 with the Father. For even if I say250 that this word is not found nor read anywhere in Holy Writ, yet these later attempts of mine to explain which they have ignored are not inconsistent with this conception. For I compared human generation, which is clearly a transmission of the parents’ own nature (ὁμογενής), saying that the parents were different from their children in this single point, that they were not themselves the children: or else it must needs be that neither parents nor children should exist. The letter itself I cannot, as I have said before, owing to circumstances,251 lay my hand on: otherwise I would have sent you my exact words, or rather a copy of the whole letter: and I will do so, if I have the opportunity. But I know from memory that I added several illustrations from things kindred to one another: for instance, I said that a plant coming up from a seed or a root was different from that whence it sprang and yet was absolutely of one nature (ὁμοφυές) with it: and a river flowing from a source partakes of a different shape and name; for neither is the source called river nor the river source, and both these things exist,252 and the source is, in a sense, the father and the river is the water from the source. But these and similar remarks they pretend never to have seen written, but act as if they were blind. They only try to pelt me from afar253 with those poor ill-fitting phrases of mine254 as with stones, failing to recognize that where a subject is obscure and requires to be brought within our understanding, not only do diverse but even quite contradictory illustrations convey the meaning sought for.
(3) (Ibid., 17.) It has been already said that God is the Fountain of all good things: and the Son is described255 as the stream flowing forth from Him. For the Word is “the effluence” of mind, and, to use human phraseology, is conveyed from the heart through the mouth, i. e. the mind that finds expression by means of the tongue, being differentiated from the word in the heart. For the one having sent it forth remains and is still what it was; but the other being sent forth issues and is carried in all directions: and thus each is in each, being different one from the other: and they are one, being two. And it was in this way that the Father and the Son also were said to be one and in one another.256
Each of the titles employed by me is indivisible and inseparable from its neighbour. I spoke of the Father, and before introducing the Son I implied Him, too, in the Father. I introduced the Son: even if I had not already mentioned the Father He would, of course, have been presupposed in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit: but at the same time I intimated both from Whom and through Whom257 He came. But they are not aware that the Father is not separated from the Son qua Father—for the title (Father) is suggestive of such connexion (as Son with Father)—nor is the Son cut off from the Father; for the appellation “Father” denotes their common bond. And the Spirit is the object of their dealings,258 being incapable of desertion by either Him that sends, or Him that conveys. How then can I, who use these titles, hold that They are wholly divided and separated?259
(4) (Ibid., 23). For, as our mind overflows with speech260 of itself, as says the prophet: “My heart overfloweth with good speech,”261 and each is diverse from the other, each occupying its proper place distinct from the other, the one dwelling and moving in the heart and the other on the tongue and in the mouth, and yet they are not entirely unconnected nor deprived of one another; the mind is not speechless, nor the speech mindless, but the mind produces the speech, revealing itself thereby; and the speech shows the mind, having been gendered therein; the mind is, as it were, the inlying speech and the speech is the issuing mind; the mind is transferred into the speech and the speech displays262 the mind to the hearers; and thus the mind through the speech gains a lodgment in the souls of those that hear, entering together with the speech, and the mind is, as it were, the father of the speech, having an independent existence withal; and the speech is, as it were, the son of the mind, being an impossibility prior to the mind, yet brought into association with it from any outside source, but springing from the mind; even so the Father, who is the Almighty and Universal Mind, has the Son, the Word as the Interpreter and Messenger of Himself.
Additional Note to P. 12
Jerome (in his letter ad Evangelum) is responsible for the assertion that Dionysius was the last who, in accordance with the original custom of the Church of Alexandria, was nominated as Bishop by his fellow-presbyters there. Subsequently the Bishop was chosen (at least in theory) by the whole body of the faithful in the diocese, as in other parts of Christendom. Jerome’s words do not seem to include consecration also by a fresh laying of hands by the presbytery, though Bishop Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 231) inferred from certain other evidence of a not very decisive kind that this was the case and that it was rendered necessary at first by the Bishop of Alexandria having had no other Bishops with him in Egypt until 190. Others hold that no fresh laying on of hands at all had been considered necessary, which is hardly probable. Mr. C. H. Turner (Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i.) has suggested that Jerome was misled by Arians who had their own interests to serve in making the assertion, while he himself was too ready to credit it in his zeal to uphold the presbyterate against the arrogant claims of the Roman deacons at that time. The present writer ventures to think that Jerome’s statement, if correct, refers only to nomination and that an episcopal consecrator had been found elsewhere (e. g. in Africa or Palestine or Syria) for the laying on of hands as usual.
Footnotes
1In one of Eusebius’s works (the Præparatio Evangelica) he is quoted side by side with great authors like Plato and Aristotle.
2Most of those who read this will be aware that παῖς (Lat. puer) can be used in various senses, like our “boy” and French garçon.
