Послания

Message 1. Gaius the servant 1543 Darkness disappears from light, and even more so from much light; ignorance destroys knowledge, and especially much knowledge. Taking this in the sense of the superiority of darkness, and not darkness as the deprivation 1544 of light, say supertruthfully that ignorance of God and the darkness that exceeds Him are hidden from those who possess the light 1545 existing in the world and the knowledge of those who exist, are hidden from all light and are hidden from all knowledge. And if someone, seeing God, understood 1546 what he saw, then he understood that he did not see Him, but something of the existing that belongs to Him and is understood. He Himself is above the mind and essence, and He is completely incapable of either being knowable or existing 1547. And complete ignorance, understood in the best sense, is the knowledge of the One who is above everything knowable. Message 2. To the same [Gaius the servant] How is it that He who is outside everything is above the 1548 rule of God and above the good government? If you understand divinity and goodness 1549 as the very act of a beneficent and idolizing gift and an inimitable imitation of the Superdivine and Supergood, according to which we are deified and pleased, then you will understand this. And if, therefore, this turns out to be the beginning of the deification and pleasing of the deified and the blessed, then the One who is superordinate in relation to every beginning remains outside of the so-called divinity and goodness as God’s superiority and goodness, since He is Inimitable and Irrelevant 1550 and above all imitations and relationships, both those who imitate and those who participate. Message 3. To the same [Gaius] “Suddenly” presupposes something that was previously unmanifested, which, contrary to hope, is brought into manifestation. In relation to Christ's love for mankind - and this is precisely what, I think, the theology of 1551 hints at - this is the procession of the Superessential, realized as a person, from a state of concealment into a state of manifestation accessible to us. But He is Hidden 1552 even after the appearance, or - to put it more divinely - in the appearance. After all, this property of Jesus is hidden; and no word or mind can explain the mystery associated with Him; Even when spoken, it remains inexpressible, and when understood, it remains unknown. Message 4. To the same [Gaius the servant] How, you say, 1553, Jesus, who exists outside of everything, is essentially the same to all people? But it is not as the reason for the existence of people 1554 that He is called here a man, but as in its very essence a completely and truly man. We define Jesus not by human 1555 essence, for He is not only a man (after all, He would not be the Supersubstantial if He were only a man), but is truly a man, different from people, a Lover of mankind, higher than is possible for people 1556, but also humanly, from the human essence, the Transubstantial is realized. And, always super-essential, He remains no less filled with super-essentiality, and does not care about its excess, and truly having entered into the human essence, realized above this essence 1557 and above man 1558, He acts like a man. And it turns out that the Virgin gave birth supernaturally, and the restless water does not feel the weight of material earthly legs and does not part, but becomes strong, like a substance that does not flow (see Matt. 14:25). Is it worth listing so many other things, thanks to which the mind, which sees divinely above the mind, also recognizes what was said in relation to the love of Jesus in the affirmative, as having the power of a superior 1559 negation (apophasis)? And to put it briefly for us: He was not a man, not as a non-man, but as one who came from people, being above people and above man, truly becoming a man and then doing everything 1560 not as a divine God and not as a human man, but as a God who became a man of some new 1561, God-husband, energy living with us. Epistle 5. To Dorotheos the Liturgist Divine “darkness” (see Ex. 20:21) is the “impregnable light” in which God is said to dwell (1 Tim. 6:16), invisible due to excessive lightness and unapproachable due to the excess of the super-essential outpouring of light 1562. Everyone who is worthy to know and see God finds himself in it - in a light invisible in itself and unknowable. Finding yourself truly above sight and knowledge, knowing only that you are beyond everything perceived by feelings and thoughts, you say together with the prophet: “Your mind was amazed at me, it was established, I cannot resist it” (Ps. 139:6). So, after all, the divine Paul also came to know God, they say, realizing that He is above all existing understanding and knowledge; which is why he said that “His ways are unsearchable, and His judgments unsearchable” (cf. Rom. 11:33), and “His gifts are unspeakable” (cf. 2 Cor. 9:15), and “His peace is beyond all understanding” (cf. Phil. 4:7), finding that He who is is superior to everything, and understanding more than understanding that He who is the cause of everything is beyond everything. Epistle 6. To Sopater the Priest Do not consider this a victory, Priest Sopater, to blaspheme a confession or opinion that seems bad. Even if you refute it judiciously, what is characteristic of Sopater is not necessarily good. After all, the true, as the only and hidden thing, can 1563 - among many false and apparent things - be hidden both from you and from others. For if something is not red, it is not necessarily white; and if someone is not a horse, it is not necessarily a person. Do this, obeying me: stop speaking against others, and speak truly in defense of the truth 1564, so that what is said is completely irrefutable. Message 7. Polycarp to Hierarch 1565 1. I do not know how to speak with Hellenes or with other pagans, believing that it is enough for good men if they can understand and express what is true in itself, how things really are. After all, when such, whatever it is, is established openly and unalloyed by the law of truth, everything containing something else and pretending to be true will be exposed 1566 as alien to the truly existing, unlike it and, rather, seeming than existing. It is unnecessary to fight with them or with those of the truth teller. After all, everyone claims to own the royal nomism - and, along with some true piece, holds some kind of deceptive idol. And as soon as you expose him, both will immediately intercede for him. And if you directly affirm a true word that has not been refuted by anyone else, then everything completely different in content is refuted in itself thanks to the invincible standing of what truly exists as true. It’s good, it seems to me, having realized this, I was in no hurry to talk to the Hellenes or other pagans: after all, that’s enough for me - and God forbid! - first find out the truth yourself, and then, knowing it, speak about it appropriately. 2. You say that the sophist Apollophanius 1567 scolds me and calls me a parricide as wickedly taking advantage of the achievements of the Hellenes against the Hellenes themselves. It would be fairer, however, for us to tell him that the Hellenes impiously use the divine against the divine, trying, with the help of the wisdom of God, to overthrow the divine. I’m not talking about the faith of many 1568, earthly and passionately committed to the works of poets and venerating “the creation more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25), but I say that Apollophanius himself wickedly uses the divine against the divine. After all, the knowledge of existing things 1569, correctly called by him philosophy, and by the divine Paul called “the wisdom of God” (see 1 Cor. 1:21), true philosophers should elevate to the Author of both existing things and their knowledge. And so that I do not, contrary to my conviction, denounce the views of other persons or him, I will only say that Apollophanius 1570, as a wise man, should have understood that nothing heavenly can ever evade its order and movement, unless the Author and Sustainer of its existence moves it to this, the Creator and Transmitter of everything, according to the sacred word (see Gen. 1:1; Dan. 2:21). How, marveling at the One who possesses all-causal and ineffable power, does he not also honor the truly existing universal God, who is cognizable by us, when He ordered the sun and the moon, 1571, the most supernatural in power and status 1572, to be completely motionless (see Joshua 10: 12–14) along with everything else and to stand throughout the whole day in the same signs zodiac? And, moreover, when everything, both the greater and the encompassing, usually moves in such a coordinated manner* then, together with the encompassing, the encompassing did not move with it. And - when some other day almost triples 1573 in length, and for a full twenty hours, or about such a time 1574, the movement of the sun is reversed (see. Isa.38:8) and then returns back again in a highly supernatural manner. And the sun, having completed its five-shaped movement 1575 in its own way in ten hours, He forces the remaining ten to return exactly back, moving in some new way (see 2 Kings 20:9-11) · This naturally amazed the Babylonians and without a struggle subjugated them to Ezekiah as some kind of god-equal, superior to people, being. And I, perhaps, will not talk about the great miracles in Egypt or about any other signs of God that took place anywhere, but I will remind you of the general heavenly signs revealed everywhere and to everyone. Apollophanius will definitely say that this is not true. Especially what is said in the Persian sacred stories of 1576, thanks to which magicians still celebrate the triple Mithra 1577. Well, let him not believe in such things out of ignorance or inexperience. But tell him: “What do you think about the eclipse that happened during the saving crucifixion?” (see Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44–45). After all, both of us then, being together in Iliopolis in 1578 and standing next to each other, saw how the moon in an incredible way 1579 obscured the sun, despite the fact that this was not the time of their descent, and how then 1580, from the ninth hour until the evening, it was supernaturally placed inside the solar diameter. Remind him of something else too. He knows that we saw that this combination began from the east and the moon, having reached the edge of the sun, then returned and, therefore, the combination and purification did not take place on the same side, but from diametrically opposite sides. Such then is the former supernatural, possible only to Christ the All-Guilty, who does “great and wonderful things, of which there is no number.” 3. If it is convenient and possible for you, tell him this: “Apollophanius, expose me, who was then with you, who looked with you, discussed everything with you and wondered together.” I don’t know what prompted him, Apollophanius then began to prophesy and, as if explaining to me what was happening, he said: “Oh, good Dionysius, this is a sign of what is happening in divine affairs.” Let us say so much in our message to you. You are able to fill what is insufficient and ultimately bring to God a very wise man, who, perhaps, will condescend to meekly study the wise truth of our confession. Message 8. Dimophilus the Servant 1581 [On Minding Your Own Business and Kindness] 1. The historical books of the Jews say, good Dimophilus, that this sacred Moses was awarded theophany for his great meekness (see Numbers 12:3). And if sometimes they present him as deprived of 1582 divine vision, they do not reject him from God before they report that he has lost meekness. They say that the Lord was angry with him as a self-willed person who resisted divine advice (Ex. 4:14). And when they show him to be guided by godly values, they proclaim him as such because of his predominant 1583 idolization of the Good. After all, he was very meek, and therefore he is spoken of as a servant (servant) of God (Exodus 14:31), more worthy of the vision of God than all the prophets (Numbers 12:6–8). Even when he and Aaron were attacked by certain daring people because of the high priesthood and the leadership of the people, he turned out to be above all love of glory 1584 and love of power and allowed God’s chosen one (lit. “Theocritus”) to intercede for the people (see Numbers 16: 1–7). Since they rebelled against him, and reviled him because of his primacy, and almost rushed at him, he, meek, called on the Good One for salvation and quite rightly presented that he was not guilty of all the evil that those in charge were doing. He knew that he who converses with the good God should, as far as possible, reflect in himself first of all His likeness and be able to perform benevolent deeds. What makes God-father David 1585 God-loving? Precisely that he was kind, and even to his enemies he was kind. “Have you found,” says the most good one, “a man after my heart (cf. Ps. 89:21)? And in fact, the good law of 1586 was granted to us - to take care even of the enemy’s yoke (see Ex. 23: 4–5). And Job, as having goodness, was justified (see Job 1: 1–8, 42: 10–12), and Joseph did not punish brothers-conspirators (see Gen. 50:19-21), and Abel simply and without doubt went with the fratricide (see Gen. 4:8) And everyone about whom theology preaches is good-looking, does not plot evil, and even the malice of others does not turn them away from good, but quite the opposite - they also please the wicked in a godlike manner, extending their many goodness to them as well. they meekly call for the same. But let us lift up the mountain 1587, not proclaiming the