language about the Lord,—because the Lord has been made man,—-but are all the more worthy of admiration for their wise reserve and seasonable teaching, so Dionysius is no Arian on account of his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against Sabellius. For even if he did use humble phrases and examples, yet they too are from the Gospels, and his justification for them is the Saviour’s coming in the flesh, on account of which not only these things, but others like them are written. For just as He is Word of God, so afterwards ‘the Word was made flesh;’ and while ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ the Virgin at the consummation of the ages conceived, and the Lord has become man. And He who is indicated by both statements is one Person, for ‘the Word was made flesh.’ But the expressions used about His Godhead, and His becoming man, are to be interpreted with discrimination and suitably to the particular context. And he that writes of the human attributes of the Word knows also what con- cerns His Godhead: and he who expounds concerning His Godhead is not ignorant of what belongs to His coming in the flesh: but - discerning each as a skilled and ‘approved money-changer+,’ he will walk in the straight way of piety; when therefore he speaks of His weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, while he exhibits his human character in weeping, as God raises up Lazarus; and He knows that He used to hunger and thirst physically, while divinely He fed five thousand persons from five loaves; and knows that while a human body lay in the tomb, it was raised as God’s body by the Word Himself.
10. Zhe expressions of Dionysius claimed by the Arians refer to Christ as Man. Dionysius, teaching exactly thus, in his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius wrote in view of Sabellius concerning the human pre- 4 See Westcott, /xtroduction to the Gospels, Appendix C, 5.
dicates of the Saviour. For to the latter class belong the sayings, ‘I am the Vine and My Father the Husbandman’ (Joh. xv. 1), and ‘faithful to Him that made Him’ (Heb. iii. 2), and ‘He created me’ (Prov. viii. 22), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (Heb. i. 4). But He was not ignorant of the passages, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me’ (Joh. xiv. 10), and ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ For we know that he mentioned them in his other Epistles. For while mentioning them there, he made mention also of the human attributes of the Lord. For just as ‘being in the form of God He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave’ (Phil. ii. 6), and ‘though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor,’ so while there are high and rich de- scriptions of His Deity, there are also those which relate to His coming in the flesh, humble expressions and poor. But that these are used of the Saviour as man is apparent on the following grounds. The husbandman is different in essence from the vine, while the branches are of one essence and akin to it, and are in fact undivided from the vine, it and they having one and the same origin. But, as the Lord said, He is the vine, we are the branches. If then the Son is of one essence with ourselves, and has the same origin as we, let us grant that in this respect the Son is diverse in essence from the Father, like as the vine is from the husbandman. But if the Son is different from what we are, and He is the Word of the Father while we are made of earth, and are descendants of Adam, then the above expression ought not to be referred to the deity of the Word, but to His human coming. Since thus also has the Saviour said: ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches, My Father is the husbandman.’ For we are akin to the Lord according to the body, and for that reason he said (Heb. ii. 12, Ps. xxii. 22), ‘T will declare thy name unto my brethren.’ And just as the branches are of one essence with the vine, and are from it, so we also having our bodies homogeneous with the Lord’s body, receive of His fulness (Joh. i. 16), and have that body as our root 4* for our resurrection and our salvation. But the Father is called the husbandman, for He it was who by His Word cultivated the Vine, namely the manhood of the Saviour, and who by His own Word prepared for us a way to a kingdom; and none cometh to the Lord except the Father draw him to Him (Joh.
4° Cf, Orat, i. 48, note 7, and ii. 56, note 5.
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
The same ts true of the analogous language of the Apostles.
This then being the sense of the expression, it follows that it is of the vine, so understood, that it is written: ‘Who was faithful to Him that had created Him’ (Heb. iti. 2), and ‘made so much better than the angels’ (ib. i. 4), and ‘He created me’ (Prov. vili. 22). For when He had taken that which He had to offer on our behalf, namely His body of the Virgin Mary, then it is written of Him that He had been created, and formed, and made: for such phrases are applicable to men. More- over not after (His taking) the body has He been made better than the angels, lest He should appear to have been previously less than or equal to them. But writing to Jews, and comparing the human ministry of the Lord to Moses, he said, ‘having been made so much better than the angels,’ for by means of angels the law was spoken, because ‘the law was given by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ’ (Joh. i. 17), and the gift of the Spirit. And whereas in those days the law was preached from Dan to Beersheba, now ‘their sound is gone out into all lands’ (Rom. x. 18; Ps. xix. 3), and the Gentiles worship Christ, and through Him know the Father. The above things then are written of the Saviour as man, and not otherwise.