3Not the Prefect of Egypt of that name mentioned by Dionysius on p. 46, though he did afterwards try to usurp the throne (see p. 16).
4For Dionysius’s share in this dispute see his letter on p. 50.
5Dionysius’s phrase about him on p. 66 is “tutor and chief ruler of Egyptian magicians”; see note 3 in loco.
6This Æmilianus was one of several who afterwards attempted to seize the throne; see above, p. 14. Macrianus was another of them in Egypt (p. 68, n.).
7The office indicated seems to be the same as that of Rationalis mentioned above on p. 16.
8I was much assisted in drawing up this summary of περὶ Φύσεως and also in writing the notes upon the extracts from the text by Professor H. Jackson, of Cambridge fame.
9The particular passage, however, adduced by Procopius above is Gen. iii. 21.
10On this point C. H. Turner’s article in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. V, pp. 496 f. (on Patristic Commentaries), may be consulted.
11The passage on Luke xxii, quoted by Dr. Sanday (Inspiration, p. 36), is of very doubtful authenticity.
12“Martyr” in this case need not necessarily be taken strictly as meaning “one put to death for the Faith,” though no doubt the mediæval tradition was in favour of his martyrdom in that sense.
13It looks as if Dionysius was afraid to mention his name. Perhaps it was Sabinus the Prefect. The word “poet” in Greek means properly “maker,” and there is evidently a double entendre in its use here.
14i. e. against Christ (1 Cor. xii. 3).
15The reference is to Heb. x. 34. It will be noticed that Dionysius attributes this Epistle to S. Paul, either inadvertently or in accordance with the Alexandrine tradition, which Origen also accepts (Eus., H. E., vi. 25).
16Viz. the revolt of Decius in Oct. 249.
17i. e. Philip the Arabian, who was popularly supposed to be half a Christian.
18The reference is obviously to Matt. xxiv. 24 (Mark xiii. 22) though Dionysius has substituted “cause to stumble” (σκανδαλίσαι) for “cause to go astray” (πλανῆσαι or ἀποπλανᾶν).
19The reference is very loosely to Matt. xix. 23 and 25.
20Viz. those who held no prominent position; the ordinary folk.
21Cp. Gal. ii. 9.
22Cp. Acts xxviii. 23 and Rev. i. 9.
23There is evidently an allusion here to Matt. v. 11 and Luke vi. 22.
24Viz. the ungulæ, with which the flesh was torn from the bones.
25Only three are mentioned in the text.
26i. e. some time between 251, when persecution ended with the death of Decius, and 257, when Valerian revived it.
27The first was a martial offence, the second a civil.
28i. e. by being allowed to follow Christ’s example.
29This was the catasta, or platform, which corresponded to our prisoner’s dock.
30Dionysius’s language recalls 2 Cor. ii. 14; Col. ii. 15 is different.
31Cf. Heb. xi. 38.
32i. e. they showed themselves worthy of being among the elect.
33A range of hills to the east of the Nile seems to have been so called.
34On the marriage of the clergy at this time, see Bingham, Antiq., IV, v. § 5.
35This is probably the earliest extant mention of the Saracens—at least by that name.
36The opinion that the martyrs passed at once to heaven and shared His throne was general among the early Fathers (see Matt. xix. 28 and 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3).
37Cp. Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 9.
38These expressions are not to be pressed as if they assumed episcopal authority.
39Cp. Gal. i. 20.
40i. e. in October 249.
41The Prefect of Egypt.
42This was a kind of soldier employed on secret service by the emperors and their provincial governors.
43Probably his sons, though they might be his pupils or his servants.
44One of “the boys.”
45Whether Timotheus was making off to join Dionysius or was fleeing in another direction is not clear.
46Cp. Mark xiv. 52.
47Dionysius’s language here recalls 2 Cor. xi. 1, 17, 21 and xii. 6, 11.
48Viz. Tobit xii. 7, where the best attested reading is “to reveal gloriously,” instead of “(it is) glorious to reveal.”
49The Prefect of Egypt at that time.
50Though Dionysius was Bishop, it is noticeable that he still associates himself with the presbyterate here and elsewhere; cp. 1 Pet. v. 1, etc.
51Acts v. 29.
52Marcellus seems to be the “brother from Rome” mentioned above, and Eusebius is not now mentioned.
53The word “also” either refers to the imperial edict or suggests that some written communication had been sent.
54Viz. Valerian and his son Gallienus.
55Cp. 1 Tim. ii. 2; this laudable custom is often referred to in early Christian writings.
56This restriction was constantly enforced by persecuting emperors, because the graves of martyrs were a favourite resort for prayer and worship. The word cemetery (=sleeping-place) was introduced by Christians for graveyards.
57This is an indignant protest against Germanus’s charges.
581 Cor. xv. 3.
59Col. iv. 3.