meekness of sacred men, not the goodness of humane angels who have mercy on the nations and pray for good things for them (see Zech. 1:12), forbidding the destructive multitudes of villains to do evil (see Zech. 3: 2), who are grieved by the evil deeds of people, but rejoice at the salvation of those called to good (see Luke 15:10 ), and - everything else that theology conveys about virtuous angels, but, in silence, receiving the beneficial rays of the truly good 1588 and super-good Christ, with their help may we be raised by light to His divine benefits. Isn’t this the property of the ineffable and mind-transcending Goodness - to create existing things and bring them all into being 1589 and to want everything to be close to It and always partake of what is characteristic of Him - according to the suitability of each? How can we understand that He holds on to those who retreat with love, and argues 1590, and prays not to despise them when they are in love and contrite, 1591, and patiently supports those who scold Him and Himself protects them? And he promises to take care of them even more, and when they are still far away, but approaching, He runs up 1592 and meets them, and, embracing everyone, kisses them, and does not remind them of the past, but loves the present, and arranges a holiday, and “calls together friends,” that is, good 1593 people, so that everyone in the monastery will rejoice with Him (see Luke 15:6). (Dimophilus, and if anyone else is at enmity with good people, is quite rightly subject to prohibition: let him learn beautiful things and become kinder). Was it not proper, He said, for the Good One to rejoice in the salvation of the lost and the life of the dead (see Luke 15:24, 32)? Without hesitation, He takes on His shoulders what has just been returned from error, and He moves the good angels to joy, and “to the ungrateful” (Luke 6:35), and His sun shines “on the evil and on the good” (see Matt. 5:45), and “he lays down His very life for” (John 10:11, 15) those who flee. But you, as what you wrote in 1594 shows, even the wicked sinner who fell to the priest, as you said, I don’t know how, having taken it upon himself, pushed away. He then begged and explained that he had come to heal vices, but you were not horrified, but with rage and undignified treatment of the good priest who decided to have mercy on the wicked repentant. And at the end he said to the priest: “Go out with those like you.” And, without having the right to do so, having jumped into something inaccessible to you, you belittled 1595 the Holy of Holies. And then you write to us: “I providentially saved the sacred that was ready to perish and still preserve it undefiled.” Now listen to our words. It is not proper for those who are above you in the service, or for ministers equal to you, to correct a priest 1596, even if it seems that he is impious towards the divine, even if it turns out that he has done something else forbidden. After all, if deviation from definitions and legal provisions is an outrage and disorder in the most divine, then there is no justification, even for the sake of God, for a complete violation of the God-given order. For God “in Himself” was not “divided,” for “how then will His kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:5–26; Mark 3:24; Luke 11:18). And if “to God,” as the Sayings say, “belongs the judgment” (cf. Is. 30:18; Rom. 2:2), and the priests, after the hierarchs, are the announcers (lit.: angels) 1597 and interpreters of divine judgments (cf. Mal. 2:7), then from them you will learn the divine in the manner appropriate to you through the liturgists 1598 - from people, thanks to whom you can be 1599 have you been honored as a servant, Or is this not what the sacred symbols cry out for? And it’s not just that the Holy of Holies is inaccessible to everyone: first of all, the order of the celebrants approaches it, then the order of the priests 1600, and after them the liturgists. And for those appointed to the rank of ministers, the doors of the inaccessible 1601 are forbidden for entry - the doors at which they receive initiation and stand - not in order to guard them, but for order and for knowledge of themselves - rather closer to people than to clergy. That is why the holy ranks of the sacred orders ordain that they should partake of the divine, entrusting others, that is, those within, to transmit it to them. For those who stand at the divine altar, one can say symbolically, see and hear the divine thing revealed to them by the shining ones, and, coming out gracefully to the obedient servants external to the divine veils 1602, and the sacred people, and the ranks being purified, they reveal to them the holy thing according to their dignity, - perfectly preserved undefiled until you tyrannically jumped into the Holy of Holies and forced him to take out the shrine against his will. And he said that you hold and preserve the shrine, although you do not know, and have not heard, and do not have anything that is appropriate for 1603 priests, just as you did not know the truth of the Sayings, arguing about them every day to seduce those who hear. If anyone attempts to rule over the people without receiving an order from the king, he will be punished fairly 1604. And isn’t it also possible - if a prince, justifying or condemning someone, one of his subordinates standing next to him dares to judge (not to mention insult, and, moreover, deprive him of power). Are you, human being, just as insolent towards the meek and kind priest and his priestly rule? This should be said when someone, encroaching on his superior dignity, thinks that he is doing the right thing. And this is unacceptable for anyone. In fact, what did Uzziah do that was inappropriate by making a show to God (see 2 Chron. 26:16–19), or by Saul making a sacrifice (see 1 Sam. 13:9–14), or by the tyrannical demons by truly theologizing 1605 about Jesus (Mark 3:11–12)? But 1606 theology rejects anyone who interferes in someone else’s business (“foreign visitor”) (1 Pet. 4:15), and let everyone remain in the order of his service, and “let the bishop alone enter the Holy of Holies only once a year” (cf. Ex. 30:10; Heb. 9:7) and then in all the sacred purity required by the Law (see. Ex.30:20–21; Lev.16:4, 24). And only the priests have care 1607 for the holy, and the Levites do not “touch the holy, lest they die” (cf. Numbers 4:19–20). And the Lord was angry with rage at Uzziah’s intemperance, and Miriam became covered with leprosy, daring to set rules for the Lawgiver (see Numbers 12:1, 10), and demons attacked the sons of Sceva 1608 (see Acts 19:13–16). And “I did not send them,” He said, but they fled,” and “I did not speak to them, but they prophesied” (Jer. 23:21), and the wicked “who sacrifices a bull to Me is as if he kills a dog” (cf. Is. 66:3). And simply say: God’s justice does not tolerate the lawless. And when they say: “In Your name we have done many miracles,” He answers: Depart from Me, all you who practice iniquity (cf. Matthew 7:22–23). So it is impossible, as the sacred Sayings say, even what is just, to be followed not in accordance with dignity 1609. Everyone should pay attention to himself and not think about the highest and deepest, and understand only what is given to him in accordance with his dignity. 2. Why, - you say 1610 - is it not necessary to accuse the ungodly or of some other inappropriate priests who are accused, and it is only permissible for those who boast of the Law to “dishonor God by transgressing the Law” (Rom. 2:23)? And why are the priests the exponents of God? How can they proclaim divine virtues to people without themselves knowing their power? Or: are the darkened able to enlighten? And how do those who, whether there is a Holy Spirit, truly and truly not believe, convey the Holy Spirit to others? I answer you to this 1611 (for Dimophilus is not an enemy, and I will not tolerate you being kidnapped by Satan). Each of the orders surrounding God is more God-like than the one further removed from Him. And what is closer to the True Light is more illuminated and brighter. And understand this distance not in the sense of the place 1612, but in the sense of suitability for the perception of God. If, therefore, the order of the priests is enlightening, then a person who is not enlightened at all means has fallen away from the priestly order and power, and even more so is generally unenlightened. And it seems to me that he is impudent who encroaches on doing the work of a priest, without fear or ashamed to perform the divine in defiance of dignity, believing that God does not know what he himself knows, and thinking to deceive Him whom he falsely calls father, and dares in a Christ-like manner 1613 to utter his vile slander (I cannot say “prayers”) before divine symbols. Such a one is not a priest, not a priest at all, but an evil deceiver, a self-deprecater and a wolf, clothed in sheep’s clothing to attack divine people (cf. Matthew 7:15). 3. But Dimophilus 1614 is not supposed to correct this. After all, if theology commands to follow the righteous (and to follow the righteous 1615 is to want to give everyone their due), then it is fair that everyone should follow this not contrary to their dignity and rank, since it is fair that the angels should also be given and given their due, however, not by us, O Dimophilus, but to us through them from God, and to them from even more superior angels in position. And it’s simple to say: in all things, through the first, the second is rewarded according to their dignity from a well-ordered and fair Providence. After all, those who are appointed by God to rule over others reward those who follow them and those who are subordinate according to their dignity. Let Dimophilus give due dignity to his reason 1616, anger and lust, and let him not violate his rank, but let his superior reason prevail 1617 over the lower ones. After all, if in the market we see that a slave insults the elder master, being younger, or a son insults his father, and attacks him and inflicts wounds, we will consider that he is acting wickedly, and we are unlikely not to help the elders by running up, although they may have been the first to act unfairly - how then will we not be ashamed, observing how anger and lust offend the mind - they reject the principle given by God and erect themselves wicked and unjust disorder, strife and disorder? It is right that our blessed lawmaker sent by God 1618 does not deign to intercede in the Church 1619 of God for one who has not previously interceded well in his own home (cf. 1 Tim. 3:12), for he who has disciplined himself properly will discipline another, and if another, then the house, and if a house, then the city, and if a city, then the people. And just say, as the Sayings say, “he who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much, and he who is unfaithful in a little is also unfaithful in much” (Luke 16:10). 4. You yourself give according to the dignity 1620 of lust, anger and reason, and the divine liturgies will give you, and the priests will give them, and the hierarchs will give to the priests, and the apostles 1621 or the successors of the apostles will give to the hierarchs. And if any of them somehow sins against what is proper, he will be corrected by saints equal to him, but the relationship of ranks (lit.: rank to rank) will not be reversed, but let each remain in his rank and in his ministry. This is how much we have told you in favor of what you need to know and do your job. And as for the inhumanity, as you say, of a wicked and vile husband, I don’t know how to mourn 1622 the contrition of my beloved. Whose servant do you think you were appointed by us? After all, if not the Good 1623, then by necessity you must be completely alien to us and our service. And then it’s time for you to look for others, both God and priests, and with them you would rather become brutal than succeed in goodness, and be a cruel servant of your dear inhumanity. And have we ourselves been perfected to perfect holiness and do we not need divine love for us? “Is it not a double sin, as the Sayings say (cf. Jer. 2:13), like the wicked, that we commit, like the wicked, not knowing where we stumble, but justifying ourselves and believing that we see something, but truly seeing nothing (cf. Rom. 1:22)? “Heaven was horrified at this” (cf. Jer. 2:12), and I trembled and did not trust myself to yourself. And if I had not received what you wrote - in an inappropriate, be sure, written way - then I would not have been convinced, although some other people found it necessary to assure me that Dimophilus thinks 1625 that God, who is good in everything, is not a lover of mankind, and that he himself does not need the Merciful or the Saving, and even rejects priests who are honored with the Goodness of bearing the ignorance of people and who know well that they too are subject to weakness. But the Divine Priest of 1626 followed a different path. Being “separated,” as the sacred Sayings say, “from sinners” 1627 (Heb. 7:26), He connected love for Himself with the ability to shepherd the sheep in the gentlest way (see John 21:15) He calls an evil slave the one who did not repay the debt to his comrade and did not share part of the many benefits given to him, and condemns him to receive from his own 1628 evil (see. Matthew 18:32), which both I and Dimophilus should be afraid of. Even after all, to those who dishonored Him 1629 during the very time of His suffering, He grants forgiveness from the Father (Luke 23:34) and forbids the disciples when they decided to unmercifully condemn the Samaritans who drove Him out for wickedness (Luke 9:52–55). And this is what includes the verbosity of your ferocious message (for you sound both above and below) - as if you took revenge not for yourself, but for God. Tell me, did you avenge the Good One with evil? 5. Step back. “We do not have 1630 a high priest who cannot sympathize with us in our weaknesses” (Heb. 4:15), but He is “kind without malice” (cf. Heb. 7:26) and “merciful” (Heb. 2:17). He “will not contradict, nor cry out” (Matt. 12:19; cf. Is. 42:2), and He is “meek” ( Matthew 11:29), and “merciful for our sins” (cf. 1 John 2:2) So we will not approve of your impulses that do not cause envy, even if you repeat Phinehas thousands of times (see Numbers 25:7–8) and Elijah (see 3 Kings 18:40). a meek and good Spirit (see Luke 9:55; cf. 1 Pet. 3:4). After all, our most divine 1631 priest teaches with meekness those who oppose the teaching of God. For it is proper to teach, and not to torment, 1632 those who do not know, just as we do not punish the blind, but guide them. You, a husband who was beginning to rise to the light, hit him on the cheek, pushed him away, and fiercely drove away a man who came with great contrition, which - and this causes great horror! – Christ, being good, searches for the one who is lost in the mountains (see Matt. 18:12), and calls the one who has run away, and, having found him, almost takes him on his shoulders (Luke 15:5). No, please, let us not mismanage ourselves so badly and plunge the sword into ourselves. After all, those who try to unjust someone 1633 or, on the contrary, to do good 1634 - let them not do everything they want - but, bringing evil or good to themselves, they will be filled with either divine virtues or fierce passions. And alone, the followers and companions of the good angels, both here and there 1635, with complete peace and freedom from all evils, will inherit in the everlasting age the most blessed inheritances and “will always be with God” (see 1 Thess. 