STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
AND
THE BOOK OF HIEEOTHEOS.
BY
A. L. .HOTHINGHAM. Jr.
leyden. - e. j. brill. 1886.
oct.
STEPHEN BAR SUDA1LI
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
AND
THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS.
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT
lilllllllillllilii 1618 5476
■
STEPHEN BAR SÜD1ILI
THE SYRIAN MYSTIC
AND
THE BOOK OF HIEROÏHEOS.
BY
A. L, FROTHINGHAM. Jr.
leyden. - e. j. brill. 1886.
Printed by e. .i. brill, Leiden.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Introduction: the mystico-pantheistic schools of Egypt
and Syria...............p. 1.
Ch. I. The writings of Pseudo-Dionysios; their spread .in Syria, and long-continued influence through the Middle-Ages............... 2.
Ch. II. Stephen Bar Sudaili, the East-Syrian mystic. Was he the author of the Book of Hierotheos and the master of Pseudo-Dionysios?............ fi.
Ch. III. Letter of Jacob of Sarug to Stephen Bar Sudaili, supporting against him the Church doctrine of the
y
eternity of punishment. Syriac text and translation ,, 11.
Ch. IV. Letter of Philoxenos or Xenaias of Mabüg to Stephen and Orestes concerning Bar Sudaili; exposing his pantheistic doctrine of the consubstantiality of God and the material Universe, and the redemption of all existence by assimilation to the divine principle.
Syriac text and translation.........,, 29.
Ch. V. The philosophic system of Bar Sudaili, as expounded in the preceding letters, compared with the Book of Hierotheos and the Dionysian fragments of Hierotheos...............,, 49.
Ch. VI. Biography of Bar Sudaili. His birth at Edessa. Probability of his temporary residence in Egypt: documents confirming this hypothesis. His return to Edessa and subsequent residence in or near Jerusalem, shortly after A. D. 500 .......,, 56.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Introduction: the mystico-pantheistic schools of Egypt
and Syria...............p. 1.
Ch. I. The writings of Pseudo-Dionysios; their spread .in Syria, and long-continued influence through the Middle-Ages............... 2.
Ch. II. Stephen Bar Sudaili, the East-Syrian mystic. Was he the author of the Book of Hierotheos and the master of Pseudo-Dionysios?............. 6.
Ch. III. Letter of Jacob of Sarug to Stephen Bar Sudaili, supporting against him the Church doctrine of the eternity of punishment. Syriac text and translation „ 11.
Ch. IV. Letter of Philoxenos or Xenaias of Mabng to Stephen and Orestes concerning Bar Sudaili; exposing his pantheistic doctrine of the consubstantiality of God and the material Universe, and the redemption of all existence by assimilation to the divine principle.
Syriac text and translation.........,, 29.
Ch. V. The philosophic system of Bar Sudaili, as expounded in the preceding letters, compared with the Book of Hierotheos and the Dionysian fragments of Hierotheos................ 49.
Ch. VI. Biography of Bar Sudaili. His birth at Edessa. Probability of his temporary residence in Egypt: documents confirming this hypothesis. His return to Edessa and subsequent residence in or near Jerusalem, shortly after A. D. 500 .......„ 56.
J
TABLE OK CONTENTS.
Ch. VII. Bar Sadaili considered by Syrian writers, — e. g.
Kyriakos of Antiocb, John of Dara, and Gregory Bar cEbraia, — to be the author of the Book of Hierotheos ...............
Ch. VIII. The Book of Hierotheos preserved in a Syriac MS. of the British Museum. Is this Syriac text the origiiial, or a version from a lost Greek original ? Reasons for considering the assertion of a Greek original to be a part of the fraud..........„09.
Ch. IX. The high position given by Pseudo-Dionysios to his master Hierotheos. He claims only to expand and present to the uninitiated the ideas of his master. A comparison of the two writers........ 74
Ch. X. The question of priority: was the Book of Hierotheos produced in view of the Dionysian writings, or was it an original and anterior production? . . . „ 81
Ch. XI. The commentaries of Theodosios of Antioch and Gregory Bar cEbraia on the Book of Hierotheos. . . 84
\'Ch. XII. Summary of the «Book of Hierotheos on the Hidden
Mysteries of the Divinity»........... 91
Book I. On the Good, the Universal Essence, and
distinct existences........... 92
Book II. The various species of motion; the ascent of the mind towards the Good, during which it must endure the sufferings of Christ . . . ,, 96 Book III. The resurrection of the mind, the vicissitudes of its conflict with the powers of evil,
and its final identification with Christ . . . „100 Book IV. The mind becomes one, first with Christ,
then with the Spirit and the Father, and finally
becomes absorbed........... 102
Book V. All nature becomes confounded with the Father; all distinct existence and God himself passes away; Essence alone remains ....
VI.
110
During the first centuries of Christianity, East Syria and Egypt were the two great centres of false mysticism and pantheism , and between them there ever existed the closest relations. Although Egyptian thought and the Valenlinian system exercised a great influence over Syrian thought, yet the latter possessed certain special characteristics; for while the Alexandrian schools threw their universal eclecticism into the mould of Greek thought, and gave a philosophical character to their speculations, the Syrian schools were distinguished by a vivid fancy and a bold speculation, to which they did not seek to give a philosophical or a logical form. On the other hand, if we try to connect by analogy the Syrian Gnostics and mystics with preceding systems of thought, we easily perceive the close relation in which they stood lo the later Persian system, to the debased Chaldaean worship, and to the Jewish Kabbala, which probably flourished in their very midst among the Jewish settlements of Babylonia.
The doctrines of Bardesanes and of Manes preserved great force and influence in the East Syrian Church, even until the middle of the fourth century, when S. Ephraem wrote and labored against them with all the influence he could wield , as heresies which had deep root among all classes. From this time forward Syrian mysticism took a more ecclesiastical form, and pantheistic doctrine became subtly infused into the orthodox forms of belief, producing a steadily progressive inversion of the Christian faith.
Frothingham, Bar Sudaili.
1
2
I. THE WRITINGS OF PSEUDO-ÜIONYSIOS.
Afler Ihe epoch of S. Ephraem (i 373) we do nol hear of any prominent movement in the mystical school of Syria until the last years of the fifth century or the first of the succeeding, when there suddenly appeared a body ol writings purporting to be by Dionysios the Areopagitc, the convert of Saint Paul 1). It has been for some time generally recognized that they were the work of this period J), and, in all probability, written by some follower of Proclus 2), who may have been a Syrian monk quot;\'); a theory supported by the fact that, although eagerly received and studied by the whole East, these writings were brought forward and most powerfully supported by the Syrians. All mystics recognized these works to be the production of a master-mind, worthy of becoming their guide in pantheistic speculation. The extent to which they were used can be appreciated on consulting Syriac inss., where Dionysios is adduced as authority in most controversial writings, especially by the Monophysites.
But it was not only the mystical schools and the Eastern
1
S. Dionysii Areopagitae Opera omnia stud, et op. Balth. Corderii: Migne, Patr. Graecae T. Til and TV. Darboy (T\'abbé), (Euvres de Saint Denis I\'Aréopagite. Paris 1845.
Cf. J. Dulac, (Euvres de Saint Denis I\'Aréopagite. Paris 1865.
2
Engelhardt, Baur, Gfrörer, Schatf, etc. Dorner connects him with the Monophysites.
3
heretics lhat supported the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. The orthodox at first protested against them at th\'e Council otquot; Constantinople in 533, and denied their genuineness, by the mouth of Hypatius, who attributed them to the Apollinarists; but it was not long before they accepted Uiem as genuine, for, besides an afllnity for such speculation being wide-spread at this time, they could find in these works many arguments and proofs in favor of Church institutions and ecclesiastical authority; and from these two causes the Pseudo-Dionysian writings were accepted even by the Popes, as by Gregory the Great \'), Martin I 1), and Agatho 2).
Almost contemporaneously with the appearance of the Dio-nysian writings there appeared also a Syriac version of them, rendered necessary by the favor they were obtaining throughout Syria. The author of this version was Sergius the archiater or physician of Ras\'ain (t 536), the famous Aristotelian and writer on medicine 3). It is a characteristic phenomenon that a follower of Aristotle should find the greatest of false mystics a congenial spirit, and should become thoroughly impregnated with his doctrines: that it was so with Sergius is shown even more clearly by the long introduction which he prefixed to his version of the Pseudo-Dionysios 4), where be shows himself to be not a simple translator but an original thinker in mysticism. Of course the Alexandrian school was the link between the two. In this connection it is interesting to note a passage in a contemporary work, the ecclesiastical history attributed to Zacharias Rhetor, in which Sergius is characterized as an eloquent man and learned //in
1
Acta Synodi Lateran. a. 6G0.
2
Letter to the Emp. Constantine for the Council of Constantinople, a. 680.
3
This version is contained in Brit. Mus. Add. 12.151 and 12.152, etc.
4
Brit. Mus. Add. 22.370.
4
Greek literature and in the doctrine of Origenquot; »). The Origenistic revival of the beginning of the sixth century was in perfect accord with the theories of the Pseudo-Dionysios; still it is interesting to note this further connection.
The writers who have undertaken to trace the development of the influence of the Pseudo-Areopagite have confined themselves to Greek and Latin literature, and have neglected the very important part taken by Syrian writers in this movement. It was in reality as important as either of the former, and can hoast nearly as many noteworthy representatives. Contemporary with the scholia of John of Scythopolis, for example, who was the first Greek commentator of Dio-nysios, we find the version and scholia of Sergius of Pias\'ain, already mentioned; and while the next Greek commentator is the noted Maximus, who flourished in the seventh century, Syria is represented again in the sixth century itself by the monk Joseph Huzaja, who wrote a coc\\.i.cocucu.i jir-cv.^ //Commentary on Dionysiosquot; 1). Afterwards, and not quite a century later than Maximus, appear the commentaries of Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa 2) and John bishop of Dara 3). This latter treats only of the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies and does not confine itself to the office of a commentary, but holds forth original views in various chapters. During the latest period of Syriac literature we find the commentary of Theodore bar Zarudi of Edessa 3). It would not be possible in the present incomplete state of our acquaintance with Syrian literature to give a satisfactory account
1
\'Ebed Yeshu, Catal. of Syrian writers, in Assem. Bib. Or. T. Ill, P. I, p. 103.
2
W. Wright, Catal. of tbe Syriac mss. of the Brit. Mus. ï. II, p. 493. The MS. is dated A.D. 804.
3
Assemani Catal. Codd. Syr. T. II, p. 530: cf. Bib. Or. T. II, p. 120.
5
of the early Syrian writers who have mentioned Dionysios or followed his doctrines. Still we can mention during the sixth century such distinguished men as Severus of Antioch , Isaac of Nineveh 1), John of Apamea 2) and Peter of Calli-nicus, Patriarch of Antioch 3).
At the time when, with the opening of a new period in the ninth century, religious thought took a new form and scholastic theology began its rule, the influence of the Pseudo-Dionysios increased rather than waned, and it continued throughout the constructive period of Scholasticism. He was made the authority, the starting-point, of most of the theories put forth, in one form by the founder of Scholasticism John Erigena, and in others by the school of St. Victor, by the German mystics Eckhart and Tauler, and by Thomas Aquinas himself. A writer has remarked that, if the writings of Dionysios had been lost, they could be almost reconstituted from the works of Aquinas quot;). To read Buenaventura, especially his tract //Itinerarium mentis in Deumquot;, carries one back to Dionysios as his immediate inspiring source.
Now Pseudo-Dionysios confesses to having had two teachers in the faith, S.Paul and one named Hierotheos 4); the for-
1
Besides his mention of Dionysios\' Gelest. Hioraroliy (cf. Assem. B. 0, 1, 451) in Ms sermon »De materia quam exigit anima ut a corporals cogitationibus etc.quot;, there are indications that Isaac was himself a mystical writer. \'Ebed Yeshu in his catal. gives the titles of two of his writings which were evidently of this character: 1) jjQTI tX\'TaOS
»on the government of the spiritquot;, and 2) pSI^oqXk\' Vson
the Divine mysteriesquot;.
2
See in Cod. Syr. Vat. XCIII his treatises and letters: 1) on spiritual government; 2) on the incomprehensibility of God; 3) on spiritual communion with God.
3
He quotes Dionysios (Div. Names ch. I and V) in his Libri contra Damianum L. II, ch. 41 and 47; see Cod. Syr. Vat. CVIII f. 282 sqq.
4
Divine Names II, 11.
G
mer is of course a fiction , the latter may have more reality. Hierotheos is praised by him in the most glowing terms, as divine, as an inspired mystic, whose writings are a second Bible, devrsQa Xóyicc \') , and whose knowledge of divine things was far above his own. The fragments of his writings given by Pseudo-Dionysios are interesting: they are taken from his \'Eorony.ol vuvoi, Erotic Hymns 1) , and from a work entitled OaoXoyr/.cci GToi/Eicoasig, The Elements of Theology 2). If, as is well known, the whole of scholastic theology and of mediaeval mysticism is founded on the doctrines of the Pseudo-Dionysios, of what extraordinary interest would it not be to discover the very source of these doctrines, their origin in a form more abstract than that given by the Pseudo-Areopagite! Hence it was often asked by the followers of the latter: who was this Hierotheos? what were his writings? what is known of him? These questions remained unanswered, for nothing could be gleaned concerning such a man except from the Dionysian writings themselves. Then the question naturally followed: did such a person ever exist? was he not a mere Dionysian figment? \'\').
We hope to give in the following pages an answer to some of these questions, and will present in outline an unpublished work, hitherto unknown to students of this subject, claiming to be written by Hierotheos, and which may or may not be really by the master of the Pseudo-Dionysios.
II. STEPHEN BAR SUDA1LI.
To the very period now almost unanimously assigned to
1
Div. Names, ch. IV, § XV, XVI, and XVII.
2
Div. Names, ch. II, § X, and probably Eed. Hier. ch. II, p. 1.
7
the production of llie Pseudo-Dionysiana belongs a prominent and interesting figure in the Syrian Church, that of the mystic Stephen Bar Sudaiii, The connection of these two phenomena is not hy any means fortuitous, but the materials available up to the present have been so few that his position ami individuality have never been clearly defined \').
Among the letters of Philoxenos of Mabüg is one written to Abraham and Orestes, priests of Edessa , concerning Bar Sudaiii : this document is the principal source from which we derive our information regarding him, for the letter of Jacob of Sarug addressed to Bar Sudaiii himself adds but little and the few other notices we have been able to collect referring to the latter do so in but few words.
Bar Sudaiii is important, not only as a prominent representative of the mystical school of East Syria, but as being connected with an interesting literary and religious question , the solution of which has never been attempted: that is, whether or no he is the author of the Book of Hierolheos , and in what relation this work stands to the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysios, who asserts Hierotheos to have been his master quot;j. To collect and present all the available material relating to this subject is what I will attempt to accomplish in a short while, so that competent judges may have the opportunity of forming their opinion on the question. In order to do this I hope to publish before long the complete
1) Asseman being the common source of all that has been said on Bar Sudaiii, the only difference is in the variety of constrnction placed upon his words.
2) See page 28.
3) See page 10.
4) The probable identity of Bar Sudaiii and Pseudo-Hierotheos has been assumed, on the sole authority of Bar \'Ebraia, e. g. by Zockler in his article on B. S. in Herzog\'s Eeal Encyk. (T. XV. p. 203—5), who is followed in the Cyclop, of Messrs Clintock and Strong (vol. X, p. 8—9j.
8
text ol\' tlie Book of Hierotheos in the so-called Syriac version of a supposed Greek original now lost. The unique copy ol this version has long lain unnoticed among the treasures ot the British Museum. For the present I will limit myself to giving, in this essay, the letters of Philoxenos and Jacob of Sarug with a translation, and an abstract of the Book of Hierotheos, together with a few extracts which will illustrate its principles and the form of its thought and language. As a necessary introduction to this analysis will be given, as far as is possible, the chain of judgments on and references to the Book of Hierotheos which are found among Syrian writers.
The conditions necessary to the formation of a judgment, from the intrinsic evidence, on the probability of Bar Sudaili being the author are, after examining the analysis and refutation ol the doctrines of Bar Sudaili in the letters of Phi-lox-enos and Jacob ol Sarug, in the first place, to compare these doctrines with those of the Book of Hierotheos, and, in the second place, to decide whether there is a perfect correspondence between the latter and the fragments of the //Elements of Theologyquot; and the //Erotic Hymnsquot; of Hierotheos quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysios in his book on the \'/Divine Namesquot; and in his //Eccles. Hierarchyquot;. Finally we must see whether there are any other documents which connect Bar Sudaili with the supposed Hierotheos.
The two letters concerning Bar Sudaili have been known principally through the full analysis of that of Philoxenos given by Asseman in his //Bibliotheca Orientalisquot; \'); and many church
1) T. II, p. 30 sqq.; cf. T. I, p. 303.
9
historians, such as Neander 1), Gfrörer 2), Dornor 3), etc., iiave, on the strength of this, assigned to Bar Sudaili an important position, as illustrating the mystical side of Monophy-sitism and the influence of the Origenistic revival. His pantheism , which is fully recognized by them , can now be made to appear in a still clearer light by the publication of the texts themselves. The letter of Philoxenos bishop of Hiera-polis is written in an exquisitely pure Syriao, and will be all the more welcome that the writings of this purest of Syriac writers, though very extensive, have been entirely neglected and remain inedited. The letter of Jacob of Sarug, though it does not furnish many additional data, and does not show much theological acuteness, is a good specimen of his flowery diction and persuasive language.
1
General History of the Christian Religion and Church, v. II, p. 555—557.
2
Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. II, vol. I, p. 132.
10
(\' i=3 p^-la^florc .acxai».» ,t.quot;^3t
quot;relsa.Mi ore* ps^\'-ü^ts pc\'.%-ii-i»..=j èurs\' ^cni.i quot;i^i. quot;ncu-vrs rtffcrar^.t r^èvsimia.i ^k^x-ai^ v^ts^a kveia . r^cran^ rillal ii^rstacraj . «tn^rC.i rï\'ia.flo A.^. . èxirc\' jwit ri\'èxi^
.k\'ii^x. r^-v-vü-n v\\\\ »__r5l5o4» rc-aa
. cau^ti rdliiw k\'ixw rdik.iva cv.\\ . ki.» t»\\^ k\'i^k\'
tjaj1 . a-i\\ gt;ct3 a^o . ptf\'èvwjl quot;^xlvso.i cni^ndn* r^arc\' ix\\ï. k^.tm rd-^ii^r^ rtlxa.! ivx^ir^.t (l quot;ïj.^ rlt;zn . rc^ali.
a^ cna r^i.iasa rïla.,»cr)i .t_^o . rÓ2.»è\\^. caViin
• K\'TiCaJ pC\'i^r^fiJ riAoixfio Kryr? cn.^ jjuxamp;.z. rifcvcal.T . Kfnïioo f rdjoo . rc\'ivia^ «r^.n CV.^ cara ^iactiièvss.T *
9 oen rdiv^ . gt;ooaaurlt;\' rlt;la.=a30 rlt;x^a.^.a rs\'tisish. . rdsx^x. oco rlt;ljj.n.2i . rdra.ïaire\'a coia.i^io
\' cnièxm^ . cni^cvi, a^u^o rilfijj \'\' ai^.1 k\'ii^x. 1 ,cncu.i.ixA vxih.ca^a .pt\'a^i kbvw caixiao / acn r^saw
1) In the text, a, we follow Brit. Mus. Add. 14,587 (f. 1«), dated a. d. 603 (a. Gr. 914); as the beginning is wanting in this ms., it is supplied from b. m. Add. 17,163 {f. 23i). The various readings are taken 1) from the latter ms. marked b, also assigned to the vii cent.; 2) from c, the Vat. Syr. 107 (60, b, 1), which belongs to the vlii cent.; and 3) from d, the long extract in b, m. Add. 17,103, dated a. d. 874 (f. 98). The title in 0 is è\\cal . .aan,^.» ,vs3;i criL.i .t_^ crA.i oc\\è\\ . aj.io^ i=j r£x2l^ao.
a) c klar I) C adds ,cn. c) c jcooï.irelsi. d) c
omits. e) c kaxüa^ cri= ^3ctx.av5o.i /) c rd.\'m.vi. ff) c tcnoèv»!^ a) 0 a^s.—il i) c omits, fc) c omits. I) b gt;cocv.l»\'vo.
11
III.
LETTER OF MAR YA* TO STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI.
It is well Cor tliee thai thou walkest in glorious works, 0 friend of God, and it is honorable for thy intelligent soul that in the love of God thou sowest daily excellent things unto the hope of God, for the time will come that thou shalt reap; and be not anxious regarding the fruits of thy good sowing, for when the laborer sows he considers, in his mind\'s eye, not the seed but the furrows full of fruits; and for this does he sow, that he may gather the fruits. For, when the soul comprehends the new world, it despises the possessions of the old world and hastens to divide them among the needy, that they may be for it as a treasure in the abode of light, where good things are given to the workers of good. But this troubled world is as grass, hay, or flowers: it is a shadow which recedes and hastens to pass and remove the day-light (?); a lovely flower, whose beauty soon withers and perishes. Its riches are a dream and its possessions a deceptive vision. Error attaches to its posses-
12
• vySOMi * ocirA a K\'ièxiw\'so : nitniw.i kAvmAI. vyrs*
èi.cti_3 \'■ \\s^.h\\h\\r^-^ rlt;l.t?30 . CTI.»ixdxAiA.xa \'\' rï\'l.-ii.l . PC-I.T r^liljaa A._^ . Ktxè^èxïOO
,Jta\\o . rï\'^i.aia rlt;lxaj art\' \'\\x^h\\h\\rlt;%
• r^AA.i rtflruis» ,cnc\\.iavjj (.io / voai^- , rlt;l»\'T-\'so:1 cnik.TT.i
gt;^1.^3 ,vs. . rsltTisiiK\'s asicncxia gt;sgt;ijaii=i\\r«\' ,è\\o
r«\'iv!La.jjLïgt;3 jTCVQaso . riL\'sl.Vii gt;2k._\\ .rscriii rtllila
rlt;\\yXl~ ^lwiA .• r^ièiaiw rf-sca. rc^ciiHoo nSl^Vjia.i .•rti^.ï . «cncvsiVu ^isjoiaètsso rlt;i.\\,\\ ca\\ ,\'/ i-rii». . A.^
\' gt;^cv\\a . .oacMÏixi ^ ^quot;■iflaaèvsaa rüsiA^. CTI_\\ K\'ièv-T.SO
. riSu-nn on^030.1= oiA è\\xOoiaè\\rC\' . p«14o.a» Av.ièM.pt\' . r^èviwTj.T KllLrC ^ è\\^.\\.^73rt\'.T rdl^l0.1,0 K\'iè^o^. oaio^i ca\\ jiAvi.rc\' . rtfliM.T rlt;lvV»rï\' r^irtl^a cra\\
\' rï\'.^xVörï\'^OcrA ^ Osjcaaèxrï\'.T .
rclSÜj.TT^.T oijjioKfcx . ,03 rdiini. rlt;lr3oi£k.i CTijjLtsooi . nilCslA Tlt;l».\'»JO,i= ^.A.3 caao^j . ,o3 r£.,ix*b\\2i.
m K\'.T_/T-\'\\7 ^O.ia.11 KAV-I-^ CTaijè\\^o . rlt;l3._l_^
r^i^V\'sa Kbosa . rïisax- h\\*xi rlt;l=ji rc\'ia.oo . ^^ooiwo.MAA .*lrc\' rlt;L\\.i . aalsAoxrj rc\'èxiia ègt;ioiiQ . ptóaViA »rcl\\c\\ /\'r«l=3 03M ti.\\ rrA . 0 pCu.vièx\'SO rlt;l\\ quot; rdlïlnX
^gt;è^ïègt; rtllo ^_Q.^.jifla»i.3 rïlïjjiJ rlt;l\\c\\ rlt;\'.\'50rlt;lCD
ra) C h) C rï\'.-VMtH .v\\quot;SO.l.t. c) C óa.èv.ni\'rdl:!.
