Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries

II. Works

1. Theodoret is one of the most remarkable exegetes of antiquity. He wrote a number of commentaries on individual books, on all the prophets, on the Song of Songs, on all the epistles of the Apostle Paul. In addition, he composed in question-and-answer form explanations of selected difficult passages from the Osmibook and the historical books of the Old Testament. In his interpretations, Theodoret relies on a historical and grammatical analysis of the text, dwelling primarily on its literal meaning. At the same time, he takes into account the discrepancies in the Greek text, and often turns to the Hebrew; However, it is unlikely that he knew the Hebrew language thoroughly. Theodoret was harsh about the extremes of allegorism, and in allegorical explanations he saw "the fables of the foolish", "the ravings of drunken old women", "the fictions of superstitions". He considers the task of the interpreter to be "to penetrate into the mysteries of the all-holy Spirit," and for this illumination is needed from above—restless imagination is useless here. But Theodoret does not stop at the "simple letter", does not refuse, in necessary cases, to plunge into the depths and catch the "innermost beads of understanding". In the biblical text, much is said in an applied, metaphorical way, and the interpretation should reveal the meaning of these images and tropes. The meaning of the Old Testament ritual legislation must be explained "according to the laws of allegory"... In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Theodoret objected to the deniers of its divine inspiration, who were unable to delve into the meaning and "reveal the mystery of the word"... At one time it was understood that Theodoret had in mind Theodore of Mopsuestia — "although he concealed his name, he revealed his madness"... Fencing herself off from Theodore in her commentary, Theodoret, on the contrary, uses Origen... In addition to the allegorical and moral meaning, Theodoret finds in many Old Testament texts hidden hints at the Christian truths of the faith. Thus, he recognizes the plural in the story of the creation of man as a prototype of the Trinitarian mystery; in the Burning Bush he sees the image of the virgin conception. In this way, Theodoret preserves a living connection between the two Testaments. As for Chrysostom, for Theodoret the Old Testament is an image of the New, τύπоς... And this "typicality" does not detract from historical realism: the facts themselves have a pre-educational meaning, the very faces are prototypes. In the Old Testament law everything is full of indications of the kingdom of grace. Prophecies should be distinguished from images. All the prophets foresaw what was realized in the Church, but they saw from afar, and therefore it is not clear, and in the prophetic speeches one cannot look for the same clarity as in the apostolic works. In his interpretation of prophecies, Theodoret tries to avoid immoderate allegory, and at the same time he condemns those who "applied prophecies to some previous events, why their interpretation is more beneficial to the Jews than to the children of faith." Prophecy always exceeds the boundaries of its time and points beyond it. Only in the kingdom of grace do prophecies receive full fulfillment... Not all prophecies have a direct messianic meaning, many directly point to the events of the Old Testament, but at the same time to those that are themselves types of the New Testament – types, and not only signs. In his interpretations, Theodoret relied on previous exegetes and owed much to them, but at the same time he remained independent and skillfully combined the truth of the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools. In this respect, he is close to Chrysostom, whom he directly followed in his interpretations of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. It should be added that even in antiquity they were able to appreciate the language and style of the Theodorite interpretations, clear, concise and pure. 2. Among the successful works of Theodoret is his book against the pagans: "The Healing of Hellenic Diseases, or the Knowledge of the Gospel Truth, from Greek Philosophy". This is the last in a series of ancient "apologies". In the middle of the fifth century, paganism had not yet died, and it had to be seriously reckoned with in pastoral life. Theodoret often refers to his meetings and clashes with "adherents of pagan mythology" who laughed at Christianity, and these ridicules did not pass harmlessly for weak people. In order to fight, Theodoret begins with a positive revelation of the truth of the Gospel, especially in questions that are difficult for the pagan consciousness, in order to eliminate enmity from ignorance. In contrast to Christianity, paganism is vividly exposed in its emptiness and weakness. Theodoret emphasizes his helpless contradictions, the fruitlessness and instability of pagan thought. His picture is gloomy and not without partiality, the whole history of Hellenism turns out to be a history of the continuous growth of evil, "for such is the cunning of falsehood that those who depart from one path pass on to another, even more dangerous." However, Theodoret stipulates that "those who lived before the coming of the Lord have some small excuse, because the sun of righteousness had not yet shone, and they walked as if in the darkness of the night, guided by nature alone"; its "God-inscribed writings of old" were erased from sin... But now the sun has risen and it is not fitting to be "blind at noon"... Repeating the former apologists, Clement of Alexandria, first of all, and Eusebius, Theodoret tries to find in the most pagan wisdom the reference and starting points for conversion to the true faith. He speaks of the ways of natural knowledge of God: "The generation of Abraham received the law and enjoyed prophetic grace, while the Ruler of all tongues led to godliness through nature and creation." "By guidance" the pagans could also ascend to the knowledge of the Creator. Theodoret also repeats the old idea about the borrowings of the Hellenic sages from Moses. In his presentation, Theodoret is not very independent. It is unlikely that he studied all the pagan authors to whom he refers directly. Or rather, that he used summaries and collections - Aetius, probably, probably both Plutarch and Porphyry. At the same time, Theodoret managed to arrange this alien material into a harmonious system, unlike his predecessors. Ten long words "On Providence" are attached to this apologetic work. Theodoret's writings "Against the Magi" and "Against the Jews" have not come down to us. 3. Of great value are the historical works of Theodoret, his "Church History", first of all. It begins with the "madness of Arius" and ends with "the death of the laudable men Theodore and Theodotus" (Bishop of Antioch), approximately in the years 428-429. It was written around 449-450, but it must be assumed that Theodoret began to work on it and collect materials much earlier. Theodoret continues Eusebius and sets himself the task of "describing what has been omitted"... The question of the sources of Theodorite's work remains controversial. There is no doubt that he used Eusebius, and very abundantly Rufinus, probably Philostorgius. It is unlikely that he used the books of Socrates and Sozomen. It is more difficult to determine the sources of his individual reports. There is no doubt that he made use of the historical works of Athanasius, extracted factual data from Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian. In many respects, he relied on oral legends and stories. He treated the collected material with sufficient discernment, but his general ideas about the meaning and character of the historical process experienced by the Church during the century he depicts are perhaps too simple. He abuses providentialism and too often does not give either a pragmatic or a psychological analysis, which, however, could not be expected according to the historiographical skills of the time. For all that, in the ecclesiastical sense of the events described, he skillfully understands, and in this respect he surpasses Socrates. For Theodoret, history ceases to be only a chronicle – in the rhythm of events he sees a general meaning, depicts the past as the struggle of the Church with the heresy (Arian). The main value of the history of Theodorite for us is the documents preserved by him, only on Theodoret and known ones, including the well-known epistle of St. Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Thessalonica. Theodoret also preserved many details from the life of the East—he always speaks of the life of his native Church with warm feeling. Before the "Church History" Theodoret compiled the "History of the God-Lovers" – probably already in the first half of the forties. This is a series of images of ascetics (out of 36 three are dedicated to God-loving women) who made their way in the East, in Syria. Theodoret knew some personally, others he speaks of from the words of eyewitnesses, whom he sometimes calls by name. He also had some notes. Theodoret's stories have complete authenticity. But it must be remembered that he writes not history, but hagiographies, and strives not for biographical completeness and accuracy, but for the vividness of the image. He himself compares his characteristics with the memorable images that were erected to the Olympic winners. "We will not outline bodily features," he says, "but we will outline the thoughts of the invisible soul and show the invisible struggle and hidden feats." That is why he does not strive for completeness, but tries to go through "different ways of life" in order to give examples suitable for different situations. All Theodoret's attention is focused on the inner life of the ascetics he depicts, he gives few details about the external life, and is stingy with chronological indications. This does not violate the historical nature of his stories. He depicts living people, not typical images. In Theodorite's subsequent hagiographic writing, the "history of the God-lovers" enjoyed great attention, and Symeon Metaphrastes copied Theodoret almost verbatim. To the "History of the God-Lovers" adjoins the "Discourse on Divine and Holy Love," a kind of philosophical-theological conclusion to it. Theodoret wants to reveal the motive principle of the ascetic life and finds it in love. "Love for God makes ascetics capable of extending beyond the boundaries of nature" and attaining impassibility. "They receive from everywhere the wound of Divine love, and, despising everything, they impress upon their minds the Beloved, and before the expected incorruptibility they make their body spiritual"... This love draws them to Wisdom, and for Theodoret ascetics are first of all "worshippers of true wisdom." Finally, to the historical writings of Theodoret belongs his "Collection of Heretical Fables" in four books, compiled after the Council of Chalcedon. Theodoret made abundant use here of the preceding hereseologic literature, most of all Irenaeus, the history of Eusebius, perhaps the Philosopoumena, and in any case the "Code" (Syntagma) of Hippolytus, — in part, he also made use of heretical books, so he read the works of Bardesanes. Theodoret spoke about some heresies from personal experience, since in Syria he had to meet with the remnants of ancient heresies, for example, with the Marcionites. Theodoret is suspicious of the legendary stories about heretics and deliberately avoids conveying seductive details. In this respect he is the opposite of Epiphanius, whose work he apparently used. Theodoret brings the review of heresies to Eutyches, but the chapter on Nestorius, of course, presents a later insertion. There is little new material in Theodoret, the development of heresies is not visible in him at all, since he strives to give complete and immovable types of errors. He does not come up with a history, but a system of heresies, a consolidated image of the dark kingdom of falsehood rising up against the Kingdom of God. The historical value of the hereseology of Theodorite as a source is not great. 4. Theodoret argued about faith all his life. And all his dogmatic works had a polemical task and character. Apparently, in his early years he wrote much against the Arians, against Apollinarius, and against the Marcionites. In the surviving works of Theodoret there are not a few polemical excursions. Theodoret is the author of two treatises "On the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity" and "On the Incarnation", published by Card. A. Mai is among the works of St. Cyril, but certainly not belonging to him. In content and theological language they are very close to the indisputable works of Theodoret. And under the name of Theodoret, they are known and quoted by the famous Severus of Antioch. They should be attributed to the time before 430. To the epoch of the Nestorian controversies belong first of all the "Objections" of Theodoret to the "chapters" of St. Cyril. After the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret again wrote a large book of objections, of which only small fragments have survived, mainly by Marius Mercator. The famous publisher of Theodorite's works, the Jesuit Garnier, gave this book the title Pentalogue, based on the instructions of Marius Mercator. Only in fragments has the apology of Theodoret survived to us in defense of Theodore and Diodorus, against St. Cyril. Many letters of this time have a dogmatic content. To his later years belongs the most interesting dogmatic-polemical work of Theodoret: the Eranistes (or Rags), written in dialogical form. It was completed in 448. Theodoret here describes and refutes the nascent Monophysitism, and it is possible that he used some written Monophysite sources in doing so. By the very name Theodoret wants to define the meaning of the new heresy: έρανισής from έρανоν means a beggar and a beggar, who begs everywhere and from other people's scraps makes a motley and multicolored cloth. Theodoret sees such a "variegated and manifold wisdom" in Monophysitism. Against the "Yeranist" his Orthodox interlocutor defends the immutability and non-merging of the Divine-human union and the "non-suffering" of the Divinity in Christ. Theodoret tries to explain the real meaning of the judgments and sayings of St. Cyril and shows the incorrectness of the Monophysite interpretation of the "Cyrilian faith". In many ways, he directly repeats St. Cyril. In contrast to his earlier works, here Theodoret frees himself from the narrowness of the school and shows great theological insight. From the external side, the dialogue is distinguished by harmony and simplicity. In the last fourth word, Theodoret sums up the positive results of the dispute in a "syllogistic form". In collecting patristic testimonies, Theodoret probably used a compilation compiled in 430-431 by Helladius of Ptolemais. To these polemical works must be added the Abridgement of Divine Dogmas, which is the fifth book of the Cures of Hellenic Infirmities. This is a brief and complete sketch of Christian dogmatics, supported mainly by biblical texts. 5. Theodoret preached a lot and constantly from an early age. "He taught continuously," as he put it. He mentions his "conversations" more than once. As a preacher, he enjoyed great respect and honor. "Sometimes, at the end of the conversation, they hugged me, kissed my head, chest and hands. Some even touched my knees, calling my teaching apostolic," he recalled. It remains doubtful whether he wrote down his sermons himself; in any case, he himself never refers to his written sermons. None of his sermons has survived in their entirety. The references of his opponents to his expressions in sermons cannot be accepted without verification. Patriarch Photius read 5 "Homilies" of Theodoret in praise of Chrysostom, which in his opinion were immoderately laudatory, and preserved several fragments of them. Probably, from the church ambo the "Words on Providence" were spoken... 6. Theodoret's letters present rich biographical and general historical material. A lot of them have been preserved. There are not a few indications of the works of Theodoret that have not come down to us. The manuscript tradition of Theodoret's works has not been sufficiently critically examined. This is especially true of Syriac literature. In any case, Theodoret was one of the most prolific and versatile writers of antiquity. According to the judgment of Photius, he combined the simplicity of the syllable and its elegance, although he was not a Hellenic by birth.