4:17), which is the greatest of all blessings 1636. And others will fall away from the divine and their own world and here and after death 1637 will remain with fierce demons. For this reason, we make great efforts to be with the Good God and to remain with the Lord always, and not to find ourselves separated from the evil ones, having deservedly suffered through our deeds, which I fear most of all and pray that I may remain uninvolved in all evils. And if you want, let’s remember 1638 and the vision of a certain divine man, and don’t laugh, for I will tell the truth. 6. When I once found myself in Crete in 1639, I was greeted by the sacred Carp - a husband, although a little strange, but due to his great purity of mind, he was most suitable for seeing God. Thus, he did not begin the sacred performance of the sacraments until a favorable sacred vision appeared to him in the pre-committal prayers of 1640. And he said that he was once upset by one of the unbelievers. He was sad because he seduced someone from the Church to atheism, when this newly baptized person was still celebrating the days of Hilary 1641. And it was necessary to pray gracefully for both and, taking God the Savior as an assistant, convert one, and conquer the other with goodness and not abandon him, teaching all his life from 1642 to this day, and thus elevate them to divine knowledge, so that, even if they were torn apart by doubts and they became unreasonably hardened, they would be forced by the law of justice to remain sound (lit.: to be chaste). But not having endured this in himself first of all, I don’t know how, being then filled with some many evil plans and bitterness, he went to bed in such a bad state, for it was evening. Around midnight - and it was his custom at this time 1643 to stay awake in solitude for the singing of divine hymns - he rises, having not enjoyed peace 1644 without worry due to many dreams, which were always interrupted. Standing, however, at the divine conversation, he ungodly grieved, grieved and said that it was unfair if godless people who corrupted “the right ways of the Lord” remained alive (Hos. 14:10; cf. Acts 13:10). And saying this, he prayed to God that some lightning 1645 without mercy would take the lives of both at once. And when he said this, suddenly, he said, it seemed to him that he saw that the house in which he was standing first shook, and then was divided from the very top into two halves, and in front of him there flashed from heaven and some very bright fire was descending on it (it seemed to him then that there was no roof), and the sky was open, and in the sky was the infinite Jesus with 1646 humanoid angels standing before Him. He saw this, looking up, and was surprised. Leaning down, Karp, he said, saw in the ground a certain dark, gaping and gaping abyss and that those men whom he cursed were standing in front of him at the edge of this abyss, pitiful, trembling so that they could no longer hold on due to the instability of their legs 1647. And from below, from the mouth of the abyss, snakes crawl out and crawl around their feet, and sometimes drag them, entwined, at the same time weighing them down and dragging them away, sometimes they beat and push them with their teeth or tails, trying in every possible way to push them into the abyss 1648. There were also some people among the snakes who attacked these men, pushing them, pulling them and beating them. And it seemed that they were about to fall, partly involuntarily, partly voluntarily, little by little forced and convinced by evil 1649. And Karp said that, looking down, he was happy, but did not pay attention to the top, he was only annoyed and impatient because those two had not yet fallen, and in fact, he often tried to push them, weakened, and was upset because he could not do this, and cursed them. And again he raised his eyes to see the sky again, as before, and saw that Jesus, looking at what was happening, took pity, stood up from the heavenly throne, went down to those men and gave them a good hand 1650, and the angels with Him received them together, supporting them from other sides. And Jesus said to Carp: “Now hit Me with your already raised hand 1651. After all, I am again ready to suffer for the people being saved; I also want other 1652 people not to sin. However, look, don’t you think that it would be good to replace being in the abyss with snakes by being with God and the good and humane 1653 angels?” After listening to this, I believe that this really happened. Epistle 9. Hierarch Titus 1654 [who asked in an epistle what the house of Wisdom is, what the cup is, and what its food and drink are] 1. I do not know, O good Titus, whether Saint Timothy left without hearing something about theological symbols. But in “Symbolic Theology” of 1655 we well explained to him everything that seems outlandish to many in the Sayings about God. After all, a terrible absurdity is instilled in 1656 imperfect souls by the fathers of ineffable wisdom when, through some secret and daring fortune-telling, they reveal the divine and mysterious truth, inaccessible to the bad. That is why many of us do not believe the words about the divine sacraments: for we perceive them only through symbols accessible to the senses attached to them. It is also fitting to see them open, in themselves, naked and pure. Only in this way, seeing them, will we be able to honor 1657 “The Source of Life” (Ps. 35:10), contemplating it pouring into Himself and standing in Itself, and some single Power, simple, self-moving, not impoverished in Itself, but being the knowledge of all knowledge and always through. Contemplating myself. It was fitting, we thought, that we should reveal to him and others, as far as possible, the various types of symbolic sacredness applied to God. For what is outside of it 1658 is filled with such incredible and delusional fiction! For example, in relation to the super-essential birth of God, the womb of God, which bodily 1659 gave birth to God, is invented; it is written about the word emitted into the air from a man’s heart spewing it out, and about the spirit exhaled from the lips; and the wombs of God, bearing the Son of God, are sung before us as befits the body; or in the image of a garden certain trees, shoots, sprouts, flowers and roots are represented; or – erupting water sources 1660 ; or light births producing luminosities; and some other explanatory scriptures of super-essential theologies. To designate the intelligent 1661 God's providences, gifts, manifestations, powers, properties, lots, abodes, origins, divisions and unions, the human image and variety of wild beasts and other animals, and plants, and stones are stuck around to God; and it was invented that He wore women’s jewelry and weapons of barbaric production; and the clay and the smelter were given to Him as to a craftsman; and horses, and chariots, and thrones are set up; and certain feasts 1662 exquisite are prepared; and that He drinks and gets drunk, and that He sleeps and has a hangover, is completely imaginary. What can we say about anger, sorrow, about various oaths, repentance, curses, malice, about diverse and intricate 1663 inventions with the aim of breaking promises, about gigantomachy, according to the book of Genesis, according to which, they say, those strong men conspire out of fear; and this teaching is for edification - not to the detriment of anyone else, but for the sake of saving themselves by the inventors; and about this council in heaven, arranged against the deception and cunning of Ahab (1 Kings 21); and about the material and prodigal multi-passion characteristic of the Song of Songs; and about all the rest, as much as there is courage, the sacred conventional signs of God's expression from among the secret ones, exposed and becoming divisible from the one and indivisible, shaped and multiform from the united and non-shaped, whose hidden beauty if anyone could see, would find everything mysterious and God-like and full of bright theological light. Let us not think that visible conventional signs 1664 were created for their own sake: after all, they cover up ineffable and invisible knowledge for many - so that the all-holy does not become accessible to the uninitiated and so that it is revealed only to true adherents of piety, all childish imagination from what concerns sacred symbols, who have removed and are able, thanks to the simplicity of the mind and the property of speculative power, to ascend to the simple supernatural that is above symbols of truth. However, it is also appropriate to understand that theological teaching is twofold: one is ineffable and mysterious, the other is revealed and comprehensible; one symbolic 1666 and leading to the sacraments, the other philosophical and apodictic; so that in the word the inexpressible is intertwined with the expressible. One convinces and makes coherent 1667 the truth of what is being said, while the other acts and confirms in God through untaught secrets. After all, even when administering the most holy sacraments, our ministers, like the ministers of the legal tradition of 1668, did not abandon the divine symbols of 1669. We also see the most holy angels, through fortune-telling 1670, mysteriously revealing the divine, and Jesus Himself in parables theologizing and teaching divine sacraments with the help of the image of a meal 1671. And it was fitting not only that the Holy of Holies be kept inaccessible to many, but that human life itself, 1672, indivisible and at the same time divisible, should be illuminated in its proper manner by divine knowledge and that the dispassionate part of the soul 1673 should contemplate the simple and deepest spectacles from among the god-like pictures, and the passionate part of the soul should serve it in a kindred way and reach out to the most divine, taking advantage of pre-prepared images from formative symbols, since such covers are innate and reveal those who, in addition to the covers, having listened to the obvious theology 1674, create in themselves a certain image that guides the comprehension of 1675 the said theology. 2. And the very peacemaking of everything visible comes from the invisible of God, as both Paul 1676 and the true Word say. That is why theologians 1677 consider one from the point of view of society 1678 and the law, the other from the point of view of purification and purity; one as human and mediocre, and the other as supra-mundane and performing the sacraments; one as coming from revealed laws, and the other from unmanifested institutions corresponding to one or another sacred Scripture; minds and souls. For it is not mere history 1679, but life-giving perfection that contains the Word set before them once and for all. It is necessary, therefore, for us - contrary to the general opinion about this - to turn 1680 in a befitting sacred manner within the sacred symbols, and not to neglect them, which are traces, imprints and clear images of inexpressible and amazing divine visions. For not only the super-essential mental lights 1681, but the divine in general are distinguished by pictorial symbols, as, for example, the super-essential God is called “fire,” and the intelligible Words of God are called “fiery.” In addition, the godlike ranks of intelligible and rational angels are depicted in many different forms and fiery decorations. And one and the same image of fire should be understood differently when applied to the superunderstanding, God, differently - to His intelligible providences, 1682 or words, and differently - in relation to angels: in one case the cause 1683 is meant, in another being, in the third communion, in others - something else, which is determined by their consideration 1684 and the intelligible order. And it is proper not to mix up sacred symbols as necessary, but to reveal them according to reasons, or modes of being, or powers, or ranks, or virtues, of which they serve as manifesting conventional signs. And in order not to report beyond what is necessary, let us return to the search we have already proposed for 1685. And let’s say that every food is an improver of the nourished, replenishing their imperfections and deficiencies, healing weakness, preserving their life, giving them new blossoms and renewing them, giving them life-giving pleasure, and in general it is a repellent of those who grieve and imperfect, while the giver of joy and perfection. 