(I) C •ix^ègt;re\'.T. e) C .•iü^^rC\' /) C gt;J3oi^.c\\. ff) c
si\'i-L.. h) C ^xflo\'iakèvsno- i) c ».^o.\\7. k) c ^oiArs\'.i. O C rC\'.tAa. m) With this word begins 14,587. gt;t) C r^llxlxA. o) C rlt;li».\\Bè\\5a. p) c (^1=03.1 r«A. c (.U^öü.
sions, as to Ihe treasure-trove ol\' a dream, which in sleep enriches him who is asleep , so that he rejoices in a discovery which does nol exist. When he awakes, he is ashamed and repents for making the mistake ol\'rejoicing in unreal possessions. Awake\' Awake! 0 prudent soul! put on the strength of the arm of the Lord; flee from thé vain visions of the night, and come, rejoice in the beautiful light of day. Cast away from thee the possessions which dreams give unto thee, and despise error, the corrupter of minds, which in vain visions bestows wealth upon lovers of a sleep full of every harm. Night vanishes, dreams are exposed; the world passes away, and its riches are made vile; and error, which the serpent introduced, is exposed by the light of the Cross. The desire of wealth and power, which reigned from the tree of knowledge, has been destroyed by the fruit which dawned from the tree of life. The guardian of Paradise has been removed, that the keys of the Garden might be given to the thief who was deemed worthy of the right hand. The lance of the Cherub has been taken away and the way to Paradise is open. The planter of Paradise has been wounded by the lance in the place of the thieving gardener, and he has opened the garden that those who were expelled might return to their place. The great lawgiver descended from heaven, became the teacher of the world, and the creation was illuminated with his doctrine, (which is) that no man covet riches which he has not: „provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses, neither two coats, nor
14
»rciuiortl^ Klïlrï\'.l rdSlVxrjo . plt;dïgt;3iè\\ rrr\'Ao r^^-iY r^o quot;cnèx\'-ia.^\'M.i * .Kla^coi n^jjioKquot; . »^_cArs:ï,è» r^A Coh\\Oj=3j*=3C\\ . OTS.^ OT^l^- . ^\\~n pc\'A^.i »jx^Co \'VUL\'aj.i »__0.^.rlt;/è\\ rCl\\ . r«ÜTS3 rCl\\
volaKto . J^CvAt oo^èuniL^ ■i^.i^rï\' . cn^uua rstsacxA crA vyra .cn^*x3L= rs\'.saii- \'\'^cv^scusrdi rc\'Ai . n^A^cni
\'\'rtüiiioo . jcaii.D.1 K\'^aik. i\\lrlt;/ ja^ï-so . ,cax\\_c\\i- r^T^ai-
PC\'tAM-^iA • cTi_rj icv—yjA^ rdA KLIA^cvt-S . vyii\\fla.a_\\ t.T-z-
K\'i.xuc* rc\'èu^ . rCii^aj gt;oot3 /rclnaiiv^a rc\'T^jcuwO
^nj.floègt; nf\'A . K*rd.30.1^ Aiirc\'.a.icni .T^ ^.sa^ .
r^-t-ïnuA . rcla.T.i, rdlajjil . rlt;l^.irCl=3 rï^öa-i-fio
•. irilM rdaiiST.^ . .T_ijèiè\\ rc\'-^ ptf^uliwïrCla . h\\*l-ab\\r^ rlt;lj«) \' plt;\'ca\\rs\' . rc\'.N. j rdijso niaö.a. ^ è\\i3
CQ_A Ktocn^.t v\\^flc\\ . v^-i-=3i cn^_=3 . riljjCxiQ
• rïlïina v^iso.t rcl=3rlt;l\\ va^\\j pcILa^ oen .
rCègt;aaL.Lf3 ^-JJOO . flt;\'%_\\rC vy^K\' \' jxVa orCquot;
r^JSaijjAi r^mi jao^a n^.ia^. v^rc\' Ami orïquot; : rdi\'w.x.i OK\' . rsliiss ^KAvsiwHr» rdr:re\'A xsir- OPC\' . KLilèLaasA rciv*i= gt;.iQo OPS\' ._ P^cv^VSJ quot;\' rc\'èxiA^
rciv-ösi ^.Öoo rc\'i-ï-V^ .r^mJ.i r^èrin^^Tir) . rc\'mi
iurcAA.i .K^ü^èuia TavQo.^ quot;ocrao . ^c«xgt;.iCVÜ^A
èuocn ^.-Sv.-^ . V rï njilflal aiixin ^33 quot;acrAcv i -1 ,s.
0) C cn^\'iaivsaa. V) B ^a^.ujrcli. c) B »—T^*
(l) C reiilxj. e) B nc\'r\'soa.i-^ , C K\'isja.iA Art\' f) C omits. ff) C èou cot h) BC è\\ixrj i) C vyctiArï\' /»\') B jjc\\_A_^. \') BC r^èvsaAïia. m) B èxièvT n) B ocaAo 0) B caA , C ctA. p) C rtlüküQSnX.
slave, nor scrip; and salute no man by the wayquot; \'). The way is fearful, for its pathways are full of snares. Pass on! leave the world and be not taken up with its affairs. The Lord says: „Take therefore no thought for the morrow; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereofquot;1). Remember Lot\'s wife2) and hasten your course lest the world ensnare you with its evils. If beauty comos to thee, despise it: if thou findest riches, tread them under foot: cast possessions behind thee: look not after power: let thy country, thy house and thy family be strangers to thee. The Garden is open and awaits thee: advance in haste to the beautiful bride-chamber. Lay not up unto thyself a treasure upon earth3), for the earth is destined to destruction. Thou art called to heaven; give not thyself over to earthly things: paradise awaits thee; what willst thou among thorns? God begot thee of water and spirit, and brought thee up by the blood of His Son, and called thee to be His heir. Let thy nature move thee to love the Father who numbered thee among His sons. Oh ! work like a laborer, and receive as thy wages the kingdom of Heaven. Oh! fear as a servant, and flee from the fire which threatens sinners. Minister unto Ihe Father with a child\'s love. Do good, that thou mayest inherit the Kingdom: hate evil, that thou mayest be delivered from the fire. For on the fiery passage alms become a bridge to the givers of them, and he who has divided his possessions among the poor easily passes the gulf that is placed between the two sides.
1
From Matthew VI, 34.
2
Luke XVII, 32.
3
Matt. VI, If).
». vUoAviM-rctv èuoon pctp^o .A^rdsal A - oA\\3orx»a a ya\\ », yiiaèxxsm^a èv^ooo rdV^i^. . yuaki^-ooa èuam ! pctix.v». »)a.\\.ï3 aè\\ f-Acn A^wcv ,A\\c\\.\\ ^oèviè^Kb \' rt-\\i.sorlt; èvLSO Av\'i-a r^.tcnA f^A gt;_^ 0.1=*: . vaK\'.i gt;enajv.-irj
ca\\a.^ : ri=iia k\'tth ^Dcn-r^vsao .• ^reL.ö.3 Aa Ai.\\-yi kiVd caA i.\'ssrC\'.t rlt;\'cTi\\rc\' ^73 .^JSixi.i .• pdrLÏloo ^ caliLo
.-rï\'^uiiiirc\' ca=3 AAIO /.i^rc\'ta AM.I ercA cu-=aoriquot; . Talxs
^rs3tlt;4\\s3i ^Acnn rcA.i .• K^\'-iiAx..-! rdLuAa^X A^coio
»rcllca^ ^C\\._^._\\ cA\\rj .• k\'Axui rClii.i ^sa ^ocrA
rC-x-*xA Pd! . rilJcriV^o gt;\\.iA.T h rdL*» . -)a.V^\\.1
ri\'icnoj.t pd^Tl-^i^rc\'A r^A . rSlnOia rdlca^ rïAo . rlt;isa\\cv.ï-\'c rc\'-AD.xjj oca_\\ rïAo . rdxsai cdlA iuK\' ^\'. m.-i Av.rC\'.i cn^ièA Tuèl^VSOO rlt;liè\\« Aca\\ iv»rlt;\' rlt;l.Ti
plt;A\\V^ riA.t . ^a-YxU.-A r«i\\a . rdiaiiya
rlt;l\\o quot; .TüA\\Agt;rlt;\' quot; n^l.cv^l caik.iègt; . rt\'-SCVl^X r^ia^rc\' ■Tx\\(7i.i
rcAcvsasa ^_quot;S3 cn^si.^. ^__rsiLiv-^ \'P JJC\\._i jjè\\_2k
rrC\'.iO .rdiattjA rï^Jcrrsa r^A pc^.,.1 •iv\\Agt;rlt;\'^ rdta . ? rCL^Lnèl .\' K\'-lissv\\ rcA . rdiai^t .lu^^rc\'l
. ca_\\ ,öoo :i: . ^A Aihy-^ ^ T.^0
. rdirc\' rlt;lA quot;^joèvïo ^sa.i . ^ca.\\ quot;vwKb \'oen
a) C i) C ca»^o. c) BC insert èwocn. d) BC caixLa
crA^. e) B r^A Oen ^93 , CkAi a.iia. /) B omitg. g) C TSgt;3rlt;\'è\\rC\'.l. h) C rClxwO. i) C ^jorïla.T k) C rd^oxvii nelAA. t) C KiAsifle.t gt;3. m) C cnA Arlt;liw. n) B rcAcUA.T o) C A»a.l TjjK^ p) C omits. q) C K\'Am^ rcAasasa. r) B r^raa. s) C inserts O C omits. u) C Vfsrc^ v) C ^noèvsajsa.i,
C ^ooèttnio.
17
//For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me drink: I was sick and ye visited me: naked and ye clothed me. I was in prison and ye came unto me. Therefore come in peace, ye blessed of my Fatherquot; \'). Who would not long for this word so full of every consolation, and hasten to disperse and distribute among the needy all his possessions, that he may hear God saying unto him, quot;Gome in peacequot;? And who is there that would not fear and be filled with terror and trembling and hasten to do good works, lest he be joined unto those to whom the terrible Judge says: //Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting hellquot;. Life everlasting, and hell everlasting: there is no end to life, and no termination to hell. To the day-light which is on the right hand there is no evening, and to the outer night-darkness on the left there is no morning.
The bridegroom enters and the door of the bride-chamber is closed, and is not opened unto those who knock, lest the bride be covered with shame at the time when the honor of the bride-chamber should be guarded 2). Noah closed the door of the ark and opened it not unto fornicators that they might be protected with him from the great deluge. When judgment has been rendered, supplication is of no avail. When the door of the bride-chamber has been closed, the bride 3) will not open unto the invited guests who entreat, saying: //Lord, Lord, open unto usquot;. But He answers and says unto them: //I know you not at allquot; 5). He did not
1) From Matthew XXV, 34-35. ■
2) From Matthew XXV, 10-12.
3) Here seems to be a mistake of the copyist for «the bridegroomquot;.
Frothingham, Bar Suilaili.
18
rc\'.l -i ^.x^X rdlK\' quot; rlt;t\\ cA
^gt;caix.=i^3 . rc\'amp;A^.oA rillAvü gt;_i_2i :
A\\.ï»3rgt;d.^ . rdirC -a.\\ r^A . ^ ^CTL.VxBSA.I nc\'icnai
^ -i—rdA .A_a..nè\\Jto rlt;L\\i Klflfl-i.^.a ^.VreAè^ KlA
. \'J rr^vAxA /\'r^iniK\' cotj rlt;lsi.^n ; rdi^iu-l cnlcA^xa
è\\i._=i.T ^JS3 .- K* liS-.l \'^x^j.TiSöAM rcil_lè\\ ll Ïts-K1
pCl^ïaDo \' ^\\oï K\'CO K\'èrcax^ü.i r^iooaiai .•tócv.!^ gt;gt;Ta\\.*3 C\\it\\ . gt;=3rlt;\'.l gt;cncv.^.*ï=3 ^olxra J cn^sisaa r^^amp;\\u
■HyXxzi oègt; . retiMêsiX Ta\\jc= cvigt; .KAvöii gt;lüi-
».• p^cVAlsg quot;o^iare\'o^ .\'quot; K\'Axïi^T. gt;Jk.ï\\
»r^\\xA ^cy^l c\\A\\ . quot;reLü^ rCi^cxx. A^ts
».\'/jcncvisn, ^OCTACV^AO K^io A^plt;A rc\'iA^i.i P K\'tcv.J.A ». rïtaArc\'i ,crJO.quot;Vgt;\'rClï3 A rrf^v-rsi gt;crJ \'X\'èAii.l
t-|\\.l \' KUxilrsi .•s n^èxCvAyï. caAa^ n^Aso.l gt;00 K^oi^Do . nüaXax- CTl\\ èvA.i rOca^ 11 Aai^i .\' Tlriquot; An^èu . K\'ïa N.\\ rlt;A\\^ocL*.i pt\'-s.i.t» v rdlxl-taa CUila.^K\' rfcnJ^u rc^CTjcVii rC.i Li m \' KA.I « ivivjiv» ^ooraL.i )cisas3a
oain^rCo . re^aVAo rïisisairC\' «èuli 2/ pdlix.
a) B p«A.1 cA. h) B quot;TSOrï\'. c) B rdlrc\'^-.t*. d) C f*cnïxamp;zn\\l.
e) B ^ /) ^ y) C inserts ^-gt;caA \'V-MK\'.
h) B ^»H3-V.rlt; i) C ^_»qp\\. k) C inserts ^OcrA i^Jarctv I) C gt;floïio3. »0 C inserts ..r^Ava.^ gt;jjA^ ^olxri oh\\. n) C .
0) C inserts riAsiflo ^3.1 ^CtlcrA \'VinrC\'. p) C inserts ich. q) C jcnCUSSliSO. r) Here begins the extract in Add. 17,193. s) D rlt;amp;lt;\\\\fX.. t) CD rdjjllra.t. «) C Acv.^.1. v) C erron. rtwlla. w) C omits. x) C coA ^uV y) C correctly ri\'-iii.a. 2) C h\\x\\. aa) C
19
say, I will not open unto you, but A know you notquot;. The bridegroom answered the foolish virgins, who had willingly allowed the light of their lamps to go out, n\\ know you notquot;; that is; //Raise not your supplications, for they will not be accepted; defile not the chamber of the bridegroom when the honor of the bride should be guarded therein; remove the smoke of your extinguished lamps, from the door of the bride-chamber, for behold the guests who are with the bridegroom in the guest-chamber are illuminated with the lights of the wise virgins. Gome in peace, ye blessed of my Father; come in peace, ye givers of alms; come in peace, ye feeders of the poor; come in peace, ye sowers of good works; come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you on account of the excellence of your good deeds. Depart, ye cursed, into the fire prepared for the devil and all his ministersquot; \'). //It is a most terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living Godquot; 1). it is an offence full of foolishness that, for the enjoyments of a short while, a man should be led into entering hell, to which there is no end. They work iniquities during a certain small number of days, but their torments have no limit of days or years, for there are no days or nights. Perhaps thou wilt say; How can a just judge, for
1
Hebrews X, 31.
20
iV—. rclx\\_i. ocpi rdsiskn ori* ^\'-iaa^a ortf\' .• ^xix. ilt;v»^-i ocP (~»p^-^ • rcL^jj.i ooo rdlcii-^^i h A^i.i ._ rcLv.j.l
rlt;l.\\tlt;\' .rC^o^ai^ )Q.wi corC tcnalgt;.i rdui.i
reSoAs \' nc\'Tl-l .•K\'m^.t rcll=ti rr\'A^A-i rdirdik
rci=v=gt; ja.iVvso.t OcfA.1 kam rCJrCik r^A AKquot; .
rdajXu /rlt;A\\OJrï^ .TQ.\\^A.I rlt;d\\o.a.V5gt;3 è\\i(M .•K\'ia.^.l
jjCTin rlt;lj_i_i..^ K^XMarsj .\'/ ègt;c\\_^A.t : v\\_\\
rc^vjjcvx^i lt;/è^cLaX.i ,cn AK\'Ktocn^ . icv.M.Va ^..tA\\Au
ocncv . .TQ »\\~) quot;n-fiaraAx.! rlt;Ln.i.i\\ ^_»ofi_3 \' js.T.TAK\'l rlt;lj-lx..l ..ICuAs (» .V I. quot;V-Qa-^. rC\'-TQAn r^ocru ^.ïlx. ï lt;vgt;^
rcbcni cnèxttïiK\' .r3oi\\ . ^—i_i_x. tcws. K^Ah^h jA^.i ocno
quot;\' T-i-^ \'\'»,__. jsaAió ^.icXixVa •jfn^-:i: rc\'^a.a.lsaa
Klusi^ V3 ^gt;.T93 rï\'.ion Are\' . quot;,03 reürC^
K\'.t.-mS A._^n .quot; Ktxcn .icv.M_\\_a r^èv^-x. K\'.i-»
001.^73 1^ : rC^CMSajcorj «.\\-i ne\'A» v *
. rdLikOO pC\'A n^ia.Ai OrC\' rd-iAco rcl\\ .• P K\'èiAi.iöia cn\'ta.ièus K\'cnAr^i rdi^s Qaii^èxw .• v^.i v^^-i vyrc\' a_\\
rClM*.\\ rlt;lny.lt;t\\a . Ta.\\..^.A.i K\'ia.A s^a_\\ \' ^Acra * . lt;7 rdirïLi nfA^ij gt;\\.iA . rCxjj cv\\re* ^oiiA ^arlt;Alt; p«Ai ixlA^u . )al^Al
o) T) rlt;:i_a.irc\'.i. h) C AslI c) AD read erron. Ap^. d) D omits. e) C K\'.ièm. /) B , C èurriir^a,. lt;/) D in
serts ,cn. /,) BC ï) D ja.riv-ia.r k) C omits. l) C
^jrSo. m) BCD correctly insert ,cri. n) B omits. 0) C ^__.lx..
7\') ^ onè^CViAraa. 9) B omits. r) C inserts , pïll^cn TMrC\'r^pc\' (.Acn.t. s) C omits.
21
sins commilted during ten, twenty or a like number of years, condemn the sinner to fall forever into hell? But the judge is just and his judgments righteous, thou lover of rectitude; for if it be not just that He should cast into everlasting fire him who has sinned during a short lime, as is written; then also is it not just that He should cause him who has been righteous during a short time to inherit the everlasting kingdom. And if it seems to thee that the sinner should be judged according to Ihe number of years during which he has sinned, it would then follow that the righteous should enjoy happiness also according to the number of years during which he practised righteousness. So that he who sinned during ten years would remain in the fire for only ten, and he who practised righteousness for ten years would also remain in the kingdom for only ten years and would then leave it.
If the first (proposition) be just, and the second also right (in consequence), then the thief who was on the right hand could have been but a single hour in the Garden of Eden, for he burned with faith but for an hour when he besought Christ to remember him in his kingdom.
It is not so, friend, it is not so; not according to thine opinion is the righteous judgment of the just God governed, (which is) that these should go into eternal fire, and the righteous into eternal life. The sinner who repents not, if he had lived forever, would have sinned forever, and
22
#
jjèvwègt;rlt;\'.T ^ cni LV.ii r^ïAoj AxvbAo a Kbcn r«l\\=»ai* rlt;\\*hv*. oen . r^-lcn^j cèv.r-öKtSk Aa.1*
. / cos^A e . rc^rïll^o K\'èAliL tcnÖ.aa^D ^Kboo
» ._ rC^ndxiijCo K\'èAliL gt;-a.\\ èv.rC\' . gt;»ifla=iè\\K\' Jèxi,n^ ^Aftjipï\' .*cnii^.i jj^\\ï73 .\'/^cni Klicno* .•» K^reiÜ^o rclxïx\\
KlAa jCnCVijj \' cxnoaa^rctv \'\'^aoaai K* gt; lt; T. rdx^óca 1 :\' .• caixJk.i sihvtt m quot;a.-vnl \' . cnè\\^M ^ èvaflaaè^K\'
71 \\n. \\ rdiooi^ K\'.ien ,cn quot;rc\'èicurda.o .quot;rd-Miiis •)am=ièu
. rïboo rcLi.u ?coègt;cvi^.»3 -n._\\.-i.__\\ cqiu^bi A.^. .P^.ièu
KtaArdA ^Q_V_^_1 reln».m cnlxi».i \'i: rC-l-^cn
^acrA jiSJoSi \' cniia^a rCL,\\i* jODCVÏij Are\'*.\' 021*3^3
odo gt;è\\\\sA .icacèo . rC^CVnji^.i rd-^cni Kdgt;cxS3 A-njj^rctv : rdijjO-x. jcnO-Vv. ^ • •sCUrï\' reücümia
cn.\'5ii.cvilt;i K\'èx\'ia.i» .\\\\ n^reb : rC\'i^i\'sa cni-^
, cn^a.jj.\'WJi ndAeni ^JS3 tcnösa.tcn v Axfiatn^rcb : tquot;» — »rdsas^-.i . cotjkI^I K^ovv^-a f^ocn Vïarc\' quot;\' ^cn /gt; rC\'Aa ^nafijjK\' ,A\\cvxij.Tv^o . yisn ,è\\cv=aiSoègt; ■vsv.è* KA
«; C 000 i) C iaiïerts c) B A\'M èurör^ik,
C A 91 A rf) C Aus rCl.\\jS3.i. e) C rlt;l^cn. /) C
inserts % gt;_*_^_1- g) C KllAono- h) B tlt;» ÏT3.1
. paflasjèxj, C a.c\\ KaÏx-.i i) BD cvW^n^K\' k) BD AvooSud^k\': B adds ,ep. I) C A_\\p30 m) C rC* \\ *gt; on 1. n) D tlt;l Mjila. 0) B K\'èxcu.a.o, C p) C ■n.ViAi rï\'icurj r^-lao
(/) C K\'èxcuib.xn. r) C . KÜ-u èru Aurdlrd^ rlt;Lo-»l\\
.KbaArdA T-m )aAigt;A cn\\ in^ja.i A^. s) BC ^rc\'.
t) C omits but inserts after rc^oSfl. u) C i*coè\\- v) C ^ficOJ^Kb. 10) BC rdiikco.
