Chapter III: Part 3

(2) These answers I give you from respect for you, beloved, not because you were ignorant of the subjects of your inquiry but to render us of one mind and soul[175] with yourself, as indeed we are. And I have set forth my opinion for you to share not as a teacher but as it becomes us to discuss one with another in all simplicity: and when you have considered it again, my most sagacious son, you should write again and tell me whatever seems to you better or what you judge to be as I have said.

I pray that you may prosper, my beloved son, as you minister to the Lord[176] in peace.

TREATISES

"On the Promises"
(Eus., _H. E._ vii. 24 and 25)

(1) Seeing that they bring forward a composition of Nepos,[177] on which they rely too much as showing irrefutably that the Kingdom of Christ will be on earth, though I accept and love Nepos for many other things, his faith, his laboriousness, his study of the Scriptures, and the many psalms he has written,[178] by which already many of the brethren are encouraged, and though I hold him in all the greater respect because he has gone to his rest before us, yet the truth is so dear to me and to be preferred that I can indeed applaud and give my full assent to right propositions, but must examine and correct whatever appears to be unsoundly stated. And if he were still with us and propounding his views merely by word of mouth, a discussion without writing would have sufficed to persuade and convince our opponents by way of question and answer. But now that this writing of his is published, which many think most convincing, and certain teachers hold the law and the prophets of no account and have relinquished the following of the Gospels and depreciated the Epistles of the Apostles, while they parade the teaching of this book as if it were some great and hidden mystery and will not allow our simpler brethren to hold any high and noble opinion either about the glorious and truly Divine appearing of our Lord[179] or about our rising from the dead and our gathering together and being made like unto Him,[180] but persuade them to hope for mean and passing enjoyments like the present in the Kingdom of God, it is necessary that we also should discuss the matter with our brother Nepos as if he were still alive.

Further on he adds--

(2) So being in the district of Arsenoe, where, as you know,[181] this teaching prevailed long before, so that both schisms and the defection of whole churches have occurred, I called together the presbyters and teachers[182] among the brethren in the villages, such of the brethren as wished being also present, and invited them publicly to make an examination of the matter. And when some brought forward against me this book as an impregnable weapon and bulwark, I sat with them three days in succession from dawn till evening and tried to correct the statements made. During which time I was much struck with the steadiness, the desire for truth, the aptness in following an argument and the intelligence displayed by the brethren, whilst we put our questions and difficulties and points of agreement in an orderly and reasonable manner, avoiding the mistake of holding jealously at any cost to what we had once thought, even though it should now be shown to be wrong, and yet not suppressing what we had to say on the other side, but, as far as possible, attempting to grapple with and master the propositions in hand without being ashamed to change one's opinion and yield assent if the argument convinced us; conscientiously and unfeignedly, with hearts spread open before God, accepting what was established by the exposition and teaching of the holy Scriptures.

At last the champion and mouthpiece of this doctrine, the man called Coracion,[183] in the hearing of all the brethren that were present agreed and testified to us that he would no longer adhere to it nor discourse upon it nor yet mention nor teach it, on the ground that he had been convinced by what had been said against it. And of the rest of the brethren some rejoiced at the conference and the reconciliation and harmonious arrangement which was brought about by it between all parties.

Further on he says this about the Revelation of John--

(3) Certain people[184] therefore before now discredited and altogether repudiated the book, both examining it chapter by chapter and declaring it unintelligible and inconclusive and that it makes a false statement in its title.[185] For they say it is not John's, no nor yet a "Revelation," because of the heavy, thick veil of obscurity which covers it:[186] and not only is the author of this book not one of the Apostles but he is not even one of the saints nor a churchman at all;[187] it is Cerinthus,[188] the founder of the heresy that was called Cerinthian from him, and he desired to attribute his own composition to a name that would carry weight. For the substance of his teaching was this, that Christ's Kingdom will be on earth, and he dreams that it will be concerned with things after which he himself, being fond of bodily pleasures and very sensual, hankered, such as the satisfying of his belly and lower lusts, that is eating and drinking and marrying and such means as he thought would provide him more decorously with these pleasures, feasts and sacrifices and the slaying of victims. I should not myself venture to reject the book, seeing that many brethren hold it in high esteem, but, reckoning the decision about it to be beyond my powers of mind, I consider the interpreting of its various contents to be recondite and matter for much wonder. For without fully understanding, I yet surmise that some deeper meaning underlies the words, not measuring and judging them by calculations of my own; but giving the preference to faith,[189] I have come to the conclusion that they are too high for me to comprehend, and so I do not reject what I have not taken in, but can only wonder at these visions which I have not even seen (much less understood).