60Cp. Acts xii. 25.
61The brethren who lived on the outskirts of a city like Alexandria were not bound to attend the mother church, but had as it were chapels of ease in their own vicinities.
62Or perhaps “carried on” (to act as thou didst).
63Strictly speaking, Novatian’s withdrawal was not very likely to involve actual martyrdom.
64The word is κατόρθωμα (success); perhaps “recovery” would bring out the antithesis to “fall” (σφάλμα) better.
65Gen. xix. 17 (LXX).
66Another reading gives “blessed” (μακάριος), which, though less well supported by the MSS., makes the phrase μακαρίως ἀνεπαύσατο more pointed.
67This expression probably means to include the Churches of Mesopotamia and Osroene, besides those which he proceeds to mention below.
68Eusebius is mistaken in identifying this peace with the cessation of persecution: the reference is to the subsiding of the Novatianist schism in 254 which restored peace to Christendom. The surprise and joy were due to the violence of the language and other measures which the chief combatants (Stephen and Cyprian) had employed.
69Hadrian’s colony in Mount Sion was so named (A.D. 132). Later on the older and more glorious name of Jerusalem was restored to the see.
[70]Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia († A.D. 260), and one of Origen’s distinguished pupils. On the baptismal controversy he sided with Cyprian of Carthage.
71The adroit reference to the wonted liberality of the Roman Church is to be noted: other instances are given by Salmon, Infallibility, p. 375.
72Here again Dionysius shows his adroitness, if Benson (Cyprian, p. 357) is right in thinking that the list of churches he gives suggests a repetition of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 9 f.).
73Cp. the letter to Dionysius, p. 58.
74Lev. xxiv. 13-16.
75The word here used represents μυστήριον, denoting the Christian revelation as μυστήριον often does.
76Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22 and Gal. i. 8, 9.
77The former are converts from heathenism, or perhaps from heresy; the latter Christians who have lapsed.
78The word here is the Greek χειροτονία in Syriac letters, and so might also be rendered “ordination.”
79The MSS. from which this extract comes state that it is from a letter to Dionysius and Stephanus of Rome. No such letter is otherwise known, and it is not likely that Stephen’s name would come second, as he was then bishop and Dionysius only a presbyter, though later on he became bishop. Possibly it is from the letter which our Dionysius tells us he wrote to his Roman namesake and Philemon when they were of the same opinion as Stephen: see p. 55. As far as the contents of the extract go, it is not at all incredible that Dionysius was willing to admit the validity of such baptisms as are specified: it was only heresies of a very fundamental kind which he considered to invalidate baptism.
80The successor to Stephanus in 257 as Bishop of Rome: he was martyred after one year’s reign.
81This was, according to Benson (Cyprian, p. 354), a threat which he did not actually carry into effect, and was only meant to restrain them from adopting Cyprian’s attitude on the matter.
82i. e. those of Iconium and Synnada (circ. 230): Dionysius may also be referring to the three much more recent councils which Cyprian had held at Carthage between 254 and 256 (i. e. since his letter to Stephen above). By this time he had by patient inquiry found out much more than he had known at first of what was necessary to be known before coming to a decision.
83Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11 and v. 7, 8.
84See note on p. 54. Dionysius became afterwards Bishop of Rome in 259: a fragment of a letter from our Dionysius to him is printed on p. 58. His famous letter to our Dionysius on the Sabellian controversy is not included in this volume. Part of a letter to Philemon is given on p. 56. He was a Roman Presbyter.
85On the north-west coast of Cyrenaica, one of the five chief cities which gave its name to the Libyan Pentapolis. Sabellius denied the three Persons in the Trinity, and held that the Person of the Father who is One with the Son was incarnate in Christ: see further p. 19.
86There seems no doubt that this is the right reading here, though most of the MSS. read “God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ”; but clearly Dionysius is only speaking of God the Father in this clause and of Jesus Christ in the next. See 2 Cor. i. 2, Eph. i. 3, etc.
87It was Dionysius’s treatment of this subject which afterwards gave Arius the heresiarch of Alexandria an opening for claiming his teaching in support of his own tenets, though there is no Arian suggestion, of course, in this phrase: see p. 20.
88Col. i. 15.
89Eus., H. E. vii. 26, mentions letters to Ammonius, Bishop of Bernice, Telesphorus Euphranor and Euporus in this connexion. Athanasius appears only to have known one joint letter to Ammonius and Euphranor.
90Dionysius seems to distinguish here two kinds of writings: (1) those that were based on systematic research and criticism, and (2) those that handed on the more traditional and less critical views and statements of the past.
91Divine interposition is more vaguely suggested above on p. 44. S. Augustine’s statement should also be compared, that at a critical moment of his conversion he heard a voice saying, “Take and read” (Conf. vii. 12, § 29); S. Polycarp likewise heard a voice from heaven saying, “Be strong and play the man,” as he was led into the arena.