23
according to the inclination of his mind to conlinue in sin he justly falls into everlasting hell. For the rich man who filled his barns with many fruits said thus unto his soul: „Eat, drink, and be merry; thou hast much goods laid up for many yearsquot; \'). And thus his mind was bent on making merry for many years; his life therefore is cut off, but not his sin, for his mind was bent upon giving itself up to enjoyments forever. It is therefore justice which condemns this man to eternal quot;fire, for, as far as his will was concerned, he would have lived forever in gluttony. Thus also the righteous man justly inherits eternal life,- because, as far as his will was concerned, he contemplated serving God forever, although his life was, beyond his control, cut olf by death from the course of righteousness. Job also, so admirable in the midst of temptations, is my witness; for, while he was attacked with ulcers and his body was corrupted with sore boils, the ulcers of his body mingled together , and his members made putrid by the discharge from his sores, he spoke thus in the intensity of his anguish: \'/Until I die mine integrity shall not depart from me. My righteousness I hold fast and will not let it goquot;1), and
1
Job XXVII, 5—6; «and mine integrity etc.quot;, an erroneous repetition
POCOAO .ryxzn ,b\\c£namp;nb\\ rdA yA^la .«pelaiAirs\'
^AyCni A-i. rcfecn jjljAvjsd \' ^oo.i ; rlt;la_i-a.A reLi_i_i^i \'\'cal J3.1VS3 rcd^ riii.i «oen ndl^pC\'* . nfdicva-..l\\.i e^-A \\X2lx. • rd.\'^iAa.-i, r^A.T wis r^...w. vi .• -y \\ ^\\i
1 f^sio . v^xij.i -3^0 rlt;liT\'»i iuK\' JXgt;.-TM . isorilsai
^cna èvAo v^vmÏop^ . rdA.tïk. ff
A.\\ai r^icvirs laj \'\'Aurdlrf-üo . «Adüoèi
. gt;i2ii\\rlt;\' rlt;i\\c\\ : rlt;l!^j[*.3 ti\\v. Vi gt;cna.m,c\\.jj jjèxsa.i
^ocaras Clsct^.i \\\\sgt;i . \'paYsA.l r^L\'LixA rc\'-nif.-U ^cLto . rCèicVDLgt;.i\\.i nrlij-ionrlr) ^ cO^an-il Ta.\\.^\\.i ^OCTHas^O \'^-oivJ .. .TX..1 . k rCx.cn
f^-^cni ^Jso . K\'icv.ii.t r«lijjAcv,a ^yi rlt;li^.icva rS\'.T^.SO
cti_\\ iuiA.i KliJsax.^ r^cv^iro . r^iv-WcLi AAni r^óiA*. r^lA.t .•pc\'icuwt twists quot; KL*-*» f—^ m jaoiio.io .• r«lsaAcuc. Ore\' AXJK\' . 0 rd^icv,^ ^acnv^a ^ gt;
v^iivflaa.i v^o . rCègt;quot;-ix^i. iAu= rel^cni Aarc\' . rc\'cnAri\'.T —iACO A...v ^ntyti p^Ao . v^sm.xA ApX.oè\\x.iis
.■V»AV^..t ^Acn ^=»3 vyAV^aJ rcA.i . v^A ^ nfèvaA^
. relrsax, vr^A ni^acv. A_^ ri\'Artf\' . .ins^JsaA 1 è^Jr^
^■V-i- ^ncv_* AJWO . èx-iKquot; i_^flo.i p^èrii-^A .T_n_i. pdiiai.
a) B rd-^irc. ?/) C KlJ-^cn.r c) BC ai.r^ d) D inserts gt;cr). e) B rtlï-cn. /) B inserts ,cn. g) B v\\A\\CUlA. h) BC Av—»flt;Ll^c\\. i) Here ends extract D (Add. 17,193). k) C omits Klx-cn. I) BC .!gt;.0quot;iv-lS. m) BC jsoii^io. n) BC pïLijlLi. 0) C p^-^ïaA^- p) BC T.oA\\—X.r^o C omits. ?•) C
^.Tgt;èv^..T.
25
mine integrity shall never depart from me. What judge would not award the everlasting kingdom to this steadfast mind, thus bent on the course of righteousness that he might live forever!
Therefore it is meet for us to say, //Righteous art thou, O Lord, and upright are thy judgments1), and thy righteousness is above all blame. Thy ways are upright 2) and in them are no stumbling-blocks\'\'. Justly does the sinner fall into fire everlasting, because his thoughts wore bent on sinning for ever, neither did he turn unto repentance. The righteous also are worthy of eternal life, because they devoted their souls and minds to walk forever in the way of righteousness.
We ought, however, while we yet have time, to sow good works, that we may receive a great recompense for but little labor; for an excellent life of but few days, the kingdom of heaven which has no end. (We ought) to flee from pleasures of short duration, lest through them we bring upon ourselves eternal torments. But thou, O pious man , Hasten thy course after excellent things: //forget what is behind thee, and strive after what is before theequot; 3). Let not the good thou hast done dwell upon thy mind, lest it prevent thee from doing what thou hast still to do. But every day that the sun rises upon thee make a beginning of goods works to do them, and every day complete them ,
1
Psalm CXIX, 137.
2
Cf. Psalm CXLV, 17. Revel. XV, 3.
3
Philip. Ill, 13.
26
. vyLi^ri 1 r£±.Ci\\ . f\'pcl\\.j,A\\ r*f \\ y\\^\\n
gt;^■1 «K^oaAsaVi A-\\»J .rlt;Avü\\ jAa Ktocnè^
rdii ^ gt;Ocoo . Ac\\.jgt;-èvT èuiV . rd^cvr. cn\\ èvA.i
.• rC-L.ia.öi^ i-x-^n \' gt;3_L^A.I rc\'m-j A.K\'ta
r^T\'V-x. f^Ocno . rlt;\',quot;^i\\c\\.ï- cn_\\ f o.iièu.t
»^cA\\P«Ü.i .\'(J^znr**, rdü.i.n rlt;dfl b\\\\=i ,co .
». ^xAamp;A.l tlt;Lll.ï.1\\0 . )aA^Al K\'ic.jA j_x_\\cT3
r^ocnèM vy»a.5U .• SooasanHao cnèxcvaA^s * h ocpi gt;^gt;.1 .\'^ocrA /rsare\'èoa.i ^.Acaa \'\' èurC J^Am gt;rlt;,qj^o .\'AArc^A A ^_oA\\3cn*o èx^ocb
-»►
»r
- QcnJsa-iwO . vUoèxmx.K\'o ^_»ocn . r^ioncui rC\'i^rda v^aèvas^
^aV^A.i K\'-I-jj.^
•:• f—J__sa re*
•:• èöAx.
a) BC ?;) C oa_i^i\\. c) C rc\'èxa^ia. rf) C ,oen,
e) B inserts ,ergt;. f) C ^CUAi.ièvJ.r g) BC K\'V-Son^.i. h) B inserts 0 C loocvsaw\'-ia k) C ^\\A
m) C omits ^ooJlx..
27
neither ceaso forever. Direct tlio faculties of tliy mind so that without ceasing they do good works. As thou desirest to enter inlo the eternal kingdom which has no end, reflect, tremble, and fear the everlasting fire prepared for the wicked, who will be condemned by a judgment which has no end. Let this word of the terrible judge be present in thy mind which saith : //These shall go into fire everlasting, and the righteous unto life everlastingquot; \'). May He by His goodness and love make thee worthy to be numbered among those to whom it is said, //I was an hungered and ye gave me meat, 1 was thirsty and ye gave me drinkquot;, and with them mayest thou be a guest in the abode of light in life everlasting. Amen.
1) Matthew XXV, 4Ü.
28
. jcniorï\'H rc^x_x.ï.a rC-^noircto ^ocniarï\' ègt;a_\\ •:• C riL.cnicvK\' ia relia^oo AJVp\'sa
.quot;IÏOjLo : ^cA ^33 AlK* llt;!ia\\ quot;OTBl oer) re^.o^on rCla^ÖJ ■ix-r. cn_Li rSÜÊJrc\'.i èv^_V_i . paVx.iaK\'.i rï\'ièxrCLa rdtcn rdaè^o rï\'èVi-^r^ la._i_ . pCèxjióa,-» A-aLD TQ.I.X3 ^_A^ègt;Cvl ^139 A.n.r. caA rCtvcp .1.^ . gt;cnCV,tgt;aÏQ3.1i
•^■gt;-\\pQ.tsa ocno . oi.lèxi.rC\'.T ^cucn.i rcAv.èlt;rlt;lquot;w nd-X-jrt\' jjlVï,.quot;! r«llrlt;\' A,_!l—i.T ocaipc\'.T t_i_^ : enjT.2iJ.1
. cnia.flo ia,^ crï\\ A-^ïèvsj . rdüvi. .^rc\' i.xx.io : ^cv,^è^cv.l
(jl : KllrC\' .ik..quot;»i rdA rC\'.^.rC\' t rC\'.T^
. Qflifloioo AA.T r^Vis-cx rclarC gt;cT3oè\\»tlt;\' cuaco :
.1 agt;j\\-i a,\\j| oen . KlV^ooo rd^xfi rrllsAcu ■)a\\jüi
r^a—^_S73 t.».-=^o . .nruèu.i rclAó Ott.i_agt;icn
• f^cnArciA K^ViVa rcfcvjji.\'ss è\\irlt;l-i—Sl-\\i oen . rC^CU.iOcrLaO r^aèvi,^ .=oAgt; . oo^CV.^rtf\' rctocnl TQ.asal^.i r^sq.TO
^\\soo A.5gt;- Ari\' r^Tnao jioaao . rcSt.\'i.ri
^S30 rfX2amp;C\\b\\ PCtli^o . ncl-si^ rdV^jjj.i rtlriTr:
.rd^CUfloïcno rd.TÖcajO pd^ïjjA . Ktalr^ è\\cA rdi^èui
1
The only known copy of this letter is in the same Vatican MS. 107 (f. 60 r. to 63 v.) which furnishes us the various readings marked C for the letter of Jacob of Sarug. The copy seems to be very correct; unfortunately, the close is wanting.
29
IV.
LETTER OF MAR XENAIAS OF MABUG to Abraham and Orestes, presbyters of Edessa, concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili the Edessene.
I have learned that Stephen the scrihe, who departed from among us some time since, and now resides in the country of Jerusalem, sent to you, some time ago, followers of his with letters and books composed by him; taking care at the same time that the arrival of those whom he had sent, as well as what he was astutely desirous of accomplishing, should be concealed from us. For he thought that, were I to learn that he had sent to you men and also writings, his hopes might be disappointed. He has insanely imagined — whence I know not, but certainly from Satan, for he is the Father and cause of every heresy — to put forth in a book an impious and foolish doctrine, which is worthy of being reputed not only a heresy, but worse than Heathenism and Judaism, because it openly assimilates the creation to God, and teaches that it is necessary for everything to become like him. It also falsifies the Holy Scriptures, and even destroys faith in Christianity, teaching that every man may sin as he pleases, and dissuading Heathen, Jews, and here-
30
Kamp;vrjcncvsAo . pc\'èutjTo ntA ArC A_2^3S30
r^i^CVni^t ^Vjj.1 rlt;^cn\'quot;i\\o KlVïniAo . r^órAri\' ix\'iïrc\'s . èxiK* rlt;L\\ rdV-j.i .icUxLs C\\.A rï\'èuk.iï.i oaiAso vy^rï\' Tx^ .^.lisèvM T-i-L-k rlt;\'..i.*_,iA2i,.i rCèvuCUtsa PC\'.TJA Are\' PCAKquot; ^osaxfloio rc\'.t-v-\'»-^^ oooi-^amp;.i rc\'T-n.-gt;rc\' jcnoèv.K\' T-wO KUxAtio . r^A-^iVx.^ K\'.iaca^.ia K\'toi^ tooXcamp;xa . Ki-i*» crxièurcb rlt;Ligt;—r.c\\i k* gt; A ^3 èv.K\'i-ièu.i ,erio . kLiï-a,flajm rcbcn.t isarï\' rd.i.x^ X-sj yaxmls. \\-\\23 AK\'.t pCèMsia^s . ^ca^èuK\' r^\'-uiv» issK^r^.i rAcnc\\ . rCta^rC\' -n.^. AA.\\ o.TSa^o KÜMLÏVX. C\\._VJ^I^_ ivirdniTODO . ^xi^sèvai réA •1-s. \\ 3 APÏ\' K^cv-iii^aoiaA K^CVAIM ^_S3 rdiasruw
.Tuo .\' ^cvin^ gt;ï=) rc\'èx^sasiikioa K\'^soXaèi
XiASl Kl\\c\\ . K\'orArC\' Aa rt\'vro quot;n.^. KtocrtwA rdlxSk
rlt;jjL».r.ïO aAm oè\\i=73.1 ^Acn ftT-n
.^xnfiai K\'i.èu yoxzn oicaflorï\'.T ^Au.rC\' rcA.i ,013 . ^_ a._SrCquot; ^octAa.i . ^iaaii yji^7i=j ^ a.Jrc\' cvA N^ni ^ cvjcin reiAa
vyKto . ^a^LSiètta r^isscut. .TM è\\cA TSJK\'.I v^ri\' r^XiA^n^
. CTAjICI r^.i.TÜ.i PC*1 i% jATD ^^acfiièupS\'.i rdrax.c\\.i^=3.T rtóa.icó cnsa^.o rctolKla ^cvcn.i : tsokquot; ocp Apefc* .vi rtlikcn
. \'isoK\'.l Vy^K* ^Aco ^..-U^VMO .^Q.tsa .Vu ^cA.1 K^CVj.! »—1 . Am Aü retfArtf\' cnèA» v«^r«\' can Kbcns Klajca.tu \\\\rd^a gt;cnrgt; . rc^actAr^ rc\'a-jj . r^aèuK\' rC.V-M . reliiA .Tm
._ r£-\\ 1A .tw gt;i=3 niLxJK\' ►ia ^oocni rï^oiureA.t
j-sa . ,003 oi.èv. ^jsa rC^autinaAvsao \'tfias.=3.i K^cuis.tia
31
tics trom Clirislian instruction and from being converted to God. It makes of no elTect holy Baptism, and the giving of the Divine mysteries, and labors and struggles for righteousness. For if, according to his impious words, not only will there be no Judgment, but all will receive the same measure of retribution , then the same honor will be accorded to the apostle Peter and to Simon Magus, to the preacher Paul and to the traitor Judas, to the Apostles and Evangelists ^). And, what is especially full of an impiety akin to insanity is, that he says, that everything is of one nature with God. What has just been detailed is most important and most completely reprehensible; for then the Apostles have in vain worked, and converted all nations from Heathenism to Christianity, if even without instruction in the faith and baptism they are to be equals of the Apostles, and are to become consubstantial with God, the Lord of the Universe. Hence there is no difference between those who died for Christ and those who killed them, for they who were confessors of the faith will receive nothing more, and they who killed them nothing less, because all together, as he says, will arrive at one perfection; and as the members of the body are of the same nature as each other and as the body itself, so, as he means and even says, are we in God and with Him in unity the one with the other. These things may be known, he says, by the mystery of the first day of the week, when, as he says, God will be all in all: one nature, one substance, one divinity. If then it is possible that men should become consubstantial with the Divinity, then the dispensation of the flesh and the Incarnation were superfluous. From misunderstanding, therefore,
1) The antithesis which must have followed seems to have been omitted in our copy.
82
KtfArtfquot; rcfactais rcVxAr-l ,cn K\'èvV» èl\\o\\^ ooèuk..-»1 rc^A
. rdl^soa rlt;Lïk-kX.i rellen rlt;liaAcu o.Swio K\'.v.rj • V •gt;■ -gt; A.^ . .\\quot;inèxrC rc\'.Tr^ljL A^_ pd.V^r*\' T-S—Al rdl-.rC\' KttAr^ KfacasA gt;cr) .V5gt;irsa\\ rcuia.có.i
rC^alxM en Alk. ^K\'.i A \\\'rn • ^ 1 * .1—m
nr\'c\\cn.ï7a\\ pdixA yi=.i xzprï . Ö\\QO rdX.i „^ocrA^
kAvAjsi^j ca.rj riiAi As-O . K\'^OctAk\'.io rï\'^oiv.rï\'.T ca.\\_»,i ^AaKlri Kilo : ia.MJ.1 cTixSon.i3.i ^enn P^AO : ^iraèu.i •^-.lt;Vgt; rdü—^.t rcln-ic\\.ï.0 rlt;i_^src\' A-ï». : rdü^.^ A^a
1
r^Tia AKquot; jccuiflo . TQKln.1 rdlen rlt;lsn\\.^ Aèxm rdèvaoii^ rdajei^MO . k^Aojl ièxa rlt;Lgt;ocni vsaK\'.T k\'AuxjliX rcAvajAo
PCIXLAK\' rdocru.T .-uèuk. cn^a.i rdxA-saai. rfCnoèvir^i quot;IJZprï
KUjA .quot;*_*» . K\'cralrelri Kben gt;3.%»] Aai CU en .A^ Aa .ta^y.1 oen iK-.^ rï\'octai A_i^j^3 rclA.1 . rC^oèur^ rlt;H—uo
SS
this saying of the apostle, //that God may be all in allquot; 0, he has foolishly imagined and produced this impious and foolish doctrine, which perhaps would not even be accepted among demons; for I think they would tremble simply to hear that they were to become consnbstantial with God; for also concerning them, as well as all the angelic host which did not fall, does he assert, that they will become consub-stantial with the Divinity and Godhead. And as he did not know how to understand this saying or to perceive what preceded it, neither was he able to consider all the things which are said in the Holy Scriptures on the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. Neither did he know how to distinguish between the Divinity and the creation , and that it is not possible for the Divinity through change to become the creation, or creation the Divinity. Furthermore he does not accord with the doctors who have interpreted this saying in an orthodox manner. He desired, being puffed up like a vain and proud man, to orginate heresies himself also, like John the Egyptian, whom for a short time he even followed.
I have also found in his writings that he has imagined another false doctrine, founded on what it is written in the Gospel that Our Lord said: //Today and tomorrow I work miracles, and on the third day I shall be perfectedquot; 1). He fancies that, speaking in a parable, this world was established on the sixth day of the week, and he calls it evil; and the Sabbath (he calls) the rest which comes alter the completion ; and the first day of the week, he says, is the consummation, because then God will become all in all; that is, everything will be in God, one nature and one substance; so
1
Luke XIII, 32. It is differently quoted later: see p. 37. Frothingham, Bar Sudaili.
34
.^Ocria.T ^Urda Klri ^.10 ■•ooAxeu.ns^a ^i\\-in~ai ^oucno
• »^CV.Igt;-.T»AU KLvjoio p^T-ao rdarc\' .=)C\\^ rcL^a . rSlaiA^SJ ^so T-jj ^i0gt;\\ nT~n cniii reUcn.i rc\'.TÏLLo rC.icva.^. Ti^ «J5
rdïocvin rdia^K\' . ^oró.i Kl-sncxiiao reUx^ -T-ii : T-VJ
»^CUcn Ari\' ^OC\\cal K\'ii^n r^A * : rdu.^ .Vu gt;A=i
pï\'èv.iam .tcuxLa aX . p«l.\\._a.\\cu3 Aj.aö3 Ktocaio .• r«l»3a..u . .1~m .T_u rlt;iSgt;3Ö.li3.i ^octAj.io ri\'Ari\' . K\'Agt;C\\Av.quot;C\' Ta—V. K\'èxsaaiï». ^isocu pCamp;A^ sO-jAra quot;cA ^Aco.l is«r«\'.i x*=gt; •. rcll^Kli-ao r^flaao^o rcVi ^Ocrijèr\\jnr\' : n^nirj.T.ijO rc\'èxsx.o ^avsèvoais rc^.x\\rc\' ^ocn^ ar^ . TCLOO ia.\\ riliw ^Aca\\
^i^..,v»èvsgt;3 ^.Acn K* \\ ori\' . r«Ll.2korj ^^ocajAvir^.i
• ix\'èuiacaj rc^ausAxJiTj iè\\_a A\\r^\' T-ÏV . isarc\'oeps rC^js .t-gt;Ac\\ . Kliik.ïcva ^ïè\\ rlt;4oxij3 yhvn ^JSi ya.iib\\ (sic) plt;1iv»jAo rc^aird» . rSlAsoax. r^-iiajreAo rc£u*jJ rC.ts (-Aod.i ^acnèA^tsa.i Klliwrc\' retosax. 71^. . rc^oca^rC oisanrts .TC^uJrsa pt\'.ico i»ocn scuAn reiiootiA .^oojo reln-j\'.ixo . ^ïis, .SlAp^ flt;èvjj.xl Kl»acn rc\'èvsavo ii\\_3
rdiA^üO . ^gt;s.3C»o ^_iA_i.rc\' Aa -i i (YT-w p^Acii-O . rdjJÏ^a rxquot; t* i\\ A^n «^_V=o V-Mrc\'i .3_.iv^ rc\'.icn rc\'ègt;cuinfla.\'S3 èic\\_\\i . ^jüjcux-
»caluj pïAo p«iïDè\\A ^^oAvir^\' ^«v ^» plt;lA.i ^oAxjpc\'
»pcAo ^gt;amp;vL rcAa rcA pcAü».-» rc^vsainsD.i . r^fcaApC.i
^rctv .»plt;cn\\rc\'i ^akAso v/^jr^ ^ c\\0QjAv»rlt;,pcAKgt;. ^-«^o.nsa ,cn p^^-jiptfe* p^ajuj ,00 pc^t-mpC.i i-^i—conc\'.i ,02-1
35
that lliere will no longer be, He who creates and those who receive his creative action; He who shows benevolence to those whom He loves; and there will no longer be Father, Son and Spirit; for, if he raves that the Creator and all his creatures who are distinct from each other will become one nature and person, how nvjst not consubstantial persons of necessity also become one person ? Thus there would be a confusion, not only of the creation with the Divine Substance, but also of the Persons one with another.
But in that he says that these three days alone, the sixth, seventh and first days of the week are mysteries, types and parables, he has posited this alternative: it is necessary either to believe that all (the days) are to receive this manner of interpretation, or else not to believe that those are as he says.
Following the Jewish doctrine, he appoints after the resurrection two retributions, one of which he calls rest 1) and the other perfection, one liberty and the other divinity, together with other names which he has contrived and applied to them. For to the Jews alone had this theory occurred, who say that after the resurrection there will be a rest of a thousand years, during which the righteous will eat and drink, and sinners will hunger and thirst; the just will give themselves up to every bodily delight, and the wicked will suffer every torment. Concerning which belief it is written that Our Lord said: //Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God: for in the resurrection of the dead they do not eat nor drink, neither marry, but are as the angels of Godquot; 2). But regarding his belief, that rest is one thing and the kingdom another; and the glory
1
Cf. Hebrews III and IV.
2
Matth. XXII, 29—30 and Mark XII, 24—25; the eating and drinking is an interpolation.
