THEOGNOSTUS OF ALEXANDRIA

I.[11] FROM HIS SEVEN BOOKS OF HYPOTYPOSES OR OUTLINES.

The substance[12] of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously,[13] nor is it one introduced out of nothing;[14] but it was born of the substance of the Father, as the reflection of light or as the steam of water. For the reflection is not the sun itself, and the steam is not the water itself, nor yet again is it anything alien; neither He Himself the Father, nor is He alien, but He is[15] an emanation[16] from the substance of the Father, this substance of the Father suffering the while no partition. For as the sun remains the same and suffers no diminution from the rays that are poured out by it, so neither did the substance of the Father undergo any change in having the Son as an image of itself.

II.[17]

Theognostus, moreover, himself adds words to this effect: He who has offended against the first term[18] and the second, may be judged to deserve smaller punishment; but he who has also despised the third, can no longer find pardon. For by the first term and the second, he says, is meant the teaching concerning the Father and the Son; but by the third is meant the doctrine committed to us with respect to the perfection[1] and the partaking of the Spirit. And with the view of confirming this, he adduces the word spoken by the Saviour to the disciples: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. But when the Holy Spirit is come, He will teach you."[2]

III.[13]

Then he says again: As the Saviour converses with those not yet able to receive what is perfect,[4] condescending to their littleness, while the Holy Spirit communes with the perfected, and yet we could never say on that account that the teaching of the Spirit is superior to the teaching of the Son, but only that the Son condescends to the imperfect, while the Spirit is the seal of the perfected; even so it is not on account of the superiority of the Spirit over the Son that the blasphemy against the Spirit is a sin excluding impunity and pardon, but because for the imperfect there is pardon, while for those who have tasted the heavenly gift,[5] and been made perfect, there remains no plea or prayer for pardon.

PIERIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.[1]

I.--A FRAGMENT OF A WORK OF PIERIUS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.[1]

Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of Caesareia, Didymus, and Apollinaris, have interpreted this epistle most copiously;[2] of whom Pierius, when he was expounding and unfolding the meaning of the apostle, and purposed to explain the words. For I would that all men were even as I myself,[3] added this remark: In saying this, Paul, without disguise, preaches celibacy.[4]

II.--A SECTION ON THE WRITINGS OF PIERIUS.[1]

DIFFERENT DISCOURSES OF THE PRESBYTER PIERIUS.

There was read a book by Pierius the presbyter, who, they say, endured the conflict[2] for Christ, along with his brother Isidorus. And he is reputed to have been the teacher of the martyr Pamphilus in ecclesiastical studies, and to have been president of the school at Alexandria. The work contained twelve books.[3] And in style he is perspicuous and clear, with the easy flow, as it were, of a spoken address, displaying no signs of laboured art,[4] but bearing us quietly along, smoothly and gently, like off-hand speaking. And in argument he is most fertile, if any one is so. And he expresses his opinion on many things outside what is now established in the Church, perhaps in an antique manner;[5] but with respect to the Father and the Son, he sets forth his sentiments piously, except that he speaks of two substances and two natures; using, however, the terms substance and nature, as is apparent from what follows, and from what precedes this passage, in the sense of person[6] and not in the sense put on it by the adherents of Arius. With respect to the Spirit, however, he lays down his opinion in a very dangerous and far from pious manner. For he affirms that He is inferior to the Father and the Son in glory.[7] He has a passage also in the book[8] entitled, On the Gospel according to Luke, from which it is possible to show that the honour or dishonour of the image is also the honour or dishonour of the original. And, again, he indulges in some obscure speculations, after the manner of the nonsense of Origen, on the subject of the "pre-existence of souls." And also in the book on the Passover (Easter) and on Hosea, he treats both of the cherubim made by Moses, and of the pillar of Jacob, in which passages he admits the actual construction of those things, but propounds the foolish theory that they were given economically, and that they were in no respect like other things which are made; inasmuch as they bore the likeness of no other form, but had only, as he foolishly says, the appearance of wings.[9]

Back to Volume 6 Index