3. It is good, after all, that the super-wise and good Wisdom is glorified in Sayings, as one who provides a secret cup and pours out one’s sacred drink, or rather, first of all, one who offers solid food and, with high preaching, gracefully invites those who need it. After all, divine Wisdom offers double food: one is solid, dense, and the other is liquid, poured out, which it serves in the cup of its providential goodness. The bowl, rounded 1687 and open, may be a symbol of the open and outgoing beginningless and endless 1688 providence for all. Although it extends to everything, it abides, nevertheless, it is in itself and stands in immovable identity, completely established from within itself; the bowl stands motionless and firmly. About Wisdom 1689, that she creates a house for herself and in it offers solid food and drink, and a cup, it is said so that it is clear to all those who gracefully accumulate the divine that by perfect Providence is the Author of being and the good being of everything, and extends to everything, and is found in everything 1690, and embraces everything, and again Himself primarily remains 1691, and nothing in anything. is not an image, but is eliminated from everything, Himself identically and eternally being, standing 1692 and abiding, and always being one and the same unchangeable, and never being outside of Himself 1693, neither from His own seat and motionless abode and hearth without being separated, but in Himself and all perfect providences benefiting, and occurring on everything, and remaining by Himself, and resting forever, and moving, and neither resting nor moving, but, if I may say so, providential actions in stillness and immobility in providence inseparably and completely having. 4. But what is solid food and what is liquid? After all, good Wisdom is glorified as their giver and industrialist. Solid food 1694 serves, as I think, as a sign of rational and unshakable perfection and identity, thanks to which the divine with its constant, strong, united 1695 and indivisible reason becomes a part of those rational sensibilities to whom the most divine Paul, having received from Wisdom, truly gives solid food. The liquid is a symbol of the flow that is being poured out and hastening to reach everything, with different, many and separated 1696 paths to a simple and calm knowledge of God, fed by the corresponding blessings of the guide 1697. That is why the divine intelligible Speeches are likened to dew, water, milk, wine and honey: because of their life-giving power, like water; vegetable, like milk; revitalizing, like wine; and cleansing, as well as protecting, like honey. After all, the divine Wisdom bestows them on those who come 1698, giving and generously pouring out a stream of abundant and inexhaustible dishes. This means truly treating. 1699 That is why she is glorified as a life-giver, as well as a child-nourisher 1700, a renovator and an improver. 5. In accordance with this sacred revelation of the image of the feast and about the very author of all good, God, it is said in 1701 that He is drunk because of His abundant feast, surpassing the imagination, or, more precisely, because of the perfect state of God and His inexpressible immensity. Just as for us, in a low sense, intoxication is an excessive filling with wine and a frenzy from the mind and reason, so in a higher sense, in relation to God, intoxication should be understood as nothing other than the abundant, due to the fact that it is in Him, the immensity of all goods. Likewise, the insanity that accompanies drunkenness should be understood as the superiority of God that surpasses thought, according to which the One who is above thinking 1702 rises above thinking, above understanding and above being itself. And simply everything, no matter how much good there is, is intoxicated 1703 and that is why God is ecstatic - as if at once overwhelmed with all this and at the same time - the immensity of all excess! - existing outside and beyond everything. Based on this, let us understand the feasts of the saints in the kingdom of God according to the same 1704 image. “As they approach,” it is said, “the king himself will make them sit down and serve them himself” (cf. Luke 12:37). This expresses a certain common and like-minded unity of the saints in sharing divine blessings, and the “Church of the firstborn, written in heaven” (Heb. 12:23), and the spirits of the righteous, perfected with all good things and filled with all good things. And reclining 1705 is understood as rest from many labors, a carefree life, a God-inspired living in the world and the land of the living, filled with all kinds of sacred pleasure, and an abundant donation of various blessings that bring bliss, which is why they are filled with all kinds of joy from Jesus himself, who makes them happy, and who sits them down, and who serves them, and who bestows eternal peace, and the fulfillment of pleasures who distributes and at once exudes. 6. You will, I know well, strive to reveal the meaning of both the euphemistic sleep of 1707 God and wakefulness. And when we say that divine sleep is the distance of God and non-involvement for those for whom He provides, and vigil is the concern to provide for the education and salvation of those who need it, you will move on to other theological symbols. Why, considering it unnecessary, surrounding it with the same thing, thinking that something else is implied there, and, moreover, agreeing to follow you in goodness, we end the message with what has been said, setting out in our writings, as it seems to me, even more than what should have been. And we send you our complete “Symbolic Theology” 1708, where you will find, along with the House of Wisdom and the seven pillars, examined separately, and solid food, divided into sacrifices and loaves. It also explains in more detail what the dissolution of wine is, and what God’s hangover from drunkenness is, and what has just been said. And of all symbolic theologies, as I think, it is a good revelation, corresponding to the Sayings of sacred traditions and truths. Epistle 10. John the Theologian, apostle and evangelist, imprisoned on the island of Patmos 1709 Greetings, sacred soul, my beloved. I have a greater right to this than others. Rejoice, truly beloved, greatly beloved by those who are Lover, Desired and Beloved (see John 13:23, 16:27, 21:7, 20). What is surprising if Christ acts truly, and His disciples are driven out of the cities by the offenders (see Matt. 23:34), rewarding themselves according to their dignity, and the bad ones, separating and leaving the saints? Verily, what is revealed in images is the visible of the invisible. Even in the centuries to come, God will not be guilty of 1710 just excommunications from Him, but those who have completely excommunicated themselves from God will be guilty. Just as we see that already here some abide with God, being stewards of the truth, moving away from material attachments and, completely free from all evils, in the divine desire for all that is good, they love peace and sanctification and move from the present life to the future, living angelically among people, with complete dispassion, naming God, holiness and other good properties. I am not at all so crazy as to believe that you suffer in any way, but I believe that bodily suffering, judging by one of them, is sensitive. And for those who are untruthful to you and who think that they have imprisoned you, who unjustly accuse the existing sun of the Gospel (Gospel) 1712, I pray that they, leaving what they are causing to themselves, turn to good, and attract you to themselves, and join the light. For us, even the obstacle of distance cannot deprive us of the all-bright radiance of John, for now we will read for memory and renew your true theology in it, and a little later - I will say, even though it is daring - we ourselves will unite with you. But I deserve complete trust, because I have learned from God and say what I foreknew - that you will be freed from the Patmos prison, return to the Asian land, carry out new imitations of the good God there and convey them to those who follow you. I believe that Gaius is the same one to whom the divine evangelist John wrote the Third Epistle, judging by other signs indicating that this divine man communicated with the apostles. “Ministers” (literally “therapists”) are called monks, as indicated in the sixth chapter of the book “On the Church Hierarchy”, speaking there about their appointment - people who are not clergy, but lower their position above the people. Philo Judea seems to admire them in his book “On the Contemplative Life,” or “Collection of Petition,” calling them therapists and telling about their way of life shortly before the end of this book. Read what Philo himself wrote. He says this, understand not in the usual sense of the fact that just as darkness is dispelled by light, and even more powerful, or as ignorance, which itself is darkness, ceases to take place thanks to knowledge, especially when it becomes abundant, so does ignorance about God, resembling ignorance from lack of learning, as we said. But to the extent that someone is enlightened by the knowledge of God and to the extent that someone collects knowledge about what exists, that is, about those who comprehend the intellect, so much more, having succeeded in the knowledge of God, he learns that unknowability, that is, ignorance, in relation to God, is light and knowledge that surpasses everything known. And then he honors with silence: silence about God. So, it is not in the sense of lack of knowledge that they speak of ignorance of God - that someone has understood the Unknown and Incomprehensible to everyone and to himself - but in the sense of exceeding and surpassing all knowledge, as is also said in the treatise “On Mystical Theology”, in the first chapter, in the book “On Divine Names”, in chapter two. To the extent that anyone has, he says, the knowledge of beings and the light of beings, then it is knowable. For it is not clarified by light or knowledge, but is rather hidden from those who possess it. And when such are given and increase - I mean light and knowledge - the divine turns out to be invisible and unknowable. Note that whoever contemplated God and understood what he saw, he saw not Him, “but something of the things that belong to Him and are understood.” At the same time, one must mentally add: “according to the existing and the knowable.” The ability not to be belongs to Him, since being is a property of creation, and God is above being, because he is uncreated. This is also said many times in different ways in the word “On the Divine Names.” He mainly explains this in the eleventh chapter of this word, near its end, saying: “How is He who is the cause of everything, both goodness and divinity, and the basis of goodness and divinity, and above this?” You should also read: “You ask how God is a principle beyond divinity.” Then he answers: “If you understand that divinity is precisely that gift emanating from God, thanks to which we are deified, and not God Himself, then you have the answer. For God, being, I say, the most Superessential Essence, is above the bestowed and grace-given power of God, that is, deification,” and so on. Then he summarizes with the words: “If the gift emanating from God becomes the beginning of our deification, then it is clear that He who is the Cause and Beginning of every beginning, or rather the Super-initial, is also outside and above the so-called divinity, or the boss of God. For God possesses good not in a relative way, as we do, but in a non-relative way. We have it relatively, because we are changeable, but He is unchangeable.” Not themselves, he says, the divinity and goodness in their being, whatever it is, I mean, but the beneficent and idolizing gift of the existing God and Good, for this is the beginning and cause of deification and pleasure, and in this sense, he explains, it speaks of Super-God-principle and Super-God-principle, and so, therefore, conceivable. And note in this regard that divinity and goodness are not the very essence (lit.: “self-essence”) of God. And that God is outside of this is stated at greater length in the 11th chapter of the words “On Divine Names.” This means: in a relative way having nothing, but from Himself producing imitation and relation as actions themselves; those who participate and imitate are those who perceive this. And he called the divine inimitable and irrespective because to the extent that one succeeds in imitation and relation to God, so much does one comprehend the impracticability of imitation and relation. I believe that most likely Gaius asked about that prophecy of the prophet Malachi, which says: “And suddenly the Lord, whom you seek, and the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire, will come to His church” (Mal. 3:1). It seemed to me that he asked about this because of the insertion: “This, I think, is what theology hints at.” Surprisingly, he theologizes here about the Lord Jesus Christ. And notice how he explains “suddenly.” Notice also that Christ “was realized