8(5
Kli-UiKto : rClA-sncvjt, kLmlscxz. rdii^r^o : rtf^cvAsi
rd^zai ok\' rlt;l*gt;.VD rel=è\\^ plt;^,i_.rlt;\' isarO . rlt;l\\s3CUL oen rïèvA^ ^Acol.io : Aa.n rdiaAso OKquot; r^««. \\ x oK* . K^oii^^ica pï\'ivDoi^.^ . i^arc\'.i vyrC
. Q0ii_^s0rc\' rdj.T i jj.a p^ai^jtica.T rcüaixA cria.aii X—^ Ktocoi.i ,eb rlt;Lnz=3.TaAo . Kixiatso tA^ao Aai »cb redvaAo T-irc\' .1 i* K\'.ten rc\'T^a.l gt;a._uc\\ . A.a=i A_^ K\'cfi_\\rlt;\'
TaOo f-iicn A^o , KtrArda Kfcvotal.i ,03 ^33 .\' .T-n\\
^aL.rC\'. rCii-tó. b\\o\\ «jso ■isarc\'.i rdlbaj . )Q.xnS3.i
. retire\' ptfAo rdAèvsa rdAo K^rC* \\°gt; rcAo rdfioao^ ndA.1 . ^iaiAxre\' re\'-x.H-a.S ~ octiiso.-i kIjvi»aflos riAvi.ijt.èi rdArC ». r^«Oj. oairs )cA enss . oqp ^..icvm Kis» v^K\'
». rcl^zi A\\ j30°i . oriA ^.isarctv rdJE.ïr^\' anis
» overs\' ol\\ . ^oaA isircto . v^-^xiss.i Kla^ Qo.ioicni A^ss ».Tai. rs^dflep^o . K\'irdï- kIjk\' pc\'gd.i . rellen KlV^-èA
». niiK\' rCAsjèuL» rlt;è\\AAgt;.quot;i ntoaculo -vm^qo rsUjsao... reliK\'
»ooiA\\3i oaAo . ia.ioaorï\' vmsio rclrsaAii ,1 KlAa ^a-T-ss ».^alï.ioK\' rcLa.1 .arjrï\'j.t rCijAX» kA.I \\\\pi .AtrC\'
,00 K^rdla rc\'è^aoi.i. rtlisoa.» ocni K\'èuiisa v^rC ^Kfa Kia-JtrsTwO . KAujuJI nAaao^ K\'Avajt. TJJAQQ : rf^sal^. rSioa.t iKiisoax. i^=3 pa . riilsaojt-i rï\'nK\'rï^iA ègt;i rc^cv^
ApCquot; K\'CO.I .coi» (.-500 rc\'irc\' . .T»A\\ik. OOAA
.rc\'orï.lK\' gt;2». rdli^ Sm ^OcrA ^ocn mb\\zn v^K\'r«l».tÖcQ» »reliJ5acv,*s ,cb iè\\3 ■isarc\'i Kla^èu^ Vi-^reH^cn
before the consummation one thing, and the consummation itself another; we would ask, from what Holy Book, or prophet, or apostle, or teacher, has he received this doctrine of a division into three orders? For he understands, as he says, by the sixth day motion, having taken the term motion from the monk Evagrius1); by the Sabbath, that Christ will be all and in all men; and by the first day, that God will be all in all. He furthermore shows that it is less for man to be united to Christ than to be in God. He imagined, then, that he could confirm these three (stages) by the words which Our Lord spoke to the Pharisees, which it is certain were not a figure, an allegory, a parable, or a mystery, but the narration of an action imagined by the Pharisees, as is shown by reading them. quot;The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him. Get thee out and depart hence, for Herod desireth to kill thee. And He said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox , Behold I cast out devils and I perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must work 2) today and tomorrow, and on the day following I will go (hence) 3), for it cannot be tha^ a Prophet perish out of Jerusalemquot; 4). Now if, according to his researches, today, the sixth day, be an allegory of this world, and tomorrow, the Sabbath, a type of rest, and the third day, the first of the week, a symbol of the consummation; what then comes after the consummation? Is Our Lord again to bo crucified? but by whom? for according to his doctrine even the Jews will have become of one nature with God.
Now it is thus written, that Our Lord said, after //today
1) Khqcris. Evagrius Ponticus was a disciple of Uregory Nazianzen.
2) The expression work instead of ivalk is in tlie Peshitta, but not in the Curetonian Gospels.
3) The Curetonian version reads K\'.iÏK\' Vmas iè\\3Q.
4) Luke XIII, 31—33.
38
»r^A.i A \\\'y3 . re\'JK\' rd-ijsaèiira rtóacuAo -vusao
rtfjAsjcxx- SA . ^^olx.ioK\' irA sar^i rdju^raa ^tA
• ^Afiorda K\'i^.èxflass rï\'.Torjo . jA^^Sq.t ,ctïl K\'iai rïl^-i.T» .^rlt;b ^ocoamp;aAKtv . oXy^n^r^ ^acn\\.^ rcLiLaj .^rc\'.i
• rcllssèvrss r^-a-x^. \'isarc\'o . ctizii ^gt;èuw oqp
. yXx\'yj rfba.i rCl3.A^.=j caa isjrï\'.t ,01.1 pdlsnxii »■ r^Jt.lrc\'.i ooi_3 sx^shy-rs* kAxs. t. b\\b\\r?x rlt;\'Agt;i_*»rlt;\' ,03 »(—gt;X»on .• K\'-x-irï\'i aoi-aA caaajsa-ii^.i rcLw.i gt;cn A_ c\\
» rilA èicv_=3^. Tq.vsocv . pd.lrC\' KJ-lrc\'.i _rv v -^iVi
niza..S3a ml-3 oooo n..i .w-a ^gt;.1 rcli_.T-5i ,^rcLii -is..
jjisèuc^QO rï\'Avöè^rc\' ii^agt;c\\ \'• sJuóa.i oooo ^vü.i
rlt;\'^\\-i_jjK\' rï\'è^oiA ^c\\onègt;cv\\ cnxJc\\xiümr\\ cvtj^. .
ï-X-lik pc\'èvucuir.èi .T-^ . v_\\QD rd-^s
cqA OrC\' ^jcacnisai rv^a ; cal rc^)cri.è\\So
».«^-^11-^11 ooiaicn.i rcLik.\'sn v»^ A\\ jao^i ov\'Sok\'
. r«t\\ criixa^ ^»3 isA.t . ^ ocn^aA ^_..t oen
rlt;l^=] oens r^x=}\\ ■t_n_\\ /^cuioo rt\'Ao oo.taien pdio ,to-.iac\\ QD.ioicaa jjv=gt; rc\'.-jon A^.o . cal ^.AA^ia ^xjt^xsn AcAjn.3.1 crAo . KlAfiatno iCuAra a on r^^iT.i ,cUi . rt\'Vs.^ » y\\ olx . wAT.ro rrlA è\\a»ui ca\\ )auèx oen.i rCllai )o.Tn v.tai-O .K\'.lKlx- r^JK* ja°^ rrto.t . rïLloo rc\\^.AA oisnptf* »r^lsJ3A\\xsgt;3 K\'èAèM OCTAO . iMisqo Klusacu n^cv.florc\' pdJK\' èuxs vr^cnè^rï\'.i rAco èAè\\ rdiJLï- A^. iiai .Vi • »rlt;llK\' cQ_i3i . rcla-A^.\\ rdM.-^O rdiu.io»!^»] ^jsa rdi.iöcri. 73.IC.1 r^_A^ rClïlx- ^Aoaa.i A^sa K\'èxTW.i^ ■i^Qo.i ^IrC
39
and tomorrow and the third day I shall be perfectedquot;, //because it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem\'\': it is therefore evident that He means, by the consummation , that He should be crucified, and that this should take place in Jerusalem, where also all the prophets had boen killed, and likewise He also was to be crucified there. He said that He would be perfected through the cross, in order to fulfil what is said: //By the cross which consummatesquot; \'); and this other: //The hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorifiedquot; 1), and also: „When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I do nothing of myselfquot;2). Now the Pharisees, burning with envy because they saw that Our Lord taught and performed miracles and was glorified of all men, wished to expel him from among them unto some other place, that they should not be thus vexed. But, as praise from all men was given to him, they thought lo intimidate and terrify him, and said: //Get thee out and depart hence, for Herod desireth to kill theequot;. But He said unto them that except He were willing He would not die, and that neither Herod nor they would be able to kill him except at the time He chose. Therefore, when He derides Herod and calls him fox, He indicates that he is but contemptible and despicable, and unable to kill Him before the time at which He has delermined to die: //Go ye and tell that fox. Behold I cast out devils and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfectedquot;. He hereby indicates the three years which He passed among the Jews, from His baptism to His crucifixion, in which Ho also teaches that He worked miracles 3 for in the thirty years which preceded
1
John XII, 23.
2
From John VIII, 28.
10
rc^r^ Kilo . rdl . K\'èu.io.\'M^.\'ss
^oL.èuK\'.-i ^.xïx. ètAègt; ■isaK\' rdArf . ,cu»
A\\rlt;\' ocp.i rlt;li=v=gt; . pc\'AAAm rc\'jsscua Vusao pdusocu
rï\'Ai : rd^ionx. ^jsn ja._\\_i^») . ^olz-iordA
. A.orS\' rc\'icn A^.a .)a\\jc,iorlt;\' i-nA \\.=3rcü rC_i_a_li Kiï^i ivA^n . ^n.Vx-iorc\' ^aVr-ioKquot;.! » : v^jlira cuti^sal èu.3^ i\\ rt\\ relsa^ . cn^cuA ^mlAx..! » rd\\o . criiA.^ b\\xuè\\ cTix\\o-v2i psl*!^ r^hAcv^liAii rtlnAK* AX-dJVsartf\' .rdaiu ^oaAus «_c\\.A .naèvtsj ps\'co . »/fc_oV=gt;5rlt;\'^.i rdrs^»] rC^rsili rlt;l=^TV. vUOVu^ rdXl ^ CVA.\\ (Acora AjA en Aurc* _ . gt;\'rlt;lj.1 casjucra rc\'^rc\'.T oco v^Ta iv.pdiè\\\\eii gt;3.1^ Or^ : rCflflacA^ or^p^èucuj^ OPÏ\'
^oèurC aiu . jVw^irc\' acn.\\^ ^Agt;r^=] jgt;.ias3 A\\gt;rcliv^i Or^ .Ti-ai AA^ï» . K\'.TI-ÜA AK\' ^OASa^. CUOLSOO . ciViaèiKb .• K\'èxn.j\'ioo cn^vü^ièA infió.! ,lt;v»T.-n rdisa èAA\\ ^.Aon
■ rda.X3T«.lc\\ rlt;\'Ava,x..ia r^h\\^c\\•^^.^ K\'èAAx K\'iaoi.i n^lwcvxlcx pjlsiA-jk. jcnaèv.K\'.T ■t-M-tno iSsri\' riLusaa-. rcbcru.quot;! ,cn . kAAAi.t reiacvA reAsoèuui ,enc\\ . K^oirCUjcv
.T-i-3 rdMxxsia Toa^Aak Ktocaii icbc* . A._amp;-=3 Aa rlt;\'caAp«\'
/ nc\'Au.ia.fii^73 ^-x-3 fjOco rïA A^.Vk..! oen v^rC\' . K\'èvaJL rtf\'.icn ^nc\'.i . r£.*xixsn T-l.V^rja A_a.i ,cn Kfcv.jjsn.i i_zi_flo r«Aa . Kiooo quot;a.TSo rlt;Ao KAvaav»^» . i^oco rlt;èxzua ,,iè\\x.rs\' rcAo . Axisoa *« rcAo . re\' ui Tm .A^^Kb T-iiaè^K\' v^p^.io ^Aen . rlt;A.iu»,i onJ.VMOrï\'o K^COO.i m\\\\\\nr
il
His baptism it is not written that He gave any instruction or manifested any miracle. But He says that after three years, which are today, tomorrow and the third day, at the time that He chooses He will go up to Jerusalem, and there will be crucified by the Jews, //for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalemquot;. And to this He adds: //0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left uuto you desolate. For 1 say unto you, Ye shall not see me until the day come when ye shall say. Blessed is he that comelh in the name of the Lordquot; 1).
Therefore, whether or no there be in these words a symbol or type or anything which allegorically and mystically teaches the things which appear unto this man , read ye and consider and decide among yourselves; for by these three words he sustains, as he imagines, his vain opinion, and the change of the three dispensations of the sixth, the seventh and the first days of the week. For he calls today and tomorrow (respectively) the evil world and liberty, and the being perfected on the third day is, that God will be all in all. All being in Christ on the seventh day (Sabbath) — as if they were not so already by baptism — he believes to indicate that Christ is all and in all men. If this be on the seventh day then nothing took place on the sixth, and Christ was not made flesh and born, and did not suffer and die, neither was the power of death and the reign of corruption destroyed.
1
Matthew XXIII, 37-39; Luke XIII, 34-35. rlt;i»JCU ,
gt; the day comequot;, is not found in the Peahitta, but in the Curetonian version : otherwise the Peshitta for Luke XIII is followed except I == vy.rC\'and rdllü for pgüüA.i; = KllK\'T-SarC;
42
rctoco.t . oen re^OWO rC\'o.A^. .Tia ^Aco
quot;QT-^o A_^ n^cni .ijsarï\'o trl^a rdl-.rtf\' . \\-^h^sxgt;r?
. r-^Ti-i rlt;iJ5alik. èuiflè^p^quot; rdicn rc\'.ico .y\\h\\x.rf
rrtn.i ,cb .Tx3 : rï\'-j.A-^ax, Ktocn.i aAk\' K\'èusoii^a «Jt» . »_ii_a, r^.lctxA pdaJt-aTwA 003 : 71 \\ T ^3 73T»J A_^
Ju^cn . .lüivflonf ^noia»;» rcdvlso A lacvX AurdjA.^
. rc^osoao rclxn.i rili\\;\\a,SL, rC\'.vi.o . èxiroo TJJ flt;A\\ï3oii^=i rWN^cviL Arc\'^Acn.i quot;n^ ■ja.s.ptf\'o . r^iaja a.\\=3 rCaco rt\'imrrjo a.\\=i jöco ^jtiürc\'.i ^.xAcn k\'AvxÜIA T-^ooo . klLoljj.I orAa.l 1.X3 gt;C\\.ajO . K\'iviOT èurj pa gt;113 rlt;LaX3.TiJu3Cgt; .AcixZ. ons è^A.t acn rC^.Tu rdsaX^-.i rlt;iicxx.a . T-i~A.2k.i reiVi-n. o . cnVa. pCi3LX3i,ij rd.lrï\' r^icni v^»rC\' ri\'zixa.tjjo rï\'èvaii,
^ArCLsa.i re\'Ao : Ktocn Ktl .ti^ Ai^cn ^Aca=s
.sAjO . K\'i.^có orA oen (?)ègt;oco . ^;s i.tl.i )i__0.1OT rlt;l=3^.
o . rdxj.TB rlt;l=jè\\ii. KiAo .nia.t\'ioo gt;onc\\.rii.a.ij rt!AAsi.5n Kl^-ï-oio rc^cA^ao rcAjsas n^èvw» rdisAo^ rcl^cix..! rCèvA^Sfl KiA^K\'s i-x-^ oen . K\'io.^ï.o rc\'ca.i^.^ r^i-wATsg rc\'xoviïèvsa ^.\'sj^rc\' Ax^.T^. KltJixoA
1_i. . rc\'.icn reA^rCquot; Tears\' rtfA . »0,« onT\'M QaxfioScn.i
K\'-ï-lK\' ,^O.A o^rlt;M . joaosijtfloi ^oca_i.tzj Kl^.T» .nA^
A^. otA O »1 *gt;t Kto cnèxAiA O.V^.1 . oisarcta rc\'Tj\'ix.
jcncA^i ^330 . rC^oAurc\'.i oen pdl*^ ia ^ A^i .K\'èxflori\' Am.I . OJiA^io rc\'r^Li.^co rdii-üi ^-.Tièxrc\'a : Kl^icv^ gt;.^00 •:• n^öèuLa ^v»rlt;,i°!gt; nTi msnsoa . r^^vooK\' ctasi.\'iK\'o
43
For these and like things were accomplished by the crucifixion and death of Christ, which took place on the sixth day; who also cried out and said; //All is finishedquot;. This is what this man calls the evil world. Furthermore, as Our Lord taught that the consummation was on the sixth day, because He then fulfilled all things, this man by defining it to be on the first day of the week openly teaches contrary to the word of Our Lord. Our Lord therefore on the sixth day suffered and died and destroyed the dominion of suffering and of death; on the seventh day He was in the grave, and put an end also to (he power of corruption, and visited the souls held captive in Sheol. And on the first day of the week He rose from the dead, and proved by His own resurrection that of all mankind, and the beginning of a new world in which there is no seventh and first day of the week, as this man says, but it is all first day. But he (Bar Sudaili) not being able to see these things himself, nor willing to learn them from those who were able, wrote this book in which he consulted his own vain thoughts and not the Holy Scriptures, and constructed a new doctrine full of wickedness and impiety, in an insipid and foolish language. For although he is not even able to command a language worthy of writing, still, being desirous of making a display, he came forward as an inventor of heresies. I will not, furthermore, omit the following fact, although it is apparent from his writings. There came unto me trustworthy men who said that on entering his cell they found written by him on the wall; j//All nature is consubstantial with the Divine Essencequot;; and on account of their strongly accusing him of blasphemy, and it becoming known to many monks who murmured at it, he was afraid and removed it from the wall; but secretly put it into his writings.
44
K^cnrar^i K\'vm Aic\\_A jjL^Avx.rlt;.i rlt;!Lgt;iÖcrxgt; ^.5 rt-xxX
r^iA.\'SO re\'.too on^\\cv\\ A\\rlt;\' .v^ .^ocniraK\' èvirs.t ^Acn
A.^. .quot; pc\'t^^ pïila . pcl\\ . crA TSSr^.T gt;2ZJ.T.B c\\ib\\
.sAjj jonoèxiK\' Toon ia rC* vytiiu-i . rd^cxax AxtmkiKjsj.i
è\\i i0gt;\\ gt;jlX.^3 KIIHMK\' ^-».1 (.AL.K\'I /V^ü.» CTA TSOptÜ.1
rdicn A\\sj3 oaiTli-. cXL-i.-i.t rdiürtf\' rdiiwrc\' AK* . Alsgo t=3^, rïlx.cn.1 ^.xAiK\' : r^rd-i—^a; crusi^. aoco.i rdLsi-x.
A!^5a.t ^cijcn gt;=q.To aisanc\'. K^CU^IK\'.T ri\'ïa^a .ooa.èuK\' r^Aa.i A gt;V-vi^rc\' rlt;l\\ K\'AM^J-^QJ ^OCOAaotxA.X-
V^»rc\' b\\o\\ cn _ rg* . ^OSlxOoAui
^Acn.i cvA^i . jcncv^.iaii^ relrsèxi lt;^Ou^\\ i.ix.1 Or^ : Aval*.!
rlt;èv.quot;i..T ^ActA ivire\'i.^v.a .^CVacriièu rcA T-lrcA : n^cvxSiio pgamp;a^iT °gt; A\\ \\ s ^-»3 rlt;i^.T . K^.-^n ^■ AA Ti^ rciAcv . ^jiaajjLi rirJ.A rc\'.Tii»- ^ïa.t ^Aen
rC\'èvA-aa^ )a*T_l . cti_\\ rïLw v^K\'.i PCLïwO.T.
^n.^c\\ rt\'èirdj-^oo K^a^iss .s\\n n^A.i . t^—uiorc\' AKquot; CVaoèx^o . r^-v-S-w A ~ia.i ocra Ariquot; rAa.icv ^Aaè^èm.i flt;i^Acu A^.i rdSi.TÖ.v^ pi kAju.t . wa.A iai. ^ rï\' ctA ocó . rSlz..Tno reli^iiicn kAo rcUJUuo rdl-ÏAsoèvsi rdA
1x\\^ T-i.^, . r^.-usA^ caA rCbcni.i A..quot;V_, rc\'A AiTkSJ». OCTÏ.I
rcA yi—So .T-amp;1 ^Aco . I^üèv-^ rVèireli-^-flo rCèuÖ.u^
r^-i. ^snin\'TD caAgt;.t r^.ZxA.1 . ^gt;crAxu
CD.ViS\'Ab\\ %-irlt;? caA Kllrc* ncn-^. i ■
^ QJA OTTMLU^. Api\'.i rï\'^K\' ._ )ocnTars\' cnsiz.!
45
They related before me that to a certain Jew, who was by the sepulchre of the Patriarchs of the house of Abraham, he said this word, coming up and silting by him; //Fear not, neither be concerned that thou art called cmcifier, for thy lot is with Abrahaminstead of saying n thy portionquot;. Concerning various other blasphemies which he raved and uttered, other men, who disputed with him on this subject and were with him for a long time, but are now in the province of Antioch, have spoken to us, but on account of the extreme shamefulness of these blasphemies it has seemed to me not suitable that they should be stated in this letter.
If therefore he has either written unto you, as I have learned, or has sent unto you his blasphemous books, be careful lest they fall into any person\'s hands and especially into those of nuns dwelling within church-precincts, lest they be led astray through the simplicity and weakness natural to women. For the wise must all, as is written, //take up (he stumbling-block out of the wayquot;1), lest he receive many wounds and become the companion of many others who stumble and fall2).
Write also to him, if it seem proper to you, that he cease from his blasphemies on an ineffable, pure, incomprehensible and holy doctrine. Concerning which I do not know that he has yet a single disciple, for, of the many arguments which he has collected from the Scriptures, when he applies them, he does not discover the (real) force, but he imagines that they support his view.
1 remember that I once wrote to him a letter by means of one of his disciples, Abraham by name; a copy of which also I now send unto you. At that time I did not well know
1) Isaiah LVII, 14.
2) Cf. Isaiah VIII, 15.
46
cn\\\\ Kllcn.i rdlax Ocria AviOcn KiA .-a^ .ta. , rxli-oo
f-SS A_i_\\.-a.i cnA^.i .icuxVa p^.nr.cvA.3.1 jji-SOrc\'
caiSi.1 Aj». J3^.o •iearjèvtsa ArC.i rd^rc\' . èugt;.^ rs\'ïcvssvïa
A.ikA\\aQii rï\'.ico è\\3cn*ègt;tlt;\' .iamA-s cyA.to . rdiövuo rlt;lï A_V^
_JK\' rï\'ija rd-aèv^-X AKquot;! rlt;lx»nc\' , KLtjAX^A Av.nr\'èv.èvu
i.T*-i.1 »cr) . rtlsal^js cnTiSv calj.i relax.cxsAo . rdsó-Lu rc\'N^iT^-) Vy^K\' . Ari\' rdsAvi rdccn
gt;cr)\'iorlt;i3 Arï\'s . ^^ocrA Tx^ Avs-^t. . oo^è^p^^soè^s
Pt^SO.Tik. . ««—Ii^r rrS y^có AK* ^30ègt;0 . COlsAct» A TPAXK*
ègt;ari.^.i rc\'.ian ^soèi.T rdi\'-i»! ^»1 rditir^ cv.v^^.t
t^ooi cu^.TJO .* ctujjj^. k\'j-coi . ótA
^joxsa .gt;\\*.t ^co AJ.^lt;TJ P^SS . yi.^3
rC-Ao cna prd^o . ooè^oA o.=ic\\b\\s. rc\'-Aöi ^aèur*\' , rc^nOü^rdA AKquot; T—i—^ rdJK\' . èvgt;rlt;lxo rtlArc\' Avl-v^ai gt;»T. re\'^üii- rd\\ cAr^/coèvV^ra ^=lC\\hv\\r?^ èuoon .-uèut. palï-iop^.t lt;*quot;*gt;.(* cqA fXjL^2f\\ah\\Tzn KlA.t ,ehc\\ .*K^oxiaicn rcèuio^-l c\\._\\o . rdlcn Kl^sj A-iVc o-A . K\'èxi^.\'saïa
rc\'^ocuAa ri\'-UvjAo pC •a,\\K\\ . ^cnra A^naso.i ^\\co ^irlt;\'
vin ^ocoaèt.ri\'.i . rds^-ire\'s PC^TJAO r^irunc\\.iAC\\ rSls\'ijisAo JL.èvamp;è\\930 . r^ocrasA ^x»^- CU co . isori\' p^brAr^.i . rd-L-S.cn iiaprts .^oiaLfloi rdx-^cn oen.n .t^iTMPdl oai\'Mi ^joègt;o . KlixSi om rcLuoio r^irso rdapc\' jcnoAur^.i v^rS\'.t .cnè\\oAup^3 nd.LiA iss rcfeco rcAAjso.t cni-i^ ArC\' rd-V-üCD cn^—^-.V-» rclA ^_S3 K\'i^USO PC\'MCO è\\C\\_A AK\' ^.1
47
that he had dared to imagine such blasphemies, for I had only met with his commentaries on a few of the Psalms, in which he also glorifies himself and ascribes to himself revelations and visions, and (says) that to him alone is it given to understand the Scriptures correctly. In them he also calls the Scriptures dreams, and his commentaries the interpretation of dreams.