92See Introduction, p. 11.
93This is one of the more common apocryphal sayings usually attributed to our Lord: hence the epithet “apostolic” is somewhat strange.
94The word for “Father” here is πὰπας (pope), a colloquial form of πατήρ applied to any bishop (or even to one of the inferior clergy sometimes) in the first ages. For Heraclas see p. 11. It is to be noticed, however, that this canon of his dealt not with heretical baptism (such as Dionysius is dealing with), but with actual or reputed perverts, and stated the terms on which they were to be restored to the Church of their baptism.
95i. e. the Church in Africa Proconsularis, of which Carthage was the metropolis and Cyprian the metropolitan.
96Iconium was the chief city of Lycaonia (see Acts xiii. and xiv.), and Synnada was an important town in Phrygia Salutaris. These synods had been held some twenty-five years before (in A.D. 230).
97Deut. xix. 14.
98See above, p. 53.
99A confession of faith has always been required before baptism: this Novatian virtually ignored by his action.
100Here as elsewhere Dionysius shows his breadth of view about God in recognizing that the Holy Spirit might in some measure remain even with the lapsed.
101It is strange that so old a believer should never have noticed the difference before, but baptism was almost entirely confined at that time to Easter and Whitsuntide, and he may have always been absent.
102Cp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16. The Amen is either that after the Consecration of the Elements or at the Reception of them.
103“Standing” was, and is still, the posture in the East: Scudamore, Not. Euch., p. 637.
104A somewhat rare word for “Altar” without some descriptive epithet like “holy” or “mystic.”
105The Consistentes were the last order of penitents, who were allowed to remain after the dismissal of the catechumens and other penitents, but did not join in the oblation or communion itself: cf. Canons of Nicæa, No. xi.
106The letter from which this is supposed to be an extract is said by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 46, 2) to have been on the subject of Repentance, and may possibly be “the instruction” which Dionysius says he had given on p. 42 above.
107Viz. under the impression that they were going to die.
108i. e. after thus pledging ourselves to them.
109Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 3, where Ps. xxxiii. (xxxiv.) 9 is quoted.
110Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 7, etc.
111The reference is to Luke xv. 4 ff. and Ezek. xxxiv. 6, etc.
112Dionysius is thinking perhaps of the story in Tobit v. 6, where Raphael becomes the companion of Tobit’s son Tobias on his journey.
113On the principle that “charity thinketh no evil... but hopeth all things” (1 Cor. xiii.): similar but not identical phrases (in words or sense) are found 1 Cor. xvi. 17, 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9, Phil. ii. 30, and Col. i. 24.
114The difficulties of soldiers becoming and remaining Christians were peculiarly great under the early Emperors.
115That is, some had not yet been called upon to be actual martyrs, Dionysius among them who was still in exile.
116Is. xlix. 8.
117These were the same civil officials as those mentioned in Acts vi. 20 at Philippi, with their servants, there called lictors (ῥαβδοῦχοι): the soldiers belonged to the centurion, of course.
118This has already been described on p. 44.
119Including Timotheus who had been the means of his escape.
120A town on the coast 150 miles west of Alexandria.
121He and the three deacons have already been mentioned on p. 46. They must have left Dionysius when he went into exile and returned to Alexandria.
122“In the island,” according to Rufinus’s version, but it is not clear what island he means: the pestilence is probably one of those frequent epidemics which devastated North Africa and other districts of the empire.
123The epithet “perfect,” though applied to believers generally in the New Testament (Matt. v. 28, etc.), was later specially used of martyrs.
124Gallus succeeded to the empire on the death of Decius and his sons in 251, and reigned till 253, when it was wrested from him by Æmilian, who was in turn ousted by Valerian after four months’ rule. Dionysius makes no mention of this episode, though he does of Macrian’s attempt later.
125The quotation is from Rev. xiii. 5, but the last words follow a reading which has no support in the MSS. It should also be noticed that Dionysius does not think it at all certain that the author of the Revelation is the Evangelist: see p. 86.
126Valerian reigned from 253 till his disappearance in 260. The duration of the persecution was forty-two months, from before midsummer 257 till late in 260.
127Here the expression means Christians generally, not prophets or clergy as often.
128Alexander Severus and Philip the Arabian are no doubt meant.
129Compare such expressions in S. Paul’s letters as Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 11, etc.
130No doubt Macrianus is meant, who is mentioned further on, but it is difficult to account for the exact epithets which Dionysius here applies to him. Apparently he had been Valerian’s tutor in some kind of magic, and had allied himself somehow with the Jewish colony in Alexandria (hence ἀρχισυνάγωγος), who would, of course, be hostile to the Christians.
131Christian exorcists must be meant, though the claim to supernatural powers which Dionysius makes for them is sufficiently remarkable.