Il.
12. The passages alleged from Dionystus are, when rightly understood, strictly orthodox.
Well then, did Dionysius, as the adversaries of Christ reiterate, when writing of the human characteristics of the Son, and so calling Him a creature, mean that he was one man among others? Or when he said that the Word was not proper to the essence of the Father, did he hold that He was of one essence with us men? Certainly he did not write thus in his other epistles, but in them not only manifests a correct opinion, but as good as cries out by them against these people, saying as it were: I am not of the same opinion as you, you adversaries of God, nor did my writings furnish Arius with a pretext for impiety. But writing to Ammon and Euphranor on account of the Sabellianisers, I made mention of the vine and the husbandman and used other like expressions, in order that, by pointing out the human characteristics of the Lord, I might persuade those men not to say that it is the Father who was made man. For like as the husbandman is not the vine, so He that came in the body was not the Father but the Word; and the Word having come to be in the Vine was called the Vine, because of His bodily kinship with the branches, namely ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
ourselves. In this sense, then, I wrote as I did to Euphranor and Ammonius, but your shame- lessness I confront with the other letters written by me, so that men of sound mind may know the defence they contain, and my right mind in the faith of Christ. The Arians then ought, if their intelligence were sound, thus to have thought and held concern- ing the Bishop: ‘for all things are manifest to them that understand, and right to them that find knowledge’ (Prov. viii. 9). But since, not having understood the faith of the Catho- lic Church, they have fallen into impiety, an consequently, maimed in their intelligence, think that even straight things are crooked and call light darkness, while they think that darkness is light, it is necessary to quote also from the other letters of Dionysius, and state why they were written, to the greater con- demnation of the heretics. For it was from them that we ourselves have learned to think and write as we are doing about the man.
13. But other writings of Dionysius have to be considered also. Their history.
The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters. The Bishop Dionysius having heard of the affairs in Pentapolis, and having written, in zeal for religion, as I said above, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, of right opinions, but without asking him, so as to learn from himself how he had written, went up to Rome; and they spoke against him in the presence of his namesake Dionysius the Bishop of Rome. And he, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the partisans of Sabellius and against those who held the very opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; calling it an equal and oppo- site impiety to hold with Sabellius, or with those who say that the Word of God is a thing made and formed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius to inform him of what they had said about him. And the latter straight- way wrote back, and inscribed his books ‘a Refutation and a Defence.’ Here mark the detestable gang of the adversaries of Christ, and how they themselves have stirred up their disgrace against themselves. For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it ts manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Diony- sius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, ap- pears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all.
14. Object and general method of Dionysius in his ‘ Refutation and Defence.’
And the mere fact of Dionysius having made his defence about the matters on which these people harp suffices completely to con- demn the Arians, and to demonstrate their malignity. For he wrote, not in angry con- troversy, but to defend himself on the points where he was under suspicion. But in defending himself against charges, what does he do if not, while disposing of every charge of which he was suspected, by this very fact con- vict the Arian madmen of malignity? But, to complete their confusion by means of what he wrote in his defence, come, let me set before you his actual words. For from them you will learn firstly that the Arians are malicious, secondly that Dionysius has nothing to do with their error. To begin with, then, he wrote his letter as in Refutation and in Defence. But this means, surely, that he aims at refuting false statements, and defends himself for what he has written; shewing that he wrote not as Arius supposed, but that in mentioning what is said concerning the Lord in His human aspect, he was not ignorant that He was the Word and Wisdom undivided from the Father. Then he blames those who spoke against him for not quoting his language as a whole, but garbling it, and speaking not in good faith but disin- genuously and arbitrarily. And he compares them to those who used to impeach the letters of the blessed Apostle. But this complaint of his entirely clears him from sinister suspicion. For if he considers the detractors of Paul to be like his own, he shews precisely this, that he wrote as he did in Paul’s sense. At any rate, in meeting severally the charges of his oppo- nents, he explains all the passages cited by them: and, whereas in these latter he upsets Sabellius, in his subsequent letters he shews how sound and pious is his own faith. Accordingly whereas they would have it that Dionysius held that ‘God was not always a Father, the Son did not always exist, but God existed apart from the Word, while the Son Himself was not before He was begotten: on the contrary, there was a time when He was not, for He is not eternal but has come later in- to being,’—see how he replies! Most of what he said, whether in the form of investigations, or collective inferences, or interrogatory refuta- tions, or charges against his accusers, I omit because of the length of his discourses, insert- ing only what is strictly relevant to the charges against him. In answer to these, he writes after certain prefatory matter, in the first book DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
inscribed ‘ Refutation and Defence’ in the fol- lowing terms.