Afterwards he craftily devised to send bis books to you and to write to you, in order to deceive the simple people there (at Jerusalem); for I have heard that he says to them, that even in Edessa is his heresy received, and is furthermore much praised by us, — until some of the monks there happened upon the letter which I bad written, of which I now send you a copy, and found that (on the contrary) he was strongly censured by me. When therefore you shall liave received these letters of mine, that which you know to be just write unto him, and reprove him, and that not feebly but forcibly. 1 myself would write to the bishop of Jerusalem \') respecting him, were it not for differences concerning the faith, and that the fact of our not being of the same communion is a middle wall (of partition) between us 5). For this man has sinned not a little, and the offences which he has committed are not small; for he says that dogs, pigs, serpents, scorpions, mice, and other reptiles of the earth, are consubstantial with God: that is will become so. He also strives to persuade others to believe likewise, and says thus; //As the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of one nature, and as the body of the Word is consubstantial with his divinityquot;, through ignorance be also blasphemes concerning this part (of Church doctrine), adding, //all creation also will
1) Klias, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
2) Ephesians II, 14.
48
rlt;f\\ i*gt; è\\is) Kb on Am «èuirs Aa Ar^.i . T^irCtx
. rr-Mn-^Lï-a r^-2ilt;\\n\\C\\ . rdAa^nO ndx-lwO . rlt;Agt;OctAplt;\'.l rdiiaimsaa .KiloAvacv p^\'-ü^o . K\'.icafloo Kiaa.iïa T-tz) rc\'.l v^»rc\' ^oott-V^ . K\'A^^.^ïrC\' gt; »i \\ Ao . KtrAre\' ^aSfc. .T-jj ^ocino ^xsA-uèuLin
. iè\\_»ègt;_!so ca_\\ Av-jK\'.i oen rlt;L_\\o
ca—A rJlAo Jt-o ?|__^ .quot;i-.-aix_»j
become consubstantial with the Divine naturequot;: and magicians and murderers, crucifiers and apostles, persecutors and martyrs, adulterers and virgins, the chaste and those who satisfy their lusts, all, he says, will be changed and become consubstantial with God, and there will be no one who shall excel, neither any one who shall be lacking
1) It seems either that at this point a sheet of the MS. was lost before it was bound, or that the MS. from which this copy was made was a defective one.
49
V.
THE PHILOSOPHIC SYSTEM OF BAR S11DA1LI.
The letter of Jacob of Sarug was evidently written at a period when Bar Sudaili had not yet thrown olï the mask entirely: it makes no mention ol\' pantheistic doctrines, but simply upholds the church doctrine of the eternity of punishment against Bar Sudaili\'s theory of its temporal duration. In doing so he falls, Jacob of Takrit (XIII century) remarks 1), into the error ol the Semi-Pelagians, that the just received eternal bliss because God foreknew that they would always have continued in righteousness. This view cannot be correctly said to be that of the Semi-Pelagians, although it resembles it in the cooperation ol the two elements of grace and good works.
Plhloxenos has confined himself, in his letter, to treating in general terms of one part only of Bar Sudaili\'s system , that which seemed to him most pernicious, his pantheism and his doctrine of salvation. His system was openly pantheistic, or, to speak more philosophically, Pan-nihilistic; for, according to him , all nature even to the lowest forms of animal
l)Tlie passage is in his »Book of Treasuresquot;
(written in 1231), part III, ch. 39: cf. Assem. 13. O., T. II, p. 210; and Abbeloos, S. Jacques de Sarug, p. 125.
Frothingham. Bar Sudaili. 4
50
creation, being simply an emanation from the Divinity-Chaos 1), finally returns to it; and, when the consummation has taken place, God himself passes away and everything is swallowed up in the indefinite chaos which he conceives to be the first principle and the end of being, and which admits of no distinction. Let us examine the salient features to be noticed in Philoxenos\' letter, and compare them with the doctrines of Ihe Book of Hierolheos as they are disclosed in the summary given further on. In the first place, we read that Bar Sudaili //openly assimilates the creation to God and teaches that it is necessary for everything to become like himquot; s) : his formula was, »A11 nature is consubstantial with the Divinityquot;2). Secondly, there are three periods of existence ; 1. the present world, which is evil, and to which belongs motion; 2. during this period all existence is brought into complete union with Christ who »is all and in all menquot;; this is the period of rest and liberty: 3. finally, all nature becomes of the same nature with the universal essence4). This is the consummation or the confusion of all things, when distinction disappears, not only between God and Nature, but between the persons of the Godhead itself5): God, as personality, passes away, and there is no longer Father, Son, and Spirit. Even the devils are finally redeemed, and included in the general indistinction and confusion6). This doctrine of universal redemption and return into the divine nature — the dnoxaraoTaoig — was, as is well known, the common doctrine of the great Alexandrian and Antio-chene schools. Both Origeu and Theodore of Mopsuestia, like
1
His first principle is identical with the Qtctpxlx or source of divinity of Pseudo-Dionysios.
2
5) P. 34. 6) P. 32.
51
Bar Sudaili, assign three periods lo rational existence: the present; that when all existence is united in Christ; and the final absorption or anoy.aTce.araoi-g\\ the only difference being tiiat with Theodore this was final, whereas with Ori-gen this process was continually repeated. The same doctrine was taught by Gregory ol\' Nyssa on the one hand and Dio-doros of Tarsos on the oilier.
The Book of Hierotheos takes precisely the same standpoint. In it, the emanation from the fiood comprehends all the grades of nature down to the lowest, including also the fallen evil spirits1). The redemption of the hell-sphere and ol Satan is taught in detail: we even see, from the commentary of Theodosios, that this point in the Book of Hierotheos had excited much comment and reprobation among theologians2), and that it was considered by them, as by Philox-
1
See p. 110. 2) Comm. on Book IV, ch. 17, which is entitled
»Onthe repentance of those belowquot;. rc\'èxvlXrCH.T KlA-Lsvsa oami rdiü-lr:
C!oOrlt;\'ègt;vrï\'rlt;ll^\\.573 rillen A^w OTa.Do . rCtrA.1
rdion \\°irA
K\'.TrsiiL.l rc\'ivcvjai^ ribcn rdA : rï\'.TreLx-.i
refcxen .z.rlt;Ligt; rdicrJ rïLT-w ndV-S^rï\' . (..xAcn
Klxiïlrs (-«\'AK\' .
rcil^o n^icno .«\'.irdx-.i
Acvix. £73 ^Aviiaa^ ^jL^rC\'.t »i..S3r^.T ,cn Jso . isare\'
^.1 . »(A .va.i^rsa.1 ni\'.ia.^irc\'^C* r?ii.n.*Ci
2
: .n vxsq KlxixLaX.i rx\'^.n K\'lr^lA »Now many among the mystical divines of the churcli of God have considered that Hierotheos when he wrote this chapter »on the repentance of those belowquot; meant the repent-
52
enos, a dangerous point, for Theodosios vainly endeavors to clear Hierotheos from the charge. This fact itself is of importance from its connection with the criticisms of Philoxenos on Bar Sudaili.
The three periods which Philoxenos finds in Bar Sudaili clearly appear in Hierotheos, not only as world-periods but as phases of the development of individual souls. The first or natural condition is that during which the mind aspires with motion towards the first principle, but still possesses evil in itself. The second takes place when the mind or rational nature, through its rise, becomes identified with Christ and goes through its long experience and purification before reaching the final consummation, experience during which it perlbrms all the acts of Christ and is Christ himself; for Christ is nothing but the Universal Mind. The third state is when all nature is completely absorbed into the original chaos from which all originally sprang, even God himself: in this absorption. Father, Son, and Spirit disappear, and all distinction vanishes \').
Any further details at this point seem unnecessary; a reading of the summary of the Book will show even more clearly the complete identity of Bar Sudaili\'s doctrine, so far as it is stated by Philoxenos, with that of the Book of Hierotheos. If the analogy went only so far as to cover what is, so to speak, the common ground of pantheistic mysticism, there would be nothing remarkable or conclusive in such a coincidence. What would seem, however, to be a strong argument for the identity of the two writers, —
ance of demons. Bat our teacher did not say these things of the repentance of demons, nor had he any such thing in mind: on the contrary it was of those men whose evil had led them into the abode of demons. This fact is clear and evident, that he spoke of the repentance of men, from his saying,quot; etc. 1) See summary of Book of Hierotheos.
53
besides the three world-periods, — is the form of doctrine found in both on the w consummationquot;: what other mystic writer had ever dared to reach such a depth of logical blasphemy as to assert in so many words that \'/the Father, Son, and Spiritquot;, that God, will cease to exist? This is, of course, but the logical consequence of the Pseudo-Dionysian doctrine of an emanated Trinity, for, as Origen says, //as the beginning is, so must the end bequot;; but nowhere in these writings, any more than in those of the Alexandrian and Antiochene doctors who teach the dnoxaTaaraaie, is such a consequence expressed. Many striking personal similarities between Bar Sudaili and Pseudo-Hierotheos are evident at first sight: both lay claim to direct divine revelations; both make extensive use of Scripture for the support of their theories. It remains for us to see whether the Dionysian fragments of Hierotheos are in accord with what has been deduced. As it would be out of place to give here their full text, which would have to be compared with passages of the Book of Hierotheos, a few words of description will be sufficient. The extract from the Elements of Theology \') is a definition of the nature of Christ. The divinity of Jesus [rov \'Irjaov Osórris) is the all-including cause, above intelligence, life, and substance. It maintains the harmony of the parts and the whole, being above both the parts and the whole. Between this conception and that of Christ as the universal essence and the union of all things, the harmony is evident. The extract given in Eccles. Hier. (ch. II, 4) shows that quot;the first motion of the mind towards the divine is the love of Godquot;; and the fragments from the Erotic hymns3) treat of love as a unitive force moving all beings i/from the Good
1) Divine Names, ch. II, 10. 2) Divine Names, ch. IV, 15 — 17.
54
down to the last of beings and from the last of beings up to the Good\'/. There are many corresponding passages in Hierotheos: he describes Ihe inolion of glorifying and loving, as that which belongs lo distinct and separate existence, as (lie supplication of those who have fallen. //All rational essences glorily and love the essence from which they were separated//.
It seems at first difficult to explain why Philoxenos pours such fierce invectives on Bar Sudaili, and stigmatizes his doctrines as unheard of, and worse than Judaism or Heathenism. Although they were expressed in bold language by Bar Sudaili, yet, besides being in accord with the prevailing spirit of East-Syrian and Egyptian monasticism , how manv famous teachers and doctors of the church had supported the same doctrine! While it is presented in different forms by Sabellios\'), Marcellus of Ankyra1), etc., it is upheld by the whole Alexandrian School, by Clement, Origen, and Didy-mos , by Gregory Nazianzen :i) and Gregory of Nyssa, by Nemesios, Synesios, and others, and later by the School of Antioch, headed by Diodoros of Tarsos and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Among the East-Syrians even S. Ephraem can hardly be cleared from the stain of a moderate mystical pantheism. If none of these theologians used the same freedom of language as Bar Sudaili, on approaching the most sacred precincts of the Christian faith, Bhiloxenos must have been loo subtle a theologian not to have seen beyond their reticences. The severity shown to Stephen cannot then be explained from the principles of his thought, but from the freedom of his language, which was such as to throw oblo-
1
Adversus Marc.; see Dorner, I. 2, p. 282.
55
quy on the whole mystical school and to draw upon it the reprobation of ecclesiastical authority. Another explanation, the plausibility of which may appear further on , would be Bar Sudaili\'s connection with the beginning of the well-known Origenistic revival in the first part of the VI century.
56
VI.
BIOGRAPHY OF BAR SÜDA1LI.
The biograpliical information concerning Bar Sudaili at our disposal is very meagre. Philoxenos tells us lliat lie was a native of Edessa and a ns\'Tajao or scribe, and Jacob of Sarug shows him to have been a monk of considerable repute lor sanctity and good works; in f?ct, the terms of praise which he bestows on Bar Sudaili indicate that, until then, the latter enjoyed the favor of the Monopbysite party, though already be bad not only begun to show his anti-christian sentiments more openly, but was also cherishing ambitious aims. In all probability Bar Sudaili passed a portion of his early career in Egypt, for Philoxenos mentions his having followed lor some time the leadership of John the Egyptian. If bis identity with Psendo-Hierotbeos be granted, there would be some interesting traces of this early part of bis life. Three dogmatic extracts passing under the name of Hierotbeos are preserved, in cither Arabic or Ethiopic versions; the originals seem to have been in Coptic. Two of these appear in the well-known Fides Patruni1), a work compiled probably in
1
The Arabic version is found in the Vatican (Arabic Cod. 101 ff. 11 and 12), in Florence (Medic. Palat. Library C.LX1X) and in the Vict. Emanuel Lib. at Rome. The Ethiopic text is preserved in the Brit. Mus. Ethiopic Cod. 14 Add. 16,219 f. 7 — 8, and in the Library of the Univ* of Tiibingen.
57
ihe XI cent.: a Latin version of them was given by Mai in tome III of his Spicilegium Romanum (p. 704) \') , but both the Arabic and Ethiopic texts have remained inedited. These fragments, which contain declarations concerning the nature of Christ, are somewhat colorless, although perceptibly Mo-nophysite2). Of more interest is a confession of faith, contained in an Arabic MS. of the councils (Arab. Vatic. 409 f. 397), which seems not to have been noticed by Mai. Hero a strong pantheistic and mystical tinge is added to its Mo-nophysitism , and many expressions remind us of Bar Sudaili, especially those in which the all-containing nature of the Ihearchy is taught3).
it appears clearly from the language of these fragments that they were written at a time when the Monophysite controversy was at its height; and the probabilities are in favor of their having been written by Oar Sudaili, The first two show him lo have been at first a prudent but evident Monophysite, and the last must have been produced somewhat later, when his creed had become more mystical. There are no traces of them in Syriac, and they must without any doubt be referred to a residence in Egypt. It was in Edessa however that he began to show his personal views: it is probable that he was still in that city when Jacob of Sarug adressed to him the present letter. Then also Philoxenos may have written lo him the previous letter which he refers to, and the copy of which he enclosed 4). Soon after, in all probability Irom the opposition he met with in his native city,
1) Mai published it without pledging himself in any way, »nullum in-terpouens de iis judiciumquot;.
2) Compare their phraseology with that of Jacob of Sarug, e.g. in his letter to the monks of Bassus.
3) T intend to publish the text of these documents with that of the Book of Hierotheos. 4) See pp. 44—47.
58
Bar Sudaili was obliged to leave Edessa and betake himself to Palestine, where the greater freedom of thought allowed was abundantly used by the Origenistic monks, who were growing numerous and hold. At or near Jerusalem he entered a monastery, as we see from the letter of Philoxenos: that he was ever an abbot seems to be a gratuitous assumption on the part of Neander, Gfrörer, and those who have copied the assertion from them. We have no record of his being expelled from this monastery, as some were, in consequence of his scandalously pantheistic views, but there can be no doubt that they became well-known, not only from his writings , but also from the words he wrote on the wall of his cell, „All nature is consubstantial with the Divinityquot;. About the same time we hear of the expulsion , for Origenistic views, of four monks from the new Laura of S. Saba, with the consent of the archbishop Elias1) , to whom also Philoxenos, in his letter-, speaks of appealing: it would not therefore have been surprising if Bar Sudaili had been treated in the same manner. The period of his residence in Jerusalem is the only part of his career which may bo dated with approximate certainty, between the years 494. and 512, from the concordance of dates between Jacob of Sarug (b. 454, d. 522) , Philoxenos (485—518), and Elias of Jerusalem (494—513). As Piiiloxenos refers to the impossibility of his communicating with the Patriarch of Jerusalem on account of their division in faith , we are inclined to narrow the period at which his letter was written to between 509 and 512, when the contest between the two parlies was at its height. Another chronological indication might bo found in the K\'AxM.siiCo,
1
Cyrillus Scythopolita, Vita S. Sabae.
59
„Confession of failhquot;, of Philoxenos ^ , if the period at which it was written could be exactly determined; for in the anathema at the close he enumerates ia „the impious Bar Sudailiquot;. This confession may have been drawn up at the synod of Sidon, held in 512—513, of which Phiioxenos was the prime mover. In the profession of faith 1) demanded, among the Jacobites, of priests and deacons on their receiving orders, we also read the anathematism of Bar Sudaili and his followers. Stephen had evidently become a man of importance and inlluence.
Bar cEbraia, in his Ecclesiastical History2), makes Bar Sudaili flourish at Edessa under the Antiochenc patriarch Sergios, the successor of Severos, about 542. This is at variance with all our other evidence, and is certainly an error; for Stephen had already left Edessa, as we have seen , during the first years of the century , and his career could hardly have lasted until the middle of it.
It would be of great interest to know from what source
1
Cod. Syr. Vat. XLIX, f. 58. It anathematizes r^LiaXyflordXcx
cq\\ Kboo ^aicn.\\c\\ .
(.Acn Klli-urc\' OK\' . reL.-twrc\' K\'-aiCV-. .^cri-Wa
.1 v»,n pSta^r^A
2
Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 215. Cf. Assem. B. O., T. II, p. 327.
60
Bar Sudaili derived a part at least of his doctrines. On this point we find an interesting fact noted by Phiioxenos in these words: „He, desired.... to originate heresies himself also, like John the Egyptian, whom for a short time he even followed\'quot;1). His master then, before he came forward as an original thinker, was a John of Egypt. At this period the monophysite monk John II (509—517) was Patriarch of Alexandria; but as his relations with Severos of Antioch and the Syrian Monophysites were intimate , it is hardly possible that Phiioxenos should have referred to him. Bar cEbraia-includes a John of Egypt in his enumeration of the Monophy-sites who flourished under Sergios of Antioch 2); but 1 have not met with any other notice which could with safety be referred to him. The John of Alexandria spoken of in Zacha-rias Rhetor as a heretic and falsifier of writings is, in all probability, another and an earlier writer 3). In no case could we identify this John with the Syrian John of Egypt, bishop of cv^fla2krlt;\', whose life is given by John of Asia4); for, besides the fact that he flourished at a slightly later period, had he hold the opinions which a master of Bar Sudaili must have had and which Phiioxenos indicates, John of Asia, belonging to the same party as Phiioxenos, would never have enumerated him among his saintly personages. It is hardly necessary, however, to question the opinions of this master of Bar Sudaili; the mystical pantheism of the monks of Egypt and Syria from the IV to the VI century, as well as the intimate relations between the two countries, are facts too well-known to require proof. In both there flourished every degree of pantheism and pan-nihilism, from the gross and
1
See pp. 32 — 3. 2) Assemam B. O., T. II, p. 327.
2
3j Land, Anecdota Syriaca, T. II, p. 177.
3
■I) Land, op. cit. T. Ill, p. 130.
61
material form of the Euchites to the spiritualized forms of the kabbalistic, Neo-platonic and Origenistic sects. Late researches tend to show that much of this was engrafted from the old Egyptian sects, with slight transformations required by the new dispensation. How much of this earlier form was embodied in the so-called Hermetic books it is difficult to determine, as they seem to be the work of such different periods.
Stephen bar Sudaili was undoubtedly in many points a follower of Origen and the Alexandrian school, but his thought was dominated by gnostico-kabbalistic elements. Having boldly proclaimed his doctrines, he sought to propagate them by numerous writings. Philoxenos shows him to have been a learned man, much devoted to the study of Scripture, which he interpreted in a kabbalistic manner, carrying probably to excess the mania for this kind of exegesis, which was in vogue among the followers and imitators of Origen; although it did not originate with the latter, but is found even more elaborated in the writings of Philo.
Although Philoxenos speaks ol letters, commentaries , books, and other writings of Bar Sudaili, he gives details only-regarding an early one, the first which came into his hands, a commentary on the Psalms. In it Stephen claimed to have direct revelations and to be an inspired man, to whom a/one was revealed the true sense of Scripture: he called them dreams and his commentaries on them the interpretations of dreams. Philoxenos indicates that in this work Bar Sudaili had not yet developed his pantheism. The question naturally arises, was he acquainted with the Book of Hierotheos and did he make use of it in his criticisms? It seems as if this were not the case: otherwise the language of Philoxenos would have been entirely different. As it is, the phraseology
62
shows tliat lie had other sources of information. He refers in particular to a book in which Stephen sets forth his doctrines (pp. 4.2—43) in a language which, he says, is entirely inadequate to the subject, oinsipid and foolishquot;. From this book he extracts most of the statements which he condemns. What other works of Bar Sudaili he may have seen , it does not appear. Had he known of the imposture perpetrated by Stephen, he would not have failed to publicly accuse him of it; the secret character of the Book of Hierotheos must for some time have prevented its existence being generally known, even if it had been already written at that lime.
From several passages in Philoxenos it appears that Bar Sudaili must have made numerous and active disciples (though he seeks to deny it), and have kept up continuous relations with Ecessa, where he boasted of having adherents. We find that Philoxenos himself, before becoming acquainted with Stephen\'s most reprehensible doctrines, wrote to him a letter — now lost — which he sent by one of Stephen\'s disciples named Abraham: and the reason which induced Philoxenos to write to Abraham and Orestes at Edessa was, that they had received from Bar Sudaili letters and other works, sent to them through some of his followers; by which he wisiied to seduce them, and probably others, to adopt his pernicious doctrines.
Thus much have we been able to collect respecting Bar Sudaili; now it will he necessary, in order to complete his biography, to pass to the question of his identity with Pseudo-Hierotheos.
63
VII.
Bill SÜDMLI CÖNSIÖEIIEÜ BY SYRIAN WRITERS TO BE THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS.