132This was a frequent charge against the Christians themselves. Here Dionysius turns it against their persecutors in Egypt.
133It is very difficult, without a knowledge of Latin and Greek, to understand Dionysius’s play on words throughout this section. The office which Macrianus held was that of, in Latin, Rationalis or Procurator summæ rei, in Greek ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λόγων (something like our Chancellor of the Exchequer): hence Dionysius says he was not rational (or reasonable) in his treatment of the Christians and showed no catholic spirit towards them.
134Ezek. xiii. 3. Dionysius takes the last phrase (τὸ καθόλου), as if it was the object of the verb, not an adverb, in order to suit his argument.
135This may perhaps mean that besides his other faults Macrianus was tainted with the atheistic views of the Epicureans, while Dionysius also alludes in this sentence to the accounts which Macrianus would have to present to the Emperor of his own administration.
136Cf. Eph. iv. 6 and Col. i. 17.
137Another play on words, as if Macrianus was derived from the Greek μακρός (far off), which is somewhat doubtful.
138Is. lxvi. 3, 4 (LXX). Here the reference is to Valerian falling into the hands of Sapor, the Persian King, who inflicted grievous insults upon him, and kept him in captivity till his death.
139Macrianus was lame of one leg. After Valerian’s defeat and disappearance (in 260), for which he was himself largely responsible, Macrianus and his two sons, Macrianus junior and Quietus, made an abortive attempt to seize the throne, which was soon defeated.
140Ex. xx. 5.
141The two Macriani were defeated and slain by Aureolus, another usurper, in Illyricum, and Quietus was put to death in the East.
142Dionysius is still speaking of Macrianus, who had incited Valerian to attack the Persians, and then had himself attacked Gallienus and tried to usurp the throne.
143Is. xlii. 9, but Dionysius has substituted, for the last phrase, a phrase from xliii. 19. The original prophecy applies to the triumph of Cyrus and the conversion of the world to the worship of Jehovah. Its application in the text strikes us to-day as too fanciful.
144Whether Gallienus himself was really a Christian is very doubtful, but his wife, Cornelia Salonina, seems to have been.
145This is a very obscure calculation, but the upshot of it may be as follows: Gallienus was associated with his father Valerian as Emperor seven years (253-60), then Macrianus usurped the power (in Egypt) for one year, or rather more; thus Gallienus regained the power in his ninth year (i. e. after midsummer 261). Gallienus’s original Edict of Peace was issued in Oct. 260, but the Rescript applying it to Egypt was delayed for some time. The Easter festival for which this letter was written, therefore, must have been that of 262.
146Cf. 1 Cor. v. 8.
147Exod. xii. 30.
148I have translated the Berlin editor’s reading here, as being the least unsatisfactory of those proposed. Others give a text which may be rendered: “I would this were all: for the things that befell us before drove us into many grievous troubles.” But the exact meaning is doubtful, however we take it.
149This epithet for martyrs has already occurred on p. 64.
150This is none other than a quotation from Pericles’s speech about the plague at Athens in Thucyd. ii. 64, though in Dionysius’s original phrase it sounds as if he meant some local minor historian.
151The word Dionysius uses here is the same as S. Paul, uses (1 Cor. iv. 13: περίψημα, offscouring). It is said to have been used at Athens of the human scapegoats thrown into the river in time of famine: “Be thou my expiation (περίψημα).” Elsewhere it seems to have degenerated into a sort of extravagant compliment: “I am your humble servant (περίψημα).” Dionysius suggests it might regain its more serious meaning in the present case.
152Here again Dionysius uses an expression suggested by S. Paul in Phil. iii. 8.
153It is not clear whether Dionysius actually alludes here to the well-protected harbours of Alexandria or (more loosely) to the Lake Mareotis: probably to the former, because the canal he refers to in the next sentence (though he calls it a river) was cut from the Nile into one of the harbours and passed at the back of the city between it and the Lake Mareotis.
154Cf. Ps. lxxvii. 13, cxxxvi. 4, and Wisd. xi. 4. The whole passage, of course, refers to Exod. xiv. and xvii.
155Cf. Exod. vii. 20, 21.
156i. e. if the biggest river and the ocean itself, as he proceeds exaggeratedly to claim, cannot do so, what other cleansing can there be?
157Cf. Gen. ii. 10 ff. Dionysius evidently adopts the later Jewish view that the Gihon was the Nile, Æthiopia (or Cush) being identified with Egypt.
158The meaning of the phrase employed by Dionysius here (“hale old men”) comes from Homer, Il. xxiii. 791 (cf. Virg., Æn. vi. 304); but elsewhere a very similar phrase seems to suggest “a cruel, untimely old age.”
159Evidently at Alexandria (the capital of that country which was the chief granary of Rome) either the necessitous citizens or perhaps all between forty and seventy were entitled to receive doles of corn; but now the relief was extended to all ages between fourteen and eighty.