as a man.” He often says "hidden" instead of "God" and "hiddenness" instead of "divinity", as in the previous words. “Hidden” is said here instead of “God” in the sense of “Invisible.” You, he says, asked: “How is this possible?” And note the word “here,” that is, in the Economy, since even outside of this, as the cause of the existence of people, as the Creator of people, He is called man. Africanus also says this in his Chronographs. After all, God is called homonymously for everything that is from Him, since He is in everything. And in the Economy he is called man as in essence fully realized as a man, according to what has been said: “In Him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily” (cf. Col. 1:19). And mark the entire reading of the Epistle, for it is against every heresy, both older and newer. Not through the human, he says, in Christ, defining Him, we say that He is higher than man, defining Him as, because of His essence, alien to the common human nature, but, of course, because of His divinity. After all, he added: “For He is not only a man,” that is, also God. Although He took on the whole nature of man, we, he says, do not separate Him from divinity. He adds: “For He is not only a man,” and having said this, he immediately adds: “And not only the Essential One,” since He is also a man. “More than is possible for people,” he says because he is from Virgo; and “humanly” - because he spent the time required by the laws of birth in the mother’s womb; and “from human essence” - because, as the Holy Father said, “from virgin blood is the holy body of Christ” (?). And after the incarnation of Christ, he called the supremacy of divinity. And its transubstantiality is the superiority of essence, wisdom and strength. After all, it is natural for a person to be born from a woman, and “above man” means from a Virgin. And note that the body of Christ is earthly, and not heavenly, as some have decided. Here too he said “superior” to distinguish what is understood in the sense of deprivation. He immediately explains himself in what follows. What is affirmation (cataphasis), we said above, in the third chapter of the word “On mystical theology.” How, in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, statements have the power of the highest negation, in relation to what is characteristic of people is explained. After all, if we affirm about Christ that He is a man and was born of a virgin mother in accordance with our nature, then this statement has a hidden and beyond the mind power of negation. For the listener will say that He is not a man, since He was born of a virgin, but is higher than a man, although in other respects He is a man. He explains this too, saying that the affirmation that He is a man explains the denial that He is not a man, but is higher than a man, which is clear from the signs that came from Him. He says that Christ did not perform divine things as God, because he was together with the flesh, and not pure divinity, although he was divine. Likewise, He did what was human, not like a man, for by divine power, when He wanted, He sometimes gave the flesh to carry out (literally: to act) its own, but still human. And “who became a husband” explains “who became human.” And “divine energy” means both divine and human energy. So, with us, or for our sake, that is, while living on earth, He created, as said above, the divine and the human. And pay attention to the supernatural and ineffable union of the Lord - that He did not as God create the divine (for He was a man), and not as a human man (for He was also God). Why did the divine Gregory the Theologian wonderfully say: “Just as natures are mixed, so are names, interpenetrating into each other due to fusion.” That He did not do divine things like God is shown by the fact that He walked on the sea with His bodily feet. It is God’s business to thicken the water, not God’s to walk with fleshly feet. Flesh and leg bones are not characteristic of divinity. God's work, again, is to cause the virgin to give birth; and not divinity - to take shape with a face and other human members. The same goes for the opposite: for He did not create human things as a man. After all, He was a man, descended from the Virgin, and not like a man, for what kind of man is from a virgin? Also, walking with feet is characteristic of man, but walking on water is not characteristic of man, for what kind of man created this? Let no one say, turning to vanity, that he calls the Lord Jesus a “god-man,” for he did not say “god-man,” forming from “god-man,” but “god-man” energy, that is, the intertwined energy of God and man. Hence he called God “who became a husband”, and not a husband – God. Nowadays he called only mixed energy “godly.” For He acted only as God when He healed the centurion’s son at a distance, but only as a man, although He was God, when He ate and grieved. In a mixed way, He performed miracles - by anointing He created the eyes of the blind and by touching He stopped the bleeding. Take what the father said here by analogy with the bodily eyes: for the same thing that the absence of light does, leading to inactivity of the visual powers, results in constant looking directly at the sun at noon. Having clearly exposed lies in many respects, one can, he says, make mistakes about the true, which is the only one. The truth is one, but it is hidden by the mystery of dogmas and requires many investigations with the help of divine grace. Thus, Nestorius, refuting the views of Arius and Apollinaris, and others like them, others like them, fell into other ugly heresies. Let no one be embarrassed because of this and reject the works of the fathers against the heterodox. After all, he says not that one should not expose and refute the beliefs of the wicked (because how does he himself, in the word “On the Divine Names,” turn out to refute the opinions of Elima?), but that one should not engage in this as the most important thing - to speak against others, but one must expound the word of truth in a teacher’s way, and use refutation only when one finds oneself surrounded by the rebels of the wicked. Otherwise. Note that one must not blaspheme the beliefs of other people, but affirm one’s own, and not write against a faith or confession that seems bad, but in defense of the truth. Why he says this is made clear by the next message. Notice why one should write in defense of the truth, and not against others. This Saint Polycarp of Smyrna became a bishop of the church in Asia, being a listener of Saint John the Evangelist, as Irenaeus says in the third book of words, “Against False Knowledge,” and died a martyr by fire. And the divine Polycarp himself has letters to the Philippians. This message of Blessed Dionysius contains many surprising and strange things about the solar eclipse during the crucifixion of Christ. “It will be exposed” - colloquially; That's the syntax, after all. ["Idol" is said instead of "likeness."] We are talking about the sophist Apollophanius, a former comrade of the great Dionysius, who reviled him as having become a Christian and speaking against the Hellenes: after all, human wisdom comes from God. This phrase should be constructed like this: “I’m not talking about the faith of many who are down-to-earth and passionately committed to the words or passions of poets.” He called knowledge of beings the understanding of the movement of the heavens and comprehension of the structure of other parts of creation, according to one of the rules of philosophy, which says: to know how things exist. The apostle’s saying, expressed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is this: “For in the wisdom of God the world in its wisdom did not know God” (1 Cor. 1:21). That is, it is clear that by wisdom he understood the understanding of the harmony and structure of creation. Note that knowledge of things is called philosophy, which the apostle in the First Epistle to the Corinthians calls the wisdom of God. [At the beginning he spoke about the purpose, according to which he did not write either against the Hellenes or against other pagans.] He said that, based on the ideas of the Hellenes, God must be considered the cause of everything: from this alone it would be necessary to know the God who determined everything, who commanded the sun and moon to have hours of the day and the entire circle of heaven to rotate, that is, to move from east to west. Although they are not carried away by the sky that embraces them - after all, the sky and the unchanging sphere of the fixed stars rotate cyclically from east to west - the sun and moon themselves move towards everything from west to east. And so, first of all, the Creator of everything and the Ruler, God, is recognized and deservedly becomes an object of wonder. We have explained this - against Apollophanius, who declares that the sky did not stop then along with the sun; Above this, in the preface, we said this exactly. [He speaks of the stellar order stopping at the will of God and not moving again when it wants, as was the case with Joshua and Ezekiel.] Here he talks about what happened under Joshua, and reminds this story to Saint Polycarp so that he would retell it to Apollophanius. After all, he says: “Tell him: Know that God, when the sun and moon were diametrically opposed to each other, and the sun was already setting, ordered the luminaries to stand still, and they stood, stopped by some inexpressible power of the Author of their existence, God. And everything stood motionless together with the two luminaries, for neither the sky nor the other stars moved, but stood motionless together with the two luminaries. And not only for a short time did the course of everything and movement stop, but for the whole day, so that during the time of Joshua there was a double day, of twenty-four hours each, as Jesus Sirach clearly says in the hymn to the fathers (Sir.46:4).” Then he adds: “If Apollophanius says: “This is impossible, for then the heavens and the rest of the stars did not stop along with the two luminaries, but moved,” answer him like this: “First of all, it is appropriate for you to turn to the true God and His mind, which moves the heavens that embrace the luminaries and leaves the luminaries that they contain motionless. This requires greater strength - when moving the sky and other stars, leave the sun and moon motionless, and not simultaneously move everything that is always interconnected." He says that the sky remained motionless (he called it “everything”) during the stop of the sun and moon. It would be much more surprising, he says, if the sky moved (after all, this is what he meant when he said “everything,” “greater,” and “encompassing”), but the sun and the moon (this is “encompassing,” after all) did not move along with the all-encompassing. He added “almost” because that day was not triple in length (for it consisted of thirty-two hours): ten hours - from sunrise to the time when it happened, when the sign was given, ten - until the moment when the sun retreated back to the east, and twelve until the final sunset. He used this image here in the word, saying: did the whole sky, together with the sun, perform this supernatural movement in the opposite direction for twenty-four hours, or was it just the sun? Understand what is said about this as happening in violation of the laws of nature. In fact, everything returns and moves in the opposite direction, retreating, thanks to these circles that surpass understanding, back for the same period of time. This is spoken of in the 4th book of Kings, and especially in the translation of Symmachus, and in 2nd Chronicles. The annual movement of the sun occurs in five ways: firstly, this is the northern ascension, that is, the time from the spring equinox to the autumn tropic; secondly, the northern convergence - from that moment until the moment of the autumnal equinox; thirdly, the southern convergence - from the equinox to the northern tropic; fourthly, from there again the southern ascent to the equinox; and the fifth is the opposite of everything. Having talked about the five-shaped movement, by adding a member, adding it, he showed the familiar and ordinary. What the father says here must be understood this way. Suppose that the sun on a certain day at the hour of sunrise is completely in the first part of the sign of Aries, which has no minutes. It was impossible for him to return to the same part of Aries without completing the five-shaped movement prescribed to him, that is, after three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter. So, in ten hours, starting from the twelfth, in which it was located, to the place where it rose, that is, to the first part of Aries, receding into it, it seemed to make a five-shaped movement, that is, the path of an annual circumambulation. And for the remaining ten hours after the return movement, having found itself in the place where it was when the sign was given - presumably in one and a half parts of Aries - in a similar way it performed a five-shaped movement, returning, as he said, “exactly back.” It is impossible, after all, for it to find itself again in this one and a half part of Aries, having left it once, except after all the days of the year, as it is said. Said instead of "stories". The Persians call Mithras the sun. He indicated the length of this day with the word “triple.” And note at the same time that the father says that darkness during the crucifixion of the Lord from the sixth hour to the ninth hour was throughout the whole earth. Apparently he is talking about Iliopolis in Egypt; They were both still studying there then. They say that there is no other way for a solar eclipse to occur unless the