Besides this, after examining the book as a whole and showing that it is impossible to understand it in its literal sense, he proceeds--

(4) So having completed practically the whole prophecy, the prophet[190] pronounces a blessing on those who keep it and indeed on himself also: for "blessed," saith he, "is he that observeth the words of the prophecy of this book and I John who saw and heard these things."[191] That he was called John, therefore, and that the writing is John's I will not dispute. For I agree that it is the work of some holy and inspired person but I should not readily assent to his being the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose is the Gospel entitled "According to John" and the General Epistle.[192] For I conclude that he is not the same (1) from the character of each, (2) from the style of the language and (3) from what may be called the arrangement of the book. For the Evangelist nowhere inserts his name nor yet proclaims himself either in the Gospel or in the Epistle....

(5) But John nowhere speaks either in the first or in the third person about himself, whereas he that wrote the Revelation straightway at the beginning puts himself forward: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show to his servants speedily, and he sent and signified (it) by his angel to his servant John who bare witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things that he saw."[193]

Then he also writes an Epistle: "John to the seven churches that are in Asia, grace to you and peace."[194] Whereas the Evangelist did not put his name even at the head of the Catholic Epistle but began with the mystery of the Divine revelation[195] without any superfluous words: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes."[196]

For it is over this revelation that the Lord also pronounced Peter blessed, saying: "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my heavenly Father."[197] Nay, even in the second and third extant Epistles of John, short though they are, John does not appear by name but he writes himself "the elder" anonymously. Whereas our author did not even consider it sufficient to mention himself by name once and then proceed with his subject, but he repeats the name again, "I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and in the patience of Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."[198] In fact, at the end also he says this: "Blessed is he that observeth the words of the prophecy of this book and I John who saw and heard these things."[199] That he which wrote these things, therefore, is John, we must believe as he says so: but which John is not clear. For he does not say, as in many places in the Gospel, that he is the disciple beloved of the Lord, nor the one that reclined on His breast, nor yet the brother of James, nor yet the one that was the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. Surely he would have used one of the aforesaid descriptions, when desirous of clearly identifying himself. And yet he does nothing of the kind, but calls himself our brother and partaker with us, and witness of Jesus and blessed for the seeing and hearing of the revelations. I suppose that many bore the same name as John the Apostle, who by reason of their love towards him and from their admiration and emulation of him and desire to be loved by the Lord like him, were glad to bear the same name with him, even as many a one among the children of the faithful is called Paul or Peter.[200] There is then another John also in the Acts of the Apostles, the one called Mark whom Barnabas and Paul took with them and of whom it says again: "And they had John as their attendant."[201] But as to whether he is the writer, I should say no. For it is not written that he arrived in Asia with them, but "Paul and his company," it says, "set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem."[202] And I think there was yet another among those who were in Asia, since they say there were two tombs in Ephesus and each of them are said to be the tomb of John.[203]

Again, from the thoughts and from the actual words and their arrangement this John may be reasonably reckoned different from the other.[204] For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other and begin in a similar way. The one says "In the beginning was the Word:" and the other "That which was from the beginning." The one says "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled in us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father:" the other uses the same or almost equivalent expressions, "That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life, and the Life was manifested."[205] For he starts in this way because he is dealing, as he shows in what follows, with those who say that the Lord has not come in the flesh.[206] For which reason he is careful to add also: "And we have seen and bear witness and announce unto you the eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard we announce also unto you."[207] He is consistent with himself and does not diverge from his own propositions, but treats them throughout under the same heads and in the same terms, of which we will briefly recall; for instance, the attentive reader will find in each book frequent mention of the Life, the Light, the turning from darkness,[208] constant reference to the Truth, Grace, Joy, the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord, the Judgment, the Forgiveness of sins, the Love of God towards us, the command to us to love one another and that we must keep all the commandments: again there is the conviction of the world, of the devil, of the antichrist, God's adoption of us as Sons, the Faith, which is everywhere required of us, the Father and the Son everywhere: and generally throughout in describing the character of the Gospel and the Epistle one and the same complexion is to be observed in both. But the Revelation is quite different from them, foreign, out of touch and affinity with them, not having, one might almost say, one syllable in common. The Epistle contains no reminiscence nor subject dealt with in the Revelation nor the Revelation in the Epistle (to say nothing of the Gospel), whereas Paul in his Epistles did give some indication even about those revelations which he has not actually described.[209]

And yet once more one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and the Revelation[210] from the literary style. For the first two books are not only written in irreproachable Greek, but are also most elegant in their phrases, reasonings and arrangements of expression. No trace can be found in them of barbarous words, faulty construction or peculiarities in general. For St. John seems to have possessed both words, the Lord having graciously vouchsafed them to him; viz. both the word and knowledge of the word of speech.[211] That this John had seen a Revelation and received knowledge and the gift of prophecy,[212] I do not deny, but I observe his dialect and inaccurate Greek style, which employs barbaric idioms and sometimes even faulty constructions, which it is not now necessary to expose. For I have not mentioned this in order to scoff, let no one think so, but simply to point out the dissimilarity of the writings.