III. Confession

1. In his Christological confession, Theodoret sought the "middle" way, the "path of the Gospel dogmas"... He tried to hold fast to tradition. But he had to theologize in the dispute. In this controversy he appears to be a representative of the Antiochian school, whose Christology was manifested from the very beginning by an intense repulsion from Apollinarianism. Theodoret gave the first exposition of his Christological views in the treatise "On the Incarnation of the Lord". In him one can feel a sharp repulsion from Apollinarius. Theodoret first of all shows the fullness of humanity in Christ, its immutability in unity. He proceeds from the fact of dispensation, as from the work and revelation of Divine mercy and love. Only by perceiving full humanity with a rational soul can salvation be attained. If the Savior had not been God, then salvation would not have been realized. And if he had not been a man, then His sufferings, His "saving passion," would have been useless to us. From here Theodoret comes to the confession of Christ as God and man... He thinks of the union of natures as inseparable. The two natures are united in one Person, in the unity of life, έν πρόσωπоν — it should be noted that Theodoret sharply distinguishes between the concepts of "persons" and "hypostases", and ύπόστασις for him remains synonymous with φύσις... Incarnation is perception, and perception of the whole man... Theodoret designates the image of the union of the "divine nature" or "form" (μρφή) with the human nature as indwelling, connection, communion, unity, ένоίκησις, συνάφεια, ένωσις. In man, in the "visible," the Word dwelt concealed, as in a temple, and manifested itself in him by its actions. The Divinity is inseparably united with humanity, but Theodoret first of all emphasizes the "distinction of nature", "the peculiarities of nature"... "We do not divide the economy into two persons, nor do we preach two sons instead of the Only-begotten, but we teach, as we have been taught, that there are two natures, δύо φύσεις, — for there is another Godhead and another humanity; another being and another having become, another image of God, and another human image, this One Who has received, this One who has been received"... Theodoret sharply distinguishes between these two sides. Thus he says of the temptation of Christ: "It is not God the Word that is being taught, but the temple received by God the Word from the seed of David," "the temple formed by the Spirit for God the Word in the Virgin"... That is why he calls the Most Holy Virgin both the Mother of God and the Mother of Man, "by the latter name because she really gave birth to one like herself, and by the first because the image of God was united with the image of a servant"... It seems to have seemed to Theodoret that only the union of the two names excludes any hint of an impious "fusion" of natures. In all these formulations, the peculiarity and independence of humanity in Christ, as it were, a special "man," is emphasized with excessive sharpness... At the same time, the concept of the "one Person" (έν πρόσωπоν) did not sufficiently express the fullness of union in the language of that time. Theodoret studiously avoided the "transfer of names". This made his negative attitude towards the anathemas of St. Cyril inevitable. 2. In his conclusions on the "chapters" of St. Cyril, Theodoret first of all objects to the concept of "hypostatic" or "natural" unity, and opposes to it the concept of confluence or union. Behind the "strange and alien" concept of "unity in hypostasis" he suspects the idea of a fusion that destroys the peculiarities of the uniting natures, of the emergence of something "intermediate between the flesh and the Divinity," so that God is no longer God and the temple perceived is not the temple. In the concept of "natural unity" Theodoret saw the subordination of the Deity to necessity. In the concept of "nature" (φύσις), the moment of inevitability and compulsion stood out sharply for him: "nature is, by his definition, something moved by necessity and devoid of freedom" — "by nature" that which is "not of the will" is accomplished... "If in this way there was a 'natural union' of the image of God and the image of the slave," Theodoret concludes, "then God the Word was compelled by necessity, and not moved by love for mankind, to unite with the image of the slave, and the Lawgiver is always in necessity to follow the laws (of nature)." In contrast to the concept of "natural union," Theodoret emphasizes the freedom of exhaustion of the Son of God, who "by intention" was united "with nature taken from us." A union presupposes a difference, those who are divided are united; and therefore Theodoret wonders how Cyril can refuse to "separate hypostases or natures." He overlooked what St. Cyril openly understood by "hypostasis" or "nature" – "person". Professing the "unity of the person," Theodoret did not draw all the necessary conclusions from this. By dividing the Gospel sayings between the "two natures," he weakened the truth of unity. He refers all derogatory utterances to the "image of a slave," and one gets the impression that he means a special "person," a special subject. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Theodoret insistently and constantly speaks of human nature as a "temple received." He only wanted to exclude all fusion, transformation or change. But in reality he said more than he wanted to say: he called Christ a "God-bearing man," stipulating, however, that he "wholly possesses the one Divinity of the Son"; "Therefore the child who is born is called Immanuel, both God who is not separated from human nature, and a man who is not alien to the Divine" — "The child is called Immanuel for the reason that he was perceived by God" — "The image of God took the form of a servant." Theodoret notes that "perception" coincides with conception. But at the same time he crosses the right line, allowing the parallelism of the expressions: "God, not separated from humanity" and "man, not alien to the Divine". In reality, these are opposite and incompatible relationships. In Theodoret, it remains unclear whether God took on the Word "human nature" or "man." He understood the former, confessing a single Person, but it could be understood rather in the second sense. In particular, this is reflected in Theodoret's objections to the X-th "chapter". He refuses to say that God the Word Himself was the High Priest and Advocate of our confession. "Who is this, who is accomplished by deeds of virtue, and not by nature? Who has discovered obedience without knowing it until it has experienced it? Who was it that lived in reverence, with a strong cry and with tears, offering prayers, not having the strength to save himself, but praying to Him who was able to save him and asking for deliverance from death?" asks Theodoret, and answers: "Not God the Word, Who is immortal, impassible, incorporeal... But that's what He received from the seed of David... It received the name of a priest after the order of Melchizedek, clothed in the weakness of our nature and is not the almighty Word of God... This is the one who came from the seed of David and, not participating in any sin, became our Holy Hierarch and Sacrifice, offering himself for us and already bearing within himself the Word of God, which is from God, united and inseparably linked with him"... "In this way," concludes Theodoret in his remarks on the 12th chapter, "it was not Christ who suffered, but man, who was received from us by the Word"... Theodoret defends here the indisputable truth about the non-participation of the Word in the sufferings and changes of the Divine, and this gives him the opportunity to reveal with perfect clarity the fullness and reality of human experience in Christ, to dispel even remote docetical shades. But at the same time, he does not sufficiently emphasize the unity of Christ, who exists "in the image of God" and endured the infirmities of the flesh in his own, truly assimilated human nature. In the depiction of Theodoret, humanity is as if isolated into a special subject, into a special high priest. Theodoret's objections to Cyril's chapters reveal the insufficiency of his theological language, and at the same time the fact that he is bound by terminology once learned, outside of which he can no longer think. School schemes deprive Theodoret of freedom, and the indistinctness of theological ideas is further intensified by a short-sighted suspicion of imaginary Apollinarian temptations. Theodoret did not notice, failed to notice, that both he and St. Cyril spoke of one and the same thing, of the true Christ who was equally believed, although they spoke in different ways. And carried away by the desire to emphasize the difference against the imaginary fusion, he did not see that the way of expressing St. Cyril made it possible to more clearly reveal the unity professed by Theodoret, for which Theodoret himself simply did not have enough words. This is connected with a significant difference in the way psychological facts are described. Cyril and Theodoret equally use the analogy of man united from soul and body into a single living being. But for St. Cyril this analogy explained unity, for Theodoret – duality. Later, Theodoret himself confessed that in his struggle with the enemy he fell into a certain "immoderation," into unevenness, but "that only necessity produced a certain immoderation in the division." He strove for excessive logical definiteness and did not sufficiently feel the antinomic nature of the Divine-human mystery. In the "chapters" of St. Cyril he did not understand everything; this is felt in many of his remarks, when he seems to be breaking into an open door, and this was already noticed by Cyril himself, in his analysis of Theodorite's objections: "I confess that at first I thought that he understood the meaning of the chapters and pretended to be ignorant and thus pleased someone; Now I know for sure that he really does not understand"... Immediately after the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret wrote an extensive