160Either the heathen are meant, who ought to tremble and be convinced, or the Christians, who were too courageous through trust in God to tremble.
161The last sentence is involved and obscure. I am not sure that my paraphrase rightly expresses the thought.
162I have adopted our modern mode of expression, but in the early Church Pascha was often used for the fast which receded Easter as well as for the feast itself, and that is how Dionysius uses it here.
163i. e. at 3 a.m. on Easter Day, the traditional hour of our Lord’s Resurrection, especially in the West.
164i. e. at 6 p.m. on Easter Eve.
165“All,” i. e. “who came,” or perhaps “all the four evangelists.” The “difference” is not really confined to the time, but to the parties which came, the other devout women coming later than the two Marys.
166The four references are to Matt. xxviii. 1, John xx. 1, Luke xxiv. 1, and Mark xvi. 2.
167Cf. John ix. 5, etc.
168The Council in Trullo (A.D. 680) accepted this second meaning and consented to Dionysius’s ruling on the point raised without reserve.
169Dionysius thinks that S. Matthew’s account, with which S. John’s tallies, speaks of the two Marys coming to look at the tomb about midnight on Easter eve or morning, while S. Luke and S. Mark mentioned certain women who arrived at the tomb somewhat later, when the sun had just risen, but one at least of the Marys mentioned by S. Matthew is identical with one of those mentioned by S. Mark and apparently by S. Luke. Possibly, however, Dionysius means that the two Marys took part in both visits to the tomb. Dr. Swete on S. Mark and Dr. Westcott on S. John should be consulted by any one who wishes to pursue the question further.
170i. e. as on the former occasion mentioned by S. Matthew and S. Mark.
171The author of this saying (which is equivalent to our proverb, “A miss is as good as a mile”) is not known. Basil (de Baptism. ii. i) quotes something like it, but with a different turn, and he, too, attributes it to “one of our wise men,” but perhaps he is only referring to Dionysius in this passage.
172Cf. Matt. xiv. 26.
173He means the six days of what we call Holy Week, but he gives no indication whether the Lenten fast was then confined to those days in Alexandria and the Pentapolis or lasted longer. By “equally” he proceeds to explain is meant the length of the fasting (six days or two, and so on), and by “similarly” the manner or degree of it (till cockcrow or till evening).
174The verb used (ὑπερτιθέναι, Lat. superponere, to exceed) is the technical one for this prolonged fast: the ordinary fast ended at 6 p.m. and that of the station days (Wednesday and Friday) at 3 p.m.
175Cf. 1 Pet. iii. 8 and Phil. ii. 20.
176The expression comes from Acts xiii. 2, where, however, it describes a special act of worship rather than “ministering” in general.
177Nepos had apparently been Bishop of Arsenoe in Egypt, and was the author of a work (Ἔλεγχος Ἀλληγοριστῶν) putting forward grossly material views of the Millennium. Dionysius refuted it in a carefully prepared treatise in two books. This extract is from the second book, and deals chiefly with the authorship of the Revelation of St. John the Divine in a way very characteristic of his large-hearted and broad-minded spirit.
178Or Dionysius may mean that he had encouraged the singing of the Psalms in service.
179Cf. Tit. ii. 13, 2 Thess. ii. 8, etc.
180The reference is to 2 Thess. ii. 1 and 1 John iii. 2.
181It does not appear to whom Dionysius addressed this treatise, but he usually did address what he wrote to some particular person.
182Here the two offices are conjoined as in 1 Tim. v. 17. The “teacher” as an officer of the Church is mentioned in several of the early Church Orders.
183Nothing more is known of him: either he had succeeded to the leadership since the death of Nepos, or on this particular occasion took the lead.
184The allusion is probably to Gaius of Rome and his school rather than to the Alogi, as they were called, of the East; but both these bodies were strongly opposed to Millenarian views.
185If this refers to a formal division into chapters, it disappeared afterwards, for a new division was devised in the sixth century, on which our present system is partly based.
186Dionysius plays here on the meaning of the Greek word for Revelation, ἀποκάλυψις, “unveiling.” He is fond of such a device.
187If that is the meaning of the words employed, then “saints” (ἅγιοι) is not used in its New Testament sense for the “faithful” generally, but a distinction is made more like the later use of the word for those who attained higher saintliness than the rest; but perhaps the phrase for “churchmen” implies “clerical or ecclesiastical persons,” and “saints” has its earlier sense.
188Cerinthus was the earliest exponent of Gnostic views, and as such much abhorred by St. John the Apostle.
189i. e. reckoning that it is a matter where faith rather than reason should act; or perhaps the translation should be “giving more weight to (the author’s) trustworthiness.”