"On Nature"
(Eus., _Præp. Evang._ xiv. 23-7)

(1) How shall we bear with them when they say that the wise and, for that reason, the good productions of Creation are the results of chance coincidences?[213] Each of which as it came into being by itself appeared to Him that ordered it to be good and all of them together equally so.

For God "saw," it says, "all things that he had made, and behold they were very good."[214] And yet they take no warning from the small, ordinary instances at their feet, from which they may learn[215] that no necessary and profitable work is produced without design or haphazard, but is adapted to its proper purpose by handiwork, whereas when it falls into a useless and unprofitable state, it then breaks up and comes to pieces indefinite, and, as it chances, because the wisdom which was concerned in its construction no longer superintends and directs it. For a garment is not woven by the woof standing up without a weaver, nor yet by the warp weaving itself of its own accord: but when it is becoming worn out, the torn rags fall asunder. And a house or a city is built not by receiving certain stones which volunteer for the foundations and others which jump into the courses of the walls, but because the builder brings the stones that fit in the proper order: but when the building is thrown down, each stone falls to the ground just as it may. So, too, when a ship is being built, the keel does not set itself below, while the mast raises itself in the middle and each of the other timbers takes the place which it chances to of itself. Nor, again, do the planks of a wagon--said to be 100[216] in number--become fixed in the position which each found empty; but the builder in each case puts the timber together suitably. But if the ship, when it went upon the sea, or the wagon, when it was driven along on land, comes to pieces, the timbers are scattered wherever it may happen--in the one case by the waves, in the other by the violent rush.

In the same way it would befit them to say that the atoms also which are inoperative when they are at rest and not worked by hands, are also useless when they move at random.[217] For let these opponents of ours look to these viewless atoms of theirs and apply their minds to these mindless ones, not like the Psalmist who confesses that this was revealed to him by God alone: "Mine eyes beheld thy unfinished work."[218] So, too, when they say that those fine webs which they speak of as being produced from atoms, are self-wrought by them without skill or sensation, who can bear to hear of these weaver atoms whom even the spider excels in skill when he spins his web out of himself.[219]

(2) Who, then, is it that discriminates between the atoms, gathering or scattering them, and arranging some in this way to make the sun and others in that way for the moon, and putting each of them together according to the light-giving power of each star? For the particular number and kind that made the sun by being united in a particular way would never have condescended to produce the moon, nor would the intertwinings of the moon atoms have ever become the sun. Moreover, even Arcturus, bright as he is, would never plume himself on having the atoms of Lucifer, nor the Pleiads those of Orion. For Paul has well distinguished when he says: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for star differeth from star in glory."[220] And if the combination of the atoms, as being soulless, was unintelligent, they needed an intelligent artist to put them together: and if their junction was without purpose and the result of necessity, they being void of reason, some wise herdsman drove them together and presided over them: and if they have been linked together voluntarily to do willing service, some wonderful master-craftsman assigned them their parts and took the lead; or, like an expert general, he did not leave his army disordered and all in a muddle, but disposed the cavalry in one part and the heavy armed troops apart, and the javelin men by themselves and the slingers where they ought to be, in order that those who carried the same weapon might help one another. And if they think this illustration ridiculous because in it I make a comparison of great bodies with small, we will come down to the very smallest.

[Eusebius's extract breaks off here.]

(3) If the atoms have no ruler over them, to speak to them or to choose or to arrange them, but they move, settling themselves of their own accord out of the big rushing tumult and producing a big uproar as they clash together, like coming to like without the Divine intervention of which the poet speaks,[221] and if they run and herd together, recognizing their kinsfolk, truly the republic of the atoms is a marvellous one, friends greeting and embracing one another and hasting to take up their abode in one habitation: some have rounded themselves off spontaneously into the sun, that mighty orb, that they may produce the day, and some perchance have flared up into the many pyramids[222] of stars that they may encircle the whole expanse of sky, while others are ranged around it, in order that they may--albeit undesignedly--form the firmament[223] and arch the atmosphere over for the graduated ascent of the stars, and that the confederation of these helter-skelter atoms may choose their abodes and apportion the sky as homes and stations for themselves.