dogmatic epistle to the monks of Euphratesia, Osroina, Syria, Cilicia and Phoenicia. In it, he bitterly complains about the "evil offspring of Egypt," which, in his opinion, came "from the bitter root of Apollinarius," and at the same time offers a completely accurate confession: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, from a rational soul and body, born before the ages of the Father according to the Divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary, of one and the same thing, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and of one essence with us in humanity: for the union of the two natures was accomplished... That is why we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not share the unity, but we believe that it has been accomplished unmerged. And we offer Him one worship, since we believe that the union took place in the womb of the Virgin from the very conception"... But in the chapters of St. Cyril he still continues to see "impious reasoning"... Theodoret stubbornly stood for the Antiochian usage. It is true that in many ways it preceded the Chalcedonian oros. But the Chalcedonian Fathers confessed the union of the two natures in "one person and one hypostasis," and with them the concept of "person" through direct identification with the concept of "hypostasis" was completely freed from the vagueness that was characteristic of it in the use of words at that time, and especially in the "Eastern" usage. In Theodoret, on the other hand, the duality of "natures" or "hypostases" is strongly expressed, and unity is indistinct, without definition, or as "unity of person," but not as "hypostasis." He introduced the same vagueness, constantly combining the names: the Mother of God and the Mother of God, not noticing that the latter expresses either something indisputable, or too much. 3. In the struggle against the nascent Monophysitism, Theodoret again expresses himself in his "Yeranist", and expresses himself more systematically and fully. The whole meaning of the mystery of the Incarnation is in the "perception of the flesh," without any inconceivable and impossible "change" in which God the Word would cease to be what He was. In Theodoret, the embodiment is thought of in a broad soteriological perspective. In order to renew the decayed image, the Creator had to take on the whole nature. And therefore Christ is the Second Adam, and His victory is our victory, and the new life imparted by union with God the Word, extends to the entire human race. The resurrection of Christ opens up freedom from death for all mankind... From this the necessity of the fullness of both natures and the reality of their union become clear. "The name man," Theodoret explains, "is the name of nature, and silence about it is the negation of this nature, and the denial of this nature is the annihilation of Christ's sufferings, and the annihilation of this makes salvation illusory"... Only through the perception of the image of the servant from us does Christ become the Mediator, "combining in the very union of natures that which was divided"... "Before the union there were not two natures, but only one," Theodoret justly asserts, "for mankind was not co-inherent in the Word from eternity, "but was formed together with the angelic greeting"; and before that there was one nature, always and eternally existing. Incarnation is perception in conception... At the same time, it is only in the confession of immutability that the fullness of the Godhead is preserved in Christ. In union "the natures were not merged, but remained whole"; but this duality does not break the unity of the person. By analogy with the human personality, Theodoret now even speaks of a "natural unity." In this unity, of course, the properties of each nature remain unchanged — τά τών φύσεων ϊδια... Theodoret explains this "natural union" into a "single person" in a certain way of red-hot iron, but "this close union, this completely, penetrating mixture, does not change the nature of iron"... And iron remains iron... Theodoret now speaks almost in the language of Cyril, and refers directly to him... Theodoret dwells in particular detail on the question of the sufferings of Christ. "And we do not say that anyone else (and not the Son of God) suffered, but at the same time we know from the Divine Scriptures that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. Thus, when we hear about impassibility and suffering, and about the union of the Divinity and humanity, we say that suffering belongs to the passionate body, and we confess the impassible nature to be free from suffering." But this body is not the body of a simple man, but the body of the Only-begotten... And, "because of unity, the face of Christ takes on all that is proper to each nature" — both the Divine and the Human are said to be of one person... In suffering and death the inseparable unity of natures was not broken, and from the passionate flesh "the Divine nature was inseparable," both in the tomb and on the cross, although it did not accept suffering itself. "By nature the flesh suffered, but God the Word appropriated to Himself its sufferings as to His own flesh"... Through this "assimilation" the impassibility of the Divinity and the suffering of humanity are invariably united, and the sufferings are not imputed to the Divine nature itself, although they are the sufferings of the "body of God the Word." In the resurrection, the Lord's flesh remains impassible and incorruptible, but "remains within the limits of nature and retains the qualities of humanity." Already after the Ephesian "murder," Theodoret repeated: "Confessing Christ to be immutable, impassible, and immortal, we cannot assimilate to His own nature either transmutation, suffering, or death. And if it is said that God can do whatever He wills, then it should be said that He does not want that which is inconsistent with His nature... Since He has an immortal nature, He also took on a body capable of suffering, and together with the body the human soul. And although the body of the only-begotten Son of God is called the body received, yet He attributes the sufferings of the body to Himself." Theodoret approaches the concept of the "transfer of names", substantiating it by the unity of the person; "union makes names common, but community of names does not confuse the natures themselves"; "the union did not produce a fusion of the peculiarities of nature," and they are clearly distinguishable and perceived. "For gold, when in contact with fire, takes on the color and action of fire, but does not lose its nature, but remains gold, although it acts like fire. In the same way, the body of the Lord is a body, but (after ascending into heaven) unsuffering, incorruptible, immortal, sovereign, divine, and glorified by Divine glory. It is not separated from the Godhead and is not the body of anyone else, but the only-begotten Son of God. It does not reveal to us any other person, but the Only-begotten Himself, Who took on our nature"... Theodoret now speaks somewhat differently than before, but he also speaks. Suspicious prejudices were dispelled and his theological contemplation became clearer and more precise. In him, as before, he no longer feels the school limitation. And at the Council of Chalcedon he approved, albeit in a general form, the previously disputed epistles of St. Cyril... Now he understood the "chapters" of St. Cyril... This does not mean that he has abandoned his type of theology, but that he has ceased to insist on its exclusivity. Shortly before the council, he recalled the "poison contained in the 12 chapters," but he did not attribute the impious conclusions from them to St. Cyril, who only put forward his "chapters" against Nestorius, not claiming to exhaust the mystery of the Incarnation in them. As an antithesis to Nestorianism, they must be accepted, not as a complete confession: it is given in the Chalcedonian creed. By this time, terminological differences had been clarified, the basic Christological concepts had been established, and it became possible to confess the two natures in one person or hypostasis of the Incarnate Word without ambiguity. But until the very end, Theodoret thought in his own way. "The Word was made flesh," such is the Christology of St. Cyril, "Jesus of Nazareth, the Man testified to you from God by powers and wonders and signs, which God has wrought through Him among you, as you yourselves know, this ... you took and nailed the wicked with the hands of the wicked, and killed; but God raised Him up" (Acts 2:22-24) — this is the Christology of Blessed Theodoret.

Corpus Areopagiticum

I. Nature of the monument