190This title is to be noticed, as the author himself never actually describes himself by it. Dionysius is much more cautious as to the authorship than Origen, his former master, who attributed the book to St. John the Evangelist without hesitation, according to Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25, 9.
191Rev. xxii. 7, 8: but Dionysius has no authority for joining the latter clause on to the former, its construction being “it is I John who saw and heard.”
192i. e. the First Epistle of St. John; the second and third were not so described at first and rightly so.
193Rev. i. 1, 2. One might almost think Dionysius was quoting from memory, for he follows no extant text in omitting “God” before “gave” (thus making Jesus Christ the subject and “him” = “to John”) and “the things which must come to pass” before “speedily”: also he substitutes “his testimony” for “the testimony of Jesus Christ,” though “his” still = “Jesus Christ.”
194Rev. i. 4.
195Dionysius seems to contrast the “Divine revelation” of the Epistle which we can trust with that of the Book so-called about which he felt less sure.
1961 John i. 1.
197Matt. xvi. 17. Dionysius substitutes the adjective “heavenly” for “which is in heaven.”
198Rev. i. 9. Here again the text is somewhat inaccurate “in the patience of Jesus” having no support elsewhere.
199Rev. xxii. 7. See note on p. 86, above.
200It would seem likely, but by no means certain, that Dionysius is speaking of strictly baptismal names here. We have very slight grounds for being sure that the custom of connecting the giving of a name at baptism was universal as early as this.
201See Acts xii. 25 and xiii. 5.
202Ibid., xiii. 13.
203This assertion is taken almost verbatim from Eus., H. E. iii. 39, where a passage is also quoted from Papias in which John the Elder is mentioned as well as John the Apostle among the Lord’s disciples.
204This is the second argument which Dionysius adduces, but he seems as if he now includes the third with it. See above.
205John i. 1, and 1 John i. 1, 2.
206Cf. 1 John iv. 2.
207Ibid., i. 2, 3.
208It looks as if this phrase may be a marginal gloss on the Light, which has crept into the text, as it occurs nowhere in the writings of St. John nor elsewhere in the New Testament; but the same might be said of the “adoption” below, and one or two others of the other phrases are quite rare in St. John’s writings, so that they may be all instances of the thoughts, not the words being identical in the two books.
209The reference is to such passages as 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff., Gal. i. 12, ii. 2, etc.
210This is the third argument.
211A rather forced and fanciful statement. Dionysius appears loosely to refer to 1 Cor. xii. 8, somewhat boldly substituting “of speech” (τῆς φράσεως) for St. Paul’s “of wisdom.”
212Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 6 and 8.
213i. e. the results not of design but of the fortuitous intersection of lines of causation.
214Gen. i. 31.
215The argument appears to be that, as on a small scale design is “evident in the construction or repairing of a thing but is absent in its decay,” so the orderly creation and maintenance of the Universe on the large scale implies intelligent direction.
216Hesiod (Works and Days, 554) is meant, but of course 100 stands here, as elsewhere, for an indefinitely large number.
217The point is that movement which is useful suggests design: but as the movement of the atoms is without design, it cannot be useful.
218Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) 16. Dionysius quotes the best text here of LXX, but his application is rather obscure. Apparently he means that the Epicureans claimed to know without either revelation or research what the Psalmist knew only by revelation from God.
219Dionysius says that even the spider has more notion of design than the atoms, but the sarcasm is not quite to the point.
2201 Cor. xv. 41.
221“God ever brings like to like.”—Homer, Od. xvii. 218, a proverb quoted both by Plato and Aristotle.
222Dionysius is probably thinking of Plato’s Timæus 56B, where the pyramid is said to be the geometrical shape of fire which is the principal constituent of the bodies of the stars (Professor H. Jackson).
223Dionysius is here referring to such a passage as Gen. i. 6 ff. No doubt the ancients thought the vault of heaven was solid, enclosing the atmosphere which covers the earth, and that the stars were either fixed upon it or moved in their courses on its surface.
224Ps. civ. 23.
225i. e. the sun’s yearly (as opposed to its daily) course.
226“The righteous” here is a very unusual equivalent for “the Christians”: it is possible, however, that the translation is: “however much these men disagree, being but poor creatures, though righteous enough in their own estimate.”
227Ecclus. xliii. 5.
228The idea is of some stars being solitary, like a Greek or Roman colony (ἀποικία) with a constitution of its own, and of others grouping themselves into constellations or communities (συνοικία). The colony had a founder (οἰκιστής), the community or household would have some sort of controller (οἰκοδεσπότης).
229Ecclus. xvi. 26 f.
230The natural motion of atoms was downwards, but there was also a slight sideward motion, and when they impinged a motion upwards by blows and tossings, and this produced the shape of things. But Dionysius here says, how is that theory consistent with the orderly march of the stars?
231Dionysius here plays on the derivation of ἄτομοι, from τέμνειν (= to cut).
