Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1viii Dionysiiis the Areopaglte supposition. Routh gives two fragments of Pantaenus. The second is a distinct echo of Dionysius. In Divine Names (c. 7), Dionysius discusses how- Almighty God knows existing things, and explains the text ; "ZT^, knoiamg all things before their birth^^ as proving that *' not as learning existing things from existing things, but from Himself, and in Himself, as Cause, the Divine Being pre-holds and precomprehends the notions and essence of all things, not approaching each several thing according to its kind, but knowing and containing all things within one grasp of the cause. Thus Almighty God knows existing things, not by a knowledge of existing things, but by that of Himself. Dionysius, c. V. s. 8, speaking of creation, declares that the Divine and good volitions of Almighty God define and produce existing things. Pantsenus teaches the same : *' Neither does He know things sensible sensibly (ala-dTjTwi), nor things intelligible intellectually. For it is not possible that He, Who is above all things, should comprehend things being, after things being (Kara ra ovra), but we affirm that He knows things being, as His own volitions .... yea, as His own volitions, Almighty God knows things being, since by willing (deXcov), He made all things being. In Mystic Theology, c. V., Dionysius says, " Almighty God does not know existing things, ^im existing. The teaching of Ammonius-Saccus is the same ; Ammonius uses the word ^ovXrjixa, Dionysius and Pantaenus, OfXrifxaTa, of God, as Source of Creation.
2mid the Alexandi'ine School. ix But, though the known fragments of Pantaenus are few, we possess abundant writings of two pupils^ Clement of Alexandria and Origen, from which we may gather the teaching of their master. Clement speaks of Pantaenus as his " great instructor and collaborator. Such is the similarity between the writings of Clement and Dionysius, that some have hazarded the conjecture that Clement the Philosopher, mentioned by Dionysius, was Clement of Alexandria ! I give only one familiar illustration. Clement writes : " As then, those riding at anchor at sea, drag the anchor, but do not drag it to themselves, but themselves to the anchor, thus those who are drawn to God in the gnostic life, find themselves unconsciously led to God. Dionysius, D. N., c. III. s. i, says, " or, as if after we have embarked on ship, and are holding on to the cable, attached to some rock, we do not draw the rock to us, but ourselves, and the ship, to the rock. Wherefore, before everything, and especially theology, we must begin with prayer ; not as though we ourselves were drawing the power, which is everywhere, and nowhere present, but as, by our godly reminiscences and invocations, conducting ourselves to, and making ourselves one with It. Origen confessed that Pantaenus was his superior in the philosophy of the schools, and that he moulded his teaching upon the model of Pantaenus. Do the writings of Origen bear the stamp of Dionysius and Hierotheus? Origen, on the resurrection of the body, says, " For how does it not seem absurd
3x - Dionysius the Areopaglte that this body which has endured scars for Christ, and, equally with the soul, has borne the savage torments of persecutions, and has also endured the suffering of chains, and rods, and has been tortured with fire, beaten with the sword, and has further suffered the cruel teeth of wild beasts, the gallows of the cross, and divers kinds of punishments, — that this should be deprived of the prizes of such contests. If forsooth, the soul alone, which not alone contended, should receive the crown, and its companion the body, which served it with much labour, should attain no recompense, for its agony and victory, — how does it not seem contrary to all reason, that the flesh, resisting for Christ its natural vices, and its innate lust, and guarding its virginity with immense labour, — that one, when the time for rewards has come, should be rejected as unworthy and the other should receive its crown? Such a fact would undoubtedly argue on the part of God, either a lack of justice or a lack of power. Dionysius (E. H., c. VII.) says, "Now the pure bodies of the holy souls, enrolled together as yoke-fellows, and fellow travellers, which together strove during the divine contests, throughout the Divine Life, in the unmoved steadfastness of the souls, will together receive their own resurrection. For, having been made one with the holy souls, to which they were united during this present life, by having become members of Christ, they will receive in return the godlike and incorruptible immortality and blessed inheritance. Dionysius (D. N., c. VI. s. 2) says, " what is still more