15. Extracts from the ‘ Refutation and Defence.’
‘For never was there a time when God was not a father.’ And this he acknowledges in what follows, ‘that Christ is for ever, being Word and Wisdom and: Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no such issue, afterwards begat a Son, but that the Son has His being not of Himself but of the Father.’ And a little way on he adds on the same subject, ‘ But being the brightness of light eternal, certainly He is Himself eternal; for as the light exists always, it is evident that the brightness must exist always as well. For it is by the fact of its shining that the exist- ence of light is perceived, and there cannot be light that does not give light. For let us come back to our examples. If there is sun, there is sunlight, there is day. If there is none of these things, it is quite impossible for there to be sun. If then the sun were eternal, the day also would be unceasing. But in fact, as that is not so, the day begins and ceases with the sun. But God is light eternal, never beginning nor ceasing. The brightness then lies before Him eternally, and is with Him with- out beginning and ever-begotten, shining in His Presence, being that Wisdom which said, “I was that wherein he rejoiced, and daily I was glad in his presence at all times” (Prov. viii. 30).’ And again after a little he resumes the same subject with the words, ‘ The Father then being eternal, the Son is eternal, being Light of Light: for if there is a parent there is also a child. But if there were not a child, how and of whom can there be a parent? But there are both, and that eternally.’ Then again he adds, ‘God then being light, Christ is bright- ness; and being Spirit, for “God is a Spirit” (John iv. 24),—in like manner Christ is called the breath, for He is the “ breath of the power of God” (Wisd. vii. 25).’ And again, to quote the second book, he says, ‘ But only the Son, who always is with the Father and is filled of Him that 1s, Himself also is from the Father.’
16. Contrast of the language of Dionysius with that of Arius, Now if the sense of the above statements were doubtful, there would be need of an in- terpreter. But since he wrote plainly and re- peatedly on the same subject, let Arius gnash his teeth when he sees his own heresy sub- verted by Dionysius, and hears him say what he does not wish to hear: ‘God was always Father, and the Son is not absolutely eternal, but His eternity flows from the eternity of the Father, and He coexists with Him as bright- ness with the light.’ But let these, who have so much as imagined that Dionysius held with Arius, lay aside such a slander against him.. For what have they in common, when Arius says, ‘The Son was not before He was begotten, but there was once a time when He was not,’ whereas Dionysius teaches, ‘ Now God is Light eternal, neither beginning, nor ever to end: accordingly the brightness lies before Him eternally, and coexists with Him, shining before Him without beginning and ever-begotten.’ For in fact to meet the suspi- cion of others who allege that Dionysius in speaking of the Father does not name the Son, and again in speaking of the Son does not name the Father, but divides, removes, and separates the Son from the Father, he replies and puts them to shame in the second book, as follows.
17. Dionysius did not separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
‘Each of the names I have mentioned is inseparable and indivisible +> from that next to it. I spoke of the Father, and before refer- ring to the Son I designated Him too in the Father. I referred to the Son,—and even if I did not also expressly mention the Father, cer- tainly He was to be understood beforehand in the Son. JI added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both whence and through whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither is the Father, gud Father, separated from the Son,— for the name carries that relationship with it,—nor is the Son expatriated from the Father. For the title Father denotes the common bond. But in their hands is the Spirit, who cannot be parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him: How then can I, who use these names, imagine that they are sundered and utterly5 separated from one another?’ And after a little he goes on, ‘Thus then we extend the Monad ® indivisibly into the Triad, and conversely gather together the Triad with- out diminution into the Monad.’