(4) So far are these deniers of Divine Providence from comprehending the invisible parts of the universe that they do not even see what is visible. For they appear not even to consider the ordered risings and settings of the sun, conspicuous though they be, let alone those of the other heavenly bodies; nor yet to appreciate the assistance thus given to mankind through them, the day being lighted up for work and the night being darkened for rest. For man shall go forth, it says, to his work and his labour until the evening.[224] But they do not even take note of its other[225] revolution, by which it brings about the fixed times and fair seasons and the regular winter and summer solstices, under guidance of its component atoms. Yet however much these poor creatures dislike it, it is as the righteous[226] believe: Great is the Lord that made him: and at His word he hasteneth his course.[227] Do atoms, ye blind, bring you winter and rains, in order that the earth may produce food for you and all the animals upon it? do they introduce summer that ye may receive for your enjoyment the fruits of the trees also? then why do you not bow down and sacrifice to the atoms that are the guardians of earth's fruits? ungrateful truly ye are, never offering them the smallest firstfruits of the many gifts ye have from them.

(5) The many-tribed and much-mixed populace of the stars which the much-roving and ever-scattered atoms composed have (they say) apportioned among themselves their places according to agreement, setting up, as it were, a colony or a community,[228] without any founder or controller taking the lead over them: and they observe the duties of _neighbourliness_ to one another by compact and peacably, not transgressing the original bounds which they accepted, as if they were under the jurisdiction of such atoms as had regal power. But the atoms do not rule; how could they, being of no account? Nay, listen to the Divine announcement ({logia}): "In the judgment of the Lord are his works from the beginning; and from the making of them he disposed the parts thereof. He garnished his works for ever and the beginnings of them unto their generation."[229]

(6) What well-ordered phalanx ever traversed an earthly plain, no one stepping in front of others, nor falling out of the ranks, nor obstructing his comrades, nor falling behind them, in the way that the stars advance ever in regular order, shield locked in shield--that continuous, unwavering, unencumbered and unembarrassed host? Yet certain obscure deviations (we are told) arise among them through clashings and sideward motions:[230] and that they who devote themselves to their study can always tell the seasons and foresee the positions at which they will rise. Let, then, these cutters[231] of the uncuttable and dividers of the indivisible and combiners of the uncombined and discerners of the infinite tell us by what means occurs the encompassing journey round the heavens in company? it cannot be because a single combination of atoms has been without purpose hurled as from a sling in this way, seeing that the whole encircling band goes on its regular rhythmic way and whirls around together; by what means those multitudinous fellow-voyagers proceed in company albeit they are without arrangement or purpose and unknown to one another? Well did the prophet include amongst things impossible and undemonstrable that two strangers should run in company: Shall two walk at all together, he says, unless they are acquainted?[232]

(7) (That to work is not toilsome to God.)