1. The collection of works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite is one of the most mysterious monuments of Christian antiquity. There is no doubt about its pseudepigraphic character, and it is impossible to see in its author that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by the preaching of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:34) and was, according to ancient tradition, the first bishop of Athens (see Eusebius, IV. 23, 4). This is evidenced not only by the complete absence of any mention of the works of Dionysius up to the beginning of the sixth century, but also by the very nature of the monument, which is too remote both in language and in structure of thought from the artless simplicity of the early Christian era. This was self-evident even as long as not only the ideological, but also the direct literary dependence of the Areopagitica on the last Neoplatonic teacher, Proclus (411-485), was established with indisputable certainty. At the same time, the unknown author apparently wanted to give the impression of a man of the apostolic era, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, an eyewitness to the eclipse on the day of the Savior's death, an eyewitness to the Dormition of the Most Holy Virgin, a friend and co-worker of the holy apostles. The claim to the authority of antiquity is quite obvious, and the question arises of deliberate "forgery". Up to the Renaissance, however, there were no doubts about the antiquity and authenticity of the Areopagitica, either in the East or in the West, except, perhaps, for Patriarch Photius... The "works of the great Dionysius" enjoyed indisputable authority and exerted an exceptionally strong influence on the development of theological thought in the late patristic era, in the Byzantine era, and in the West throughout the Middle Ages. It can hardly be assumed that the obvious anachronisms of the monument went unnoticed. It is hardly plausible that in the sixth century they did not hesitate to attribute the entire developed liturgical rite, including tonsure into monasticism, to the apostolic age—historical memory at that time could not have weakened so much. In any case, it is impossible to explain the high appreciation of a monument in antiquity only by the conviction that it belonged to an authoritative writer of the apostolic age. Rather from its high dignity it was concluded to antiquity than vice versa. Perhaps it is possible to compare the collection of the Areopagitica with the collection of the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions", which in its final composition belongs to a rather late time. But this circumstance was noted at the same time and his authority was rejected, on account of later and unlawful insertions. Such reservations have never been made about the Areopagitics. It was only with the beginning of the new philological criticism in the sixteenth century that the question of the Areopagitics was first raised, first by George of Trebizond, Theodore of Gaza, in the West by Lorenzo Valloi and Erasmus, then by Sirmond, Petavius and Tillemont. However, not everyone immediately agreed with this conclusion; and even in the most recent years there are belated defenders of the "authenticity" and apostolic antiquity of the Areopagiticus. In any case, the origin of the monument remains mysterious and unclear to this day; Nothing indisputable has yet been said about its real author, about the place of its compilation, about the purpose of this "forgery". Attempts to identify the imaginary Dionysius with any of the figures and writers of the fourth and fifth centuries known to us, or with some other historical figure (in particular, with the famous Monophysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch) must be recognized as decidedly unsuccessful and arbitrary. 2. The significance of the Areopagitica is determined primarily by their historical influence. At the beginning of the VI century, they were already in circulation. They are referred to by the famous Severus of Antioch, at the Council of 513 in Tyre, St. Andrew of Caesarea, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, written around 515-520. Sergius of Richen, who died in 536, translated the Areopagitica into Syriac, and this translation became widespread, especially in Monophysite circles, although Sergius himself, originally a Monophysite presbyter and at the same time a physician, took a somewhat ambiguous position in dogmatic disputes, and was even close to the Nestorians. He studied in Alexandria, and was an Aristotelian by philosophical sympathies. In any case, he translated Porphyry's Introduction, Aristotle's Categories, and also compiled a number of independent books on logic. Especially characteristic is his translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian book "On the World", in which he was able to achieve great accuracy and rigor. At the same time, Sergius was a mystic, as is evident from his preface to the translation of the Areopagitica. The name of Sergius is very characteristic as an indirect indication of the environment in which the Areopagitists first of all turned. At the well-known conversation between the Orthodox and the Severians in Constantinople in 531 or 533, the question of their worthiness arose — the Severians referred to them, and the leader of the Orthodox, Hypatius of Ephesus, rejected this exile and declared the Areopagitica an apocrypha, which none of the ancients knew or named... But very soon the Orthodox begin to use them as well. The first interpreter of the Areopagiticus was John of Scythopolis (about 530-540). Apparently, it is his scholia that are known under the name of Maximus the Confessor. Later scribes brought together the scholia of different interpreters, and the diacritics disappeared in the course of time. The code of scholia known under the name of the Most Holy Maximus is a fairly homogeneous whole. And very few scholia resemble the style of St. Maximus. The scholia of John of Scythopolis were translated into Syriac as early as the eighth century by Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa. Even earlier, in the VII century, the Areopagiticus Joseph Gadzai ("the contemplative"), better known as Ebed-Jezu, was engaged in interpretation. From the official Syriac text of the Areopagiticus, an Arabic translation was made very early, also receiving ecclesiastical approval, and an Armenian one, in the 8th century. It is also necessary to note the remains of the Coptic translation. All this testifies to the wide distribution and authority of the monument. Of the Orthodox theologians, Leontius of Byzantium, later Anastasius of Sinaite and Sophronius of Jerusalem used the Areopagitics. They exerted a strong influence on the Monk Maximus the Confessor, who was engaged in explaining the "difficult passages" of the imaginary Dionysius and Gregory the Theologian. For St. John of Damascus, the "great Dionysius" is already an indisputable authority. The Orthodox defenders of the veneration of icons rely on the Areopagitics, as a reliable foundation, already at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and later, especially St. Theodore the Studite. The whole metaphysics of icons is connected with the teaching of Dionysius, and he sings the depth of his theology. St. Cyril, the first teacher of the Slovenes, a disciple of Photius, speaks of them with respect. At the direction of Anastasius the Librarian, Saint Cyril quoted the "great Dionysius" by heart. In later times in Byzantium, very many people were engaged in the interpretation of the Areopagiticum, and the Corpus Aerial Giticum became a kind of reference book for Byzantine theologians. These interpretations have not yet been collected and studied. It is necessary to note especially the interpretations of the famous Michael Psellos (1018-1079) and George Pachymeros (1242-1310) — the paraphrases of the latter, as well as the scholia attributed to the Monk Maximus, in the manuscripts seem to grow to the text itself. The popularity of the Areopagitica in the fourteenth century, in the era of a new mystical revival in Byzantium, in the age of St. Gregory Palamas, is evidenced by a Slavonic (Bulgarian) translation made by the Athonite monk Isaiah in 1371, on behalf of Theodosius, Metropolitan of Serres (in southern Macedonia). From Euthymian Bulgaria it was transferred to Russia (probably by Metropolitan Cyprian, for a copy of his hand has been preserved), along with other monuments of ascetic and mystical literature. 3. The Areopagitics were transferred to the West very early. They were first referred to here by Pope Gregory the Great, then by Pope Martin at the Lateran Council of 649. Pope Agathon refers to the Areopagitics in a letter read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Anastasius the Librarian translates the scholia of John of Scythopolis and St. Maximus. The Areopagitics in particular have gained great respect in France, thanks to the (erroneous) identification of the alleged Dionysius with Dionysius of Paris. In 757, a list of Dionysius' works was sent by Pope Paul I, among other books, to Pepin the Short. In 827, the Byzantine Emperor Michael I presented a beautiful copy to King Louis the Pious. In France at that time, few people knew Greek. In the monastery of Saint-Denis, the abbot Gilduin (d. 840) translated the Areopagitica into Latin, but his translation was not distributed. It was overshadowed by the translation of the famous Scotus Eriugena. Eriugena, by his own admission, used in translation the works of the Monk Maximus, which he also translated. Eriugena did not know the Greek language flawlessly, and there were not a few gross misunderstandings in his translations. But on the own system of Eriugena, one of the most remarkable thinkers of the early Middle Ages, the influence of Dionysius and St. Maximus was extremely strong. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Areopagitics enjoyed great influence in the West. This can already be seen in Anselm. Hugh of St. Victor is engaged in the interpretation of the book "On the Celestial Hierarchy" - the mystical theories of the Victorinians in general are very closely connected with the mysticism of the imaginary Dionysius. Peter Lombard looked upon the Areopagitica as an indisputable authority. John of Saracen in the twelfth century, Thomas of Vercella, and Robert Grosseteste in the thirteenth century are engaged in the translation and commentary of the Areopagitic. Albertus Magnus comments on all the books of the imaginary Dionysius. Aquinas also treats them with great respect. In the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, there are 1,700 quotations from the Areopagitica, the Areopagitica and Damascene being his main source on Eastern patristics. Aquinas also wrote a special commentary on the book "On the Divine Names". Bonaventure was also strongly influenced by the Areopagiticus, who composed a special commentary on the book "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy"... In general, in the Middle Ages, Dionysius was the strongest and most respected authority for representatives of all schools and all ages. Dionysius is traced back to in discussions of the existence and attributes of God, and in the teaching on the knowledge of God and contemplation, and in questions of asceticism, and in the interpretation of divine services, and through liturgical literature the influence of the Areopagitics is also felt in the monuments of medieval art. The results of medieval literature are summed up in his extensive commentaries by the famous Dionysius of Carthusianus, doctor extâticus. The influence of the Areopagitica is very strongly felt in the German and Flemish mystics of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in Eckegaard, in Ruisbruck, in the unknown author of the famous book On the Imitation of Christ. In a new mystical and speculative experience, the legends of the mysterious contemplator of ancient times come to life again. Nicholas of Cusa is associated with the Areopagitics in his philosophical constructions. The famous Florentine Platonist, Marsilius Ficino, worked on the translation of the Areopagiticus... Luther sharply raised the question of the imaginary Dionysius: he considered the Areopagitica to be apocryphal, and saw in the author a dangerous dreamer. At the same time, Erasmus (following L. Valloy) came forward with proof of the late origin of the monument... But the influence of the Areopagitica did not weaken... Catholic theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries continued to prove the authenticity of the monument (L. Lessius, card. Baronius, V. Corderius, the famous publisher Areopagiticus), mystics continued to be inspired by it – the Angel of Silesia, partly the Quietists... It would not be an exaggeration to say that the entire history of medieval mysticism and philosophy will remain incomprehensible outside the influence of the Areopagiticus. The Areopagitics were the living and main (but not the only) source of "Platonism", i.e. Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. 4. The author of the Areopagiticus has to be judged only by his works. The Corpus Aerial Agiticum has the following composition: "On the Celestial Hierarchy," a description of the heavenly heavenly world; "On the Church Hierarchy" — a description and interpretation of church services; "On the Names of God," a treatise on the attributes of God; "Mystical Theology" is a discourse on the ineffability and incomprehensibility of the essence of God; A collection of 10 letters to various persons, mainly on dogmatic topics. The text contains references to a number of other works by the same author; However, most likely, this is a simple literary fiction. The letters with the name of the Areopagite, which have survived only in the Latin translation, as well as the letters discovered in the Syriac and Armenian translations, belong to other authors. The Areopagitics bear the stamp of late Neoplatonism, primarily on language. The author has a special, peculiar and very sophisticated theological terminology. But the Neoplatonic influence does not absorb or suppress it at all. In philosophical and Hellenistic formulas, it contains a new Christian content, a new mystical experience. The author is not so much a thinker as a contemplative, and speculative daring is inwardly curbed in him by the pathos of ineffability and a living liturgical feeling. Speculation occupies only a preliminary stage. In the author, with some justification, one can see a monk — in any case, he is a great zealot of monastic mental activity, and at the same time a defender of hierarchical authority. His homeland is to be sought in the East, in Syria rather than in Egypt. The author lives in an era of intense Christological disputes, but he does not dwell on Christological topics in detail, as if he avoids these topics. This explains the popularity of the Areopagiticus among the Sevirians. The author of the Areopagiticus is not so much a theologian as a contemplative and liturgist. To the divine services, to the sacraments, he shifts the center of gravity in the Christian life. And the influence of the Areopagitica was strongest in the later mystical-symbolic explanation of worship and liturgical actions in both Byzantine and Western medieval liturgical writing. However, this interpretation does not begin with Dionysius, but he continues and systematizes the already established tradition. It must be admitted that his terminology resembles the use of the Greek mysteries. However, this language was openly and consciously adopted in the Church from the very beginning, at least this language was already spoken by the Alexandrians of the second century, and after them by the theologians of the fourth... The author Areopagiticus is very well-read, both in Hellenistic philosophical literature and in ecclesiastical writing, he knew well the works of the Cappadocians, apparently of Clement of Alexandria, and not only of Proclus. These patristic connections of the imaginary Dionysius deserve special attention: in his Neoplatonism he is not at all an innovator, he adheres to the already established Christian tradition. And first of all, he sums up it, with a genuine systematic scope and with great dialectical force and acuteness.

II. The Paths of the Knowledge of God

Part 1

1. In the doctrine of the knowledge of God, the author of the Areopagiticus follows the Cappadocians, first of all after Gregory of Nyssa. In His pre-existent being, "by His own principle or attribute," God is unknowable and incomprehensible. He is above every concept and name, above all definitions, "above the mind, and the essence, and knowledge." It cannot but be touched, imagined, understood, named, or comprehended... The inner life of God is completely hidden from created eyes, exceeding any measure that is perceptible and accessible to the created mind. But this does not mean that God is far from the world or that He hides Himself from rational spirits. God essentially reveals himself, and acts, and is present in creatures—the creature exists, and abides, and lives by the power of this Divine omnipresence... God is present in the world not as His being, which always remains unattainable, unknowable, and ineffable, but in His "providences" and blessings, which emanate from the incommunicable God in an abundant current, and with which the existent partakes, He dwells in the world in His "essential processions" and "beneficent providences," in His powers and energies. In this self-revelation of His to the world, God is cognizable and comprehensible. This means that God is comprehensible only from revelation. "In general," warns Dionysius, "one should neither think nor say anything about the pre-existent and hidden Divinity except that which is divinely revealed to us in the Word of God"... There is, however, another revelation. This is the world itself. For in a certain sense the whole world is a kind of image of God, all permeated by Divine powers. And in God there is an "existential prototype" of the world, through participation in which the world has existence. God is known and comprehensible in that His countenance which is revealed and revealed to the world; in other words, God is known and comprehended in his relations to the world or to creation. It is in these relationships, and only in them. Knowledge never penetrates into the hidden and ineffable depths of the Divine life... God is comprehensible and can be described in two ways. Or through a sharp and decisive opposition to the world, i.e. through the denial of all sayings and definitions about Him, proper and proper to creation, and precisely all, each and everyone. Or through the exaltation of all the definitions applied to creation, and again each and every one. Thus two paths of knowledge of God and theology are opened: the path of positive or cataphatic theology, and the path of negative or apophatic theology. And the path of apophatic theology is the highest, and only it leads into that Divine darkness which is the unapproachable Light for creation. 2. The way of contrasting God with the world requires negations. Nothing can be said affirmatively about God, for every statement is partial, and therefore a limitation, and in every affirmation the other is tacitly excluded, a certain limit is posited. In this sense, it can and should be said of God that He is Nothing, άυτό δέ μη όν — For He is not any special or limited thing... He is above every particular and definite thing, above every limitation, above every definition and affirmation, and therefore above all negation. The apophatic "not" should not be reinterpreted and fixed cataphatically, the apophatic "not" is equivalent to "above" (or "outside", "except") – it does not mean limitation or exclusion, but exaltation and superiority – "not" not in the system of created names, but in opposition to this whole system of created names and even to the very categories of cosmic knowledge. This is a completely peculiar "not", a symbolic "not" – the "not" of incommensurability, and not of limitation... Not only is the divinity not subject to sensual and spatial definitions, it has neither outline, nor form, nor quality, nor quantity, nor volume... The Divinity is above all speculative names and definitions. God is neither soul, nor reason, nor imagination, nor opinion, nor thought, nor life, He is neither word nor thought, and therefore is not perceived either by word or thought, in this sense God is not an "object" of knowledge, He is above knowledge... It is neither number, nor order, nor magnitude, nor smallness, nor equality or likeness, nor inequality or dislikeness. He is neither power, nor color, nor life, nor time, nor age, nor knowledge, nor truth, nor kingdom, nor wisdom, nor unity... In this sense, God is the Nameless God, Θεός άνώνυμς He is above all, "nothing of non-existence and nothing of existence," "in everything there is everything, and in nothing there is nothing"... Therefore, the path of knowledge is the path of abstraction and negation, the path of simplification and silence, in order to know God "as withdrawn from all things"... This is the ascetic path. It begins with "purification," κάθαρσις. The imaginary Dionysius describes kafarzis ontologically, not psychologically. This is liberation from all various admixtures, i.e. the "simplification" of the soul... Or in other words, "gathering of the soul," "uniform gathering" or concentration, "entering into oneself," abstraction from all knowledge, from all images, sensual and mental... At the same time, this is a kind of calming of the soul—we come to know God only in the peace of the spirit, in the peace