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1viii Dionysiiis the Areopaglte supposition. Routh gives two fragments of Pantaenus. The second is a distinct echo of Dionysius. In Divine Names (c. 7), Dionysius discusses how- Almighty God knows existing things, and explains the text ; "ZT^, knoiamg all things before their birth^^ as proving that *' not as learning existing things from existing things, but from Himself, and in Himself, as Cause, the Divine Being pre-holds and precomprehends the notions and essence of all things, not approaching each several thing according to its kind, but knowing and containing all things within one grasp of the cause. Thus Almighty God knows existing things, not by a knowledge of existing things, but by that of Himself. Dionysius, c. V. s. 8, speaking of creation, declares that the Divine and good volitions of Almighty God define and produce existing things. Pantsenus teaches the same : *' Neither does He know things sensible sensibly (ala-dTjTwi), nor things intelligible intellectually. For it is not possible that He, Who is above all things, should comprehend things being, after things being (Kara ra ovra), but we affirm that He knows things being, as His own volitions .... yea, as His own volitions, Almighty God knows things being, since by willing (deXcov), He made all things being. In Mystic Theology, c. V., Dionysius says, " Almighty God does not know existing things, ^im existing. The teaching of Ammonius-Saccus is the same ; Ammonius uses the word ^ovXrjixa, Dionysius and Pantaenus, OfXrifxaTa, of God, as Source of Creation.
2mid the Alexandi'ine School. ix But, though the known fragments of Pantaenus are few, we possess abundant writings of two pupils^ Clement of Alexandria and Origen, from which we may gather the teaching of their master. Clement speaks of Pantaenus as his " great instructor and collaborator. Such is the similarity between the writings of Clement and Dionysius, that some have hazarded the conjecture that Clement the Philosopher, mentioned by Dionysius, was Clement of Alexandria ! I give only one familiar illustration. Clement writes : " As then, those riding at anchor at sea, drag the anchor, but do not drag it to themselves, but themselves to the anchor, thus those who are drawn to God in the gnostic life, find themselves unconsciously led to God. Dionysius, D. N., c. III. s. i, says, " or, as if after we have embarked on ship, and are holding on to the cable, attached to some rock, we do not draw the rock to us, but ourselves, and the ship, to the rock. Wherefore, before everything, and especially theology, we must begin with prayer ; not as though we ourselves were drawing the power, which is everywhere, and nowhere present, but as, by our godly reminiscences and invocations, conducting ourselves to, and making ourselves one with It. Origen confessed that Pantaenus was his superior in the philosophy of the schools, and that he moulded his teaching upon the model of Pantaenus. Do the writings of Origen bear the stamp of Dionysius and Hierotheus? Origen, on the resurrection of the body, says, " For how does it not seem absurd
3x - Dionysius the Areopaglte that this body which has endured scars for Christ, and, equally with the soul, has borne the savage torments of persecutions, and has also endured the suffering of chains, and rods, and has been tortured with fire, beaten with the sword, and has further suffered the cruel teeth of wild beasts, the gallows of the cross, and divers kinds of punishments, — that this should be deprived of the prizes of such contests. If forsooth, the soul alone, which not alone contended, should receive the crown, and its companion the body, which served it with much labour, should attain no recompense, for its agony and victory, — how does it not seem contrary to all reason, that the flesh, resisting for Christ its natural vices, and its innate lust, and guarding its virginity with immense labour, — that one, when the time for rewards has come, should be rejected as unworthy and the other should receive its crown? Such a fact would undoubtedly argue on the part of God, either a lack of justice or a lack of power. Dionysius (E. H., c. VII.) says, "Now the pure bodies of the holy souls, enrolled together as yoke-fellows, and fellow travellers, which together strove during the divine contests, throughout the Divine Life, in the unmoved steadfastness of the souls, will together receive their own resurrection. For, having been made one with the holy souls, to which they were united during this present life, by having become members of Christ, they will receive in return the godlike and incorruptible immortality and blessed inheritance. Dionysius (D. N., c. VI. s. 2) says, " what is still more
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.