To work and to administer and to benefit and to provide and the like are perchance vexatious to the idle and thoughtless and feeble and iniquitous, amongst whom Epicurus enrolled himself, when he conceived such ideas about the gods. But to the earnest and capable and intelligent and sober-minded, such as those who love wisdom (or philosophers) ought to be (and how much more the gods?), they are not only not unpleasing and irksome but rather most delightful and of all things most agreeable; for negligence and delay in doing something useful is a reproach to them, as the poet[233] warns them,[234] when he counsels: "Put not off till the morrow," and further threatens them: "He that procrastinates hath ever to struggle against disasters," while the prophet[235] instructs us still more solemnly when he says that virtuous deeds are truly godlike, but he that despises them is detestable: "for," saith he, "cursed be he that doeth the works of the Lord negligently." Consequently, while those who are untaught in any craft and are imperfect from want of practice and familiarity with the processes do find toil involved in their endeavours, those who make progress in it, and still more those who have reached perfection, are cheered by their easy success in what they aim at, and would rather accomplish and bring to completion the tasks they are accustomed to than have all the good things of mankind. At all events, Democritus himself, so they say, used to maintain that he would rather discover a single reason for a fact than gain the Persian kingdom;[236] and that though he seeks his reasons so vainly and unreasonably, starting as it were from a void beginning and a roving hypothesis and not observing that fundamental Necessity[237] which is common to the nature of things existent, but considering his conception of senseless and mindless contingencies to be the highest wisdom of setting up Chance as the mistress and queen of things universal and even of things divine, and maintaining that all things occur through her, and yet warning her off from matters of human life and conduct and accusing those who give her precedence there to be devoid of judgment. At all events, at the beginning of the "Precepts,"[238] he says: "Men have fashioned the figure of Chance, as a cloke for their own folly: for by nature chance fights against judgement." Thus they (the Epicureans) have said that this very Chance, the great enemy of intelligence, yet has the mastery over it; or, rather, by utterly uprooting and abolishing the one, they set up the other in its place: for they sing not of intelligence as happy, but of chance as the equivalent of intelligence.[239] So, then, those who superintend works of beneficence pride themselves in measures which advance the interests of their kind, some as rearers of families, some as directors of institutions, some as healers of men's bodies, some as ministers of state, yes, and those who love wisdom (philosophers) and try hard to instruct their fellows, likewise give themselves great airs--unless Epicurus or Democritus will venture to maintain that philosophizing is mere vexation of spirit: but surely there is no pleasure they would prefer to it. For even though they reckon pleasure to be the absolute good, yet they will be ashamed to say that to philosophize (seek wisdom) is not one of the higher forms of pleasure.[240] And as to the gods, about whom the poets among them sing as "givers of good gifts"[241] and these philosophers combine respect with banter,--the gods neither give nor partake of any good things. And in what manner do they find evidence that gods exist? for they do not see them before their eyes doing anything (even as those who admired the sun and the moon and the stars said they were called gods ({theoi}) because they run ({theein}) their course); nor do they attribute to them any creative or constructive powers, in order that they make them gods from the word {theinai} (set, _i. e._ make):[242] and on that ground the Maker and Creator of all things is truly the only God; nor do they put forward their management or jurisdiction or favours towards men, in order that we may be induced to worship them from motives of fear or reverence.

"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 ({genêta}) and certain things that were made ({poiêta}), 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 you[248] 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 ({homoousios})[249] with the Father. For even if I say[250] 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 ({homogenês}), 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 ({homophyes}) 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 afar[253] with those poor ill-fitting phrases of mine[254] 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 described[255] 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 Whom[257] He came. But they are not aware that the Father is not separated from the Son _qua_ Father--for the title (Father) is suggestive of such connexion (as Son with Father)--nor is the Son cut off from the Father; for the appellation "Father" denotes their common bond. And the Spirit is the object of their dealings,[258] being incapable of desertion by either Him that sends, or Him that conveys. How then can I, who use these titles, hold that They are wholly divided and separated?[259]

(4) (_Ibid._, 23). For, as our mind overflows with speech[260] 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 displays[262] 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

[1]In one of Eusebius's works (the _Præparatio Evangelica_) he is quoted
side by side with great authors like Plato and Aristotle.

[2]Most of those who read this will be aware that {pais} (Lat. _puer_)
can be used in various senses, like our "boy" and French _garçon_.

[3]Not the Prefect of Egypt of that name mentioned by Dionysius on p. 46,
though he did afterwards try to usurp the throne (see p. 16).

[4]For Dionysius's share in this dispute see his letter on p. 50.

[5]Dionysius's phrase about him on p. 66 is "tutor and chief ruler of
Egyptian magicians"; see note 3 _in loco_.

[6]This Æmilianus was one of several who afterwards attempted to seize
the throne; see above, p. 14. Macrianus was another of them in Egypt
(p. 68, _n._).

[7]The office indicated seems to be the same as that of _Rationalis_
mentioned above on p. 16.

[8]I was much assisted in drawing up this summary of {peri Physeôs} and
also in writing the notes upon the extracts from the text by Professor
H. Jackson, of Cambridge fame.

[9]The particular passage, however, adduced by Procopius above is Gen.
iii. 21.

[10]On this point C. H. Turner's article in Hastings's _Dictionary of the
Bible_, Vol. V, pp. 496 f. (on Patristic Commentaries), may be
consulted.

[11]The passage on Luke xxii, quoted by Dr. Sanday (_Inspiration_, p.
36), is of very doubtful authenticity.

[12]"Martyr" in this case need not necessarily be taken strictly as
meaning "one put to death for the Faith," though no doubt the mediæval
tradition was in favour of his martyrdom in that sense.

[13]It looks as if Dionysius was afraid to mention his name. Perhaps it
was Sabinus the Prefect. The word "poet" in Greek means properly
"maker," and there is evidently a _double entendre_ in its use here.

[14]_i. e._ against Christ (1 Cor. xii. 3).