moon obscures the sun. Pay attention here to the explanation of the subject of bewilderment, according to the Evangelist Luke. No one except him explained the strangeness of how the miracle happened. The Divine Luke said that from the sixth hour there was darkness during the crucifixion of the Lord from a solar eclipse (Luke 23:44-45), and everyone doubts how he called it an eclipse when the fourteenth moon was and there was no combination of the sun and the moon. After all, almost all exegetes who lived a long time later considered that the sun itself stopped emitting its rays for three hours before the ninth hour. In relation to this case, the strange image of an eclipse is spoken of. He also says that the moon, being the fourteenth after sunrise (after all, it was not the time of descent), at the sixth hour overtook the sun and left it on the eastern side of the solar disk, from where it approached, and when it approached, it floated onto it, and, stopping, obscured almost its entire disk. It would be appropriate, if this were an ordinary eclipse, for both darkening and purification to occur on the same side. Because when the moon comes to the sun - say, from the east - it first covers the eastern part of the solar disk, onto which it begins to float. From there, from the eastern part, the cleansing of the solar disk begins: when the moon moves to the west, it is the first side, when the sun passes and runs through, to open the side that it first closed, that is, the eastern side. This is not what happened during the Savior’s suffering, but the other way around. For, coming from the east, the moon obscured the sun and covered its entire disk. And then she did not go further to the west, but retreated again to the east and first exposed the western side of the solar disk, for she moved to the opposite edge of the sun, to the east. So there was no more darkening and purification of the sun on the same side. And Phlegon, the Hellenic chronicler, also recalls this eclipse, which occurred during the one hundred and third Olympiad, in the thirteenth book of the Chronographies, saying that it did not occur in the usual way, but he did not describe how. Both our Africanus in the fifth book of the Chronographies and Eusebius Pamphilus in their writings mention this eclipse. This Dimophilus was a monk, as the inscription shows, for monks were called ministers (lit.: therapists). Having become angry with his priest and insulting him because he had received a certain man repenting of his sins, he beat him out, kicked out the priest, and sat down as a self-appointed priest. Note that this evil existed in those years too. Well he said: “good Dimophilus,” - for unruly strength, and not for divine reverence, blaming him and reproaching the monk for this. That is, when the Scriptures say that he found himself in God’s disfavor, and His face turned away from him. Previously, he says, they show that he was deprived of meekness and as a result suffered, finding himself outside of God's sight. Note that meekness is exclusive and predominant in imitation of God, and that for this meekness Moses is called a servant of God. The love of fame is primarily the desire for fame and love for it. “God’s chosen one” (lit.: “Theocritus”) does not mean someone so called, but one whom God considered fit and to whom he entrusted leadership. Notice that he calls David the father of God because of Christ. For the divine Paul says: “I am set apart for the gospel of that which was proclaimed in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was revealed from the seed of David according to the flesh” (cf. Rom. 1:1-3). So David is truly the father of God. For it is written in the Law that even a fallen one belonging to the enemy must be raised up (Ex. 23:5). Towards a higher one. Note also the angels’ love for mankind, and that they pray to God for the nations, and that they forbid the apostate forces, that is, the demons. About the goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God. [Truly He creates existence, that is, He maintains existence in existence. Since he said “all,” and among all the soulless and dumb, adding “according to the suitability of each,” he took care of a suitable limitation. Notice: how the Lord wants to attract everyone and begs us not to fall away from Him, which is why He is known as the Comforter. “To be broken” means, in the proper sense, “to be broken.” The word is also applied to lovers, who used it when experiencing misfortune with lovers, usually in a bodily sense, saying that they are broken. Where does it come from for other similar cases. Here he is referring to the Gospel parable of the prodigal son (see Luke 15:20–24) and the like. It is also surprising that he said “all of all,” shaming the heretics of that time who said that only the soul is saved by God, but not the body. “All,” he says, is the Lord, who has received both soul and body; and “all” - because He saved us, consisting of soul and body. There were then heretics descended from Simon, as Irenaeus and Hippolytus show. And according to Origen, believers think the same thing. “Embracing” is said instead of “embracing.” Notice who he speaks of as convened friends. A little lower, he thinks that these are good angels. And look how he understands the words “So that everyone in the monastery may rejoice with Him” (see Luke 15:6). “But you, Dimophilus,” he says, “even insulted the priest, who said that he should be pardoned, that is, worthy of mercy, a repentant wicked man.” It seems to me that Dimophilus insulted the presbyter, for he usually calls presbyters priests (lit.: “priests”), as he clearly showed in the book “On the Church Hierarchy.” And here, a little below, he confirms what I said. But the syntax should be the opposite: “You insult the priest, who recognized it as just that the wicked should be pardoned, that is, worthy of mercy.” “Belittled” is said instead of “humiliated” and “belittled,” or not that, but “belittled” - instead of “gathered,” as they say, that is, he took it from the altar and carried it; and this is supposed to be done only by deacons and presbyters, since the Law says: “But the priests have care for the holy” (?), as he says on the next sheet. Note that it is not proper for a presbyter, even if he sins, to correct a deacon, a monastic, or even less a layman, with the exception of heresy. For higher than the monastic order is the order of the liturgists, that is, deacons. And if this is so, then to a much greater extent no one should blame the bishops. Note that the priests are messengers (lit.: “angels”) and interpreters, that is, teachers of divine courts, after the hierarchs, and that he wrote a letter about the presbyter, persecuted and insulted by the monk, from here it becomes especially clear. Note that those who want to learn the divine from the presbyters should not do this themselves, even if they are monks, but through the medium of deacons; and then - when the right time presents itself. As we said above, in the “Church Hierarchy”, in the chapter on performing the monastic order, tonsure, the elders give them a monastic image. About the order of church ranks and what the ministry of monks consists of - after all, he calls them ministers. He talks about this in “Church Hierarchy.” After all, deacons are entrusted with guarding the church gates, as he says in “Church Hierarchy,” in the chapter on priestly functions, a little after the beginning of the chapter. Notice that even then there were curtains around the altar. Note that whoever, disorderly and in violation of sacred laws, drops into shrines, as one should believe, does not see, hear or have any of them, even though he touches them with his hands. Note that if someone does what is appropriate, but contrary to his rank and dignity, then he also transgresses what is permitted. About demons who theologized about Jesus. Note that theology rejects anyone who interferes in someone else’s business (“foreign visitor”) (1 Pet. 4:15). Notice who can prepare and take the holy and that not everyone is allowed to do this. The sons of Sceva were attacked by demons because, not believing in Christ and not being ordained, they conjured demons, which was only permissible for exorcists. This is found in the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts 19:13–16). Notice what it means: “The righteous is achieved by the righteous path,” as Moses said (cf. Deut. 16:20), and that even the righteous cannot be followed contrary to dignity. There is more about this in the future. Origen deals with this more extensively in the 10th conversation “On the Lamentation of Jeremiah.” The objection, as it were, on behalf of Dimophilus, is that there is incorrigible wickedness among the priests. Apology in response to the objection to acting without permission. Note that what has been said about the angelic subordinates and ranks must be understood not in relation to the place they occupy in relation to God, but in relation to the suitability of each. For, of course, God is not in some place, as well as, probably, intelligent forces. That is, the perfection of the sacraments. “Christlike” - because the priests, praying before divine gifts, or symbols, accept the rank of Christ. For it is not proper, he says, for Dimophilus, who is a minister, to correct these sins. Notice what it means to justly follow what is just and that the angels are rewarded for what is just. That is, let Dimophilus pacify his foolishness, anger and lust of his own lust. And note that in everything that exists, through the first, the second is rewarded according to their dignity. Let, he says, the mind restrain anger and lust, for they are inferior. In managing them, power and the power of the mind are manifested, so it is not easy, but with some benefit, one must use them. He speaks of the divine Paul. Note the praiseworthy church order - that monastics are punished by deacons, them by priests, and priests by bishops, and bishops by the apostles and their successors. And among the successors of the apostles, punishment comes from peers in rank. Note that the apostles and successors of the apostles are greater than the bishops, and that each must be corrected more holy than his rank. The successors of the apostles now, I think, are the patriarchs. Note the bitterness, or rather the compassion, of the father. For if you do not think, he says, that you have been appointed by us as a servant of the good God, then you are alien to us and to the whole Church. And note that, most likely, this sin happened in the parish of the great Dionysius and that he appointed Dimophilus a monk in his church. Notice what he calls a double sin - when, while sinning, a person does not know that he is sinning. These are the words of Jeremiah, which he further explains: “People have sinned doubly: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of life,” and so on (see Jer. 2:13). Much, great and compassionate consolation for sinners. He means the Lord - that He commands something different from what Dimophilus did. “He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth,” as the apostle says (1 Peter 2:22), and decisively – the following: “Separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). That is, his love for humanity, and not darkness and torment. This is found in the Gospel of Luke. May many blessings come to you, most compassionate father! Notice that he calls the Lord’s disciples “not partakers of the Holy Spirit” when they wanted fire to come down from heaven on the Samaritans, which we find in the Gospel. Why does the Lord say to them: “You do not know what kind of spirit you are” (Luke 9:55). But He also said this, showing what grace they were chosen to serve. Likewise, the Father, referring to the perfection of the gift that they received after His resurrection, said this, because it is written: “For the Holy Spirit was not yet, because Christ was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). “Priest” he calls the holy Apostle Paul as the one who ordained him to the bishopric in the Church of Athens, as written in the sacred Apostolic decrees. Notice the beautiful and now especially useful statement that it is appropriate to teach, and not torment, those who do not know - just like the blind, we instruct the path, and do not punish. What is above the cheek is called by some the church, by some the jaw, and by others part of the head. It’s better to call the cheek (corrin), as he said, the church (krotaphon). Homer, however, calls it cheek (korsin). The stress in the word “cheek” (corrie) is acute on the penultimate syllable. After all, Dimophilus struck the repentant man on the church (“iston krotaphon”). Notice, he says, what will happen to those who want to untruth or benefit someone, although they did not actually achieve what they wanted. That is, not everyone, he says, accomplished what they wanted in relation to those whom they intended to harm or benefit. It is clear that there is a difference between the reluctance of those who benefit and the weakness of those who do not do justice. Note that the righteous, not only in the next century, but also in this life, are companions, or followers and fellow travelers of the good angels. Note that the greatest of all blessings is to always be with God. Note that sinners, both in this life and in the future, suffer, being condemned by their passions to be together with demons, as they deserve. Notice how scary and comforting the vision of Saint Carp is. A wonderful story about how it is not proper to curse those who sin, even if they sin against God. This story deserves to be noted as telling about the ineffable compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ and about the repentant. He also speaks about the holiness of the divine Carp. This is the Carp whom the apostle mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:13). The Athenians called the prayers read before marriage after making sacrifices pre-committal. For marriage was called fulfillment as the completion of what a person needs for life. This can be illustrated by the example of many comedies written by poets. They perceived marriage as a sacrament. And they said that it was necessary to first sanctify, dedicate and, as it were, pre-purify, preparing for the sacrament, that is, like Cratinus in the drama of Pylea. Especially after all, they called marriage states and accomplishments the sacraments of one of their false gods, as perfecting and leading those being perfected to perfection. The great Dionysius applied what the Greeks impiously said about the sacrament of Truth and called the most perfect prayers for purification before the life-giving sacrament and for the uncondemned communion of the most perfect and perfecting gift of sacrifices as pre-perfect prayers. “Welcome” is said instead of “as he received a stranger.” There were certain days for sacrifices, which were called ilaria. And some such days were private ilarias - when someone got married or gave birth to a son, and others were common, and they were called national; Thus, when the king was installed, nationwide ilarias were organized. And on these days it was impossible to mourn nearby, but every day nationwide spectacles and sacrifices were held, and those crying fell silent, and watched, and certain days of such ilaria were spent in endless treats. The holiday of Hilary was specifically Roman - in honor of the mother of their gods, or rather demons, as Dimophilus says in the word “On sacrifices and holidays among the ancients.” That is, while real life continues. Note, That it becomes God-loving men throughout their lives to teach the erring and to encourage them to the knowledge of the truth. And note the following: some ignorantly say the opposite, using the apostolic saying that says: “Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10), not understanding the meaning of what was said, which is most beautifully clarified by the following words. Then, after the first and second admonition, it is blessed to turn away, when the teacher decided to turn away, having learned that he has changed radically and is hiding as a condemner of himself. It is clear that the sacred teachers also reveal the state of those who come. Other words “after the first and second admonition” were understood as “after teaching with the help of the Old and New Testaments.” Note that the apostolic tradition conveyed to us the rules of night psalmody. The negative particle “not” must be connected with the words “without excitement,” so that the whole turns out like this: “He rises, neither having enjoyed many dreams, since they were interrupted, nor remaining without excitement, since the dreams were interrupted.” Lightning (pristier) is a spiral movement of fiery air from top to bottom. It burns it, which is why it is called from the verb to burn (pimpran). Note that angels appear to the saint in the form of people. Note the words “because of the instability of their legs,” which indicates the goodness of will: those who did not want would not have fallen. Notice how the devil plunges people into utter darkness, which he here calls an abyss, that is, an abyss, either by deceiving or inciting those who obey him. And sometimes he takes dissolute people as his collaborators to deceive others, just like the idolater - against the now deceived one in question. That’s why he sees in his vision men among snakes, that is, demons attracting those defeated by the devil, from which may the Lord free us. Notice this is “evil,” that is, sin, which, when committed voluntarily, we mainly call evil. The words “involuntarily and voluntarily” should not be understood as indicating some kind of coercive force, that is, one must understand the devil, as the Manichaeans and Mesalians understand, but that we, inclined to do evil, often give room for attacks on us, drawing strength from ourselves against ourselves. He, the devil, becomes weak when we do not bow down, since God’s assisting help is close to us, as what follows shows. Notice also the ineffable compassion of the Lord. “By hand,” it’s clear that Karpa. That is, crucifiers,” the Lord told Karp. Notice that the Lord Himself calls the angels “kind and philanthropic.” This saint Titus is familiar to the apostle; he installed him as a bishop in Crete, as says the letter written to the same Titus by the divine Paul. Notice what the “Symbolic Theology” of the great Dionysius covers. To inspire means to impress and put into your consciousness certain metaphors of painters who, turning to the Truth, paint icons. He calls the prophets the fathers of ineffable wisdom. “We will be able to honor” is said instead of “we will create an object of veneration,” “we will surround with honors,” “we will admire,” “we will be amazed.” Pay attention to what is said about the Holy and Worshiped Trinity: “The Source of life flows into Itself and stands in Itself.” This shows, after all, Her consubstantiality, and the fact that the Unit, having emerged into the Trinity, remains within Her boundaries. So Gregory the Theologian speaks in the first word “About the Son” and in the second “About the world”. Notice also the words “always contemplating through Himself”: and this he says about the Holy Trinity. “Her” – that is, symbolic imagery. And here he writes “so many” instead of “many.” As for “that which is outside,” that is, that which is frivolous, this is added from ordinary speech. “God’s womb,” because it is said: “From the womb before the morning star I gave birth to You” (Ps. 109:3). “A word into the air,” because it is said: “My heart spewed out good words” (Ps. 44:1). “The breath that is breathed out” - because it is said: “By the breath of His mouth” (Ps. 32:6). “Womb” - because it is said: “The only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). “In the form of a garden,” that is, in the form of plants, because it is said: “There is a tree of life” (Rev. 2:7), and “From a germ my Son came” (see Gen. 49:9), and “Jacob will grow and grow” (cf. Ex. 1:7), which is said about Christ, whose fruit of salvation filled the earth, and the like. So note why in relation to God it is said “womb”, “vomiting out the word” and so on. “Fringes of water,” according to the words “With You is the fountain of life” (Ps. 35:10), and “I have been forsaken, the fountain of life, of living waters” (cf. Jer. 2:13). “Brightness” - because it is said: “This is the brightness of glory” (Heb. 1:3), and “Lord, in the light of Your countenance they will walk” (cf. Is. 2:5), and “In Your light we will see light” (Ps. 35:10), and the like. An example of the designation of crafts, “As an eagle covers its nest” (cf. Deut. 32:11) and - what is nearby; “gifts” - because it is said, “You open Your hand” (cf. Ps. 103:28) and “He who gives food to all flesh” (Ps. 136:25). Obviously, and this indicates providence. “Manifestations” - because in the form of a man He appeared as a saint in the Old Testament, and in the form of a dove - the Holy Spirit. The punishment of the wicked also refers to providence, for the prophet said: “Like a bear downcast, or like a leopard” (cf. Hos. 13: 7–8). The powers are called the eyes and other parts of the body. “Properties” - because in Amos He is called a plumb line (Amos 7:7-8), for the divine nature is characterized by dispassion and inflexibility, as well as by states of depravity, destruction, which is why it is said: “Our God is a consuming fire” (cf. Heb. 12:29). And the rest of what has been said is clear to the hardworking; and their constructive and allegorical (apagogical and symbolic) considerations do not contradict each other. “Lots” and “abodes” can be understood as images of the immutability and inviolability of the divine nature, which is also revealed in the image of the stones laid in the foundation. “Procession” and “division” are the communication of the goods inherent in Him by nature, as in the case of the lily, for example; fragrance, which is why it is said “the flower of the field” (Ps. 103:15), “lily of the valleys” (Song. 2:1). One should also understand “unions” with Him – creatures turning and connecting with Him, as the image of the cornerstone shows. Women's jewelry, which is mentioned in Isaiah (cf. Is. 61:3), denotes the diversity of divine providence. Similarly, by smelting and smelting one should understand either a creative craft, or a dividing and purifying force. The meaning of the image of military equipment becomes clear here: it denotes the ability to overthrow and destroy opponents. “Weapons of barbarian manufacture” make us remember: “In clothing embroidered with gold” (Ps. 45:14) and “Gird Your weapon on Your thigh, O Mighty One” (Ps. 45:4). After all, weapons (lit.: “Thracian sword”) are barbaric weapons, as Philarchus reports. Similarly, any craftsman who works with fire is a craftsman. “Certain feasts” he calls those feasts that are spoken of in the Gospel - when a fattened calf and so on are prepared for the prodigal son. “Breaking promises” he says here, meaning that some prophecies at first glance do not seem to have come true, such as, for example, representing little out of many, what was said to Jacob: “Be thy brother’s master” (cf. Gen. 27:29), and also regarding the abiding of the kingdom in the seed of David, which apparently clearly did not come true; Upon closer examination, this is not at all the case. As for Jacob, this was fulfilled in the power of his descendants, and in his ascension to Christ, as well as what was promised to Abraham regarding the possession of the earth and the blessing of the nations. And what is said about David - everything is raised to Christ. In a similar way is what was apparently said about Solomon in Psalm 44. He calls this kind of interpretative explanations, with their inherent diversity, “various inventions,” not as deceptively leading away from the truth, but as wisely revealing what is sought. He speaks of “conventional signs” that carry a symbolic meaning, meaning that they must be understood in relation to the truth that the image contains and the image directly conveys; says that they are not an independent form, but a mask and approximate designation of deeper speculations and ideas. He says this because images and symbols were not invented for their own sake as secret signs, but because of the unworthy, so that what was accessible to them would not seem worthy of contempt. He explains the ineffable mystical tradition itself, which is present in Scripture, calling it symbolic, because it is expressed in prophecies through symbols, but also perfect, because in symbols it conveys the performance of the sacraments through priestly tradition. He says that this inexpressible, or symbolic, is intertwined with what is expressible in the word, that is, that in what is said, the inexpressible, or the mysterious, is also entrusted to the symbol. For in the symbol is hidden the true and not intended for general use, as in the legal Easter - the true one, about which it is said: “Our Passover - Christ was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). The second part of the theological tradition is obvious and knowable not through symbols, it is called both philosophical and demonstrative, it includes what deals with the ethical, physical and practical properties of creation. This more open part has the power of persuasion and proof of the truth of what is being said; therefore it is also evidentiary. Symbolic theology does not tend to convince and prove, however, it can produce some implicit effective divine action, which affirms and, as it were, establishes in Christ contemplative souls capable of seeing the mysterious through mystical or symbolic riddles - through not the sacraments explained in words, but through the silence and revelation of the radiance of God, enlightening the mind to understand the ineffable mysteries. And note that the tradition of theologians is twofold: what it is and how it exists. Symbolic and fulfilling - performed through symbols, which is the legal service and our sacred rites of the sacraments, although ours is higher and more spiritual. The philosophical and apodictic is that which is carried out through the study of creatures, some divine providences and the theoretical interpretation of what is said about God in the Scriptures. “It convinces and makes it coherent” - as if it puts some kind of bond and seal on what is said about the truth, and gives faith to those who hear it. The symbolic, with the help of what is done, brings a person closer to God with a real state and impression, which he called “unteachable mysteries.” Note that not only legal tradition, but also the performance of our sacraments requires sacred symbols. And there is nothing surprising in this, since angels are introduced into the divine sacraments with the help of fortune telling, and the Lord Himself appears to theologians in parables. For this reason, natural science conveys some of Scripture symbolically, and some in its pure form. “Through divination” - as, for example, in Zechariah it is said that the angel figuratively shows and speaks about Jesus of Josedek and his clothing (Zech. 3: 1–9, 6: 11–13); and in Daniel, Gabriel announces Christ and hints at the sacraments associated with Him (Dan.9:21-27) and other similar things. He calls “divinely effective” either that which ends with God participating in it, or that which is made by God. “The image of the meal” he calls