4> This passage is somewhat differently rendered by Dr. Pusey in his letter on the Filioque (1876), p. rr2.
5 The rayreA@s somewhat qualifies the repudiation. Dionysius expressly maintained ¢ree Hypostases in the Holy Trinity, in contrast to the language of Rome (de Decr. 26 note 7a) and the later use of Athanasius himself. But see the Tom. ad Antioch. of 362, below, and supra p. oo, note 2. Dionysius of Rome re- pudiates rpets mepepromévas Vroardcecs, while Dionysius of Alex- andria (in Bas. de Sf. S.) maintains that unless three Hypostases be recognised, the divine Triad is denied.
© As pointed out by Newman on De Decr. 25, note 9, Tptds and Movds are concrete, Trinitas and Unitas abstract terms; so that while Trinitas (and Movds) lend themselves to a Sabellian, Tpras and Unitas may be pressed into an Arian sense: but each pair of terms (Greek and Latin) holds the balance evenly between the opposite misinterpretations, ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
18. Dionysius did not hold that the Son was not of one essence with the Father.
Next he confutes them upon their charge that he called the Son one of the things originated, and not of one essence with the Father (once more in the first book) as follows: ‘Only in saying that certain things were per- ceived to be originated and created, I gave them as examples cursorily, as being less adequate, saying that neither was the plant [of one essence] with the husbandman, nor the boat with its builder. Then I dwelt more upon more apposite and suitable comparisons, and went at greater length into those nearer the truth, making out various proofs, which I wrote to you® in another letter, by means of which proofs I shewed also that the charge they allege against me is untrue, namely, that I denied Christ to be of one essence with God. For even if I argue that I have not found this word (éuoovc.ov) nor read it any- where in the Holy Scriptures, yet my sub- sequent reasonings, which they have sup- pressed, do not discord with its meaning. For I gave the example of human birth, evidently as being homogeneous, and _say- ing that certainly the parents only differed from their children in not being themselves the children, else it would follow that there was no such thing as parents or children. And the letter, as I said before, I am prevented by circumstances from producing, else I would have sent you the exact words I then used, or rather a cepy of all the letter: which I will do if I have an opportunity. But I know, and recollect, that I added several similitudes from kindred relations. For I said that a plant, sprung from a seed or root, was dif- ferent from that whence it sprung, and at the same time entirely of one nature with it: and that a stream flowing from a well receives another form and name,—for the well is not called a river, nor the river a well,—and that both existed, and that the well was as it were a father, while the river was water from the well. But they pretend not to see these and the like written statements, but to be as it were blind, while they try to pelt me with two unconnected expressions like stones, from a distance, not knowing that in matters beyond our knowledge, and which require training to apprehend, frequently not only foreign, but even contrary examples serve to illustrate the problem in hand.’ And in the third book he says, ‘Life was begotten of Life, and flowed as a river from a well, and from Light unquenchable bright Light was kindled.’
62 ‘To you’ is omitted in the extract de Decr. 25.
19. Lnconsistency of the Arian appeal to Dionysius.
Who that hears this will not set down as mad those who suspect Dionysius of holding with Arius? For lo! in these words, by arguments based on truth, he tramples upon his entire heresy. For by the simile of the Brightness he destroys the statements that “He was not before He was begotten,’ and ‘There was a time when He was not,’ as also by saying that His Father was never without issue. But their allegation that He was made ‘of nothing’ he destroys by saying that the Word was like a river from a well, and a shoot from a stock, and a child from a parent, and Light from Light, and Life from Life. And their barring off and separating the Word from God, he overthrows by saying that the Triad is without division and without diminution ga- thered together into the Monad. While their statement that the Son has no part in the Father’s essence, he unequivocally tramples down by saying that the Son is of one es- sence with the Father. Wherein one must wonder at the impudence of the irreligious persons. How can they, when Dionysius whom they claim as their partisan says that the Son is of one essence®, themselves go about buzzing like gnats with the complaint that the Synod was wrong in writing ‘of one essence?’ For if Dionysius is a friend of theirs, let them not deny what their partisan holds. But if they think that the expression was wrongly used, how can they reiterate that Dionysius, who used it, held with them? the more so as he does not appear to have written these things merely by the way, but having previously written other letters?7, he convicts of falsehood those who had charged him with not saying that the Son was of one Essence with the Father, while he refutes those who thought that he said that the Word was originated, shewing that he did not hold what they supposed, but even if he had used the expressions, he had done so merely in order to shew that it was the Son, not the Father, who had put on the originated, formed, created body; for which reason the Son also is said to have been originated, created, and formed.