[15]The reference is to Heb. x. 34. It will be noticed that Dionysius
attributes this Epistle to S. Paul, either inadvertently or in
accordance with the Alexandrine tradition, which Origen also accepts
(Eus., _H. E._, vi. 25).

[16]Viz. the revolt of Decius in Oct. 249.

[17]_i. e._ Philip the Arabian, who was popularly supposed to be half a
Christian.

[18]The reference is obviously to Matt. xxiv. 24 (Mark xiii. 22) though
Dionysius has substituted "cause to stumble" ({skandalisai}) for
"cause to go astray" ({planêsai} or {apoplanan}).

[19]The reference is very loosely to Matt. xix. 23 and 25.

[20]Viz. those who held no prominent position; the ordinary folk.

[21]Cp. Gal. ii. 9.

[22]Cp. Acts xxviii. 23 and Rev. i. 9.

[23]There is evidently an allusion here to Matt. v. 11 and Luke vi. 22.

[24]Viz. the _ungulæ_, with which the flesh was torn from the bones.

[25]Only three are mentioned in the text.

[26]_i. e._ some time between 251, when persecution ended with the death
of Decius, and 257, when Valerian revived it.

[27]The first was a martial offence, the second a civil.

[28]_i. e._ by being allowed to follow Christ's example.

[29]This was the _catasta_, or platform, which corresponded to our
prisoner's dock.

[30]Dionysius's language recalls 2 Cor. ii. 14; Col. ii. 15 is different.

[31]Cf. Heb. xi. 38.

[32]_i. e._ they showed themselves worthy of being among the elect.

[33]A range of hills to the east of the Nile seems to have been so
called.

[34]On the marriage of the clergy at this time, see Bingham, _Antiq._,
IV, v. [S] 5.

[35]This is probably the earliest extant mention of the Saracens--at
least by that name.

[36]The opinion that the martyrs passed at once to heaven and shared His
throne was general among the early Fathers (see Matt. xix. 28 and 1
Cor. vi. 2, 3).

[37]Cp. Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 9.

[38]These expressions are not to be pressed as if they assumed episcopal
authority.

[39]Cp. Gal. i. 20.

[40]_i. e._ in October 249.

[41]The Prefect of Egypt.

[42]This was a kind of soldier employed on secret service by the emperors
and their provincial governors.

[43]Probably his sons, though they might be his pupils or his servants.

[44]One of "the boys."

[45]Whether Timotheus was making off to join Dionysius or was fleeing in
another direction is not clear.

[46]Cp. Mark xiv. 52.

[47]Dionysius's language here recalls 2 Cor. xi. 1, 17, 21 and xii. 6,
11.

[48]Viz. Tobit xii. 7, where the best attested reading is "to reveal
gloriously," instead of "(it is) glorious to reveal."

[49]The Prefect of Egypt at that time.

[50]Though Dionysius was Bishop, it is noticeable that he still
associates himself with the presbyterate here and elsewhere; cp. 1
Pet. v. 1, etc.

[51]Acts v. 29.

[52]Marcellus seems to be the "brother from Rome" mentioned above, and
Eusebius is not now mentioned.

[53]The word "also" either refers to the imperial edict or suggests that
some written communication had been sent.

[54]Viz. Valerian and his son Gallienus.

[55]Cp. 1 Tim. ii. 2; this laudable custom is often referred to in early
Christian writings.

[56]This restriction was constantly enforced by persecuting emperors,
because the graves of martyrs were a favourite resort for prayer and
worship. The word cemetery (=sleeping-place) was introduced by
Christians for graveyards.

[57]This is an indignant protest against Germanus's charges.

[58]1 Cor. xv. 3.

[59]Col. iv. 3.

[60]Cp. Acts xii. 25.

[61]The brethren who lived on the outskirts of a city like Alexandria
were not bound to attend the mother church, but had as it were chapels
of ease in their own vicinities.

[62]Or perhaps "carried on" (to act as thou didst).

[63]Strictly speaking, Novatian's withdrawal was not very likely to
involve actual martyrdom.

[64]The word is {katorthôma} (success); perhaps "recovery" would bring
out the antithesis to "fall" ({sphalma}) better.

[65]Gen. xix. 17 (LXX).

[66]Another reading gives "blessed" ({makarios}), which, though less well
supported by the MSS., makes the phrase {makariôs anepausato} more
pointed.

[67]This expression probably means to include the Churches of Mesopotamia
and Osroene, besides those which he proceeds to mention below.