of ignorance. And this apophatic ignorance is rather superknowledge, not the absence of knowledge, but perfect knowledge, therefore incommensurable with all partial knowledge. This ignorance is contemplation, and something more than mere contemplation... God is known not from afar, not through contemplation of Him, but through an incomprehensible union with Him, ένωσις. This is possible only through ecstasy, through going beyond all limits, through ecstasy. And this means entering into a kind of sacred darkness, into the "darkness of ignorance", into the "darkness of silence"... This "procession" is true knowledge; but knowledge is without words and concepts, and therefore incommunicable knowledge, accessible only to him who has attained it and has it, and even for himself is not fully accessible: for no one can describe it to himself... The highest knowledge is revealed "in the darkness of ignorance" into which the soul enters on the heights — "the highest knowledge of God is that which is attained through ignorance, by means of a union that transcends reason, when the mind, having separated itself from all that exists and then leaving itself, unites itself with the rays shining on the mountain, from whence and where it is enlightened in the incomprehensible abyss of Wisdom"... It is not the mind, the word, wisdom, because it is the cause of the mind, the word, wisdom... This is the realm of mysterious silence and silence... The realm in which contemplation is inactive, and the soul touches God, touches the Divine... He is drawn to him in love, — and prays, sings — ύμνεΐ. It is necessary to rise higher and higher, to pass through all the sacred peaks, to abandon all heavenly sounds, and lights, and words, and to enter into the "mysterious darkness of ignorance," where truly dwells the One Who is above and beyond all things—such was the path of the Divine Moses... The imaginary Dionysius gives the same exemplary example of ecstasy as Gregory of Nyssa (following Philo)... In such mystical contemplation, Dionysius sees the source and goal of all genuine knowledge of God. On the heights the mind must be silent, and it will never be able to retell the ineffable verbs heard there. This does not mean that logical reflective cognition is impossible or unrighteous... It is not the ultimate knowledge, and the highest measure for it is that its dynamic approximation should be discovered and recognized. All human concepts or definitions of the Godhead are rather a striving to think... However, they are not empty and not in vain... God is comprehended through ecstasy, through coming out and leaving the world, but this "from" does not have a spatial character... Therefore, the knowledge of God outside the world does not exclude the knowledge of God in the world and through the world... The divine hiddenness and inaccessibility of the Divinity does not mean hiddenness or concealment. On the contrary, God reveals Himself. "Mysterious" and apophatic theology ("mystical theology") does not exclude revelation. This "ascent" is possible because God "descends," is revealed, appears. And it is possible to define the main theme of theology of the Areopagitica as the theme of God and Revelation, as the theme of "theophany", of theophany... Hence the transition to cataphatic theology. 3. Cataphatic theology according to Dionysius is possible because the whole world, everything that exists, is a certain image or image of God. "We know God not from His nature, which is unknowable and transcends all thought and reason, but from the order of all things established by Him, which contains certain images and likenesses of the Divine prototypes (παραδείγματα) — ascending to That which is above all, in a special way and order, through abstraction from everything and elevation above all." This is not an inference from effect to cause, it is not a judgment about God in the world, but contemplation in images of the prototype depicted in images, contemplation of God in the world. For everything that creation possesses, it has through its "participation" in Divine actions and forces descending and pouring out into the world, and only to the extent of this participation does everything that exists exist. In the cataphatic knowledge of God we ascend to God as the Cause of all things. But for the imaginary Dionysius, the Cause is revealed or appears in the created. The creative or causative action of God is the Manifestation of God, theophany. Every revelation of God is a theophany, a presence, a manifestation. Therefore, there is something immediate, intuitive in the very cataphatic knowledge of God... Cataphatic definitions and judgments never reach the most pre-existent being of God. They speak of God in the world, of God's relation to the world, of God in Revelation. This does not weaken their cognitive realism. The basic concept of cataphatic theology is providence, πρόνоια. In the understanding of Dionysius, "providence" is a certain movement or "descent" of God into the world, προόδς — descent into the world, abiding in it, and return to oneself (Divine έπιστρоφή) — a kind of cycle of Divine love... Providence is a kind of absolutely real omnipresence of God — by His providence God is present in everything and as it were becomes everything in everything for the sake of universal salvation and good — God seems to proceed from Himself, — unchangeably and unceasingly goes out into the world, and yet in this unceasing action He remains motionless and unchanging, remains with Himself in the perfect identity and simplicity of His own being. — the same and different. In Divine providence, the coincidence of abiding and mobility, standing and movement, is mysterious — στάσις and κίνησις. This is expressed by the Neoplatonic symbol of the circle, in the center of which all the rays converge, the "image of the mind" according to Proclus... God eternally departs, and remains, and returns... This presence and movement of God in the world for Dionysius does not mean any merging or dissolution. It means, Dionysius explains, not any kind of "change" or "change" or "transformation", but only that God creates everything, brings it into being and contains it, mysteriously embracing everything, and as it were embraces it with His various providence... In its descent to its communicants, God's primordial goodness does not emerge from its essential immobility... The Deity is super-essentially separated, "withdrawn" from the world—here there is the final and final facet, the last gap, hiаtus or trans (the imperishable ύπέρ). The divine powers are multiple and diverse, and Dionysius calls them distinctions, διακρίσεις. But the multiplicity of Divine gifts and actions does not violate the unity and identity of the Divine being. In His actions God has many names, but in the immutable and unchangeable simplicity of His own being He is above every word and name. And as one draws closer to God Himself, the tongue becomes pale and lacking in words.

Part 2

4. Among the names of God, Dionysius names goodness in the first place, τό άγαθόν. Because of His goodness, God creates, and builds, and gives life, and does all things. It is characteristic of good to do good. Thus from the source of light its life-giving rays spread everywhere, so the Supreme Good, with its unchanging radiance, illumines all that exists, and everywhere exudes its superessential and life-giving rays, "the rays of total goodness." The Sun is only a visible and distant image of the Divine and spiritual Light. Light is the image of the Good. Everything that exists strives and gravitates towards this radiant light. And it is only through communion with these radiant illuminations, to the extent of its capacity, that everything that exists exists and lives, inasmuch as it is as if permeated by the rays of spiritual and intellectual light. At the same time, these luminiferous rays can be called "rays of Divine darkness," for they blind by the power of their incomprehensible light—the "unapproachable light" of the Divinity is darkness, incomprehensible from the excessiveness of the illumination exuded... Here Dionysius is even verbally close to Proclus, reproducing the Neoplatonic metaphysics of light. However, this metaphysics and the language associated with it were assimilated by church theology much earlier; even Gregory the Theologian said: "As God is in the intellectual world, so is the sun in the sensual world"... And all Christian symbolism is permeated by this metaphysics of light, the roots and beginnings of which are much deeper than Neoplatonism... Good, as an intelligent and all-pervading light, is the beginning of unity, Ignorance is the beginning of division. And the spiritual light, which dispels the darkness of foolishness, gathers everything together, brings crushing doubts to a single knowledge, true, pure and simple. Light is unity and gives birth to unity, the unanimous rays... God is unity, or rather, superunity, unity, all that is one-making, all that unites and reunites... The unity of God signifies, first of all, the perfect simplicity and indivisibility of the Divine being. God is called "One" because in His indivisible simplicity He is above all multiplicity, although He is the Creator of many. It is higher not only than multiplicity, but also singularity, but also above any number in general. And at the same time it is the beginning, and the cause, and the measure of all numbering. For every number presupposes unity, and multiplicity can exist only within the limits of the highest unity. The world exists through the perfect unity of Divine providence. All of existence gravitates towards a single center, from which the Divine forces containing it radiate, and this is the basis of its stability. This is not an external dependence or an involuntary attraction, but the attraction of love. Everything aspires to God as to its cause and goal, for everything proceeds from Him and everything returns to Him, through Him and in Him it exists. Everything aspires to Him, for everything proceeds from His love, for He is Good and Beauty, and Good and Beauty should be the object of attraction and