It lias already been staled by Asseman \') that Gregory Dar cEbraia the monophysite patriarch (XIII cent.) asserted the great work of Bar Sudaili to have been that entitled the Book ol\' Hierolheos. The passage referred to is in his work entitled, rcLx..m_n 1). In giving an enumeration
of heresies on the Incarnation, he assigns the last place to Bar Sudaili, saying2); //Thirtieth heresy; that of Stephen
1
rClkxliwfc. rd.OJrc\'Avx- rgt;£.x.^c\\a • at the end of
the IV foundation; cf. Asseman, ibid.
2
. rdi-iW .icv^ ia ,cn Qaxfloico
c\\_\\ic\\ . r*L.n.iXX. èv.\\ pgt;iL\'aiAa..x- VSOpC* rïllon
. ri.^nnc\'ia—i-a pcl.\\rC . «-n V ^
r^L.cQ.Arc\' . ^kU.jjèx\'sa K\'irdx, pdl^ono
• rC\'cnArC\' rCocral.T do0_\\a.°i \'VsJrï\'.i
cniasao . p^licn.T rc\'iia.i. A^ïo .=jè\\ürlt;\'
. ,criiVJ3 co a. i. ai CU CU l crui oocvK\'èxTiK\'.t
Arï\' . ooar^T.rC\' rd-ïj.i-o.l èusartflA Oen oaAj.i.i acb v^rc\'
. ^ys.sa.-si pellTkcn rcV^^go
64
bar Sudaili He affirmed that there will be an end to the torments [of hell) , and that the wicked will not suffer forever. but will be purified hij fire. Thus will mercy he shewn even to demons, and everything will return into the Divine nature, as Paul says, i/God will be all in all . He also wrote a book in support of this opinion, and called it by the name of Hierotheos, the master of the holy Dio-nysios, as if it were by the holy Hierotheos himself; which many also thinkquot;.
In a second passage, in the first section ol his Ecclesiastical History l), Bar cEbraia speaks ol\' Stephen , but adds nothing new, except that lie mentions his Scripture-commentaries. His words are:2) „At this time Stephen bar Sudaili became notorious as a monk in Edessa. He interpreted the Scriptures according to his own ideas, and affirmed that there will be an end to the torments of hell, and that sinners and even demons will be justified; laying down as the foundation of his teaching that, as Paul says, quot;God will be all in allquot;.
These few words represent in an absolutely exact manner the teachings of Bar Sudaili as related by Philoxenos, but the most important point is the categorical assertion, that Bar Sudaili attempted to palm off his principal work as that of Hierotheos, the supposed master of Dionysios the Areopa-gite. Were this statement only the expression of Bar \'Ebraia\'s
1) Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 222. 2) Arc\'r(il=V=J cnrsa
rd.=ièuA pTlt;\\rgt; . rlt;liv=gt; jcnionira
(-iJD.i.1 vsiio • rlt;LnJCVxA TSOK* rclsn.\\ax.o . CTIT \'V \\
ri\'ctArc\' KbcoJH .on rva. . rc\'.iK\'.x, Ani\'s rtoa.v*.
. cnèicvisA-rcn ridvoorvivt. yxso . oocAcv.^ vyK*
65
personal opinion, one could but feel considerable besitalion in accepting the conclusions of a writer who lived more than seven centuries after the one whom ho criticises ; and until now the assertion has been supposed to rest entirely with him \'). The case assumes a different aspect when, in another of his writings. Bar \'Ebraia quotes in support of his view a writer of the VIII century , Kyriakos Patriarch of Anti-och (793—817). This passage occurs in the Nomocanon or
rtflflóosiio «licu.13 psisorö.t
nThe Book of Directions concerning ecclesiastical Canons and civil lawsquot;. In ch. VII, sect. 9 1) , in which he enumerates the canonical and apocryphal Scriptures, etc., after speaking of apocrypha! revelations of the apostles John , Paul , Peter, etc., he gives a sentence of Kyriakos on the book of Hierotheos in these terms: Taxx-ii oen ccoxi^icLo
i_rj relia.^Dori\'.i KLiizj.T octj cA . ooorC^T.rc\'.i
. gt;(T)oè\\itlt;\' ifm^ico rt\'Aïrc\'i/The patriarch Kyriakos [says): The book entitled [that) of Hierotheos is not by him but probably by the heretic Stephen Bar Sudailiquot;.
Bar \'Ebraia might have quoted another writer, who also lived in the VIII and IX centuries, John bishop of Kara, whose testimony is of the greater value in that he was a noted mystic and a student of the writings of preceding-mystics, especially those of Pseudo-üionysios Beside his book on the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, already mentioned, he wrote an important work on the soul 2) and another on the resurrection of the body3). The latter,
1
Cod, Syr. Vat. CXXXII, f. 32: of. Assemani B. O., T. II, p. 302,
2
and Catal. T. Ill, p. 199. 3) Assem. B. O., T. II, pp 219,505.
3
Cod. Syr. Vat. C. Cf. Assem. Cat. T. II, p. 530.
Frothingham, Bar Sudaili. 5
66
entitled rCVMrc^n r^_ijLlrlt;\' rrfhx\'x.xa A^_,
iiFour boohs on the resurrection of human bodiesquot;, is a work of great interest and learning: in it lie devotes a chapter (1. IV, c. 21) to supporting the eternity of Paradise and Hell \'). The opening sentence is worth quoting: i/Diodoros of Tarsos in the book which he wrote on the (Economi/, and Theodore his disciple and the master of Nestorios, saij in many places that there is an end to condemnation. The same course is also taken by the work called the Book of Hiero-theos, which is in reality not by him but was skilfully written by another in his name, that is by Stephen bar Sudaili. Gregory of Nyssa also, in his book and in that to his sister Makrina, and in other compositions, teaches the dogma of apokatastasis, that is, the return into the first principle, and says that there will he an end to future torments. However, all the doctors of the church, Greeks as well as Syrians, with the sole exception of this saint, say unanimously that there will be no end to the torments ofhell^).quot;
1) Cod. C. f. 69, v. Cf. ibid. p. 537—8.
2) oco qocu»t\\i ocp oocncvia.**
: crwio rdicm co.-ViVi^
ca=j . rdli^A rClsAax- èv.ni\'.t ^.TSarC\' rc\'èvxio.vs
crAii.i . coor^T^rC\'.T rCiaAxss.T O en Kamp;rïquot;
A—x. . iuK\'TiTï- gt;cooAv»rlt;\' r^A
z3Cih\\ Agt;cv_^ct3 . rrlA-iicv^. ocna . on *71 .T.
ca_Vj.i oen K\'isnre\'jaia n^-icc\\_3Qocuic\\.^»ii^0
rc\'Avi.jHwrS\' r^cüraiuksaaa . cnd\\_igt; Klijinsa ^\\CV.A.t c\\c5fi=»c\\ KxicxSk èviiwarC\' Oaxflor^^CQKl^yQCV^r^.i oen ^ardflo
67
In the same chapter John ol Dara quotes, among other authorities in favor of the eternity of punishment, the letter of Jacob of Sarug to Stephen. His long extract extends trom p. 18, 1. 16 of the text, to p. 24, 1. 10, and covers nearly the same ground as the extract, in Add. 17,193, of which we have given the various readings under the letter D.
These two authorities flcurished between two and three centuries after Bar Sudaili, and it is easy to perceive that there must have been a continuous tradition among Syrian church writers on the subject; a tradition which is of the greatest authority even taken by itself, and if in accord with the intrinsic evidence would seem to be incontestable. It is clear, from what precedes, that this work took a very prominent position, and exercised a strong influence over the different schools of thought.
Having reached this point in my researches on Bar Sudaili, I made every attempt to discover traces of the Book of Hie-rotheos. Father P. Halloix wrote a life of Hierotheos for his collection of lives of Eastern church writers of the first two centuries \'), but in it were used only the fragments quoted
. oen rclxiiii.lt;k\\ rdaAcvi. èv.rc\'.i vmk\'o : lui.irsa:!
ndicn quot;C^joo rd/icuao rd-iicu
ftüalcvr. èvAi «jacrAt gt;010:1 CuAia T.qa
. ocira r^mU.èA
1) lllustriura Ecclesiae Orieatalis Scriptorum vit® et dooumenta. Duaci 1633, p. 000—C34. The so-called life is made up of quotations from mediieval writers. The commemoration in the Menaei of the Greek church shows what superstitious reverence was accorded to the shadowy personality of Hierotheos. known to them only through the medium of Dionysios.
68
by PseudoDionysios: tlie other references were valueless as independent testimony, for they were all derived from the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. Halloix had no knowledge whatever of any Book of Hierotheos, or of a possible connection between Pseudo-Hierotheos and Bar Sudaili, but believed implicitly in the existence of a first century writer. Researches among Greek and Latin MSS. were also of no avail. I found, however, that there still existed at the British Museum a unique MS. of the book of Hierotheos in Syriac. It was described, but erroneously, in Rosen and Forshall\'s catalogue as translated and commentated by Theodosios Patriarch of Antioch, the second alone being the case. This work I was enabled to copy.
69
VIII.
THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS.
As already remarked, this Book pretends to have been written by a certain holy man olquot; the first century, Hierotheos, a disciple of S. Paul and teacher of Dionysios the Areopa-gite, to whom also the work is supposed to be addressed. Legend tells us that he was the first bishop of Athens, before Dionysios, and that he afterwards went to Spain, where he remained as bishop. Dionysios says that he was present with the apostles at the death of the Virgin, and became noted for his beautiful hymns.
To return to our subject; this work is extant only in Syriac, in connection with an extensive commentary by Theodosios, patriarch of Antioch at the close of the IX century (887—896), in a unique MS. of the British Museum belonging, in great part, to the XIII century1). This is the very copy which, after great labor, Bar cEbraia succeeded in procuring, and from which he composed a compendium of the work, of which we will soon have occasion to speak2).
In the MS. , after a letter and an introduction by Theo-
1
Add. (Rich) 7,189. Cf. the Cat. of Rosen and Forshall, p. 74.
2
Cf. Wright\'s remarks, supplementary to the Cat. of R. and F., at the close of vol. Ill of his Catalogue.
70
dosios, and immediately preceding the introductory chapter of tiie text, is a short preface or rather dedication by the person, real or supposititious, who translated the work from Greek into Syriac: it is addressed to his Maecenas, a certain ooorclia //Philiosquot;, at whose request he undertook the work. Theodosios appends a commentary to this dedication in the same manner as he does to the text of the work itself: in no case could he have been the author of the translation. The same anonymous translator also adds a postscript at the end of the volume, addressed to the same Philios, in which he speaks of completing and sending him his translation , with an accompanying letter.
The Syriac itself is remarkably idiomatic, pure and easy, and shows no trace of being fettered by the necessities ol a translation: this is very evident in comparison with the Syriac translation ol Dionysios, in which the strained and unidiomatic character of the language is apparent at every point, though it is the work of such an able man as Ser-gios of Rascain.
If the Book of Hierotheos be considered the work of Bar Sudaili, two hypotheses naturally present themselves tor the explanation of the linguistic purity we have mentioned.
1) We may allow that Bar Sudaili wrote the work in Greek, but that, in order to foster his propaganda in the region ol Edessa, he translated it himself into Syriac: or
2) we may suppose that the existence of a Greek original is purely fictitious, and that the Syriac text we possess is the real original. This fiction ol a Greek text was necessary to render the imposture credible, because, if genuine, the Book of Hierotheos must have been written in Greek. In this case the pretended translator\'s introduction and note were a fiction of Bar Sudaili along with the text, and we
1
71
would not need to be surprised at the non-appearance of the supposed Greek original. This latter supposition seems the most plausible, after a careful study of the text: the only valid objection would be the existence of any traces of a Greek text. I have found an apparent one, but its value is so questionable that it can hardly weigh in the balance. In a Latin catalogue of Greek MSS. existing at Constantinople towards 1600 we find the following title //Explicatio S. Cyrilli Arciepiscopi Alexandriae in S. Hierotheuin Areo-pagitam.quot; There are two objections to this being a reliable proof. 1) This work of Cyril is necessarily an imposture, as he lived more than a half-century before Bar Sudaili and Pseudo-Dionysios, and consequently it may have been written by some monk, a follower of lïar Sudaili\'s doctrine, as an additional prop to the stage-work of his fiction. 2) There seems to have existed some confusion between the persons of Hierotheosand Dionysios ; in evidence of which we will give a passage from Pseudo-Dionysios quoted in an early Syriac MS. (IX century) as by Hierotheos1) , and furthermore in this
1
Brit. Mus. Add. 17,191 (of IX or X cent.) f. 64: rd r i.T—p.1
jenoèxirtquot; K\'-Jta.A pedsirc\'.i : cnAvüaLi.è\\ . ooorcamp;T.rc\' caièuri\' ApC\'.t ,cn . gt;cn
. rlt;dutia.=3 rstocnèn rcili
: pï\'-i^a^jo rlt;\'A\\«ogt;ï-)0 rlt;l^.^=a=3C\\ .K\'.TK\'JL A.2».
K\'èvAcvasno . cnièvtKquot; r^.Tcn
. . . This passage is in reality from Divine Names, ch.
72
same catalogue of Constantinople MSS. we read the title: //Liber sancti Hierothei, sive Dionysii Areopagitae, Episcopi Atheniensis Theologicus, Hierarchia, et Mystica Theologiaquot; Here tlie confusion is evident, and the reason for it is patent : both were legendary personages, both supposed to have been members of the Areopagos, disciples of S. Paul, bishops of Athens, and to have lived in Spain. It is then quite natural to suppose that this Pseudo-Cyrillian commentary may after all have treated of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. In confirmation of this we may refer to the fact that at the council of Constantinople in 532, when the Dio-nysian writings were first brought forward, their supporters alleged that S. Cyril had quoted them; this fact was disputed by the orthodox, and the quarrel became quite warm.
We have already noticed the great difficulty experienced by Bar cEbraia in procuring a copy of the Book of Hiero-theos; but it is at first surprising to find that the patriarch Thcodosios and his friend Lazaros, bishop of Kyros, experienced the same difficulty nearly four centuries before him: both of them were most desirous of becoming acquainted with the work, of taking it as their guide, and of unfolding its mysteries; and, as Theodosios informs us in his letter to his friend Lazaros, they finally succeeded. Our surprise, however, ceases when we read the opening chapters of the book itself, and perceive the frank and bold clearness with which the author develops his anti-christian and ultra-pantheistic system. That he is conscious, all the time, of the
IV, § 27. quot;OTi Sè olii vmyJuc, olrtov tP, imxv r° h roü Svvxtov
elvaei xoei izvev 7rapvlt;pia-TUlt;röxi tccaciav, wWfp Iv ox/fzoo-t\' rovro yccp Ivn
y.cci vo7i;, tcoei J/v§g, xcd (tuiaocgi kockov , y rij; tüv oïxe/bov uyceQcov dcröéveioi
kzi cctt 077 t 00(71$.
1) Ant. Possevini, ibid.
73
peril he runs, is evident from the oft-repeated injunction, under the severest penalties, not to disclose the mysteries of the book before //impure mindsquot; (i. e. orthodox). Both the pretended Syrian translator in his introduction, and Tlieodosios in his commentary, reiterate this caution most emphatically. This secrecy is the keynote to the method of teaching of the Book of Hierotheos, and the assurance that the doctrines would not pass beyond the circle of the initiated explains the boldness of the language. We now see not only the reason for the scarcity of copies and for the difficulty in obtaining one, but also why the book occupied so exceptional a position.
We could hardly expect to find any general acquaintance with a work the knowledge and use of which was kept confined as much as possible to the narrow circle of esoteric mystics: even if inimical hands, attracted by vague reports, sought to obtain possession of it, they must have been generally baffled by the discretion and secrecy of the initiated, who were familiar with the anathemas launched against all disclosers of its mystical doctrines. Theodosios himself, however, leads us to conclude that before his time a number of theologians had commentated the work, but he omits to mention any of them by name. It is possible that he refers, among others, to Kyriakos and John ot Dara, whom we have already quoted. This is all the more probable, because he speaks of these theologians as objecting to Hierotheos\' doctrine of the redemption ot the hell-sphere, which is precisely what Kyriakos and John of Dara do.
74
IX.
THE POSITION GIVEN TO HIEROTHEOS BY l\'SEÃDO-DIÃNYSIOS.
Turning to other writings which relate to our book, we must pause to consider the position given by Pseudo-Dionysios to his master Hierotheos: we have already alluded to the terms of great reverence and admiration which he uses with regard to him. The portrait he gives of Hierotheos tallies completely\' with what we know of Bar Sudaili: the mysticism, the celestial visions, the abstruse and condensed thought, the study of Scripture. I will here translate the chapter in which Pseudo-Dionysios explains his relations to his master «And here it is suitable to explain wherefore, inasmuch as our illustrious master Hierotheos has made an admirable collection of \'Theological Elements\', we have, as if these were not sufficient, written others beside the present theological treatise. Certainly, had he claimed to write, systematically, treatises on all theological questions, and had in special expositions developed the sum of all theology, we would never have had the folly or the stupidity to consider ourselves better able than he to treat of theological matters in a clear and divine manner; or to talk at random, by repeating the same things super-
1) Divine Names, ch. Ill, 2â3.
75
fluously; and moreover show ourselves unjust towards a teaciier and friend by whom, after S. Paul, we were instructed, by plagiarizing his most excellent doctrine and expositions. But since he, in reality explaining divine things in a way suited to mature minds, enounced unto us certain synoptic statements, which in one included many, he as it were encouraged me and others, who like myself are teachers of newly-initiated souls, to unfold and interpret, in a language suited to us, the synoptic and universal meditations of the spiritual power of so great a man. Thou *) hast often thyself urged me to do so, and didst return to me his book as being too sublime. Therefore do we assign this teacher of perfect and mature intelligences unto those who are above the crowd, as second Scriptures, analogous to those divinely inspired, ^e however will transmit divine things to those like us in a manner suited to us. For, if solid food is for the perfect, what supreme perfection must it be to furnish such to others? Therefore have we truly said that the direct vision of spiritual truths and their synoptic teaching require a mature power, but that the acquaintance with and understanding of the truths leading up to them is suited to the inferior consecrators and priests. However, this has been most carefully observed by us, never to take in hand the things which this divine teacher has explained with sufficient clearness, lest we fall into tautology by giving the same explanation of a passage which he has already cited. For among our divinely-inspired hierarchs (when we, as thou knowest, together with him and many of our holy brothers had come together for the contemplation of the life-giving and God-receiving body, when James the brother of God, and Peter the supreme and
1) Timothy, to whom the Divine Names is addressed.
76
venerable chief of theologians were present, it was decided, after the contemplation, that all the hierarchs should sing hymns, as each one was able, to the all powerful goodness of the thearchic infirmity) as you know, he excelled, after the theologians, all other initiated, being entirely beside himself, all in an ecstasy, and feeling communion with that which he was praising in hymns. He was considered by all those who heard and saw him, whether they knew him or not, to be divinely inspired and a divine psalmist. But wherefore should I speak to you of the divine things which were there said: for, unless my memory betrays me, I feel certain that I have often heard from you fragments of these divinely enthusiastic psalmodies, such zeal did you feel in searching diligently after divine things.
//But. passing over these mysteries, both because they are not be mentioned to the common crowd and because they are well-known to you, when it was necessary to confer with the multitude and to draw as many as possible to our own holy doctrine, how he surpassed the greater part ot sacred teachers, in the use of time, in purity of mind, in acuteness of demonstration, and the rest of sacred discourses , so that we did not attempt even to look such a great light (lit. sun) in the face! For we are conscious and aware of not being sufficiently able either to comprehend those divine things which are intelligible, or to express and explain those divines doctrines which are expressible; being left so far behind by the knowledge of these divine men in theological truth, that through excessive timidity we would have even concluded not to hear or say anything on divine philosophy, had we not perceived that it was not right to neglect what it is possible for us to know of divine things. We were persuaded of this not only by the natural aspira-
77
tions of intelligences always filled with the desire for the contemplation , in so far as is allowed, of supernatural things, but also by the very excellent disposition of the divine ordinances , which while it forbids to meddle with what is above us, both as being superior to our worth and as unattainable, yet bids us to learn with zeal whatever is allowed and given to us, urging us to communicate generously to others. Persuaded then by this, and not desisting or shrinking from that search after divine things which is within our reach, and not bearing patiently that those who are not able to contemplate the things above us should remain without help, we have undertaken to write, not pretending to teach anything new, but interpreting and showing forth, by investigations more minute and applied to distinct parts what had been said synoptically by Hierotheosquot;. In another place (Div. Names 11, 9) Dionysios says, as a preface to his quotation irom Hiéro-theos\' Elements of Theology: // this has been unfolded in a supernatural manner by our illustrious teacher in his Elements of Theology, which he in part received from pious theologians, in part conceived by a scientific investigation of Scripture through his frequent exercise and practice therein, and in part was taught by some more divine inspiration, by not only learning but experiencing divine things (ov /uovov ficcdav, ccXXcc xal uaOcov rd Oeïa] and by his sympathy [GVfj.naOf.Las) with them, if we may so express ourselves, made perfect in the unteachable and mystical union with and faith in themquot;.
The text of the quotations from Hierotheos will be given with the text of the Book ot Hierotheos for the sake of comparison. They have already been referred to on p. 6.
In regard to these fragments it will not be out of place
78
lo refer to an error committed by Dorner \'). He makes an elaborate statement of the Christology of Pseudo-Dionysios, and founds it entirely on the quotations from Hierolheos\' \'/Elements of Theologyquot; in the Divine Names. All his conclusions must simply be transferred to Hierotheos. This is important, because the language of Dionysios himself concerning Christ is in quite a different form and in thought more theological, while that of his master is ontological and mystical. We seek in vain in the Book of Hierotheos for any of the quotations given in the //Divine Namesquot;; but, as we have remarked, this could he no argument against the identification of Hierotheos with Bar Sudaili, for in no case would it have been prudent for Stephen\'s disciple to give passages from a work which the sect desired to keep as secret as possible.
We find perhaps the earliest mention of Hierotheos, after the appearance of the Dionysian writings, in the almost contemporary history of Zacharias Rhetor. This historian, in giving a portrait of the famous Severos of Antioch , describes him as //learned in the Holy Scriptures, and in the commentaries on them by ancient writers, by Hierotheos and Dionysios, Titus and Timothy, disciples of the apostles; and after them by Ignatios, Clement, and Irenaios, etc.quot;1). It would seem probable that Zacharias, who, it must be added, was himself quite a religious philosopher, points to something more being known, of the writings which passed under the name of Hierotheos, than the few fragments given by Pseudo-Dionysios. This passage would then be interesting, as it would show that Severos, who was a supporter of
1
Land, Anecdota Syriaca T. Ill, p. 228.
79
Dionysian doctrines, favored also lltose of Pseudo-Hierollieos. Were the writings of Severos better known, more light might be thrown on the subject of his relation to the mystical school.