[68]Eusebius is mistaken in identifying this peace with the cessation of
persecution: the reference is to the subsiding of the Novatianist
schism in 254 which restored peace to Christendom. The surprise and
joy were due to the violence of the language and other measures which
the chief combatants (Stephen and Cyprian) had employed.

[69]Hadrian's colony in Mount Sion was so named (A.D. 132). Later on the
older and more glorious name of Jerusalem was restored to the see.

[70]Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (+ A.D. 260), and one of Origen's
distinguished pupils. On the baptismal controversy he sided with
Cyprian of Carthage.

[71]The adroit reference to the wonted liberality of the Roman Church is
to be noted: other instances are given by Salmon, _Infallibility_, p.
375.

[72]Here again Dionysius shows his adroitness, if Benson (_Cyprian_, p.
357) is right in thinking that the list of churches he gives suggests
a repetition of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii.
9 f.).

[73]Cp. the letter to Dionysius, p. 58.

[74]Lev. xxiv. 13-16.

[75]The word here used represents {mystêrion}, denoting the Christian
revelation as {mystêrion} often does.

[76]Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22 and Gal. i. 8, 9.

[77]The former are converts from heathenism, or perhaps from heresy; the
latter Christians who have lapsed.

[78]The word here is the Greek {cheirotonia} in Syriac letters, and so
might also be rendered "ordination."

[79]The MSS. from which this extract comes state that it is from a letter
to Dionysius and Stephanus of Rome. No such letter is otherwise known,
and it is not likely that Stephen's name would come second, as he was
then bishop and Dionysius only a presbyter, though later on he became
bishop. Possibly it is from the letter which our Dionysius tells us he
wrote to his Roman namesake and Philemon when they were of the same
opinion as Stephen: see p. 55. As far as the contents of the extract
go, it is not at all incredible that Dionysius was willing to admit
the validity of such baptisms as are specified: it was only heresies
of a very fundamental kind which he considered to invalidate baptism.

[80]The successor to Stephanus in 257 as Bishop of Rome: he was martyred
after one year's reign.

[81]This was, according to Benson (_Cyprian_, p. 354), a threat which he
did not actually carry into effect, and was only meant to restrain
them from adopting Cyprian's attitude on the matter.

[82]_i. e._ those of Iconium and Synnada (_circ._ 230): Dionysius may
also be referring to the three much more recent councils which Cyprian
had held at Carthage between 254 and 256 (_i. e._ since his letter to
Stephen above). By this time he had by patient inquiry found out much
more than he had known at first of what was necessary to be known
before coming to a decision.

[83]_Cf._ 1 Cor. vi. 11 and v. 7, 8.

[84]See note on p. 54. Dionysius became afterwards Bishop of Rome in 259:
a fragment of a letter from our Dionysius to him is printed on p. 58.
His famous letter to our Dionysius on the Sabellian controversy is not
included in this volume. Part of a letter to Philemon is given on p.
56. He was a Roman Presbyter.

[85]On the north-west coast of Cyrenaica, one of the five chief cities
which gave its name to the Libyan Pentapolis. Sabellius denied the
three Persons in the Trinity, and held that the Person of the Father
who is One with the Son was incarnate in Christ: see further p. 19.

[86]There seems no doubt that this is the right reading here, though most
of the MSS. read "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ"; but
clearly Dionysius is only speaking of God the Father in this clause
and of Jesus Christ in the next. See 2 Cor. i. 2, Eph. i. 3, etc.

[87]It was Dionysius's treatment of this subject which afterwards gave
Arius the heresiarch of Alexandria an opening for claiming his
teaching in support of his own tenets, though there is no Arian
suggestion, of course, in this phrase: see p. 20.

[88]Col. i. 15.

[89]Eus., _H. E._ vii. 26, mentions letters to Ammonius, Bishop of
Bernice, Telesphorus Euphranor and Euporus in this connexion.
Athanasius appears only to have known one joint letter to Ammonius and
Euphranor.

[90]Dionysius seems to distinguish here two kinds of writings: (1) those
that were based on systematic research and criticism, and (2) those
that handed on the more traditional and less critical views and
statements of the past.

[91]Divine interposition is more vaguely suggested above on p. 44. S.
Augustine's statement should also be compared, that at a critical
moment of his conversion he heard a voice saying, "Take and read"
(_Conf._ vii. 12, [S] 29); S. Polycarp likewise heard a voice from
heaven saying, "Be strong and play the man," as he was led into the
arena.

[92]See Introduction, p. 11.

[93]This is one of the more common apocryphal sayings usually attributed
to our Lord: hence the epithet "apostolic" is somewhat strange.