the sacrament performed by blessing the holy bread and cup at the divine meal. And notice that both the Old and New Testaments convey a lot through symbols, and why. It seems to me that he called human life indivisible and divisible for the following reason: first, because of the indivisibility and ethereal nature of the soul, and second, because of the diversity and multitude of parts of the body. Look how amazingly he talks about the soul. What he speaks of as indivisible, he also calls impassive; this is that subtlest and purest thing in the soul that can be called a flower - which is the mind, exuding the ability to speak, thanks to which mind the soul is capable of intelligibility, in which mind simple and, as it were, naked mysteries are seen, capable of being known beyond symbols. The same thing that is divisible in it, he called passion; This is a spiritual force, united with a feeling of spirit, residing between the soul and the body, in which spirit the essence of the powers of feeling and thoughts comprehended through research are affirmed. This explains the soul’s susceptibility to passions: thanks to the feelings, it descends to partiality for what is comprehended by the senses. And such, if I may say so, part of the soul, like the mind, is not pure and capable of contemplating the divine and intelligible directly, but needs some rougher intermediary, as if guiding it on the path to the simple and indivisible, which symbols accomplish through mediation, raising, that is, from what is perceived by the senses and manifested to the inexpressible. The intelligible (reasonable) part of the soul is impassive not because it is not involved in passion at all, but because it has no external reasons for passion - in contrast to the body, which is subject to many misfortunes that happen and cause harm, which the soul, without having a desire, does not endure. The susceptibility of her passion is explained by the perception by her senses of what is outside - akin, he said, to the transmission of the divine in a bodily image through the medium of symbols, with the help of which we are raised to the contemplation of the immaterial. Note that even those who have become acquainted with explicit and unveiled theology create in themselves certain images that guide them to perceive what they hear. Otherwise: Examples of explicit theology: “The Lord appeared” - to Abraham or Moses, “The Lord said,” “The word of the Lord came to the prophet,” and the like. Explicit - because it does not resort to figurative symbols. This refers to the image that arises in the mind upon pious consideration of such statements and is appropriate to the divine nature. Just as the divine Athanasius, with the help of trees, represents the hypostases of the worshiped Trinity, and other saints - with the help of something else. And the creation of the world, which makes visible the invisible of God, to a certain extent has a certain image from the category of symbols. After all, the Apostle says this: “For His invisible things, that is, His eternal power, is comprehended in creatures” (cf. Rom. 1:20). Christ (after all, I think, he calls Him “the true Word”) says: “If I told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” (John 3:12) and the like. When he says “from the point of view of society and law,” he means the praise and well-being of those who observe them, and the misfortunes and condemnation of those who deviate from them. He calls instructions and protective recommendations purifying and pure. “Human and intermediate” - questions like: “Where, Abel, is your brother?” (Gen.4:9) and expressions like: “When I go down, I will see” (Gen.18:21) and “The Lord will test the righteous and the wicked” (cf. Ps.10:5). The mediating also includes the seemingly completely inappropriate likening of God, for example, to animals or soulless things. By “super-peaceful and performing the sacraments,” he means the amazing act of creation by the Word and one desire. “Revealed laws” - for example, declaring a girl raped in the desert worthy of justification, and the like. “Unrevealed institutions” - for example: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau” (Mal.1:2-3; Rom.9:13) and other things of this kind. The father says “manifoldly” because one thing is symbolic, and the other is conveyed in a pure form and super-peacefully by Scripture. Philosophy belongs to both the active and the contemplative. The active belongs to both the general, which is also called political, which includes legislation, and the private, which includes ethics. The active includes economics. In the contemplative, one is called natural, since it deals with what is perceived by the senses and the changing, it is also the study of the world, and the other is called visual and theological, as it deals with the speculative and eternal. This has just been said. The sphere of contemplative philosophy also includes that which is both eternal and perceivable by the senses, which astronomy and mathematics know, about which Scripture does not speak, but the Jews do in Deuteronomy. Observe that what Scripture says symbolically, or historically, contains not mere history, but life-giving perfection. He calls life-giving perfection the goal that the saints pursue, with the help of the Scriptures, perfecting students for eternal life. He says this, showing the need to perceive the raising to the implicit and allegory. “Address” is written in the sense of “penetrate”, which means “to invade”, “to enter”, “to find yourself inside something”; Diogenian also says so. He calls the Most Pure and Most Holy Trinity “super-essential mental and divine lights.” “Intelligible” are the most excellent angels. We fully outlined the difference between them in the book “On Divine Names.” As for the providences, it is like in the Gospels: “I came to cast fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49), while “words” are like in Jeremiah: “Are not My words like fire? - says the Lord" (cf. Jer. 23:29). So it is clear that in relation to God the image of fire should be understood differently than in relation to intelligible beings, that is, to angels, to the providences of God and to words. The image of fire in the sense of cause refers to the Sayings of the Lord; in the sense of being - to God; in the sense of involvement - with angels. And what is meant by being differs from what participation means by the following: one reveals an essence that exists in itself and has a divine form introduced from without, as in the case of angels; and the other, meaning being, is divine, that is, coming from God, deed or Speech. Note that images are understood in accordance with the subject of speech, although they are the same. He moved on to the question of the secrecy of the parables and spoke about the properties of food. Notice that he called liquid food drink. Contemplation of the bowl and its roundness. He calls God’s providence “without beginning” not because he considers existing things to be co-original with Him, as the madmen think who say: “God and all are simultaneous,” but because He was before even existing things appeared in ideas, or in the prototypes of God, that is, in His eternal speculations (which the divine Paul called predestination, as we said in the book “On the Divine Names”), in which ideas and speculations Of God, what was to come true was foreshadowed; so that the providence of God existed without beginning before any creation. Divine providence, or providence, was characterized by the desire to produce a creature that would take advantage of His providential goodness. In accordance with this, the providence about immortal angels, about those who have us to become immortal and about us for the sake of perfect goods, is called “endless”. Which means that Wisdom creates a house for herself and prepares within herself what he spoke about, and what is outside of it, and what is in it. This is also discussed in the book “On the Divine Names” - how it is “resting and moving.” It should be noted that he calls God “Providence.” And here we must understand the words “primarily” as having nothing to do with deprivation and non-existence. Here I think it is necessary to clarify that the hearth (Greek “estia”), which probably means stability, is called “hearth” from “it is” (Greek “esti”). Since he said “resting,” meaning unchanging abiding, and “moving,” meaning providence about beings, to each of these words one must mentally add “entirely,” so that what is said would turn out like this: “Neither completely resting and therefore not moving providentially, nor completely moving and therefore changing His abiding.” Otherwise. Note that “Eternally resting and moving,” said about God, refers to His providential activity in abiding. And “neither rest nor move” indicates His presence in providence. We have repeatedly stated everything that is discussed here in the book “On Divine Names.” What is solid food and what is liquid; and – that solid food is “unshakable perfection.” In words about God, he calls “single and undivided mind” a mind that is not divided by thoughts directed towards the material, but uniformly thinks about the supra-naturalness and inscrutability of the divine nature, having developed the senses of the inner man. In the usual way, I think, he uses the image of “being poured” and what follows. Not in a single way, but by learning in a variety of ways and in different ways, we learn how to move towards the perfection of knowledge of God. Notice what the symbols reveal. Note that the father elevates the word “to treat” (euohein) to “to prosper” (eu ehein). To nourish good young men. This is from Homer; for “young” (koros) is a young man (neanias), and due to stylization - “young” (in Greek: *due to pleonasm - kouros), from where it is “young nourisher”. Notice why it is said that God gets drunk and why, and what drunkenness is in our country, and why in relation to God they speak of frenzy. Notice that God is above thinking, above understanding and above being. Notice in passing why it is said about God that He is intoxicated (drunk) and in a frenzy. Notice what the so-called meals, or feasts, are like in the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice what reclining in the Kingdom of Heaven is like—that it is peace, a safe life, and so on. Joy, or gladness (this is joy after all), is rightly called Jesus. Notice how we understand sleep and wakefulness in relation to God. Notice what Symbolic Theology contains. More thoroughly, that is, more extensively, it divided and depicted everything. This message of joy is worthy of that sacred antiquity and the disciple whom Jesus loved. As can be understood from this epistle and from the seventh epistle to Polycarp, Dionysius was about ninety years old when he wrote this. For in his letter to Polycarp, he says that, while staying in the Egyptian Iliopolis, he saw an unnatural solar eclipse that occurred during the saving crucifixion of the Lord, which took place in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. In his fifteenth year, the Lord Jesus began preaching, as the Gospel of Luke shows. Having preached for three years and a few months, our Lord and God voluntarily suffered, which happened in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. In total, Tiberius reigned for twenty-three years, so from the saving suffering to the death of Tiberius - almost six years. The holy evangelist John was imprisoned on the island of Patmos, which is one of the Cyclades, around the last year of the reign of Dometian. And he reigned for fifteen years and five months. It turns out that from the eighteenth year of Tiberius, when there was an eclipse, to the last year of Dometian - sixty-four years and approximately seven months. Let us assume that the divine Dionysius was twenty-five years old when he saw the eclipse that occurred during the crucifixion of the Lord, because, I think, he was still a student. So in total he was then about ninety years old. The imprisonment of Saint John under Dometian is mentioned by both Irenaeus in the third and fifth books of “Against Heresies,” where he indicates his time, and by Clement of Alexandria in the words “Which of the rich will be saved?” Note that it is not God who is guilty of separating sinners to stand on the left, but sinners themselves are guilty of this to themselves, completely separating themselves from God. “God-naming,” he says, either meaning that they always do everything in the name of God, or that those who are called by the name of God, that is, Christ, should live like Him, and are themselves called gods. “The Sun of the Gospel (Gospel)” he rightly calls this divine John. He says the following: “I, deservedly accusing and blaspheming those who are thinking of keeping you, the sun of the Gospel (the Gospel), imprisoned in this place, pray, however, that they may arise and come running to you in order to be saved, having been enlightened. For just as those who think it is possible to limit this physical sun to a place are crazy, so they are crazy when they think of keeping the light of your Gospel (Gospel) with you on the island of Patmos.” It is said instead: “Even if you were far away.” And note that the great Dionysius prophesied, clearly saying that it was revealed to him from God - as well as to Saint John himself - that after a short time he would be released from prison on the island of Patmos, which is what happened. For, as we said a little earlier, about the last year of the reign of Dometian, John was exiled to the island of Patmos - when Dometian launched a persecution against Christians. Then, before the death of the king, this greatest evangelist John sees the divine Revelation.