love... Divine love, like a kind of frenzy, embraces lovers, εστί δέ καί έκστατικός ό θεϊоς έρως... This love is inflamed by God Himself, with a gentle breath of His goodness. In love flows good. Good attracts in itself, revealing itself as an object of love. And this love is the beginning of order and harmony, a simple and self-moving force that draws everything to unity, to "a kind of one-created dissolution"... God, as Good, is Love, and therefore He is also Beauty. For in the universal cause of all existence, good and beauty coincide. The seal of Divine beauty lies on all creation. From the Father of lights, a one-creating force pours down upon us, leading us to simplicity and union with God, and never does the Divine light lose its unity in its very fragmentation, "in order to be dissolved with mortals by the union that elevates their sorrow and unites them with God." And being simple and one, in His motionless and solitary identity, He also creates those who are illumined, although He shines under manifold sacred and mysterious veils... God is perfect Beauty, super-beauty and all-beauty, without beginning or end, without any flaw — the source and prototype of all beauty and all beauties. As the Good, God is the beginning of everything; as Beauty, is the end of everything. For everything exists for its sake and from it receives its beauty, i.e. harmony and measure. According to Plato (and Proclus), Dionysius derives κάλλς from καλоύν, to invoke, and repeats the Platonic idea of beauty as an object of attraction. It is beauty that ignites love. Dionysius describes divine, self-existent beauty in almost the same words that Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates in the Banquet. It is self-existent beauty and eternal beauty, "something that always exists, is not born and does not perish, does not increase or decrease, is not beautiful or ugly" — which, "as being in itself, is always one with itself and eternally is"... In this supreme beauty is the beginning of all existence and order, for it is the one beauty that attracts to itself, and unites and harmonizes all things with each other. Hence all the connections, all the affinity, all the agreement in being. Hence measure and movement, variety and simplicity. Being above all division and multitude, God brings everything to Himself as the highest desired beauty and goodness. Such a close connection between beauty and love in Dionysius is again a Platonic and Neoplatonic motif, assimilated by all Christian asceticism, especially later asceticism. At the same time, the metaphysical "eroticism" of Hellenism merges with the biblical, as it is expressed in the book "Song of Songs", in this symbolic epithalam of religious love. Here Dionysius continues Gregory of Nyssa, who in turn repeats Origen. This is an old and already traditional idea. In Dionysius, it is reinforced by a teaching, also typically Hellenistic, about the cosmic power of love and the cosmic significance of beauty. 5. Love is the power of bond and unity; and, like love and beauty, God is the Provider, and the Creator, and the Prototype of the World. God is everything, not being nothing of everything. For in God everything is contained in its "essential foundations" and "types." God is "the highest Principle of all that exists, the realizing (or existing) Cause, the sustaining Power and the ultimate limit of all." Аρχή and τέλоς, i.e. A and Ω. In God, the creative and determinative foundations of everything (ύπоθέτικоι λόγоι) inseparably pre-exist, according to which the Super-Existent predetermines and produces everything. These "predestinations" are "types," παραδειγματα, — And at the same time, they are Divine and all-good wills or "predestinations": Aελματα πρooρισμоί. According to the Scholiast, these are "the self-perfect and eternal thoughts of the eternal God." According to Damascene's explanation, this is "the eternal counsel of God." This is the image of the world in God; and at the same time, God's will for the world. It is a kind of world of ideas, but not self-existent and self-sufficient, but existing in God and revealing Him to the world. It is like the face of God facing the world. And it radiates goodness and beauty, and these "rays or 'powers' enter the world itself, penetrate it, create it and preserve it, give it life. These "types" are the living and life-giving providence of God, the "essential outcomes" of God... Not somewhere in the inaccessible distance is the dreamily contemplated intellectual world, but the world of forces, a living, omnipotent force. This is the essential difference between Dionysius and Plato. On the other hand, these "types" are not the things themselves, but precisely the prototypes of things or paradigms. In a sense, things belong to them and are similar to them, but as something higher and different (μέθεξις, μίμησις). this is the difference between Dionysius and Neoplatonic emanatism. And besides, in a certain sense, the Divine "determinations" of things are tasks, not only "types" but also "goals"—and therefore movement in the world, an attraction, an aspiration, is both possible and necessary. The world not only reflects or reflects the Divine "type", it must reflect it... The prototype is not only "paradigm", but also "telos" – ώς τελικόν αίτιоν. And realization or "fulfillment" (τελείωσις) presupposes co-participation, "imitation" — Θεоϋ συνεργόν γενέσθαι.The beginning does not quite coincide with the end, there is a dynamic distance between them... "Reflection" and "imitation" do not coincide... For Dionysius, the main thing is that all the definitions and qualities of existence go back to God, otherwise where would they be? And in relation to them, God is not only an external cause, but also a kind of prototype, so that everything is to a certain extent ("analogous") his "image"; therefore it is possible and necessary to transfer the ontological definitions of existence to the Super-Being, as to the limit. The world exists and is because God is being—the very being of the world is in it the image of God. The world lives because God is Life, and the life of the world is a kind of partaker of Divine life. Existence from God is a gift of God, and the first of the gifts. And all qualities are gifts of God. All of them, in a sense, reflect God in themselves. "For otherwise it would not exist, if it did not partake of the essence and principle of all that exists"... "The being of everything consists in the being of the Divine"... And to a certain extent, everything participates in the Divine. Therefore, everything can be affirmed about God, for He is the beginning and the end of everything, the limit and infinite foundation of all. But nothing, neither temporal nor unchanging, fully reflects God. God is above all. And therefore all the names taken from His "providence" are, as it were, only metaphorically appropriate to Him. God is essence and Being; but it would be better to say, the Super-Being... God is life, for the source of life; but it is the Super-Life, for it is self-life, and from it flows all life. God is Wisdom, Reason, Mind, Truth... God is the Power and source of all power and might, the power that preserves everything, and affirms, and therefore saves... By virtue of His providential presence in all things, God is the salvation of all things. And at the same time, God is the Truth, the Truth of everything and about everything, because to Him ascends all order and order, and God relates to everything according to its dignity... Everything participates in the Divinity, but in different degrees and in different ways. Inanimate things partake insofar as they are, to the extent of their being. Alive — to the extent of its life. Intelligent beings are partakers of God's all-perfect wisdom. All these plural names, taken from God's providence, are insufficient in view of their very multiplicity, for God is essentially one. All things speak of God, and none say enough. All bear witness to Him, and none reveals Him. And all the cataphatic names speak of His "powers" and "providences", but not of His essence... In the multiplicity of His "processions" God remains unchanged, and the multiplicity of God's names denotes the multiplicity of His works, without violating the essential simplicity and super-multiplicity of His Being. And here cataphatic theology passes back into apophatic theology. And everything that can be said about God can and should be denied about Him, because nothing is commensurate with Him, and He is above all. But it is above not only affirmations, but also negations, for it is the fullness of everything... And being all-named, God is nameless... And being all in all, He is nothing in nothing... 6. Dionysius distinguishes between the general names of God, which refer to the entire Most Holy Trinity, and the hypostatic names. All definitions of apophatic and cataphatic theology are common names. All providential names denote the inseparable action of the Most Substantial Trinity. All these names speak of the Unity of the Godhead. And from these general names Dionysius distinguishes, first, the names of the Trinitarian Hypostases, denoting the special properties of the Divine Persons; secondly, all the names associated with the Incarnation. Dionysius speaks briefly and briefly about the Trinitarian dogma. But it is not difficult to see that the sharp emphasis on the commonality of all the Divine names is a hidden confession of perfect consubstantiality. The Persons of the Holy Trinity are different from each other, and the Father alone is the essential source of the Godhead. The personal names of the Divine hypostases are apophatic, because the Divine Fatherland and Sonship are incomparably higher than the birth that we know and understand, and the Holy Spirit, the source of all deification of spirits, is higher than every created spirit. The Son and the Spirit are, as it were, two miraculous fruits of the Father's productivity, but all this is above speech and thought. It should be added that Dionysius emphasizes that the Trinity and unity of God has a supernumerical character, for God is beyond measure and number...