20. Dionysius must be fairly interpreted, and allowed the benefit of his own explanatory statements.
Clearly since he had previously used such 6b It should be noted that Dionysius, while assenting to this word, does not use it as his own.; 7 Possibly to other bishops who had questioned his teaching (Routh, ReZ/. iii. p. 380).
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSIT expressions, while bidding a long farewell to the Arians, he demands a good conscience from his hearers,—being entitled to plead the diffi- culty, or perhaps one may say the incompre- hensibleness of the problems concerned,— namely that they may judge not of the words but of the meaning of the writer, and the more so as there is very much to shew his intention. For instance he says himself: ‘I used the examples of such relations cursorily, as being less adequate, the plant and the husbandman for instance; while I dwelt upon the more pertinent examples, and went at greater length into those nearer the truth.’ But a man who says this shews that it is nearer the truth to say that the Son is eternal and of the Father, than to say that He is originated. For by the latter the bodily nature of the Lord is de- noted, but by the former, the eternity of His Godhead. In the following words, for instance, he maintains, and not only so, but deliberately and with genuine demonstrative force, that they are refuted who charged him with not saying that the Son is of one essence with the Father: ‘even if I did not find this expression in the Scriptures, yet collecting from the actual Scrip- tures their general sense, I knew that, being Son and Word, He could not be outside the Essence of the Father.’ For that he does not hold the Son to be a thing created or formed,—for on this point also they have quoted him repeatedly—he says in the second book as follows: ‘But if any one of my traducers, because I called God the Creator the maker of all things, thinks that I mean that He is Maker of Christ also, let him mark that I previously called Him Father, in which term the Son also is implied. For after I said that the Father is Maker, I added neither is He Father of the things He created, if He that begat is to be called Father in the strict sense. For the wider sense of the term Father we will work out in what follows. Neither is the Father a maker, if by maker is meant simply the artificer. For among the Greeks, philosophers are called “makers” of their own discourses. And the Apostle speaks of a “doer” (ours) “of the law” (Rom. ii. 13), for men are called “ doers” of inward qualities, such as virtue and vice; as God said, “J looked for one to do justice, but he did wickedness”’’ (Isa. v. 7, LXX.)
21. Ln what sense Dionysius satd that the Son was ‘ made,’ Of a truth one that hears this is reminded of| before Him and the divine oracle which says, ‘ whithersoever | beginning and ever- the impious turns, he is destroyed ’ (Prov. xii. presence,’ he sh 7, LXX.). Forlo! turning subtly in each direction these impious men are destroyed, having even here no excuse as touching Dionysius. For he teaches openly that the Son is not a thing made or created, while he taxes and corrects those who accuse him of having said that God was the creator (of Christ), in that they failed to notice that he had previously spoken of God as Father, in which expression the Son also is implied. But in saying thus, he shews that the Son is not one of the creatures, and that God is not the maker but the Father of His own Word. And since certain had ignorantly objected to him that he called God the maker of Christ, he defends himself in various ways, shewing that not even here is what he said open to blame. For he had said that God was the maker of Christ in regard to His flesh, which the Word took, and which was in itself created. But if any one were to suspect that this referred to the Word, here too they were bound to give him a fair hearing. ‘For as I do not hold that the Word is a creature, and call God not His maker but His Father, even if I in passing, while referring to the Son, call God a creator, yet even here I am able to defend myself. For the Greek philosophers call themselves makers (aourai) of their own discourses (Aéyor), although they are their fathers; while the Divine Scripture describes us as makers (doers) even of the motions of our hearts, speaking of “ doers ” of the law and of judgment and justice.’ So that on all sides he demonstrates not only that the Son is not a thing made or created, but also that he himself has nothing to do with Arian error.