We have already mentioned the spurious wExplicatio S. Cyrilliquot; on Hierotheos, and the probable confusion between Dionysios and his master: in this connection it may be remarked that it has been already suggested by the learned Dailly \') that the Hierotheos spoken of by Pseudo-Dionysios is none but the latter himself, for in his opinion Hierotheos was an invented name. It is likely that this explanation may have suggested itself from the entire lack of information at that time regarding any person of this name or any works written by or attributed to him, with the single exception of what we read in Pseudo-Dionysios.
It would seem impossible for any one , after reading even an outline of the Book of Hierotheos, to accept for a moment this theory of identification. The intellectual position of the two minds is entirely different: Pseudo-Hierotheos is a simple monk, whose thought is entirely distinct from any philosophic system, claiming direct vision, drawing his theories from his own consciousness, and expressing them with great naïveté and freshness; it is the divine seer, and not the philosophic genius, who speaks. On reading his book one feels it to be the genuine out-pouring of a strongly-excited religious imagination, and the work of an original mind, but of no eclectic or imitator. It is true we find in his system ideas from both the Christian and pagan schools of Alexandria â especially from Origen â as well as traces
1) Joannes Dallseus, De acriptis quae Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni uominibus oircumferuntur. Geneva 166G.
80
of the kabbalistic ami gnostic systems and perhaps even of the early Chaldaean cosmogony: but they are marshalled into a perfectly symmetrical and harmonious whole, in subordination to the ideal peculiar to Hierotheos himself. With him there is never any attempt at discussion. His theories are successively unfolded as absolute and undeniable certainties, as revelations, as things which he has known and S\'?en.
On the other hand, although Pseudo-Dionysios shows much of the same spirit in his Mystical Theology and Divine Names , yet even here there appears the logical element so conspicuous in his writings , which classifies him in a different branch ol the mystical school from that of Pseudo-Hierotheos, as well as in far closer connection with the Neo-Platonists. We might say, that the one has a considerable affinity with the West-Syrian school of Antioch, and that the other belongs to the East-Syrian school of Edessa; tor these represented, the former, the intellectual and logical side of the Syrian development, and the latter, its sentimental, symbolical and analogical side.
THE QUESTION OF THE PRIORITY OF HIEROTHEOS TO DIONYSIOS.
This leads lo the discussion of another question, which may already have occurred to the reader. Is it not natural (o suppose that the Book of Hierotheos was produced precisely in view of the references to Hierotheos in Pseudo-Dionysios, and is dependent on the latter, and consequently of no independent value? Would it not have been quite possible that a follovver of Dionysios should have fancied to sustain his master\'s position by bringing out a work which should bear out his relation to Hierotheos ? Were this the case, the author of a work of this kind would naturally have made it to correspond with the indications in Dionysios: would in all likelihood have entitled his work (he OeoXoyr/.al 2toi-/sidiasig or Principles of Theology, and with it would have incorporated, as a proof of authenticity, the passages quoted from that book in the Divine Names. He would also have referred more than once by name lo his beloved disciple Dionysios. Supposing it to be an artificial production of this kind, would it not also be natural to find it a work entirely imitative, in the same style of thought as the Dionysian writings, but lacking their power and originality?
Frothingham, Bar Sudaili. 6
8C2
Now we find nothing of all lliis in the Book of Hiero-theos; not only is the title different, and does it treat necessarily of a different order of ideas â the ontological and cosmological â but there is no sign of the passages quoted by Dionysios. Even the name of Dionysios is not mentioned, though the work seems to be dedicated to him: he is only referred to as //my sonquot; or//my friendquot;\'There is throughout no trace of any attempt to connect itself with the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. Besides this, what has already been noted regarding the dilference in intellectual standpoint, style and form of thought is sulBcient, I think, to preclude the idea of imitation: for it is clear that the relation in which the two stand to each other as presenting, the one, sentimental and analogical forms, and the other, intellectual and logical forms of the same ideas, gives, according to the natural development of schools, the priority to Hierotheos.
In this relation , reference must be made to a very sagacious conjecture made by Dorner, which is all the more remarkable because he had such meagre materials at hand on which to base it. He says: \'/Uierotheus was professedly the teacher of Dionysios; and under the name of Hierolheus Barsudaili wrote the work in which he taught the transition of all things into the divine nature. Such is the account given by Barhebraeus. Among the Monophysites the writings of the Areopagite were much used, translated and commentated. It is possible that Barsudaili\'s fiction, â a fiction to which he may have been led by the Origenism which prevailed in many of the monasteries, and which formed a bridge to Neo-Platonism, â may have yiven rise to the spread of Neo-Plalonism in a Church form, under the name
1) S. Paul is spoken of by name as bis master.
83
of the holy disciple of Hie rot hensquot; In tins passage Dornei-recognizes the true relation between the two writers, and this position of his is now amply confirmed. Gfrörer also in his Church History draws similar conclusions in his remarks on the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. Who was Pseudo-Diony-sios? In his opinion a follower ol Proklos, and by birth a Syrian. This latter position he attempts to prove by the relations between Dionysios and Hierotheos.
Taking then for granted the priority of Hierotheos, is it not singular that Dionysios should not have mentioned this most important work of his master? As we have already explained, this silence was necessary to the preservation ol the secret character of the book.
A comparison ol\' dates does not throw any difficulties in the way of the priority of Hierotheos. Bar Sudaili we know to have flourished during the last decade of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth, while the first signs of the appearance of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings occur probably during Ihe second decade of the sixth century at the earliest, the first certain date being that ol the Council of 532â33. That they were already known before this date of 532 seems certain , and Sergios\' Syriac version was probably slightly anterior.
1) Dorner, J. A., History of development of the doctrine of the Person of Christ. Edinb. 1861. D. II. v. I. p. 422â23.
84
XL
COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF 1IIER0THE0S.
To return to Hie Syrian writers who have treated this book in extenso, we find still remaining to us two works ol importance: the first is the commentary of Theodosios of Antioch, and the second is an abridgment of the work by Gregory Bar Ebraia. Ihese two are of very unequal value, lor the latter is more an imitation than a work of any original merit.
The physician Romanos, on becoming Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch in 887, look the name of Theodosios : his two great works seem to have been his commentary on Hiero-theos and a treatise on medicine 1). He must have been an enthusiastic follower ol the mystico-pantheistic school, as also his friend Lazaros of Kyros at whose request he undertook and to whom lie dedicated Ins work. The letter which he addresses to Lazaros at the beginning of his commentary would be of great interest: unfortunately the first sheets o( the MS. are so defaced that but a small portion of it can be satisfactorily deciphered. In it he recounts bow both he
1
H. Zotenberg, Les sentences symboliques de Théoclose, patriarche d\'Antioche. Paris 1877, p. 8â9.
85
and his friends desired to proci.re a copy of the Book ot Hierotheos in order that it should become theii leader or; the way of salvation. It is a significant fact that the highest dignitaries of the Syrian Church should adopt as their esoteric Bible, so to speak, as a divine revelation, a work like this. A few passages from this letter will be given in a note, to illustrate what has just been said and to show the reasons which led Theodosios to undertake his commentary \').
1) iivoasncv . rdr^.Tn ......
èurc* rus. CUis2CzA rdlrï\' . ooor^-Ur^ rr^T.Trn
rillen ri\'-lsAa.A ,cti_A ooAgt;c\\-i\\^ ^S3
K^orillo rCC\\ . rrtcrArt\'cv
. \\ ^ rdjcni onAv »M,
è\\ocn rd^M r^cAx^r: AKb cdAaovA^
èvirj^. rtLir? \\ lt;\\rlt; . r0.air73.T ,cna\\ij3i ^caisj
rejcn ^sn v^v \\ : cal.^ jj-jnr. r^icncuo rdXriquot; . ax.èv.rC\'
K\'Ha-ifc.l.T ,m . èuriquot; .ax» KLraii r^ix^cv.vai v^rCquot;
rd\'Slxwi rï\'Aliicv.a.T vryïK\'l A!^=no nilArC\' : rdx-V-i^a r^S «X»
V\\C\\.TV^ ^ia.icx rCjJLwoi nülcn ptfifloioèA TlikJl ^A^-
V â *â nn nili.en . Aénri\' gt;_X Küaijji rdi^cn . Te-i*gt;AvJsq
r-Cirlt;r gt;1^- rClsxi.jji.1 r^ZXL*.rlt;^ . gt;A Klij.i
. Ar^èui.i gt;CT3 . rlt;lai.3.MO KlJrel^ T»^ Kilden . .a.florï\'JSiA Tt_lrlt;\' Kla^. ocriâlK\'
vyK* . -v-i calii T~gt; ^ 1 K\'cnXri\'.T rdflocvsiJ £73 . rctnXri\'.t
. Kil Kll-OO To.-v-SOi K\'iiSOK\'.l ,03
86
Immediately following\' the letter is a long introduction bv Theodosios, in which he summarizes the book, explains his view of it, and enters into an elaborate and interesting- interpretation of all the mystical and philosophical terms used in the text â interpretations which are valuable not only for the understanding of the work, but often also philolo-gically.
I he commentary of Theodosios is very detailed, and occupies about three-quarters of the 4.to volume of 134 pages. He is very caretul to define and explain all the expressions used, and otten does so in a very mystical and fanciful manner. In his opinion, the most abstruse doctrines in the book are veiled under words which would suffice to hide them from the uninitiated, but to //pure mindsquot; //be easy of interpretation.quot;
rC-iK\' Qoasa . Avail sA èuri\'i rïlsa oen A èuKquot; reli
ntdre\' . rdw cm Artf\' ^Actitd
â¢K\'ixcv.üa.iCO.i rsèvia gt;ïrj A\\c\\.\\.t rlt;ljco rflsAxik.i
rdx-cn rïlicn . .=ib\\s.b\\rlt; ^LrV
rlt;lJen v^i.Tncv.2w\\ rc\'ioo .....x.c\\
rc\'.ioo cri= rc\'tnc\'ï aX . jxxSkri\' rcLx,.vo
ir\'.Tcn b\\(X-\\ iAgt;o_\\.i» rrLn.2i._0D^ KLsi.^rc\' . rCLirC
rlt;llrc\' .... «the holy and mj\'stical doctrine, hidden in alle
gories, of the blessed Hierotheos. [ will endeavor to interpret to you, as yon in the goodness of your heart have asked , this holy and divine teaching. For the labors and fatigue in searching after this book never discouraged you, neither were you stopped by the lack of it, nor by the pains you were obliged to take to remove the veil from off the words of the Teacher. I do not therefore wish to defraud you of this profit. Even if it is a laborious work, yet will we derive from it a most glorious illumination.» etc. etc.
87
Besides the genopal introduction , each one ot the five books is preceded by a particular one. To the text of the chapters the commentary is attached in two different ways in different parts of the MS.: either the whole chapter of the text is first given, and then repeated in short sections, each with a separate commentary; or else, in order to avoid repetition, the latter system alone is used without first giving the whole text. As a scientific, thorough and systematic work, this commentary is remarkable, and gives a favorable idea of the possibilities of Syrian learning.
There is nothing in any part of Theodosios\' writings to indicate that he did not believe implicitly in the authorship of a genuine first-century Hiorotheos: we will soon have to refer to the probable sincerity of this belief.
Bar cEbraia also interested himself in the Book of Hiero-theos, and sent emissaries throughout the East to procure a copy: he finally obtained one, which, strange to say, is the identical copy now preserved in the British Museum ^ , and that to which we are indebted for our knowledge of the work. From this MS. he drew up a compendium, to which he added a running commentary, derived principally from that of Theodosios. He took however great liberties with the text, and showed the true unscrupulousness of an Eastern in distorting it for the purpose of softening its anti-christian tone and hiding its real character 2). The worst part of the process to which he submitted the book was the entire change he made in the order of the chapters, placing near
1) See the note on the last page of the MS., where the fact is noticed and an account of the search is given. Cf. Wrights Oat. vol. Ill, supplem.
2) Ms. copies of this work exist in Paris (Bib. Nat. Fonds Syr. 227), in Oxford, and in the British Museum (Syr. MS. 850; Wright, Cat. p. 893 and Add. 1017).
88
each other those which belonged to the beginning and end, and uniting in one others which had not the slightest relation. As we have already remarked that, in the Book of Hierotheos, all the parts are mutually dependent, it may well be imagined that the compendium ol\' Bar cEbraia, being made in this manner, is devoid of all order and rational sense, and gives no idea of the scope of the original. The excuse he gives in his introduction is, that he found the primitive order to have been inverted and the text corrupted by the translator!
1) rdlnv ori\'.v-.i
(X\'CQâr^-Syi i *Sagt;I Tlt;L3Ax_^..rj re\'vM ~ni=3 . K\'tiSOIO rclni Kl=gt;è\\^ cn^v-M . ajor^èxrc\'irS\' ⢠ftlVAao .cnoreil^iiXo jooo-i^lpclfl^ rdipCquot;
cni^a a._\\ rc\'icno . gt;coö.\'»i^èva -a.vsiA è^cv^cna
caVraa^ è\\^l=3 . rdilniso rc\'Arc\' . reLlsèx^zi
gt;3.T_SJ rna.ï.CV,i3 rcfaooo . pg\'i.irtcyi \\ . yn . orA rc\'èx^o.Tn Tjj .Tjj Vi .m\\n
.Tii O . VyjrCb . ctA jjlZu.I
gt;cT30.\\=a\\ rc\'A^re\'a . jcnaLsrA r\\\\n\\=gt; rci\\ rc\'ico
. TaT-ïn J.l^floorc\' OK* r^-A rdixisaso.i
. ArCo ^-.10 T-^ vyriquot; . K\'ï.i^n rd-Lü èvJLrs ^ rc\' rdArï\'
^ocaiSTS lt;jj.vvgt;orlt;\'. .TC\\.jj.\\.n ^.AcrA KÃai.i.i quot;n.vwo â a^-SO rlt;laÃ.flaao rlt;rlt;,\\°\\n v^.rlt;b . Klliè^CU jOOoAupC\'.t
rdïfla.t â n.vrao rel^o.ioT^üore\'.i vynï\'cv . niir^caw
carj rc\'ocn
jaaèx ;ââ¢gt; quot;nol tii-a . ^ucn_^_ ^jcnA.i rï\'èv^Lijjtsa rcdxiio.in
89
It is a singular circumstance that Bar cEbraia, who, as we have seen, states emphatically in other places that Bar Sudaili was the real author, does not mention or even insinuate the fact in this compendium or in his introduction to it, but on the contrary speaks of the work as genuine.
It is perhaps possible that his inimical position to the Book of Hierotheos dated from an earlier period, when as yet he had not laid eyes on it and found il so much to his taste. If this were so, he had obvious reasons for not laying any stress on its authorship by the anathematized Bar Sudaili. This raises, however, another important question; did Theo-dosios know that Bar Sudaili was the author, or even that the work was attributed to him? 1 do not consider his complete silence on the question, and his open acceptance of the authenticity, to be a sound proof of his good faith in considering the work as that of a first-century Hierotheos.
. on^cviva.-vsa A .s.. rdicn (-quot;Ãaèv-^.T reLnA rn lt;\\ \\
ac* cnrtiOi- pa »Know, my spiritual brother, that
having for a long time studied and considered the Book of the illustrious , wise and learned Hierotheos, I have found it to be a great and wonderful book; but I perceived that its books and chapters were confused , lengthened and corrupted, as also were some of its sentences, and that this had been done not by the above-mentioned writer but by the translator. I therefore desired to translate it from Greek into Syriac, and decided also to put (its chapters) in order, and to arrange each one in the place it ought to occupy and to which, in our judgment and opinion, it was suited. In doing this, however, we have not corrupted the words of the learned (author) nor the words of the commentator, not having changed or added any thing of our own except only a few words, such as .1^ and and and other similar ones.
Still we have removed some things of small importance, as well as some perverted chapters and sections; and things like the theory of astrology, although there were perverse sentences in many places which agreed with it. We have arranged the chapters of this book according to the ceconomy of the life of Our Lord, beginning with his baptism,quot; etc. etc.
90
We have seen it to be a fact well known in the Syrian literary and religious world of that period, that the Book was attributed to Stephen. Now of this fact such a man as Theodosios could not have been ignorant when it was well known to Kyriakos and John of Dara. But it would have been quite natural for him to repudiate and conceal such knowledge, for even at that time it would have been regarded as a very questionable step for the leaders of the Church to take, as their spiritual guide, an openly-reprobated pantheist.
91
XII.
SUMMARY OF THE BOOK OF HIEROTHEOS ON THE HIDDEN MYSTERIES OF THE DIVINITY.
It would not be possible within the limits of a few pages to give a satisfactory summary of a work written in such a condensed style, and full of so many unusual, and to us strange, ideas: still we will endeavor to give, as lar as possible, a correct idea of the work, using, if not the exact wording of the author, a very similar language. We have purposely avoided attempting a critical analysis, or a comparison with earlier writings which contain similar doctrines; all this can be done only when we publish the text itself.
The full title of the work is not given on the first sheet of the MS., but appears from the introductory commentary to be \'⢠coOniamp;\'V.K\' rdS-.T-Dn
. rctrArC èvksn. The Book of the holy Hie.rotheos on the hidden mysteries of the Divinity (lit. of the house of God). It is divided into five books, each of which contains a number of chapters. It is a real theological epic, in which the mystical scenes through which the soul passes in its ascent towards the One are developed in a vivid manner, as if the writer saw //heaven open and the angels of God ascending
9-
and descending- upon the Son of manquot;. The writer himself professes to have more than once attained to the highest point of mystic union with the Arch-Good.
To describe the contents in a few words: at the beginning we find the statement regarding absolute existence, and the emanation from primordial essence of the spiritual and material universes: then comes, what occupies almost the entire work, the experience of the mind in search of perfection during this life. Finally comes the description of the various phases of existence as the mind rises into complete union with and ultimate absorption into the primitive essence. The key-note to the experience of the mind is its absolute identification with Christ; but the Son finally resigns the kingdom unto the Father, and all distinct existence comes to an end, being lost in the chaos of the Good.
BOOK FIRST.
Every intelligent nature is determined, knonjn and comprehended by the essence which is above il\\ and determines, knows and comprehends the essence which is below it; but to the pure mind alone belonys the vision above and beloiu \'). Not even to the intelligence of angels are the wonderful mysteries of pure and holy minds revealed.
1) In Hierotlieos the Arch-Good^CVXai) is the first, indefinite and all-embracing principle. The Universal Essence rdnooK\') , the Unity, or the Neo-Platonic One, is second in order of emanation: it contains within itself the principles of distinction (see p. 95), and does not appear to be different from what is termed the first fall out of the Good.
08
The Good, which we glorify, is the universal constituting, providing, and sustaining power of the Universe; from which all distinct existences came to be through separation, b?/ which their being is sustained, and to which they constantly desire to return.
Distinctions were established from the Universal Essence in this wise. The Good being uniform could not produce anything not uniform: therefore, when the fall from the Good took place, distinct orders of existence did not immediately come into being, for uniformity cannot produce distinction: on the contrary, distinction conies from the distinct orders of the Divine Nature, from all the distinct and unequal natures of man, and of the animals that crawl upon the earth, and of birds and of beasts and of fishes, and also of the distinct beings that are under the earth, and those which sujfer mani/ torments in hell1). Unto all these the measure of their descent from the Good determines the extent of their fall2). When the fall from the Good happened to all things at once, a quiet and silence extended itself over all: they were then like that which is not1): perhaps they possessed
1) K\'-Jt.\'i-a r£.in gt;cnoèv.ilt;\'.i
rdAa ^ocrA^ . rCtrAr^
p^cÃm.IO rdxirï\'.T rC_.öx-r^èxrdjL^oo .=joA\\ oaïooorc\'so . r^jcu.icv
â¢; K\'AVSA ^iL.rC\'.io . è\\igt;èA.-io
2) rc\'èxiicvx.\'sa ^ocn_\\ K^vAcX-Si-^
1
Compare, with this idea of the emanation of matter and evil from God, the same idea as expressed in the Zohar: this is one of the strongest coincidences which can be traced, and one of the clearest traces of
94-
a confused sense of their place (1). And 1 openly say, with entire frankness, that they were Tohu and Bohu1).
After innumerable ages had passed, the Good was moved to pour forth its love, and to brood over these unconscious minds, in order that they should acquire the /notion of life and consciousness; then there was horn in them a new heart and a new spirit to know ijood and evil2)-, that is. it (the Good) endowed them with free-will, and then established the position of each essence according to the measure ol its love. It also made Christ head and ruler over them , and this took place when the mind received reason 3). To some
Kabbalism in Hierotheoa. According to the Zohar, the En-Soph or ancient of ancients, before it had put on a form , â before the manifestation of the Sephirotli, â produced formless worlds which were emitted from it like sparks. These could not subsist but fell, because the Adam Kadmon (as individualizing the 10 Sephiroth), which was to mediate between the creation and the En-Soph, had not yet been created. These worlds fell and were little above nothing, representing passive existence and the feminine principle, where all is resistance and inertia, as in matter (Tohu and Bohu). When the universal form of man (Adam Kadmon the mediator) was established, these ancient fallen worlds furnished the material element in the existing created universe (see Franck, La Kabbale, pp. 20G, 207 and passim). This resistant passive principle is individualized in Hierotheos by the unredeemable and irrational insensible essence (see page 104).
1) ^Ocn \\ quot;A .1 t
Qa.i.-Sk ^ocrA^ AS. rCLn^V-l-Cv rlt;Av_^xijj rC^oAi. .
: ,crJoèwrlt;\' r^A.i To.TSal . Kbcn
Kloocoi -I pdJr^ TSarCfcv . , i\\ n (?) ^C\\cnèu_3S
. ooon ^^oorx.èv.rï\' cncvno otjoAm .
2) ^.Ticn : r^LjLui rlt;Ls^o\\
: ti-Ir\\ K\'èx.Ti» rduaia rC^.-VM rilal - Ooaa
3) ^ocn\\A^ re\'.TQ.n.ao Klx.i K*jjuXStA CTA . pdiooo Aa.n ca=).T .-octj rdiavs ,oco ^oo.T ....
95
minds, however, was lefl by the Good Iheir unconscious and irrational essence (as the powers of evil) , â â⢠but even they will eventually be redeemed. One essence, also, immediately on receiving consciousness began to oppose itself to the Good, and unto it were assigned the places under the earth.
The Universal Essence (from which all minds were directly separated) is called universal, as it existed after separation from the Good, and before this ordered distinction : for to it came all that which was separated from the Good, and from it came forth every nature which appears separately and distinctly. For all minds were then confusedly mingled in it, without distinction and without consciousness; and, when they acquired the consciousness of distinction, they came forth from it1). Those hoivever ivliich remained within the limits of this essence acquired a superior consciousness; and to them docs it pertain to reveal to divine minds, when they [the minds) reach them 2), the glorious and holy doctrines of the divine mysteries 3).
1
The same idea seems to be expressed by Pseudo-Dionysios (Div. Names V, h) when he says that God, »pre-possessiDg and super-posses-»sing the anteriority and preeminence of being, caused the universal ^essence (to sïvxi irxv) to pre-exist; and from the universal essence itself »caused being, of whatever kind it be, to existquot;. Dionysios, by saying that the universal essence pre-existed, means that it came into being before all distinct and particular existence. Cf. Div. N. XI, 6. In this simple presentation of the same ideas is exhibited, better than by any comment, the radical difference between the thought of the seer Hierotheos and the philosopher Dionysios.