232Amos iii. 3 (LXX). The A.V. and R.V. give the more exact meaning “agreed” to the last word.
233Hesiod, Works and Days, iv. 408 and 411.
234Viz. the heathen, to whom the poets were to some extent what the prophets are to us Christians.
235Jer. xlviii. 10.
236The happiness of the King of Persia was proverbial: see Hor., Od. ii. 12, 21, iii. 9, 4.
237By “Necessity” here Dionysius means not “Fate” in the fatalist’s sense, but that supreme Will and Purpose of God, which is opposed to the Epicurean doctrine of chance.
238The title here given (ὑποθῆκαι) is not given in the list of Democritus’s works, but the ὑπομνήματα ἠθικά may be meant.
239It is impossible to reproduce the play upon words here, εὐτυχῆ τὴν φρόνησιν, ἐμφρονεστάτην τὴν τύχην. The reference seems to be to such poetical passages as Soph., O. T. 977 ff., and Eur., Alc. 785 ff., where the practical wisdom of leaving the future to take care of itself is extolled.
240Epicurus himself contended that by ἡδονή (pleasure) he meant not sensual enjoyments so much as freedom from pain of body and from disturbance of soul (ἀταραξία), the source of which was largely in the exercise of the mind and will: see Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 473 ff.
241The words quoted (δωτῆρας ἐάων) are a Homeric phrase, e. g. Od. viii. 325 and 335.
242The derivation from θέειν is proposed by Plato, Cratyl. 397 C: that from θεῖναι by Herod, ii. 52, and of the two the latter is the more likely (√θε) though Curtius suggests a root θες = to pray: see Peile, Introd. to Philology, p. 37 (3rd ed., 1875).
243These are probably some sort of Gnostics who took over Manichean views of God and Matter, but not of the worst kind, for they recognized that God had the control and disposition of matter.
244Some one, i. e. who could give them the property of being without beginning.
245“Different from both,” because the being without beginning is not of the very essence of both. See further on.
246A curious expression, for which one would have expected the opposite statement, viz. that the handicrafts can shape and form the materials they deal with rather than that the materials give the necessary methods and designs to the handicrafts which deal with them. Up to this point Dionysius has been combating the view with which the extract begins. The rest of the extract proceeds to show what amount of truth there is in it.
247The reference here is to Manichean views of the worst kind, i. e. that matter is not only without beginning, but the source of evil and altogether independent of God.
248i. e. Dionysius of Rome, to whom this treatise was addressed. This particular “other letter” does not seem to have been known to Eusebius, and when Athanasius quotes this extract in another of his treatises he omits the words “to thee.”
249Athanasius himself was sparing in his use of the term, and the Synod of Antioch (A.D. 264) refused to accept it, as liable to misconstruction.
250i. e. in the letter to Euphranor (about Sabellianism in Libya) which had given rise to the Bishop of Rome’s intervention.
251It looks as if Dionysius was in exile when he wrote this. See above, p. 19.
252i. e. each of the two is itself and not the other, as was said above in the case of parents and children.
253i. e. they had gone or sent to Rome, in order to attack him.
254Viz. about the plant and the ship, which he has already apologized for as not quite appropriate.
255i. e. in Scripture, e. g. in such passage as Wisd. vii. 25, to which he refers in the next sentence.
256Sc. in Dionysius’s letter to Euphranor: cf. John x. 30, xvii. 11, 21, 22. The extract on p. 106 below deals with the same thought more fully. In both places Dionysius’s language is based on Philo’s discussion of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and the λόγος προφορικός (the conceived and the expressed word), de vita Mosis, p. 230, Cohn.
257i. e. from the Father and through the Son: Dionysius seems to have derived this view of the Holy Spirit’s Procession from his master, Origen, though he is thinking here rather of the Mission of the Spirit into the Church and its members than of the eternal and necessary relations of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity to one another, as the sentences that follow indicate.
258Lit. in their hands: a striking expression which Athanasius borrows from Dionysius in his Exposition of the Faith.
259This is what Dionysius of Rome had imputed to our Dionysius, though without the word “wholly” he would not have altogether discarded the position.
260Λόγος is translated throughout this passage by “speech” (i. e. uttered words), except in the last clause, where it refers to the Son Himself and where it must be rendered by “Word” as usual: but obviously “speech” is only part of the full meaning of λόγος. The whole passage should be compared with the preceding extract.
261Ps. xliv. (xlv.) 1: here R.V. translates λόγον ἀγαθόν, “a goodly matter,” in accordance with A.V.
262The word used (ἐγκυκλεῖν) suggests the scenic device of the ἐγκύκλημα, by which some kind of change of scene was brought on to the stage in the Greek theatre: see Classical Dict., s.v.
← Back to St. Dionysius of Alexandria: Letters and Treatises