[94]The word for "Father" here is {papas} (pope), a colloquial form of
{patêr} applied to any bishop (or even to one of the inferior clergy
sometimes) in the first ages. For Heraclas see p. 11. It is to be
noticed, however, that this canon of his dealt not with heretical
baptism (such as Dionysius is dealing with), but with actual or
reputed perverts, and stated the terms on which they were to be
restored to the Church of their baptism.

[95]_i. e._ the Church in Africa Proconsularis, of which Carthage was the
metropolis and Cyprian the metropolitan.

[96]Iconium was the chief city of Lycaonia (see Acts xiii. and xiv.), and
Synnada was an important town in Phrygia Salutaris. These synods had
been held some twenty-five years before (in A.D. 230).

[97]Deut. xix. 14.

[98]See above, p. 53.

[99]A confession of faith has always been required before baptism: this
Novatian virtually ignored by his action.

[100]Here as elsewhere Dionysius shows his breadth of view about God in
recognizing that the Holy Spirit might in some measure remain even
with the lapsed.

[101]It is strange that so old a believer should never have noticed the
difference before, but baptism was almost entirely confined at that
time to Easter and Whitsuntide, and he may have always been absent.

[102]Cp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16. The Amen is either that after the Consecration
of the Elements or at the Reception of them.

[103]"Standing" was, and is still, the posture in the East: Scudamore,
_Not. Euch._, p. 637.

[104]A somewhat rare word for "Altar" without some descriptive epithet
like "holy" or "mystic."

[105]The _Consistentes_ were the last order of penitents, who were
allowed to remain after the dismissal of the catechumens and other
penitents, but did not join in the oblation or communion itself: cf.
Canons of Nicæa, No. xi.

[106]The letter from which this is supposed to be an extract is said by
Eusebius (_H. E._ vi. 46, 2) to have been on the subject of
Repentance, and may possibly be "the instruction" which Dionysius says
he had given on p. 42 above.

[107]Viz. under the impression that they were going to die.

[108]_i. e._ after thus pledging ourselves to them.

[109]Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 3, where Ps. xxxiii. (xxxiv.) 9 is quoted.

[110]Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 7, etc.

[111]The reference is to Luke xv. 4 ff. and Ezek. xxxiv. 6, etc.

[112]Dionysius is thinking perhaps of the story in Tobit v. 6, where
Raphael becomes the companion of Tobit's son Tobias on his journey.

[113]On the principle that "charity thinketh no evil ... but hopeth all
things" (1 Cor. xiii.): similar but not identical phrases (in words or
sense) are found 1 Cor. xvi. 17, 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9, Phil. ii. 30,
and Col. i. 24.

[114]The difficulties of soldiers becoming and remaining Christians were
peculiarly great under the early Emperors.

[115]That is, some had not yet been called upon to be actual martyrs,
Dionysius among them who was still in exile.

[116]Is. xlix. 8.

[117]These were the same civil officials as those mentioned in Acts vi.
20 at Philippi, with their servants, there called lictors
({rhabdouchoi}): the soldiers belonged to the centurion, of course.

[118]This has already been described on p. 44.

[119]Including Timotheus who had been the means of his escape.

[120]A town on the coast 150 miles west of Alexandria.

[121]He and the three deacons have already been mentioned on p. 46. They
must have left Dionysius when he went into exile and returned to
Alexandria.

[122]"In the island," according to Rufinus's version, but it is not clear
what island he means: the pestilence is probably one of those frequent
epidemics which devastated North Africa and other districts of the
empire.

[123]The epithet "perfect," though applied to believers generally in the
New Testament (Matt. v. 28, etc.), was later specially used of
martyrs.

[124]Gallus succeeded to the empire on the death of Decius and his sons
in 251, and reigned till 253, when it was wrested from him by Æmilian,
who was in turn ousted by Valerian after four months' rule. Dionysius
makes no mention of this episode, though he does of Macrian's attempt
later.

[125]The quotation is from Rev. xiii. 5, but the last words follow a
reading which has no support in the MSS. It should also be noticed
that Dionysius does not think it at all certain that the author of the
Revelation is the Evangelist: see p. 86.

[126]Valerian reigned from 253 till his disappearance in 260. The
duration of the persecution was forty-two months, from before
midsummer 257 till late in 260.

[127]Here the expression means Christians generally, not prophets or
clergy as often.

[128]Alexander Severus and Philip the Arabian are no doubt meant.

[129]Compare such expressions in S. Paul's letters as Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor.
xvi. 11, etc.