2
That is, during the ascent of the minds towards the Good.
3
L. I, ch. 8. criièuri\' gt;lt;TJl
. rc*\\ c\\cn Klix-ioA quot;nxno ; rï\'ixa.^ iè\\=j
crA
^Xgt;cn Vk . èuK\'jt.iacv KlXiA A.^
(.AAü cru rdlöco ^acnVik ; rClA.lo ^ï.icx_^ reli.T
96
As lo the number of celestial essences, they are innumerable; but may be distinguished, as S. Paul says, into nine orders, each with three divisions, and again each of these containing nine distinctions. All have received different offices; some are sanctifiers, some helpers, some guides. Each one illuminates and influences the essence below it, but has no knowledge of the one above it.
BOOK SECOND.
What is the glory by which we must glorify [the Good], natural or supernatural? \'To me it seems right to speak without words, and lo understand without knowledge, that which is above words and knowledge: this I apprehend to he nothing but the mysterious silence and mystical quiet which destroys consciousness and dissolves forms. Seek therefore , silently and mystically , that perfect and primitive union with the essential Arch-Good1).
1
: iionelaA K\'èA.ta reAs.i rfink-sazn A
klX , gt;3L2wS r^=n even . ^..raA
. K\'xr^ï.T r^Aï-O : Av.rdHre\'icx èv.rlt;li\\.ï- .rtóii.a^ore\'
rCAxcui^ rcèxiïi\'io rc\'èxi-i-sa^ »00
97
Motion and purification are the acts by which we gloiify the Arch-Good. The first motion, as lias been said, was a descendent one, out of Nature1): but there are many motions, some ascendent, and others descendent.
Natural motion belongs to the fully developed condition of those who have not yet received the meat of knowledge but are still fed on milk. Post-natural motion is found in those who (while in a natural condition) desire to live in an ordered marmer, and comprises many divisions, like the angelic and super-angelic. Extra-natural motion appertains to those who have a tendency towards evil in the natural sphere, and are then called sinners, and afterwards beasts and animals. Super-natural motion is that which is above the post-natural: instead ol having many divisions and degrees and being governed by forms (as the latter is), it is a still and silent perturbation, a proceeding without a way, and a knowledge raised above forms; still it desires because it is not confusedly mingled. Ultra-natural motion is beyond the extra-natural, for it belongs to demons and to those minds which have completely left the whole nature of the Good and acquired a certain union with the Prince (of Darkness) 2).
There exist in the space between earth and heaven three
1) For the explanation of this we must call attention to the absolute identification in Hierotheos of nature , i. e. universal nature, with the arch-good (r^amp;O.ri^ ^ax.i) or agatharchy [xyxictpx\'*), the first principle, which in the beginning contained all things undistinguished within itself.
2) Of these six motions, three are vital and three destructive: the former are, in order of progression, the natural, post-natural, and supernatural (compare with the 7r£pixólt;7[j.ios and of Dionysios); the latter are, the original motion out of the Good, the extra-natural and the ultra-natural.
Frothingham, Bar Siulaili. 7
98
essences of demons, each of which has received its place according to the measure of its departure from the Good. The lower is darker than the upper, and wages a fiercer war against minds during their ascendent motion. While the mind possesses natural motion, it is combated bj the first of these essences; when post-natural, by the two lower: and when it ascends (supernaturally), it is overwhelmed by all of them, for they desire to make it like unto themselves.
Ascent of the mind.
Now the end of the labor of minds is this glorious ascent, for God does not desire that minds should fall, and wishes to bring them back unto himself. Those who desire to rise (unto the Father) must unite the Good-Nature which is in them with its essence, and remove from themselves all traces of the opposing principle. To do this, they must purify their soul and body, that their garments may be clean; otherwise they will fall in the ascent. When the mind ascends , the body is as if dead, and the soul is absorbed in the mind, which is carried up and becomes oblivious of everything on earth. All the essences of demons gather together to oppose it; hut it vanquishes them, and the Lord raises it with the hand of his goodness up to the firmament, and the angelic hosts cry out: Lift up your heads, 0 ye, gates, and the king of glory shall enter1).
When the mind is made worthy to ascend above the firmament, which is the middle wall of separation, it is like
1
Psalm XXIV, 7.
99
a new-born child which passes from darkness nvlo light-During tho labor of its ascent the mind is strengthened by its own natural desire for absorption, and by the aid it receives from the various essences through which it passes, and which communicate successively unto it the mysteries of their knowledge. As the mind rises, it becomes the purifier and sanctifier of the essences below it, and partakes, with those through which it passes, of the sacrament of the Eucharist, by which it communicates unto them the perfection of its intelligence and receives from them the mysteries of their order. These essences, recognizing in it the supremo nature of the Good, assemble also to otfer it adoration. Having passed the multitude of heavens, the mind arrives in the place called distinction, which is the boundary separating the upper world from our own. here does it rest from its labors. Then proceeding on its way, it reaches the holy place of the Cross: here it understands that it is to endure its passion and suffer crucifixion, in the same manner that Christ suffered; for unless the mind undergoes all that Christ suffered, it cannot be perfected. Then is the mind crucified in the centre by the angels, who, from being its worshippers, are turned into its haters: while the soul and body, being separated from it, are crucified, the former on its right and the latter on its lelt. Then is sin vanquished and destroyed. This is to be understood figuratively and symbolically.
The sufferings oi the cross may have to be endured more than once, nay ten or even twenty times; as many as there are grades separating the mind from the primary essence. For all minds do not descend into bodies from one essence alone, but from many1): these essences are more or less
1
This is strongly Origenistic.
100
perfect according lo tlieir descent from the Good. \'1 hus those minds which descended from the essence of the Father need but one purification by the cross; those which descended from that of the Son need two, and from the Holy Spirit three; and thus through the entire legion of essences. Minds come into the body also from the essence of demons.
When all is consummated, the mind is laid in the sepulchre to rest there for three days.
BOOK THIRD.
On the third day the mind rises and reunites unto itself its purified soul and body, which in this new, unchangeable, and immortal life are subjected unto it, having been in the former life its subjectors. Although by this experience the mind has become greatly purified, yet, as its sins have been many, it must undergo many purifications. The Good-principle in it has a still greater desire to unite itself unto its essence, and by it becomes transfigured before the eyes of the angels. Now does it acquire the motion ol union1). Nevertheless the root of evil and opposition has not yet been eradicated from it, but, gathering its forces, begins to re-appear , and grows up into an immense tree , whose wide-spreading branches cast darkness over divine minds and shade them from the perfect light of the Good. In the long and terrible combat which follows, the mind many times cuts down and destroys the branches of the tree, but it ever shoots anew with equal strength from the undestroyed root. Finally by
1
That is of identification with Christ.
101
divine illumination the mind sees that it must descend to the lowest regions, where the roots of the tree ol\' evil are planted, and eradicate them. Then begins for the mind a sorrowful return , through the regions by which it had ascended, down below the earth. There it combats with the fierce demons of the North, South, East and West, and, finallvjis vanquished and slain by them. Immediately however Christ, the great mind, is revealed, opens the gates of Sche\'ol, and descending brings to life and raises up the mind from the infernal regions. It again swiftly and peacefully makes its second ascent through the regions which it formerly traversed. It is then made worthy of the spiritual baptism of the Spirit and of fire, without which there is no life. After this there is no obstacle to the mind being in everything not merely like unto but identical with Christ^ and it receives the adoration of all the heavenly hosts, for it now obtains the power of divine high-priesthood, and is made worthy of union with the Cood. The mind is now no longer mind, but is the Son, who doeth all according to his will, is judge of all, creates and makes alive, orders and constitutes. Christ is no longer adored, but minds, for Christ is nothing hul the mind purified, which can say: all power is given unto mc in Heaven and in earth and, there is no God beside me 2). For Christ is the Lord of those who are asleep, and not of those who are awakened3).
1) Matthew XXVIlt , 18. 2) Isaiah XLV , 5 etc.
3) Kliocn r^ArC . rC* wiTra gt;cnc\\èv.rc\' quot;p Xzi KlA
^lcvi. âA .rDCQjèxr^.T : i_i_c\\cn
y.\\.za y-i \\ caAr^ AviA.to . . .
KLMLLraa _C\\CTA è\\A \\rCA\\cv.iTijAi ....
. rdïii ,cnaè\\irlt;\' rdjjtxrsai
102
Then the miad, which is now Christ, communicates unlo the angelic hosts, in the holy of holies, the spiritual Eucharist, of which the terrestrial is but the type and faint shadow. After this it rises again unto the place where there is no longer vision, lo be united unto the tree ol life, unlo the Universal Essence.
BOOK FOURTH.
The Universal Essence has been previously defined, but only partially; in its essence, not in its operations. It is contemplated by the mind in mystery and silence, and the latter receives from it complete love and union. It also imparts unlo the mind three mysterious and unspeakable
doctrines:
that of the distinction of minds;
that of the coming of the mind into the body; and
what becomes of the nature of all things.
In all this is the mind instructed by the High-Priest of the Universal Essence, who lays upon it the solemn injunction of silence. Leaving him, the mind continues its ascent accompanied by all the essences perfected and sanctified by it. For all minds which are perfected must pass through all the stations and receive all the forms which are below the Good, and through which they had fallen. The mind has now reached Paradise, where Adani by tli£ flvst distinction suffered the foil, and it is shown by the watch the way to the Tree of Life, unto which it desires to unite itself, for this would be the consummation of visions and the perfection of mysteries. But now the Adversary, Satan, knowing
103
ils desire, changes himself into Hie semblance of Hie Tree of Life, and is revealed as the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, silling as God in the temple of God1] and saying: J am the bread which came down from heaven; rvhoso eateth of me shall live for ever \'1). The mind therefore, being deceived, hastens to unite itself unto this evil essence, which appears unto it as the Tree of Life. Then is Christ, the great mind, revealed, to take vengeance on this deceptive nature: he stamps it to the ground and burns it with fire, having separated from it the Good-nature of the mind. Finally the mind, led by Christ, approaches unto and unites itself with the Tree ot Life and possesses quiet and rest. Men say that the Tree of Lite is Christ, but I say I hat it is above him.
When the mind desires to pass this place, it is told; remain in thy place. It then receives a mystic sword, with which to exterminate the demons, the enemies of the Lord, by descending to the places under the earth; for the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son2). It again takes a downward course, and this time with joy, for it knows that the adversative nature cannot, as at first, oppose it. The divine mind enters the gates of She\'ol, and all the essences of demons gather themselves
1
II ïhessal. II, 3.
2
John V , 22.
104
together to combat against it; but they are overthrown and destroyed, and the minds suffering torments are delivered, enlightened and forgiven. The infernal regions also are illuminated and purified , so that they are no whit less bright than the celestial regions. Now has the mind cast out from itseK the whole of the adversative nature: it wishes also to destroy the head of opposition, and sees that it is what had appeared to il as the Tree ot Lite, and so cuts it down. All the minds which had boen slaves to perdition now desire to be united to the Divine Mind and saved; but, as is meet for the Son, it orders judgment and adjudges torments to sinners and demons, and descends further to the place of the Prince of darkness, and finally to the Sun and the Moon : this infernal sun is a gift oi the Good, in order that the rational beings in this place should not perish. When the mind has passed She3ol and the lowest abyss, it reaches the place where there is no longer vision. Still lower, in the place below all places, are the roots of evil, which it is moved to destroy. Now when it is said that the mind destroys demons, it is meant that it destroys them in itself and not in their essence; and when it destroys these roots, it means that it will be united unto the Good alone.
After the mind has thus decreed judgment in Gehenna, it desires to see the Insensible Essence, which is the rebellious essence. This does not possess any name that is named on the earth or under the earth, neither does it possess anything of nature1): those who are imprisoned in it cannot obtain resurrection or life. It is irrational, unconscious, lifeless, and insensible, and has received the name of Not-being. In the beginning it bore no fruits, and, after being proved.
1
i. e. of the Good: cf. p. 07 n. 1
105
it was condemned and fell (Vom being mind , first to being man, then animal, beast, demon, devil, and finally became insensible and contumacious, having entirely left its Good and its Nature. Although the mind stretches out its hand unto it, yet does it not submit.
All is now fulfilled in the places under the earth: the mind, as it begins its ascent, sees all those whom it has slain lying before it, and is moved with great desire to become the Father, to raise them all from the dead, and to have mercy upon them. Then will it extend its goodness unto all, both good and evil, and make them all like itself. Then there comes a wonderful voice before the resurrection crying: Come from the four winds, 0 breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live All the minds which descended from Essence are raised and approach the Divine Mind, which says unto them: Ye are my brethren: for truly are ye bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh 1); and they are united unto it in order that they may ascend with it.
When the Divine Mind has passed all this, it descends below all essences and sees a. luminous essence whose divine light is formless-, it marvels greatly that this is the same essence which it had seen on high. Now does it comprehend the true theory of Essence, â that it fills the whole universe , â and cries: If I ascend up into heaven, thou art thei\'e, and if I descend to hell, there also art thou. And if 1 raise the wings of my understanding like those of the eagle, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me\'2).
1
Genesis II, 23.
2
Psalm CXXXIX,8 â10.
lOG
The mind approaches and unites itself unto this luminous essence, and looks above and below, the length and the breadth, and encloses in itself everything. It will now no longer ascend or descend, for it is all-containing1).
The mind has now left the name of Christ, for it has passed distinction, reason, and word, and it will no longer be said: Father glorify thy Son that thy Son also may glorify theequot;), for all distinction of the glorifier and the glorified has passed away. Love also (the Spirit) is still a sign of distinction, for it implies a person loving and one loved; â this also do perfect minds pass beyond, for they go beyond every name that is named.
For when distinction2) arose, all perfect and holy minds
1
This is the Ultima Tlmle of Pantheistic absorption. What follows is â¢not posterior in time, but simply contemplates the same result from a different standpoint.
2
We give as a specimen the entire 21st chapter of the fourth book, entitled rlt;l=CU» » On lovequot;, from which the passage here quoted is taken. ^LVgt;rlt;LX.1CX rlt;l-3CVâm gt;030^»*^ Aquot;73.10 As.
rdacx-u gt;cnoè,urlt;\' . rcllkquot; rï\'a.-msn rïllrc\' gt;,» t m .3oA\\
rïlovüo ^v.r^aArï\' . K\'ivt.ivoo
^A.K\'A K\'jrc\' . -»C\\CTI\\ .
rï\'co . rcamp;cu.-u» .3.^ ^i.rLuj.1.1 . rilJK\' rcll^co.T
rd\\ . pdix-io^.i K\'èiK\' pdriCV.jj.1 ca.\'sai.o
r_5a K\'AK\' . rv-jj r«l=cuj
T3M.33 rd-Ut-^CV^.I ï t-2\'3 . .aw*j3 CT1_\\.1 OOP ^73C\\
èucvjj^K\' .rlt;bCV.M.T rcljco niL\'Si-X. «cooèv.K\'
Oen rc\'^M-c\' rïLrjO-*) ocp .aK\'.T . 31_=j
107
ivere both glorified and glorifiers: glorified by men and an-
rïLljK\'.i . pcLJOmAa K\'V-MJ .
rc^cu.iiJi oen ntout. x).l\\ O^oca\\ rsisii.
AMPS\' . rdrjCUji cruJa^ )cnc\\è\\jirc\'i (.X )Qjj»A\\èu
K\'èvsa.jj\'^Ao rclAKquot; .Kbcn^ rlt;l=cv.4j *-\'£ ICUjla rClA gt;i.^3 ^ rc\'tK\'irj . va^- rc\'^a.i.vvAci . jaa.-ai.
jirj ^,1 rdipt\' . KfcxcrasA K^CUauO K\'^cn.wio rdacxu \\s\\ airs AK* . rclJrï\' iva-tSO K^VSlui K\'naiA rdAa
tujil rtll^rCA rï^\\rlt;\' . rlt;Lirlt; rC\'ViJ rCLii.io.2il quot;nTiO
. ~a_v»i^.f3l rdljrcAo ^».1 iA^o ^30 . To-wi rcfacal rlt;liijjrlt;Al kA ^.^jsa . Tawièu ocp ^rc\' KLii-ure\' quot;px^n ^.-zn . o.ioè\\ï.rlt;\' K\'^oiisaï^i jAjpï\' KLiöon . ore\'
X.JTâ^O r^ioèvsoi ixl.\'Saï. ^ocni.fa rd-aA ^imi.
. pdsm. A.^ Klau, rcAi Al^SO ^.ocno . quot;nn^ rc\'cv.w.sao rtixotsm rlt;saï.O r^cn . p3 KA.TO
Kli-.rVio . jji_Jt_so.t fCso ocin.T . gt;cooè\\irC\' ti.t-tn K\'èirc\' rrlA . rcl\\M.rr?3^Vg30 rducvt^a T-«-^ ^A^n r_S0 . AxX-ïoicai rcA.i )A\\_sor«\' ^rc\' pairs\' . rcArc\' rv_igt; rehen rCl.-ra._i_ AKquot; ^.A gt;cn rcLn.l_lrlt;\' . rdaA^ Ti ^ rdjocn
gt;cnoi\\_.rlt;\' rc\'i.-ia.l r«l=jn^.t Tx^ Oca_jrC\' . ji3.x»l\\ rd^xiXSlS . r^i-a jCnoiurC\' rd^rc\'.t .3oè\\ K\'ijO : Klrarc\' rd.lrC\' . crus»3è\\ï.t33 K\'ia.T Cicno rïsr? . quot;iA^n ^ocra^èuK\' ; Tiquot;i2k AÃ^.50 r^Al . rdJK\' ^..T-s rcliocn^
^.t-SO (.-»1 . ,cnoè\\irlt;\' rlt;\'\'i_= Kl^irC\' rCllgt;n^O
. sxï.b\\xï KlAï-io,^ rcA.ll jAv^OK\' . rc^oiia.t nC\'criSSCU. r^JOCD
108
gels and by the superior and inferior essences, and (glorifying the Good alone which was above them. Now when distinction is removed, they are glorified and arc no longer glorifiers; for whom should they glorify, as the Good is in them and they in it? granting it correct to use the expressions in it and in them, for one is the nature and one the person of them and of it] granting it correct to use the terms of them and of it. Neither will they any longer be named heirs, for distinction is blotted out from them, and when there is no distinction, who can inherit from another 1 Come now, therefore, and let us glorify with unutterable glory the mind luhich no longer glorifies but is glorified.
Neither does the mind receive permanently the name of
, cv,_i_\'5gt;3 : rïlyvnOiivsa ,cooAurlt;\'
. nardrn Kil rCco.l
nrrA -v r^jöco
^cvicn ooiflooK\'
. rlt;ll_ï.icv.2k r^Ltzj. ^pcnlio .TCU*i=
. nilvjxiiiso re\'Ao ^ocnjAv.^
,03 j3.i\\ ^ rc\' . con ^coorm ^ocas ri\'cn.T .
rlt;Li.j.^ A.^-n oqn . V^ri\'JSiA ^acanc* coal
ctAj.to ^_acnLgt;.T.l J3.T\\ . ctAj^C\\ ^ OctAj.i tri=73CU.ri .t-uCv
iVr^t \\\\^m r^Ao .vsorc\'-ïTA
cvisA cxitn .â Klvi-icv^ è\\A^ ,.11 . ndii-icvA ^_ocai^n cri\\ röocai . ,a3CVijjLS*J rCAxiwi rC\'Al rC\'.jj.=jO.I=) ^..V» . ^\\T-.
â¢:â jjtnètMSo rclArc\' jtva-xizj Ax^so KAI OCO
109
Divinity, for this implies mercy and desire. To describe vvhal. the mind undergoes during this process is beyond the power of words.
Il will then begin \'), hij a new and holy brooding , to create a new world, and will create a new man in its image image-less, and according to its likeness likenessless. It ivill mete out heaven with its span, and will measure the dust of the earth with its measure : it will number the drops of the sea, and weigh the mountains in a scale quot;). And who will speak of it. that cannot be spoken? or name it, that cannot be named? Let us, with the apostle, marvel at a mystery and say: n Oh the depth and the riches, the wisdom and understanding , above the name of divinity, of the perfect mind rvhen perfected. For man cannot comprehend its judgments, and its ways are inscrutable ^). For who hath known its mind? or who hath been its counsellor? l)
: r Wa rc\'ia.Jo . rC\'iasnX
. lt;Tjènv=3 rdxtas. JJCVSOSJO . Kamp;CVM.I cn(^C\\i73.V3C\\
Ac_D^ua . rCè\\2^CU rclisiio . riliwirc\'.i cn\\OTr3
. â isartf\'èvsj rCiX.l gt;cncViVS3rlt;li A â â v-n . rClLoèvsia rc\'ïo.^
K\'xrï\'ia cninAvi r^lA.i ,cna.iiij rdiiaa
rtfamp;mSbjjO rdn.J»5C\\iw. OPCquot; . VMKlJO »i\\ T Tis.
rdiacn^ . rc\'A\\ocTi\\rc\'?j ncta\'saQjt, A^A.i . rdi^.iincv
KlA coixjjior^o . ,coÃi»s fâ\'sn rdA *_!«\'. At»^uc.rc\'.i
cn_A rlt;bcn lt;MS3 orïquot; . also . ^ins.
: rlt;l^\\=n As.-)
2) Isaiah XL , 12.
3) Romans XI, 33â34.
4) Isaiah XL, 14.
no
This is but a small part of the glories of the Mind when it accomplishes all and is confusedly mingled with the Good, the universal Creator.
We must now point out the distinction between union1) and absorption2), and show whether Christ he united or absorbed. In Union that which is distinguished does not appear very distinct: hut those things which are united cannot throw off all distinction, for in them exists the principle which distinguishes. On the contrary, in tlinse things which are absorbed nothing appears which distinguishes or makes other. Therefore to Christ we give the name ol our union. To absorption can no name be given.
BOOK FIFTH.
All these doctrines, which are unknown even to angels, have I disclosed unto thee, my son, even though I be, on this account, despised of men. Know then, that all nature will be confused with the Father; that nothing will perish or be destroyed, but all will return, be sanctified, united and confused. Thus God will be all in all. Even hell will pass away and the damned return. All orders and distinctions will cease. God will pass away, and Christ will cease to
1
2
«V .1â the only definition in Payne-Smith is commixtio, but
the cognates and are rendered by confusio. The
two meanings seem inseparable from the root: therefore I have rendered the verb always by confusedly mingled-, in the noun it seemed more expressive, as well as rendering more completely the author\'s meaning, to use the term absorption.
Ill
be, and the Spirit will no longer be called spirit. Essence alone will remain.
In the same way that all rational nature is governed by its laws, so also all irrational nature obeys its special laws.
»My son , preserve my words , place them around thy neck, and let them he a sign on thy foreheadquot; , for the time has come that I should pass away: unto thee do 1 bequeath the sceptre of my right hand.
ill
be, and the Spirit will no longer be called spirit. Essence alone will remain.
In the same way that all rational nature is governed by its laws, so also all irrational nature obeys its special laws.
»My son , preserve my words , place them around thy neck, and let them he a sign on thy foreheadquot; , for the time has come that I should pass away; unto thee do 1 bequeath the sceptre of my right hand.